11/24/2013 ~ The Feast of the Reign of Christ ~ Proper 29 ~ Thirty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost ~ Last Sunday After Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 23:1-6; Luke 1:68-79; Jeremiah 23:1-6; Psalm 46; Colossians 1:11-20; Luke 23:33-43 ~ Operation Christmas Child Commissioning.
The Messiah of God
“People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” — Luke 23:35.
Malcolm Gladwell writes non-fiction books that usually go right to the top of the Best Seller list when first published. His most recent work is David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants.
The author starts this book with an exegesis of the David and Goliath story from Scripture. Exegesis— that’s a $64 word which means looking at a text and doing a critical explanation and/or interpretation of it. Most often the word exegesis is used when speaking about religious texts.
However, exegesis can apply to any text. Our Norwich High School students who have had Mr. Bernstein’s Advanced Placement Literature and Composition classes, even though they many not know this, have practiced exegesis and probably practiced it really hard.
I am sure Mr. Bernstein has asked students to do this kind of analysis many times. And, as I suggested, you can exegete any text— from Shakespeare to Salinger to Shaw to Scripture. Textual analysis is a universal possibility.
Well, let me come back to the David and Goliath story and the exegesis Gladwell does with it. First, he describes the place, the valley where David and Goliath do battle.
The Israelite army and Philistine army— about equal in strength— wind up encamped on opposite edges of a ravine in a stand-off. Neither wants to descend to the valley only to have to fight their way up the other hill. I am sure you’ve heard the cliché attached with that one— uphill battle. Uphill battles are hard to win.
So Goliath, a giant— many scholars suggest this is simply an exceptionally tall man, maybe close to 7 feet tall— Goliath, a giant wearing armor, offers a challenge. Fight me. Your warrior wins, you win and we, the Philistines, become your slaves. I win, the opposite happens.
Then the short, young shepherd, clothed perhaps only in an animal skin, challenges that armor clad giant. Of course, the shepherd defies all odds and wins. This— David conquering Goliath— has become a metaphor in our language for someone who overcomes terrible odds and improbably winds up a victor.
But is that what happened? Or does the story say something else and we simply ignore it? (Slight pause.) In the analysis Gladwell offers, he insists we misread the story.
In the original text, Goliath says he can see David carrying two sticks. But the text also clearly tells us David carries a single staff. There is only one conclusion to be drawn: Goliath sees things blurry or double. In fact, if Goliath is as tall as some think, both that height and blurry or double vision might be caused by an overactive pituitary gland.
Further, he is led down the hill by a servant. He doesn’t come down by himself. So he is not just someone with bad eyesight. He is probably clumsy too. He cannot clamor down the hill alone.
And he wears all that armor. He can’t move quickly. Goliath probably wants to fight David in close quarters with a spear and a sword.
David, on the other hand, is mobile and agile. He can get close but can scamper away. David also carries a deadly weapon. The sling is not the children’s toy with which many of us are familiar.
It is made of a single piece of cloth and two lines. It was whirled overhead five to six times a second before release.
As to the stones used, we know the terrain in this area. We know the kind of stones found there. They are both small and heavy. So David picks up a small but dense stone to use in the sling.
Last, we know in ancient times people, like shepherds, were sharpshooters— so skilled they could kill a bird in flight with a stone hurled from a sling. And that stone came out of the sling at a speed similar to a modern bullet shot from a gun. (Slight pause.)
Was there a risk for the Israelites? Yes— it was huge. On the other hand, Saul probably overestimated the strengths of Goliath and underestimated the advantages of David. So the Israelites were worried and hesitant. But, says Gladwell, it was David who really had the upper hand, not Goliath. [1]
In short, most of us misread the story. And all you need to do is the exegetical work, the analysis, to realize there is something beyond the obvious in the story. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke. “People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” (Slight pause.)
I think we find ourselves in a similar place with this reading and we need to analyze it to help make any sense. The reading is, you see, not as straightforward as it seems. On the surface, it’s a story about the crucifixion.
But if that’s the case, why did the compilers of the lections place a crucifixion story on the last Sunday before Advent, the season which moves us toward Christmas, the season we celebrate the birth of the Messiah? And why did the Church, in its wisdom, declare the Feast of the Reign of Christ on this day? And where is there any good news here? After all, it’s about crucifixion. (Slight pause.)
Well, this is what I think is going on. In this short passage, this crucifixion scene, Jesus is referred to by three different titles: ‘King of the Jews,’ ‘the Chosen One’ and ‘ the Messiah.’ All these are messianic titles— titles of a Messiah. So over and over again in this reading we find a proclamation: Jesus is the Messiah of God.
When that is taken into consideration, we need to ask the obvious question. Should our focus be on the crucifixion or should our focus lie elsewhere?
And, indeed, in order to help with that focus, let’s take a step back from this specific story and see it in the context of an overview of the Gospel known as Luke. In the Second Chapter of this work— when do we read the Second Chapter of this work? Christmas Eve. In the Second Chapter of this work when the angels appear to the shepherds, what is said?
“...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” [2]
And here, in today’s passage from Luke, Jesus is being crucified. And what is it we hear? Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
We hear Messiah at the birth of Jesus. We hear Messiah when Jesus is murdered. (Slight pause.) So, is this passage about the crucifixion? Or is this passage about something else? (Slight pause.)
As I hope is obvious to you, the real topic of this passage is not crucifixion. The central concern is a proclamation which insists Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
Even though it will take another three centuries for the church to form the doctrine we call Trinity, we can see its beginnings here. You see, at first, the Christian movement is made up of faithful Jews. So Jesus is seen as the Messiah of God.
And that brings us to why this is an appropriate reading for the last Sunday before the Season of Advent. Advent invites us to prepare for the Season of Christmas.
Rumor to the contrary, Christmas is not a secular holiday. Christmas is or should be a solemn occasion. Why? Christmas is a remembrance which celebrates the in-breaking of God into the life of the world and into our own lives. Personally, I cannot imagine a more solemn reason for celebration.
And after all, this is what the Second Chapter of Luke says: “...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” Amen.
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Given what I said today, there are two more things I need to say about exegesis, this analysis of Scripture. It is not new. It was not invented in the last century. The Prophets practiced exegesis; Jesus practiced exegesis; Paul practiced exegesis; faithful Christians have practiced exegesis for 2,000 years. Second, exegesis is easy. It works using one simple rule: don’t ask what Scripture says; ask what it means. Or as I’ve often said, I don’t take Scripture literally; I take it seriously.”
BENEDICTION: Let us walk in the light God provides. Let us thank God for reaching out to us in love. Let us be daily recreated in the image of God who wants us to live with justice as our guide and freedom as our goal. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts and minds in the companionship of the Holy Spirit and the love of God this day and evermore. Amen.
[1] Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, Little, Brown and Company.
[2] Luke 2:10-11 [ILV]
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/17/2013 ~ “The Peaceable Kingdom?”
11/17/2013 ~ Proper 28 ~ Thirty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Sixth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Isaiah 65:17-25; Isaiah 12 **; Malachi 4:1-2a; Psalm 98; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13; Luke 21:5-19 ~ NOTE: Joe Does Children’s Time.
The Peaceable Kingdom?
“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” — Isaiah 65:25
Some of us were alive fifty years ago this coming Friday and some of us were not. And a little like that more recent tragedy— 9/11— one of the questions always posed to those who experienced that date fifty years ago— 11/22/1963— one of the questions posed is often the same as it is for 9/11.
Where were you when you heard the news? Of course, in the case of 1963 the question is: ‘where were you when you heard that the President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had been killed?’
As the years have passed, however, another and very different question about what happened back then has weighed on the American psyche. And the question is valid whether or not you were alive on that date. In short, this question even resonates with people who did not experience the event.
The question? Was there some kind of conspiracy afoot to brazenly and brutally assassinate the President? Put another way, was more than one person involved in this murder? Or was this killing simply the demented work of a single individual who was acting alone? (Slight pause.)
Movies have been made asking this question. Movies have even been made supplying answers to this question. Countless books have been written on the topic. One estimate I saw said there are 2,000 books rehashing various conspiracy theories as they ask over and over ‘was there more than one person was involved?’
According to a 2003 ABC News Poll, 70 percent of Americans believe Kennedy’s death was the result of a plot and not the act of a lone killer. Fifty-one percent believe that even if only one person did pull the trigger, there was some kind of support system for the perpetrator. 7 percent of those polled actually believe the person who the Warren Commission declared to be the sole actor in this crime was not even involved.
The same poll said there are five top assassination conspiracy theories. They are— in no particular order— first, the Soviets did it. After all, Khrushchev snubbed Kennedy when they first met and then Kennedy bested Khrushchev when the Soviet Premier was forced to back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Slight pause.)
Next— the Mafia did it. In fact, the CIA— the Central Intelligence Agency— had contacts with organized crime about assassinating Fidel Castro. The mob was heavily invested in casinos in Havana. And then Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion. That ended any hopes they had of returning to those casinos . Further, the mob did not like Kennedy’s crusading brother, Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. So, maybe the Mafia did do it. (Slight pause.)
No— the Cubans probably did it. U.S. agents did try to assassinate Castro, says this thesis and Castro decided to return the favor. In fact, in 1968 Lyndon Johnson told ABC News (and this is a quote— quote): “Kennedy was trying to get to Castro but Castro got to him first.” (Slight pause.)
I heard this next one a lot when I was young. Lyndon Johnson did it. Who had the most to gain? The one who became president. The gist of this conspiracy tale says Johnson received help from the CIA and from wealthy tycoons who believed they would have access to more profit under a Johnson administration.
There is actually a variation on this one which says that Johnson was aided by another man who would become president— George H. W. Bush. Bush was then a rising star in the CIA and also happened to be in Dallas on the day of the assassination.
That segues into the last theory in the top five. The CIA did it. They are, of course, an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one variation suggests the assassin, the one the Warren Commission says acted alone, was a CIA operative. (Slight pause.)
Well, despite all the theories about the assassination, there is one possibility for the very existence of the theories which I personally have never heard anyone else say. Therefore, I suppose you could label this as my conspiracy theory. And what is my conspiracy theory?
My conspiracy theory says that all these theories have nothing at all to do with what happened on November the 22nd, 1963. Indeed, my conspiracy theory says there is a simple reason all the rest of those conspiracy theories even exist.
My conspiracy theory says the only thing the very existence of conspiracy theories proves is... people do not trust the government. And, since the official government report says there was a single assassin and no conspiracy, that conclusion must be wrong, since it’s the official position of the government— a government which cannot be trusted. (Slight pause.)
CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a local reporter in Dallas in 1963. That day is still with him. In some ways his take is similar to mine. He recently described 11/22/1963 and the several days after the assassination on the program he now moderates, Face the Nation. He said (quote:) “It was the weekend America lost its innocence.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” (Slight pause.)
When the passage from Isaiah was introduced this was said (quote): “...the entire work known as Isaiah involves waiting. Waiting for God inevitably and invariably involves faith and trust.” (Slight pause.)
This passage describes a state of peace which seems quite unattainable— a wolf and the lamb together, a lion who eats straw. And then there is that promise of what we think of as a peace like existence: they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that we cannot get to a place where we experience the peace of God unless we trust God. But I think an initial question needs to be asked, a question which might allow us to get to that place of trust: what is the peace of God? (Slight pause.)
From a Biblical perspective, the peace of God is not the absence of violence. The peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God.
Hence, the peaceable kingdom we all claim to seek is not necessary one where violence is banished. We find peace— real peace— when we trust that the presence of God is with us and that the presence of God is real, no matter what the circumstance.
Trust in God is, you see, the key to being aware of the presence of God. And that being aware of the presence of God leads us to an inner peace. (Slight pause.)
There is a quote attributed to one Claude AnShin Thomas which has recently been floating around the internet. Postings of this quote say Thomas is War Veteran and Buddhist Monk. Is he? I don’t know. It does not matter. I think these words are relevant. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “Peace is not an idea. Peace is not a political movement, not a theory or a dogma. Peace is a way of life: living mindfully in the presence moment. It is not a question of politics but of actions. It is not a matter of improving a political system or taking care of homeless people.”
“These are valuable but will not, alone, end war and suffering. We must stop the endless wars which rage within. Imagine, if everyone stopped the war within themselves. There would be no seeds from which war could grow.” (Slight pause.)
In some ways that’s about our inner psychological states, is it not? That helps toward trust, does it not? You see, I believe that, when we begin to trust God, we will find inner wars less invasive. We will find that begets love and love begets peace.
And I think trusting God is the very thing Isaiah addresses in this passage. When we trust God we are empowered to love. When we are empowered to love, the peace of God— the real presence of God— becomes tangible. Amen.
11/17/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Randy Glasbergen is a nationally syndicated Cartoonist who happens live in Sherburne, just a couple miles down the road. And he is very funny. Or at least he is someone who says things funny, rather than saying funny things. He just published a cartoon which says this: ‘What really happened to the Thanksgiving turkey’ And under that caption are a couple of turkeys in discussion about what really happened: ‘Some say the CIA killed the turkey... others think it was the mob... conspiracy theorists think there was more than one ax swung from multiple positions by people on the grassy knoll.’ Perhaps conspiracy is where you look for it. And perhaps we are unaware of the peace of God, the presence of God because we fail to seek to do the work of God and the will of God.”
BENEDICTION: A kind and just God sends us out into the world as bearers of truth which surpasses our understanding. God watches over those who respond in love. So, let us love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. Let us be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
The Peaceable Kingdom?
“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” — Isaiah 65:25
Some of us were alive fifty years ago this coming Friday and some of us were not. And a little like that more recent tragedy— 9/11— one of the questions always posed to those who experienced that date fifty years ago— 11/22/1963— one of the questions posed is often the same as it is for 9/11.
Where were you when you heard the news? Of course, in the case of 1963 the question is: ‘where were you when you heard that the President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had been killed?’
As the years have passed, however, another and very different question about what happened back then has weighed on the American psyche. And the question is valid whether or not you were alive on that date. In short, this question even resonates with people who did not experience the event.
The question? Was there some kind of conspiracy afoot to brazenly and brutally assassinate the President? Put another way, was more than one person involved in this murder? Or was this killing simply the demented work of a single individual who was acting alone? (Slight pause.)
Movies have been made asking this question. Movies have even been made supplying answers to this question. Countless books have been written on the topic. One estimate I saw said there are 2,000 books rehashing various conspiracy theories as they ask over and over ‘was there more than one person was involved?’
According to a 2003 ABC News Poll, 70 percent of Americans believe Kennedy’s death was the result of a plot and not the act of a lone killer. Fifty-one percent believe that even if only one person did pull the trigger, there was some kind of support system for the perpetrator. 7 percent of those polled actually believe the person who the Warren Commission declared to be the sole actor in this crime was not even involved.
The same poll said there are five top assassination conspiracy theories. They are— in no particular order— first, the Soviets did it. After all, Khrushchev snubbed Kennedy when they first met and then Kennedy bested Khrushchev when the Soviet Premier was forced to back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Slight pause.)
Next— the Mafia did it. In fact, the CIA— the Central Intelligence Agency— had contacts with organized crime about assassinating Fidel Castro. The mob was heavily invested in casinos in Havana. And then Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion. That ended any hopes they had of returning to those casinos . Further, the mob did not like Kennedy’s crusading brother, Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. So, maybe the Mafia did do it. (Slight pause.)
No— the Cubans probably did it. U.S. agents did try to assassinate Castro, says this thesis and Castro decided to return the favor. In fact, in 1968 Lyndon Johnson told ABC News (and this is a quote— quote): “Kennedy was trying to get to Castro but Castro got to him first.” (Slight pause.)
I heard this next one a lot when I was young. Lyndon Johnson did it. Who had the most to gain? The one who became president. The gist of this conspiracy tale says Johnson received help from the CIA and from wealthy tycoons who believed they would have access to more profit under a Johnson administration.
There is actually a variation on this one which says that Johnson was aided by another man who would become president— George H. W. Bush. Bush was then a rising star in the CIA and also happened to be in Dallas on the day of the assassination.
That segues into the last theory in the top five. The CIA did it. They are, of course, an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one variation suggests the assassin, the one the Warren Commission says acted alone, was a CIA operative. (Slight pause.)
Well, despite all the theories about the assassination, there is one possibility for the very existence of the theories which I personally have never heard anyone else say. Therefore, I suppose you could label this as my conspiracy theory. And what is my conspiracy theory?
My conspiracy theory says that all these theories have nothing at all to do with what happened on November the 22nd, 1963. Indeed, my conspiracy theory says there is a simple reason all the rest of those conspiracy theories even exist.
My conspiracy theory says the only thing the very existence of conspiracy theories proves is... people do not trust the government. And, since the official government report says there was a single assassin and no conspiracy, that conclusion must be wrong, since it’s the official position of the government— a government which cannot be trusted. (Slight pause.)
CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a local reporter in Dallas in 1963. That day is still with him. In some ways his take is similar to mine. He recently described 11/22/1963 and the several days after the assassination on the program he now moderates, Face the Nation. He said (quote:) “It was the weekend America lost its innocence.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” (Slight pause.)
When the passage from Isaiah was introduced this was said (quote): “...the entire work known as Isaiah involves waiting. Waiting for God inevitably and invariably involves faith and trust.” (Slight pause.)
This passage describes a state of peace which seems quite unattainable— a wolf and the lamb together, a lion who eats straw. And then there is that promise of what we think of as a peace like existence: they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that we cannot get to a place where we experience the peace of God unless we trust God. But I think an initial question needs to be asked, a question which might allow us to get to that place of trust: what is the peace of God? (Slight pause.)
From a Biblical perspective, the peace of God is not the absence of violence. The peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God.
Hence, the peaceable kingdom we all claim to seek is not necessary one where violence is banished. We find peace— real peace— when we trust that the presence of God is with us and that the presence of God is real, no matter what the circumstance.
Trust in God is, you see, the key to being aware of the presence of God. And that being aware of the presence of God leads us to an inner peace. (Slight pause.)
There is a quote attributed to one Claude AnShin Thomas which has recently been floating around the internet. Postings of this quote say Thomas is War Veteran and Buddhist Monk. Is he? I don’t know. It does not matter. I think these words are relevant. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “Peace is not an idea. Peace is not a political movement, not a theory or a dogma. Peace is a way of life: living mindfully in the presence moment. It is not a question of politics but of actions. It is not a matter of improving a political system or taking care of homeless people.”
“These are valuable but will not, alone, end war and suffering. We must stop the endless wars which rage within. Imagine, if everyone stopped the war within themselves. There would be no seeds from which war could grow.” (Slight pause.)
In some ways that’s about our inner psychological states, is it not? That helps toward trust, does it not? You see, I believe that, when we begin to trust God, we will find inner wars less invasive. We will find that begets love and love begets peace.
And I think trusting God is the very thing Isaiah addresses in this passage. When we trust God we are empowered to love. When we are empowered to love, the peace of God— the real presence of God— becomes tangible. Amen.
11/17/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Randy Glasbergen is a nationally syndicated Cartoonist who happens live in Sherburne, just a couple miles down the road. And he is very funny. Or at least he is someone who says things funny, rather than saying funny things. He just published a cartoon which says this: ‘What really happened to the Thanksgiving turkey’ And under that caption are a couple of turkeys in discussion about what really happened: ‘Some say the CIA killed the turkey... others think it was the mob... conspiracy theorists think there was more than one ax swung from multiple positions by people on the grassy knoll.’ Perhaps conspiracy is where you look for it. And perhaps we are unaware of the peace of God, the presence of God because we fail to seek to do the work of God and the will of God.”
BENEDICTION: A kind and just God sends us out into the world as bearers of truth which surpasses our understanding. God watches over those who respond in love. So, let us love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. Let us be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/10/2013 ~ “Different”
11/10/2013 ~ Proper 27 ~ Thirty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Haggai 1:15b-2:9; Psalm 145:1-5, 17-21 or Psalm 98 ; Job 19:23-27a; Psalm 17:1-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5, 13-17; Luke 20:27-38 ~ Possibly Stewardship Sunday ~ Stewardship Sunday # 495 also ~ Veteran’s Day Weekend.
Different
“Jesus said to them, said to the Sadducees, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” — Luke 20:34-36.
In a recent article theologian Marcus Borg asked a pertinent question. “What does it mean to be Christian?” Please note, Borg did not say “What does it mean to be a Christian?” but rather, “What does it mean to be Christian?”
Only then did Borg asked the next and obvious question. “What makes a person a Christian?” (Slight pause.)
Borg’s purpose in writing the article with these questions was not to provide criteria for deciding who is and who is not a Christian. It was not about separating sheep from goats, about deciding who is in or who is out. Rather, the article asked ‘what lies at the heart of being Christian?’
And being Christian, says this writer, is not very much about believing a set of statements which might be construed as the right things. However (and to look at it differently), the notion that Christianity is about believing a set of teachings or doctrines is a widespread phenomena in our age. That, says this theologian, is a relatively recent distortion of Christianity.
Seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs, he says, began with the Reformation of the 1500s and the Enlightenment of the 1600s. And, unfortunately, seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs continues today in many quarters.
In fact, historically, even currently, many Protestants distinguished themselves from Catholics by using comparisons between what they believe and what Catholics believe. And, of course, historically, even currently, many Protestants divide themselves into multiple churches and denominations, often with each church or denomination distinguishing themselves from other churches and denominations by using comparisons between what they believe and what other churches believe.
Not only do we tend to miss that the origins of this happened in the 1500s and 1600s, but we do not realize in drawing those lines dissecting beliefs churches and people were merely mirroring what was happening in the world of that era. And this changed emphasis in the nature of belief and how it happens. And it was a result largely of modern science and scientific ways of knowing things.
You see, the Reformation leads to the Enlightenment. Without the Reformation there is no Enlightenment, case closed. And, once the Enlightenment dawns, it calls into question many conventional Christian ideas as people begin to study specific phenomena, begin to study why things really happen.
And so, the earth was, perhaps, not at the center of the universe. Creation, perhaps, did not take six days. And maybe a world-wide flood did not kill every land creature.
So, having listed some of the ideas the Enlightenment questioned— this concept of an earth centered universe, the nature of how creation happened, etc.— all that baggage— the real question becomes this: were these things, were these ideas items never actually involved in a real understanding of Christianity— never involved in a real understanding of Christianity? (Slight pause.)
“Jesus said to them, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” (Slight pause.)
Later in the same article Borg says the language of “believing” has, in fact, been part of Christianity from the first century onward, by far predating the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But before the Reformation “believing” did not refer primarily to believing the right doctrines.
Rather, to believe meant something like the word out of an old form of English known as Middle English— the word “belove.” The meaning of belief was to ‘belove’— to love God so much as to commit one’s self to a relationship of attentiveness and faithfulness. Commitment to God and fidelity to God are the ancient and the real meanings of faith and of believing.
I think when you carefully read the conversation Jesus has with the Sadducees you realize there is neither a denial nor a confirmation of the rules about a brother needing to marry the widow of another brother. Nor is there a denial or a confirmation of the resurrection. The effect of what Jesus says is this: God lives.
And a God who lives is a God to be beloved. A living God is a God with whom we need to be in an attentive and faithful relationship. In short, Christianity is not about a set of rules or theological precepts to be believed. Christianity is about having a relationship with a living God who, in turn, calls us to be in a relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
Well, I suspect know what you might be asking yourself now. How does all this fit in with the idea that this is our “Enlistment Sunday,” a day on which we invite people to make a financial commitment to the church? What’s that segue? Well, let me try to unpack it. (Slight pause.)
I have told you many times what the financial state of this church is. Our endowment pays for all the upkeep, case closed. Anything people pledge or put in the plate, we give away.
Therefore, let me address the practical first. All of us make decisions about our own finances. Often finances are formed by down to earth judgments like “how much money do I have in my budget to do XYZ.”
Now, sometimes what we loosely refer to as our heart influences decisions about money. Here’s an example I bet a lot of us have faced. We go to buy a new car. And we see a car we really, really like. We like how it looks. We like how it feels. In fact, we love it.
But there is a car over on the other side of the lot. It’s a good car and it costs less. But we don’t really love it. Do we follow our heart? (Slight pause.)
So, here’s what I am suggesting: first, please, make a sound financial decision. Do not give more than you are able. That makes no sense— giving more than you are able.
Next, whatever you give, please give because you love God. Personally, I think giving because you love God is the only way giving to any church makes sense. And also on the practical side, give because you think we— we— as a church, strive to do the work of God, strive to do the work of justice God would have us pursue. (Slight pause.)
So, an Enlistment Sunday is not about rules, definitely not about resurrection, and, most assuredly, not even about money. An Enlistment Sunday is about love of God— God who invites us to love our neighbor.
An, yes— that old question: who is our neighbor? Look around you in the pews— neighbors. Go out the doors, on to the streets— neighbors. Get on a plane, go to Chicago— neighbors. Go to London— neighbors. Go to Frankfort— neighbors. Go to Tehran— neighbors. (Slight pause.) And, do we love God. Amen.
Amen.
11/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Borg asked ‘What does it mean to be Christian?’ and ‘What makes a person a Christian?’ Clearly, it is not definitions. It is loving God who invites us to love neighbor.”
BENEDICTION: We can find the presence of God in unexpected places. God’s light leads us to places we thought not possible just moments ago. God’s love abounds and will live with us throughout eternity. The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our needs. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. May the one triune God sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
Different
“Jesus said to them, said to the Sadducees, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” — Luke 20:34-36.
In a recent article theologian Marcus Borg asked a pertinent question. “What does it mean to be Christian?” Please note, Borg did not say “What does it mean to be a Christian?” but rather, “What does it mean to be Christian?”
Only then did Borg asked the next and obvious question. “What makes a person a Christian?” (Slight pause.)
Borg’s purpose in writing the article with these questions was not to provide criteria for deciding who is and who is not a Christian. It was not about separating sheep from goats, about deciding who is in or who is out. Rather, the article asked ‘what lies at the heart of being Christian?’
And being Christian, says this writer, is not very much about believing a set of statements which might be construed as the right things. However (and to look at it differently), the notion that Christianity is about believing a set of teachings or doctrines is a widespread phenomena in our age. That, says this theologian, is a relatively recent distortion of Christianity.
Seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs, he says, began with the Reformation of the 1500s and the Enlightenment of the 1600s. And, unfortunately, seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs continues today in many quarters.
In fact, historically, even currently, many Protestants distinguished themselves from Catholics by using comparisons between what they believe and what Catholics believe. And, of course, historically, even currently, many Protestants divide themselves into multiple churches and denominations, often with each church or denomination distinguishing themselves from other churches and denominations by using comparisons between what they believe and what other churches believe.
Not only do we tend to miss that the origins of this happened in the 1500s and 1600s, but we do not realize in drawing those lines dissecting beliefs churches and people were merely mirroring what was happening in the world of that era. And this changed emphasis in the nature of belief and how it happens. And it was a result largely of modern science and scientific ways of knowing things.
You see, the Reformation leads to the Enlightenment. Without the Reformation there is no Enlightenment, case closed. And, once the Enlightenment dawns, it calls into question many conventional Christian ideas as people begin to study specific phenomena, begin to study why things really happen.
And so, the earth was, perhaps, not at the center of the universe. Creation, perhaps, did not take six days. And maybe a world-wide flood did not kill every land creature.
So, having listed some of the ideas the Enlightenment questioned— this concept of an earth centered universe, the nature of how creation happened, etc.— all that baggage— the real question becomes this: were these things, were these ideas items never actually involved in a real understanding of Christianity— never involved in a real understanding of Christianity? (Slight pause.)
“Jesus said to them, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” (Slight pause.)
Later in the same article Borg says the language of “believing” has, in fact, been part of Christianity from the first century onward, by far predating the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But before the Reformation “believing” did not refer primarily to believing the right doctrines.
Rather, to believe meant something like the word out of an old form of English known as Middle English— the word “belove.” The meaning of belief was to ‘belove’— to love God so much as to commit one’s self to a relationship of attentiveness and faithfulness. Commitment to God and fidelity to God are the ancient and the real meanings of faith and of believing.
I think when you carefully read the conversation Jesus has with the Sadducees you realize there is neither a denial nor a confirmation of the rules about a brother needing to marry the widow of another brother. Nor is there a denial or a confirmation of the resurrection. The effect of what Jesus says is this: God lives.
And a God who lives is a God to be beloved. A living God is a God with whom we need to be in an attentive and faithful relationship. In short, Christianity is not about a set of rules or theological precepts to be believed. Christianity is about having a relationship with a living God who, in turn, calls us to be in a relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
Well, I suspect know what you might be asking yourself now. How does all this fit in with the idea that this is our “Enlistment Sunday,” a day on which we invite people to make a financial commitment to the church? What’s that segue? Well, let me try to unpack it. (Slight pause.)
I have told you many times what the financial state of this church is. Our endowment pays for all the upkeep, case closed. Anything people pledge or put in the plate, we give away.
Therefore, let me address the practical first. All of us make decisions about our own finances. Often finances are formed by down to earth judgments like “how much money do I have in my budget to do XYZ.”
Now, sometimes what we loosely refer to as our heart influences decisions about money. Here’s an example I bet a lot of us have faced. We go to buy a new car. And we see a car we really, really like. We like how it looks. We like how it feels. In fact, we love it.
But there is a car over on the other side of the lot. It’s a good car and it costs less. But we don’t really love it. Do we follow our heart? (Slight pause.)
So, here’s what I am suggesting: first, please, make a sound financial decision. Do not give more than you are able. That makes no sense— giving more than you are able.
Next, whatever you give, please give because you love God. Personally, I think giving because you love God is the only way giving to any church makes sense. And also on the practical side, give because you think we— we— as a church, strive to do the work of God, strive to do the work of justice God would have us pursue. (Slight pause.)
So, an Enlistment Sunday is not about rules, definitely not about resurrection, and, most assuredly, not even about money. An Enlistment Sunday is about love of God— God who invites us to love our neighbor.
An, yes— that old question: who is our neighbor? Look around you in the pews— neighbors. Go out the doors, on to the streets— neighbors. Get on a plane, go to Chicago— neighbors. Go to London— neighbors. Go to Frankfort— neighbors. Go to Tehran— neighbors. (Slight pause.) And, do we love God. Amen.
Amen.
11/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Borg asked ‘What does it mean to be Christian?’ and ‘What makes a person a Christian?’ Clearly, it is not definitions. It is loving God who invites us to love neighbor.”
BENEDICTION: We can find the presence of God in unexpected places. God’s light leads us to places we thought not possible just moments ago. God’s love abounds and will live with us throughout eternity. The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our needs. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. May the one triune God sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/03/2013 ~ “Systems 101”
11/03/2013 ~ Proper 26 ~ Thirty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost (If All Saints not observed on this day); Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4; Psalm 119:137-144; Isaiah 1:10-18; Psalm 32:1-7; 2 Thessalonians 1:1-4, 11-12; Luke 19:1-10 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Bells Play at This Service.
Systems 101
“Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” — Isaiah 1:16c-17.
I suspect all of us take note of milestones and celebrate them in some way or form. The events marking the milestones break out into two distinct groups: public events and private events.
Corporate, public milestones get celebrated in a universal way, observed by a whole community with public ceremonies. There may be very private aspects to these public observances but they are, none-the-less, communal.
There are other milestones we mark which can only be described as private and personal. These are most often observed only by an individual or by family members or by close friends.
Now, both of these kinds of milestones, the public and private, each also break into two categories. There are events we associate with joy and events we associate with sadness.
Among those private events we observe with joy are birthdays and wedding anniversaries. The private observances we mark with reserve and a sense of solemnity might include marking the anniversary date on which a close friend or a relative died.
And, as I’ve already indicated, the same is true on the public side of the spectrum. We joyfully mark some celebrations— national dates of note like the Fourth of July. We observe others with a sense of solemnity and sometimes sadness.
Indeed, in our history, in the history of this country, there have been many points of public distress. These range from the Battle of Bunker Hill to the burning of Washington in 1814 to the Battle of Gettysburg to the assassination of Lincoln to sinking of the Battleship Maine to the attack on Pearl Harbor to the assassination of John Kennedy to explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger to the tragedy of 9/11.
Needless to say, the further into the past we go, the less likely an event is to stir our emotions. The more recent the event, the more fixed it is in current memory, the more personal it becomes. Therefore, even though these events, especially the recent ones, are observed in a public way, the personal pain of these memories, the pain these memories bring is real.
Additionally, the most private person among us at some point participates in public moments, public markings both joyful and sad. And the most public person among us experiences private moments and private markings, joyful and sad. That there is a tension between public and private cannot be denied. (Slight pause.)
Tomorrow— Monday, November the Fourth, I will observe a hard personal anniversary. It is the thirtieth anniversary of my Mother’s death. As I have said here before, she died very young as those things go.
Further, she died of a form of cancer— cancer of the bladder— which, even thirty years ago, only took about ten percent of those who dealt with it. She was simply in the wrong group, not the ninety percent of the population who survive. She was among the ten percent who do not make it.
There is no denying this: the fact that she died young and the fact that the disease takes such a small segment of those who suffer from it does not feel fair. I’ve already outlived her time embodied in frail flesh by a number of years.
Not a day goes by when I fail to feel some personal pain about this. It leaves me asking the question ‘is there, was there any justice in that?’ (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” (Pause.)
So, what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice? What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice— personal justice or public justice— real, attainable? And what is the tension among these? (Pause.)
I’ll come back to those questions in a bit. (Slight pause.) I just want to take a little journey down the road, somewhere else. I give titles to all my sermons. Some pastors do; some do not. I called this sermon Systems 101. Why?
If you went to a typical undergraduate class in systems this is the first rule you would learn: there is no such thing as a perfect system. It does not exist.
Equally, if you did a Master’s Degree in theology or any of the associated areas, it’s likely a required course would be Systematic Theology. And, obviously, there is only one problem with giving a course the title of Systematic Theology. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Please note: I did not say ‘there is no such thing as a system.’ Systems exist, they are necessary, useful, helpful and they serve us quite well, thank you.
The job of anarchy and the job of an anarchist is to abolish and/or obstruct systems. The last time I looked neither anarchy nor anarchists— they don’t serve anyone except those who enjoy wallowing in chaos— no, thank you— not my cup of tea— anarchism.
Again and to reiterate, I did not say systems are bad things nor did I say systems fail to exist. What I said is there is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system ever invented has a flaw.
That brings me back to what I believe is the key issue this passage presents: that there is a tension between our private needs and our public needs. There is a tension between our private joy and our public joy. There is a tension between our private pain and our public pain.
We do have private needs. We do have private joy. We do have private pain. We do have public needs. We do have public joy. We do have public pain. And it seems to me all these— needs and joy and pain— are all inexorably intertwined.
So, if a perfect system cannot be constructed— and I do not think a perfect system can be constructed because of the joy and the needs and the pain tugging at one another— if a perfect system cannot be constructed what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice?
What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice real or attainable? Is justice personal, private? Is justice public, communal? (Slight pause.) Hard questions, these. (Slight pause.)
I think we make a basic mistake in our perception of justice. We perceive justice as an end. We understand justice as a result.
That’s where the words from this passage are instructive. For me the passage has a clear outline of what justice is about. Justice takes action. Justice moves. Justice is, therefore, for all people. Justice is a process, not an end. (Quote:) “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed....” (Slight pause.)
Which brings me back to my mother. When I was maybe six or seven, I saw a mugging take place outside the front window of the house. I was the only one there watching.
I ran and got my Mom. She rushed into the street. She was all of five foot two. But she shouted so loudly the attacker ran off. She brought the victim, a woman who was probably in her seventies, back into the house and called the police. (Slight pause.)
Action, you see, shifts our focus. Action takes the focus off us and places it on anyone who is denied justice. And action helps us realize that if any one person is denied justice, then we are all denied justice.
To be clear: action does not remove pain. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of pain. Action does not eliminate need. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of need.
To sum this up in the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have not lost faith. I am not in despair, because I know there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I would add that arc invites us toward action. Amen.
11/03/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “What is justice for all? These are the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (quote): ‘The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.’”
BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life. Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect. Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace which surpasses understanding, to live faithfully. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Systems 101
“Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” — Isaiah 1:16c-17.
I suspect all of us take note of milestones and celebrate them in some way or form. The events marking the milestones break out into two distinct groups: public events and private events.
Corporate, public milestones get celebrated in a universal way, observed by a whole community with public ceremonies. There may be very private aspects to these public observances but they are, none-the-less, communal.
There are other milestones we mark which can only be described as private and personal. These are most often observed only by an individual or by family members or by close friends.
Now, both of these kinds of milestones, the public and private, each also break into two categories. There are events we associate with joy and events we associate with sadness.
Among those private events we observe with joy are birthdays and wedding anniversaries. The private observances we mark with reserve and a sense of solemnity might include marking the anniversary date on which a close friend or a relative died.
And, as I’ve already indicated, the same is true on the public side of the spectrum. We joyfully mark some celebrations— national dates of note like the Fourth of July. We observe others with a sense of solemnity and sometimes sadness.
Indeed, in our history, in the history of this country, there have been many points of public distress. These range from the Battle of Bunker Hill to the burning of Washington in 1814 to the Battle of Gettysburg to the assassination of Lincoln to sinking of the Battleship Maine to the attack on Pearl Harbor to the assassination of John Kennedy to explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger to the tragedy of 9/11.
Needless to say, the further into the past we go, the less likely an event is to stir our emotions. The more recent the event, the more fixed it is in current memory, the more personal it becomes. Therefore, even though these events, especially the recent ones, are observed in a public way, the personal pain of these memories, the pain these memories bring is real.
Additionally, the most private person among us at some point participates in public moments, public markings both joyful and sad. And the most public person among us experiences private moments and private markings, joyful and sad. That there is a tension between public and private cannot be denied. (Slight pause.)
Tomorrow— Monday, November the Fourth, I will observe a hard personal anniversary. It is the thirtieth anniversary of my Mother’s death. As I have said here before, she died very young as those things go.
Further, she died of a form of cancer— cancer of the bladder— which, even thirty years ago, only took about ten percent of those who dealt with it. She was simply in the wrong group, not the ninety percent of the population who survive. She was among the ten percent who do not make it.
There is no denying this: the fact that she died young and the fact that the disease takes such a small segment of those who suffer from it does not feel fair. I’ve already outlived her time embodied in frail flesh by a number of years.
Not a day goes by when I fail to feel some personal pain about this. It leaves me asking the question ‘is there, was there any justice in that?’ (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” (Pause.)
So, what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice? What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice— personal justice or public justice— real, attainable? And what is the tension among these? (Pause.)
I’ll come back to those questions in a bit. (Slight pause.) I just want to take a little journey down the road, somewhere else. I give titles to all my sermons. Some pastors do; some do not. I called this sermon Systems 101. Why?
If you went to a typical undergraduate class in systems this is the first rule you would learn: there is no such thing as a perfect system. It does not exist.
Equally, if you did a Master’s Degree in theology or any of the associated areas, it’s likely a required course would be Systematic Theology. And, obviously, there is only one problem with giving a course the title of Systematic Theology. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Please note: I did not say ‘there is no such thing as a system.’ Systems exist, they are necessary, useful, helpful and they serve us quite well, thank you.
The job of anarchy and the job of an anarchist is to abolish and/or obstruct systems. The last time I looked neither anarchy nor anarchists— they don’t serve anyone except those who enjoy wallowing in chaos— no, thank you— not my cup of tea— anarchism.
Again and to reiterate, I did not say systems are bad things nor did I say systems fail to exist. What I said is there is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system ever invented has a flaw.
That brings me back to what I believe is the key issue this passage presents: that there is a tension between our private needs and our public needs. There is a tension between our private joy and our public joy. There is a tension between our private pain and our public pain.
We do have private needs. We do have private joy. We do have private pain. We do have public needs. We do have public joy. We do have public pain. And it seems to me all these— needs and joy and pain— are all inexorably intertwined.
So, if a perfect system cannot be constructed— and I do not think a perfect system can be constructed because of the joy and the needs and the pain tugging at one another— if a perfect system cannot be constructed what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice?
What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice real or attainable? Is justice personal, private? Is justice public, communal? (Slight pause.) Hard questions, these. (Slight pause.)
I think we make a basic mistake in our perception of justice. We perceive justice as an end. We understand justice as a result.
That’s where the words from this passage are instructive. For me the passage has a clear outline of what justice is about. Justice takes action. Justice moves. Justice is, therefore, for all people. Justice is a process, not an end. (Quote:) “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed....” (Slight pause.)
Which brings me back to my mother. When I was maybe six or seven, I saw a mugging take place outside the front window of the house. I was the only one there watching.
I ran and got my Mom. She rushed into the street. She was all of five foot two. But she shouted so loudly the attacker ran off. She brought the victim, a woman who was probably in her seventies, back into the house and called the police. (Slight pause.)
Action, you see, shifts our focus. Action takes the focus off us and places it on anyone who is denied justice. And action helps us realize that if any one person is denied justice, then we are all denied justice.
To be clear: action does not remove pain. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of pain. Action does not eliminate need. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of need.
To sum this up in the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have not lost faith. I am not in despair, because I know there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I would add that arc invites us toward action. Amen.
11/03/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “What is justice for all? These are the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (quote): ‘The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.’”
BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life. Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect. Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace which surpasses understanding, to live faithfully. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)