12/24/2014 - 12/25/2013 ~ Nativity of the Christ, Known in Some Traditions as the Feast of the Incarnation, Known in other Traditions as the Feast of the Birth of the Messiah, Commonly Known as Christmas Eve and Christmas Day ~ Proper I ~ Isaiah 9:2-7; Psalm 96; Titus 2:11-14; Luke 2:1-14, (15-20) ~ Proper II ~ Isaiah 62:6-12; Psalm 97; Titus 3:4-7; Luke 2:(1-7), 8-20 ~ Proper III ~ Isaiah 52:7-10; Psalm 98; Hebrews 1:1-4, (5-12); John 1:1-14.
The Name
“For a child is born to us, / an heir given to us; / authority, dominion rests upon the shoulders / of this One, who is named: / Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, / Everlasting Sovereign, Source of Peace.” — Isaiah 9:6
A cold, biting wind chilled her face. But she was determined to climb the hill in front of her. And... she was angry.
She had covered quite a distance out of the town and up the hill. Her legs screamed in pain. But she was not going to stop now. She was angry.
Despite the cold wind, paradoxically, a dense fog also surrounded her. Fog at this time of year— the Spring— in this place— Bethlehem, seemed odd. [1] So despite her strong steady pace, she shivered from the damp, the cold. And... she was angry.
Near the top of the hill she suddenly burst out of the fog. A clear, dark, indigo sky was above. Stars twinkled. A crescent moon offered a limited slice of light.
She turned around and saw the fog bank in the valley below. Knowing she was still angry and knowing she needed to both rest and to let some of that anger flow out of her, she found a good sized stone on which she could sit and did so. (Slight pause.)
Her name was Mary. She had given birth only hours before this angry hike. The pain before the birth had gone on for many hours. It was not an easy birth. It left her weak. So climbing a hill was not the best thing she could have done. But she did.
She was angry and needed to get away, be alone, think. Mary sat on the rock and pondered all the things which had happened. (Slight pause.)
She could see many hills all around her, fires ablaze on most of them, fires meant to warm the boys who herded sheep. Mary presumed the shepherds who came into Bethlehem climbed down from one of these hills. She could not quite comprehend how they found their way into and through the town, then somehow located Mary and her husband and the child. But they did.
At first she thought they were drunk. What they were saying made absolutely no sense— angels and a message from God. On the other hand, she knew something about angels and a message from God, herself. So she listened.
At least an hour, maybe two after the shepherds had left she still could not sort out her reaction to what the boys said. Was that a part of her anger?
Or was it simply that she was afraid? Or did her lack of understanding have to do with hope? After all, hope never seems to make sense. Hope follows no rules. The source of hope is often unseen. Hope is not logical in any way. But this she knew: the child gave her reason to hope.
There were, of course, many reasons for hopelessness. There were many reasons to be angry with the world. And she, like many people, was angry with the world.
She was angry about the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem. It was forced, brought on because of a census mandated by the Romans.
The Army of Rome occupied the land of her people and ruled with an iron hand. They were not hesitant to collect taxes, to loot, to murder people at will... and at random.
She was puzzled as to why they considered, their Emperor, Augustus, a god. There was only one God. But these Romans had many gods.
And besides calling Augustus a god, the Romans called their Emperor a mighty counselor who brought peace. That puzzled her also. After all, Prophet Isaiah used these words— a counselor who brought peace— to describe the promised Messiah.
But call a Roman Emperor a counselor who brought peace? Never! Mary took a deep breath and sighed— these were titles reserved for the Messiah, the hope of her people. (Slight pause.)
There was, of course, another reason she was angry: the fight with her husband. It seemed so silly now that she was sitting on a rock gazing at the stars. Quietly looking at the sky had given her a sense calm, time she needed to reflect, time to release anger.
The fight, itself, stemmed from what she thought of now as a minor difference. She insisted the child be called Yeshua— Jesus in the Greek. The word means God saves.
Her husband suggested the name Emmanuel. The word means God is with us. And after the shepherds left, from out of nowhere, they started arguing about the name.
Finally Mary said, “Look— I need to be alone. Stay with the child. I’ll be back.” She turned, left and climbed a hill. (Slight pause.)
And now— and now— Mary found herself sitting on a rock, pondering all the things which had happened. (Slight pause.) Suddenly she felt a need to be with the child, with her husband. Which name would that child be given? It did not matter.
After all, Yeshua— God saves— Emmanuel— God is with us— were these not essentially the same? She needed to be with the child, needed to be with her husband.
She had climbed the hill in haste fueled by anger. She went down the hill even faster nourished by a sense of serenity. As Mary wove her way through the streets of the town she noticed the fog was gone and wondered how and when that had happened.
She also noticed a streak of dawn out toward the East lit her path. She turned a last corner and saw her husband standing with his back to her. The child rested on his shoulder. Its eyes were closed.
She approached and whispered, “I’m here. I’m sorry. I just needed a little time to think. You are right. Let’s call the child Emmanuel.”
“Well,” said her husband, “I’ve already been calling the baby Yeshua. In fact, while you were away every time I said Emmanuel the baby cried. Every time I said Yeshua the baby giggled. So it’s settled. Yeshua— God saves— it will be the name forevermore.”
Mary stood at her husband’s side, touched the hand of the infant and said, “Yeshua.” A tiny head turned toward her. A smile broke out.
She looked into the eyes of the child. She was overwhelmed. In those eyes she could see hope, peace, freedom, justice, joy, love. She was sure that was true with every newborn.
But in her heart she also somehow knew that the senselessness of hope was deeply imbedded in this infant. So, yes— Yeshua— God saves would be the name— a message of senseless hope.
Her wish and her dream was that this message of senseless hope was embodied and alive here, now, in her child. And perhaps... it was. Amen.
12/24/2014 ~ Christmas Eve
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
[1] It needs to be noted at the start of the service the pastor did say many scholars think it’s likely the birth of the Messiah happened in the Spring of the year we would call 4 B.C.E.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Sunday, December 14, 2014
SERMON ~ 12/14/2014 ~ “Collaborative Eschatology”
12/14/2014 ~ Third Sunday of Advent ~ The Sunday on Which We Commemorate Love ~ Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11; Psalm 126 or Luke 1:46b-55; 1 Thessalonians 5:16-24; John 1:6-8, 19-28 ~ Note: Music Sunday Canceled and moved to 12/21 Due to Inclement Weather.
Collaborative Eschatology
“For, I, Yahweh, God— I love justice; / I hate robbery and wrongdoing; / I will faithfully compensate, / and I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” — Isaiah 61:8.
This is a truth of American life in 2014: we all interact with computers. Do you have a cell phone? Do you drive a car? Do you have a bank account, use an ATM? Then you interact with and even operate computers.
Now, rumor to the contrary, computers are not particularly intelligent. They can do one thing exceptionally well. They count. But they don’t count like you and I count.
This gets a little technical— a shout out to John Kolb who knows a lot about computers here— this gets a little technical but whereas you and I count sequentially— one, two, three, four, five, etc., etc., etc.— the basis of the hardware we call a computer counts only two numbers: zero and one (as John nods his head). Anything more than that is way too complex for a computer to handle.
Mind you, computers count zero and one really, really, really fast. That’s what gives the illusion of what some see as intelligence: they are fast.
We, besides working slower, don’t have hardware. We have wet-ware— a brain. It is not computers, but we who are able to think creatively, intuitively and that is real intelligence. Computers do not, never have had and, given current research, it is becoming quite clear never will think creatively, intuitively.
Computers are amazing. But they are a tool. We invented them. We provide the real intelligence, and, as I said, these days we often interact with them. Now, it used to be people interacted with a single computer— one on one interaction, person and machine.
About twenty years ago the development of Internet changed that. With the Internet people began using computers to interact not with just one computer but to interact with each other— wet-ware, one of us, interacting through hardware, a computer, with other wet-ware, another one of us. It made a difference. Because of the Internet we are now empowered to interact with hundreds of thousands of sets of wet-ware, other humans, simultaneously.
To be clear, there is a downside and there is an upside to all this wet-ware interaction. It’s called Facebook.
Facebook is simply one example of interaction with others. Facebook is nothing more than communities formed over the internet but formed in a way which could not have happened only twenty years ago.
However, just like any community, internet communities have a compatibility problem. The problem? How do we, how can we live with each other? In order for community to happen this is a necessity: people with deferring views need to understand how their wet-ware can learn to interact with other wet-ware when they don’t agree with the opinions displayed by the wet-ware of others. (Slight pause.)
In the mid-1800s Alexis de Tocqueville published in two volumes of the work Democracy in America. This is a quote from that writing: “The tradition of founding voluntary societies was especially strong in early America, evidenced in cooperative ventures ranging from quilting bees to barn raisings. In no country in the world has this principle been more successfully used or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects than in America.”
A little earlier in our history Ben Franklin was more succinct and placed a more theological bent on these interactions. (Quote:) “To pour forth benefits for the common good is divine.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “For, I, Yahweh, God— I love justice; / I hate robbery and wrongdoing; / I will faithfully compensate, / and I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” (Slight pause.)
Today we heard from Second Isaiah who addressed the nature of God and the covenant God makes with humanity. And in this passage we hear about good news.
As was said when the passage was introduced, this was written at least 500 years before the birth of the Christ. So Isaiah was not necessarily addressing the Messiah, specifically, but was addressing good news for the people then, 500 years before the birth of the Christ.
We also heard about the Baptizer today. When it comes to John, there is agreement in Scripture about two things. First, the mission of John is to prepare the way for the Messiah. Second, John is very odd— lives out in the wilderness, wears strange clothes, eats strange food, is not acceptable in polite society.
I think, despite proclaiming the advent of the Messiah, John is labeled as odd in the Gospels because the writers realize the message of John was not the same as the message of Jesus. John had it wrong. John’s message said, “The Dominion of God is approaching, therefore the end of the world is going to happen shortly.”
Jesus also says, “The Dominion of God is approaching.” But Jesus asks what might that Dominion look like here, now, in our time.
The message of Jesus is not that the end is near. The message of Jesus says we are here to help each other envision the picture God has of that Dominion, what that Dominion might be, what that Dominion might look like right here, right now, as we participate in the covenant God offers. This is the same covenant, the same vision of covenant, Isaiah addressed: a covenant with a God who loves justice.
Theologian John Dominic Crossan calls this message of Jesus collaborative eschatology. Put in plain words, the end result of the world— that what eschatology is, the end of the world, right?— put in plain words the end of the world is not destruction. The end result of the world is construction— not destruction, construction. The covenant to which God calls us challenges us to cooperate with God and each other in building the world anew each day, in building a world overflowing with the justice of God. (Slight pause.)
In my comments last week I quoted the famous science-fiction writer Ursula Le Guin who said hard times are coming in part because we live fear-stricken society. To counter that, she said, we need to be able to imagine real grounds for hope, be see a larger reality beyond fear. And to conquer fear, she said, we need to embrace creativity— to conquer fear we need to embrace creativity. (Slight pause.)
The Herberger Institute at Arizona State University has been studying what competency in the 21st Century might look like. What they have found can be summed up in a single word: creativity. Those who are competent will be creative.
These are several aspects of creativity the Institute highlighted: improvisation, idea generation, agility, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, curiosity, risk taking, collaboration. (Slight pause.) Collaboration— that brings me back to computers.
In a book which delves into the history of computers, Innovation, Walter Isaacson says creating the computer as we know it today was a cooperative effort. The computer was not invented by one individual nor one organization nor one generation
So, here’s my take: on what the 21st Century does and will look like: the future needs to be a collaborative effort, an effort which includes everyone. The Baptizer’s vision will not do. We need to embrace the vision of Jesus, a vision of cooperative competence.
I think the vision of Jesus, the Christ, includes 21st Century aspects of life. And these attributes are creativity, improvisation, idea generation, agility, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, risk taking, curiosity, collaboration. And for Christians, for Christians this collaboration must be about seeking justice for everyone.
In order to do that, in order to seek justice for everyone, we need to cease being driven by fear, a popular stance today. And, in fact, the apocalyptic, fear filled vision of John which says the end times are upon us, is a common vision today on the left and on the right. It is a vision we need to overcome.
How can that prevalent vision of fear be overcome? We need to practice and embrace the four aspects we find surrounding us in this Season called Advent: hope, peace, love, joy.
All this is also to say the call of Christ to us, the call of God to us, can be summed up in one word: covenant. And the call to covenant is a call to creative collaboration.
And so yes, God calls us to covenant. And I believe if we are willing to cooperate with the covenant to which God calls us we, the church, will be and are well positioned to face and to tackle the challenges of the 21st Century. Amen.
12/14/2014
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: “There is a falsehood commonly believed about Christianity that if you believe exactly the right things or can recite exactly the right things you have passed the test. You are a Christian. However, historically what has defined someone as a Christian is not a set of beliefs. what has defined someone as a Christian is the actions they take. Do you follow Jesus? In order to follow Jesus in the 21st Century, it seems to me one needs to be fearlessly creative as we seek to collaborate with each other.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go forth with hope. Let us be led in peace. Let us find places of love. Let us know the joy of God’s presence. And, indeed, as the Psalmist states: all the mountains and hills shall break into singing and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands because God reigns! Amen.
Collaborative Eschatology
“For, I, Yahweh, God— I love justice; / I hate robbery and wrongdoing; / I will faithfully compensate, / and I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” — Isaiah 61:8.
This is a truth of American life in 2014: we all interact with computers. Do you have a cell phone? Do you drive a car? Do you have a bank account, use an ATM? Then you interact with and even operate computers.
Now, rumor to the contrary, computers are not particularly intelligent. They can do one thing exceptionally well. They count. But they don’t count like you and I count.
This gets a little technical— a shout out to John Kolb who knows a lot about computers here— this gets a little technical but whereas you and I count sequentially— one, two, three, four, five, etc., etc., etc.— the basis of the hardware we call a computer counts only two numbers: zero and one (as John nods his head). Anything more than that is way too complex for a computer to handle.
Mind you, computers count zero and one really, really, really fast. That’s what gives the illusion of what some see as intelligence: they are fast.
We, besides working slower, don’t have hardware. We have wet-ware— a brain. It is not computers, but we who are able to think creatively, intuitively and that is real intelligence. Computers do not, never have had and, given current research, it is becoming quite clear never will think creatively, intuitively.
Computers are amazing. But they are a tool. We invented them. We provide the real intelligence, and, as I said, these days we often interact with them. Now, it used to be people interacted with a single computer— one on one interaction, person and machine.
About twenty years ago the development of Internet changed that. With the Internet people began using computers to interact not with just one computer but to interact with each other— wet-ware, one of us, interacting through hardware, a computer, with other wet-ware, another one of us. It made a difference. Because of the Internet we are now empowered to interact with hundreds of thousands of sets of wet-ware, other humans, simultaneously.
To be clear, there is a downside and there is an upside to all this wet-ware interaction. It’s called Facebook.
Facebook is simply one example of interaction with others. Facebook is nothing more than communities formed over the internet but formed in a way which could not have happened only twenty years ago.
However, just like any community, internet communities have a compatibility problem. The problem? How do we, how can we live with each other? In order for community to happen this is a necessity: people with deferring views need to understand how their wet-ware can learn to interact with other wet-ware when they don’t agree with the opinions displayed by the wet-ware of others. (Slight pause.)
In the mid-1800s Alexis de Tocqueville published in two volumes of the work Democracy in America. This is a quote from that writing: “The tradition of founding voluntary societies was especially strong in early America, evidenced in cooperative ventures ranging from quilting bees to barn raisings. In no country in the world has this principle been more successfully used or more unsparingly applied to a multitude of different objects than in America.”
A little earlier in our history Ben Franklin was more succinct and placed a more theological bent on these interactions. (Quote:) “To pour forth benefits for the common good is divine.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “For, I, Yahweh, God— I love justice; / I hate robbery and wrongdoing; / I will faithfully compensate, / and I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” (Slight pause.)
Today we heard from Second Isaiah who addressed the nature of God and the covenant God makes with humanity. And in this passage we hear about good news.
As was said when the passage was introduced, this was written at least 500 years before the birth of the Christ. So Isaiah was not necessarily addressing the Messiah, specifically, but was addressing good news for the people then, 500 years before the birth of the Christ.
We also heard about the Baptizer today. When it comes to John, there is agreement in Scripture about two things. First, the mission of John is to prepare the way for the Messiah. Second, John is very odd— lives out in the wilderness, wears strange clothes, eats strange food, is not acceptable in polite society.
I think, despite proclaiming the advent of the Messiah, John is labeled as odd in the Gospels because the writers realize the message of John was not the same as the message of Jesus. John had it wrong. John’s message said, “The Dominion of God is approaching, therefore the end of the world is going to happen shortly.”
Jesus also says, “The Dominion of God is approaching.” But Jesus asks what might that Dominion look like here, now, in our time.
The message of Jesus is not that the end is near. The message of Jesus says we are here to help each other envision the picture God has of that Dominion, what that Dominion might be, what that Dominion might look like right here, right now, as we participate in the covenant God offers. This is the same covenant, the same vision of covenant, Isaiah addressed: a covenant with a God who loves justice.
Theologian John Dominic Crossan calls this message of Jesus collaborative eschatology. Put in plain words, the end result of the world— that what eschatology is, the end of the world, right?— put in plain words the end of the world is not destruction. The end result of the world is construction— not destruction, construction. The covenant to which God calls us challenges us to cooperate with God and each other in building the world anew each day, in building a world overflowing with the justice of God. (Slight pause.)
In my comments last week I quoted the famous science-fiction writer Ursula Le Guin who said hard times are coming in part because we live fear-stricken society. To counter that, she said, we need to be able to imagine real grounds for hope, be see a larger reality beyond fear. And to conquer fear, she said, we need to embrace creativity— to conquer fear we need to embrace creativity. (Slight pause.)
The Herberger Institute at Arizona State University has been studying what competency in the 21st Century might look like. What they have found can be summed up in a single word: creativity. Those who are competent will be creative.
These are several aspects of creativity the Institute highlighted: improvisation, idea generation, agility, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, curiosity, risk taking, collaboration. (Slight pause.) Collaboration— that brings me back to computers.
In a book which delves into the history of computers, Innovation, Walter Isaacson says creating the computer as we know it today was a cooperative effort. The computer was not invented by one individual nor one organization nor one generation
So, here’s my take: on what the 21st Century does and will look like: the future needs to be a collaborative effort, an effort which includes everyone. The Baptizer’s vision will not do. We need to embrace the vision of Jesus, a vision of cooperative competence.
I think the vision of Jesus, the Christ, includes 21st Century aspects of life. And these attributes are creativity, improvisation, idea generation, agility, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, risk taking, curiosity, collaboration. And for Christians, for Christians this collaboration must be about seeking justice for everyone.
In order to do that, in order to seek justice for everyone, we need to cease being driven by fear, a popular stance today. And, in fact, the apocalyptic, fear filled vision of John which says the end times are upon us, is a common vision today on the left and on the right. It is a vision we need to overcome.
How can that prevalent vision of fear be overcome? We need to practice and embrace the four aspects we find surrounding us in this Season called Advent: hope, peace, love, joy.
All this is also to say the call of Christ to us, the call of God to us, can be summed up in one word: covenant. And the call to covenant is a call to creative collaboration.
And so yes, God calls us to covenant. And I believe if we are willing to cooperate with the covenant to which God calls us we, the church, will be and are well positioned to face and to tackle the challenges of the 21st Century. Amen.
12/14/2014
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: “There is a falsehood commonly believed about Christianity that if you believe exactly the right things or can recite exactly the right things you have passed the test. You are a Christian. However, historically what has defined someone as a Christian is not a set of beliefs. what has defined someone as a Christian is the actions they take. Do you follow Jesus? In order to follow Jesus in the 21st Century, it seems to me one needs to be fearlessly creative as we seek to collaborate with each other.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go forth with hope. Let us be led in peace. Let us find places of love. Let us know the joy of God’s presence. And, indeed, as the Psalmist states: all the mountains and hills shall break into singing and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands because God reigns! Amen.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
SERMON ~ 12/07/2014 ~ “Good News”
12/07/2014 ~ Second Sunday of Advent ~ The Sunday on Which We Commemorate Peace ~ Isaiah 40:1-11; Psalm 85:1-2, 8-13; 2 Peter 3:8-15a; Mark 1:1-8 ~ Communion Sunday.
Good News
“The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Christ, Child of God.” — Mark 1:1.
In years past the ceremony at which the National Book Awards are presented has not been a place of particular controversy. It was, in fact, controversial this year.
Like many awards, the prizes known as the National Book Awards are announced at a formal dinner. And like many awards the organizers of the event often line up a master of ceremonies type to crack a couple of jokes and move the proceedings along.
Daniel Handler, best known for working under the pen name Lemony Snicket, filled that role this year. Using the Snicket pseudonym, Handler wrote thirteen episodes of the successful children’s book series known as A Series of Unfortunate Events.
So, at the National Book Awards, Handler/Snicket, a friendly chap in his mid-40s, author of award winning children’s books, was tapped to be the master of ceremonies. What could possibly go wrong? (Slight pause.)
At that same event Jacqueline Woodson, an African-American writer, received the National Book Award in the young-adult category for her memoir, Brown Girl Dreaming. Handler and Woodson are friends. They have been in one another’s homes. What could possibly go wrong? (Slight pause.)
Well, the last place in the world Woodson thought she would hear a racially insensitive joke, especially from her friend Handler, was after she got a standing ovation with her acceptance speech. What was the joke?
In this particular case it was a reference to the fact that Woodson is allergic to watermelon. Handler, her friend, because they were close, knew that his friend, Woodson, an African-American writer, was allergic to watermelon.
And so yes, Woodson never thought she would hear a watermelon joke, a racial insensitive joke, escape from the lips of her dear friend Daniel, right after her acceptance speech. But that... is exactly what happened. Handler cracked a joke about Woodson, an African-American, being allergic to watermelon.
As I said: what... could... possibly... go... wrong? (Slight pause.) To be clear, Mr. Handler has profusely and very publically apologized for his actions— as well he should. (Slight pause.)
We find these words at the beginning of the Gospel we know as Mark: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Christ, Child of God.” (Slight pause.)
The opening words of Mark pose a number of challenges. Prime among them is this: what exactly is the good news?
There are a myriad of possibilities people suggest these days. In our times most prominent and popular among them are probably these: the sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient and Jesus was raised, therefore everything is fine; the resurrection of our bodies as we now know them is a real promise fulfilled; eternal life with God is a given.
But what take does the writer of Mark have on the good news? I think we need to look at two things in this passage and examine how they interact. First, the mission of the Baptizer. (Quote:) “Prepare, make ready the way of our God.” Second, where is the message proclaimed? (Quote:) “...in the desert, in the wilderness,...”
This writer is obviously referring us to Isaiah, the passage we heard today. And if we are sensitive to Isaiah’s message, we realize the prophet, by addressing the wilderness and insisting it be made straight, thereby sends us to the opening words of Genesis.
Why? In the opening words of the Torah, what does God do? God creates the universe. And in Genesis, this new universe is described as (quote:) “unformed and void, wild and waste, filled with chaos and emptiness,...”
Which is to say, we need to recognize how precisely this message in Genesis ties into how the message of the good news of Christ is expressed in Mark. The universe is nothing but chaos. God creates order from chaos. And in the wilderness, in the chaos, John is to prepare the way, to make things straight— order from chaos.
Another way to see these connections is to say order is created from chaos by the presence, by the power of God. Therefore, certainly once aspect of the good news being proclaimed by the writer of Mark, is that through the presence of God in Jesus, through the power of God in Jesus, chaos can be transformed into order. (Slight pause.)
The power of God— power— now there’s a word that makes many uncomfortable. Why? Because most of us associate power with force. But does the kind of power— the power of God, the presence of God which is addressed here— have anything to do with force?
I think not just modern culture but human culture gets in the way of our understanding the difference between human power and the power of God. So, let’s start with some basic questions to try to unpack God and power.
Does power exist? We would be foolish to deny the reality: power is real. Power exists. But what is the power of God? Is it force, something we humans associate with power or is the power of God a different understanding of power? Is the power of God more about the real presence of God than about force? (Slight pause.)
We are in the portion of the church year known as Advent. On the four Sundays therein we commemorate four separate aspects of our walk with God: hope, peace, love and joy.
It is really, really hard for me to connect hope or peace or love or joy with force of any kind. Why?
Since these are aspects of our walk with God, hope and peace and love and joy express a sense of the presence of God, a sense that God is with us. And if we are true to that journey with God, true to that walk with God, the use of force is simply not a consideration. (Slight pause.)
So, lets come back to that National Book Awards ceremony. The same evening another award was presented. Science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin, now 85, was presented with a life-time achievement award for her Contribution to American Letters.
In her remarks Le Guin said (quote:) “Hard times are coming,... and we will be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live, writers who can see through our fear-stricken society... to other ways of being and even imagine real grounds for hope. We will need writers who can remember freedom— poets, visionaries— realists of a larger reality. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings....,” she said. (Slight pause.)
I think the Advent message of hope, peace, love, joy, the message of the good news, tells us something about the real presence of God and how we need to live our lives. Yes, we need to live our lives understanding that power is real. And we also need to live our lives understanding that power and force are not the same.
Power exercised with brut force is based in the very human emotion called fear. And we live, as Le Quin suggests, in a fear-stricken society. If the events of recent days have not proved to us we live in a fear-stricken society, we are not paying attention.
The power of the presence of God, on the other hand, helps us remember what true freedom— freedom from force— what true freedom is. And with the power of the presence of God comes an understanding that a life filled with hope, with peace, with love, with joy is available.
So yes, we need to acknowledge that racism— even the kind of passive racism displayed by cracking a racial joke— we need to acknowledge that racism, sexism, economic oppression, gender inequity, social oppression— all these are inappropriate expressions of power. Hence, by definition, all these are also products of fear. (Slight pause.)
I think all this calls us to be attentive to two things. First, we need to admit power exists and is real. And we even need to be aware each of us has power.
Second, because of the presence of God, the presence proclaimed by the good news, we need to exercise power, individually and collectively— especially collectively— in the way God would have us exercise power. We need to exercise power not through all the ‘isms’— racism, sexism, etc.— all the ‘isms’ so prevalent in modern society, a society which is clearly fear driven.
Indeed, we need to exercise power with and through hope, peace, love, joy. We need to exercise power with an understanding that if any one of us is denied freedom, if any one of us is denied our God given inalienable rights, we are all denied our rights.
Put another way, we need to be attuned to the presence and to the power and to the will of God. When we do so, the good news proclaimed by the writer of Mark— that God is present and real— becomes a tangible part of life, a tangible way we live, a real sense that God is with us. After all, God is with us. Is that not what the Christmas message says? Amen.
12/07/2014
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: “I recently saw this on a tee shirt: ‘Keep Christ in Christmas— Feed the Hungry; Shelter the Homeless; Welcome the Immigrants; Forgive Others; Embrace Outsiders; Share with Those in Need; Advocate for the Marginalized; Confront Those Abusing Power.’ And that would keep Christ in Christmas.”
BENEDICTION: Let us be present to one another as we go from this place. Let us share our gifts, our hopes, our memories, our pain and our joy. Go in joy for God knows every fiber of our being. Go in hope for God reveals to us, daily, that we are a part of God’s new creation. Go in love, for we rest assured, by Christ, Jesus, that God is steadfast. Go in peace for God is with us. And may the peace of God which surpasses understanding be with us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Good News
“The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Christ, Child of God.” — Mark 1:1.
In years past the ceremony at which the National Book Awards are presented has not been a place of particular controversy. It was, in fact, controversial this year.
Like many awards, the prizes known as the National Book Awards are announced at a formal dinner. And like many awards the organizers of the event often line up a master of ceremonies type to crack a couple of jokes and move the proceedings along.
Daniel Handler, best known for working under the pen name Lemony Snicket, filled that role this year. Using the Snicket pseudonym, Handler wrote thirteen episodes of the successful children’s book series known as A Series of Unfortunate Events.
So, at the National Book Awards, Handler/Snicket, a friendly chap in his mid-40s, author of award winning children’s books, was tapped to be the master of ceremonies. What could possibly go wrong? (Slight pause.)
At that same event Jacqueline Woodson, an African-American writer, received the National Book Award in the young-adult category for her memoir, Brown Girl Dreaming. Handler and Woodson are friends. They have been in one another’s homes. What could possibly go wrong? (Slight pause.)
Well, the last place in the world Woodson thought she would hear a racially insensitive joke, especially from her friend Handler, was after she got a standing ovation with her acceptance speech. What was the joke?
In this particular case it was a reference to the fact that Woodson is allergic to watermelon. Handler, her friend, because they were close, knew that his friend, Woodson, an African-American writer, was allergic to watermelon.
And so yes, Woodson never thought she would hear a watermelon joke, a racial insensitive joke, escape from the lips of her dear friend Daniel, right after her acceptance speech. But that... is exactly what happened. Handler cracked a joke about Woodson, an African-American, being allergic to watermelon.
As I said: what... could... possibly... go... wrong? (Slight pause.) To be clear, Mr. Handler has profusely and very publically apologized for his actions— as well he should. (Slight pause.)
We find these words at the beginning of the Gospel we know as Mark: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Christ, Child of God.” (Slight pause.)
The opening words of Mark pose a number of challenges. Prime among them is this: what exactly is the good news?
There are a myriad of possibilities people suggest these days. In our times most prominent and popular among them are probably these: the sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient and Jesus was raised, therefore everything is fine; the resurrection of our bodies as we now know them is a real promise fulfilled; eternal life with God is a given.
But what take does the writer of Mark have on the good news? I think we need to look at two things in this passage and examine how they interact. First, the mission of the Baptizer. (Quote:) “Prepare, make ready the way of our God.” Second, where is the message proclaimed? (Quote:) “...in the desert, in the wilderness,...”
This writer is obviously referring us to Isaiah, the passage we heard today. And if we are sensitive to Isaiah’s message, we realize the prophet, by addressing the wilderness and insisting it be made straight, thereby sends us to the opening words of Genesis.
Why? In the opening words of the Torah, what does God do? God creates the universe. And in Genesis, this new universe is described as (quote:) “unformed and void, wild and waste, filled with chaos and emptiness,...”
Which is to say, we need to recognize how precisely this message in Genesis ties into how the message of the good news of Christ is expressed in Mark. The universe is nothing but chaos. God creates order from chaos. And in the wilderness, in the chaos, John is to prepare the way, to make things straight— order from chaos.
Another way to see these connections is to say order is created from chaos by the presence, by the power of God. Therefore, certainly once aspect of the good news being proclaimed by the writer of Mark, is that through the presence of God in Jesus, through the power of God in Jesus, chaos can be transformed into order. (Slight pause.)
The power of God— power— now there’s a word that makes many uncomfortable. Why? Because most of us associate power with force. But does the kind of power— the power of God, the presence of God which is addressed here— have anything to do with force?
I think not just modern culture but human culture gets in the way of our understanding the difference between human power and the power of God. So, let’s start with some basic questions to try to unpack God and power.
Does power exist? We would be foolish to deny the reality: power is real. Power exists. But what is the power of God? Is it force, something we humans associate with power or is the power of God a different understanding of power? Is the power of God more about the real presence of God than about force? (Slight pause.)
We are in the portion of the church year known as Advent. On the four Sundays therein we commemorate four separate aspects of our walk with God: hope, peace, love and joy.
It is really, really hard for me to connect hope or peace or love or joy with force of any kind. Why?
Since these are aspects of our walk with God, hope and peace and love and joy express a sense of the presence of God, a sense that God is with us. And if we are true to that journey with God, true to that walk with God, the use of force is simply not a consideration. (Slight pause.)
So, lets come back to that National Book Awards ceremony. The same evening another award was presented. Science fiction writer Ursula Le Guin, now 85, was presented with a life-time achievement award for her Contribution to American Letters.
In her remarks Le Guin said (quote:) “Hard times are coming,... and we will be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live, writers who can see through our fear-stricken society... to other ways of being and even imagine real grounds for hope. We will need writers who can remember freedom— poets, visionaries— realists of a larger reality. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings....,” she said. (Slight pause.)
I think the Advent message of hope, peace, love, joy, the message of the good news, tells us something about the real presence of God and how we need to live our lives. Yes, we need to live our lives understanding that power is real. And we also need to live our lives understanding that power and force are not the same.
Power exercised with brut force is based in the very human emotion called fear. And we live, as Le Quin suggests, in a fear-stricken society. If the events of recent days have not proved to us we live in a fear-stricken society, we are not paying attention.
The power of the presence of God, on the other hand, helps us remember what true freedom— freedom from force— what true freedom is. And with the power of the presence of God comes an understanding that a life filled with hope, with peace, with love, with joy is available.
So yes, we need to acknowledge that racism— even the kind of passive racism displayed by cracking a racial joke— we need to acknowledge that racism, sexism, economic oppression, gender inequity, social oppression— all these are inappropriate expressions of power. Hence, by definition, all these are also products of fear. (Slight pause.)
I think all this calls us to be attentive to two things. First, we need to admit power exists and is real. And we even need to be aware each of us has power.
Second, because of the presence of God, the presence proclaimed by the good news, we need to exercise power, individually and collectively— especially collectively— in the way God would have us exercise power. We need to exercise power not through all the ‘isms’— racism, sexism, etc.— all the ‘isms’ so prevalent in modern society, a society which is clearly fear driven.
Indeed, we need to exercise power with and through hope, peace, love, joy. We need to exercise power with an understanding that if any one of us is denied freedom, if any one of us is denied our God given inalienable rights, we are all denied our rights.
Put another way, we need to be attuned to the presence and to the power and to the will of God. When we do so, the good news proclaimed by the writer of Mark— that God is present and real— becomes a tangible part of life, a tangible way we live, a real sense that God is with us. After all, God is with us. Is that not what the Christmas message says? Amen.
12/07/2014
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: “I recently saw this on a tee shirt: ‘Keep Christ in Christmas— Feed the Hungry; Shelter the Homeless; Welcome the Immigrants; Forgive Others; Embrace Outsiders; Share with Those in Need; Advocate for the Marginalized; Confront Those Abusing Power.’ And that would keep Christ in Christmas.”
BENEDICTION: Let us be present to one another as we go from this place. Let us share our gifts, our hopes, our memories, our pain and our joy. Go in joy for God knows every fiber of our being. Go in hope for God reveals to us, daily, that we are a part of God’s new creation. Go in love, for we rest assured, by Christ, Jesus, that God is steadfast. Go in peace for God is with us. And may the peace of God which surpasses understanding be with us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
SERMON ~ 11/23/2014 ~ “The Relationship”
11/23/2014 ~ Reign of Christ ~ Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost ~ 34th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ The Last Sunday Before the Season of Advent ~ The Last Sunday of the Church Year ~ (Proper 29) ~ Ezekiel 34:11-16, 20-24; Psalm 100; Ezekiel 34:11-16, 20-24; Psalm 95:1-7a; Ephesians 1:15-23; Matthew 25:31-46 ~ Operation Christmas Child Dedication.
The Relationship
“I pray that the glorious God of our Savior Jesus, the Christ, will give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation to bring you to a rich knowledge of the Creator.” — Ephesians 1:17.
As you heard earlier, Tuesday Bonnie and I will be on a flight to Dallas, Texas, to visit family. Now, Dallas is not exactly known as a tourist destination but the one thing I told our niece, Heather, I wanted to do in the course of the week, the one place I wanted to visit, was The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.
Needless to say, this is a site and a museum which commentates the event which happened 51 years ago yesterday, the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, our 35th President. The museum, as its name implies, is located on the sixth floor of the Dallas County Administration Building.
That edifice was formerly the Texas School Book Depository. and the sixth floor is the place from which Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots which killed the President and injured the Governor of Texas, John Connally— no relation— we spell our names different ways. (Slight pause.)
Well, have you ever heard about that six degrees of separation thing— the theory that everyone and everything is six or fewer steps away, by means of introduction one person to the next, from any other person in the world? What this six degrees of separation theory says is a chain of ‘a friend of a friend of a friend’ statements can be made to connect any two people anywhere in the world in a maximum of six steps.
That being said, I was chatting with Rebecca Sands, the Executive Director of the Place this week and I mentioned I was going to Dallas and wanted to visit The Sixth Floor Museum. “Oh,” she said, “my grandmother, who is now ninety-one years old, was Governor Connally’s nurse.”
“There’s a picture of her,” Rebecca continued, “in the Texas Encyclopedia pushing Governor Connally in a wheelchair to his car when he was released from the hospital.” Connections are often closer than we think. Connections can, obviously, even span across the abyss of time. (Slight pause.)
If you were alive when JFK was assassinated, the event probably felt like a punch in the stomach. if you were alive when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, the event probably also felt like a punch in the stomach.
And if you were alive when the Challenger exploded, the event probably, again, felt like a punch in the stomach. And when 9-11 happened— just 13 years ago— it probably felt like a gigantic punch— a haymaker.
So too, if you were alive when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor— and there are fewer and fewer of those of the greatest generation still with us— the event probably felt like a haymaker also. In relation to that last one, in relation to degrees of separation over the abyss of time but on a very personal note, Bonnie’s uncle, Bob Curtis, died Friday after a brief illness at the age of 96. He was 23 when the attack on Pearl Harbor happened.
Bonnie and I knew Bob well. And when we heard he died, it was not just that it felt like a punch in the stomach. On top of that feeling, it was very personal— visceral.
The personal is different— and visceral is the only word I can think of to describe it. Indeed, to address events like this in just my family, when my Mom died in 1983, it was visceral. When Bonnie’s Dad died in 1986, it was visceral. When Bonnie’s Mom died in 1994, it was visceral. And when my Dad died in 1998, it was visceral.
On the other side of that equation, a prime reason for us to visit Dallas, is we have a grand-nephew, Henry Light-Horse Lee— named for his Revolutionary War ancestor— Henry, who is already two years old who we have not yet seen face to face. And next Summer we expect visit our new grand-niece, Zoe Elizabeth, born this past July in Los Angeles.
My point is twofold: first, we are all connected in some way. At times we fail to notice that. Further, while the personal is more intense, the events which happen that impact a large number of people— they do feel personal, these do feel personal— because we are all connected.
Second, the real way we mortals determine the passage of time has nothing to do with clocks or with the 24 hour cycle of the day, or with the seven day weekly cycle or the monthly cycle or with the passage of years. The way we tell time is by and with and in and through events.
As I suggested, some events are public milestones. Some events— the death or the birth of a loved one— are more personal, more private. Either way, public event or private event, these happenings are milestones. And either way, a public event or a private event, the impact of what happened— the impact of it— rests on relationships. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Ephesians: “I pray that the glorious God of our Savior Jesus, the Christ, will give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation to bring you to a rich knowledge of the Creator.” (Slight pause.)
A growing number of scholars think it is highly unlikely the Apostle Paul wrote Ephesians. But Ephesians does combine phrases from Colossians, which Paul did write, with its own emphasis on knowledge of the saving power of God illustrated by and with and in and through the Christ. This is emphasized by the song of thanksgiving we hear.
This eulogy found in these few lines joins author and audience in the praise of their common benefactor, God. This is a thanksgiving which tries to assure Christians concerning their relationship with God. (Slight pause.)
Here is something which would never come up as a serious question in antiquity: what time is it, right now? There were Sun dials back then, but they were not about an exact time in any sense. They simply were about a passage of time. There were no clocks.
There were calendars. But their prime function was agriculture— tracking the ebb and the flow of seasons.
In antiquity people kept track of time by events— public and personal. After all, the Second Verse of Luke 2, in an effort to place the Incarnation in a context, says this (quote:) “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria”— and event. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the writer of Ephesians presents us with two challenges in this passage. The first is to understand that God strives to be in relationship with us. The second is that this relationship to and with God can be seen not just now but forever, for all eternity, by and with and in and through Christ who is (quote:) “in heaven at the right hand of God, far above every ruler, every sovereign, every authority, every power, every dominion, and above every name that can be named— not only in this age but also in the age to come.”
The second challenge is an invitation to examine ourselves as to what events in our lives might trigger a memory of a relationship with God— what events in our lives might trigger a memory of a relationship with God. (Slight pause.) You see, this morning we will dedicate the Operation Christmas Child Boxes. Why? Because we are connected one with each other.
Each person, each child who receives a box from one of us is separated by only one degree— us, the child– me the child. And because of this work, it affirms the thought that we, each of us, is separated from God by only one degree— us, God— me, God– one degree of separation for all of time, forever, for eternity. Indeed, for all of time, forever and for eternity, God is with us. God is at our side. Amen.
11/23/2014
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: “In my comments this morning I said this: ‘...for all of time, forever and for eternity, God is with us. God is at our side.’ Question: if God is at our side, should we pick up the pace or slow down? Here’s what I say: your relationship with God, your dialogue with God will determine the pace.”
BENEDICTION: Go forth in faith. Go forth trusting that God will provide. Go forth and reach out to everyone you meet in the name of Christ. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of the Holy Spirit this day and forevermore. Amen.
The Relationship
“I pray that the glorious God of our Savior Jesus, the Christ, will give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation to bring you to a rich knowledge of the Creator.” — Ephesians 1:17.
As you heard earlier, Tuesday Bonnie and I will be on a flight to Dallas, Texas, to visit family. Now, Dallas is not exactly known as a tourist destination but the one thing I told our niece, Heather, I wanted to do in the course of the week, the one place I wanted to visit, was The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.
Needless to say, this is a site and a museum which commentates the event which happened 51 years ago yesterday, the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, our 35th President. The museum, as its name implies, is located on the sixth floor of the Dallas County Administration Building.
That edifice was formerly the Texas School Book Depository. and the sixth floor is the place from which Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots which killed the President and injured the Governor of Texas, John Connally— no relation— we spell our names different ways. (Slight pause.)
Well, have you ever heard about that six degrees of separation thing— the theory that everyone and everything is six or fewer steps away, by means of introduction one person to the next, from any other person in the world? What this six degrees of separation theory says is a chain of ‘a friend of a friend of a friend’ statements can be made to connect any two people anywhere in the world in a maximum of six steps.
That being said, I was chatting with Rebecca Sands, the Executive Director of the Place this week and I mentioned I was going to Dallas and wanted to visit The Sixth Floor Museum. “Oh,” she said, “my grandmother, who is now ninety-one years old, was Governor Connally’s nurse.”
“There’s a picture of her,” Rebecca continued, “in the Texas Encyclopedia pushing Governor Connally in a wheelchair to his car when he was released from the hospital.” Connections are often closer than we think. Connections can, obviously, even span across the abyss of time. (Slight pause.)
If you were alive when JFK was assassinated, the event probably felt like a punch in the stomach. if you were alive when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, the event probably also felt like a punch in the stomach.
And if you were alive when the Challenger exploded, the event probably, again, felt like a punch in the stomach. And when 9-11 happened— just 13 years ago— it probably felt like a gigantic punch— a haymaker.
So too, if you were alive when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor— and there are fewer and fewer of those of the greatest generation still with us— the event probably felt like a haymaker also. In relation to that last one, in relation to degrees of separation over the abyss of time but on a very personal note, Bonnie’s uncle, Bob Curtis, died Friday after a brief illness at the age of 96. He was 23 when the attack on Pearl Harbor happened.
Bonnie and I knew Bob well. And when we heard he died, it was not just that it felt like a punch in the stomach. On top of that feeling, it was very personal— visceral.
The personal is different— and visceral is the only word I can think of to describe it. Indeed, to address events like this in just my family, when my Mom died in 1983, it was visceral. When Bonnie’s Dad died in 1986, it was visceral. When Bonnie’s Mom died in 1994, it was visceral. And when my Dad died in 1998, it was visceral.
On the other side of that equation, a prime reason for us to visit Dallas, is we have a grand-nephew, Henry Light-Horse Lee— named for his Revolutionary War ancestor— Henry, who is already two years old who we have not yet seen face to face. And next Summer we expect visit our new grand-niece, Zoe Elizabeth, born this past July in Los Angeles.
My point is twofold: first, we are all connected in some way. At times we fail to notice that. Further, while the personal is more intense, the events which happen that impact a large number of people— they do feel personal, these do feel personal— because we are all connected.
Second, the real way we mortals determine the passage of time has nothing to do with clocks or with the 24 hour cycle of the day, or with the seven day weekly cycle or the monthly cycle or with the passage of years. The way we tell time is by and with and in and through events.
As I suggested, some events are public milestones. Some events— the death or the birth of a loved one— are more personal, more private. Either way, public event or private event, these happenings are milestones. And either way, a public event or a private event, the impact of what happened— the impact of it— rests on relationships. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Ephesians: “I pray that the glorious God of our Savior Jesus, the Christ, will give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation to bring you to a rich knowledge of the Creator.” (Slight pause.)
A growing number of scholars think it is highly unlikely the Apostle Paul wrote Ephesians. But Ephesians does combine phrases from Colossians, which Paul did write, with its own emphasis on knowledge of the saving power of God illustrated by and with and in and through the Christ. This is emphasized by the song of thanksgiving we hear.
This eulogy found in these few lines joins author and audience in the praise of their common benefactor, God. This is a thanksgiving which tries to assure Christians concerning their relationship with God. (Slight pause.)
Here is something which would never come up as a serious question in antiquity: what time is it, right now? There were Sun dials back then, but they were not about an exact time in any sense. They simply were about a passage of time. There were no clocks.
There were calendars. But their prime function was agriculture— tracking the ebb and the flow of seasons.
In antiquity people kept track of time by events— public and personal. After all, the Second Verse of Luke 2, in an effort to place the Incarnation in a context, says this (quote:) “This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria”— and event. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the writer of Ephesians presents us with two challenges in this passage. The first is to understand that God strives to be in relationship with us. The second is that this relationship to and with God can be seen not just now but forever, for all eternity, by and with and in and through Christ who is (quote:) “in heaven at the right hand of God, far above every ruler, every sovereign, every authority, every power, every dominion, and above every name that can be named— not only in this age but also in the age to come.”
The second challenge is an invitation to examine ourselves as to what events in our lives might trigger a memory of a relationship with God— what events in our lives might trigger a memory of a relationship with God. (Slight pause.) You see, this morning we will dedicate the Operation Christmas Child Boxes. Why? Because we are connected one with each other.
Each person, each child who receives a box from one of us is separated by only one degree— us, the child– me the child. And because of this work, it affirms the thought that we, each of us, is separated from God by only one degree— us, God— me, God– one degree of separation for all of time, forever, for eternity. Indeed, for all of time, forever and for eternity, God is with us. God is at our side. Amen.
11/23/2014
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: “In my comments this morning I said this: ‘...for all of time, forever and for eternity, God is with us. God is at our side.’ Question: if God is at our side, should we pick up the pace or slow down? Here’s what I say: your relationship with God, your dialogue with God will determine the pace.”
BENEDICTION: Go forth in faith. Go forth trusting that God will provide. Go forth and reach out to everyone you meet in the name of Christ. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of the Holy Spirit this day and forevermore. Amen.
Sunday, November 16, 2014
SERMON ~ 11/16/2014 ~ “God of Infinity”
11/16/2014 ~ Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ (Proper 28) ~ Judges 4:1-7; Psalm 123; Zephaniah 1:7, 12-18; Psalm 90:1-8, (9-11), 12; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; Matthew 25:14-30.
“Before the mountains were born, / You brought forth / the earth, the world, / from everlasting to everlasting / You are God / without beginning, without end.” — Psalm 90:2.
Many who are members or attend the churches in the denomination known as the United Church of Christ insist on the independence of our churches. And rightfully so. But I believe too many Congregationalists, too many members of our denomination ignore a simple, pivotal, necessary founding and foundational truth about our churches.
The basis of Congregational Churches is not simply or only our independence. The basis of Congregational Churches is our independence and our interdependence.
Congregational Associations have existed since the 1600s, Conferences since the 1700s. These Associations and Conferences are living examples of our interdependence.
The nature of greater Congregational church organization— Associations and Conferences— is covenant, is connectivity. We are each of us one but we are also one each with the other and one with all— independent and interdependent.
I am reminded of our interdependency every time I attend a Susquehanna Association clergy gathering. The clergy don’t assemble as simply a social function. A portion of these gatherings is always set aside for education. That’s the point of the meeting.
Another advantage these events bring is we clergy get to see other pastors in their settled setting and physically see other churches in our Association. Having been in the Susquehanna Association lo these many years, I think I have been to all the churches.
Last week I was at Eastside Congregational Church in Binghamton. Gary Smith is the Authorized Pastor. The Association will gather for an Ecclesiastical Council in January and Gary will present an ordination paper.
I, having already read that paper, think it’s likely our Association in cooperation with the Eastside Church will be ordaining Gary sometime this Spring. But when I say the church and the Association will ordain Gary, that goes back to our interdependency.
You see, you— by your presence in this church— you will be a part of Gary’s ordination. How? By dint of your presence in this church, you participate in the Association.
By dint of your participation in the Association, whether or not you are physically present at the ordination, you participate in and affirm that ordination. Congregationalist are not just independent. We are interdependent. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Psalm 90: “Before the mountains were born, / You brought forth / the earth, the world, / from everlasting to everlasting / You are God / without beginning, without end.” (Slight pause.)
The superscription, the opening words of Psalm 90, say this is a Prayer of Moses. These words should not be taken literally. These words should be taken seriously. These words are not an indication Moses was the writer. These words are a clue that we need to read Psalm 90 in the context of the Pentateuch, the Torah.
The central claim made by the Torah is God wants to be in covenant with us. God wants to be in covenant with each of us. God wants to be in covenant with all of us.
The second central claim made by the Torah is God wants us to be in covenant with one another. You have heard these two central claims about covenant voiced here many times before using different words. Love God; love neighbor. Covenant with God; covenant with neighbor. (Slight pause.)
For a moment let me come back to that clergy gathering. Our friend Joanne Lanfear ran the education piece on that day. Having picked up on this at a conference of Pastoral Counselors, Joanne presented some of the work done by Brené Brown, author of the New York Times Bestsellers The Gifts of Imperfection and Daring Greatly. She is a social work researcher whose areas of expertise include vulnerability and courage.
Online— you can do that these days, sit there and watch something online— online we watched a TED talk— that’s TED: Technology, Entertainment, Design— [1] online we watched a TED talk by Brené Brown. In this talk Brown stated her research maintains that connection is the prime reason are here— connection is the prime reason are here. Connection is what gives purpose and meaning to lives.
Having discovered this based on research, Brown refocused her work. She concentrated on people and how people connect. What she stumbled on amazed her.
When she asked people about love, they told her about heartbreak. When she asked people about belonging, they told her about excruciating experiences of being excluded. And when she asked people about connection, they told stories about disconnection.
She eventually discovered much of this boiled down to shame— not guilt but shame. There’s a difference. The problem of shame can be stated this way: “I’m not good enough.”
We all know that feeling: I’m not blank enough— fill in the blank. I’m not thin enough, rich enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, important enough.
Brown tried to dig deeper still. She found the underlying concept is vulnerability. And shame works against that. Shame works against being vulnerable. Further, in order for connection to happen— connection, this reason why we are here, remember— in order for connection to happen we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen. That requires us to expose ourselves— to be seen requires vulnerability.
So, she spent six years doing research on vulnerability, thousands of deep interviews— she is a researcher— thousands of deep interviews trying to get a handle on it. What did she find? Let’s peel away some levels.
As indicated earlier, one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear we’re not worthy. So, what did people have who tended to connect?
What they had in common is what Brown labels as a sense of courage. But don’t confuse courage with bravery. They are not the same.
The word courage, you see, is from the Latin word cor, meaning heart. So, courage means speaking with the heart.
Brown’s research found people who speak from the heart had the courage to be... imperfect. I need to add being imperfect is not particularly acceptable in our society. Her research strongly suggests people willing to allow for imperfection also have the compassion to be kind to themselves first, and thereby be open about their own imperfections and, thereby, then be kind to others.
It is, in fact, hard to practice compassion with others if we can’t treat ourselves kindly. Compassion leads to a willingness to let go of who we think we should be in order to be who we really are. And all that, especially being who we really are as opposed to who we think we should be, leads to connection— the reason why we’re here.
Put another way, the process of admitting imperfection to others bring us to a sense of compassion which fully embraces vulnerability. Vulnerability leads to connection.
To be clear: vulnerability in no way means being comfortable with ourselves or with anyone else. Most of what I just said is not comfortable to anyone at any time, ever. Vulnerability is, rather, a willingness— and I think this is really the key— vulnerability is a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. Vulnerability— a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. [2] (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to a God Who is (quote:) “without beginning, without end.” As I said, the claim being made for God by the Psalm is one of covenant.’
Therefore, the claim being made is about God is about a God who connects, a God Who is vulnerable. The God of Scripture is a God Who presents a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out.
Further and importantly, vulnerability— our vulnerability or the vulnerability of God— is not weakness. Rather, vulnerability presents a willingness to fail— a willingness to fail— something rarely seen in our society. Last, this kind of vulnerability is the birthplace of creativity and courage and change. And change— where does that go? Change leads to... growth. Change leads to growth. (Slight pause.)
I think this takes us to two places. First, the possibility that being vulnerable seen as a goal presents to us and illustrates to us our own human failings. After all, we don’t like to fail. We don’t like to let others know we fail.
Second, God who is infinite is a God who is vulnerable, a God who is willing to fail, a God Who presents a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. (Slight pause.)
Perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere deep down inside us we are in touch with our own mortality; we know about our limits. Therefore, I want to suggest we Congregationalists have it right. We are both independent and interdependent.
We do know we need to work as independent individuals; we do know we do need to be interdependent, to rely on one another. Why? Independence and interdependency is the place to which God who is infinite calls us. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
11/16/2014
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: “This saying is attributed to Theodore Roosevelt: ‘It is not the critic who counts, not the one who sits and points out how the doer of deeds could have done things better but has fallen and stumbled. The credit goes to the one in the arena whose face is marred with dust and blood and sweat. In the arena, at best this one wins, and at worst this one loses. But loss happens only because one dares greatly.’ Which is to say engagement— engagement on many levels is, I think, an imperative.”
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.
[1] TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) is a global set of conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, under the slogan: “Ideas Worth Spreading.”
[2] https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability#t-602822
God of Infinity
“Before the mountains were born, / You brought forth / the earth, the world, / from everlasting to everlasting / You are God / without beginning, without end.” — Psalm 90:2.
Many who are members or attend the churches in the denomination known as the United Church of Christ insist on the independence of our churches. And rightfully so. But I believe too many Congregationalists, too many members of our denomination ignore a simple, pivotal, necessary founding and foundational truth about our churches.
The basis of Congregational Churches is not simply or only our independence. The basis of Congregational Churches is our independence and our interdependence.
Congregational Associations have existed since the 1600s, Conferences since the 1700s. These Associations and Conferences are living examples of our interdependence.
The nature of greater Congregational church organization— Associations and Conferences— is covenant, is connectivity. We are each of us one but we are also one each with the other and one with all— independent and interdependent.
I am reminded of our interdependency every time I attend a Susquehanna Association clergy gathering. The clergy don’t assemble as simply a social function. A portion of these gatherings is always set aside for education. That’s the point of the meeting.
Another advantage these events bring is we clergy get to see other pastors in their settled setting and physically see other churches in our Association. Having been in the Susquehanna Association lo these many years, I think I have been to all the churches.
Last week I was at Eastside Congregational Church in Binghamton. Gary Smith is the Authorized Pastor. The Association will gather for an Ecclesiastical Council in January and Gary will present an ordination paper.
I, having already read that paper, think it’s likely our Association in cooperation with the Eastside Church will be ordaining Gary sometime this Spring. But when I say the church and the Association will ordain Gary, that goes back to our interdependency.
You see, you— by your presence in this church— you will be a part of Gary’s ordination. How? By dint of your presence in this church, you participate in the Association.
By dint of your participation in the Association, whether or not you are physically present at the ordination, you participate in and affirm that ordination. Congregationalist are not just independent. We are interdependent. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Psalm 90: “Before the mountains were born, / You brought forth / the earth, the world, / from everlasting to everlasting / You are God / without beginning, without end.” (Slight pause.)
The superscription, the opening words of Psalm 90, say this is a Prayer of Moses. These words should not be taken literally. These words should be taken seriously. These words are not an indication Moses was the writer. These words are a clue that we need to read Psalm 90 in the context of the Pentateuch, the Torah.
The central claim made by the Torah is God wants to be in covenant with us. God wants to be in covenant with each of us. God wants to be in covenant with all of us.
The second central claim made by the Torah is God wants us to be in covenant with one another. You have heard these two central claims about covenant voiced here many times before using different words. Love God; love neighbor. Covenant with God; covenant with neighbor. (Slight pause.)
For a moment let me come back to that clergy gathering. Our friend Joanne Lanfear ran the education piece on that day. Having picked up on this at a conference of Pastoral Counselors, Joanne presented some of the work done by Brené Brown, author of the New York Times Bestsellers The Gifts of Imperfection and Daring Greatly. She is a social work researcher whose areas of expertise include vulnerability and courage.
Online— you can do that these days, sit there and watch something online— online we watched a TED talk— that’s TED: Technology, Entertainment, Design— [1] online we watched a TED talk by Brené Brown. In this talk Brown stated her research maintains that connection is the prime reason are here— connection is the prime reason are here. Connection is what gives purpose and meaning to lives.
Having discovered this based on research, Brown refocused her work. She concentrated on people and how people connect. What she stumbled on amazed her.
When she asked people about love, they told her about heartbreak. When she asked people about belonging, they told her about excruciating experiences of being excluded. And when she asked people about connection, they told stories about disconnection.
She eventually discovered much of this boiled down to shame— not guilt but shame. There’s a difference. The problem of shame can be stated this way: “I’m not good enough.”
We all know that feeling: I’m not blank enough— fill in the blank. I’m not thin enough, rich enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, important enough.
Brown tried to dig deeper still. She found the underlying concept is vulnerability. And shame works against that. Shame works against being vulnerable. Further, in order for connection to happen— connection, this reason why we are here, remember— in order for connection to happen we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen. That requires us to expose ourselves— to be seen requires vulnerability.
So, she spent six years doing research on vulnerability, thousands of deep interviews— she is a researcher— thousands of deep interviews trying to get a handle on it. What did she find? Let’s peel away some levels.
As indicated earlier, one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear we’re not worthy. So, what did people have who tended to connect?
What they had in common is what Brown labels as a sense of courage. But don’t confuse courage with bravery. They are not the same.
The word courage, you see, is from the Latin word cor, meaning heart. So, courage means speaking with the heart.
Brown’s research found people who speak from the heart had the courage to be... imperfect. I need to add being imperfect is not particularly acceptable in our society. Her research strongly suggests people willing to allow for imperfection also have the compassion to be kind to themselves first, and thereby be open about their own imperfections and, thereby, then be kind to others.
It is, in fact, hard to practice compassion with others if we can’t treat ourselves kindly. Compassion leads to a willingness to let go of who we think we should be in order to be who we really are. And all that, especially being who we really are as opposed to who we think we should be, leads to connection— the reason why we’re here.
Put another way, the process of admitting imperfection to others bring us to a sense of compassion which fully embraces vulnerability. Vulnerability leads to connection.
To be clear: vulnerability in no way means being comfortable with ourselves or with anyone else. Most of what I just said is not comfortable to anyone at any time, ever. Vulnerability is, rather, a willingness— and I think this is really the key— vulnerability is a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. Vulnerability— a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. [2] (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to a God Who is (quote:) “without beginning, without end.” As I said, the claim being made for God by the Psalm is one of covenant.’
Therefore, the claim being made is about God is about a God who connects, a God Who is vulnerable. The God of Scripture is a God Who presents a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out.
Further and importantly, vulnerability— our vulnerability or the vulnerability of God— is not weakness. Rather, vulnerability presents a willingness to fail— a willingness to fail— something rarely seen in our society. Last, this kind of vulnerability is the birthplace of creativity and courage and change. And change— where does that go? Change leads to... growth. Change leads to growth. (Slight pause.)
I think this takes us to two places. First, the possibility that being vulnerable seen as a goal presents to us and illustrates to us our own human failings. After all, we don’t like to fail. We don’t like to let others know we fail.
Second, God who is infinite is a God who is vulnerable, a God who is willing to fail, a God Who presents a willingness to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. (Slight pause.)
Perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere deep down inside us we are in touch with our own mortality; we know about our limits. Therefore, I want to suggest we Congregationalists have it right. We are both independent and interdependent.
We do know we need to work as independent individuals; we do know we do need to be interdependent, to rely on one another. Why? Independence and interdependency is the place to which God who is infinite calls us. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
11/16/2014
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: “This saying is attributed to Theodore Roosevelt: ‘It is not the critic who counts, not the one who sits and points out how the doer of deeds could have done things better but has fallen and stumbled. The credit goes to the one in the arena whose face is marred with dust and blood and sweat. In the arena, at best this one wins, and at worst this one loses. But loss happens only because one dares greatly.’ Which is to say engagement— engagement on many levels is, I think, an imperative.”
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.
[1] TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) is a global set of conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, under the slogan: “Ideas Worth Spreading.”
[2] https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability#t-602822
Sunday, November 9, 2014
SERMON ~ 11/09/2014 ~ “Choices”
11/09/2014 ~ Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost ~ 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ (Proper 27) ~ Joshua 24:1-3a, 14-25; Psalm 78:1-7; Wisdom of Solomon 6:12-16 or Amos 5:18-24; Wisdom of Solomon 6:17-20 or Psalm 70; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Matthew 25:1-13 ~ Stewardship Sunday ~ Also the Sunday Closest to Veterans Day.
Choices
“Now then, throw away the foreign gods among you and turn your hearts toward Yahweh, the God of Israel.” — Joshua 24:23.
I have a confession which will not surprise too many of you. I always wanted to broadcast Major League Baseball games, be the one to call the plays— the runs, the hits, the errors. I was reminded of that a week ago as Bonnie and I sat and watched Game Six of the World Series.
That, by the way, tells you Bonnie is a good person, but you’ve probably noticed. She, after all, was willing to sit and to watch baseball with me.
For those of you who are not baseball fans, Game Six of this series was a boring game. But, as you probably know, I am into baseball. It was not boring to me.
In fact, Game Six would have been boring to most casual observers. It was a blow out. One team led by a lot of runs. After only five innings the score was Kansas City nine, San Francisco nothing— zero. The final score was ten - zip.
At that point— at the end of five innings— I said to Bonnie, “Watch what the San Francisco Manager does with the bull pen. He has to stop worrying about winning this game and start worrying about winning Game Seven. This game no longer matters.”
“What he’ll be doing,” said I, “is bringing in pitchers who can eat up innings. But these are probably not the pitchers he’ll use tomorrow in Game Seven.”
About five minutes later one of the broadcasters— a former major leaguer baseball player— said the same thing using nearly the same words. Bonnie looked over at me, glowered a little, and said, “You missed your calling.”
Calling? What are the odds I would have been able to work my way into the broadcast booth of a Major League Baseball team? Slim and none— and slim just left the room. Yes, I played ball as a kid. I was average at best. And I had no contacts in baseball or in the broadcast industry.
Which is to say for me landing that kind of position would have been just dumb luck. I know of only one person who became a Major League Baseball broadcaster by way of dumb luck. And although he did not have a lot of experience, even he had some experience.
That person is Gary Thorne, a native of Bangor Maine. He is an attorney who, as a hobby and for fun and for free, started broadcasting University of Maine Hockey Games. Then for pay, a little bit of pay, he did the same for the Maine Guides— a Triple A baseball team.
On a lark he submitted an audition tape to the New York Mets. It turned out the day the tape arrived the Mets had just fired a broadcaster. They decided to hire Thorne before anyone else had a chance or was asked to submit a tape— pure dumb luck.
I mention all this to ask a simple question: the choices we make can be and even are important. But in the larger scheme of things how do we account for what happens?
I want to suggest, fortunately or unfortunately, much of what happens to us is just luck, chance. To be clear: that luck is involved in our lives at all violates American theology.
American theology makes the claim we are in control of everything that happens to us. But that is simply and even obviously not true. Yes, we all do need to make good choices. That’s not what this discussion is about. You see, the chips will fall where the chips will fall and mostly— mostly— we have little control. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Joshua: “Now then, throw away the foreign gods among you and turn your hearts toward Yahweh, the God of Israel.” (Slight pause.)
I can guarantee this: we all have gods, little gods, things we hold on to. ‘Can we throw them away?’
‘Can we throw them away?’ is a serious question. You know, you can read a passage in Scripture a hundred times and the hundredth and first time, you see something that you never saw before. That’s what happened to me when I read those words at a committee meeting this week.
As strange as it sounds, in ancient times people carried around small idols, little statues. These represented gods. So, when Joshua tells the Israelites to throw away foreign gods, the statement can be taken somewhat literally.
The instruction probably means take that little statue you’ve been carrying around; throw it away. If only we were able to throw away our false gods. Now, the next thing Joshua says tells us how to throw away our false gods (quote:) “...turn your hearts toward Yahweh, the God of Israel.”
Indeed, here’s one way to look at this passage: luck will happen. And maybe that is what those little idols are about— luck. These statues, these little gods we hold on to, are as likely or unlikely to work as well chance— to work as well as pure dumb luck.
But this passage also says we— we— need to ignore luck. We need to be faithful, no matter what happens, no matter what luck comes our way. We need to turn our hearts toward God. We can’t be fair weather Christians only turning toward God when luck goes our way.
So, says Joshua, for we Israelites, luck is no longer central. Faithfulness is now central. But that still leaves us with a basic question: why be faithful? (Slight pause.)
I have told bits of this story here before. When I was in Seminary, my Hebrew Scriptures professor was Dr. Ann Johnston. Dr. Johnston was a Hebrew Scholar and a Irish Roman Catholic nun, not a combination one finds too often.
At the beginning of a term she might have a class filled with people who never studied with her before. Like many classrooms, often there would be a little din of background noise as people gathered.
Ann had a very small, quite voice and would start a class in that voice, a voice which was normal for her. So, if you wanted to hear what Ann said, you had to keep quiet. Hence, in any class she taught, within five minutes of its initial session, people got very quite. People learned to listen.
And once people listened, they realize what Ann said was invaluable. She was and is a great teacher. She was, in fact, so great, that you wanted to give back to her your best, the best work you possibly could. You wanted to be... faithful. (Slight pause.)
God speaks. And God speaks in a small, quiet voice. Or at least that’s my experience. What does God say? Be faithful.
Perhaps yet another question for us is ‘how?’ How can we be faithful? I recently saw this banner outside a U.C.C. church. (Quote:) “Be the Church. Care for the poor. Preserve the Environment. Forgive Often. Reject Racism. Support Those Who Are Powerless. Share Earthly and Spiritual Resources. Embrace Diversity. Love God.” (Slight pause.)
We all make choices. Some pan out. Some don’t. The choice we need to make is to be faithful, to remain faithful, no matter what luck pans out, no matter what happens. (Slight pause.)
As I have said here hundreds of times before, every dollar you pledge to the church goes toward outreach. Every dollar you give to the church goes toward outreach. What does that mean? It means among other things that, as a church, we are lucky to have an abundance with which we can help others.
It also therefore and imperatively, urgently, it means we need to be the church. It means care for the poor. Preserve the environment. Forgive often. Reject racism. Support those who are powerless. Share earthly and spiritual resources. Embrace diversity. Love God. In short, no matter what luck brings we need to be faithful. Amen.
11/09/2014
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: “I want to suggest that faithfulness should never translate into tribalism. Our commitment to God should foster what philosopher Alfred North Whitehead described as whole world-loyalty. It should not produce parochial in-group, out-group attitudes. Put differently, it’s not about winning or losing or what strategies to employ in an effort to win. Faithfulness is about consistency. It’s about how you play the game. Do we play the game with love on our hearts, being witnesses to God?”
BENEDICTION: The knowledge that God loves us frees us for joyous living. So, let us trust in the love God offers. Let us also be fervent in prayer as we make choices daily, and seek to do God’s will and walk in God’s way as we travel on our Christian journey. And may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding and the abiding truth of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge, love and companionship of the Holy Spirit this day and forever more. Amen.
Choices
“Now then, throw away the foreign gods among you and turn your hearts toward Yahweh, the God of Israel.” — Joshua 24:23.
I have a confession which will not surprise too many of you. I always wanted to broadcast Major League Baseball games, be the one to call the plays— the runs, the hits, the errors. I was reminded of that a week ago as Bonnie and I sat and watched Game Six of the World Series.
That, by the way, tells you Bonnie is a good person, but you’ve probably noticed. She, after all, was willing to sit and to watch baseball with me.
For those of you who are not baseball fans, Game Six of this series was a boring game. But, as you probably know, I am into baseball. It was not boring to me.
In fact, Game Six would have been boring to most casual observers. It was a blow out. One team led by a lot of runs. After only five innings the score was Kansas City nine, San Francisco nothing— zero. The final score was ten - zip.
At that point— at the end of five innings— I said to Bonnie, “Watch what the San Francisco Manager does with the bull pen. He has to stop worrying about winning this game and start worrying about winning Game Seven. This game no longer matters.”
“What he’ll be doing,” said I, “is bringing in pitchers who can eat up innings. But these are probably not the pitchers he’ll use tomorrow in Game Seven.”
About five minutes later one of the broadcasters— a former major leaguer baseball player— said the same thing using nearly the same words. Bonnie looked over at me, glowered a little, and said, “You missed your calling.”
Calling? What are the odds I would have been able to work my way into the broadcast booth of a Major League Baseball team? Slim and none— and slim just left the room. Yes, I played ball as a kid. I was average at best. And I had no contacts in baseball or in the broadcast industry.
Which is to say for me landing that kind of position would have been just dumb luck. I know of only one person who became a Major League Baseball broadcaster by way of dumb luck. And although he did not have a lot of experience, even he had some experience.
That person is Gary Thorne, a native of Bangor Maine. He is an attorney who, as a hobby and for fun and for free, started broadcasting University of Maine Hockey Games. Then for pay, a little bit of pay, he did the same for the Maine Guides— a Triple A baseball team.
On a lark he submitted an audition tape to the New York Mets. It turned out the day the tape arrived the Mets had just fired a broadcaster. They decided to hire Thorne before anyone else had a chance or was asked to submit a tape— pure dumb luck.
I mention all this to ask a simple question: the choices we make can be and even are important. But in the larger scheme of things how do we account for what happens?
I want to suggest, fortunately or unfortunately, much of what happens to us is just luck, chance. To be clear: that luck is involved in our lives at all violates American theology.
American theology makes the claim we are in control of everything that happens to us. But that is simply and even obviously not true. Yes, we all do need to make good choices. That’s not what this discussion is about. You see, the chips will fall where the chips will fall and mostly— mostly— we have little control. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Joshua: “Now then, throw away the foreign gods among you and turn your hearts toward Yahweh, the God of Israel.” (Slight pause.)
I can guarantee this: we all have gods, little gods, things we hold on to. ‘Can we throw them away?’
‘Can we throw them away?’ is a serious question. You know, you can read a passage in Scripture a hundred times and the hundredth and first time, you see something that you never saw before. That’s what happened to me when I read those words at a committee meeting this week.
As strange as it sounds, in ancient times people carried around small idols, little statues. These represented gods. So, when Joshua tells the Israelites to throw away foreign gods, the statement can be taken somewhat literally.
The instruction probably means take that little statue you’ve been carrying around; throw it away. If only we were able to throw away our false gods. Now, the next thing Joshua says tells us how to throw away our false gods (quote:) “...turn your hearts toward Yahweh, the God of Israel.”
Indeed, here’s one way to look at this passage: luck will happen. And maybe that is what those little idols are about— luck. These statues, these little gods we hold on to, are as likely or unlikely to work as well chance— to work as well as pure dumb luck.
But this passage also says we— we— need to ignore luck. We need to be faithful, no matter what happens, no matter what luck comes our way. We need to turn our hearts toward God. We can’t be fair weather Christians only turning toward God when luck goes our way.
So, says Joshua, for we Israelites, luck is no longer central. Faithfulness is now central. But that still leaves us with a basic question: why be faithful? (Slight pause.)
I have told bits of this story here before. When I was in Seminary, my Hebrew Scriptures professor was Dr. Ann Johnston. Dr. Johnston was a Hebrew Scholar and a Irish Roman Catholic nun, not a combination one finds too often.
At the beginning of a term she might have a class filled with people who never studied with her before. Like many classrooms, often there would be a little din of background noise as people gathered.
Ann had a very small, quite voice and would start a class in that voice, a voice which was normal for her. So, if you wanted to hear what Ann said, you had to keep quiet. Hence, in any class she taught, within five minutes of its initial session, people got very quite. People learned to listen.
And once people listened, they realize what Ann said was invaluable. She was and is a great teacher. She was, in fact, so great, that you wanted to give back to her your best, the best work you possibly could. You wanted to be... faithful. (Slight pause.)
God speaks. And God speaks in a small, quiet voice. Or at least that’s my experience. What does God say? Be faithful.
Perhaps yet another question for us is ‘how?’ How can we be faithful? I recently saw this banner outside a U.C.C. church. (Quote:) “Be the Church. Care for the poor. Preserve the Environment. Forgive Often. Reject Racism. Support Those Who Are Powerless. Share Earthly and Spiritual Resources. Embrace Diversity. Love God.” (Slight pause.)
We all make choices. Some pan out. Some don’t. The choice we need to make is to be faithful, to remain faithful, no matter what luck pans out, no matter what happens. (Slight pause.)
As I have said here hundreds of times before, every dollar you pledge to the church goes toward outreach. Every dollar you give to the church goes toward outreach. What does that mean? It means among other things that, as a church, we are lucky to have an abundance with which we can help others.
It also therefore and imperatively, urgently, it means we need to be the church. It means care for the poor. Preserve the environment. Forgive often. Reject racism. Support those who are powerless. Share earthly and spiritual resources. Embrace diversity. Love God. In short, no matter what luck brings we need to be faithful. Amen.
11/09/2014
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: “I want to suggest that faithfulness should never translate into tribalism. Our commitment to God should foster what philosopher Alfred North Whitehead described as whole world-loyalty. It should not produce parochial in-group, out-group attitudes. Put differently, it’s not about winning or losing or what strategies to employ in an effort to win. Faithfulness is about consistency. It’s about how you play the game. Do we play the game with love on our hearts, being witnesses to God?”
BENEDICTION: The knowledge that God loves us frees us for joyous living. So, let us trust in the love God offers. Let us also be fervent in prayer as we make choices daily, and seek to do God’s will and walk in God’s way as we travel on our Christian journey. And may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding and the abiding truth of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge, love and companionship of the Holy Spirit this day and forever more. Amen.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
SERMON ~ 11/02/2014 ~ “The Saints Who Have Witnessed to Us”
11/02/2014 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost ~ Thirty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ [If All Saints Not Observed on This Day] ~ (Proper 26) ~ Joshua 3:7-17; Psalm 107:1-7, 33-37; Micah 3:5-12; Psalm 43; 1 Thessalonians 2:9-13; Matthew 23:1-12 ~ The Grange Dinner for the Choir.
11/01/2014 ~ All Saints Day ~ (Sometimes observed on first Sunday in November) ~ Revelation 7:9-17; Psalm 34:1-10, 22; 1 John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12 — Note: Used Revelation 7:9-17 (ILV) and Matthew 23:1-12 (ILV).
The Saints Who Have Witnessed to Us
“The greatest among you will be the one who serves the rest. And all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all those who humble themselves will be exalted.” — Matthew 23:11-12.
The New York Conference of the United Church of Christ sends out a weekly e-mail newsletter. It has reminders about dates, notices about meetings— the usual stuff for this kind of missive.
Each week there’s also a message from one of the Conference Staff called My Thoughts. But mostly our Conference Minister, the Rev. David Gaewski, is the writer.
This week David reflected on the idea that it takes a mixture of humility and gall— ego— to be a preacher. The gall part, the ego part, is obvious: it’s presumptuous to even consider the possibility that God might use you as a conduit of the Word.
The humility part comes from the thought that any preacher should be aware those in the pews are members of the Priesthood of Believers. When standing in a pulpit, David wrote, the preacher is in no way standing “above” the congregation. There is both humility and wisdom in recognizing ministry which is shared.
Now, the term ‘Priesthood of all Believers’ embodies the idea that everyone can be mediators of God’s grace, mediators of God’s healing, mediators of God’s forgiveness, mediators of God’s justice, mediators of God’s love. This is the ministry found in the pews. (Slight pause.)
On a very different but perhaps equally interesting note, I was proselytized this week. Someone tried to convert me to Christianity, or at least their brand of Christianity.
How? Often while I have lunch, I read. I do a lot of work related reading just to keep current. But the reading I do at lunch is purposefully not work related. It tends to be about some other interest I have.
I was in one of the local fast food joints Tuesday and I sat reading for a time. When I finally stood and was nearly out the door a man and a woman who appeared to be in their eighties waved me over to their table. They asked what I was reading.
I held up the book, Innovators. I offered an explanation. “It’s a history of how what we call the modern computer started to take shape in the 19th Century and continues the story to its evolution to the machines we have today.”
Well, my assumption was they had some genuine interest when they saw me reading intently and that’s why they stopped me. I was wrong. Why? Because after that explanation, they asked if I had read the greatest book ever written.
I dodged a little. I said, “That depends on what you mean by the greatest book.”
The woman said, “Why, the Bible, of course.”
I said, “Look— I’m a pastor. I’ve read Scripture in the original languages.”
The woman nodded and said, “Oh, that’s nice.” Clearly what I said either was not heard or did not register. These two were on some kind of remote control because the man handed a tract to me. In bold letters the front page asked, “Where Will You Spend Eternity?”
I said, “That’s an interesting question. But it’s not a question about God. It’s a question about you.” Again, clearly what I said either was not heard or did not register. I realized there was a tape playing in their heads. There was no stop button on that tape.
“Don’t you want to see your friends in heaven?” the man asked.
“Christian tradition has it,” I said, “that to be in the presence of God is so glorious, we will not notice anything else. And I am late and I really need to go.”
I headed toward the door. The woman called out, “I just know you want to spend eternity with your friends!” (Slight pause.) Yes, that really happened. (The liturgist says something which the pastor then repeats.) Linda says you can’t make that stuff up. (Slight pause.) [1]
These words are from the work known as Matthew: “The greatest among you will be the one who serves the rest. And all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Slight pause.)
In March 1994 I was a student at Bangor Seminary. But I had already preached at a number of churches in rural Maine and many of those churches had asked me back.
Our Associate Conference Minister, Sue Ingham, heard about that. And then something happened and Sue found herself in a bind.
The preacher scheduled to lead the Palm Sunday service at the church in Belfast, Maine, had to drop out on Friday morning. The church called Sue. Sue called me.
“There’s only one problem,” she said. “The bulletin is already printed, so the sermon title is set.”
“What’s the title?” I asked.
“When Is a Church Not a Church?” she responded.
“I can work with that,” said the ego in me. (Slight pause.)
Well, we all know the Scripture on Palm Sunday is the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. And we all know Jesus is acclaimed by the crowd.
And we all know five days later a crowd that probably contained many of the same individuals who were in the crowd acclaiming the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, are shouting “Crucify.” (Slight pause.) When is a church not a church? (Slight pause.)
I have said this many times. Churches, synagogues, mosques— so called communities of faith— are not theologically gathered communities. They are sociologically gathered communities. Like people worship with like people. There is no way around that.
Paradoxically and equally, no community of faith is made up of cookie cutter people— a group totally determined by sociological similarities. We are all dissimilar in different and even in significant ways— from income to education to family of origin. But still, in any congregation, there is always some strand of sociological DNA which holds a group inexorably together.
Hence, the challenge for us is, while we must admit to and identify the agonizing reality of that sociological DNA, we, the church, must not be simply a sociological gathering. The challenge for us is to be church. The challenge for us is to identify a strand of theological DNA which binds us, makes us one, makes us whole. The challenge for us is to be saints. [2]
This is clear: both when that crowd waves palms, seemingly to praise God, and when that crowd shouts “crucify” seemingly to mock God, it is unlikely those crowds are held together by theological DNA. Even in the First Century of the Common Era, it’s much more likely those crowds are held together by sociological DNA.
Indeed, identifying a strand of theological DNA was the challenge for the crowd on Palm Sunday and was the challenge for the crowd on Good Friday. And based on the results, they failed that challenge. So perhaps the challenge for us, still today, is to identify a strand of theological DNA which inexorably binds us together into church.
All this begs the question: what is a saint? (Slight pause.) I can guarantee this: when there is a tape playing in your head that does not allow you to hear another person, that is not theology influencing you. It’s sociology.
When a preacher is unaware those in the pews are members of the Priesthood of Believers, when that preacher thinks in terms of standing “above” the congregation, theology is not at work. Sociology is.
And just like those who lived in the early First Century of the Common Era, we who live in the early Twenty-first Century of the Common Era need to grapple with humility. Why? None of us is better than anyone else before God. None of us is better than anyone else before God.
All of us need to be in relationship with those around us. All of us need to be in relationship with those around us not because of sociological reasons, not because those around us might be like us and we find that inviting.
We need to be in relationship with those around us so we can act as a Priesthood of Believers, so we can act together, empowered to be mediators of God’s grace, mediators of God’s healing, mediators of God’s forgiveness, mediators of God’s justice, mediators of God’s love. This meditation— this is the ministry found in the pews. This is the ministry of the saints. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
11/02/2014
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: “It seems appropriate to me that the 200th Anniversary Litany we used today was based on the Beatitudes. [3] After all, those who were among the first saints who heard those words still witness to us today and those words still witness to us today.”
BENEDICTION: Go from here in the Spirit of Christ. Dare to question that which is false and that which holds us captive. Count it a privilege that God calls upon us to be in covenant and to work in the vineyard. And may the peace of Christ which passes all understanding keep our hearts and minds in the love, knowledge and companionship of God the Creator, Christ the redeemer and the Holy Spirit the sanctifier this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] It needs to be noted that as the pastor told this story there was much laughter.
[2] At the start of the service, after noting it was the day after All Saints Day, the pastor said this: “...contrary to popular belief, a saint is not someone who possess a special kind of devoutness, but someone set aside to do the work and the will of God and we understand ourselves as a priesthood of all believers, that means we are all saints.”
[3]
CLOSING LITANY —
LITURGIST:
We come now to a time where we strive to honor our 200th Anniversary. Today we shall offer a prayer. This litany is among the prayers labeled among the closing prayers for a service in The White Ribbon Hymnal, published in 1892. While The White Ribbon Hymnal was never designated a Congregational hymnal by any publisher, to say it did not have a significant part within Congregational Churches would likely be inaccurate. Why? The White Ribbon Hymnal was the hymnal of the Women’s Temperance Movement. To say the Women’s Temperance Movement did not have a significant part in Congregational Churches would simply be inaccurate. This litany is certainly an interesting communal prayer to offer toward the end of a service. Won’t you join with me in the Prayers labeled as a Closing Litany found in the bulletin.
ONE: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Realm of Heaven.
MANY: Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
ONE: Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.
MANY: Blessed are they which hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
ONE: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
MANY: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
ONE: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God,
MANY: Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the Realm of God.
ONE: Blessed are ye when others shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
MANY: Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
ONE: Blessed is she that believed, for there shall be a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her by our God.
MANY: Blessed are they that sow beside all waters.
ONE: Blessed are they that do the Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter the gate through the city.
MANY: Blessed are those servants whom, when our God cometh, are found watching.
ONE: May the Christ be with thy spirit.
MANY: The Eternal God is our refuge and underneath us are the everlasting arms. Amen.
11/01/2014 ~ All Saints Day ~ (Sometimes observed on first Sunday in November) ~ Revelation 7:9-17; Psalm 34:1-10, 22; 1 John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12 — Note: Used Revelation 7:9-17 (ILV) and Matthew 23:1-12 (ILV).
The Saints Who Have Witnessed to Us
“The greatest among you will be the one who serves the rest. And all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all those who humble themselves will be exalted.” — Matthew 23:11-12.
The New York Conference of the United Church of Christ sends out a weekly e-mail newsletter. It has reminders about dates, notices about meetings— the usual stuff for this kind of missive.
Each week there’s also a message from one of the Conference Staff called My Thoughts. But mostly our Conference Minister, the Rev. David Gaewski, is the writer.
This week David reflected on the idea that it takes a mixture of humility and gall— ego— to be a preacher. The gall part, the ego part, is obvious: it’s presumptuous to even consider the possibility that God might use you as a conduit of the Word.
The humility part comes from the thought that any preacher should be aware those in the pews are members of the Priesthood of Believers. When standing in a pulpit, David wrote, the preacher is in no way standing “above” the congregation. There is both humility and wisdom in recognizing ministry which is shared.
Now, the term ‘Priesthood of all Believers’ embodies the idea that everyone can be mediators of God’s grace, mediators of God’s healing, mediators of God’s forgiveness, mediators of God’s justice, mediators of God’s love. This is the ministry found in the pews. (Slight pause.)
On a very different but perhaps equally interesting note, I was proselytized this week. Someone tried to convert me to Christianity, or at least their brand of Christianity.
How? Often while I have lunch, I read. I do a lot of work related reading just to keep current. But the reading I do at lunch is purposefully not work related. It tends to be about some other interest I have.
I was in one of the local fast food joints Tuesday and I sat reading for a time. When I finally stood and was nearly out the door a man and a woman who appeared to be in their eighties waved me over to their table. They asked what I was reading.
I held up the book, Innovators. I offered an explanation. “It’s a history of how what we call the modern computer started to take shape in the 19th Century and continues the story to its evolution to the machines we have today.”
Well, my assumption was they had some genuine interest when they saw me reading intently and that’s why they stopped me. I was wrong. Why? Because after that explanation, they asked if I had read the greatest book ever written.
I dodged a little. I said, “That depends on what you mean by the greatest book.”
The woman said, “Why, the Bible, of course.”
I said, “Look— I’m a pastor. I’ve read Scripture in the original languages.”
The woman nodded and said, “Oh, that’s nice.” Clearly what I said either was not heard or did not register. These two were on some kind of remote control because the man handed a tract to me. In bold letters the front page asked, “Where Will You Spend Eternity?”
I said, “That’s an interesting question. But it’s not a question about God. It’s a question about you.” Again, clearly what I said either was not heard or did not register. I realized there was a tape playing in their heads. There was no stop button on that tape.
“Don’t you want to see your friends in heaven?” the man asked.
“Christian tradition has it,” I said, “that to be in the presence of God is so glorious, we will not notice anything else. And I am late and I really need to go.”
I headed toward the door. The woman called out, “I just know you want to spend eternity with your friends!” (Slight pause.) Yes, that really happened. (The liturgist says something which the pastor then repeats.) Linda says you can’t make that stuff up. (Slight pause.) [1]
These words are from the work known as Matthew: “The greatest among you will be the one who serves the rest. And all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Slight pause.)
In March 1994 I was a student at Bangor Seminary. But I had already preached at a number of churches in rural Maine and many of those churches had asked me back.
Our Associate Conference Minister, Sue Ingham, heard about that. And then something happened and Sue found herself in a bind.
The preacher scheduled to lead the Palm Sunday service at the church in Belfast, Maine, had to drop out on Friday morning. The church called Sue. Sue called me.
“There’s only one problem,” she said. “The bulletin is already printed, so the sermon title is set.”
“What’s the title?” I asked.
“When Is a Church Not a Church?” she responded.
“I can work with that,” said the ego in me. (Slight pause.)
Well, we all know the Scripture on Palm Sunday is the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. And we all know Jesus is acclaimed by the crowd.
And we all know five days later a crowd that probably contained many of the same individuals who were in the crowd acclaiming the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, are shouting “Crucify.” (Slight pause.) When is a church not a church? (Slight pause.)
I have said this many times. Churches, synagogues, mosques— so called communities of faith— are not theologically gathered communities. They are sociologically gathered communities. Like people worship with like people. There is no way around that.
Paradoxically and equally, no community of faith is made up of cookie cutter people— a group totally determined by sociological similarities. We are all dissimilar in different and even in significant ways— from income to education to family of origin. But still, in any congregation, there is always some strand of sociological DNA which holds a group inexorably together.
Hence, the challenge for us is, while we must admit to and identify the agonizing reality of that sociological DNA, we, the church, must not be simply a sociological gathering. The challenge for us is to be church. The challenge for us is to identify a strand of theological DNA which binds us, makes us one, makes us whole. The challenge for us is to be saints. [2]
This is clear: both when that crowd waves palms, seemingly to praise God, and when that crowd shouts “crucify” seemingly to mock God, it is unlikely those crowds are held together by theological DNA. Even in the First Century of the Common Era, it’s much more likely those crowds are held together by sociological DNA.
Indeed, identifying a strand of theological DNA was the challenge for the crowd on Palm Sunday and was the challenge for the crowd on Good Friday. And based on the results, they failed that challenge. So perhaps the challenge for us, still today, is to identify a strand of theological DNA which inexorably binds us together into church.
All this begs the question: what is a saint? (Slight pause.) I can guarantee this: when there is a tape playing in your head that does not allow you to hear another person, that is not theology influencing you. It’s sociology.
When a preacher is unaware those in the pews are members of the Priesthood of Believers, when that preacher thinks in terms of standing “above” the congregation, theology is not at work. Sociology is.
And just like those who lived in the early First Century of the Common Era, we who live in the early Twenty-first Century of the Common Era need to grapple with humility. Why? None of us is better than anyone else before God. None of us is better than anyone else before God.
All of us need to be in relationship with those around us. All of us need to be in relationship with those around us not because of sociological reasons, not because those around us might be like us and we find that inviting.
We need to be in relationship with those around us so we can act as a Priesthood of Believers, so we can act together, empowered to be mediators of God’s grace, mediators of God’s healing, mediators of God’s forgiveness, mediators of God’s justice, mediators of God’s love. This meditation— this is the ministry found in the pews. This is the ministry of the saints. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
11/02/2014
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: “It seems appropriate to me that the 200th Anniversary Litany we used today was based on the Beatitudes. [3] After all, those who were among the first saints who heard those words still witness to us today and those words still witness to us today.”
BENEDICTION: Go from here in the Spirit of Christ. Dare to question that which is false and that which holds us captive. Count it a privilege that God calls upon us to be in covenant and to work in the vineyard. And may the peace of Christ which passes all understanding keep our hearts and minds in the love, knowledge and companionship of God the Creator, Christ the redeemer and the Holy Spirit the sanctifier this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] It needs to be noted that as the pastor told this story there was much laughter.
[2] At the start of the service, after noting it was the day after All Saints Day, the pastor said this: “...contrary to popular belief, a saint is not someone who possess a special kind of devoutness, but someone set aside to do the work and the will of God and we understand ourselves as a priesthood of all believers, that means we are all saints.”
[3]
CLOSING LITANY —
LITURGIST:
We come now to a time where we strive to honor our 200th Anniversary. Today we shall offer a prayer. This litany is among the prayers labeled among the closing prayers for a service in The White Ribbon Hymnal, published in 1892. While The White Ribbon Hymnal was never designated a Congregational hymnal by any publisher, to say it did not have a significant part within Congregational Churches would likely be inaccurate. Why? The White Ribbon Hymnal was the hymnal of the Women’s Temperance Movement. To say the Women’s Temperance Movement did not have a significant part in Congregational Churches would simply be inaccurate. This litany is certainly an interesting communal prayer to offer toward the end of a service. Won’t you join with me in the Prayers labeled as a Closing Litany found in the bulletin.
ONE: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Realm of Heaven.
MANY: Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
ONE: Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.
MANY: Blessed are they which hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
ONE: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
MANY: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
ONE: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God,
MANY: Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the Realm of God.
ONE: Blessed are ye when others shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
MANY: Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
ONE: Blessed is she that believed, for there shall be a fulfillment of the things which have been spoken to her by our God.
MANY: Blessed are they that sow beside all waters.
ONE: Blessed are they that do the Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter the gate through the city.
MANY: Blessed are those servants whom, when our God cometh, are found watching.
ONE: May the Christ be with thy spirit.
MANY: The Eternal God is our refuge and underneath us are the everlasting arms. Amen.
Monday, October 27, 2014
SERMON ~ 10/26/2014 ~ “Justice”
10/26/2014 ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ (Proper 25) ~ Deuteronomy 34:1-12; Psalm 90:1-6, 13-17; Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-18; Psalm 1; 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8; Matthew 22:34-46.
Justice
“Do not be corrupt in administering justice; do not render an unjust judgment; do not show partiality to the poor or defer to the great; do not give honor to the great. Judge your neighbor with justice. Judge your neighbor with fairness.” — Leviticus 19:15
As has been true for the three years running, on Thursday last I offered an invocation and a benediction at the Annual Breakfast of the Chenango County Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. I should note that in the course of a year people gave more than 43,000 volunteer hours to many organizations such as the Classic Car Museum, Opportunities for Chenango, various food pantries and the Chenango County Historical Society.
These hours were registered with the RSVP program. That donated work was worth nearly one million dollars in terms of contributions.
At least five of our parishioners were in the breakfast crowd with more listed in the program. These folks might have noticed something a little different about me, something not too many church members have seen. For this occasion, I was wearing a Roman collar. I looked more like an Episcopal Priest than a Congregational Pastor.
And yes, I do own a Roman collar. I don’t often wear it. Generally, I use it only specific for public functions, for instance officiating at a funeral home memorial service.
More specifically, I use it when I think it’s appropriate to indicate I hold an office, probably a good idea when I am interacting with a group who do not know me well. Since I knew the people gathered at this breakfast would be very diverse, I felt wearing a Roman collar immediately identifies the pastoral office. (Slight pause.)
The Rev. Tamara Lebak is a pastor at very large church, All Souls Unitarian Church, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Now, I just said some things which might shock we Easterners, sheltered as we are. That’s because we probably carry some preconceived notions about folks out west.
Of course, that there is a large church in Tulsa, Oklahoma might not surprise us. But that there is a large Unitarian Church probably does. That a woman is one of the pastors in Tulsa might also be a surprise. But that’s just Eastern prejudice.
Tamara decided to set a challenge for herself this year. The challenge was to spend a full year wearing a Roman collar whenever she is “on duty.” Needless to say, part of the challenge is just to be disciplined enough to wear the collar.
And also needless to say, since she is a woman who is a pastor in Tulsa, Oklahoma, her very appearance does gets some quizzical looks, which is the kind of reaction that feeds our Eastern prejudice. I should also note she has, through the course of this year, has written a blog about her experiences— Under the Collar in Oklahoma. [1]
I found her blog entry this week quite interesting. It’s not a comment about her experiences wearing a collar. It was a comment about the lectionary reading. (And yes, Unitarians— at least some of them— do pay attention to the lectionary.)
In noting one of the assigned readings for this week was Leviticus, Tamara admitted her relationship with this work has taken some hits over time. People determined to use passages from the book as cudgels have employed the various “Thou shalt not’s” found therein to bludgeon her.
She, however, realizes these “Thou shalt not’s” should never be taken literally. If anyone does take them literally, they then also need to realize Leviticus insists a crime which carries a extraordinarily severe punishment is eating shrimp wrapped in bacon.
In her blog Tamara said this passage we heard today has become one of her favorites. It’s clear both this passage and Leviticus in its entirety calls us to holiness.
She goes on to explain that, as a pastor, she works with people and shows them the so called Golden Rule often has good intentions but a poor impact. She does this by introducing people to the Platinum rule. The Platinum rule: do unto others as they would have you do unto them. You have that? As they would have you do unto them.
This Platinum rule makes a very large requirement on everyone, all parties. It requires knowing what others would like done unto them.
It, hence, also requires we teach others how to respect us. In other words, we all need to be curious about and seek to discover how others would like to be respected. And we should not start with an assumption that we know how others would like to be respected. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work Torah in the section known as Leviticus: “Do not be corrupt in administering justice; do not render an unjust judgment; do not show partiality to the poor or defer to the great; do not give honor to the great. Judge your neighbor with justice. Judge your neighbor with fairness.” (Slight pause.)
This passage begs many questions but prime among them is this: “what is justice?” More to the point and more specifically, the deeper question is not “what is human justice?” but “what is the justice of God?” How would God see justice and how would God have us see justice? (Slight pause.)
Part of what makes the issue of justice problematic is, largely, we only consider human justice. Human vision sees justice solely in terms of winners and losers.
Human vision, hence, sees justice only in terms of a game, something to be won or lost. Further, most people just don’t seem to comprehend that when (quote) “justice” is demanded, the goal of human justice is the same as the ultimate answer to any game: who wins; who loses. Put the other way around, human vision turns justice into a game— human vision turns justice into a game.
I would posit that God does not see justice in terms of a game— winners and losers. You see, with the justice God seeks, with perfect justice, winning and losing are immaterial.
The goal of the justice God seeks— the goal of the justice God seeks— is truth, not my vision of truth or not your vision of truth, but God’s vision of truth. When real truth, God’s truth, God’s justice is sought, picking a winner or picking a looser stops being a goal.
I would be the first to admit this is a very hard concept for most of us to grasp— that when real justice is sought determining a winner or a loser is not a goal. After all, isn’t life about who wins and who losses?
If you think that’s true, let me ask you this: does not everyone think God is on their side? But does God choose sides? Clearly that is not the claim we hear in Leviticus (quote): “...do not show partiality to the poor or defer to the great...” (Slight pause.)
In her blog the Rev. Lebak says this: “In lifting up both neighbor and stranger, what Leviticus seems to be lifting up is that you cannot simply stop the conversation with those like you. And you cannot simply stop the conversation with those you like.”
“So our call is to learn how to make mistakes and still stay connected to a person beyond any sense of respect or disrespect.” Connection is the goal.
To do that we must get our hands dirty. To do that we must tap into a sense of humility that says we, ourselves, were at one point strangers in a strange land and we were unaware of when we offended others even though our hearts were in a good place.
Lebak then says she wants to shout the good news of Leviticus from the rooftops because this is what we are being told: stay in relationship; speak from the heart. And is that not the holiest of places? Stay in relationship; speak from the heart: a holy place.
The church the Rev. Lebak serves has an interesting covenant. (Quote:) “Love is the spirit of this church; service is its law. This is our great covenant: to dwell together in peace, to seek the truth in love, to help one another.” [2] (Slight pause.)
I want to note whether it’s Tamara wearing a collar or me wearing a collar, some might say it’s a challenging exercise. You see, the collar makes you stand out, makes you a mark. It also makes a claim about what you strive to do, who you aspire to be.
So, perhaps the real question for us, for you and for me, is simple. Can we be recognized by those around us because we observe a covenant of holiness, a covenant of love to which God calls us without being set apart by an item of clothing which designates an office?
Indeed, I think we are called to not just a covenant of holiness and love. We are called to the responsibilities of an office of holiness and love. What is that office? This is the office sometimes referred to as the priesthood of all believers. And it is our calling. 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: “I want to leave you with two quotes today. The first is Frederick Buechner (quote:) ‘Justice is the grammar of things; mercy is the poetry.’ The second is from Thomas Aquinas (quote:) ‘The work of divine justice always presupposes the work of mercy, and is based on it.’ Why is the reading about covenant and holiness? Justice presupposes mercy.”
BENEDICTION: God sends us into the world ready and equipped. God is with us each day and every day. We can trust God Whose love is steadfast and sure. Let us commit to doing God’s will and God’s work. And may God’s presence be with us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://underthecollarinoklahoma.blogspot.com/
[2] http://www.allsoulschurch.org/
Justice
“Do not be corrupt in administering justice; do not render an unjust judgment; do not show partiality to the poor or defer to the great; do not give honor to the great. Judge your neighbor with justice. Judge your neighbor with fairness.” — Leviticus 19:15
As has been true for the three years running, on Thursday last I offered an invocation and a benediction at the Annual Breakfast of the Chenango County Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. I should note that in the course of a year people gave more than 43,000 volunteer hours to many organizations such as the Classic Car Museum, Opportunities for Chenango, various food pantries and the Chenango County Historical Society.
These hours were registered with the RSVP program. That donated work was worth nearly one million dollars in terms of contributions.
At least five of our parishioners were in the breakfast crowd with more listed in the program. These folks might have noticed something a little different about me, something not too many church members have seen. For this occasion, I was wearing a Roman collar. I looked more like an Episcopal Priest than a Congregational Pastor.
And yes, I do own a Roman collar. I don’t often wear it. Generally, I use it only specific for public functions, for instance officiating at a funeral home memorial service.
More specifically, I use it when I think it’s appropriate to indicate I hold an office, probably a good idea when I am interacting with a group who do not know me well. Since I knew the people gathered at this breakfast would be very diverse, I felt wearing a Roman collar immediately identifies the pastoral office. (Slight pause.)
The Rev. Tamara Lebak is a pastor at very large church, All Souls Unitarian Church, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Now, I just said some things which might shock we Easterners, sheltered as we are. That’s because we probably carry some preconceived notions about folks out west.
Of course, that there is a large church in Tulsa, Oklahoma might not surprise us. But that there is a large Unitarian Church probably does. That a woman is one of the pastors in Tulsa might also be a surprise. But that’s just Eastern prejudice.
Tamara decided to set a challenge for herself this year. The challenge was to spend a full year wearing a Roman collar whenever she is “on duty.” Needless to say, part of the challenge is just to be disciplined enough to wear the collar.
And also needless to say, since she is a woman who is a pastor in Tulsa, Oklahoma, her very appearance does gets some quizzical looks, which is the kind of reaction that feeds our Eastern prejudice. I should also note she has, through the course of this year, has written a blog about her experiences— Under the Collar in Oklahoma. [1]
I found her blog entry this week quite interesting. It’s not a comment about her experiences wearing a collar. It was a comment about the lectionary reading. (And yes, Unitarians— at least some of them— do pay attention to the lectionary.)
In noting one of the assigned readings for this week was Leviticus, Tamara admitted her relationship with this work has taken some hits over time. People determined to use passages from the book as cudgels have employed the various “Thou shalt not’s” found therein to bludgeon her.
She, however, realizes these “Thou shalt not’s” should never be taken literally. If anyone does take them literally, they then also need to realize Leviticus insists a crime which carries a extraordinarily severe punishment is eating shrimp wrapped in bacon.
In her blog Tamara said this passage we heard today has become one of her favorites. It’s clear both this passage and Leviticus in its entirety calls us to holiness.
She goes on to explain that, as a pastor, she works with people and shows them the so called Golden Rule often has good intentions but a poor impact. She does this by introducing people to the Platinum rule. The Platinum rule: do unto others as they would have you do unto them. You have that? As they would have you do unto them.
This Platinum rule makes a very large requirement on everyone, all parties. It requires knowing what others would like done unto them.
It, hence, also requires we teach others how to respect us. In other words, we all need to be curious about and seek to discover how others would like to be respected. And we should not start with an assumption that we know how others would like to be respected. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work Torah in the section known as Leviticus: “Do not be corrupt in administering justice; do not render an unjust judgment; do not show partiality to the poor or defer to the great; do not give honor to the great. Judge your neighbor with justice. Judge your neighbor with fairness.” (Slight pause.)
This passage begs many questions but prime among them is this: “what is justice?” More to the point and more specifically, the deeper question is not “what is human justice?” but “what is the justice of God?” How would God see justice and how would God have us see justice? (Slight pause.)
Part of what makes the issue of justice problematic is, largely, we only consider human justice. Human vision sees justice solely in terms of winners and losers.
Human vision, hence, sees justice only in terms of a game, something to be won or lost. Further, most people just don’t seem to comprehend that when (quote) “justice” is demanded, the goal of human justice is the same as the ultimate answer to any game: who wins; who loses. Put the other way around, human vision turns justice into a game— human vision turns justice into a game.
I would posit that God does not see justice in terms of a game— winners and losers. You see, with the justice God seeks, with perfect justice, winning and losing are immaterial.
The goal of the justice God seeks— the goal of the justice God seeks— is truth, not my vision of truth or not your vision of truth, but God’s vision of truth. When real truth, God’s truth, God’s justice is sought, picking a winner or picking a looser stops being a goal.
I would be the first to admit this is a very hard concept for most of us to grasp— that when real justice is sought determining a winner or a loser is not a goal. After all, isn’t life about who wins and who losses?
If you think that’s true, let me ask you this: does not everyone think God is on their side? But does God choose sides? Clearly that is not the claim we hear in Leviticus (quote): “...do not show partiality to the poor or defer to the great...” (Slight pause.)
In her blog the Rev. Lebak says this: “In lifting up both neighbor and stranger, what Leviticus seems to be lifting up is that you cannot simply stop the conversation with those like you. And you cannot simply stop the conversation with those you like.”
“So our call is to learn how to make mistakes and still stay connected to a person beyond any sense of respect or disrespect.” Connection is the goal.
To do that we must get our hands dirty. To do that we must tap into a sense of humility that says we, ourselves, were at one point strangers in a strange land and we were unaware of when we offended others even though our hearts were in a good place.
Lebak then says she wants to shout the good news of Leviticus from the rooftops because this is what we are being told: stay in relationship; speak from the heart. And is that not the holiest of places? Stay in relationship; speak from the heart: a holy place.
The church the Rev. Lebak serves has an interesting covenant. (Quote:) “Love is the spirit of this church; service is its law. This is our great covenant: to dwell together in peace, to seek the truth in love, to help one another.” [2] (Slight pause.)
I want to note whether it’s Tamara wearing a collar or me wearing a collar, some might say it’s a challenging exercise. You see, the collar makes you stand out, makes you a mark. It also makes a claim about what you strive to do, who you aspire to be.
So, perhaps the real question for us, for you and for me, is simple. Can we be recognized by those around us because we observe a covenant of holiness, a covenant of love to which God calls us without being set apart by an item of clothing which designates an office?
Indeed, I think we are called to not just a covenant of holiness and love. We are called to the responsibilities of an office of holiness and love. What is that office? This is the office sometimes referred to as the priesthood of all believers. And it is our calling. 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: “I want to leave you with two quotes today. The first is Frederick Buechner (quote:) ‘Justice is the grammar of things; mercy is the poetry.’ The second is from Thomas Aquinas (quote:) ‘The work of divine justice always presupposes the work of mercy, and is based on it.’ Why is the reading about covenant and holiness? Justice presupposes mercy.”
BENEDICTION: God sends us into the world ready and equipped. God is with us each day and every day. We can trust God Whose love is steadfast and sure. Let us commit to doing God’s will and God’s work. And may God’s presence be with us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://underthecollarinoklahoma.blogspot.com/
[2] http://www.allsoulschurch.org/
SERMON ~ 10/19/2014 ~ “Examples”
10/19/2014 ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ (Proper 24) Exodus 33:12-23; Psalm 99; Isaiah 45:1-7; Psalm 96:1-9, (10-13); 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10; Matthew 22:15-22 ~ Mr. Al Fedak on the Organ.
Examples
“...you, in your turn, became imitators of us, followed the example set by us and by Jesus— receiving the Word in spite of great trials and persecution with the joy which comes from the Holy Spirit. In this way you became an example, a model, to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.” — 1 Thessalonians 1:6-7.
Most of you know Bonnie and I had a long distance relationship when we were courting. She lived in Maine. I lived in New York City. She was a photographer on a newspaper. I did back office work in Wall Street firms.
When we decided to get hitched Bonnie was not real keen on living in the Big Apple, so I took the leap. I moved to Maine. That move made sense given the surface appearances of our job situations.
Wall Street had just gone through a serious downturn— the more things change... so Bonnie actually had a more stable employment situation. I never regretted the move, but perhaps we should have also seen a job at a newspaper as less than stable.
Bonnie was laid off in a ten percent cut back at the paper three years after we were married. Newspapers were not stable then. Newspapers are really not stable now.
I was reminded of that industry instability because I recently read an article from the Brookings Institute. It told a story about a vice president of The Washington Post who paid a visit to the garage workshop of Sergey Brin and Larry Page, two young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs looking for backers.
The purpose of the visit was to determine if the paper should invest in the new company these two had. The Post never put a dime in it. A couple of months later that company adopted a new name... Google.
The issue tackled by the article was simple. People living through a time of revolutionary change usually fail to grasp what’s going on around them.
The Washington Post and a lot of other newspapers would be in better shape had they invested in online ventures early. But big, slow-moving organizations steeped in traditional ways have a hard time accurately foreseeing next stages.
So, what really happens in the newspaper business? How does it work? Rumor to the contrary, newspapers are not in the business of delivering news. They make money with advertising. They are in the advertising business. Advertising is now done online.
In fact, CBS has announced you will be able to buy a subscription to all network programs to be delivered, watched, absorbed online. The cost is six dollars a month.
Why? Rumor to the contrary, CBS is not in the business of delivering entertainment. CBS is in the business of delivering advertising. And advertising is now done online.
So, how long has it taken any broadcast network to establish video online? CBS is the first. (Slight pause.) To reiterate, people living through a time of revolutionary change usually fail to grasp what’s going on around them. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as the Letter to the Church in Thessalonika, commonly called First Thessalonians. “...you, in turn, became imitators of us, followed the example set by us and by Jesus— receiving the Word in spite of great trials and persecution with the joy which comes from the Holy Spirit. In this way you became an example, a model, to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.” (Slight pause.)
Scholars are in agreement about this. First Thessalonians is the earliest work of Paul. Paul is the earliest writer recorded in the New Testament.
Hence, I want to draw your attention to the first words in this passage, the first words of the earliest work in the New Testament. (Quote:) “From Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, to the people of the church in Thessalonika...” (Slight pause.)
When this passage was introduced, this was said. “Paul depicts an evangelism different from the conventional image of a unilateral action by an evangelist on a receptive yet passive audience. Here evangelism involves the interaction of Paul and co-workers with the Thessalonians, an interaction that leaves both sides changed.”
Let me unpack that a little for you. When we hear the word evangelism today many of us immediately picture someone asking, “Are you saved?” While that’s a caricature, a comic exaggeration, in terms of depicting our culture it’s also fairly accurate.
And, of course, there’s a logical problem with the question, “Are you saved.” The question is about the person asking it.
You see, if you’re the one asking that question, not the one of whom the question is being asked, you are simply projecting your doubt that “yes” could be the answer, should be the answer. Put another way, if you’re the one asking that question, your question illustrates that you— in a tacit way— doubt God might be alive, be real, be loving.
Let me put that another way yet again. “Are you saved?” is an individualistic question, a self-centered question, a question which has no relationship to the possibility that there is a cooperative community of faith to which God calls humanity. It is a question about you, as an individual, and thereby the question excludes community. (Slight pause.)
Paul is quite clear in the opening words of this letter. The Apostle is not acting alone. Paul is working with others— in this case Paul names Silvanus and Timothy. Later Paul insists the people, the whole church in Thessalonika are an example of (quote:) “the joy which comes from the Holy Spirit.”
And in this text Paul invites others to the work of the Dominion of God. What’s clear is the work of God, the call of God, is a call to community. (Slight pause.)
Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan makes an interesting comparison between the theology of John the Baptizer and Jesus. Crossan says based on the evidence in Scripture John claims the eschaton, the end times, happen when we meet God face to face.
Jesus, on the other hand, claims the Dominion of God is near, the Dominion of God is at hand, the Dominion of God needs to be lived into— now. This now is the urgency of now the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently addressed.
Indeed, a Dominion at hand it is an invitation to community. A Dominion at hand is an invitation to collaboration, each according to their gifts as Paul says elsewhere.
Further, a Dominion at hand invites cooperation. Why? It’s a given that no one of us alone can fully accomplish the work of the Dominion on our own. A Dominion at hand says we are all in this together.
Crossan calls this kind of end times theology to which Jesus invites us collaborative eschatology— cooperation with God. And if the work of the Dominion is, in fact, at hand and it cannot be accomplished by an individual. The work of the Dominion is accomplished only when we form community and work cooperatively with God and with one another. (Slight pause.)
That bring us back to the idea that people living through a time of revolutionary change usually fail to grasp what’s going on around them. I want to suggest the modern revolution we face is we are seeing all kinds collaboration in ways we have never seen before.
Put another way, can you say “Facebook?” Just like the Newspaper business is not about delivering the news, Facebook is not about technology.
Facebook is about forming community. Our young people realize this. They realized it so much and so quickly they’ve moved on to Twitter, Instagram, etc., etc., etc. And many of them have left Facebook behind.
Therefore, I want to suggest we, the church, are well positioned to be on the edge of change. The question for us is will we be a big, slow-moving organization steeped in traditional ways and, therefore, have a hard time seeing what’s going on around us. Or will we heed the call of the Gospel and fully engage in cooperation, fully engage in community? Amen.
10/10/2014
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: “Working in community has a problem. It’s a problem with which American culture is not comfortable. Community is messy, often not well organized, not efficient. Episcopal historian and theologian Diana Butler Bass says this about efficiency: ‘Efficiency is not innovation. Hurting people will not bring about the church of the future.’ Indeed, I think a part of the Christian message is this: community means innovation because community is collaborative. Hence, by definition community works toward the future church. Indeed, community is the future church.”
BENEDICTION: We have gathered, not just as a community, but as a community of faith. Let us respond to God, who is the true reality, in all that we are and say and do. Let the Holy Spirit dwell among us and may the peace of God which surpasses our understanding be with us this day and forever more. Amen.
Examples
“...you, in your turn, became imitators of us, followed the example set by us and by Jesus— receiving the Word in spite of great trials and persecution with the joy which comes from the Holy Spirit. In this way you became an example, a model, to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.” — 1 Thessalonians 1:6-7.
Most of you know Bonnie and I had a long distance relationship when we were courting. She lived in Maine. I lived in New York City. She was a photographer on a newspaper. I did back office work in Wall Street firms.
When we decided to get hitched Bonnie was not real keen on living in the Big Apple, so I took the leap. I moved to Maine. That move made sense given the surface appearances of our job situations.
Wall Street had just gone through a serious downturn— the more things change... so Bonnie actually had a more stable employment situation. I never regretted the move, but perhaps we should have also seen a job at a newspaper as less than stable.
Bonnie was laid off in a ten percent cut back at the paper three years after we were married. Newspapers were not stable then. Newspapers are really not stable now.
I was reminded of that industry instability because I recently read an article from the Brookings Institute. It told a story about a vice president of The Washington Post who paid a visit to the garage workshop of Sergey Brin and Larry Page, two young Silicon Valley entrepreneurs looking for backers.
The purpose of the visit was to determine if the paper should invest in the new company these two had. The Post never put a dime in it. A couple of months later that company adopted a new name... Google.
The issue tackled by the article was simple. People living through a time of revolutionary change usually fail to grasp what’s going on around them.
The Washington Post and a lot of other newspapers would be in better shape had they invested in online ventures early. But big, slow-moving organizations steeped in traditional ways have a hard time accurately foreseeing next stages.
So, what really happens in the newspaper business? How does it work? Rumor to the contrary, newspapers are not in the business of delivering news. They make money with advertising. They are in the advertising business. Advertising is now done online.
In fact, CBS has announced you will be able to buy a subscription to all network programs to be delivered, watched, absorbed online. The cost is six dollars a month.
Why? Rumor to the contrary, CBS is not in the business of delivering entertainment. CBS is in the business of delivering advertising. And advertising is now done online.
So, how long has it taken any broadcast network to establish video online? CBS is the first. (Slight pause.) To reiterate, people living through a time of revolutionary change usually fail to grasp what’s going on around them. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as the Letter to the Church in Thessalonika, commonly called First Thessalonians. “...you, in turn, became imitators of us, followed the example set by us and by Jesus— receiving the Word in spite of great trials and persecution with the joy which comes from the Holy Spirit. In this way you became an example, a model, to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.” (Slight pause.)
Scholars are in agreement about this. First Thessalonians is the earliest work of Paul. Paul is the earliest writer recorded in the New Testament.
Hence, I want to draw your attention to the first words in this passage, the first words of the earliest work in the New Testament. (Quote:) “From Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, to the people of the church in Thessalonika...” (Slight pause.)
When this passage was introduced, this was said. “Paul depicts an evangelism different from the conventional image of a unilateral action by an evangelist on a receptive yet passive audience. Here evangelism involves the interaction of Paul and co-workers with the Thessalonians, an interaction that leaves both sides changed.”
Let me unpack that a little for you. When we hear the word evangelism today many of us immediately picture someone asking, “Are you saved?” While that’s a caricature, a comic exaggeration, in terms of depicting our culture it’s also fairly accurate.
And, of course, there’s a logical problem with the question, “Are you saved.” The question is about the person asking it.
You see, if you’re the one asking that question, not the one of whom the question is being asked, you are simply projecting your doubt that “yes” could be the answer, should be the answer. Put another way, if you’re the one asking that question, your question illustrates that you— in a tacit way— doubt God might be alive, be real, be loving.
Let me put that another way yet again. “Are you saved?” is an individualistic question, a self-centered question, a question which has no relationship to the possibility that there is a cooperative community of faith to which God calls humanity. It is a question about you, as an individual, and thereby the question excludes community. (Slight pause.)
Paul is quite clear in the opening words of this letter. The Apostle is not acting alone. Paul is working with others— in this case Paul names Silvanus and Timothy. Later Paul insists the people, the whole church in Thessalonika are an example of (quote:) “the joy which comes from the Holy Spirit.”
And in this text Paul invites others to the work of the Dominion of God. What’s clear is the work of God, the call of God, is a call to community. (Slight pause.)
Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan makes an interesting comparison between the theology of John the Baptizer and Jesus. Crossan says based on the evidence in Scripture John claims the eschaton, the end times, happen when we meet God face to face.
Jesus, on the other hand, claims the Dominion of God is near, the Dominion of God is at hand, the Dominion of God needs to be lived into— now. This now is the urgency of now the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently addressed.
Indeed, a Dominion at hand it is an invitation to community. A Dominion at hand is an invitation to collaboration, each according to their gifts as Paul says elsewhere.
Further, a Dominion at hand invites cooperation. Why? It’s a given that no one of us alone can fully accomplish the work of the Dominion on our own. A Dominion at hand says we are all in this together.
Crossan calls this kind of end times theology to which Jesus invites us collaborative eschatology— cooperation with God. And if the work of the Dominion is, in fact, at hand and it cannot be accomplished by an individual. The work of the Dominion is accomplished only when we form community and work cooperatively with God and with one another. (Slight pause.)
That bring us back to the idea that people living through a time of revolutionary change usually fail to grasp what’s going on around them. I want to suggest the modern revolution we face is we are seeing all kinds collaboration in ways we have never seen before.
Put another way, can you say “Facebook?” Just like the Newspaper business is not about delivering the news, Facebook is not about technology.
Facebook is about forming community. Our young people realize this. They realized it so much and so quickly they’ve moved on to Twitter, Instagram, etc., etc., etc. And many of them have left Facebook behind.
Therefore, I want to suggest we, the church, are well positioned to be on the edge of change. The question for us is will we be a big, slow-moving organization steeped in traditional ways and, therefore, have a hard time seeing what’s going on around us. Or will we heed the call of the Gospel and fully engage in cooperation, fully engage in community? Amen.
10/10/2014
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: “Working in community has a problem. It’s a problem with which American culture is not comfortable. Community is messy, often not well organized, not efficient. Episcopal historian and theologian Diana Butler Bass says this about efficiency: ‘Efficiency is not innovation. Hurting people will not bring about the church of the future.’ Indeed, I think a part of the Christian message is this: community means innovation because community is collaborative. Hence, by definition community works toward the future church. Indeed, community is the future church.”
BENEDICTION: We have gathered, not just as a community, but as a community of faith. Let us respond to God, who is the true reality, in all that we are and say and do. Let the Holy Spirit dwell among us and may the peace of God which surpasses our understanding be with us this day and forever more. Amen.
SERMON ~ Fall Meeting of the Susquehanna Association ~ “A Plethora of Pachyderms?”
Fall Meeting of the Susquehanna Association ~ Luke 10:1-11 [ILV]
A Plethora of Pachyderms?
“...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” — Luke 10:1.
You may have noticed the title of my comments today: A Plethora of Pachyderms. To unpack that just a smidge, when we don’t talk about something it’s said, “There’s an elephant in the room.” If there are at least several elephants, perhaps it’s a plethora of pachyderms.
So, let me name one elephant, probably often mentioned in church parking lots but not too often mentioned inside the walls of our meeting houses. (Slight pause.) Have you heard? The church is dying.
Well, here’s what I have to say about that: poppycock! The church is not dying. Not even close. If the Dark Ages couldn’t kill the church, it is the height of egocentricity to think we can!
But let me offer some explanation concerning numbers. If you told someone who worked on Madison Avenue in advertising ‘the church is dying’ and then named any church in upstate New York as a larger proof the church is dying, the response you would get out of that person who works in advertising would be... laughter.
Why? People who work in adverting know demographics. Upstate New York, like many other rural areas, is losing population. So, when it comes to numbers, one church, a specific church, your church, my church, is not the issue. Indeed, church growth can often be seen in city areas and in areas called exurbs, areas just outside of suburbs.
And while this is a generality, it’s broadly true: census data tells us rural areas and suburbs are losing population. Exurbs and cities are gaining. Further— and we don’t often pay attention to this— a majority of Main Line churches are in rural areas.
In short, it’s mathematically inaccurate if not mathematically incompetent too, to separate church population from where churches are located. Indeed, on what locations do leaders tend to concentrate when planting churches today? Cities and exurbs.
But let’s set that aside and talk about New Testament times. Why? The New Testament can address another pachyderm who roams around the church. And this long-snouted beast also deals with demographics— New Testament demographics.
This is a given: in antiquity ninety percent of the population of the Mediterranean basin lived in what you and I would call slavery. And less than five percent of the population was literate.
Now, Jews and Christians are called “people of the book” both in ancient times and today. Also there is some clear Scriptural evidence Jesus could both read and write.
Hence and by definition, two statements can be made. Those who were literate, that group of less than five percent, offered leadership and were the ones deeply involved in Judaism and Christianity. Jesus was among those in that less five percent group.
To be clear, I am not coming close to saying anything like ‘all those in that era who could not read and write were banned from being people of the book.’ I am quite sure they were included. I am inviting us to focus on the reality of the demographics of ancient times and how they worked and to think about that.
One more item rarely discussed in the church today about New Testament times is the economic system active then. Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan uses this label for the economic system found in that era: “Domination.” It was a system of Domination.
So ten percent lived off the work and the sweat of ninety percent. Once we label the economic system in those times as domination, I think it becomes easier to envision and comprehend a population of ninety percent enslaved and ninety-five percent illiterate.
There is another pachyderm from antiquity that needs to be addressed. Once again, this has to do with demographics.
Paul wrote letters to different locations in the Mediterranean Basin— a Letter to the Church in Thessalonika, a Letter to the Church in Rome, etc., etc., etc. What did these churches look like? How large were they?
It’s unlikely any of them had more than fifty people. Why do I say that? We believe those churches met in people’s houses. Even among the elite, very few had a house large enough to hold a meeting of more than fifty. These churches were very small.
Further, scholars tell us that by the year 100 of the Common Era— 70 years after the Resurrection event— the number of Christians in the entire Mediterranean basin was less than 10,000. Christianity was not exactly spreading like wild fire. (Slight pause.)
Well, Walt Disney told us elephants could fly... but I’m not so sure. You see, there’s another long snouted mammal, a Dumbo, flying around these days: when the American Revolution happened this was a Christian country; most people were Christians.
Well, that depends on definitions. If by Christian we mean church members, it would be hard to prove most people were Christians. You see, in 1776 the percentage of the population who were members of a church, any church, was seventeen percent.
Indeed, this church, a Congregational Church, and the Baptist Church across the park from us were both founded in 1814 and celebrate our 200th year in 2014. This church started with 14 members. The Baptists started with a similar number. So, it’s quite safe to say together the total number of church members, even after a year or two, was less than 50.
Our church historian, Patricia Evans, is also the Chenango County Historian. Pat tells me in the 1810 census— four years before these churches were founded— in the 1810 census the total population of Norwich was 2,550. And it probably went up in those four years between that point and when the churches were founded.
Well, this math is easy. If we go with 50 or less as membership and if we go with 2,550 in the area, less than two percent of the population here in Norwich were church members in 1814.
All this brings me back to the passage from Luke. (Quote:) “...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” (Slight pause.)
I want to point out two things: first, when these disciples headed down the road into these towns, what did that world look like? What did their world look like? Would they have been discouraged? Would they have said their church is dying? (Slight pause.)
The next, I want to point out is the so called First Great Awakening was a religious revival in America. It happened between the 1730s and the 1750s. One preacher who gained notoriety at that point was George Whitefield. Large crowds often gathered to hear Whitefield preach.
But given the numbers I mentioned earlier, a minority of the population were church members, a fairly small minority. So how was it Whitefiled got crowds? This preacher had a secret.
The secret was to follow the example of Jesus. As much as a year before Whitefield was scheduled to preach in a town, disciples would go to that town. Flyers would be printed up and distributed.
The people who did this advanced work would do their best to gather groups and encourage interest. Jesus did the same. Jesus sent people to prepare the way.
That raises up another pachyderm. We tend to believe this maxim: “If you build it, they will come.”
The director of a non-profit in Norwich recently said to me that may have been true once (although he doubted it). But this, he said, is true: you need to go out, you need to be there, you need to be with the people you want to reach.
Some will come back; some won’t. But it’s not about you. It’s about the place at which people you meet are in their lives. If they listen, that also is about the place at which they are in their lives. If they don’t listen, that also is about the place at which they are in their lives.
This brings me to the last elephant. Work in the vineyard is hard. Work in the vineyard involves decades of effort, sometimes with little reward. Which is to say we who are involved in church work need to name that. This is hard work.
Why would I say that? When the seventy two were commissioned this is what was said: “Be on your way. And remember, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Do not carry a walking stick or knapsack; wear no sandals;...” Amen.
ENDPIECE: Biblical scholar said Nicholas Thomas Wright says this: New Testament times are just like today. Everybody believed in God. Few people took it seriously.
BENEDICTION: Redeemer Who sustains us, visit Your people; pour out Your courage upon us, that we may hurry to make welcome all people not only in our concern for others, but by serving them generously and faithfully in Your name.
A Plethora of Pachyderms?
“...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” — Luke 10:1.
You may have noticed the title of my comments today: A Plethora of Pachyderms. To unpack that just a smidge, when we don’t talk about something it’s said, “There’s an elephant in the room.” If there are at least several elephants, perhaps it’s a plethora of pachyderms.
So, let me name one elephant, probably often mentioned in church parking lots but not too often mentioned inside the walls of our meeting houses. (Slight pause.) Have you heard? The church is dying.
Well, here’s what I have to say about that: poppycock! The church is not dying. Not even close. If the Dark Ages couldn’t kill the church, it is the height of egocentricity to think we can!
But let me offer some explanation concerning numbers. If you told someone who worked on Madison Avenue in advertising ‘the church is dying’ and then named any church in upstate New York as a larger proof the church is dying, the response you would get out of that person who works in advertising would be... laughter.
Why? People who work in adverting know demographics. Upstate New York, like many other rural areas, is losing population. So, when it comes to numbers, one church, a specific church, your church, my church, is not the issue. Indeed, church growth can often be seen in city areas and in areas called exurbs, areas just outside of suburbs.
And while this is a generality, it’s broadly true: census data tells us rural areas and suburbs are losing population. Exurbs and cities are gaining. Further— and we don’t often pay attention to this— a majority of Main Line churches are in rural areas.
In short, it’s mathematically inaccurate if not mathematically incompetent too, to separate church population from where churches are located. Indeed, on what locations do leaders tend to concentrate when planting churches today? Cities and exurbs.
But let’s set that aside and talk about New Testament times. Why? The New Testament can address another pachyderm who roams around the church. And this long-snouted beast also deals with demographics— New Testament demographics.
This is a given: in antiquity ninety percent of the population of the Mediterranean basin lived in what you and I would call slavery. And less than five percent of the population was literate.
Now, Jews and Christians are called “people of the book” both in ancient times and today. Also there is some clear Scriptural evidence Jesus could both read and write.
Hence and by definition, two statements can be made. Those who were literate, that group of less than five percent, offered leadership and were the ones deeply involved in Judaism and Christianity. Jesus was among those in that less five percent group.
To be clear, I am not coming close to saying anything like ‘all those in that era who could not read and write were banned from being people of the book.’ I am quite sure they were included. I am inviting us to focus on the reality of the demographics of ancient times and how they worked and to think about that.
One more item rarely discussed in the church today about New Testament times is the economic system active then. Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan uses this label for the economic system found in that era: “Domination.” It was a system of Domination.
So ten percent lived off the work and the sweat of ninety percent. Once we label the economic system in those times as domination, I think it becomes easier to envision and comprehend a population of ninety percent enslaved and ninety-five percent illiterate.
There is another pachyderm from antiquity that needs to be addressed. Once again, this has to do with demographics.
Paul wrote letters to different locations in the Mediterranean Basin— a Letter to the Church in Thessalonika, a Letter to the Church in Rome, etc., etc., etc. What did these churches look like? How large were they?
It’s unlikely any of them had more than fifty people. Why do I say that? We believe those churches met in people’s houses. Even among the elite, very few had a house large enough to hold a meeting of more than fifty. These churches were very small.
Further, scholars tell us that by the year 100 of the Common Era— 70 years after the Resurrection event— the number of Christians in the entire Mediterranean basin was less than 10,000. Christianity was not exactly spreading like wild fire. (Slight pause.)
Well, Walt Disney told us elephants could fly... but I’m not so sure. You see, there’s another long snouted mammal, a Dumbo, flying around these days: when the American Revolution happened this was a Christian country; most people were Christians.
Well, that depends on definitions. If by Christian we mean church members, it would be hard to prove most people were Christians. You see, in 1776 the percentage of the population who were members of a church, any church, was seventeen percent.
Indeed, this church, a Congregational Church, and the Baptist Church across the park from us were both founded in 1814 and celebrate our 200th year in 2014. This church started with 14 members. The Baptists started with a similar number. So, it’s quite safe to say together the total number of church members, even after a year or two, was less than 50.
Our church historian, Patricia Evans, is also the Chenango County Historian. Pat tells me in the 1810 census— four years before these churches were founded— in the 1810 census the total population of Norwich was 2,550. And it probably went up in those four years between that point and when the churches were founded.
Well, this math is easy. If we go with 50 or less as membership and if we go with 2,550 in the area, less than two percent of the population here in Norwich were church members in 1814.
All this brings me back to the passage from Luke. (Quote:) “...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” (Slight pause.)
I want to point out two things: first, when these disciples headed down the road into these towns, what did that world look like? What did their world look like? Would they have been discouraged? Would they have said their church is dying? (Slight pause.)
The next, I want to point out is the so called First Great Awakening was a religious revival in America. It happened between the 1730s and the 1750s. One preacher who gained notoriety at that point was George Whitefield. Large crowds often gathered to hear Whitefield preach.
But given the numbers I mentioned earlier, a minority of the population were church members, a fairly small minority. So how was it Whitefiled got crowds? This preacher had a secret.
The secret was to follow the example of Jesus. As much as a year before Whitefield was scheduled to preach in a town, disciples would go to that town. Flyers would be printed up and distributed.
The people who did this advanced work would do their best to gather groups and encourage interest. Jesus did the same. Jesus sent people to prepare the way.
That raises up another pachyderm. We tend to believe this maxim: “If you build it, they will come.”
The director of a non-profit in Norwich recently said to me that may have been true once (although he doubted it). But this, he said, is true: you need to go out, you need to be there, you need to be with the people you want to reach.
Some will come back; some won’t. But it’s not about you. It’s about the place at which people you meet are in their lives. If they listen, that also is about the place at which they are in their lives. If they don’t listen, that also is about the place at which they are in their lives.
This brings me to the last elephant. Work in the vineyard is hard. Work in the vineyard involves decades of effort, sometimes with little reward. Which is to say we who are involved in church work need to name that. This is hard work.
Why would I say that? When the seventy two were commissioned this is what was said: “Be on your way. And remember, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Do not carry a walking stick or knapsack; wear no sandals;...” Amen.
ENDPIECE: Biblical scholar said Nicholas Thomas Wright says this: New Testament times are just like today. Everybody believed in God. Few people took it seriously.
BENEDICTION: Redeemer Who sustains us, visit Your people; pour out Your courage upon us, that we may hurry to make welcome all people not only in our concern for others, but by serving them generously and faithfully in Your name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)