04/26/2015 ~ Fourth Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 4:5-12; Psalm 23; 1 John 3:16-24; John 10:11-18.
Action
“My children, our love must not simply be words or pure talk. It must be true love, which shows itself to be true in action.” — 1 John 3:18.
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away— or if not in a galaxy far, far away at least in a city which is at a considerable distance in all kinds of ways from Norwich— a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I worked in an imaginary place called Wall Street. Of course, there is actually a street which bears the moniker “Wall Street.”
I label “Wall Street” imaginary because we do need to realize when a reference is made to (quote:) “Wall Street” what is being addressed is a nationwide industry— the investment industry. People who work in the investment industry live and work everywhere from Maine to California and beyond. Which means “Wall Street” is not a reference to a place.
Just like the term “White House” does not literally mean the place the President lives but can mean anything from those who work closely with the President to the entire Executive Branch. The term “Wall Street” is not a location and the term “White House” is not a location. These are simply convenient constructs of language not to be taken literally.
Now, this one’s a little more difficult to catch but watch me. The term “investment industry”— that term might be another figment of our imagination, a linguistic construct. You see, having been on the inside, having worked on “Wall Street,” I know several things about the so called investment industry that most people don’t realize.
Let me illustrate that with a couple of stories. I may have used them separately before, although I think not together. So I’ll apologize if you think I’m repeating myself. In any case, I think they will well illustrate the point I am trying to make. (Slight pause.)
I had a supervisor who once said people have illusions about what happens in the industry called Wall Street. One illusion says since this is a business which takes care of trading for what often amounts to billions of shares a day, the average person thinks the industry needs to be super organized just to do that.
After all, said my boss, how do you keep track of billions of items except by being organized? This executive then spoke this truth: “Our organization consists of nothing more than chaos— we are organized chaos. But chaos is still chaos.” Think about that: Wall Street is chaos.
In my presence yet another executive at the same firm once pointed to a room filled with clerks and said every job at every desk on the floor relied on one thing. Mistakes will be made. Mistakes will be made often!
It’s the job of the people at those desks to correct the mistakes. You take mistakes out of the system, said that executive, and thousands and thousands of people whose job it is to correct the mistakes will become unemployed. Mistakes? Chaos? On Wall Street? Oh, no!
Believe it or not, this Wall Street talk takes me to something which happened in Seminary. The Senior class needed to raise money so we could give a gift to the Seminary. Many of us went to businesses and stores around town and asked for donations of goods or services. We, in turn, set up a raffle, sold tickets for these goods and services in order to raise the money for that gift.
When we first talked about setting up a raffle, the three Methodists in the class were dead set against having a raffle. After all, a raffle— that’s gambling.
You see, they said, the Methodist Book of Discipline— yes, the Methodists are methodical and they have a book filled with rules and regulations— the Methodist Book of Discipline does not allow for gambling, especially among the clergy. And participating in a raffle is gambling. So we cannot participate, so they said.
By the way: members of the laity who are Methodists are not supposed to take tickets at raffles, either. Remember that the next time you buy a ticket from a Methodist.
I was the first to respond to that, in part because of my Wall Street background. “Do Methodists have a pension fund?” I asked.
They looked at me as if I had landed from another planet. One of them said, “Why, of course we do.”
“And is a good amount of money invested on Wall Street,” I asked?
“Why, yes,” was the answer.
“So,” I said, “please explain to me how putting United Methodist Pension Fund money in the hands of Wall Street firms is not gambling?”
There is, of course, no answer to that. It is gambling. And there is nothing (with the possible exceptions of death, taxes and Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown at the last minute) which is more 100% sure than to say Wall Street is a place where gambling happens.
No matter how safe things feel, no matter what kind of claim is made about the soundness of an investment, there is always risk involved. Ask anyone who lost a bunch of money in the meltdown of 2008 if Wall Street is safe. They will tell you all about “Wall Street” and its risks.
Having worked on the inside, my opinion is to use the term “invest” and “Wall Street” in the same sentence is questionable. You do not invest money in Wall Street. You place it there, as in ‘place your bets,’ in the hope the risk involved produces a reasonable return. But it’s a risk. It’s a bet. It’s a gamble. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in First John: “My children, our love must not simply be words or pure talk. It must be true love, which shows itself to be true in action.” (Slight pause.)
Any competent professional investment manager will tell you there is no such thing as a foolproof investment. Any competent professional investment manager will tell you one of their goals to reduce risk.
But therein lies a problem. While you can never reduce risk to zero, you can reduce it so much that any gain, any benefit, becomes close to impossible. Indeed, a competent professional investment manager will tell you if you want to get anything out of your investment, risk is necessary. You need to take some risk.
I think for we moderns risk presents a particular challenge. Why? We like to reduce risk. And reducing risk makes for the possibility of smaller returns. Or so it’s said. But increasing risk makes for the possibility of larger returns. Or so it’s said.
I therefore want to suggest the smallest risk comes when we do... nothing— the smallest risk comes when we do... nothing. A much larger risk comes when we do... something. Action involves risk.
Which brings me to the season of Easter. Easter is not simply about some kind of euphoric joy. And Easter is not about some reward in the sweet by and by. Easter is about action. Easter is about risk.
Easter is a season which aims at being a guide to a transformed life, a transformed life of shared caring— action— shared caring— action among people— shared caring. And notice, this ethic of caring, this ethic of action, is grounded in God’s action, God’s risk.
God’s action of loving us is found in the truth of the resurrection, God’s risk of love for us. Hence, Easter not only assures us with the idea that risk can be taken; Easter authorizes and empowers us for risk. Easter issues not some new knowledge about life, but empowerment for that life, empowerment for that life which is to be lived out in fullness. (Slight pause.)
For me this means Easter is a time when we are invited by God to action. But therefore, a logical question would be to what action does God invite us? (Slight pause.)
Well, here’s what I think about the kind of action to which God invites us. Unconditional love is the greatest risk we can take. And it’s obvious to me that God invites us to love unconditionally.
Unconditional love, you see, means a risk of 100%. When unconditional love is offered, at that very moment, when we take that step to love unconditionally, there is a 100% risk in place since at that point there is absolutely no possibility of return.
It confuses me that we often miss or don’t understand this simple idea about love: love is an action, not a feeling. Love is an action. And unconditional love, unconditional love, is the most amazingly supportive action we can take, in part because its risk factor is 100%. (Slight pause.)
There was a running theme at yesterday’s Susquehanna Association Meeting. That theme had to do with a saying that’s been going around within our denomination.
(Quote:) “Be the church. Protect the environment. Care for the poor. Embrace diversity. Reject racism. Forgive often. Fight for the powerless. Share earthly and spiritual resources. Enjoy this life. Love God.” (Slight pause.)
Be the church. Now that’s a tall order. Why? To be is an action. Being takes risk. Or as is says in First John (quote): “...our love must not simply be words or pure talk. It must be true love, which shows itself to be true in action.” Amen.
04/26/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Here’s another saying that’s been going around recently (quote): ‘We will never change the world by going to church. We will change the world by being church.’ Again, be the church— that defines risk.”
BENEDICTION: We are invited to make God’s house our home. We are equipped by the grace of God to help others on their journeys. God leads us beside still waters and restores our soul. God’s love in Jesus, the Christ, has blessed us and we shall dwell in the house of the true shepherd. Amen.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Monday, April 20, 2015
SERMON ~ 04/19/2015 ~ “Terrified”
READINGS: 04/19/2015 ~ Third Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 3:12-19; Psalm 4; 1 John 3:1-7; Luke 24:36b-48 ~ Dedication of the Super Sew Quilts.
Terrified
“They were startled and terrified, in panic and fright; they thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you frightened? Why are you disturbed? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? Why do such ideas cross your mind?’” — Luke 24: 37-38.
Bonnie and I welcomed into the 21st Century into our lives last week. We got a pair of I-phones. [The pastor hold up an I-phone]
Up until a week ago, the only cell phones we had were Tracfones. To be blunt, I didn’t see the need for something more versatile. Making phone calls— what more do you need? A Tracfone does that. And it’s not expensive
So why did we get I-phones? I think, as many of you know, this Summer we are planning to travel across the country and back. We got the phones for that trip because it seemed reasonable to have something with us on which you can do more than simply make a phone call.
My colleague, the Rev. Chuck Taylor of the Emmanuel Episcopal Church, says the reason he does not have a smart phone is he is not smart enough. (If you know Chuck you know he is as smart as they come and he revels in self-deprecating humor.)
In any case, I don’t know if I’m smart but think I may be O.K. operating the phone, except when my fat, fumbling fingers hit the wrong button. And indeed, Bonnie’s pet name for me when it comes to electronic stuff is “geek.”
One reason for my geek-iness (is that a word— geek-iness?)— O.K.— one reason for my geek-iness is I got involved with computers early. I was still in my teen years.
As an aside and just to put into perspective how quickly things change in the computer field, arguably the I-pad changed computing forever. And, even though it feels like it’s been around a long time, the I-pad was released just five years ago this month.
A couple years before that the I-phone changed the phone industry forever. And that was released less than eight years ago. An I-Phone purchased today is roughly one million times more powerful than a main frame computer from 1975— a computer which took up a space the size of our Founder’s Room. [Again, the pastor holds up the phone.] And there it is, that size, one million times more powerful. I’ll turn it off.
Anyway, when I was so young the dinosaurs were still roaming the earth, there was no such thing as personal computers or tablets. There was nu such thing as cell phones— never mind smart phones— and I found myself operating one of those big main frame computer.
One day a supervisor of mine pointing to the machine I was operating said, “You’re not afraid of these things are you?”
I responded, “Why should I be? The machine tells me when I’ve done something wrong. When I’m doing something right it just keeps running. What’s there to be frightened about?”
There’s no question about this: we have a tendency to be frightened by the unfamiliar, frightened by what we don’t know, by what we don’t understand. And, needless to say, we are frightened by change— change like smart phones. [Again, the pastor holds up the phone.]
Change is, however, not new. I’ve used this story here before, but it is true and it makes an interesting point.
I once had a much older friend whose mother was born in 1870. She was 95 in 1965 and at her birthday party my friend asked her what, of all the developments over her lifetime, had brought the biggest change to her daily life.
Now, you need to understand the year before she was born the transcontinental railroad was finished. While she was alive she saw the invention of the telephone, the car, the airplane. So, those years go from the transcontinental railroad to spaceflight.
And what was her answer to the question what had changed her life the most? Ready to wear clothes had made the greatest change in her lifetime. When she was young the Sears catalogue didn’t even exist. People had to make their own clothes. The wealthy had clothes made for them.
Well, part of my point is certainly this: change: it is the only constant. Being frightened of it— should that be a choice? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Luke/Acts in the section known as Luke: “They were startled and terrified, in panic and fright; they thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you frightened? Why are you disturbed? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? Why do such ideas cross your mind?’” (Slight pause.)
I think we moderns have a problem when it comes to reading Scripture. The problem is obvious and simple to define: moderns— both conservatives and liberals— doesn’t matter which end of the spectrum you’re on— moderns misread Scripture, especially the Gospels, by trying to read the words of the Gospels as if they are a documentary about the life, the murder and the resurrection of Jesus.
They are not documentaries. It also needs to be said when carefully read, the text offered in the Gospels will allow for the words to be read as if they were recording a documentary.
Let’s take today’s reading as an example. First, the text tells us the disciples were terrified. Then it says they were joyful. At the very same time it says they were joyful it also says they were (quote:) “still disbelieving, incredulous, wondering.”
That makes no logical sense. It is a self-contradiction. To take this as if it was recording something, an event, you need to assume the writer of this passage did not understand what was being recorded, and therefore that the writer was (for lack of a better description) stupid.
But suppose the writers of Scripture, especially the Gospels, are trying to say something not connected to documentation? Indeed, let’s suppose the Gospels are written to claim something about theology. If that’s the case, perhaps we are on more solid ground when we ask “What does this passage mean?” rather than “What does this passage say?”
Additionally, I think the writers, especially the writers of the Gospels, are also trying to say something about how they feel, say something their emotional state. (Slight pause.) So, how do you say something about theology while saying something about how you feel, something about your emotional state?
Indeed, how do you say something about theology while saying something about how you feel, especially when you feel overwhelmed because you believe the covenant of God has changed. And then, on top of that, you realize that it’s not simply that the covenant has been changed. Rather, the covenant of God has been re-envisioned by God?
And what is that re-envisioning, that change you find so overwhelming? The theological, emotional statement you make as you write the Gospels is about the realization that the Messiah is Jesus. And this Jesus lived in community with your people for a goodly number of years.
And how do you explain that? What does that look like in the words you’re going to record? Perhaps those words look like this (quote:) “While joyful— while joyful— they were still disbelieving, incredulous, wondering.”
Those words make no sense in terms of someone trying to depict what’s happening. They do make theological, emotional sense. That’s because what’s being said is that the disciples are experiencing, have experienced, the real presence of God.
So, that Jesus is the Messiah, sent by God to affirm the covenant is not a reason to be terrified. It is reason to be (quote:) “joyful,” if you can deal with this re-envisioned change. (Slight pause.)
Earlier I said the only constant is change. And perhaps we believe that change only happens to us moderns. But I want to suggest overwhelming change is something with which the early church was constantly dealing.
And the theology found in the Gospels clearly states God has ushered in re-envisioned change. So, in the end, I think this story is not about being terrified or being joyful or even, as the detail in the story says, or even about Jesus eating fish— not about any of that. It is a theological and emotional expression which says there is a new understanding of the covenant with God, an understanding that the covenant is open to all people because Jesus lives, open to all people— not just a few— because Jesus lives.
And that is a really, really, really big change. How big? [The pastor hold up the cell phone again.] Bigger and quicker than smart phones. Amen.
04/19/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Often people, especially we moderns, ask did the stories in the Bible happen? The question, itself, is a moot point, not something the writers would have thought important. The stories are not written to report what happened. Especially when it comes to the Gospels, the stories are written to address theology and to express the emotional state of the people who wrote them concerning their experi3ence of God and their relationship with God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us place our trust in God. Let us go from this place to share the Good News as we are witnesses. And this is, indeed, the Good News: by God we are blessed; in Jesus, the Christ, the beloved of God, we are made whole. Let us depart in confidence and joy that the Spirit of God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts. Amen.
Terrified
“They were startled and terrified, in panic and fright; they thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you frightened? Why are you disturbed? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? Why do such ideas cross your mind?’” — Luke 24: 37-38.
Bonnie and I welcomed into the 21st Century into our lives last week. We got a pair of I-phones. [The pastor hold up an I-phone]
Up until a week ago, the only cell phones we had were Tracfones. To be blunt, I didn’t see the need for something more versatile. Making phone calls— what more do you need? A Tracfone does that. And it’s not expensive
So why did we get I-phones? I think, as many of you know, this Summer we are planning to travel across the country and back. We got the phones for that trip because it seemed reasonable to have something with us on which you can do more than simply make a phone call.
My colleague, the Rev. Chuck Taylor of the Emmanuel Episcopal Church, says the reason he does not have a smart phone is he is not smart enough. (If you know Chuck you know he is as smart as they come and he revels in self-deprecating humor.)
In any case, I don’t know if I’m smart but think I may be O.K. operating the phone, except when my fat, fumbling fingers hit the wrong button. And indeed, Bonnie’s pet name for me when it comes to electronic stuff is “geek.”
One reason for my geek-iness (is that a word— geek-iness?)— O.K.— one reason for my geek-iness is I got involved with computers early. I was still in my teen years.
As an aside and just to put into perspective how quickly things change in the computer field, arguably the I-pad changed computing forever. And, even though it feels like it’s been around a long time, the I-pad was released just five years ago this month.
A couple years before that the I-phone changed the phone industry forever. And that was released less than eight years ago. An I-Phone purchased today is roughly one million times more powerful than a main frame computer from 1975— a computer which took up a space the size of our Founder’s Room. [Again, the pastor holds up the phone.] And there it is, that size, one million times more powerful. I’ll turn it off.
Anyway, when I was so young the dinosaurs were still roaming the earth, there was no such thing as personal computers or tablets. There was nu such thing as cell phones— never mind smart phones— and I found myself operating one of those big main frame computer.
One day a supervisor of mine pointing to the machine I was operating said, “You’re not afraid of these things are you?”
I responded, “Why should I be? The machine tells me when I’ve done something wrong. When I’m doing something right it just keeps running. What’s there to be frightened about?”
There’s no question about this: we have a tendency to be frightened by the unfamiliar, frightened by what we don’t know, by what we don’t understand. And, needless to say, we are frightened by change— change like smart phones. [Again, the pastor holds up the phone.]
Change is, however, not new. I’ve used this story here before, but it is true and it makes an interesting point.
I once had a much older friend whose mother was born in 1870. She was 95 in 1965 and at her birthday party my friend asked her what, of all the developments over her lifetime, had brought the biggest change to her daily life.
Now, you need to understand the year before she was born the transcontinental railroad was finished. While she was alive she saw the invention of the telephone, the car, the airplane. So, those years go from the transcontinental railroad to spaceflight.
And what was her answer to the question what had changed her life the most? Ready to wear clothes had made the greatest change in her lifetime. When she was young the Sears catalogue didn’t even exist. People had to make their own clothes. The wealthy had clothes made for them.
Well, part of my point is certainly this: change: it is the only constant. Being frightened of it— should that be a choice? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Luke/Acts in the section known as Luke: “They were startled and terrified, in panic and fright; they thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you frightened? Why are you disturbed? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? Why do such ideas cross your mind?’” (Slight pause.)
I think we moderns have a problem when it comes to reading Scripture. The problem is obvious and simple to define: moderns— both conservatives and liberals— doesn’t matter which end of the spectrum you’re on— moderns misread Scripture, especially the Gospels, by trying to read the words of the Gospels as if they are a documentary about the life, the murder and the resurrection of Jesus.
They are not documentaries. It also needs to be said when carefully read, the text offered in the Gospels will allow for the words to be read as if they were recording a documentary.
Let’s take today’s reading as an example. First, the text tells us the disciples were terrified. Then it says they were joyful. At the very same time it says they were joyful it also says they were (quote:) “still disbelieving, incredulous, wondering.”
That makes no logical sense. It is a self-contradiction. To take this as if it was recording something, an event, you need to assume the writer of this passage did not understand what was being recorded, and therefore that the writer was (for lack of a better description) stupid.
But suppose the writers of Scripture, especially the Gospels, are trying to say something not connected to documentation? Indeed, let’s suppose the Gospels are written to claim something about theology. If that’s the case, perhaps we are on more solid ground when we ask “What does this passage mean?” rather than “What does this passage say?”
Additionally, I think the writers, especially the writers of the Gospels, are also trying to say something about how they feel, say something their emotional state. (Slight pause.) So, how do you say something about theology while saying something about how you feel, something about your emotional state?
Indeed, how do you say something about theology while saying something about how you feel, especially when you feel overwhelmed because you believe the covenant of God has changed. And then, on top of that, you realize that it’s not simply that the covenant has been changed. Rather, the covenant of God has been re-envisioned by God?
And what is that re-envisioning, that change you find so overwhelming? The theological, emotional statement you make as you write the Gospels is about the realization that the Messiah is Jesus. And this Jesus lived in community with your people for a goodly number of years.
And how do you explain that? What does that look like in the words you’re going to record? Perhaps those words look like this (quote:) “While joyful— while joyful— they were still disbelieving, incredulous, wondering.”
Those words make no sense in terms of someone trying to depict what’s happening. They do make theological, emotional sense. That’s because what’s being said is that the disciples are experiencing, have experienced, the real presence of God.
So, that Jesus is the Messiah, sent by God to affirm the covenant is not a reason to be terrified. It is reason to be (quote:) “joyful,” if you can deal with this re-envisioned change. (Slight pause.)
Earlier I said the only constant is change. And perhaps we believe that change only happens to us moderns. But I want to suggest overwhelming change is something with which the early church was constantly dealing.
And the theology found in the Gospels clearly states God has ushered in re-envisioned change. So, in the end, I think this story is not about being terrified or being joyful or even, as the detail in the story says, or even about Jesus eating fish— not about any of that. It is a theological and emotional expression which says there is a new understanding of the covenant with God, an understanding that the covenant is open to all people because Jesus lives, open to all people— not just a few— because Jesus lives.
And that is a really, really, really big change. How big? [The pastor hold up the cell phone again.] Bigger and quicker than smart phones. Amen.
04/19/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Often people, especially we moderns, ask did the stories in the Bible happen? The question, itself, is a moot point, not something the writers would have thought important. The stories are not written to report what happened. Especially when it comes to the Gospels, the stories are written to address theology and to express the emotional state of the people who wrote them concerning their experi3ence of God and their relationship with God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us place our trust in God. Let us go from this place to share the Good News as we are witnesses. And this is, indeed, the Good News: by God we are blessed; in Jesus, the Christ, the beloved of God, we are made whole. Let us depart in confidence and joy that the Spirit of God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts. Amen.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
SERMON ~ 04/12/2015 ~ “Testimony”
04/12/2015 ~ Second Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 4:32-35; Psalm 133; 1 John 1:1-2:2; John 20:19-31 ~ Communion Sunday.
Testimony
“The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” — Acts 4:33
More than a month ago I mentioned one of the ways both our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, and the Conference keeps in touch with the churches and the people of the Conference is with a weekly e-mail newsletter. And you can all sign up for it by going to the Conference website. This was a part of David’s reflection in that newsletter from a couple days ago. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “I am thinking about resurrection. When I was looking out my window, straining to see a crocus, the question that came to me was this: is God able to do a new thing in me?”
“Then, of course, I realized how presumptuous that question is. The question needs to be, ‘Am I able to allow the Holy Spirit to change me in ways that better embody what is holy in my life?’ Likewise, am I able to allow God to change me in ways that brings holiness into all the lives of the people whom my life touches?”
“...I love the story of the caterpillar, the chrysalis, and the butterfly,” David continued, “and I think it worked very well for the children’s message at the Easter service I attended! But it is the tangibility of the power of life over death that I am contemplating for this moment. And we always live life in this moment.”
“The next word I speak, the next text I type, the next phone call I answer— in those moments— how will I live the resurrection? I hope it will be intentionally, mindfully and with honest integrity.” [1] (Slight pause.)
I think this is a short version of what I believe David is getting at. What does the resurrection mean to me, to us right here, right now? How do we act that out in our lives right here, right now? (Slight pause.)
For a moment, let me take us in another direction. As I am sure you know, Pat Evans, our church historian, has been sorting through our of church history. This includes an ungodly amount of paper. She thought I’d be interested in something she discovered so gave me a folder with some papers this week.
In it were blue books, the kind given out in that ancient era of school when all tests were contained in these kinds of things. (The pastor holds one up.) And these blue books from this church did, indeed, contain tests.
Based on the questions therein— they were multiple choice questions and easy to answer— it was obvious these books dated from about thirty years ago, the 1980s, since Pastor John VanEpps was referenced in a question. For the most part, the questions were aimed at checking what people knew about both this church and the denomination.
I had the decided impression these tests were given both to confirmands and those seeking to join the church. And the questions ranged all the way from the somewhat serious— “What former pastor of this church served as the President of the United Church of Christ?” to the silly— “What is the name of the Rev. VanEpps’ cat?”
I know Rev. Avery Post served this church from 1952 to 1958. And I know Mr. Post served as President of the United Church of Christ at the National Level from 1977 to 1989. I have no idea what the name of John VanEpps’ cat was.
Now, this might lead some to ask what could possibly have been the purpose of such a test? I want to suggest such tests come from a way of understanding life, a way of thinking which claims life is about a series of facts rather than an idea.
Or, as my Church History professor once said, it may be important to remember Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. But it is much, much more important to grapple with the idea that the voyages of European explorers were about the beginnings, the birth of a new economic system. That economic system is called capitalism.
And yes, the date probably is important to help us place the context of when capitalism first came on the scene. But it is vital to understand the date points not to the voyages but to the bigger idea called capitalism. In short, to know the big idea is much more important than to know the details, the facts, the exact dates of the voyages. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Acts: “The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” (Slight pause.)
There is a concept in these words from Acts which frightens many Christians today, especially Mainline Christians— testimony. Speaking of testimony and, therefore, speaking of tests, let me ask: ‘what would a ceremony of membership in this church looked like— let’s say in 1877?’ (Slight pause.)
In a ceremony of membership there would have been an expectation that the candidate include something, say something, about their own Christian journey— a personal testimony. And, in a real sense, giving testimony back then or today is a test.
Indeed, in that testimony offered by those joining the church in the 1870s a person would be expected to say something about what they believed. And that person would probably also say something about why they wanted to join this church, as opposed to being in union with the Baptists or the Methodists.
But the testimony common then and even testimony common now usually tends to be a list of facts rather than a big idea. And yes, the questions in the blue book test, as I illustrated, were about facts, not ideas. That poses the obvious question: ‘what is testimony, really?’ (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, had it right. Testimony is not something spoken. Testimony is not about facts. Testimony is something done. Testimony asks the question: “how will I live the resurrection?” — how will I live the resurrection? (Slight pause.)
The Thought for Mediation on Easter Day, last week, was from Church historian Diana Butler Bass, an Episcopalian and a member of the laity. (Quote:) “The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.” (Slight pause.)
Testimony, you see, is not about facts. Indeed, one common testimony people offer today is the claim that they believe in the resurrection of the body. However, that testimony treats the resurrection as a fact.
But a fact is something which can be proved. Whether or not we believe a specific fact matters little. The fact exists. It doesn’t need our belief. The resurrection, as Butler suggests, is about trust.
Indeed, when we need provable facts to define our trust, then our trust ceases to be trust. Something either is or it is not. Trust is in no way a part of the equation when it comes to facts. Hence, for us as Christians, a key is ‘do we trust?’
Do we trust... resurrection? Do we trust... that God acts in our lives? Do we trust... hope? Do we trust... freedom? Do we trust... the presence of the Spirit of God? Do we trust... love? Amen.
04/12/2015
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “People mis-quote people all the time. Nothing against the Post Office (I have some good friends who work there), but on Tuesday they published a stamp in honor of the poet Maya Angelou. The stamp featured what purported to be a quote from her. But it was not. To be fair to the Post Office, the words used are widely attributed to Angelou. But were written by Joan Walsh Anglund and are from the book A Cup of Sun. But it does not matter who wrote the words. That is only a fact. The words embrace a helpful, big idea, so I shall repeat them. (Quote:) ‘A bird doesn’t sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song.’ And in order to be true for us, testimony needs to incorporate song, a song in which we trust. And if we make resurrection our own through trust, we will sing it. And the trust we express in that song will be in everything we do.” [2]
BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing: we go into the world carrying forth God’s love. Let us go from this place and offer the peace of God which surpasses all understanding to all we meet, and may the Peace of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and companionship of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] I have slightly edited David’s words for this context but I do not think I have altered their meaning. The original words can be found here:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=e6f9ee12-d870-49f9-87ed-19f4e160fadc&c=7fb50cf0-4c60-11e3-88de-d4ae52754055&ch=8020a000-4c60-11e3-89c4-d4ae52754055
[2]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/08/398317105/maya-angelous-forever-stamp-forever-in-error
Testimony
“The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” — Acts 4:33
More than a month ago I mentioned one of the ways both our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, and the Conference keeps in touch with the churches and the people of the Conference is with a weekly e-mail newsletter. And you can all sign up for it by going to the Conference website. This was a part of David’s reflection in that newsletter from a couple days ago. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “I am thinking about resurrection. When I was looking out my window, straining to see a crocus, the question that came to me was this: is God able to do a new thing in me?”
“Then, of course, I realized how presumptuous that question is. The question needs to be, ‘Am I able to allow the Holy Spirit to change me in ways that better embody what is holy in my life?’ Likewise, am I able to allow God to change me in ways that brings holiness into all the lives of the people whom my life touches?”
“...I love the story of the caterpillar, the chrysalis, and the butterfly,” David continued, “and I think it worked very well for the children’s message at the Easter service I attended! But it is the tangibility of the power of life over death that I am contemplating for this moment. And we always live life in this moment.”
“The next word I speak, the next text I type, the next phone call I answer— in those moments— how will I live the resurrection? I hope it will be intentionally, mindfully and with honest integrity.” [1] (Slight pause.)
I think this is a short version of what I believe David is getting at. What does the resurrection mean to me, to us right here, right now? How do we act that out in our lives right here, right now? (Slight pause.)
For a moment, let me take us in another direction. As I am sure you know, Pat Evans, our church historian, has been sorting through our of church history. This includes an ungodly amount of paper. She thought I’d be interested in something she discovered so gave me a folder with some papers this week.
In it were blue books, the kind given out in that ancient era of school when all tests were contained in these kinds of things. (The pastor holds one up.) And these blue books from this church did, indeed, contain tests.
Based on the questions therein— they were multiple choice questions and easy to answer— it was obvious these books dated from about thirty years ago, the 1980s, since Pastor John VanEpps was referenced in a question. For the most part, the questions were aimed at checking what people knew about both this church and the denomination.
I had the decided impression these tests were given both to confirmands and those seeking to join the church. And the questions ranged all the way from the somewhat serious— “What former pastor of this church served as the President of the United Church of Christ?” to the silly— “What is the name of the Rev. VanEpps’ cat?”
I know Rev. Avery Post served this church from 1952 to 1958. And I know Mr. Post served as President of the United Church of Christ at the National Level from 1977 to 1989. I have no idea what the name of John VanEpps’ cat was.
Now, this might lead some to ask what could possibly have been the purpose of such a test? I want to suggest such tests come from a way of understanding life, a way of thinking which claims life is about a series of facts rather than an idea.
Or, as my Church History professor once said, it may be important to remember Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. But it is much, much more important to grapple with the idea that the voyages of European explorers were about the beginnings, the birth of a new economic system. That economic system is called capitalism.
And yes, the date probably is important to help us place the context of when capitalism first came on the scene. But it is vital to understand the date points not to the voyages but to the bigger idea called capitalism. In short, to know the big idea is much more important than to know the details, the facts, the exact dates of the voyages. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Acts: “The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” (Slight pause.)
There is a concept in these words from Acts which frightens many Christians today, especially Mainline Christians— testimony. Speaking of testimony and, therefore, speaking of tests, let me ask: ‘what would a ceremony of membership in this church looked like— let’s say in 1877?’ (Slight pause.)
In a ceremony of membership there would have been an expectation that the candidate include something, say something, about their own Christian journey— a personal testimony. And, in a real sense, giving testimony back then or today is a test.
Indeed, in that testimony offered by those joining the church in the 1870s a person would be expected to say something about what they believed. And that person would probably also say something about why they wanted to join this church, as opposed to being in union with the Baptists or the Methodists.
But the testimony common then and even testimony common now usually tends to be a list of facts rather than a big idea. And yes, the questions in the blue book test, as I illustrated, were about facts, not ideas. That poses the obvious question: ‘what is testimony, really?’ (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, had it right. Testimony is not something spoken. Testimony is not about facts. Testimony is something done. Testimony asks the question: “how will I live the resurrection?” — how will I live the resurrection? (Slight pause.)
The Thought for Mediation on Easter Day, last week, was from Church historian Diana Butler Bass, an Episcopalian and a member of the laity. (Quote:) “The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.” (Slight pause.)
Testimony, you see, is not about facts. Indeed, one common testimony people offer today is the claim that they believe in the resurrection of the body. However, that testimony treats the resurrection as a fact.
But a fact is something which can be proved. Whether or not we believe a specific fact matters little. The fact exists. It doesn’t need our belief. The resurrection, as Butler suggests, is about trust.
Indeed, when we need provable facts to define our trust, then our trust ceases to be trust. Something either is or it is not. Trust is in no way a part of the equation when it comes to facts. Hence, for us as Christians, a key is ‘do we trust?’
Do we trust... resurrection? Do we trust... that God acts in our lives? Do we trust... hope? Do we trust... freedom? Do we trust... the presence of the Spirit of God? Do we trust... love? Amen.
04/12/2015
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “People mis-quote people all the time. Nothing against the Post Office (I have some good friends who work there), but on Tuesday they published a stamp in honor of the poet Maya Angelou. The stamp featured what purported to be a quote from her. But it was not. To be fair to the Post Office, the words used are widely attributed to Angelou. But were written by Joan Walsh Anglund and are from the book A Cup of Sun. But it does not matter who wrote the words. That is only a fact. The words embrace a helpful, big idea, so I shall repeat them. (Quote:) ‘A bird doesn’t sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song.’ And in order to be true for us, testimony needs to incorporate song, a song in which we trust. And if we make resurrection our own through trust, we will sing it. And the trust we express in that song will be in everything we do.” [2]
BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing: we go into the world carrying forth God’s love. Let us go from this place and offer the peace of God which surpasses all understanding to all we meet, and may the Peace of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and companionship of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] I have slightly edited David’s words for this context but I do not think I have altered their meaning. The original words can be found here:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=e6f9ee12-d870-49f9-87ed-19f4e160fadc&c=7fb50cf0-4c60-11e3-88de-d4ae52754055&ch=8020a000-4c60-11e3-89c4-d4ae52754055
[2]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/08/398317105/maya-angelous-forever-stamp-forever-in-error
Sunday, April 5, 2015
SERMON ~ 04/05/2015 ~ “Looking Backward; Looking Forward”
04/05/2015 ~ Resurrection of the Christ ~ Easter Day ~ *Acts 10:34-43 or Isaiah 25:6-9; Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 or Acts 10:34-43; John 20:1-18 or Mark 16:1-8.
Looking Backward; Looking Forward
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, perfumed oils, so that they might go and anoint Jesus.” — Mark 16:1. [1]
It had been a long night. Salome was tired. She left the small dwelling, left her friends, wandered down the road a short distance and sat on a large rock.
A few moments after that she felt moved to pray. As she prayed, Salome thought about her friend back at the house.
Her friend was not doing well. She had some expectation that her friend was about to die and the very thought of that impending death filled her with a sense of sadness. She continued to pray but she also started to cry. (Slight pause.)
Salome looked to the sky, perhaps thinking there might be some solace in the endless vista. She could see many stars but the moon already had completed its rendevous with the horizon. Hence, stars provided the only light.
However, she was also aware a hint of dawn, the promise of a new day, has started to bristle in the Eastern sky. For a reason which should have been obvious to her but she did not consider, as she cried and looked skyward and prayed, memories of a similar Spring morning a long time ago began to interrupt her prayers.
Her recollection of that morning some thirty years in the past was still vivid. Mary of Magdala, Salome, Salome’s sister, Mary— Mary the mother of James— woke before sunrise. [2]
Mags— most of Magdala’s friends called her Mags— Mags was the most organized of the three, the strongest of the three, the one who was the clear thinker. There was no two ways about it. Mags was their leader.
It was Mags, the organized one, who woke up the rest of them that morning. “We need to be there when the sun rises,” she insisted.
In the near dark, together, they made their way toward the tomb where Yeshua— the name Yeshua is Jesus in the Greek and it means God saves— they made their way toward the tomb where Jesus had been placed. These thirty years later, there was no question in the mind of Salome about one inescapable fact.
Jesus— having been declared an enemy of the state, having been crucified by the Roman authorities, having been murdered by the state— Jesus was dead. She was there when the tomb was sealed.
Yet, when they came upon the tomb that morning, the stone used to cover the cleft in the rock had been rolled away. Even so, they knew Jesus had been executed, knew the body had been placed in that tomb. That the stone was not in their way made no sense to them. And so they entered the tomb, fully expecting to see the body of the Rabbi. They did not.
Salome clearly remembered a young person was sitting in the tomb but her memory of what happened next was a little foggy. She thought these words were spoken: “Do not be afraid! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the One who was crucified. He has been raised and is not here.” (Slight pause.)
All these years later, the memory of those words took her breath away. Perhaps because she was thinking about those words she let out an audible sigh.
That’s when her sister, Mary, tapped her on the shoulder. “Mags wants to see you,” she said. “I think her time is near.”
“Oh, Mary,” said Salome trying to hold back tears. “Mags means so much to us. What shall we do without her?”
Mary could be quite practical. “There’s no time to fuss over that now. She wants to see you. She needs you.”
Mary and Salome returned to the house. Mags was sitting in a chair. She looked terrible. Her eyes did not seem to focus. Salome had seen death often enough. She knew Mags would soon die.
Mags waved at Salome and she approached the chair. Mags smiled and said in a whisper, “Right now I can’t help thinking about that morning at the tomb.” Salome and Mary nodded. Salome wondered if Mags realized she had been having those very same thoughts.
“We were very afraid. It took us some time,” Mags continued, “it took us some time but quite soon after that we understood what resurrection meant. We understood the presence of Jesus is real.”
Again Salome and Mary simply nodded. After all, they had experienced over and over and over what Mags was saying. The presence of Jesus is real. Resurrection affirms the covenant of God.
As Mary and Salome nodded, Mags smiled again. Then she said, “Do not be afraid. Jesus is with me. Jesus is with us.”
It was the last thing she said. She closed her eyes. A short time after that she stopped breathing. (Slight pause.)
After Mags had breathed her last, Salome leaned down and kissed the forehead of her friend. Then Salome stood tall and stiff and faced Mary. The two women looked each other in the eye and nodded. Then they hugged one another tight and they wept. (Slight pause.)
Hand in hand, they left the house. The sun was making its full presence known in the East. Suddenly they both started to laugh. They turned toward each other and looked each other in the eye again, smiling from ear to ear. Salome said, “It is like it was on that morning years ago: Jesus is with us.”
Mary said, “Do not be afraid. The promise of a new day is with us. I can feel the presence of the Rabbi. Jesus is with us and resurrection is real.”
Salome continued, “We are a part of the covenant God has made. We are a part of the presence of the living God. And it is as the Rabbi told us: we are and we need to be a part of doing the work of the living God, the work of healing, the work of forgiveness, the work of love.” Amen.
04/05/2015 ~ Easter Sunday
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I am sure the well known American composer Irving Berlin was a nice fellow. He wrote Easter Parade. He also wrote a lesser know Easter Song, It’s a Lovely Day, Happy Easter. I want to suggest, however, that to merely say, ‘Happy Easter’ is not a Christian sentiment. In fact, let me make a suggestion: if someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ shake their hand and say, ‘Christ is risen.’ ‘Happy Easter’ is a secular sentiment. Christ is risen is the Christian sentiment.”
EASTER ACCLAMATION AND BENEDICTION: Please join with me in the Easter Acclamation.
ONE: Rejoice, people of God! Christ is risen from the dead! Go in peace to love and serve God. Christ is with you always. Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
MANY: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!
May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the love of Christ, Jesus, and in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit this day and forever.
[1] This was said when the reading from Mark was introduced: “I need to something one thing about translation: Mary Magdalene is at best a bad translation of that name. The name offered in the translation you are about to hear is a more accurate rendering. The Inclusive Language Version of Scripture was used.
[2] This is the only place in the NT Canon this Salome is mentioned. In non-canonical works Salome is referred to as the sister of Mary. Hence, I have here taken the liberty of applying that relationship which may or may not be the case. On the other hand, Mary is referred to as “Mary the mother of James.” Elsewhere in the Canon it is clearly stated James is the brother of Jesus. But this is not said in Mark. Hence, while this is not said in Mark, the Canonical implication made by that relationship is that Mary is also the mother of Jesus. If that is the case and if Mary is the sister of Salome, then the relationship implied is that Salome is the Aunt of Jesus. And, if that is the case, it would make sense that not only was Salome the Aunt of Jesus but that Salome would embark on the journey to the tomb with Mary of Magdala and Mary the Mother of James.
Looking Backward; Looking Forward
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, perfumed oils, so that they might go and anoint Jesus.” — Mark 16:1. [1]
It had been a long night. Salome was tired. She left the small dwelling, left her friends, wandered down the road a short distance and sat on a large rock.
A few moments after that she felt moved to pray. As she prayed, Salome thought about her friend back at the house.
Her friend was not doing well. She had some expectation that her friend was about to die and the very thought of that impending death filled her with a sense of sadness. She continued to pray but she also started to cry. (Slight pause.)
Salome looked to the sky, perhaps thinking there might be some solace in the endless vista. She could see many stars but the moon already had completed its rendevous with the horizon. Hence, stars provided the only light.
However, she was also aware a hint of dawn, the promise of a new day, has started to bristle in the Eastern sky. For a reason which should have been obvious to her but she did not consider, as she cried and looked skyward and prayed, memories of a similar Spring morning a long time ago began to interrupt her prayers.
Her recollection of that morning some thirty years in the past was still vivid. Mary of Magdala, Salome, Salome’s sister, Mary— Mary the mother of James— woke before sunrise. [2]
Mags— most of Magdala’s friends called her Mags— Mags was the most organized of the three, the strongest of the three, the one who was the clear thinker. There was no two ways about it. Mags was their leader.
It was Mags, the organized one, who woke up the rest of them that morning. “We need to be there when the sun rises,” she insisted.
In the near dark, together, they made their way toward the tomb where Yeshua— the name Yeshua is Jesus in the Greek and it means God saves— they made their way toward the tomb where Jesus had been placed. These thirty years later, there was no question in the mind of Salome about one inescapable fact.
Jesus— having been declared an enemy of the state, having been crucified by the Roman authorities, having been murdered by the state— Jesus was dead. She was there when the tomb was sealed.
Yet, when they came upon the tomb that morning, the stone used to cover the cleft in the rock had been rolled away. Even so, they knew Jesus had been executed, knew the body had been placed in that tomb. That the stone was not in their way made no sense to them. And so they entered the tomb, fully expecting to see the body of the Rabbi. They did not.
Salome clearly remembered a young person was sitting in the tomb but her memory of what happened next was a little foggy. She thought these words were spoken: “Do not be afraid! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the One who was crucified. He has been raised and is not here.” (Slight pause.)
All these years later, the memory of those words took her breath away. Perhaps because she was thinking about those words she let out an audible sigh.
That’s when her sister, Mary, tapped her on the shoulder. “Mags wants to see you,” she said. “I think her time is near.”
“Oh, Mary,” said Salome trying to hold back tears. “Mags means so much to us. What shall we do without her?”
Mary could be quite practical. “There’s no time to fuss over that now. She wants to see you. She needs you.”
Mary and Salome returned to the house. Mags was sitting in a chair. She looked terrible. Her eyes did not seem to focus. Salome had seen death often enough. She knew Mags would soon die.
Mags waved at Salome and she approached the chair. Mags smiled and said in a whisper, “Right now I can’t help thinking about that morning at the tomb.” Salome and Mary nodded. Salome wondered if Mags realized she had been having those very same thoughts.
“We were very afraid. It took us some time,” Mags continued, “it took us some time but quite soon after that we understood what resurrection meant. We understood the presence of Jesus is real.”
Again Salome and Mary simply nodded. After all, they had experienced over and over and over what Mags was saying. The presence of Jesus is real. Resurrection affirms the covenant of God.
As Mary and Salome nodded, Mags smiled again. Then she said, “Do not be afraid. Jesus is with me. Jesus is with us.”
It was the last thing she said. She closed her eyes. A short time after that she stopped breathing. (Slight pause.)
After Mags had breathed her last, Salome leaned down and kissed the forehead of her friend. Then Salome stood tall and stiff and faced Mary. The two women looked each other in the eye and nodded. Then they hugged one another tight and they wept. (Slight pause.)
Hand in hand, they left the house. The sun was making its full presence known in the East. Suddenly they both started to laugh. They turned toward each other and looked each other in the eye again, smiling from ear to ear. Salome said, “It is like it was on that morning years ago: Jesus is with us.”
Mary said, “Do not be afraid. The promise of a new day is with us. I can feel the presence of the Rabbi. Jesus is with us and resurrection is real.”
Salome continued, “We are a part of the covenant God has made. We are a part of the presence of the living God. And it is as the Rabbi told us: we are and we need to be a part of doing the work of the living God, the work of healing, the work of forgiveness, the work of love.” Amen.
04/05/2015 ~ Easter Sunday
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I am sure the well known American composer Irving Berlin was a nice fellow. He wrote Easter Parade. He also wrote a lesser know Easter Song, It’s a Lovely Day, Happy Easter. I want to suggest, however, that to merely say, ‘Happy Easter’ is not a Christian sentiment. In fact, let me make a suggestion: if someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ shake their hand and say, ‘Christ is risen.’ ‘Happy Easter’ is a secular sentiment. Christ is risen is the Christian sentiment.”
EASTER ACCLAMATION AND BENEDICTION: Please join with me in the Easter Acclamation.
ONE: Rejoice, people of God! Christ is risen from the dead! Go in peace to love and serve God. Christ is with you always. Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
MANY: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!
May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the love of Christ, Jesus, and in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit this day and forever.
[1] This was said when the reading from Mark was introduced: “I need to something one thing about translation: Mary Magdalene is at best a bad translation of that name. The name offered in the translation you are about to hear is a more accurate rendering. The Inclusive Language Version of Scripture was used.
[2] This is the only place in the NT Canon this Salome is mentioned. In non-canonical works Salome is referred to as the sister of Mary. Hence, I have here taken the liberty of applying that relationship which may or may not be the case. On the other hand, Mary is referred to as “Mary the mother of James.” Elsewhere in the Canon it is clearly stated James is the brother of Jesus. But this is not said in Mark. Hence, while this is not said in Mark, the Canonical implication made by that relationship is that Mary is also the mother of Jesus. If that is the case and if Mary is the sister of Salome, then the relationship implied is that Salome is the Aunt of Jesus. And, if that is the case, it would make sense that not only was Salome the Aunt of Jesus but that Salome would embark on the journey to the tomb with Mary of Magdala and Mary the Mother of James.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)