READINGS: October 25, 2015 ~ Proper 25 ~ Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost ~ Job 42:1-6, 10-17; Psalm 34:1-8, (19-22); Jeremiah 31:7-9; Psalm 126; Hebrews 7:23-28; Mark 10:46-52.
Faith and Belief
“Jesus replied, ‘Go. Your faith has saved you.’ And immediately Bartimaeus received the gift of sight and began to follow Jesus along the road.” — Mark 10:52.
I think many of you are aware I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition. As I have said here a number of times, my late father spent his entire working career teaching at a Jesuit High School. Therefore and as I have also said, when I was growing up— my late teens, early twenties, very formative years— Jesuits— those radicals— were my friends.
Here’s an example of my friendships with Jesuits. It happened when I was twenty-one. I had just returned from 14 months in Vietnam. A Jesuit friend invited me to dinner at his rectory to meet someone who was staying there for a couple days.
Now, it’s probable many of you have heard of the two peace activist Jesuits who also happen to be brothers, Daniel and Philip Berrigan. If you have not heard of them you can use “Google” to find out a little more about them.
My friend had gathered about 10 young men to be at the rectory ONE night and the special guest at this dinner was Philip Berrigan. Dan was not there. For all I know, given that era, Dan may have been in the hoosegow for protesting something.
I’m going to presume something about that dinner invitation. My presumption is, since I had just returned from Vietnam, I was invited by my Jesuit friend so I could meet Berrigan. Perhaps my friend thought I needed to be exposed to a peace activist.
There are two things to be said about my situation then. First, both before and after my time in Vietnam, I realized the foolishness of the leadership which put us in that mess. Therefore and paradoxically, I had made the decision that I would willingly enter the Army if I was drafted because that was my duty as a citizen.
On the other hand, I was fully on board with the peace movement. As I said, I realized the foolishness which placed us there. And maybe my Jesuit friend did not realize that about me, hence the invitation.
Second, despite being fully on board with the sentiments expressed by the peace movement, I was very young. At that point in my life I was much more interested in following the Mets, the Jets, the Yankees, the Giants, the Knicks, the Rangers and going out with friends to a local tavern. I am sure these were more important to me than joining peace demonstrations.
Now that I am a little older, I understand peace is a goal of the Dominion of God. And clearly we, as a society, consider people in the peace movement then and sometimes now— so-called peace-nicks— not particularly worthy of respect. They are often thought of as outcasts. Certainly the Berrigans were thought of as outcasts. (Slight pause.)
Another Jesuit friend was Vincent J. O’Keefe. Vinny— or Uncle Vinny, as members of my family called him— Vinny taught with my father in the same school. Later Vinny was the President of Fordham who guided the University through the process when women first became students at what had been an all male institution.
And yes, that transition to co-education at Fordham happened only in the early 1960s. We need to remember today is still less than 100 years since women gained the right to vote. Before then women were considered at best second class citizens, essentially outcasts in their own nation. (Slight pause.)
I want to share just one more story about Vinny. He was also, at one point, stationed in Rome, second in command of the Jesuit order. He was and is the only American to have ever held that post.
Now, when one gets appointed to be the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, the chief big-wig, that’s a lifetime appointment. Like the Pope, it’s a lifetime appointment. When Vinny’s boss, Superior General Pedro Arrupe, a Spanish Jesuit, was disabled by a stroke Vinny ran the order and did so for quite some time. But Arrupe did not die quickly.
Eventually Pope John Paul II stepped in because the Pontiff did not feel comfortable with an American in that position. Indeed, the Pope made an unprecedented move and appointed a caretaker of the Jesuits who ran the order until Arrupe died. Vinny was sent back to America.
And yes, we were that close to having an American run the Jesuits. Perhaps the Pope considered we Americans as outcast. It is fairly well known John Paul II had issues with Americans.
Interestingly, at the time this happened even though my contact was sporadic at best, I was still heard from Vinny. So, I guess you could say I had one degree of separation from the Pontiff. (If I was telling this story on Facebook, this would be the point at which I’d type in a little smiley face, right!) [Slight pause.]
As you all know, my life is very different today. I, in fact, have no face to face contacts with any Jesuits. But I still read Jesuit authors. And I am the Facebook friend with one Jesuit, James Martin, S.J., even though I have never met him in person. I very much appreciate the writings of Martin, an editor at large for America, a Jesuit magazine.
Why do I like Martin’s writings? Here’s one connection for you: we, in the United Church of Christ, are quite fond of saying, “Wherever you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here!” In a recent article Martin reported this is what Jesuits say: “God meets you where you are.”
In this article Martin wrote (quote): “...God doesn’t expect us to be perfect before we can approach God or before God approaches us. Your spiritual house doesn’t have to be perfectly in order for God to enter.”
“...God meets you in ways... you can understand and appreciate. If you are scholarly or more introverted... you may meet God by being inspired through reading a book. If you’re a more social person, you may meet God in a group setting. If you’re someone who loves nature, you may meet God by the seashore. God meets you as you are, where you are, and in ways you can understand.”
“This may sound obvious but that can also be threatening because, for some people, this implies a dangerous laxity. If God meets us where we are, is there any need for change? If there is no need for us to change in any way, does that mean anything goes?” — the thoughts of James Martin, S.J. [1] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Mark: “Jesus replied, ‘Go. Your faith has saved you.’ And immediately Bartimaeus received the gift of sight and began to follow Jesus along the road.” (Slight pause.)
I need to remind you that Mark is the earliest Gospel recorded. And it is clear throughout all the Gospels, but I would suggest it’s especially clear in Mark, that Jesus is sent to and has a ministry with the outcast.
Bartimaeus is outcast. If someone was blind in this era, being an outcast was a given. If someone needed to beg to be sustained, being an outcast was a given.
In fact, Bartimaeus is only one of many outcast recorded by Mark. The narrative we hear from Mark is riddled with the outcast, all of whom are received by or empowered by Jesus.
These include the possessed Gerasene, the Syrophoenician woman, the blind person at Bethsaida, the alien exorcist, even the little children— who, to be clear, would have been considered outcast in this era— and finally Bartimaeus. All this is to say those who are perceived by society as powerless, outcast, take a prominent place in the economy of God’s new order. (Slight pause.)
Over time you may have noticed that all my sermons have titles. But, in the course of my weekly comments, I don’t often mention those titles. I’ll mention the title today: Faith and Belief.
What’s the difference between faith and belief? I think belief implies a list, a set of premises to which one ascribes, as in asking the question ‘what do you believe?
Faith, on the other hand, does not ask for a list. Faith implies a relationship. In that faith implies relationship, faith also does not just imply trust. Faith insists on trust.
Having faith means trusting someone. Indeed, when it comes to faith, there is a name we give that someone: God.
Having faith means trusting God. Having faith means trusting God is real. Having faith means we trust God is present to us. Having faith means we trust God is there for us.
When Jesus tells Bartimaeus, “Go. Your faith has saved you” what is really being said is Bartimaeus, this outcast, has exhibited trust. And, as an outcast, Bartimaeus is not an acceptable member of society. Yes still, Bartimaeus, the outcast, trusts God.
I think Bartimaeus knows trust is about relationship. It’s not about a list of premises, rules. It’s not about what you have. It’s not about trusting what you have. Bartimaeus, the outcast, knows when one trusts God, one is in relationship with God.
Well, the next time someone asks what you believe, the next time someone asks what you believe as a Christian— and that is a question which does get asked— you may have noticed it often has been often asked at Presidential debates— the next time someone asks what you believe, go ahead— confuse them with your answer. Tell them you trust God, that’s what you believe, because that’s certainly not a list.
Of course, you should probably be careful if you offer that answer. After all, belief in God, trusting God, that’s the answer that outcasts often give. Amen.
10/25/2015
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: “We sometimes use an Affirmation of Faith here. The classic one is The Nicene Creed. It sounds like a list of beliefs. It is not. In the original language used in that Creed, Latin, the word we translate as ‘I believe’ is Credo. An accurate translation of the word Credo is not ‘I believe.’ An accurate translation is ‘I give my heart to...’ Christian belief is about the heart, not about a list of doctrine or dogma.”
BENEDICTION: Go out in the strength and love God provides. Praise the deeds of God by the way you live, by the way you love. And may the steadfast love of God and the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] These words are slightly edited.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/21/god-meets-you-where-you-are-and-why-that-can-sound-threatening/
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Sunday, October 18, 2015
SERMON ~ 10/18/2015 ~ “First Things First: Service”
READINGS: October 18, 2015 ~ Proper 24 ~ 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost ~ Job 38:1-7, (34-41); Psalm 104:1-9, 24, 35c; Isaiah 53:4-12; Psalm 91:9-16; Hebrews 5:1-10; Mark 10:35-45.
First Things First: Service
“...it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” — Mark 10: 43-44.
The 1970s, a couple of us remember then— the 1970s— it was an odd time in America. We finished the process of extracting ourselves from Vietnam. The whole experience of the war and its aftermath left raw wounds then and left scars we still feel today. Of course, also in the 70s a President resigned in disgrace. Another president described the national mood as one of malaise, a mood of discomfort. And it was, indeed, an era of upset.
Cities had been, at one point, considered a crown jewel of American civilization, examples to the world. In the 70s many people fled from the cities to the suburbs and beyond as urban decay became rampant.
Yet another President told New York City, which was tittering on the edge of bankruptcy in the mid-seventies to (quote:), “drop dead.” And as you may remember me saying on other occasions, in the mid-70s I lived in New York City, the epicenter of that urban decay.
Now, I don’t remember exactly what the year the story I’m about to tell was, perhaps 1976 or 1977, but it involved a human response by the Episcopal Church I was attending to the urban decay around us. One of the parishioners went to the Rector and asked about trying an experiment.
The suggestion: let’s start a Sunday afternoon meal in the church hall as soon as possible after the Sunday service. The idea was to help the many homeless who at that point were populating the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the neighborhood where the church was located. The Rector’s response: give it a shot, see what happens.
The first week we served less than ten. The third week that number climbed past fifty. By the eight week there were better than 200 being fed.
It was a pretty straightforward operation: the people came through a chow line with plates, got food, found a table. There was one thing we did which I think helped remind everyone we were a church: a parishioner was assigned to sit at each table.
Nothing special was asked of that volunteer. Be friendly; answer any questions you can; engage in conversation only when people are willing to do so.
One day a parishioner trying to make small talk said to a client, “Well, I hope you like the food.”
“Not really,” was the response. (And yes, I cleaned that response up a little.) “Not really,” was the response, “the food is awful. But just to sit among people for a meal is great. And you church people are so friendly it makes me feel like a human being again. It kinda feels like home.” (Slight pause.)
These words are found in the work known as Mark: “...it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” (Slight pause.)
The 1970s— the first time the term ‘War on Drugs’ was used was in the early 1970s. And there is certainly no doubt that drug abuse and addiction were and are real. As I am sure you know, abuse and addiction remain a rampant problem, despite over 40 years of the so called ‘War on Drugs,’ over 40 years of rehabilitation programs, over 40 years of stringent enforcement efforts.
One of the pivotal issues raised by addiction is this question: ‘what, exactly, can help effect an abatement to addiction?’ Interestingly, there are several studies out there which say addiction can be reduced through social interaction. To be clear, these studies are very controversial but they are out there and at least some of them seem to have a modicum of validity.
That having been said, this is a simple explanation of how the studies work and what they discovered. A researcher builds a short tunnel. Rats are sent down the passage one by one. At the end of the tunnel, an animal can drink fluid from one of two dispensers. Both are available. One contains a morphine mixture, another tap water.
One group of rats used in this experiment lived in isolated cages, apart from any contact with members of its own species or human contact. One group was housed in a veritable Rat Park, a playground for rats which had games the rodents seemed to like and also contained other rats with whom they could interact.
On being exposed to the dispensers a number of times, the rats who lived in isolation took the morphine tap insistently. Among the rats who had experienced recreation and socialization, some also still headed to the morphine each time they were sent down the tunnel. But, largely, the rats in this group went only for the water. [1]
To be clear and once again, these studies have caused much uproar and criticism concerning their validity. Still, the idea that addiction might be reduced simply because of social interaction and a pleasing environment is a fascinating possibility.
Needless to say especially since these studies are controversial, my point here is neither to defend nor to criticize the studies. My point has to do with the thought that simply providing a socialized, pleasing environment is, in fact, a way to truly help. That is a lesson we certainly learned at my church in New York City.
To follow up on the church story with another piece of what happened, a couple years after that Sunday afternoon meal was established, in cooperation with a program at the Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, this church, the church that ran the meal every week, started to shelter homeless people just one night a week. And yes, just like food, housing is an imperative, a necessity, especially on cold Winter nights.
Again, we found that when those we housed understood we would socialize with them— interact, play games, watch a movie, when the clients knew they could relax, they let their hair down. And hence, we at the church shelter, did not experience the violence which so often happened in shelters run by the city.
The point I’m making here, of course, is when those seeking shelter felt they could be at ease is the point at which the housing of the homeless stopped being simply a service. Providing shelter stopped being something which was merely given away by us. That is when this housing of the homeless became a ministry. (Slight pause.)
I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘what can we do’ rather than ‘how should we do it?’ I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘what can we give away’ rather than ‘how should we give?’
I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘service’ instead of ‘serving.’ In short, ministry is not about giving alms. Ministry is about giving arms.
You see, we need to remember arms can hug people. Hugging is pivotal. (Slight pause.)
One of the quotes on our church Facebook page this week was a saying attributed to Helen Keller. “The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched— they must be felt within the heart.”
Indeed, ministry is about giving from the heart. Ministry is about providing an environment where the positive is empowered. Ministry is not about what we give. Ministry is about how we give. Church is not about what we give. Church is about how we give.
And, to be clear, yes— it is a great good to help those in need. We, the church, need to do more of that. Hence, it is or should be clear that to provide an environment where needs can be and are met is the real mission of the church.
Jesus told us, “Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” But serving the needs of all is not about playing god by making a decision when it comes to who gets what. Resources are limited. On the other hand, making any claim that we need to play god because resources are limited is a red herring. Resources are, by definition, always limited.
We are called to be the church. We are called to serve everyone. And serving the needs of all is not about resources. Serving the needs of all is about providing an environment— an environment where ministry is empowered because the real resource is people.
Is that a tall order, providing an environment where ministry is empowered? Well, you tell me. Amen.
10/18/2015
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 [The pastor referred to the closing hymn]: “Christians Rise and Act Your Creed— no one ever said that was easy. And I think I said something like this a couple weeks ago: we who stand on the Protestant side of the ledger often forget that justification by faith often forget we need to act also. And we should not forget that.”
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
First Things First: Service
“...it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” — Mark 10: 43-44.
The 1970s, a couple of us remember then— the 1970s— it was an odd time in America. We finished the process of extracting ourselves from Vietnam. The whole experience of the war and its aftermath left raw wounds then and left scars we still feel today. Of course, also in the 70s a President resigned in disgrace. Another president described the national mood as one of malaise, a mood of discomfort. And it was, indeed, an era of upset.
Cities had been, at one point, considered a crown jewel of American civilization, examples to the world. In the 70s many people fled from the cities to the suburbs and beyond as urban decay became rampant.
Yet another President told New York City, which was tittering on the edge of bankruptcy in the mid-seventies to (quote:), “drop dead.” And as you may remember me saying on other occasions, in the mid-70s I lived in New York City, the epicenter of that urban decay.
Now, I don’t remember exactly what the year the story I’m about to tell was, perhaps 1976 or 1977, but it involved a human response by the Episcopal Church I was attending to the urban decay around us. One of the parishioners went to the Rector and asked about trying an experiment.
The suggestion: let’s start a Sunday afternoon meal in the church hall as soon as possible after the Sunday service. The idea was to help the many homeless who at that point were populating the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the neighborhood where the church was located. The Rector’s response: give it a shot, see what happens.
The first week we served less than ten. The third week that number climbed past fifty. By the eight week there were better than 200 being fed.
It was a pretty straightforward operation: the people came through a chow line with plates, got food, found a table. There was one thing we did which I think helped remind everyone we were a church: a parishioner was assigned to sit at each table.
Nothing special was asked of that volunteer. Be friendly; answer any questions you can; engage in conversation only when people are willing to do so.
One day a parishioner trying to make small talk said to a client, “Well, I hope you like the food.”
“Not really,” was the response. (And yes, I cleaned that response up a little.) “Not really,” was the response, “the food is awful. But just to sit among people for a meal is great. And you church people are so friendly it makes me feel like a human being again. It kinda feels like home.” (Slight pause.)
These words are found in the work known as Mark: “...it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” (Slight pause.)
The 1970s— the first time the term ‘War on Drugs’ was used was in the early 1970s. And there is certainly no doubt that drug abuse and addiction were and are real. As I am sure you know, abuse and addiction remain a rampant problem, despite over 40 years of the so called ‘War on Drugs,’ over 40 years of rehabilitation programs, over 40 years of stringent enforcement efforts.
One of the pivotal issues raised by addiction is this question: ‘what, exactly, can help effect an abatement to addiction?’ Interestingly, there are several studies out there which say addiction can be reduced through social interaction. To be clear, these studies are very controversial but they are out there and at least some of them seem to have a modicum of validity.
That having been said, this is a simple explanation of how the studies work and what they discovered. A researcher builds a short tunnel. Rats are sent down the passage one by one. At the end of the tunnel, an animal can drink fluid from one of two dispensers. Both are available. One contains a morphine mixture, another tap water.
One group of rats used in this experiment lived in isolated cages, apart from any contact with members of its own species or human contact. One group was housed in a veritable Rat Park, a playground for rats which had games the rodents seemed to like and also contained other rats with whom they could interact.
On being exposed to the dispensers a number of times, the rats who lived in isolation took the morphine tap insistently. Among the rats who had experienced recreation and socialization, some also still headed to the morphine each time they were sent down the tunnel. But, largely, the rats in this group went only for the water. [1]
To be clear and once again, these studies have caused much uproar and criticism concerning their validity. Still, the idea that addiction might be reduced simply because of social interaction and a pleasing environment is a fascinating possibility.
Needless to say especially since these studies are controversial, my point here is neither to defend nor to criticize the studies. My point has to do with the thought that simply providing a socialized, pleasing environment is, in fact, a way to truly help. That is a lesson we certainly learned at my church in New York City.
To follow up on the church story with another piece of what happened, a couple years after that Sunday afternoon meal was established, in cooperation with a program at the Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, this church, the church that ran the meal every week, started to shelter homeless people just one night a week. And yes, just like food, housing is an imperative, a necessity, especially on cold Winter nights.
Again, we found that when those we housed understood we would socialize with them— interact, play games, watch a movie, when the clients knew they could relax, they let their hair down. And hence, we at the church shelter, did not experience the violence which so often happened in shelters run by the city.
The point I’m making here, of course, is when those seeking shelter felt they could be at ease is the point at which the housing of the homeless stopped being simply a service. Providing shelter stopped being something which was merely given away by us. That is when this housing of the homeless became a ministry. (Slight pause.)
I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘what can we do’ rather than ‘how should we do it?’ I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘what can we give away’ rather than ‘how should we give?’
I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘service’ instead of ‘serving.’ In short, ministry is not about giving alms. Ministry is about giving arms.
You see, we need to remember arms can hug people. Hugging is pivotal. (Slight pause.)
One of the quotes on our church Facebook page this week was a saying attributed to Helen Keller. “The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched— they must be felt within the heart.”
Indeed, ministry is about giving from the heart. Ministry is about providing an environment where the positive is empowered. Ministry is not about what we give. Ministry is about how we give. Church is not about what we give. Church is about how we give.
And, to be clear, yes— it is a great good to help those in need. We, the church, need to do more of that. Hence, it is or should be clear that to provide an environment where needs can be and are met is the real mission of the church.
Jesus told us, “Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” But serving the needs of all is not about playing god by making a decision when it comes to who gets what. Resources are limited. On the other hand, making any claim that we need to play god because resources are limited is a red herring. Resources are, by definition, always limited.
We are called to be the church. We are called to serve everyone. And serving the needs of all is not about resources. Serving the needs of all is about providing an environment— an environment where ministry is empowered because the real resource is people.
Is that a tall order, providing an environment where ministry is empowered? Well, you tell me. Amen.
10/18/2015
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 [The pastor referred to the closing hymn]: “Christians Rise and Act Your Creed— no one ever said that was easy. And I think I said something like this a couple weeks ago: we who stand on the Protestant side of the ledger often forget that justification by faith often forget we need to act also. And we should not forget that.”
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
Sunday, October 11, 2015
SERMON ~ October 11, 2015 ~ “Seek Good”
READINGS: October 11, 2015 ~ Proper 23 ~ 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Job 23:1-9, 16-17; Psalm 22:1-15; Amos 5:6-7, 10-15; Psalm 90:12-17; Hebrews 4:12-16; Mark 10:17-31 ~ “Columbus Day” Weekend or “Indigenous Peoples” Day Weekend on the Secular Calendar.
Seek Good
“Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” — Amos 5:14.
I was in the Adirondacks when Pope Francis came to this country— the Adirondacks, a place some call ‘the land of no television signal.’ Even though I was without television, it probably will not surprise you that I followed the visit both in the printed press and online.
From all outward signs it appears this Pope confounds a lot of people. Francis does so by raising two obvious, very secular but polar opposite questions: Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) liberal? And some answer ‘yes.’ Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) conservative? And some answer ‘yes.’
One New York Times column said the answer is neither. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, author of The Conservative Heart, labeled the message of the Pope as ‘subversive’ while seeing that in a positive light.
The media, said the article, portrays Francis as someone with a loving charisma, a gentle demeanor, unthreatening but still cheerfully sanding down the sharp edges of the church. Hence, many thereby picture this pope as a kindly, secular, philosophical figure.
Within that misconception, the article insists, lies the true subversive genius of Francis. That’s because what looks to some like a smiley-face sticker is actually an invitation to total change.
And what kind of subversiveness, what kind of change might be afoot? The article argues the central theme of the visit by the Pope was a call for unity. The Bishop of Rome frequently urged people (quote:) “to dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...” With respect to the church, itself, Francis exhorted priests to be “shepherds living with the smell of sheep.”
The unity being espoused here goes quite deep, Brooks insists, deeper than most people are willing to go. The Pope challenged people to not just acknowledge and love the other but to embrace the other.
Two examples of subversiveness: in Cuba, Francis exposed a central error of Communism. It conflates a unity with shallow sameness. “Unity is often confused with uniformity,” said Francis. “This is not unity; this is conformity.”
In the United States a warning was presented to not let material prosperity divide people by economic class. While some might see a hidden message leaning left in this sentiment, no American should find it objectionable, said Brooks.
After all, unlike what happens in much of the rest of the world, in America there should be no shame in starting poor. Neither should pride emerge from being born rich. Neither should origins— familial or cultural or religious origins— be a constraining trap. The secret to any American unity, says Brooks, is not giving alms to the poor. The secret to American unity is remembering and knowing we are the poor.
Echoing the 11th Century theologian Anselm, Francis also says, with unity faith and reason are inseparable since faith is reason seeking meaning. Hence, faith does not suffocate or diminish human reason but reinforces it— this the writing of Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute on the ability of the Pope to confound the entrenched polar opposites we so often find of our world. [1] (Slight pause.)
These words are in the Tanakh in the section known as the Prophets in the portion known as the Scroll of the Twelve in the work called Amos: “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” (Slight pause.)
Unity— now that does seem hard to come by. Nearly daily we hear about both sides in politics and in religion entrenched in opposite stands. Why? (Slight pause.)
I’d be the first to admit I may not be right, but I want to suggest fear— raw, naked fear— plays a large part in why entrenched opposition is a way of life today. And therefore, fear produces these polar opposites.
Now, instead of trying to dissuade anyone out of any entrenched position with facts— since facts are amazingly useless tools in the face of fear— I want to ask instead ‘why might fear be playing such an important role?’ Put another way, instead of reason ruling the day, what makes fear so potent, what makes fear an effective weapon? Indeed, could there be a theological reason fear currently overcomes the opportunities for love presented in the kind of unity the Pope addressed? (Slight pause.)
In the course of the first sermon I offered from this pulpit over 19 years ago, I suggested everyone has a theology, an idea about Who God is. I want to suggest we also all have an idea about where God is, where God is located and how that location relates to the world. The fancy term naming where God is, the location of God, is cosmology. So, we— each of us, all of us— do not just have a theology. We all have a cosmology, a location for God.
Now, elevator cosmology— some kind of top-down concept— is quite popular. It suggests there are really only three locations in the universe: heaven, earth and “h-e double hockey sticks.”
This cosmology explains the location of God, the location of life and the possibilities of afterlife. Many people are very comfortable with this cosmology, especially if we claim our personal elevator only goes (pardon the expression) up.
In her most recent writing, the book Grounded, Diana Butler Bass says this three tiered cosmology may be part of the problem. It may be why so many people are entrenched and fear is so prevalent.
You see, that cosmology may be beginning to disappear. After all, we have sent spacecraft past the bounds of the solar system, landed them on other planets and humans have landed on the moon. We have gone to the depths of the oceans. Having done all that, it becomes hard to have a heaven, an earth and the classic “h-e double hockey sticks”— that elevator kind of cosmology anymore.
Indeed, ask yourself ‘where is heaven located?’ Where is God? I think most of us would say, “God is everywhere.” But everywhere includes all time and space, what we believe to be at least a 13.7 billion light year universe, an idea was inconceivable just 100 years ago. And, given that, a three tiered cosmology becomes seriously problematic.
Further, if God is everywhere in a 13.7 billion light year universe, who does God love? Everyone? (Slight pause.) So, if God is everywhere and loves everyone, what happens to an elevator cosmology, a cosmology which selects out winners and losers. (Slight pause.)
There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in churches, all churches— mainline, left, right and center, it makes no difference— much wailing and gnashing of teeth about loss of members and lack of young members. Butler Bass suggests one reason this is happening is people no longer buy into elevator cosmology.
Why? An elevator cosmology does not allow for an understanding of God who is both universal and personal, a God who is both transcendent and close.
The experience of people, she says, is that God is both everywhere and close. The experience of people, she says, is God is known by people as a spiritual experience, a spiritual presence. And therefore she says, God is not experienced in a top-down way. And many churches, even if they are not top-down, still preach an elevator universe.
Top-down, you see, does not allow for an embrace of the other, an embrace of all people, since some people in a top-down system are clearly singled out as losers. Top-down, you see, often means uniformity and conformity.
Top-down does not allow for dialogue but allows only for commands and dogma. And that is no longer the way people understand theology, understand cosmology, understand... God. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to our polarized society, a fearful society. I think when ones understanding of how the world works, when ones theological concept of how the world works is challenged, threatened, a natural response is a combination of denial, belligerence and intransigence. Since an elevator theology, an elevator cosmology is no longer particularly operative people who hold on to that cosmology feel threatened.
And that threat to how God is understood spills over from theology into everyday life. People dig in therefore and will not move, will not listen, insist everyone is against them, insist they don’t want to be associated with losers... and they become fearful. (Slight pause.)
I am loathe to say this next thing but I must. There is no cure for polarization. There is no cure until and unless, as the Pope suggested, we (quote:) “...dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...”
How can that happen? How can we dialogue when intransigence is a common strategy? Perhaps Amos got it right all the way back in the Eight Century Before the Common Era. (Quote:) “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live;...” (Slight pause.)
I think a key to seeking good is to seek unity. And unity means understanding God is with us all, not just with some. Unity means winners and losers are meaningless categories. Unity means true dialogue is when we both listen and speak. Unity means seeking good for all. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
10/11/2015
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: “Is the Pope liberal or conservative? The pope is pastoral. Conservatives tend to like sharply drawn lines— liberals, not so much. Hence, the challenge to conservatives is pastoral makes lines fuzzy. The challenge to liberals is pastoral means lines have not been eradicated but the question as to where they will be drawn becomes a difficult one which needs to be addressed and not blithely ignored.”
[1] Note: the thoughts of Brooks are here paraphrased but I think the meaning survives intact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/opinion/the-popes-subversive-message.html?_r=0
Seek Good
“Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” — Amos 5:14.
I was in the Adirondacks when Pope Francis came to this country— the Adirondacks, a place some call ‘the land of no television signal.’ Even though I was without television, it probably will not surprise you that I followed the visit both in the printed press and online.
From all outward signs it appears this Pope confounds a lot of people. Francis does so by raising two obvious, very secular but polar opposite questions: Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) liberal? And some answer ‘yes.’ Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) conservative? And some answer ‘yes.’
One New York Times column said the answer is neither. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, author of The Conservative Heart, labeled the message of the Pope as ‘subversive’ while seeing that in a positive light.
The media, said the article, portrays Francis as someone with a loving charisma, a gentle demeanor, unthreatening but still cheerfully sanding down the sharp edges of the church. Hence, many thereby picture this pope as a kindly, secular, philosophical figure.
Within that misconception, the article insists, lies the true subversive genius of Francis. That’s because what looks to some like a smiley-face sticker is actually an invitation to total change.
And what kind of subversiveness, what kind of change might be afoot? The article argues the central theme of the visit by the Pope was a call for unity. The Bishop of Rome frequently urged people (quote:) “to dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...” With respect to the church, itself, Francis exhorted priests to be “shepherds living with the smell of sheep.”
The unity being espoused here goes quite deep, Brooks insists, deeper than most people are willing to go. The Pope challenged people to not just acknowledge and love the other but to embrace the other.
Two examples of subversiveness: in Cuba, Francis exposed a central error of Communism. It conflates a unity with shallow sameness. “Unity is often confused with uniformity,” said Francis. “This is not unity; this is conformity.”
In the United States a warning was presented to not let material prosperity divide people by economic class. While some might see a hidden message leaning left in this sentiment, no American should find it objectionable, said Brooks.
After all, unlike what happens in much of the rest of the world, in America there should be no shame in starting poor. Neither should pride emerge from being born rich. Neither should origins— familial or cultural or religious origins— be a constraining trap. The secret to any American unity, says Brooks, is not giving alms to the poor. The secret to American unity is remembering and knowing we are the poor.
Echoing the 11th Century theologian Anselm, Francis also says, with unity faith and reason are inseparable since faith is reason seeking meaning. Hence, faith does not suffocate or diminish human reason but reinforces it— this the writing of Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute on the ability of the Pope to confound the entrenched polar opposites we so often find of our world. [1] (Slight pause.)
These words are in the Tanakh in the section known as the Prophets in the portion known as the Scroll of the Twelve in the work called Amos: “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” (Slight pause.)
Unity— now that does seem hard to come by. Nearly daily we hear about both sides in politics and in religion entrenched in opposite stands. Why? (Slight pause.)
I’d be the first to admit I may not be right, but I want to suggest fear— raw, naked fear— plays a large part in why entrenched opposition is a way of life today. And therefore, fear produces these polar opposites.
Now, instead of trying to dissuade anyone out of any entrenched position with facts— since facts are amazingly useless tools in the face of fear— I want to ask instead ‘why might fear be playing such an important role?’ Put another way, instead of reason ruling the day, what makes fear so potent, what makes fear an effective weapon? Indeed, could there be a theological reason fear currently overcomes the opportunities for love presented in the kind of unity the Pope addressed? (Slight pause.)
In the course of the first sermon I offered from this pulpit over 19 years ago, I suggested everyone has a theology, an idea about Who God is. I want to suggest we also all have an idea about where God is, where God is located and how that location relates to the world. The fancy term naming where God is, the location of God, is cosmology. So, we— each of us, all of us— do not just have a theology. We all have a cosmology, a location for God.
Now, elevator cosmology— some kind of top-down concept— is quite popular. It suggests there are really only three locations in the universe: heaven, earth and “h-e double hockey sticks.”
This cosmology explains the location of God, the location of life and the possibilities of afterlife. Many people are very comfortable with this cosmology, especially if we claim our personal elevator only goes (pardon the expression) up.
In her most recent writing, the book Grounded, Diana Butler Bass says this three tiered cosmology may be part of the problem. It may be why so many people are entrenched and fear is so prevalent.
You see, that cosmology may be beginning to disappear. After all, we have sent spacecraft past the bounds of the solar system, landed them on other planets and humans have landed on the moon. We have gone to the depths of the oceans. Having done all that, it becomes hard to have a heaven, an earth and the classic “h-e double hockey sticks”— that elevator kind of cosmology anymore.
Indeed, ask yourself ‘where is heaven located?’ Where is God? I think most of us would say, “God is everywhere.” But everywhere includes all time and space, what we believe to be at least a 13.7 billion light year universe, an idea was inconceivable just 100 years ago. And, given that, a three tiered cosmology becomes seriously problematic.
Further, if God is everywhere in a 13.7 billion light year universe, who does God love? Everyone? (Slight pause.) So, if God is everywhere and loves everyone, what happens to an elevator cosmology, a cosmology which selects out winners and losers. (Slight pause.)
There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in churches, all churches— mainline, left, right and center, it makes no difference— much wailing and gnashing of teeth about loss of members and lack of young members. Butler Bass suggests one reason this is happening is people no longer buy into elevator cosmology.
Why? An elevator cosmology does not allow for an understanding of God who is both universal and personal, a God who is both transcendent and close.
The experience of people, she says, is that God is both everywhere and close. The experience of people, she says, is God is known by people as a spiritual experience, a spiritual presence. And therefore she says, God is not experienced in a top-down way. And many churches, even if they are not top-down, still preach an elevator universe.
Top-down, you see, does not allow for an embrace of the other, an embrace of all people, since some people in a top-down system are clearly singled out as losers. Top-down, you see, often means uniformity and conformity.
Top-down does not allow for dialogue but allows only for commands and dogma. And that is no longer the way people understand theology, understand cosmology, understand... God. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to our polarized society, a fearful society. I think when ones understanding of how the world works, when ones theological concept of how the world works is challenged, threatened, a natural response is a combination of denial, belligerence and intransigence. Since an elevator theology, an elevator cosmology is no longer particularly operative people who hold on to that cosmology feel threatened.
And that threat to how God is understood spills over from theology into everyday life. People dig in therefore and will not move, will not listen, insist everyone is against them, insist they don’t want to be associated with losers... and they become fearful. (Slight pause.)
I am loathe to say this next thing but I must. There is no cure for polarization. There is no cure until and unless, as the Pope suggested, we (quote:) “...dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...”
How can that happen? How can we dialogue when intransigence is a common strategy? Perhaps Amos got it right all the way back in the Eight Century Before the Common Era. (Quote:) “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live;...” (Slight pause.)
I think a key to seeking good is to seek unity. And unity means understanding God is with us all, not just with some. Unity means winners and losers are meaningless categories. Unity means true dialogue is when we both listen and speak. Unity means seeking good for all. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
10/11/2015
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: “Is the Pope liberal or conservative? The pope is pastoral. Conservatives tend to like sharply drawn lines— liberals, not so much. Hence, the challenge to conservatives is pastoral makes lines fuzzy. The challenge to liberals is pastoral means lines have not been eradicated but the question as to where they will be drawn becomes a difficult one which needs to be addressed and not blithely ignored.”
[1] Note: the thoughts of Brooks are here paraphrased but I think the meaning survives intact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/opinion/the-popes-subversive-message.html?_r=0
Sunday, October 4, 2015
SERMON ~ 10/04/2014 ~ “Made Out of the Adamah”
October 4, 2015 ~ Proper 22 ~ 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Job 1:1, 2:1-10; Psalm 26; Genesis 2:18-24; Psalm 8; Hebrews 1:1-4, 2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16 ~ World Wide Communion Sunday.
Made Out of the Adamah
A READING FROM THE TANAKH IN THE SECTION KNOWN AS THE TORAH — Genesis 2:18-23 [ILV]
Because we do not read the passages from Scripture in their original languages this places us at a severe disadvantage when it come to understanding what many words mean. In the passage I am about to read what we take to be simply names are actually words with meanings hidden from us because of this. The translation we use today attempts to address what the passage means since it is translated in a way which helps us hear some of the meanings behind the words which we often take merely as names. Needless to say, the meaning behind the words indicate something richer is happening here than mere naming.
[18] ...Yahweh, God, said, “It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.” [19] So also out of the ground, from the soil, out of the adamah, Yahweh, God, formed all the animals, every wild beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the earth creature, the adam, so these could be named. Whatever the earth creature, the adam, called every living one, that became its name. [20] The earth creature gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field, all the wild animals.
But none of them proved to be a fitting companion, a partner for the adam, the earth creature. [21] So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side. [22] Yahweh then fashioned the two halves into male and female and presented them to one another.
[23] The male realized what had happened and said,
“This time this is the one!
Bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
Now this one will be called ish” —
ish a word which means source of life
“and I shall be called adam”—
adam— a word which means from the ground
“for out of me was this one taken.”
***************************************************
“So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” — Genesis 2:21.
Since I arrived in Norwich over nineteen years ago, like clockwork, once a month, I lead a Sunday afternoon service of worship at Chenango Valley Home. One of our musicians also attends so we can have a couple of hymns.
On June 14th, before Bonnie and I left on our trip, as a part of my sermon, I decided to tell the residents something about our upcoming travels. In part I wanted to explain why I would not be back until October. So this is how I started my comments at Chenango Valley Home on that day. (Slight pause.)
“Many of you know when Bonnie I got hitched she was a resident of the great State of Maine. I was a resident of New York City. And not just a resident but a native.”
“Many natives of the Big Apple, myself included, never learn to drive. So when I moved to Maine to marry Bonnie I needed to learn. Therefore, at first Bonnie did all the driving. That was O.K. Bonnie would drive. I would navigate. (She will tell you navigation is not her forté.)”
“There is one more thing to add. If we were going somewhere that took more than an hour, before Bonnie stepped on the gas we would look at each other and in unison say, ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ And off we’d go: another adventure.”
“Well,” I said back in June, “we have not done that recently. However, I suspect on June 27th, Bonnie and I will get into the car, look at each other and say those words once again: ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ That’s because we are about to go on the biggest adventure we’ve ever tried.”
“We will be gone from June 27th through the October 1st. Together we will be driving across the country and back.” That’s what I said at Chenango Valley Home. (Slight pause.)
I am here to report, that is exactly what happened, exactly what we did. On the morning of June 27th we got in the car and intoned the words “Adventures with Bonnie and Joe” in unison as we were about to leave. Then we cried, perhaps a little overwhelmed by the enormity of what we were about to do.
Bonnie says we cried because we were leaving the cats. But I’m of a different opinion. That would not be the last time we cried on this trip.
We cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone which we saw both headed West and East. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower.
To be clear, we had moments of deep emotion when we spent a week at the Chautauqua Institution in Western New York. And we were moved when we saw the Norton Simon Museum, the Huntington, the Dead Sea Scrolls at the California Science Center, the John Steinbeck Center, the Art Institute of Chicago. We were moved when we visited Mount Rushmore, the Hover Dam. But, for this moment, for these remarks I want to address what God hath wrought rather than what the children of God hath wrought.
We both felt just to see these amazing places left us in awe of God and of the universe God created. Indeed, Bonnie kept saying over and over, “I can take all kinds of pictures but I can’t seem to convey how amazing and wonderful these things are.”
Personally, I think Bonnie did a great job of conveying the magnitude of what we saw. But a part of me says ‘she is right.’ These are places of overwhelming beauty, hard to capture.
Do note: probably sometime in November on a date still to be specified we will have a pot luck and show some pictures. When that happens you can be the judge of how well Bonnie captured what we saw. And I hope everybody can come. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Tanakh in the section known as the Torah from the portion of that work known as Genesis: “So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” (Slight pause.)
Well, let’s try a little experiment which has to do with a certain animal we saw in Yellowstone Park. I am going to intone the first five words of a very well known song which refers to this beast. When I stop, I ask that you sing the next four words and only the next four words. Ready? O.K.
“Oh, give me a home.... (the pastor holds out his hands and the congregation responded) ...where the buffalo roam....”
That’s it! “Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam.” There is only one problem with those words. There are no buffalo on the North American Continent. There never have been buffalo on the North American Continent.
Several kinds of buffalo inhabit Asia, Africa, Europe. But there are none here. What this song and popular culture refers to as buffalo are not buffalo. They are bison.
Bison are distant relatives of buffalo but they are... not... buffalo. To be clear, popular culture often refers to bison as buffalo. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong. (Slight pause.)
Popular culture is often wrong, especially when it comes to Scripture. Why? Because popular culture makes no effort to see Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered.
In fact, the creation stories in the Bible are not particularly original or unique. There were many creation stories in ancient times and the Hebrews simply adapted some stories which already existed. Why did the Hebrews want to use and adapt these stories?
The answer has to do with the Hebrew understanding of God. In ancient times most people thought there were a multitude of gods each of whom took care of their own little job: planting, harvesting, weather, etc., etc., etc. The Hebrews understood God to be a God of all things, not just some things.
The Hebrews understood God to be a God of the universe. In that era, in that context, the concept that God might be a God who touched all things, the concept that God was a God of the universe was a new idea, a radical idea. (Slight pause.)
Now, I hope the translation of the Genesis reading I used today made something clear: the word ‘Adam’ is not a name. The word ‘Adam’ does not refer to gender.
Adam means earth, ground, dust. So the point being made has nothing to do with mere humanness and certainly not gender. That misreading of Scripture is a product of popular culture. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong.
The point being made by Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered is that God creates humans, our incredible and finite species, out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. God creates humans from the same stuff out of which God creates everything. The story tells us that.
So, the point being made here is not even about how or why creation exists, again a popular misunderstanding. The point being made is that the Hebrews give us a new and radical claim: God is a God of all things, a God of the universe.
Therefore, in this story God molds many incredible and finite things out of out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. How do I know God molded many things out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust?
Perhaps I don’t know God created many things of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. Because the creation stories do not inform us in any way about the how or the why of creation. The creation stories tell us about the Who of creation, a God of all things.
So, I really don’t know how and why God created. On the other hand I do know this about our reaction, the reaction Bonnie and I had, to the God who created all things: we cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower— these places of overwhelming beauty.
And so this is what I do know because Scripture is clear about it: God is a God of all things. And that is an overwhelmingly beautiful idea. Amen.
10/04/2015
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: [The pastor holds up a large piece of sandstone] “This is piece of sandstone from the area around the Colorado River, the river that formed the Grand Canyon, the river that’s bottled up by the Hover Dam. Its atoms are in a slightly different form than the atoms in us but it is made of atoms, just as we are. Science tells us there are as many atoms in the universe today as there were at the time of the Big Bang— think about that. But the atom and science is not the point here. The point is God is God of all. And that idea should engage not our intellect but our emotions. Hence, when I grapple with the reality of God— a God Who touches us all, I get emotional— but you may have noticed that.” [1]
[1] It should be noted that the pastor did cry a number of times during the course of this sermon, in part, because the journey being spoken about was not just a journey across the country but a journey which engaged emotional life.
Made Out of the Adamah
A READING FROM THE TANAKH IN THE SECTION KNOWN AS THE TORAH — Genesis 2:18-23 [ILV]
Because we do not read the passages from Scripture in their original languages this places us at a severe disadvantage when it come to understanding what many words mean. In the passage I am about to read what we take to be simply names are actually words with meanings hidden from us because of this. The translation we use today attempts to address what the passage means since it is translated in a way which helps us hear some of the meanings behind the words which we often take merely as names. Needless to say, the meaning behind the words indicate something richer is happening here than mere naming.
[18] ...Yahweh, God, said, “It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.” [19] So also out of the ground, from the soil, out of the adamah, Yahweh, God, formed all the animals, every wild beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the earth creature, the adam, so these could be named. Whatever the earth creature, the adam, called every living one, that became its name. [20] The earth creature gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field, all the wild animals.
But none of them proved to be a fitting companion, a partner for the adam, the earth creature. [21] So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side. [22] Yahweh then fashioned the two halves into male and female and presented them to one another.
[23] The male realized what had happened and said,
“This time this is the one!
Bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
Now this one will be called ish” —
ish a word which means source of life
“and I shall be called adam”—
adam— a word which means from the ground
“for out of me was this one taken.”
***************************************************
“So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” — Genesis 2:21.
Since I arrived in Norwich over nineteen years ago, like clockwork, once a month, I lead a Sunday afternoon service of worship at Chenango Valley Home. One of our musicians also attends so we can have a couple of hymns.
On June 14th, before Bonnie and I left on our trip, as a part of my sermon, I decided to tell the residents something about our upcoming travels. In part I wanted to explain why I would not be back until October. So this is how I started my comments at Chenango Valley Home on that day. (Slight pause.)
“Many of you know when Bonnie I got hitched she was a resident of the great State of Maine. I was a resident of New York City. And not just a resident but a native.”
“Many natives of the Big Apple, myself included, never learn to drive. So when I moved to Maine to marry Bonnie I needed to learn. Therefore, at first Bonnie did all the driving. That was O.K. Bonnie would drive. I would navigate. (She will tell you navigation is not her forté.)”
“There is one more thing to add. If we were going somewhere that took more than an hour, before Bonnie stepped on the gas we would look at each other and in unison say, ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ And off we’d go: another adventure.”
“Well,” I said back in June, “we have not done that recently. However, I suspect on June 27th, Bonnie and I will get into the car, look at each other and say those words once again: ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ That’s because we are about to go on the biggest adventure we’ve ever tried.”
“We will be gone from June 27th through the October 1st. Together we will be driving across the country and back.” That’s what I said at Chenango Valley Home. (Slight pause.)
I am here to report, that is exactly what happened, exactly what we did. On the morning of June 27th we got in the car and intoned the words “Adventures with Bonnie and Joe” in unison as we were about to leave. Then we cried, perhaps a little overwhelmed by the enormity of what we were about to do.
Bonnie says we cried because we were leaving the cats. But I’m of a different opinion. That would not be the last time we cried on this trip.
We cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone which we saw both headed West and East. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower.
To be clear, we had moments of deep emotion when we spent a week at the Chautauqua Institution in Western New York. And we were moved when we saw the Norton Simon Museum, the Huntington, the Dead Sea Scrolls at the California Science Center, the John Steinbeck Center, the Art Institute of Chicago. We were moved when we visited Mount Rushmore, the Hover Dam. But, for this moment, for these remarks I want to address what God hath wrought rather than what the children of God hath wrought.
We both felt just to see these amazing places left us in awe of God and of the universe God created. Indeed, Bonnie kept saying over and over, “I can take all kinds of pictures but I can’t seem to convey how amazing and wonderful these things are.”
Personally, I think Bonnie did a great job of conveying the magnitude of what we saw. But a part of me says ‘she is right.’ These are places of overwhelming beauty, hard to capture.
Do note: probably sometime in November on a date still to be specified we will have a pot luck and show some pictures. When that happens you can be the judge of how well Bonnie captured what we saw. And I hope everybody can come. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Tanakh in the section known as the Torah from the portion of that work known as Genesis: “So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” (Slight pause.)
Well, let’s try a little experiment which has to do with a certain animal we saw in Yellowstone Park. I am going to intone the first five words of a very well known song which refers to this beast. When I stop, I ask that you sing the next four words and only the next four words. Ready? O.K.
“Oh, give me a home.... (the pastor holds out his hands and the congregation responded) ...where the buffalo roam....”
That’s it! “Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam.” There is only one problem with those words. There are no buffalo on the North American Continent. There never have been buffalo on the North American Continent.
Several kinds of buffalo inhabit Asia, Africa, Europe. But there are none here. What this song and popular culture refers to as buffalo are not buffalo. They are bison.
Bison are distant relatives of buffalo but they are... not... buffalo. To be clear, popular culture often refers to bison as buffalo. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong. (Slight pause.)
Popular culture is often wrong, especially when it comes to Scripture. Why? Because popular culture makes no effort to see Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered.
In fact, the creation stories in the Bible are not particularly original or unique. There were many creation stories in ancient times and the Hebrews simply adapted some stories which already existed. Why did the Hebrews want to use and adapt these stories?
The answer has to do with the Hebrew understanding of God. In ancient times most people thought there were a multitude of gods each of whom took care of their own little job: planting, harvesting, weather, etc., etc., etc. The Hebrews understood God to be a God of all things, not just some things.
The Hebrews understood God to be a God of the universe. In that era, in that context, the concept that God might be a God who touched all things, the concept that God was a God of the universe was a new idea, a radical idea. (Slight pause.)
Now, I hope the translation of the Genesis reading I used today made something clear: the word ‘Adam’ is not a name. The word ‘Adam’ does not refer to gender.
Adam means earth, ground, dust. So the point being made has nothing to do with mere humanness and certainly not gender. That misreading of Scripture is a product of popular culture. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong.
The point being made by Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered is that God creates humans, our incredible and finite species, out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. God creates humans from the same stuff out of which God creates everything. The story tells us that.
So, the point being made here is not even about how or why creation exists, again a popular misunderstanding. The point being made is that the Hebrews give us a new and radical claim: God is a God of all things, a God of the universe.
Therefore, in this story God molds many incredible and finite things out of out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. How do I know God molded many things out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust?
Perhaps I don’t know God created many things of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. Because the creation stories do not inform us in any way about the how or the why of creation. The creation stories tell us about the Who of creation, a God of all things.
So, I really don’t know how and why God created. On the other hand I do know this about our reaction, the reaction Bonnie and I had, to the God who created all things: we cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower— these places of overwhelming beauty.
And so this is what I do know because Scripture is clear about it: God is a God of all things. And that is an overwhelmingly beautiful idea. Amen.
10/04/2015
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: [The pastor holds up a large piece of sandstone] “This is piece of sandstone from the area around the Colorado River, the river that formed the Grand Canyon, the river that’s bottled up by the Hover Dam. Its atoms are in a slightly different form than the atoms in us but it is made of atoms, just as we are. Science tells us there are as many atoms in the universe today as there were at the time of the Big Bang— think about that. But the atom and science is not the point here. The point is God is God of all. And that idea should engage not our intellect but our emotions. Hence, when I grapple with the reality of God— a God Who touches us all, I get emotional— but you may have noticed that.” [1]
[1] It should be noted that the pastor did cry a number of times during the course of this sermon, in part, because the journey being spoken about was not just a journey across the country but a journey which engaged emotional life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)