11/29/2015 ~ First Sunday in Year ‘C’ of the Three Year Lectionary Cycle ~ First Sunday of Advent ~ The Sunday on Which the Christian Virtue of Hope Is Celebrated ~ Jeremiah 33:14-16; Psalm 25:1-10; 1 Thessalonians 3:9-13; Luke 21:25-36.
Hope?
“People will faint from fear in anticipation of what is coming upon the earth. The powers in the heavens will be shaken.” — Luke 21:26
I have oftentimes referred to my work in theater in my Sunday comments. But, more broadly, work in the theater involves a number of formats, mediums.
For me personally, aside from the stage, the work ranged from time in the recording studio to developing club acts to work in children’s theater. In fact, people on the inside show business refer to it as simply “the business.” (Slight pause.) Now, I have heard it said by people outside “the business” that vaudeville is dead.
People inside the business never say that. Why? Vaudeville is, by definition, nothing more than a series of unrelated, often varied presentations by different artists.
So people inside “the business” realize vaudeville is not dead but has merely migrated to other mediums. These include television, night clubs, recordings, the circus, comedy clubs— the list goes on.
A place to which vaudeville once migrated but now, like vaudeville, is a venue which has itself migrated, was the so called Borscht Circuit, Borscht Belt. As many of you know since it was not that far away from here, the Borscht Belt was a circuit of vacation spots in the Catskills. As an entertainment medium, the resorts were best known for its stand up comedy stars.
I’m going to rattle off a list of comedians who appeared at Borscht Belt resorts. It’s likely older folks among us will recognize all the names. But even the young will recognize some of the names, as many of them were and are well known both as comedians and in other ways— as writers, producers, directors.
This list just skims the surface. Woody Allen, Morey Amsterdam, Jack Benny, Joey Bishop, Mel Brooks— most of you I think know Mel Brooks— George Burns, Gracie Allen, Red Buttons, Sid Caesar, Rodney Dangerfield, Buddy Hackett, Harvey Korman, Jerry Lewis, Carl Reiner, Don Rickles, Joan Rivers, both Rowan & Martin, Jonathan Winters, Henny Youngman, Jackie Vernon.
Even though he is probably a lesser known personality on that list, I have always had an affinity for Jackie Vernon. Perhaps that’s because he had a distinct, dry, deadpan sense of humor.
He recited odd monologues where nothing seemed to work out for him. His bits included lines like: “I was unpopular as a kid— Dale Carnegie once hit me in the mouth.” “I called Dial-a-Prayer— they hung up on me.”
Another routine was the “Vacation Slide Show.” No slides were visible; your imagination made them real. All he did was described the slides while using a hand-clicker which signaled the advance of each unseen picture. “(Click:) Here I am, tossing in coins at a toll booth. (Click:) Here I am, under the car looking for the coins.”
In yet another monologue he talked about his Uncle Ralph. “My Uncle Ralph,” he said, “always predicted the world would end on March the Second, 1958.” Then he’d pause. “For him it did.” That’s a real apocalypse, isn’t it. (Slight pause.)
These words are in the Gospel we have come to know as Luke: “People will faint from fear in anticipation of what is coming upon the earth. The powers in the heavens will be shaken.” (Slight pause.)
In order to try to make sense of this reading there are a number of things to be considered. First, it is a modernism to see the end times, the apocalypse, in personal terms, an idea illustrated by Jackie Vernon’s Uncle Ralph.
To see the end of the world as if it played out exclusively on an individual level, only in our time, is absurd. The Uncle Ralph story is funny because we know a personal version of the end times is absurd.
In fact, a question sometimes posed by people both worried about and predicting an apocalypse is straightforward. “Will you be among the 144,000 thousand?”
Why? The 144,000 is mentioned twice in the book of Revelation as the servants of God who will be the redeemed. And that’s a small number, is it not? So, the real question offered by those who dwell on this number is obvious since it relies on fear and is phrased in the form of a threat. How will you, personally, get to be among the select.
There are, needless to say, problems with that predictive analysis. As I suggested, seeing this in personal terms is a modern conceit. But more importantly, in ancient times people were concerned with the collective, the whole, the entire society, everyone.
Hence, 144,000 was not meant to be seen as an absolute, exact number or taken on a personal level. It was meant as a sign of completion or perfection for society as a whole.
Next, as was mentioned when the reading was introduced, we know this work was written at least fifty years after Jesus was raised and probably later. Those who recorded these words knew the apocalypse had not arrived and likely understood it was not about to arrive.
That having been said, there is yet another aspect to consider, a contrast we need to draw, when we look at apocalyptic literature in Scripture. The contrast is we need to look at modern apocalyptic literature, popular in our society today. “Joe,” I hear you protest, “what do you mean modern apocalyptic literature is popular?”
Well, this is a very abbreviated list of movies currently, recently or about to be in release and/or current TV programs. Victor Frankenstein; The Hunger Games— all four of them; The Martian; The Walking Dead; The Game of Thrones; Star Wars— all seven of them; Doctor Who— all 50 years of it.
My friends, all these are in some way modern apocalyptic literature and none of these has anything to do with the end times, even though that is a recurring theme. These are about issues we face today in our time.
These are written today; these are about issues we face today. I think most of us understand that. Put another way, apocalyptic literature, especially in Scripture is always reflective— always reflective— of what people are facing. Apocalyptic literature is never predictive— never predictive.
This poses an obvious question: if ancient writings which sound apocalyptic are not about the end times, what are they about? Or, perhaps more to the point for today: what is this passage about? (Slight pause.)
First things first: why might an apocalyptic passage appear in what was even then— in that era— was called the good news? Well, what you need to ask is ‘what were the experiences of the people who recorded these words and first read these words?’ (Slight pause.)
What they saw was the complete and utter destruction of what had been Israel by Rome. Jerusalem is destroyed in the year 70 of the Common Era and the Jewish population experiences a diaspora. They are banished from their homes, their territory.
No longer welcome or safe where they had lived, they become refugees scattered across the Mediterranean. In short, they survived but what they witnessed, what they saw, felt like some kind of apocalypse. Hence, that they might write an apocalyptic piece of literature contained in the good news has little to do with predictions and a lot to do with a reflection about their experience.
Next, if this section is a type of apocalyptic literature— and it is— we need to ask ‘what does it mean?’ rather than ‘what does it say?’ In terms of meaning, I think the proclamation is simple. The Messiah has come. The Messiah is with us.
Indeed, from the first words of Luke that has been the message of this Gospel: the Messiah is real, present, with us. That the message of the presence of the Messiah might be reiterated, here in apocalyptic terms, is not out of character with the rest of the Gospel.
That leaves a final question: ‘why does the church, in its wisdom, assign an apocalyptic reading to the First Sunday in Advent and then label that Sunday as a day on which hope is celebrated?’ After all, what is hopeful about apocalyptic literature? (Slight pause.)
Well this is what I think: hope is where a deeper meaning of these words lie. You see, by definition hope is never in the present tense. Hope, by definition, cannot be about what is complete. Hope is about what is to be.
Therefore, a proclamation that says the Messiah is real, is present, is with us is an invitation to the future— an invitation to the future, not a prediction about the future. More importantly, this is an invitation to us to participate in the Dominion of God now, right now, because the Messiah is real, present, with us.
So yes, we celebrate hope in Advent. We have hope not because of what might or will happen. We have hope because God is with us now, not in some other place, time or space. God is with us now as we move toward the future. We have hope because we have been invited by God through the presence of the Messiah to participate in the Dominion of God.
So today, let us go from this place filled with hope and, therefore, filled with a desire to walk in the ways of God. Today let us go forth not succumbing to fear but proclaiming hope.
Today let us go from this place filled with hope because we are empowered to work toward the reality of God’s world. And the reality of God’s world is known to us in the words we celebrate in this Season of Advent: hope, peace, joy, love. Amen.
11/29/2015
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 a précis of what was said: “Why was there apocalyptic literature in New Testament times and why is apocalyptic literature today? We, like those who lived in New Testament Times, apparently are being told we need to live in fear. But we, like those who lived in New Testament times, need to be clear that the Advent of the Messiah means hope, not fear leads us toward faithfulness. Why does hope lead us toward faithfulness? The Messiah, the Christ, is present, is real, is with us.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go in joy and in love and in peace, for our hope is in the one who has made covenant with us. God reigns. Let us go in God’s peace. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Sunday, November 22, 2015
SERMON ~ 11/22/2015 ~ “Basilica — Reign”
November 22, 2015 ~ (Proper 29) ~ 34th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Sixth Sunday and Last Sunday after Pentecost ~ In Some Traditions Known as The Reign of Christ ~ 2 Samuel 23:1-7; Psalm 132:1-12, (13-18); Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14; Psalm 93; Revelation 1:4b-8; John 18:33-37.
Basilica — Reign
“Pilate asked, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus replied, ‘You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world for one purpose: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who seeks the truth hears my voice.’” — John 18:37.
I have mentioned here before that back in the early 1980s, when I lived in New York City, I had the privilege of meeting the Archbishop of Capetown, the Rev. Desmond Tutu. The Archbishop, of course, at one point won the Nobel Peace Prize. But that was after I met him.
If my memory is good (and I think it is) when he won the peace prize I walked around for two or three days pinching myself saying, “Wow! I met someone who won the Nobel Peace Prize! How about that?”
At the time I was a lay member of an Episcopal Church on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. That church and one on the Upper East Side conspired to bring Tutu to New York City for a week of lectures, workshops and services of worship. It goes without saying this was the time when apartheid was the law of South Africa.
A week before these events both the leadership of the churches and the members who had committed to attending the scheduled functions gathered to talk about what we might expect. Why? There were security issues to consider.
You see, the official policy of the United States concerning apartheid at that time was to engage South Africa economically while trying to persuade that government about the error of its ways. Tutu and others, including some large American corporations, were instead seeking at least limited sanctions and/or a full embargo on trade.
An embargo on South Africa did not pass Congress until years later, 1986. Since it was possible protesters from either or both sides of the issue might try to disrupt some of the proceedings we had to be ready and trained should a difficult situation arise.
The second security issue had to do with the government of South Africa. We were told that at all public events the Archbishop attended, agents of the South Africa government would also be in attendance.
They would be easy to identify. They would all be men— no women. They all had uniforms of a sort: blue blazer jackets and khaki pants. The jackets would have a distinctive lapel pin which identified them as government agents.
These agents would not be there to cause trouble or be disruptive. They would be there to listen to what the Archbishop said in public.
If Tutu said anything which could be deemed as treasonable, a record of it would be made and go into Desmond’s government file. Of course, by that point Desmond’s government file probably took up a number of cabinets, a whole wall I’m sure.
We were told to be friendly and polite to the agents but to not engage them in any conversation deeper than a discussion of the weather. You see, anything they overheard from us which could be construed as seditious, construed as encouraging rebellion, might be recorded also.
Well, the conference happened without problems or disruptions. And what did Desmond say? The Archbishop preached the Gospel. The Word Desmond shared said the realm of God is present among us— the realm of God is present here, now. (Slight pause.)
Now, some people say the Gospel, itself, is seditious. Others argue it is not. I would suggest, if the Gospel speaks the truth, the Gospel is seditious, at least seditious to the status quo. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work we have come to know as the Gospel according to the School of John: “Pilate asked, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus replied, ‘You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world for one purpose: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who seeks the truth hears my voice.’” (Slight pause.)
As you heard earlier, today is known in some traditions as the Feast of the Reign of Christ. But what does that mean and why do we get this story when the lectionary has largely been using Mark and Matthew throughout this church year? Why do we get this story from John?
Well, few stories in the Bible are told with such finesse and power as this one. The drama begins at Chapter 18, verse 28 and ends at Chapter 19, verse 22. I urge you to look it up and read it all. What we heard today is but one scene.
It interests me that today’s narrative contains the physical movement of Pilate back and forth from the inside to the outside of the Pretorium— outside where the religious authorities are. This positioning is meant to be ironic.
If the religious authorities entered the Pretorium they would be ritually defiled, unable to partake in Temple rituals. They are so pious that they want to remain ritually clean but are, at the same time, seeking to do away with the agent of God.
I would suggest these movements tie into yet another level of irony. The word here translated as “realm” is used three times. In other translations that word is sometimes translated as ‘dominion’ and sometimes as ‘kingdom.’ The underlying Greek word is ‘basicillia.’ In Latin it is ‘basilica.’
In the Roman tradition a basilica is the destination of a pilgrimage. But it is also often the seat of a Bishop. Bishops found it convenient to place themselves where pilgrims might arrive, make a contribution to the coffers of a shrine and, hence, to the see of the Bishop, a see being the bishop’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
The point is ‘basicillia’ is not real estate, is not a kingdom. A ‘basicillia’ is a jurisdiction. And the real jurisdiction of God is not limited by territory but exists throughout all time and space. And so the proclamation of Jesus we hear is that the jurisdiction of God is not limited by human concepts of territory or human understandings of power. (Slight pause.)
After all, how is it that Jesus speaks so boldly to someone who holds the power of life and death of every last person in that temporal realm. How is it that Jesus addresses the realm of God as if the temporal realm is of little import? (Slight pause.)
John makes it clear throughout this work that in Jesus we find the real presence of God with us. John is, after all, the only Gospel which contains the “I am” statements.
When Jesus says ‘I am the vine’ or ‘the light’ or ‘the truth,’ many take the objects of these statements ‘vine’ or ‘light’ or ‘truth,’ to be central. But the comparison intended by the writer of John is the subject of the sentence— “I am.” The name of God in Hebrew, Yahweh, means ‘I am.’ I am the way. I am the truth. I am the light. (Slight pause.)
This is my take away from all that: the realm of God, here proclaimed by Jesus, is not only unlimited but the realm of God is with us now, is present now, is real now. So Jesus is simply addressing that reality, that truth. (Slight pause.) These thoughts brings me back to Desmond Tutu.
The Archbishop also spoke the truth. Mahatma Gandhi spoke the truth. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke the truth. I think for all these people speaking the truth is about acknowledging the reality of God, the reality that the realm of God is present, is real.
Now, I can’t speak about Gandhi or King. I never met them. I met Desmond. In one session he was asked how he had the where-with-all to even face returning to South Africa where had no rights, where he was less than a second class citizen, where the threat of jail or death was real.
The Archbishop said two things. First, he spent at least two hours a day in prayer unless the demands on his time were extraordinary. Then he spent three hours.
Second, he always held one thing in front of him. No matter who he was addressing, the President of South Africa or of the President United States, primary allegiance was to God. He said by their nature governments produce politics because they try to balance competing needs. So their solutions tended toward the violent act of instilling fear— setting one side against another.
He also said God truly sought freedom, peace, hope, joy and love for all people, not for some. No one was in competition with anyone else for these in the realm of God, where God had jurisdiction. And God has jurisdiction everywhere.
Therefore, he said, if God has jurisdiction everywhere, the realm of God, is here and present... now. And since the realm of God is about freedom, peace, hope, joy and love there was nothing to fear. (Slight pause.)
The realm of God is not a territory. The realm of God has no limits and it is not limited. The realm of God has no limits and is not limited because the realm of God is about exactly what Archbishop said it is about: a jurisdiction that has no room, no room for fear. It is a jurisdiction that has no room, no room for violence.
If you identify fear, if you see violence, whoever is perpetrating that is saying that the realm of God is not a part of their lives. The realm of God only has room for freedom, for peace, for hope, for joy, for love. Amen.
11/22/2015 — Feast of the Reign of Christ
Untied 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 a précis of what was said: “Mahatma Gandhi said this ‘The enemy is fear. We think it is hate. But it is fear.’ I want to suggest fear has no place in the realm of God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us receive the gifts of God’s grace and peace. Let us rejoice in the freedom to love as Jesus loved. Let the Spirit of God speak through us today. Go forth and reach out to everyone you meet in the name of Christ. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Basilica — Reign
“Pilate asked, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus replied, ‘You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world for one purpose: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who seeks the truth hears my voice.’” — John 18:37.
I have mentioned here before that back in the early 1980s, when I lived in New York City, I had the privilege of meeting the Archbishop of Capetown, the Rev. Desmond Tutu. The Archbishop, of course, at one point won the Nobel Peace Prize. But that was after I met him.
If my memory is good (and I think it is) when he won the peace prize I walked around for two or three days pinching myself saying, “Wow! I met someone who won the Nobel Peace Prize! How about that?”
At the time I was a lay member of an Episcopal Church on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. That church and one on the Upper East Side conspired to bring Tutu to New York City for a week of lectures, workshops and services of worship. It goes without saying this was the time when apartheid was the law of South Africa.
A week before these events both the leadership of the churches and the members who had committed to attending the scheduled functions gathered to talk about what we might expect. Why? There were security issues to consider.
You see, the official policy of the United States concerning apartheid at that time was to engage South Africa economically while trying to persuade that government about the error of its ways. Tutu and others, including some large American corporations, were instead seeking at least limited sanctions and/or a full embargo on trade.
An embargo on South Africa did not pass Congress until years later, 1986. Since it was possible protesters from either or both sides of the issue might try to disrupt some of the proceedings we had to be ready and trained should a difficult situation arise.
The second security issue had to do with the government of South Africa. We were told that at all public events the Archbishop attended, agents of the South Africa government would also be in attendance.
They would be easy to identify. They would all be men— no women. They all had uniforms of a sort: blue blazer jackets and khaki pants. The jackets would have a distinctive lapel pin which identified them as government agents.
These agents would not be there to cause trouble or be disruptive. They would be there to listen to what the Archbishop said in public.
If Tutu said anything which could be deemed as treasonable, a record of it would be made and go into Desmond’s government file. Of course, by that point Desmond’s government file probably took up a number of cabinets, a whole wall I’m sure.
We were told to be friendly and polite to the agents but to not engage them in any conversation deeper than a discussion of the weather. You see, anything they overheard from us which could be construed as seditious, construed as encouraging rebellion, might be recorded also.
Well, the conference happened without problems or disruptions. And what did Desmond say? The Archbishop preached the Gospel. The Word Desmond shared said the realm of God is present among us— the realm of God is present here, now. (Slight pause.)
Now, some people say the Gospel, itself, is seditious. Others argue it is not. I would suggest, if the Gospel speaks the truth, the Gospel is seditious, at least seditious to the status quo. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work we have come to know as the Gospel according to the School of John: “Pilate asked, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus replied, ‘You say that I am a king. I was born and came into the world for one purpose: to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who seeks the truth hears my voice.’” (Slight pause.)
As you heard earlier, today is known in some traditions as the Feast of the Reign of Christ. But what does that mean and why do we get this story when the lectionary has largely been using Mark and Matthew throughout this church year? Why do we get this story from John?
Well, few stories in the Bible are told with such finesse and power as this one. The drama begins at Chapter 18, verse 28 and ends at Chapter 19, verse 22. I urge you to look it up and read it all. What we heard today is but one scene.
It interests me that today’s narrative contains the physical movement of Pilate back and forth from the inside to the outside of the Pretorium— outside where the religious authorities are. This positioning is meant to be ironic.
If the religious authorities entered the Pretorium they would be ritually defiled, unable to partake in Temple rituals. They are so pious that they want to remain ritually clean but are, at the same time, seeking to do away with the agent of God.
I would suggest these movements tie into yet another level of irony. The word here translated as “realm” is used three times. In other translations that word is sometimes translated as ‘dominion’ and sometimes as ‘kingdom.’ The underlying Greek word is ‘basicillia.’ In Latin it is ‘basilica.’
In the Roman tradition a basilica is the destination of a pilgrimage. But it is also often the seat of a Bishop. Bishops found it convenient to place themselves where pilgrims might arrive, make a contribution to the coffers of a shrine and, hence, to the see of the Bishop, a see being the bishop’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
The point is ‘basicillia’ is not real estate, is not a kingdom. A ‘basicillia’ is a jurisdiction. And the real jurisdiction of God is not limited by territory but exists throughout all time and space. And so the proclamation of Jesus we hear is that the jurisdiction of God is not limited by human concepts of territory or human understandings of power. (Slight pause.)
After all, how is it that Jesus speaks so boldly to someone who holds the power of life and death of every last person in that temporal realm. How is it that Jesus addresses the realm of God as if the temporal realm is of little import? (Slight pause.)
John makes it clear throughout this work that in Jesus we find the real presence of God with us. John is, after all, the only Gospel which contains the “I am” statements.
When Jesus says ‘I am the vine’ or ‘the light’ or ‘the truth,’ many take the objects of these statements ‘vine’ or ‘light’ or ‘truth,’ to be central. But the comparison intended by the writer of John is the subject of the sentence— “I am.” The name of God in Hebrew, Yahweh, means ‘I am.’ I am the way. I am the truth. I am the light. (Slight pause.)
This is my take away from all that: the realm of God, here proclaimed by Jesus, is not only unlimited but the realm of God is with us now, is present now, is real now. So Jesus is simply addressing that reality, that truth. (Slight pause.) These thoughts brings me back to Desmond Tutu.
The Archbishop also spoke the truth. Mahatma Gandhi spoke the truth. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke the truth. I think for all these people speaking the truth is about acknowledging the reality of God, the reality that the realm of God is present, is real.
Now, I can’t speak about Gandhi or King. I never met them. I met Desmond. In one session he was asked how he had the where-with-all to even face returning to South Africa where had no rights, where he was less than a second class citizen, where the threat of jail or death was real.
The Archbishop said two things. First, he spent at least two hours a day in prayer unless the demands on his time were extraordinary. Then he spent three hours.
Second, he always held one thing in front of him. No matter who he was addressing, the President of South Africa or of the President United States, primary allegiance was to God. He said by their nature governments produce politics because they try to balance competing needs. So their solutions tended toward the violent act of instilling fear— setting one side against another.
He also said God truly sought freedom, peace, hope, joy and love for all people, not for some. No one was in competition with anyone else for these in the realm of God, where God had jurisdiction. And God has jurisdiction everywhere.
Therefore, he said, if God has jurisdiction everywhere, the realm of God, is here and present... now. And since the realm of God is about freedom, peace, hope, joy and love there was nothing to fear. (Slight pause.)
The realm of God is not a territory. The realm of God has no limits and it is not limited. The realm of God has no limits and is not limited because the realm of God is about exactly what Archbishop said it is about: a jurisdiction that has no room, no room for fear. It is a jurisdiction that has no room, no room for violence.
If you identify fear, if you see violence, whoever is perpetrating that is saying that the realm of God is not a part of their lives. The realm of God only has room for freedom, for peace, for hope, for joy, for love. Amen.
11/22/2015 — Feast of the Reign of Christ
Untied 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 a précis of what was said: “Mahatma Gandhi said this ‘The enemy is fear. We think it is hate. But it is fear.’ I want to suggest fear has no place in the realm of God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us receive the gifts of God’s grace and peace. Let us rejoice in the freedom to love as Jesus loved. Let the Spirit of God speak through us today. Go forth and reach out to everyone you meet in the name of Christ. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
SERMON ~11/15/2015 ~ “The Nature of Prophecy”
November 15, 2015 ~ Proper 28 ~ 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost ~ 1 Samuel 1:4-20 ~ 1 Samuel 2:1-10 (In Place of a Psalm); Daniel 12:1-3; Psalm 16; Hebrews 10:11-14, (15-18), 19-25; Mark 13:1-8.
The Nature of Prophecy
“Jesus replied, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; everything will be thrown down.’” — Mark 13:2.
I have a friend who once said to me youngsters should see the Cecil B. DeMille movie The Ten Commandments so they could learn about the Bible. I told him there was only one thing that movie was capable of teaching. The film is, effectively, a post-graduate course on the how star system and the major studios worked in the 1950s, nothing more.
The film got too way much wrong about the Bible to teach us anything about the Bible. Let me give you just one example of its shortcomings.
It’s probable, for instance, many people think the Hebrews, when enslaved in Egypt, helped build the pyramids. That’s a Hollywood myth, a fantasy.
Here’s why. Dating things in the Bible and in ancient times can be tricky but archeologists, historians and Biblical scholars all agree the escape of the Hebrews from Egypt happened in the 13th or 14th Century Before the Common Era.
The last of the Great Pyramids was finished in the 18th Century Before the Common era. In short, building the Great Pyramids and the Exodus are hundreds of years apart. The Hebrews simply were not in Egypt when the Pyramids were being built.
“Oh, Joe!” some might say (especially my friend who thinks The Ten Commandments can teach us about the Bible), “you really know how to ruin a good story.” I say, “I’m ruining nothing. The movie is still a good story and fun to watch.”
But it’s not a story about what happened in Biblical times. So let’s not get a movie— any movie— and Scripture confused with one another. Indeed, we need to make an effort to not let any part of popular culture and Scripture be confused with one another.
This is also to say, “The Ten Commandments may be a good story but I’ve got a better story.” That better story is what’s actually in Scripture. And that better story is called faith and faith should not be overwhelmed or overshadowed by the culture. (Slight pause.)
Please consider this premise: there is a difference between mere religion and faith. In order to illustrate the difference let me redefine those terms for you. My redefinition is borrowed from Biblical Scholar John Dominic Crossan. Crossan relegates religion to something which is simply a cultural practice.
As a cultural practice religion picks up many signals, ideas, signs and social norms from the society in which it exists. Religion reflects the normalcy of civilization. Religion is a part of accepted culture and as such it is static and not at all challenging.
Faith, on the other hand— faith is not a cultural practice. Faith is an exercise and is exercised. Faith is not static. Faith understands God defies the norms of society, the standards of the culture in which we live. Hence and by definition, faith is challenging.
To reiterate: religion is simply a reflection of the culture. Faith is much more challenging. It’s an active and even a personal endeavor.
I need to be clear: the culture is neither inherently bad nor inherently wrong but cannot inform faith. We cannot allow for that. Faith, to be effective, needs to think about the culture without interference from the culture. Now that’s challenging.
Further and unfortunately, we get the culture and faith mixed up and intertwined way, way, way too much. An obvious example of getting the two mixed up? Going to the movies, any movies— and probably you can name every last one of them— going o any movie thinking it will teach us something about Scripture— just not an idea that should be on your radar scope. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Mark. “Jesus replied, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; everything will be thrown down.’” (Slight pause.)
So, are the words of the Thirteenth Chapter of Mark a prediction of how things will be at the apocalypse, at the end of time? Or is that interpretation simply a reading of the culture, a meaning the culture likes to impose on these words? (Slight pause.)
One of the commentaries I read concerning the reading in Mark says this (quote:) “The modern church knows aplenty about voices that talk a good game, use... the right formulas,.... There are those who offer a... Christianity without tears, others who wed Christianity to the nation and demand a patriotic ideology, others who advocate for the utilitarian functions of religion— arguing... [Christianity is] ...an effective means of attaining something— pray for this and it will happen.”
The text is clear. (Quote— quoting that commentary again:) “...instead of becoming frantically alarmist, the church is to take the long view... be patient.... [In addition] the church should not possess a Pollyanna-like denial of reality or pain.... the church is invited to be hopeful despite the wars,... threats of which our community today hears and the community of Mark heard.” [1] (Slight pause.)
For a moment, let me elaborate about wars and threats now and in the time of Mark. I’ll start by noting what happened in France.
I have a Facebook friend, William Field. He teaches Religion and Politics at Rutgers. This was his take.
Yes, acknowledge the attack was awful. But just this last week a similar number of people were killed by terrorist actions in Baghdad, in Beirut and in the Sinai. So it’s not just what happened in France. We need to be aware of all that transpires. (Slight pause.)
And there is a parallel concerning tumultuous times, in Mark. Mark was written no earlier than the year 70 of the Common Era, a claim made by most scholars. In the year 70 Rome destroyed Jerusalem and forced most Jews to flee from the Western Mediterranean.
So there was war— war then and perhaps war now. (Slight pause.) That takes the long view doesn’t it? Well, is the long view 2,000 years? Or is it even longer? And is that long view challenging? Does it challenge the current assumptions of the culture? (Slight pause.)
I am also Facebook friends with sociologist, church historian and author Diana Butler Bass. She asked this question on her Facebook page this week before Friday. (Quote:) “Are we living in a time when people are afraid to wrestle with deep ideas in society, in religion, in politics?” There were a number of responses to that post I found interesting. These are a couple. (Slight pause.)
“Afraid? Or are we ill-equipped to wrestle with deep ideas in our society, in our religion, in our politics?” (Slight pause.)
“It seems there just isn’t anything to gain for deep thinking. Criticism and pushback, sometimes at great expense, creates a culture of superficiality.” (Slight pause.)
“Expressing deep thoughts is considered rude. Well, isn’t that anti-intellectualism?” (Slight pause.)
“Research has shown humans are cognitive misers. Our default solution to problems is to tap the least tiring cognitive process. Psychologists call this ‘type one’ thinking. It was described by Nobel Prize–winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman as automatic, intuitive and not particularly strenuous.” (Slight pause.)
“People don’t wrestle with much of anything anymore. Bumper sticker faith is the result.” [2] (Slight pause.)
I have said this here before. Prophecy in the Bible is not a prediction about the future. Prophecy in the Bible means the Word— and that’s Word with a capital ‘W’— prophecy means the Word of God is being spoken.
And the Word of God when spoken in Scripture is not about prediction. Prediction is a construct of the culture imposed on Scripture. The Word of God in Scripture always has to do with the basic premises of Scripture: loving God and loving neighbor.
So, if it’s true that (quote:) “not one stone will be left here upon another;...” it would seem to me the culture which raised those stones or today’s culture is not a place to look for any ultimate need. That’s because our ultimate need is relationship with God and relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
That question, “Are we living in a time when people are afraid to wrestle with deep ideas in society, in religion and in politics?” posed by Diana Butler Bass needs to be taken seriously. And yes, I think many people are afraid of deep ideas.
But given the words from the Gospel reading, I think it’s likely the same was true for the community to whom Mark was addressed. I therefore suspect the Word of real prophecy offered in Mark is a Word of solace in the tumultuous world which surrounded that community then... and the tumultuous world which surrounds us today too.
That Word of solace tells us we need to seek to be in relationship with God and one another. And relationship is hard work. Relationship is work which demands we wrestle with deep ideas. Relationship is challenging work.
Why is it challenging? You see, I think relationship work is not a product of the culture. And the culture in Mark’s time and the culture today most often produces only tumult.
The challenging work of relationship, on the other hand, produces all kinds of gifts. The work of relationship produces love. The work of relationship produces respect. The work of relationship produces joy. The work of relationship produces hope. The work of relationship produces peace. The work of relationship produces freedom. Indeed, I think there’s only one thing the work of relationship would fail to produce: violence. Amen
11/15/2015
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 a précis of what was said: “I have two quotes I’d like you to hear this morning. One is from the 20th Century Philosopher and Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. (Quote:) ‘In the shadow of death may we not look back to the past, but seek in utter darkness the dawn of God.’ The other is from St. Bernard of Clairvaux who lived from 1090 to 1153 of the Common Era. (Quote:) ‘There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. That is curiosity. There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others. That is vanity. There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve. That is love.’ It seems to me in the world today we are lacking in the knowledge which seeks service and therefore is familiar with love.”
BENEDICTION: Go forth in faith. Go forth trusting that God will provide. Go forth and reach out to everyone you meet in the name of Christ. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] The entry for this Sunday in Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV, Vol. 2, Year B - (The CD Version) by Walter Brueggemann (Editor), Charles B Cousar (Editor), Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Editor), James D Newsome (Editor).
[2] Needless to say, to see these entries by Field and by Bass on Facebook you would need to be their friends.
The Nature of Prophecy
“Jesus replied, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; everything will be thrown down.’” — Mark 13:2.
I have a friend who once said to me youngsters should see the Cecil B. DeMille movie The Ten Commandments so they could learn about the Bible. I told him there was only one thing that movie was capable of teaching. The film is, effectively, a post-graduate course on the how star system and the major studios worked in the 1950s, nothing more.
The film got too way much wrong about the Bible to teach us anything about the Bible. Let me give you just one example of its shortcomings.
It’s probable, for instance, many people think the Hebrews, when enslaved in Egypt, helped build the pyramids. That’s a Hollywood myth, a fantasy.
Here’s why. Dating things in the Bible and in ancient times can be tricky but archeologists, historians and Biblical scholars all agree the escape of the Hebrews from Egypt happened in the 13th or 14th Century Before the Common Era.
The last of the Great Pyramids was finished in the 18th Century Before the Common era. In short, building the Great Pyramids and the Exodus are hundreds of years apart. The Hebrews simply were not in Egypt when the Pyramids were being built.
“Oh, Joe!” some might say (especially my friend who thinks The Ten Commandments can teach us about the Bible), “you really know how to ruin a good story.” I say, “I’m ruining nothing. The movie is still a good story and fun to watch.”
But it’s not a story about what happened in Biblical times. So let’s not get a movie— any movie— and Scripture confused with one another. Indeed, we need to make an effort to not let any part of popular culture and Scripture be confused with one another.
This is also to say, “The Ten Commandments may be a good story but I’ve got a better story.” That better story is what’s actually in Scripture. And that better story is called faith and faith should not be overwhelmed or overshadowed by the culture. (Slight pause.)
Please consider this premise: there is a difference between mere religion and faith. In order to illustrate the difference let me redefine those terms for you. My redefinition is borrowed from Biblical Scholar John Dominic Crossan. Crossan relegates religion to something which is simply a cultural practice.
As a cultural practice religion picks up many signals, ideas, signs and social norms from the society in which it exists. Religion reflects the normalcy of civilization. Religion is a part of accepted culture and as such it is static and not at all challenging.
Faith, on the other hand— faith is not a cultural practice. Faith is an exercise and is exercised. Faith is not static. Faith understands God defies the norms of society, the standards of the culture in which we live. Hence and by definition, faith is challenging.
To reiterate: religion is simply a reflection of the culture. Faith is much more challenging. It’s an active and even a personal endeavor.
I need to be clear: the culture is neither inherently bad nor inherently wrong but cannot inform faith. We cannot allow for that. Faith, to be effective, needs to think about the culture without interference from the culture. Now that’s challenging.
Further and unfortunately, we get the culture and faith mixed up and intertwined way, way, way too much. An obvious example of getting the two mixed up? Going to the movies, any movies— and probably you can name every last one of them— going o any movie thinking it will teach us something about Scripture— just not an idea that should be on your radar scope. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Mark. “Jesus replied, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; everything will be thrown down.’” (Slight pause.)
So, are the words of the Thirteenth Chapter of Mark a prediction of how things will be at the apocalypse, at the end of time? Or is that interpretation simply a reading of the culture, a meaning the culture likes to impose on these words? (Slight pause.)
One of the commentaries I read concerning the reading in Mark says this (quote:) “The modern church knows aplenty about voices that talk a good game, use... the right formulas,.... There are those who offer a... Christianity without tears, others who wed Christianity to the nation and demand a patriotic ideology, others who advocate for the utilitarian functions of religion— arguing... [Christianity is] ...an effective means of attaining something— pray for this and it will happen.”
The text is clear. (Quote— quoting that commentary again:) “...instead of becoming frantically alarmist, the church is to take the long view... be patient.... [In addition] the church should not possess a Pollyanna-like denial of reality or pain.... the church is invited to be hopeful despite the wars,... threats of which our community today hears and the community of Mark heard.” [1] (Slight pause.)
For a moment, let me elaborate about wars and threats now and in the time of Mark. I’ll start by noting what happened in France.
I have a Facebook friend, William Field. He teaches Religion and Politics at Rutgers. This was his take.
Yes, acknowledge the attack was awful. But just this last week a similar number of people were killed by terrorist actions in Baghdad, in Beirut and in the Sinai. So it’s not just what happened in France. We need to be aware of all that transpires. (Slight pause.)
And there is a parallel concerning tumultuous times, in Mark. Mark was written no earlier than the year 70 of the Common Era, a claim made by most scholars. In the year 70 Rome destroyed Jerusalem and forced most Jews to flee from the Western Mediterranean.
So there was war— war then and perhaps war now. (Slight pause.) That takes the long view doesn’t it? Well, is the long view 2,000 years? Or is it even longer? And is that long view challenging? Does it challenge the current assumptions of the culture? (Slight pause.)
I am also Facebook friends with sociologist, church historian and author Diana Butler Bass. She asked this question on her Facebook page this week before Friday. (Quote:) “Are we living in a time when people are afraid to wrestle with deep ideas in society, in religion, in politics?” There were a number of responses to that post I found interesting. These are a couple. (Slight pause.)
“Afraid? Or are we ill-equipped to wrestle with deep ideas in our society, in our religion, in our politics?” (Slight pause.)
“It seems there just isn’t anything to gain for deep thinking. Criticism and pushback, sometimes at great expense, creates a culture of superficiality.” (Slight pause.)
“Expressing deep thoughts is considered rude. Well, isn’t that anti-intellectualism?” (Slight pause.)
“Research has shown humans are cognitive misers. Our default solution to problems is to tap the least tiring cognitive process. Psychologists call this ‘type one’ thinking. It was described by Nobel Prize–winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman as automatic, intuitive and not particularly strenuous.” (Slight pause.)
“People don’t wrestle with much of anything anymore. Bumper sticker faith is the result.” [2] (Slight pause.)
I have said this here before. Prophecy in the Bible is not a prediction about the future. Prophecy in the Bible means the Word— and that’s Word with a capital ‘W’— prophecy means the Word of God is being spoken.
And the Word of God when spoken in Scripture is not about prediction. Prediction is a construct of the culture imposed on Scripture. The Word of God in Scripture always has to do with the basic premises of Scripture: loving God and loving neighbor.
So, if it’s true that (quote:) “not one stone will be left here upon another;...” it would seem to me the culture which raised those stones or today’s culture is not a place to look for any ultimate need. That’s because our ultimate need is relationship with God and relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
That question, “Are we living in a time when people are afraid to wrestle with deep ideas in society, in religion and in politics?” posed by Diana Butler Bass needs to be taken seriously. And yes, I think many people are afraid of deep ideas.
But given the words from the Gospel reading, I think it’s likely the same was true for the community to whom Mark was addressed. I therefore suspect the Word of real prophecy offered in Mark is a Word of solace in the tumultuous world which surrounded that community then... and the tumultuous world which surrounds us today too.
That Word of solace tells us we need to seek to be in relationship with God and one another. And relationship is hard work. Relationship is work which demands we wrestle with deep ideas. Relationship is challenging work.
Why is it challenging? You see, I think relationship work is not a product of the culture. And the culture in Mark’s time and the culture today most often produces only tumult.
The challenging work of relationship, on the other hand, produces all kinds of gifts. The work of relationship produces love. The work of relationship produces respect. The work of relationship produces joy. The work of relationship produces hope. The work of relationship produces peace. The work of relationship produces freedom. Indeed, I think there’s only one thing the work of relationship would fail to produce: violence. Amen
11/15/2015
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 a précis of what was said: “I have two quotes I’d like you to hear this morning. One is from the 20th Century Philosopher and Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. (Quote:) ‘In the shadow of death may we not look back to the past, but seek in utter darkness the dawn of God.’ The other is from St. Bernard of Clairvaux who lived from 1090 to 1153 of the Common Era. (Quote:) ‘There are those who seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge. That is curiosity. There are those who seek knowledge to be known by others. That is vanity. There are those who seek knowledge in order to serve. That is love.’ It seems to me in the world today we are lacking in the knowledge which seeks service and therefore is familiar with love.”
BENEDICTION: Go forth in faith. Go forth trusting that God will provide. Go forth and reach out to everyone you meet in the name of Christ. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] The entry for this Sunday in Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV, Vol. 2, Year B - (The CD Version) by Walter Brueggemann (Editor), Charles B Cousar (Editor), Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Editor), James D Newsome (Editor).
[2] Needless to say, to see these entries by Field and by Bass on Facebook you would need to be their friends.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
SERMON ~ 11/08/2015 ~ “God Reigns”
November 8, 2015 ~ Proper 27 ~ 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17; Psalm 127; 1 Kings 17:8-16; Psalm 146; Hebrews 9:24-28; Mark 12:38-44 ~ Stewardship/Enlistment Sunday.
God Reigns
“Yahweh, God, will reign forever— / your God, O Zion, / will reign for all generations. / Alleluia!” — Psalm 146 v. 10.
Most people know the warm feeling of helping out. And sometimes helping out includes actions like donating clothes to the needy, taking canned goods to the local food pantry.
Further, over and over, researchers have demonstrated doing good feels good. On the other hand, sometimes that heartwarming feeling might be obscuring a troubling fact. What we think of as doing good might not be doing the good we intend. Or so said a recent article in The New York Times.
(Quote:) “Donors can tell they get a warm glow when giving,” says Katherina Rosqueta, of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania. “But it’s harder to tell whether they have made a difference. It’s easier to know how you feel than it is to know the effect on the beneficiary.”
Take something as relatively common and seemingly beyond reproach, the article said, such as canned-food drives, something often undertaken by schools to help food pantries— if we take that we see an interesting picture. Why? Food pantries usually buy from nonprofit clearinghouses and can purchase large quantities far more cheaply than its retail cost. [1]
Many of you know I am involved, as are some of our parishioners, with Our Daily Bread Food Pantry, located at Emmanuel Episcopal Church. Because of my association with the pantry, I can confirm we get canned goods at a very low rate.
The orders we place for canned goods with the Central New York Food Bank fall into one of two price categories. The first category: ten cents a pound. That’s right— the price is not by the can but by the pound.
The second category? Free— that’s right: free. The only fly in that arrangement is on occasion the Food Bank does not have in stock what the food pantry need.
Now, I need to be clear: I am not trying to discourage you from donating canned food to food pantries. There is no question about this: it helps the pantries and it may help you. But I am trying to name two greater needs.
First and obviously, pantries need money. They can buy more than any individual with the money people contribute. In fact, if you still want bring food, please do that, since it will probably help you feel good and it does, in fact, help the pantry. But please bring a check also.
The second need is both simple and hard. Pantries need people to be there, on site, to help. And that’s not just people to move boxes and canned food around (although that is a need). People are needed to interact, to console, to connect on a human level with those who have to access the pantries.
All that leads to another issue: when we do give money, how do we know the charity to which we give does a good job using the money? Sad but true, the only way to know a charity is effective is to do research about them. I’ll do the research on Our Daily Bread Food Pantry for you right now: every dollar you donate goes to food, case closed.
Michael Miller, director and producer of the documentary Poverty Inc. says, “People ask, ‘What can I do to help those in poverty?’ That’s the wrong question, he says. The right one is, ‘What do people need to create prosperity in their families and in their community and what can I do to help with that?’” [2] (Slight pause.)
These words are recorded in the 146th Psalm: “Yahweh, God, will reign forever— / your God, O Zion, / will reign for all generations. / Alleluia!” (Slight pause.)
When the Psalm was introduced, you heard it said the Psalms are a collection of hymns, songs. Biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann says this about the 146th Psalm. Israel sings and we never know what holy power is unleashed by singing. Israel sings and we never know what human imagination is authorized by singing.
One reason we may not sing is we think just having enough hope to sing is intellectually outrageous. Or we think singing is too subversive. But the Church and Israel do sing! Singing is the vocation of Israel! Singing is the vocation of the church!
Why? By singing we name the fact that this world has been closed off for prisoners, for the blind, for the sojourner, for the widow, for the orphan, for the oppressed.
So the claim being made by the Psalm is that when we sing we help justice prevail because we shine a light on injustice with our songs. Because of our songs, the world is sung open by the light we shed on injustice. [3] These, the thoughts of Walter Bruggemann— and imagine that: singing vanquishes injustice! (Slight pause.)
I think most of you know I am a lyricist with professional credits. I think I know a little about song writing.
There are two things that need to be done simultaneously when writing a song. First, unleash your imagination. Second, that imagination needs to be tempered with the discipline of structure. Unless a song is structured so a listener understands the imagination being displayed, the song will not be understood or even heard.
That brings me back to the question asked earlier: what do we need to do to create prosperity in families and community and what can we do to help? A little like writing a song, I think there are two things that need to be done simultaneously.
First, we need to have imagination. Imaginative innovation can create solutions which vanquish injustice. But second, we need recognize how the real world works. And the real world is often slow, sloppy, cumbersome and conflicted. Therefore, engaging the real world takes not just imagination but discipline. (Slight pause.)
I think we, as a church, as a community of faith, try to do both— imagination and discipline. Indeed, we are coming up on a major hands on project: Turkey Basket day, when we get involved here in distributing over 200 baskets. That takes an enormous amount of both imagination and discipline.
Yes, it takes money. But it takes people, people willing to participate, people helping people, people willing to be present to those in need, to listen, to console, to connect on a human level.
And maybe that is the song people need to hear: connecting on a human level is a song of hope and a song of faith and song of love. Connection is a song filled with imagination and with discipline. (Slight pause.)
Well, today is our so called Enlistment Sunday, when we invite people to make a pledge so the work we do at this church might be empowered to sing in the course of this next year. And that takes imagination and discipline also.
I have said here many times. Every dollar you pledge or put in the plate at this church, goes toward outreach. What does that mean? It means among other things that, as a church, we are lucky to have an abundance with which we can help others.
But it also means historically those who went before us had the imagination and the discipline to invest in their future. And we are their future. Those who went before us had the imagination and the discipline to invest in us. That leaves a question: do we have imagination and the discipline to invest in those around us who are in need and invest in all who will come after us?
I would suggest that when imagination and discipline work together, we— together— can do good in this world. And when we sing with imagination and discipline we can make the claim that we strive to sing songs which vanquish injustice.
And so in a little bit, when you are invited to make a pledge, please consider what we do here. We strive to do the work of justice. And we have been singing amazing songs of justice over the years and we shall continue to sing those songs if we have both imagination and discipline.
Why? How? Our imagination and our discipline should tell us the words of the Psalm ring true: “Yahweh, God, will reign forever— / your God, O Zion, / will reign for all generations. / Alleluia!” Our imagination and our discipline should also tell us we need to continue to sing until injustice is vanquished by our songs. Amen.
11/08/2015 - Enlistment 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 a précis of what was said: “The thought for meditation today is from Albert Camus (quote:) ‘Too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity.’ One reason the word charity became so prominent in the West is the King James translates the Latin word charitas as charity that way. But that’s a bad translation of charitas. But charitas does not mean charity. It means love of God. So when we do give we need to give not with charity but with charitas, with the love of God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us lay aside anxious toil. Let us give our lives over to the One who grants life. Let us be open to the possibility that the whole of our being should rest in the will and wisdom of God and that the whole of our being should rest in the ways of love taught by God. In short, let us trust God. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ be among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/giving/when-making-donations-know-an-agencys-needs.html?emc=edit_tnt_20151103&nlid=11820119&tntemail0=y
[2] Ibid.
[3] Walter Brueggemann, “Psalm 146: Psalm for the Nineteenth Sunday After Pentecost,” No Other Foundation 8/1 (Summer 1987) 29. Note: these words were edited and paraphrase for this context.
God Reigns
“Yahweh, God, will reign forever— / your God, O Zion, / will reign for all generations. / Alleluia!” — Psalm 146 v. 10.
Most people know the warm feeling of helping out. And sometimes helping out includes actions like donating clothes to the needy, taking canned goods to the local food pantry.
Further, over and over, researchers have demonstrated doing good feels good. On the other hand, sometimes that heartwarming feeling might be obscuring a troubling fact. What we think of as doing good might not be doing the good we intend. Or so said a recent article in The New York Times.
(Quote:) “Donors can tell they get a warm glow when giving,” says Katherina Rosqueta, of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania. “But it’s harder to tell whether they have made a difference. It’s easier to know how you feel than it is to know the effect on the beneficiary.”
Take something as relatively common and seemingly beyond reproach, the article said, such as canned-food drives, something often undertaken by schools to help food pantries— if we take that we see an interesting picture. Why? Food pantries usually buy from nonprofit clearinghouses and can purchase large quantities far more cheaply than its retail cost. [1]
Many of you know I am involved, as are some of our parishioners, with Our Daily Bread Food Pantry, located at Emmanuel Episcopal Church. Because of my association with the pantry, I can confirm we get canned goods at a very low rate.
The orders we place for canned goods with the Central New York Food Bank fall into one of two price categories. The first category: ten cents a pound. That’s right— the price is not by the can but by the pound.
The second category? Free— that’s right: free. The only fly in that arrangement is on occasion the Food Bank does not have in stock what the food pantry need.
Now, I need to be clear: I am not trying to discourage you from donating canned food to food pantries. There is no question about this: it helps the pantries and it may help you. But I am trying to name two greater needs.
First and obviously, pantries need money. They can buy more than any individual with the money people contribute. In fact, if you still want bring food, please do that, since it will probably help you feel good and it does, in fact, help the pantry. But please bring a check also.
The second need is both simple and hard. Pantries need people to be there, on site, to help. And that’s not just people to move boxes and canned food around (although that is a need). People are needed to interact, to console, to connect on a human level with those who have to access the pantries.
All that leads to another issue: when we do give money, how do we know the charity to which we give does a good job using the money? Sad but true, the only way to know a charity is effective is to do research about them. I’ll do the research on Our Daily Bread Food Pantry for you right now: every dollar you donate goes to food, case closed.
Michael Miller, director and producer of the documentary Poverty Inc. says, “People ask, ‘What can I do to help those in poverty?’ That’s the wrong question, he says. The right one is, ‘What do people need to create prosperity in their families and in their community and what can I do to help with that?’” [2] (Slight pause.)
These words are recorded in the 146th Psalm: “Yahweh, God, will reign forever— / your God, O Zion, / will reign for all generations. / Alleluia!” (Slight pause.)
When the Psalm was introduced, you heard it said the Psalms are a collection of hymns, songs. Biblical scholar Walter Brueggemann says this about the 146th Psalm. Israel sings and we never know what holy power is unleashed by singing. Israel sings and we never know what human imagination is authorized by singing.
One reason we may not sing is we think just having enough hope to sing is intellectually outrageous. Or we think singing is too subversive. But the Church and Israel do sing! Singing is the vocation of Israel! Singing is the vocation of the church!
Why? By singing we name the fact that this world has been closed off for prisoners, for the blind, for the sojourner, for the widow, for the orphan, for the oppressed.
So the claim being made by the Psalm is that when we sing we help justice prevail because we shine a light on injustice with our songs. Because of our songs, the world is sung open by the light we shed on injustice. [3] These, the thoughts of Walter Bruggemann— and imagine that: singing vanquishes injustice! (Slight pause.)
I think most of you know I am a lyricist with professional credits. I think I know a little about song writing.
There are two things that need to be done simultaneously when writing a song. First, unleash your imagination. Second, that imagination needs to be tempered with the discipline of structure. Unless a song is structured so a listener understands the imagination being displayed, the song will not be understood or even heard.
That brings me back to the question asked earlier: what do we need to do to create prosperity in families and community and what can we do to help? A little like writing a song, I think there are two things that need to be done simultaneously.
First, we need to have imagination. Imaginative innovation can create solutions which vanquish injustice. But second, we need recognize how the real world works. And the real world is often slow, sloppy, cumbersome and conflicted. Therefore, engaging the real world takes not just imagination but discipline. (Slight pause.)
I think we, as a church, as a community of faith, try to do both— imagination and discipline. Indeed, we are coming up on a major hands on project: Turkey Basket day, when we get involved here in distributing over 200 baskets. That takes an enormous amount of both imagination and discipline.
Yes, it takes money. But it takes people, people willing to participate, people helping people, people willing to be present to those in need, to listen, to console, to connect on a human level.
And maybe that is the song people need to hear: connecting on a human level is a song of hope and a song of faith and song of love. Connection is a song filled with imagination and with discipline. (Slight pause.)
Well, today is our so called Enlistment Sunday, when we invite people to make a pledge so the work we do at this church might be empowered to sing in the course of this next year. And that takes imagination and discipline also.
I have said here many times. Every dollar you pledge or put in the plate at this church, goes toward outreach. What does that mean? It means among other things that, as a church, we are lucky to have an abundance with which we can help others.
But it also means historically those who went before us had the imagination and the discipline to invest in their future. And we are their future. Those who went before us had the imagination and the discipline to invest in us. That leaves a question: do we have imagination and the discipline to invest in those around us who are in need and invest in all who will come after us?
I would suggest that when imagination and discipline work together, we— together— can do good in this world. And when we sing with imagination and discipline we can make the claim that we strive to sing songs which vanquish injustice.
And so in a little bit, when you are invited to make a pledge, please consider what we do here. We strive to do the work of justice. And we have been singing amazing songs of justice over the years and we shall continue to sing those songs if we have both imagination and discipline.
Why? How? Our imagination and our discipline should tell us the words of the Psalm ring true: “Yahweh, God, will reign forever— / your God, O Zion, / will reign for all generations. / Alleluia!” Our imagination and our discipline should also tell us we need to continue to sing until injustice is vanquished by our songs. Amen.
11/08/2015 - Enlistment 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 a précis of what was said: “The thought for meditation today is from Albert Camus (quote:) ‘Too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity.’ One reason the word charity became so prominent in the West is the King James translates the Latin word charitas as charity that way. But that’s a bad translation of charitas. But charitas does not mean charity. It means love of God. So when we do give we need to give not with charity but with charitas, with the love of God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us lay aside anxious toil. Let us give our lives over to the One who grants life. Let us be open to the possibility that the whole of our being should rest in the will and wisdom of God and that the whole of our being should rest in the ways of love taught by God. In short, let us trust God. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ be among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/giving/when-making-donations-know-an-agencys-needs.html?emc=edit_tnt_20151103&nlid=11820119&tntemail0=y
[2] Ibid.
[3] Walter Brueggemann, “Psalm 146: Psalm for the Nineteenth Sunday After Pentecost,” No Other Foundation 8/1 (Summer 1987) 29. Note: these words were edited and paraphrase for this context.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
SERMON ~ 11/01/2015 ~ “The First Commandment”
READINGS: November 1, 2015 ~ Proper 26 ~ 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ If All Saints not observed on this day ~ Ruth 1:1-18; Psalm 146; Deuteronomy 6:1-9; Psalm 119:1-8; Hebrews 9:11-14; Mark 12:28-34 ~ Communion Sunday; New Members Received.
November 1, 2015 ~ All Saints Day ~ Sometimes Observed on First Sunday in November, these are the readings ~ Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-9 or Isaiah 25:6-9; Psalm 24; Revelation 21:1-6a; John 11:32-44 ~ Communion Sunday; New Members Received.
The First Commandment
“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh, our God, Yahweh alone, is one. You are to love Yahweh, our God / with all your heart, / and with all your soul, / and with all your strength.” — Deuteronomy 6:4-5.
In a recent writing Baptist Pastor Allyson Dylan Robinson suggests we, as a society, are addicted to certainty. Certainty is like a drug, she says. It can comfort us and buoy our spirits as it blocks out questions, doubt. But it can only block out questions for a time.
The mellow high of certainty will wear off and questions will reassert themselves, eventually. And when questions reappear is exactly when we start searching for a new fix. So, like any addiction, certainty dehumanizes us as we become driven for that fix.
Now, questions arise naturally in the human mind. This is a function of the God given gift of reason. So, in order to grab for the certainty to which we are addicted we must renounce the gift of God. When renounce the gift of reason, certainty helps us to a place called ‘willful ignorance.’
Certainty, this willful ignorance, presents us with a theological problem. By definition God can never be fully known. Certainty is, hence, the ultimate heresy since it presumes the revelation God has given to us is exactly identical with a whole knowledge God. [1] — these the words of Allyson Dylan Robinson. (Slight pause.)
It seems to me our society is not just riddled with and addicted to certainty. It is downright crippled, immobilized by certainty. And you can see certainty in our politics, in our sports, in our religion.
Why does certainty cripple, immobilized society? Addiction to certainty insists only side can be right, there is only one belief in play, only one side has valid answers. And since, as I said, certainty is the ultimate heresy, you need to wonder if we even know it’s a heresy, if we know certainty misrepresents and misrepresents especially God. (Slight pause.)
Perhaps there is one thing which leads us toward an insistence on certainty, this willful ignorance. And that one thing is a very human attribute.
I think we humans have more than a slight tendency toward egocentricity. Each of us— to be clear myself included— each of us likes to think we are at the center of the world. And if we are at the center of the world, needless to say, we are right. And we are certain of that.
It is, of course, one thing when an individual displays egocentricity. Egocentricity on the part of an individual can be overcome since that person can be placated or simply ignored. But it’s quite another thing when a social group, a society, a collective, displays egocentricity.
Egocentricity on the part of a group is not just hard to ignore. Egocentricity on the part of a group presents problems and dangers and challenges.
Certainty on a group level gives voice and gives action to a myriad of social ills from racism to sexism to classism to imperialism to fantasies that the apocalyptic age is upon us. I want to unpack that just a little. Racism makes the sometimes tacit but clearly egocentric, ethnocentric claim that one race is superior.
Sexism says one gender is superior. Classism and imperialism make similar claims: one sub-group, nationality or country is superior.
As to the egocentric fantasy that the apocalyptic age is upon us, that might be the most self-centered claim of all. Why?
The real claim being made is this time in which we now live and the people of this time are so special that God will see fit to end the world now— right now. And thereby these special people might actually be witnesses to the apocalypse, now. This claim is the height of egocentricity, to say nothing of certainty.
All that brings me back to these words from Deuteronomy: “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh, our God, Yahweh alone, is one. You are to love Yahweh, our God / with all your heart, / and with all your soul, / and with all your strength.”
In Hebrew those words are identified as the Shema, Shema being the word which means to hear. And in the Gospel reading Jesus is asked to name the greatest commandment and repeats the Shema. If that’s the text Jesus chooses, there should no question about this: the Shema, this text and no other, is central to all Scripture.
Now, when the reading from Deuteronomy was introduced, you heard about 613 commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures, the culturally popular if mislabeled 10 commandments and the two commandments cited by Jesus. Let me be clear about this, perhaps as an aside: anyone— anyone— who is says they are certain the 10 commandments are central in Scripture is Biblically illiterate. Biblically literate people understand the Shema is central in Scripture.
Well, back to the Shema: I need you to note there are three components to the Shema, this first commandment. Let’s take a look at them in reverse order. The last component is love God. Theologically, love cannot be real without God. God is the source of all love. And that love is a result of the two previous statements of the Shema.
What are they? The middle component says God is one. In ancient times many people believed there were multiple gods, each with their own duties and Hebrew theology counters that idea. God is one— a God of all things, a God of the universe.
Which bring us to the first component. This first section offers instruction on how one is empowered to love God— how one is empowered to love God. And what’s the first message in these words? Hear. And what’s the name of these words in Hebrew? Shema: hear.
You see, in order to truly be in love with anyone you need to listen to them. In order to be truly in love with God you need to listen to God, you need to hear God. In short, it could be said the first part of the first commandment tells us we need to listen to God before we can love God. It tells us how we can be empowered to love God. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that listening to God is the hardest part of the Shema to follow, the hardest thing we will ever do. Why?
Listening demands humility. Humility understands that relationship, that love, depends on hearing a voice other than our own.
Listening to God requires we employ the discipline of self-surrender, requires us to renounce certainty, abandon egocentricity. Listening requires... modesty.
Last and to be clear, the prime issue being addressed by this the first commandment is not the listening to God done by each individual. The first commandment is not addressed to an individual. Nowhere does the first commandment say, “Hey Joe! You and only you need to listen.”
The first commandment is addressed to the community. (Quote:) “Hear, O Israel.” So, it is, first and foremost, not specific individuals but the whole community who need to listen. We all need to listen together. We are all in this together.
Hence, it is fitting that we did two important things as a community today. We celebrated the Sacrament of Communion, an action of community and in community, and we accepted new members into the community.
And it is we, the community, not just individuals, who need to listen to God and listen for God to speak in our lives. You see, when we listen to God as a community, I think we have an opportunity to banish certainty, certainty that seems to be addicting our community. And once certainty is banished it follows we will banish its cousins: racism, sexism, classism, imperialism and any fantasy which says the apocalyptic age is around the corner. (Slight pause.)
Jesus clearly tells us to love God and love neighbor. My guess is the path to loving God and neighbor starts with being humble enough to listen to God. Amen.
11/01/2015
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: “Earlier I said the whole community, the collective, but therefore each of us needs to listen to God. You might say, ‘Fine, but suppose we all hear different things?’ I would say, ‘You don’t understand. That’s the way it supposed to be. And then we need to listen to one another.’ You see, the two commandments together are love God and love neighbor.”
BENEDICTION: Go now, go in safety, for you cannot go where God is not. Go in love, for love alone endures. Go with purpose and God will honor your dedication. And go in peace for it is a gift of God and the Spirit of God to those whose hearts and minds are in Christ, Jesus. Amen.
[1] These words are edited and paraphrased.
http://www.thebtscenter.org/certainty/
November 1, 2015 ~ All Saints Day ~ Sometimes Observed on First Sunday in November, these are the readings ~ Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-9 or Isaiah 25:6-9; Psalm 24; Revelation 21:1-6a; John 11:32-44 ~ Communion Sunday; New Members Received.
The First Commandment
“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh, our God, Yahweh alone, is one. You are to love Yahweh, our God / with all your heart, / and with all your soul, / and with all your strength.” — Deuteronomy 6:4-5.
In a recent writing Baptist Pastor Allyson Dylan Robinson suggests we, as a society, are addicted to certainty. Certainty is like a drug, she says. It can comfort us and buoy our spirits as it blocks out questions, doubt. But it can only block out questions for a time.
The mellow high of certainty will wear off and questions will reassert themselves, eventually. And when questions reappear is exactly when we start searching for a new fix. So, like any addiction, certainty dehumanizes us as we become driven for that fix.
Now, questions arise naturally in the human mind. This is a function of the God given gift of reason. So, in order to grab for the certainty to which we are addicted we must renounce the gift of God. When renounce the gift of reason, certainty helps us to a place called ‘willful ignorance.’
Certainty, this willful ignorance, presents us with a theological problem. By definition God can never be fully known. Certainty is, hence, the ultimate heresy since it presumes the revelation God has given to us is exactly identical with a whole knowledge God. [1] — these the words of Allyson Dylan Robinson. (Slight pause.)
It seems to me our society is not just riddled with and addicted to certainty. It is downright crippled, immobilized by certainty. And you can see certainty in our politics, in our sports, in our religion.
Why does certainty cripple, immobilized society? Addiction to certainty insists only side can be right, there is only one belief in play, only one side has valid answers. And since, as I said, certainty is the ultimate heresy, you need to wonder if we even know it’s a heresy, if we know certainty misrepresents and misrepresents especially God. (Slight pause.)
Perhaps there is one thing which leads us toward an insistence on certainty, this willful ignorance. And that one thing is a very human attribute.
I think we humans have more than a slight tendency toward egocentricity. Each of us— to be clear myself included— each of us likes to think we are at the center of the world. And if we are at the center of the world, needless to say, we are right. And we are certain of that.
It is, of course, one thing when an individual displays egocentricity. Egocentricity on the part of an individual can be overcome since that person can be placated or simply ignored. But it’s quite another thing when a social group, a society, a collective, displays egocentricity.
Egocentricity on the part of a group is not just hard to ignore. Egocentricity on the part of a group presents problems and dangers and challenges.
Certainty on a group level gives voice and gives action to a myriad of social ills from racism to sexism to classism to imperialism to fantasies that the apocalyptic age is upon us. I want to unpack that just a little. Racism makes the sometimes tacit but clearly egocentric, ethnocentric claim that one race is superior.
Sexism says one gender is superior. Classism and imperialism make similar claims: one sub-group, nationality or country is superior.
As to the egocentric fantasy that the apocalyptic age is upon us, that might be the most self-centered claim of all. Why?
The real claim being made is this time in which we now live and the people of this time are so special that God will see fit to end the world now— right now. And thereby these special people might actually be witnesses to the apocalypse, now. This claim is the height of egocentricity, to say nothing of certainty.
All that brings me back to these words from Deuteronomy: “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh, our God, Yahweh alone, is one. You are to love Yahweh, our God / with all your heart, / and with all your soul, / and with all your strength.”
In Hebrew those words are identified as the Shema, Shema being the word which means to hear. And in the Gospel reading Jesus is asked to name the greatest commandment and repeats the Shema. If that’s the text Jesus chooses, there should no question about this: the Shema, this text and no other, is central to all Scripture.
Now, when the reading from Deuteronomy was introduced, you heard about 613 commandments in the Hebrew Scriptures, the culturally popular if mislabeled 10 commandments and the two commandments cited by Jesus. Let me be clear about this, perhaps as an aside: anyone— anyone— who is says they are certain the 10 commandments are central in Scripture is Biblically illiterate. Biblically literate people understand the Shema is central in Scripture.
Well, back to the Shema: I need you to note there are three components to the Shema, this first commandment. Let’s take a look at them in reverse order. The last component is love God. Theologically, love cannot be real without God. God is the source of all love. And that love is a result of the two previous statements of the Shema.
What are they? The middle component says God is one. In ancient times many people believed there were multiple gods, each with their own duties and Hebrew theology counters that idea. God is one— a God of all things, a God of the universe.
Which bring us to the first component. This first section offers instruction on how one is empowered to love God— how one is empowered to love God. And what’s the first message in these words? Hear. And what’s the name of these words in Hebrew? Shema: hear.
You see, in order to truly be in love with anyone you need to listen to them. In order to be truly in love with God you need to listen to God, you need to hear God. In short, it could be said the first part of the first commandment tells us we need to listen to God before we can love God. It tells us how we can be empowered to love God. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that listening to God is the hardest part of the Shema to follow, the hardest thing we will ever do. Why?
Listening demands humility. Humility understands that relationship, that love, depends on hearing a voice other than our own.
Listening to God requires we employ the discipline of self-surrender, requires us to renounce certainty, abandon egocentricity. Listening requires... modesty.
Last and to be clear, the prime issue being addressed by this the first commandment is not the listening to God done by each individual. The first commandment is not addressed to an individual. Nowhere does the first commandment say, “Hey Joe! You and only you need to listen.”
The first commandment is addressed to the community. (Quote:) “Hear, O Israel.” So, it is, first and foremost, not specific individuals but the whole community who need to listen. We all need to listen together. We are all in this together.
Hence, it is fitting that we did two important things as a community today. We celebrated the Sacrament of Communion, an action of community and in community, and we accepted new members into the community.
And it is we, the community, not just individuals, who need to listen to God and listen for God to speak in our lives. You see, when we listen to God as a community, I think we have an opportunity to banish certainty, certainty that seems to be addicting our community. And once certainty is banished it follows we will banish its cousins: racism, sexism, classism, imperialism and any fantasy which says the apocalyptic age is around the corner. (Slight pause.)
Jesus clearly tells us to love God and love neighbor. My guess is the path to loving God and neighbor starts with being humble enough to listen to God. Amen.
11/01/2015
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: “Earlier I said the whole community, the collective, but therefore each of us needs to listen to God. You might say, ‘Fine, but suppose we all hear different things?’ I would say, ‘You don’t understand. That’s the way it supposed to be. And then we need to listen to one another.’ You see, the two commandments together are love God and love neighbor.”
BENEDICTION: Go now, go in safety, for you cannot go where God is not. Go in love, for love alone endures. Go with purpose and God will honor your dedication. And go in peace for it is a gift of God and the Spirit of God to those whose hearts and minds are in Christ, Jesus. Amen.
[1] These words are edited and paraphrased.
http://www.thebtscenter.org/certainty/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)