July 30, 2017 ~ Proper 12 ~ Seventeenth Sunday In Ordinary Time ~ Eighth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Genesis 29:15-28; Psalm 105:1-11, 45b or Psalm 128; 1 Kings 3:5-12; Psalm 119:129-136; Romans 8:26-39; Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52 ~ VBS Sunday ~ A Union Service with the First Baptist Church.
The Certainty of Love
“For I am certain, I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor rulers, neither things present nor things future, neither heights nor depths— neither powers nor anything else in all creation— will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ, Jesus, our Savior.” — Romans 8:38-39.
My congregation, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational, and perhaps a even a good number of people of the First Baptist congregation have heard me say this numerous times. I have a background in professional theater.
But I was not an actor, a performer, which is what most people think when you say you worked in theater. I worked behind the scenes.
To be clear, I primarily worked as a writer. Writing is both my talent and my passion. But I did hold down jobs in other lines of theatrical employment.
Besides writing among the many jobs with which I was involved was being a stage manager for an off-off-Broadway show, a business manager for a children’s theater, being a director, designing and building sets, consulting on lighting and sound design and working for the theatrical charity The Actors’ Fund of America.
Now, I just denied that I worked as a performer, as an actor. This is true. But there is one thing concerning performance, acting, I need to mention. For a couple of semesters I attended one of the best acting schools in New York City, the American Academy of Dramatic Arts.
Why? As a writer, I thought it was a good idea to learn what actors do and how actors do what they do. My premise was, if I knew something about the craft of acting, what I wrote for actors would be more polished. I think my assessment proved to be largely true.
Which brings me to a question: what is the job of an actor, really? (Slight pause.) Actors try to convince you, me, us, the audience to suspend our disbelief. Now there’s a $64 term: suspend our disbelief. What does it mean? (Slight pause.)
Suspension of disbelief is defined as a willingness to set aside one’s own critical faculties in order to believe. Put another way, when we see things on stage or on screen we know what is real— we know what is real— and what is not real. For instance (the pastor reaches under the pulpit and pulls out the puppet being used in Vacation Bible School), a red panda puppet does not really talk. But we suspend our disbelief. We allow for that. [1]
Equally, in films we know cars are not driving a hundred plus miles an hour and super-heros do not fly. But we suspend our disbelief. We allow for that.
When it comes to the stage, we know people do not suddenly burst into song to express themselves. We know the actor playing Hamlet does not really kill anyone. But we suspend our disbelief. We allow for that.
So, what do actors really do? The work of an actor is to invite us to suspend our disbelief.
Actors invite us to see cars traveling at high speed, super-heros who fly, people who suddenly burst into song to express themselves, murder being committed on stage. But none of that is real. None of that actually happens.
And we know none of that really happens. So, the work of an actor is to invite us, an audience, to participate in their art.
Hence and paradoxically, in order for an actor to be successful we need to participate in what the actor presents, collaborate with the actor in the art of acting. How? We need to suspend our disbelief. Thereby movies, theater, even story telling in novels requires our input, our participation.
Now, there is one more very important point to consider about suspending disbelief. The reason one might want to suspend disbelief is not to try to fool ourselves into thinking what is not real is real. We know what is real. The reason we might want to suspend disbelief is so we can explore a large truth, a deep truth, in a story. (Slight pause.)
The Thought for Meditation in the bulletin today is penned by G. K. Chesterton, a Christian writer and apologist often referred to as the “prince of paradox.” This is the quote: “Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children dragons can be conquered.”
This points to a large truth, a deep truth. Why do children know dragons exist? Because children do not— do not— take dragons literally. They understand dragons represent a larger truth, a deeper truth than any dragons conjured up by skilled actors.
What is that deep truth? The world is not always a stable, reasonable, logical, friendly place. The world can have sharp edges. It does not take long for children to figure that out.
Equally— and this is the large truth, the deep truth children learn from dragon stories— the world needs to be engaged. All the things in life, in the world, which are unstable, unreasonable, illogical, unfriendly need to be dealt with, need to be faced head on. (Slight pause.)
When I was in Seminary, the very first class— the very first class— I attended was a survey course in New Testament. As sometimes happened in these classes, the professor invited us to introduce ourselves one at a time.
That having been tended to, that professor made a statement which has stuck with me all these years. (Quote:) “The New Testament is about confrontation. In saying that, I am not equating confrontation with fighting or violence.”
“In saying the New Testament is about confrontation,” he went on, “I am saying the New Testament is about confronting the world around us with love and in love and confronting one another with love and in love.” Let me repeat that: The New Testament is about confronting the world around us with love and in love and confronting one another with love and in love. (Slight pause.)
Before the passage from Romans was read it was said this reading asks two pivotal questions: is God good? Does God love? These are central, large, deep questions.
So when Paul insists with certainty that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ the Apostle is addressing a central truth, a large truth, a deep truth in response to those questions. The answer of Paul is and, indeed, our answer needs to be an unequivocal ‘yes.’ God is good. God loves.
But I want to grapple with Paul’s premise and, indeed, our ways of belief a little more. Hence, I need to point out three things about Paul. First, you can search the writings of the Apostle up, down and sideways and you will find no details about the life of Christ, no details about the story of Jesus.
Second and hence, Paul spends no time with story, no time dealing with suspension of disbelief. For Paul, God is real. It is a given. No suspended disbelief is necessary.
Last, we need to be aware Paul makes a significant proclamation. In the Messiah, in Jesus, in the Christ, Paul knows God more fully than Paul has ever known God.
Therefore, Paul draws an obvious conclusion. A) if God is real, the love God offers is real.
Put another way, Paul says the love God offers is not acknowledged because of suspended disbelief. The love of God is so real the suspended disbelief is unnecessary. And, since Paul knows God in Jesus more fully than Paul has ever know God before, Paul insist that in the Messiah, in Jesus, in the Christ, the love of God is tangible. (Slight pause.)
All that brings us back to the proclamation of Paul in Romans (quote:) “For I am certain, I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor rulers, neither things present nor things future, neither heights nor depths— neither powers nor anything else in all creation— will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ, Jesus, our Savior.”
This is a really simple message. The love of God as expressed in Christ, the Messiah, exists, is real, is tangible. And what we are called on to do is participate in the love of God which is real, is tangible.
And so indeed, children know dragons exist. And children also know the love of God exists, the love of God is real. So we do not have to pretend or suspend our disbelief. We simply need to participate. The love of God is real. Amen.
07/30/2017
United Church of Christ, First Congregational.
VBS Sunday ~ A Union Service with the First Baptist Church
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: “When someone says ‘the love of God is real’ that, of course, begs the question: what is real? We live in a society that likes to measure things. We live in a society which says if you cannot measure something it is not real. Well, I invite you to measure hope, freedom, wisdom, peace, joy, love. Good luck with that.”
BENEDICTION: This is the blessing used by natives of the islands in the South Pacific: O Jesus, please be the canoe that holds me up in the sea of life. Please be the rudder that keeps me on a straight path. Be the outrigger that supports me in times of stress. Let Your Spirit be the sail that carries me though each day. Keep me safe, so that I can paddle on steady in the voyage called life. God of all, bless us so we may have calm seas, a warm sun and clear nights with star filled skies. Amen.
[1] This being the kick-off Sunday for Vacation Bible School and a red panda puppet being the character in the Vacation Bible School this year, there was a skit at the Children’s Time in which said puppet participated.
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Sunday, July 9, 2017
SERMON ~ 07/09/2017 ~ “Set Free”
07/09/2017 ~ Proper 9 ~ Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fourth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Genesis 24:34-38, 42-49, 58-67 ; Psalm 45:10-17 or Song of Solomon 2:8-13; Zechariah 9:9-12 ~ Psalm 145:8-14; Romans 7:15-25a (Note: used through 8:2); Matthew 11:16-19, 25-30.
Set Free
“There is, therefore, now no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ, Jesus. For, you see, the law of the Spirit— the Spirit of life in Christ, Jesus— has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” — Romans 8:1-2.
This is a fact: most pastors use sermon illustrations. Some, perhaps even most illustrations, are stories. Some pastors use canned stories, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Some pastors use personal stories. I often fall into that camp. I am about to use a very personal story. But I also need to say I’ve used this story before.
However, there are two factors which might excuse the repetition. First, what I am about to say is a much more detailed telling of this story than the last time I used it.
Second, I looked it up. (These days we save all our writings on computers and we can do a word search.) I used this story nine years ago. And that is quite some time.
I therefore apologize if you are bored by hearing a story about my late Grandmother Margaret Schwartz a second time. But it has been nine years since anyone heard it. So, on with the story. (Slight pause.)
My grandmother Margaret, my mother’s mother, was born in 1886. 1886— that’s 3 years after the Brooklyn Bridge was completed. 1886— Grover Cleveland was the President— the first term for Cleveland, the only president who was defeated on running for a second term but decided to run a third time and then did win a second term. By the way, if you think politics today are wacky, you know nothing about politics between 1866 and 1912. Take my word for that.
Back to my grandmother: she was born on a farm in Brooklyn, New York. Think about that for a moment: a farm... in Brooklyn. The area of the City of Brooklyn— it was a city then— the area of the City of Brooklyn in which she was born was known as Pigtown. It derived its name from the fact that major, large pig farms were located there. In fact, before World War II if Americans consumed meat the odds are it was pork, not beef.
And, yes, Brooklyn was both quite rural— it had farms— but Brooklyn was a city. In fact, Manhattan and Brooklyn were often referred to as twin cities. They would not merge into the unified entity we know today called New York City until 1898.
When my grandmother was still a young child both her parents died. She was an orphan. Relatives placed on a ship headed for San Francisco. She lived there with an aunt and an uncle.
Therefore and by definition, she sailed around the horn of South America to get to the west coast by ship. There was no Panama Canal yet.
An independent soul— perhaps because she was an orphan— by 1905 when she was 19, she had saved enough money to return to the east coast on her own. There was still no Panama Canal. It would not open until 1914.
So she took a trans-continental train back to New York City. As a consequence, she missed the 1906 San Francisco earthquake by a year.
In New York, she went into business for herself— and mind you this was a young woman who went into business for herself in the first decade of the 20th Century. Did I say she was independent? And what kind of business did she start? She bought a horse and a wagon and established a short haul moving business. This was a strong woman on many levels.
Now, family legend has it that she could beat up any man in Brooklyn. I will not stand by the veracity of that statement. On the other hand, my own mother told me she was there when she saw her mother, my grandmother— all five foot two of her— overcome and disarm a man who was threatening a room full of people with a gun. (Slight pause.)
She did not have an easy life. She married late, again not a usual situation for a woman in the early 20th Century. Her husband died before the birth of her second daughter who was my mother. So, she was a single mother with two daughters when the Great Depression hit in 1929. She was 43.
I am sure that by 1929 her moving business had graduated to having a horseless carriage to move items. But I am equally sure no one was interested in moving anywhere once the depression hit. So her little business went belly up.
There were still enclaves of wealthy professionals living in Brooklyn, despite the hard times. As the depression progressed she made her living largely by cleaning the houses of wealthy people— doctors and lawyers to name to groups of which I’m aware that she helped. She was, in today’s terminology, a domestic worker. Thereby, she lived at the lower end of the economic scale.
Besides teaching me perseverance by the very example of her life, one of the great gifts my Grandmother gave me was this saying: “It’s an easy life... if you don’t weaken.” And, indeed, given the brief background of her life I’ve just offered— the difficulty of it, the hardness of her life, the straight out bad luck— this saying could be pointed to as words to live by for all of us— “It’s an easy life... if you don’t weaken.” (Pause.)
We find these words in the work commonly called Romans: “There is, therefore, now no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ, Jesus. For, you see, the law of the Spirit— the Spirit of life in Christ, Jesus— has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” (Slight pause.)
Romans 7— and we heard a chunk of it— depicts a battle. This battle is a battle of and for human life, the soul, in some ways the battle of our inner selves, what we today might call a psychological battle.
There is the strong desire to do good, a strong desire to serve God and one another. That is counterbalanced by what might be called an enemy within us.
Some might call that enemy sin. Paul, in fact, calls it sin. (Quote:) “But with my flesh I serve and I am a slave to the law of sin which dwells within me.”
And yes, sin is the label often used to name a broken relationship with God. Buy I also need to state the word sin, itself, is simply shorthand for a multitude of human problems.
Therefore, we need to realize the word sin simply names a broken relationship with God. Hence, it is also about our own struggle with our own self, our own brokenness, our own frailty, our own weakness.
To be clear, this inner battle can be labeled an enemy and we can and perhaps should call it sin, since the word sin is shorthand for this brokenness. And when we refer to this struggle in the aforementioned bellicose terms, call it an enemy, we need to realize, as Paul seems to be insisting, that some part of our own inner self is capable of perverting the best human motives and actions.
Now, I think the premise Paul presents is clear: on its own, humanity has not the strength to resist the overwhelming issues of self struggle, our own brokenness, our own frailty. It would also seem to me this concept, a concept with a long theological history, is a basic premise of organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous: simply admit we are powerless.
Further Paul states that, insidiously, even the law of God can be used by this internal struggle to destroy. Given that reality, Paul comes to a realization: only God— only God who Paul knows more fully through the resurrected Christ than Paul has ever known God before— only God can intervene in this struggle.
Of course, such intervention, these “victories” are not always visible to the unassisted human eye. But Paul is clear: because of knowing God through and in the resurrected Christ, those who do enter into discipleship more fully find, in their relationship to God through Christ, a new understanding of empowerment and a new understanding of service to each other. (Slight pause.)
We Americans like what we call independence. Hence, we like to think we can do everything on our own. We like to think we are the only one who can fix things, make something work.
I believe what is pivotal here, however, is to come back to what my Grandmother said. “It’s an easy life... if you don’t weaken.” That having been said, the question becomes how can we not weaken? How do we avoid succumbing to human weakness, human frailty, human brokenness? (Slight pause.)
Like Paul, I want to suggest relying on God is key. God can be and is our help when we feel frail. God is and can be our help when we are overwhelmed.
When we trust in God we are set free to do the work of God. Trusting God and not trusting in just ourselves— trusting God and not trusting in just ourselves— now there’s a hard concept for some, especially for we Westerners in the Early Twentieth-first Century.
However, I think what Paul says is clear: when we rely on God we can see things in ways we never have before. When we rely on God we can see possibilities we never have seen before. The result of that reliance— and hear this clearly— the result of that reliance is no one is condemned, no one is shortchanged. Again, a hard concept for we Westerners in the early Twenty-first Century— no one is condemned, no one is shortchanged.
Indeed, this is the way Paul puts it (quote:) “There is, therefore, now no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ, Jesus. For, you see, the law of the Spirit— the Spirit of life in Christ, Jesus— has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
07/09/2019
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, in the Children’s Time, we said the red panda puppet is a super-hero and the super-heros of this year’s Vacation Bible School will seek to teach our children to ‘Do Good, Seek Peace and Go After It!’ Here is another little super-hero I keep in my office. It is a frog. The frog is there to remind me to F-R-O-G— ‘forever rely on God.’ How can we all be super-heros? When we rely on God.”
BENEDICTION: May God bless our minds and help us as we think; may God bless our lips and help us as we speak; and may God bless our hearts and help us as we love. And may we receive this blessing in the name of the Triune God— Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. Amen.
Set Free
“There is, therefore, now no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ, Jesus. For, you see, the law of the Spirit— the Spirit of life in Christ, Jesus— has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” — Romans 8:1-2.
This is a fact: most pastors use sermon illustrations. Some, perhaps even most illustrations, are stories. Some pastors use canned stories, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Some pastors use personal stories. I often fall into that camp. I am about to use a very personal story. But I also need to say I’ve used this story before.
However, there are two factors which might excuse the repetition. First, what I am about to say is a much more detailed telling of this story than the last time I used it.
Second, I looked it up. (These days we save all our writings on computers and we can do a word search.) I used this story nine years ago. And that is quite some time.
I therefore apologize if you are bored by hearing a story about my late Grandmother Margaret Schwartz a second time. But it has been nine years since anyone heard it. So, on with the story. (Slight pause.)
My grandmother Margaret, my mother’s mother, was born in 1886. 1886— that’s 3 years after the Brooklyn Bridge was completed. 1886— Grover Cleveland was the President— the first term for Cleveland, the only president who was defeated on running for a second term but decided to run a third time and then did win a second term. By the way, if you think politics today are wacky, you know nothing about politics between 1866 and 1912. Take my word for that.
Back to my grandmother: she was born on a farm in Brooklyn, New York. Think about that for a moment: a farm... in Brooklyn. The area of the City of Brooklyn— it was a city then— the area of the City of Brooklyn in which she was born was known as Pigtown. It derived its name from the fact that major, large pig farms were located there. In fact, before World War II if Americans consumed meat the odds are it was pork, not beef.
And, yes, Brooklyn was both quite rural— it had farms— but Brooklyn was a city. In fact, Manhattan and Brooklyn were often referred to as twin cities. They would not merge into the unified entity we know today called New York City until 1898.
When my grandmother was still a young child both her parents died. She was an orphan. Relatives placed on a ship headed for San Francisco. She lived there with an aunt and an uncle.
Therefore and by definition, she sailed around the horn of South America to get to the west coast by ship. There was no Panama Canal yet.
An independent soul— perhaps because she was an orphan— by 1905 when she was 19, she had saved enough money to return to the east coast on her own. There was still no Panama Canal. It would not open until 1914.
So she took a trans-continental train back to New York City. As a consequence, she missed the 1906 San Francisco earthquake by a year.
In New York, she went into business for herself— and mind you this was a young woman who went into business for herself in the first decade of the 20th Century. Did I say she was independent? And what kind of business did she start? She bought a horse and a wagon and established a short haul moving business. This was a strong woman on many levels.
Now, family legend has it that she could beat up any man in Brooklyn. I will not stand by the veracity of that statement. On the other hand, my own mother told me she was there when she saw her mother, my grandmother— all five foot two of her— overcome and disarm a man who was threatening a room full of people with a gun. (Slight pause.)
She did not have an easy life. She married late, again not a usual situation for a woman in the early 20th Century. Her husband died before the birth of her second daughter who was my mother. So, she was a single mother with two daughters when the Great Depression hit in 1929. She was 43.
I am sure that by 1929 her moving business had graduated to having a horseless carriage to move items. But I am equally sure no one was interested in moving anywhere once the depression hit. So her little business went belly up.
There were still enclaves of wealthy professionals living in Brooklyn, despite the hard times. As the depression progressed she made her living largely by cleaning the houses of wealthy people— doctors and lawyers to name to groups of which I’m aware that she helped. She was, in today’s terminology, a domestic worker. Thereby, she lived at the lower end of the economic scale.
Besides teaching me perseverance by the very example of her life, one of the great gifts my Grandmother gave me was this saying: “It’s an easy life... if you don’t weaken.” And, indeed, given the brief background of her life I’ve just offered— the difficulty of it, the hardness of her life, the straight out bad luck— this saying could be pointed to as words to live by for all of us— “It’s an easy life... if you don’t weaken.” (Pause.)
We find these words in the work commonly called Romans: “There is, therefore, now no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ, Jesus. For, you see, the law of the Spirit— the Spirit of life in Christ, Jesus— has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” (Slight pause.)
Romans 7— and we heard a chunk of it— depicts a battle. This battle is a battle of and for human life, the soul, in some ways the battle of our inner selves, what we today might call a psychological battle.
There is the strong desire to do good, a strong desire to serve God and one another. That is counterbalanced by what might be called an enemy within us.
Some might call that enemy sin. Paul, in fact, calls it sin. (Quote:) “But with my flesh I serve and I am a slave to the law of sin which dwells within me.”
And yes, sin is the label often used to name a broken relationship with God. Buy I also need to state the word sin, itself, is simply shorthand for a multitude of human problems.
Therefore, we need to realize the word sin simply names a broken relationship with God. Hence, it is also about our own struggle with our own self, our own brokenness, our own frailty, our own weakness.
To be clear, this inner battle can be labeled an enemy and we can and perhaps should call it sin, since the word sin is shorthand for this brokenness. And when we refer to this struggle in the aforementioned bellicose terms, call it an enemy, we need to realize, as Paul seems to be insisting, that some part of our own inner self is capable of perverting the best human motives and actions.
Now, I think the premise Paul presents is clear: on its own, humanity has not the strength to resist the overwhelming issues of self struggle, our own brokenness, our own frailty. It would also seem to me this concept, a concept with a long theological history, is a basic premise of organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous: simply admit we are powerless.
Further Paul states that, insidiously, even the law of God can be used by this internal struggle to destroy. Given that reality, Paul comes to a realization: only God— only God who Paul knows more fully through the resurrected Christ than Paul has ever known God before— only God can intervene in this struggle.
Of course, such intervention, these “victories” are not always visible to the unassisted human eye. But Paul is clear: because of knowing God through and in the resurrected Christ, those who do enter into discipleship more fully find, in their relationship to God through Christ, a new understanding of empowerment and a new understanding of service to each other. (Slight pause.)
We Americans like what we call independence. Hence, we like to think we can do everything on our own. We like to think we are the only one who can fix things, make something work.
I believe what is pivotal here, however, is to come back to what my Grandmother said. “It’s an easy life... if you don’t weaken.” That having been said, the question becomes how can we not weaken? How do we avoid succumbing to human weakness, human frailty, human brokenness? (Slight pause.)
Like Paul, I want to suggest relying on God is key. God can be and is our help when we feel frail. God is and can be our help when we are overwhelmed.
When we trust in God we are set free to do the work of God. Trusting God and not trusting in just ourselves— trusting God and not trusting in just ourselves— now there’s a hard concept for some, especially for we Westerners in the Early Twentieth-first Century.
However, I think what Paul says is clear: when we rely on God we can see things in ways we never have before. When we rely on God we can see possibilities we never have seen before. The result of that reliance— and hear this clearly— the result of that reliance is no one is condemned, no one is shortchanged. Again, a hard concept for we Westerners in the early Twenty-first Century— no one is condemned, no one is shortchanged.
Indeed, this is the way Paul puts it (quote:) “There is, therefore, now no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ, Jesus. For, you see, the law of the Spirit— the Spirit of life in Christ, Jesus— has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
07/09/2019
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, in the Children’s Time, we said the red panda puppet is a super-hero and the super-heros of this year’s Vacation Bible School will seek to teach our children to ‘Do Good, Seek Peace and Go After It!’ Here is another little super-hero I keep in my office. It is a frog. The frog is there to remind me to F-R-O-G— ‘forever rely on God.’ How can we all be super-heros? When we rely on God.”
BENEDICTION: May God bless our minds and help us as we think; may God bless our lips and help us as we speak; and may God bless our hearts and help us as we love. And may we receive this blessing in the name of the Triune God— Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. Amen.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
SERMON ~ July 2, 2017 ~ “Rewards?”
July 2, 2017 ~ Proper 8 (13) ~ Fourth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Genesis 22:1-14; Psalm 13; Jeremiah 28:5-9; Psalm 89:1-4, 15-18; Romans 6:12-23; Matthew 10:40-42 ~ The Sunday Before the Secular Holiday Known as Independence Day; Communion Sunday.
Rewards?
“But the truth is whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these lowly ones just for being a disciple will not lack a reward.” — Matthew 10:42.
As was mentioned earlier, Bonnie and I will be leaving after the service today, headed to Maine to visit family. We will be back by next Sunday. And what better week to go than the week that has the Fourth of July in the midst of it?
One of the things we have planned will, however, not be in Maine but will happen on our return trip. We will visit the Rev. Dr. Bill Imes, now retired, and his wife Judy for lunch on the day we return.
Bill was, of course, one of my mentors in ministry. He preached at my ordination. Bonnie says a lot of people tried to get me to go to Seminary over the years. Bill got it done. Since we have not seen Bill and Judy in quite a while, I expect we shall have a lot to talk about and have a good time seeing each other.
Bill and Judy now live in Easthampton, Massachusetts. Easthampton is just a short detour off I-90, so the visit won’t be hard to accomplish.
Now, Bill graduated from Seminary in 1969. He went to Yale. Back when he was a seminarian even at Yale, a relatively urban institution, and even back in the late 1960s, one of the things the professors stressed was the physical places in this country in which Main Line Churches largely and mostly reside.
Back then they said the natural habitat of Main Line Churches was what they called “town and country.” Therefore, Seminaries, even urban ones like Yale, felt they were training pastors who would serve churches located in towns and in the countryside.
To put some geographic teeth into that statement, let me translate it this way. Main Line Churches are largely in places like Norwich— towns— and in the country— places like Preble for example, about an hour and twenty minutes West of here. One of our fine U.C.C. churches resides in Preble. And if, on your travels, your destination is not Preble, if on any trip you simply travel through Preble, don’t blink. You’ll miss it— country.
My point in bringing this up— the fact that 50 years ago we all knew Main Line Churches were largely in town and in country locations— is there is a boldfaced lie that goes around about Main Line Churches. This is the lie: Main Line Churches are losing population.
Guess what? The places where Main Line Churches exist are losing population. Ipso facto, Main Line Churches are losing population. But that loss has little to do with the churches, themselves.
Example: since I came to Norwich more than twenty years ago the data says the population has gone down by about 30%. That’s more than 1% year. Which is also to say, yes, numbers in the Main Line have diminished. But you need to ask ‘what is the real reason for that?’
Indeed, there are plenty of Main Line Churches experiencing growth. Guess where those churches are located?
They are in suburbs and exurbs and those areas are experiencing growth. But, generally, there are few Main Line Churches in those areas. (Slight pause.)
There is a second bold faced lie out there concerning church population. This lie says Main Line Churches are too liberal to be popular. Conservative churches grow. Liberal churches do not.
That lie was recently addressed, dare I say destroyed, in an interview given by Diana Butler Bass. Bass is a church historian and theologian and an independent scholar who writes broadly on American religion and culture.0
She started this interview by noting the Southern Baptist Convention, clearly a conservative group, has lost more than one million members in the last decade, the last ten years. And, if you stretch back for five or six years before that, the losses would be well the million, nearly trwo.
So, what’s happening? Yes, many of these churches are located in areas losing population also. But there is a second reason which Bass addressed.
This is a quote: “Cultural circumstances— cultural circumstances— surrounding religious life and religious choice are far more important than any theology.... The issue is not whether you’re a liberal or a conservative.... That is irrelevant.”
Southern Baptists are culturally, she noted, now going through what liberal churches went through about 30 or 40 years ago. In the mid-20th century mainline Protestants had grown cozy with cultural power and the status quo. Being comfortable with the status quo undermined their ability to have or to offer a prophetic vision for the world. The inability to have or to offer a prophetic vision undermined their ability to be anything other than the church of just getting along.
So, culturally, conservative churches filled that void. But then they also got comfortable with their own brand of cultural power. Now they are being confronted by issues concerning race, concerning gender and gender identity, and other issues concerning justice.
Bass continued (quote:), “Evangelicals have been completely unable to address these in any meaningful way. The leaders of evangelical churches have continued their alliance with the powers that be, the status quo, and their children are saying, ‘We don’t buy it.’”
“Not only is the younger generation walking away. The younger generation says, ‘We will not be the church of the status quo. We do not want to be the church of Caesar.’” (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Matthew: “But the truth is whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these lowly ones just for being a disciple will not lack a reward.” (Slight pause.)
The message we hear in this brief passage indicates a revitalization of family relations is possible but it goes beyond that. These words say the establishment of a new family is also possible, a new family bound together by a common commitment to do the will of God. However, the new family does not automatically emerge to replace the support of the old family ties.
The new family must be born, be refreshed, renewed. And that new family must be born, be refreshed, renewed in the context of mission. Community is out there, beyond the current community, in the context of mission. This community needs to be welcomed, in the context of mission.
Put another way, this community, in fact, needs to receive a cup of cold water. And the old community and new community alike, can be bonded together with the divine presence in the context of mission. (Slight pause.)
We live in a society, in a world, that thinks everything has a price, everything can be bought and/or sold, a deal can be made for everything, anything. Therefore, I think when we read these words from Matthew we believe the important part of the verse I quoted is “...a disciple will not lack a reward.” We hear these words and we hear and we see transaction.
But and therefore, we tend to ignore these words: “...whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these...” That dichotomy begs the question: what is a disciple? What is discipleship? What does it mean to be a disciple? (Slight pause.)
In that same interview Diana Butler Bass said this (quote:) “This is the real issue for churches: are you a congregation that provides a way of life, meaningful life, for people which can help them navigate through chaotic times. Are you a congregation that provides a way to be able to connect with God, to experience a new sense of the Holy Spirit, to be able to empower love and to be compassionate? That is what makes religious communities vibrant, not whether they are liberal or conservative.” [1] (Slight pause.)
The Dominion of God is not about transactions. The Dominion of God is not about rewards. The Dominion of God is not about who has the most wherewithal when they die.
The church is not about transactions. The church is not about rewards. The church is not about who has the most wherewithal when they die.
The church is about striving to provide a way of meaningful life for people to help them navigate through chaotic times. The church is about helping people connect with God.
The church is about the experience of a new sense of the Holy Spirit. The church is about empowering love. The church is about being be able to be compassionate. (Slight pause.) The church is about giving a cup of water. (Slight pause.)
The question before us, the question before this congregation, any congregation, is not a question about power or any kind of reward or even survival. The question before this congregation and any congregation is did we, were we, providing a way of meaningful life for people to help them navigate in chaotic times?
Did we, were we, helping people to connect with God? Did we, were we, helping people experience a new sense of the Holy Spirit? Are we, can we empower love and compassion? (Slight pause.) Did we give a cup of water, simply a cup of cold water? Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
07/02/2017
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: “This is a poem by Tod Jenkins called The Gospel. ‘When the gospel no longer / sounds like good news, / maybe our measure / of what is good – / and the people for whom / it was intended – / has slipped a few / too many notches. // We are not called / to shoehorn the gospel / into our narratives / of comfort and security, / but to open our hearts and lives / to love’s expansive reach. // We are made to fit love, / not the other way around. // Keep stretching. / It’s reaching toward you now; / has been since / before your first breath; / will be forevermore.’ I probably don’t need to add anything to that.”
BENEDICTION: May we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] A summary of this interview is found at this URL.
https://baptistnews.com/article/diana-butler-bass-sbc-decline-dispels-idea-liberal-denominations-die/#.WVJodRMrJsM
Rewards?
“But the truth is whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these lowly ones just for being a disciple will not lack a reward.” — Matthew 10:42.
As was mentioned earlier, Bonnie and I will be leaving after the service today, headed to Maine to visit family. We will be back by next Sunday. And what better week to go than the week that has the Fourth of July in the midst of it?
One of the things we have planned will, however, not be in Maine but will happen on our return trip. We will visit the Rev. Dr. Bill Imes, now retired, and his wife Judy for lunch on the day we return.
Bill was, of course, one of my mentors in ministry. He preached at my ordination. Bonnie says a lot of people tried to get me to go to Seminary over the years. Bill got it done. Since we have not seen Bill and Judy in quite a while, I expect we shall have a lot to talk about and have a good time seeing each other.
Bill and Judy now live in Easthampton, Massachusetts. Easthampton is just a short detour off I-90, so the visit won’t be hard to accomplish.
Now, Bill graduated from Seminary in 1969. He went to Yale. Back when he was a seminarian even at Yale, a relatively urban institution, and even back in the late 1960s, one of the things the professors stressed was the physical places in this country in which Main Line Churches largely and mostly reside.
Back then they said the natural habitat of Main Line Churches was what they called “town and country.” Therefore, Seminaries, even urban ones like Yale, felt they were training pastors who would serve churches located in towns and in the countryside.
To put some geographic teeth into that statement, let me translate it this way. Main Line Churches are largely in places like Norwich— towns— and in the country— places like Preble for example, about an hour and twenty minutes West of here. One of our fine U.C.C. churches resides in Preble. And if, on your travels, your destination is not Preble, if on any trip you simply travel through Preble, don’t blink. You’ll miss it— country.
My point in bringing this up— the fact that 50 years ago we all knew Main Line Churches were largely in town and in country locations— is there is a boldfaced lie that goes around about Main Line Churches. This is the lie: Main Line Churches are losing population.
Guess what? The places where Main Line Churches exist are losing population. Ipso facto, Main Line Churches are losing population. But that loss has little to do with the churches, themselves.
Example: since I came to Norwich more than twenty years ago the data says the population has gone down by about 30%. That’s more than 1% year. Which is also to say, yes, numbers in the Main Line have diminished. But you need to ask ‘what is the real reason for that?’
Indeed, there are plenty of Main Line Churches experiencing growth. Guess where those churches are located?
They are in suburbs and exurbs and those areas are experiencing growth. But, generally, there are few Main Line Churches in those areas. (Slight pause.)
There is a second bold faced lie out there concerning church population. This lie says Main Line Churches are too liberal to be popular. Conservative churches grow. Liberal churches do not.
That lie was recently addressed, dare I say destroyed, in an interview given by Diana Butler Bass. Bass is a church historian and theologian and an independent scholar who writes broadly on American religion and culture.0
She started this interview by noting the Southern Baptist Convention, clearly a conservative group, has lost more than one million members in the last decade, the last ten years. And, if you stretch back for five or six years before that, the losses would be well the million, nearly trwo.
So, what’s happening? Yes, many of these churches are located in areas losing population also. But there is a second reason which Bass addressed.
This is a quote: “Cultural circumstances— cultural circumstances— surrounding religious life and religious choice are far more important than any theology.... The issue is not whether you’re a liberal or a conservative.... That is irrelevant.”
Southern Baptists are culturally, she noted, now going through what liberal churches went through about 30 or 40 years ago. In the mid-20th century mainline Protestants had grown cozy with cultural power and the status quo. Being comfortable with the status quo undermined their ability to have or to offer a prophetic vision for the world. The inability to have or to offer a prophetic vision undermined their ability to be anything other than the church of just getting along.
So, culturally, conservative churches filled that void. But then they also got comfortable with their own brand of cultural power. Now they are being confronted by issues concerning race, concerning gender and gender identity, and other issues concerning justice.
Bass continued (quote:), “Evangelicals have been completely unable to address these in any meaningful way. The leaders of evangelical churches have continued their alliance with the powers that be, the status quo, and their children are saying, ‘We don’t buy it.’”
“Not only is the younger generation walking away. The younger generation says, ‘We will not be the church of the status quo. We do not want to be the church of Caesar.’” (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Matthew: “But the truth is whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these lowly ones just for being a disciple will not lack a reward.” (Slight pause.)
The message we hear in this brief passage indicates a revitalization of family relations is possible but it goes beyond that. These words say the establishment of a new family is also possible, a new family bound together by a common commitment to do the will of God. However, the new family does not automatically emerge to replace the support of the old family ties.
The new family must be born, be refreshed, renewed. And that new family must be born, be refreshed, renewed in the context of mission. Community is out there, beyond the current community, in the context of mission. This community needs to be welcomed, in the context of mission.
Put another way, this community, in fact, needs to receive a cup of cold water. And the old community and new community alike, can be bonded together with the divine presence in the context of mission. (Slight pause.)
We live in a society, in a world, that thinks everything has a price, everything can be bought and/or sold, a deal can be made for everything, anything. Therefore, I think when we read these words from Matthew we believe the important part of the verse I quoted is “...a disciple will not lack a reward.” We hear these words and we hear and we see transaction.
But and therefore, we tend to ignore these words: “...whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these...” That dichotomy begs the question: what is a disciple? What is discipleship? What does it mean to be a disciple? (Slight pause.)
In that same interview Diana Butler Bass said this (quote:) “This is the real issue for churches: are you a congregation that provides a way of life, meaningful life, for people which can help them navigate through chaotic times. Are you a congregation that provides a way to be able to connect with God, to experience a new sense of the Holy Spirit, to be able to empower love and to be compassionate? That is what makes religious communities vibrant, not whether they are liberal or conservative.” [1] (Slight pause.)
The Dominion of God is not about transactions. The Dominion of God is not about rewards. The Dominion of God is not about who has the most wherewithal when they die.
The church is not about transactions. The church is not about rewards. The church is not about who has the most wherewithal when they die.
The church is about striving to provide a way of meaningful life for people to help them navigate through chaotic times. The church is about helping people connect with God.
The church is about the experience of a new sense of the Holy Spirit. The church is about empowering love. The church is about being be able to be compassionate. (Slight pause.) The church is about giving a cup of water. (Slight pause.)
The question before us, the question before this congregation, any congregation, is not a question about power or any kind of reward or even survival. The question before this congregation and any congregation is did we, were we, providing a way of meaningful life for people to help them navigate in chaotic times?
Did we, were we, helping people to connect with God? Did we, were we, helping people experience a new sense of the Holy Spirit? Are we, can we empower love and compassion? (Slight pause.) Did we give a cup of water, simply a cup of cold water? Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
07/02/2017
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: “This is a poem by Tod Jenkins called The Gospel. ‘When the gospel no longer / sounds like good news, / maybe our measure / of what is good – / and the people for whom / it was intended – / has slipped a few / too many notches. // We are not called / to shoehorn the gospel / into our narratives / of comfort and security, / but to open our hearts and lives / to love’s expansive reach. // We are made to fit love, / not the other way around. // Keep stretching. / It’s reaching toward you now; / has been since / before your first breath; / will be forevermore.’ I probably don’t need to add anything to that.”
BENEDICTION: May we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] A summary of this interview is found at this URL.
https://baptistnews.com/article/diana-butler-bass-sbc-decline-dispels-idea-liberal-denominations-die/#.WVJodRMrJsM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)