READINGS: 10/28/2018 ~ Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ (Proper 25) ~ Job 42:1-6, 10-17; Psalm 34:1-8, (19-22); Jeremiah 31:7-9; Psalm 126; Hebrews 7:23-28; Mark 10:46-52 ~ Sometimes Celebrated as Reformation Sunday ~ Annual Budget Information Meeting.
Faith Is Vision
“Jesus replied, ‘Go. Your faith has saved you.’ Immediately Bartimaeus received the gift of sight and began to follow Jesus along the road.” — Mark 10:52.
I want to start my comments today with a word about the polity of the United Church of Christ. Polity— that’s a fancy word which means governance. Polity is the term used to describe how any denomination governs itself.
This is a given for us: the basic unit in the denomination known as the United Church of Christ is the local Congregation. Congregations join into Associations. Part of the idea is churches gathered in an Association can, in unity together, do things an individual congregation might not be able to do on its own.
But part of the idea is churches gathered in an Association should not do some things in insolation from other churches because it would be unwise. Quite specifically, one of those unwise things would for a congregation, on its own, to ordain pastors.
Pastors are ordained not just by the local church. Ordination is done in conjunction with and cooperation from the Association.
Why is this mutuality important? Pastors are, you see, ordained for the whole church. An act this universal needs be done in conjunction with others— in this case with the Association. Why? Ordination is an action for the good of the whole, not just for the good of the local church.
In forming Associations we rely on covenant, a word you’ve heard me say a couple thousand times. We are in covenant with other churches in the Association.
This covenant among churches is about honoring one another, mutually seeking the justice of God and, as well as we are able, striving to be a presence to the world concerning issues of justice. Similar to ordaining, seeking the justice of God in this world needs the intentional involvement of more than one congregational acting on its own.
So, how is covenant established, accomplished, maintained? Covenant is established, accomplished and maintained by listening in prayer and with respect to the other churches in our Association.
And other churches, to keep covenant with us, need to do the same. To be clear, Associations have been a part of our Congregational tradition since the early 1600s. It is part of our heritage, our history, our life as a church. To ignore this ignores our heritage, our history, our life as a church, ignores a bedrock piece of our tradition.
In my time in Norwich we have hosted Association Meetings and we have hosted a New York Conference Board Meeting. Right now I am a member of two committees of the Association and two committees of the Conference.
But this is not about me. We have lay delegates to both our Association and our Conference. Lay members from this church have served on Association Committees and on the Conference Board.
In my time in Norwich we have gathered for our regular Sunday worship with the United Church of Christ in Sherburne. We have gathered for our regular Sunday worship with the entire New York Conference in Binghamton. Each and every Conference Minister who has served us over this time has preached from this pulpit.
Now, there’s a word I’ve just used several times— Conference. What is a Conference?
Conferences are not an aspect or an appendage of Associations. This is not about hierarchy. Just like the process with the Associations, Congregations come together in a Conference, a larger gathering. And in a Conference churches can, in unity, do things together an individual Congregation might not be able to do on its own.
Indeed, churches gathered in a Conference can do some things it would be unwise for a Congregation to do on its own. It would be, for instance, unwise for a local Congregation to embark on pastoral search alone.
Again, in forming a Conference we rely on covenant, this honoring of one another, as we mutually seek the justice of God and, as well as we are able, seek to be a presence to the world on issues of justice. Seeking the justice of God is a task for which a Conference can be even better suited than an Association. It is, after all, a larger body.
To be clear, Conferences have been in the Congregational tradition since the 1800s, by far [re-dating the origins of the United Church of Christ. It is part of our heritage, our history, our life as a church, a bedrock piece of the our tradition. (Slight pause.)
As I said, we are in covenant with the Association and the Conference. I think one of the things we do not understand about covenant is the commitment, the intentionality, the mutual responsibility involved. Covenant does not somehow magically happen on its own.
I’ve said this before. Covenant is a commitment to growth, to change, a commitment to be intentional in relationship. It is a bedrock aspect of faith.
But really, who wants to grow, to change, to be intentional? Why can’t things be just left as they are or even go back to what they were? These are frequently asked questions, are they not?
However growth, change and intentionality are important. These empower real, substantive faith. And, oh yes— a commitment to growth and to change and to intentionality is necessary in seeking the justice of God. (Slight pause.)
Something should be obvious about this story we heard from Mark. There are many obstacles with which Bartimaeus needs to deal.
The text notes a large crowd surrounds the Rabbi. And so, at the side of the road, unable to see, needing to carefully listen amid what was probably something of a tumult surrounding Jesus, is where Bartimaeus starts.
It also seems the crowd is moving along the road. Again, for someone unable to see, probably unable to move too far, this makes perception of what’s happening difficult.
This is also clear: Bartimaeus is a beggar. In that era a beggar cannot be compared to someone in poverty today. This is a station in society. So it’s unlikely people will help. In short and to reiterate, there are many obstacles with which Bartimaeus needs to deal.
So, what does Bartimaeus do? This is also clear. Bartimaeus seeks Jesus. Bartimaeus seeks change, growth. Bartimaeus is intentional.
But this may not be clear. When Bartimaeus calls out the writer of Mark uses a title (quote:) “Heir of David.” This is the first time in Mark we hear a Messianic title.
Therefore, Bartimaeus is intentional about seeking the Messiah of God. And to do that Bartimaeus overcomes the aforementioned obstacles. This poses a question for us to consider: how does faith become empowered? (Slight pause.)
Many churches in the Reformed tradition celebrate this Sunday as Reformation Sunday. Of course, Martin Luther’s theological premise was justification by faith. This is what Luther said about how the substance of justification by faith happens.
(Quote:) “This life is not righteous but growth in righteousness; is not health but healing; not being but becoming; not rest but exercise; we are not yet what we shall be but we are growing toward it; the process is not yet finished but it is going on; this is not the end but it is the road; all does not yet gleam in glory but all is being purified.”
Luther’s contention says life, indeed, the Christian life, is forever an unfinished product. That did not sit well with the power structure in Luther’s time which believed a lack of growth and change was beneficial to power. Nor does it sit well today probably for the same reasons.
Why do the ideas of Luther not sit well today? We live in a society which believes in some kind of magic. We believe things will be just fine when stagnant. Lack of growth, lack of change and an unwillingness to be intentional about growing and changing are rampant in the world in which we live. (Slight pause.)
As was said earlier, after the service today we shall gather to look at some budget numbers. We will decide nothing. That’s for a later date. [1]
But when it comes to finances, for us solvency is not an issue. Indeed, logically our solvency should afford us the freedom to be intentional about covenant. And we do constantly need to be intentional about covenant. We need to intentionally strive to see the world as God might see the world— a place of change, a place for growth, with our eyes intentionally fixed on the justice of God.
And yes, we do need to trust God. Therefore we should not, to use the old fashioned word, trust Mammon.
Why? Trust in Mammon inevitably turns people of faith away from growth and change and intentionality. Mammon inevitably turns people of faith toward the false feeling of safely being stagnant. People of faith are intentional about growth and change.
How do I know that? Please just look at the actions Bartimaeus took. And then look at what happens. The words we heard in the Gospel today say this (quote:) “Jesus replied, ‘Go. Your faith has saved you.’ Immediately Bartimaeus received the gift of sight and began to follow Jesus along the road.” Amen.
10/28/2018
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The late famous poet Maya Angelou said this about being a Christian: ‘I’m working on trying to be a Christian and that’s serious business. It’s not where you think like, Oh, I’ve got this done. I did it all day— hot diggity. The truth is all day long you try to do it.... And then in the evening, if you’re honest and have a little courage, you look at yourself an say, Hmmm— I only blew it 86 times today. Not bad.’— Maya Angelou. Covenant— the basis of faith— it’s about intentional growth and change.”
BENEDICTION: Go out in the strength and love God provides. Praise the deeds of God by the way you live, by the way you love. And may the steadfast love of God and the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] After the service the Congregation gathered to look at the first and preliminary outline of the 2019 budget. This Congregation’s solvency stems from an endowment that is around $14,000,000.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Sunday, October 21, 2018
SERMON ~ 10/21/2018 ~ “Service”
READINGS: 10/21/2018 ~ Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 24) ~ Job 38:1-7, (34-41); Psalm 104:1-9, 24, 35c; Isaiah 53:4-12; Psalm 91:9-16; Hebrews 5:1-10; Mark 10:35-45.
Service
“Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all. The Promised One has come not to be served but to serve—....” — Mark 10:43a-45. [1]
Please bear with me. I am about to share two very personal stories concerning my family background. I have used them before. But my intent is to frame them in a different context. (Slight pause.)
Well, I have often mentioned my mother died at a relatively early age. She was only 58. I was 35. She had cancer of the bladder which, even back when she died in 1983, was fatal only 10% of the time. She simply was on the wrong side of the bracket when it came to those odds.
Here’s some background about my family you need to know for the story I will tell. I am the first of three children. I have a brother, 14 months younger than I am and a sister who is 4 years younger.
Not long before Mom died I had a conversation with her which I think was cathartic. My judgment is she wanted to, she felt had to say this to someone. For a number of reasons, reasons which I shall get to later, I was the one with whom she had this discussion.
Here’s some more context: my mother was the youngest in her family, raised by a single mother in the 1920s and 1930s. She had one sibling who was much older.
As a single parent, her mother worked and was absent a lot. My mother, in fact, told me tales of being what today is called a latchkey child and this was back in the 20s and 30s.
I suspect one result of her family situation was she had no role models when it came to having and raising her own children. And so, in the course of this chat my mother described her three children in this way.
She labeled me, her firstborn, as her experiment. She had never really raising a child up close, so I was her experiment. She then said my brother was her baby and my sister was her plaything, her enjoyment.
I need to be clear. I am not saying any of that was good or even healthy. I am simply offering, repeating her description of her children. I am convinced she was trying to explain how she related to us, how she recognized us as different, as individuals.
In a real sense what she said illustrates how much she loved each of us. And she loved each of us both differently and deeply. (Slight pause.)
Well, please bear with me. The next thing I want to say is also something very personal about my family background. And I have mentioned this here before.
When I was about five years old my father had what was called in the terms used back in the early 1950s a nervous breakdown. Today we would have recognized this as the onset of a mental illness known as Passive Dependency or Passive Aggression.
One of the consequences of that was as the next oldest male— again, we are looking at a different era, the early 50s— as the next oldest male, family members looked to me for leadership. Or at least they invested me with and groomed me for that role.
I could tell you tales about how that happened and what it looked like. Suffice it to say my mother chose to have the aforementioned conversation with me and that should be a good illustration of my place in that family structure.
But illustrating my place in that structure is not the point. More to the point is in that family structure I clearly was fulfilling a leadership role, and that was true by the time I was in my early teens.
I also need to be clear about this: I am not saying any of that was good or even healthy when it comes to family dynamics. I am simply offering these stories to illustrate two aspects of family dynamics not just in my family but in any family.
One aspect of these dynamics could be labeled as relationship— that story of my mother and her children. A second aspect of these dynamics could be labeled as structure. And in that structure leadership was craved. Again, this is not just any family. Relationship and structure are present in all families, in fact in any organization.
That opens a classic question. The question is not ‘Which is more important, relationship or structure?’ since structure and relationship are givens. The question is ‘Which will be the driving force in any family, in any group, in any institution— relationship or structure? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Mark. “Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all. The Promised One has come not to be served but to serve—....” (Slight pause.)
There are three scenes in this reading. First, there is the request of James and John for prominent spots in the Dominion. There is also the anger expressed by the other disciples at the audaciousness of the request. Last we have Jesus. (Quote:) “Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest;....”
Please note, Jesus does not rebuke the brothers. We might want to— not Jesus. And yes, Jesus also confronts them with reality.
And then there is anger on the part of the other disciples. It’s likely this reflects jealousy rather than indignation. Jealousy about the structure.
Again, Jesus resists a rebuke. Jesus instead uses the pagan authorities as models of how to not exercise leadership. And Jesus does it again: confronts with reality.
You see, in a choice between structure and relationship, the criterion for leadership is not the effectiveness of structure, who gets the job done the quickest, who has the better program. Rather, in the Dominion of God we are called to be faithful.
The text even admits faithfulness as a style of leadership and a style of life runs counter to the prevailing wisdom of that day and I would suggest it runs counter to the prevailing wisdom we have today since effectiveness, speed and programs are highly valued. This, therefore, may not make much sense to those whose eyes are stuck on effectiveness, speed and programs. These all consider the bottom line... but these go no further than the bottom line.
In the Dominion of God the needs of people, how service can be rendered to meet those needs are vital. Priority is given to relationships. (Slight pause.)
I want to go back to the earlier discussion about my family. Clearly there was a structure. But the problem with that structure was not even the fact that I was young when the family turned to me.
The problem with that structure is my family was not looking for a leader. The problem of any structure which does not rely on relationship is that structure— effectiveness, speed, programs— structure simply searches for a hero. A structure tries to find fixes, tries to find someone to fix things. Structure searches for a hero.
Let me substitute a theological term for the word hero. People look for a savior. Jesus did not have a hero complex. In fact what makes Jesus Savior is a willingness to be a servant.
The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to say we are in this together. The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to say we need to support one another.
The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to explore relationship. The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to be in relationship. The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to not be served but to serve. (Slight pause.)
One more observation— did James and John and the disciples completely miss the point of the preaching of Jesus? Did they completely miss the point when Jesus put the little child in their midst?
Did they completely miss the point when Jesus blessed the group of children who otherwise seemed a nuisance? Did they completely miss the point when Jesus spoke to the rich man about the need to break with possessions?
My answer which might surprise some is ‘no,’ they did not miss the point. Rather, they willfully ignored the point. Why?
You see, we are human. We are imperfect and in our imperfection we believe structure is perfect. We believe structure— the very thought of which gives us great comfort— we believe structure will be a solution for everything. And we, therefore, do seek the comfort of structure rather than the haphazardness of relationship. But relationship is what Jesus relies on.
Relationship is what Jesus teaches, and perhaps more importantly acts out. Jesus teaches and acts out relationship with God and one another. And you know what that is— relationship with God and with one another— you know what that is, right? Yes— here comes that word again: covenant. Covenant— it’s about relationship. Amen.
10/21/2018
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: “Tell me, how often have you heard people chant, ‘We’re number one?’ A lot, right? How often have you heard people chant, ‘We’re all in this together.’ Never, right? But that’s what sound leadership is about. It recognizes that we are all one, that we are all in this together. You’ve heard of a three legged race where two partners need to cooperate? And believe me, just two people cooperating is hard to do. Well, church is a thousand legged race were everyone needs to cooperate. And that is really hard since what it actually says is everyone needs to be a leader just like everyone else is a leader and everyone needs to serve one another.”
BENEDICTION: There is a cost and there is a joy in discipleship. There is a cost and there is a joy in truly being church, in deeply loving one another. 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] This was the Gospel reading and the translation used.
Mark 10:35-45 [ILV] ~ The Gospel makes a point like this quite often, so the sentiment addressed by this passage was probably a truth found in the communities of the early church: any kind of power structure was not welcome. Hear now this reading from the Gospel we have come to know as Mark’s.
[35] The Children of Zebedee, James and John, approached Jesus. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to grant our request.”
[36] “What is it?” Jesus asked.
[37] They replied, “Grant to us that we sit next to you, one at your right and one at your left, when you come into your glory.”
[38] But Jesus told them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup I will drink or be baptized in the same baptism with which I am baptized?”
[39] “We can,” they replied.
Jesus said in response, “The cup I drink you will drink; and the baptism with which I am baptized, you will share; [40] but as for sitting at my right or at my left, that is not mine to grant; it is for those for whom it has been reserved.”
[41] The other ten, on hearing about this, began to be indignant with James and John.
[42] So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that among the Gentiles, those whom exercise authority, those who are domineering and arrogant, those who are perceived to be ‘great ones,’ they know how to make their own importance felt. [43] But it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; [44] whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all. [45] The Promised One has come not to be served but to serve— to give one life in ransom for the many.”
Service
“Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all. The Promised One has come not to be served but to serve—....” — Mark 10:43a-45. [1]
Please bear with me. I am about to share two very personal stories concerning my family background. I have used them before. But my intent is to frame them in a different context. (Slight pause.)
Well, I have often mentioned my mother died at a relatively early age. She was only 58. I was 35. She had cancer of the bladder which, even back when she died in 1983, was fatal only 10% of the time. She simply was on the wrong side of the bracket when it came to those odds.
Here’s some background about my family you need to know for the story I will tell. I am the first of three children. I have a brother, 14 months younger than I am and a sister who is 4 years younger.
Not long before Mom died I had a conversation with her which I think was cathartic. My judgment is she wanted to, she felt had to say this to someone. For a number of reasons, reasons which I shall get to later, I was the one with whom she had this discussion.
Here’s some more context: my mother was the youngest in her family, raised by a single mother in the 1920s and 1930s. She had one sibling who was much older.
As a single parent, her mother worked and was absent a lot. My mother, in fact, told me tales of being what today is called a latchkey child and this was back in the 20s and 30s.
I suspect one result of her family situation was she had no role models when it came to having and raising her own children. And so, in the course of this chat my mother described her three children in this way.
She labeled me, her firstborn, as her experiment. She had never really raising a child up close, so I was her experiment. She then said my brother was her baby and my sister was her plaything, her enjoyment.
I need to be clear. I am not saying any of that was good or even healthy. I am simply offering, repeating her description of her children. I am convinced she was trying to explain how she related to us, how she recognized us as different, as individuals.
In a real sense what she said illustrates how much she loved each of us. And she loved each of us both differently and deeply. (Slight pause.)
Well, please bear with me. The next thing I want to say is also something very personal about my family background. And I have mentioned this here before.
When I was about five years old my father had what was called in the terms used back in the early 1950s a nervous breakdown. Today we would have recognized this as the onset of a mental illness known as Passive Dependency or Passive Aggression.
One of the consequences of that was as the next oldest male— again, we are looking at a different era, the early 50s— as the next oldest male, family members looked to me for leadership. Or at least they invested me with and groomed me for that role.
I could tell you tales about how that happened and what it looked like. Suffice it to say my mother chose to have the aforementioned conversation with me and that should be a good illustration of my place in that family structure.
But illustrating my place in that structure is not the point. More to the point is in that family structure I clearly was fulfilling a leadership role, and that was true by the time I was in my early teens.
I also need to be clear about this: I am not saying any of that was good or even healthy when it comes to family dynamics. I am simply offering these stories to illustrate two aspects of family dynamics not just in my family but in any family.
One aspect of these dynamics could be labeled as relationship— that story of my mother and her children. A second aspect of these dynamics could be labeled as structure. And in that structure leadership was craved. Again, this is not just any family. Relationship and structure are present in all families, in fact in any organization.
That opens a classic question. The question is not ‘Which is more important, relationship or structure?’ since structure and relationship are givens. The question is ‘Which will be the driving force in any family, in any group, in any institution— relationship or structure? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Mark. “Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all. The Promised One has come not to be served but to serve—....” (Slight pause.)
There are three scenes in this reading. First, there is the request of James and John for prominent spots in the Dominion. There is also the anger expressed by the other disciples at the audaciousness of the request. Last we have Jesus. (Quote:) “Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest;....”
Please note, Jesus does not rebuke the brothers. We might want to— not Jesus. And yes, Jesus also confronts them with reality.
And then there is anger on the part of the other disciples. It’s likely this reflects jealousy rather than indignation. Jealousy about the structure.
Again, Jesus resists a rebuke. Jesus instead uses the pagan authorities as models of how to not exercise leadership. And Jesus does it again: confronts with reality.
You see, in a choice between structure and relationship, the criterion for leadership is not the effectiveness of structure, who gets the job done the quickest, who has the better program. Rather, in the Dominion of God we are called to be faithful.
The text even admits faithfulness as a style of leadership and a style of life runs counter to the prevailing wisdom of that day and I would suggest it runs counter to the prevailing wisdom we have today since effectiveness, speed and programs are highly valued. This, therefore, may not make much sense to those whose eyes are stuck on effectiveness, speed and programs. These all consider the bottom line... but these go no further than the bottom line.
In the Dominion of God the needs of people, how service can be rendered to meet those needs are vital. Priority is given to relationships. (Slight pause.)
I want to go back to the earlier discussion about my family. Clearly there was a structure. But the problem with that structure was not even the fact that I was young when the family turned to me.
The problem with that structure is my family was not looking for a leader. The problem of any structure which does not rely on relationship is that structure— effectiveness, speed, programs— structure simply searches for a hero. A structure tries to find fixes, tries to find someone to fix things. Structure searches for a hero.
Let me substitute a theological term for the word hero. People look for a savior. Jesus did not have a hero complex. In fact what makes Jesus Savior is a willingness to be a servant.
The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to say we are in this together. The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to say we need to support one another.
The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to explore relationship. The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to be in relationship. The reason we call Jesus Savior is there is a willingness displayed in the Christ to not be served but to serve. (Slight pause.)
One more observation— did James and John and the disciples completely miss the point of the preaching of Jesus? Did they completely miss the point when Jesus put the little child in their midst?
Did they completely miss the point when Jesus blessed the group of children who otherwise seemed a nuisance? Did they completely miss the point when Jesus spoke to the rich man about the need to break with possessions?
My answer which might surprise some is ‘no,’ they did not miss the point. Rather, they willfully ignored the point. Why?
You see, we are human. We are imperfect and in our imperfection we believe structure is perfect. We believe structure— the very thought of which gives us great comfort— we believe structure will be a solution for everything. And we, therefore, do seek the comfort of structure rather than the haphazardness of relationship. But relationship is what Jesus relies on.
Relationship is what Jesus teaches, and perhaps more importantly acts out. Jesus teaches and acts out relationship with God and one another. And you know what that is— relationship with God and with one another— you know what that is, right? Yes— here comes that word again: covenant. Covenant— it’s about relationship. Amen.
10/21/2018
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: “Tell me, how often have you heard people chant, ‘We’re number one?’ A lot, right? How often have you heard people chant, ‘We’re all in this together.’ Never, right? But that’s what sound leadership is about. It recognizes that we are all one, that we are all in this together. You’ve heard of a three legged race where two partners need to cooperate? And believe me, just two people cooperating is hard to do. Well, church is a thousand legged race were everyone needs to cooperate. And that is really hard since what it actually says is everyone needs to be a leader just like everyone else is a leader and everyone needs to serve one another.”
BENEDICTION: There is a cost and there is a joy in discipleship. There is a cost and there is a joy in truly being church, in deeply loving one another. 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] This was the Gospel reading and the translation used.
Mark 10:35-45 [ILV] ~ The Gospel makes a point like this quite often, so the sentiment addressed by this passage was probably a truth found in the communities of the early church: any kind of power structure was not welcome. Hear now this reading from the Gospel we have come to know as Mark’s.
[35] The Children of Zebedee, James and John, approached Jesus. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to grant our request.”
[36] “What is it?” Jesus asked.
[37] They replied, “Grant to us that we sit next to you, one at your right and one at your left, when you come into your glory.”
[38] But Jesus told them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup I will drink or be baptized in the same baptism with which I am baptized?”
[39] “We can,” they replied.
Jesus said in response, “The cup I drink you will drink; and the baptism with which I am baptized, you will share; [40] but as for sitting at my right or at my left, that is not mine to grant; it is for those for whom it has been reserved.”
[41] The other ten, on hearing about this, began to be indignant with James and John.
[42] So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that among the Gentiles, those whom exercise authority, those who are domineering and arrogant, those who are perceived to be ‘great ones,’ they know how to make their own importance felt. [43] But it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; [44] whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all. [45] The Promised One has come not to be served but to serve— to give one life in ransom for the many.”
Sunday, October 14, 2018
SERMON ~ 10/14/2018 ~ “It’s Not the Particulars!”
READINGS: 10/14/2018 ~ Twenty-eight Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost ~ (Proper 23) ~ Job 23:1-9, 16-17; Psalm 22:1-15; Amos 5:6-7, 10-15; Psalm 90:12-17; Hebrews 4:12-16; Mark 10:17-31.
It’s Not the Particulars!
“You know the commandments: ‘No killing; no committing adultery; no stealing; no bearing false witness; no defrauding; Honor your father and mother.’” — Mark 10:19.
It feels like I have done a lot of traveling on church business in the last two weeks. I was twice in Homer, once in Binghamton for Susquehanna Association work and once in Syracuse for New York Conference business.
Obviously, the shortest trip on that list was Binghamton, an hour or so, depending on where in that metropolis you’re headed. All in all, that’s a lot of time in the car.
When traveling in a car alone some people listen music but some listen to a book and some prefer novels, some prefer non-fiction. I’m different. I listen to academic lectures, often lectures on history. I know— history: boring!!! Well, boring for most people. Not for me.
As I listen I always find out new information, new insights, new ways of looking at things. Indeed, I have often said to be a good theologian you need to be a good historian. Christianity is steeped, even based in history— Greek History, Roman History, Western History, Church History.
Our claim as Christians is Jesus was real, lived in history, at a specific time, in a specific place. Our claim as Christians is with the advent of the Christ God was in the world then, has been in the world throughout history. Our claim is God is in the world, our world— here, now, with us in our present history. (Slight pause.)
Well, I’m lectures to which I’m currently listening are Foundations of Western Civilization. It would be redundant to say the foundations of Western civilization contain Greek History, Roman History, Western History, Church History. They do.
In the last couple of lectures I’ve stumbled on information I’d not known before, new ways of looking at things. I even found out something about Upstate New York. To illustrate, I need to point out an obvious fact about Upstate.
Generally, this area was settled by Europeans between the late-1700s and the mid-1800s. What was going on in America in that era? Americans saw ourselves, America saw itself as inheritors, keepers, preservers of Greek and Roman tradition.
Hence, many names of places in this area come out of the history of Greece and Rome: Syracuse, Cicero, Vestal, Cincinnatus, Pharsalia— all of them out of that history. It’s that last one— Pharsalia— that caught my attention when I heard it in a lecture. I knew those other names had Greek and Roman connections but I had not associated the name Pharsalia with Rome.
Pharsalia is the name of an epic Roman poem about a battle between an army led by Julius Caesar and one led by Pompey— Pompey— yes, another Roman name with a town name in this area. Pharsalia refers to the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 B.C.E. So Pharsalia is the name of yet one more place in this area taken from the Greco-Roman tradition and affirms what was happening in the era of European settlement in Upstate New York.
Another thing I heard was more general but much more important. Despite the title of the famous book by Gibbon The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire neither declined nor fell. Things changed but the Empire remained quite intact.
Indeed, in the era in which Gibbon claimed decline happened, Rome was led by two competent emperors— Diocletian and Constantine. They were competent because they foresaw and saw— anticipated and identified— change in the Empire. And they dealt with those changes, made structural adjustments in how Rome was governed.
Now yes, you may think that’s a boring idea. But anticipating and identifying what will and what is happening is important. Therefore, instead of getting tied up in details, concentrating only on right now, competent leadership looks at the whole picture.
And so it’s inaccurate to say the Roman Empire declined. The Empire simply changed, constantly changed. Of course, everything changes constantly. It’s a lesson we can and should learn from history. (Slight pause.)
These words are in Mark. “You know the commandments: ‘No killing; no committing adultery; no stealing; no bearing false witness; no defrauding; Honor your father and mother.’” (Slight pause.)
There are three conversations in this reading. I think we need to consider the three of them as one. Commentaries suggest the writer of Mark meant them to be seen as one and that insight could be a key to understanding the thrust of the whole passage.
But first, we need to grapple with the idea that what is said to the rich person is not a call to abandon the world. Neither is it a suggestion to become a wandering mendicant, a beggar.
The disciples left all to follow Jesus. Their future is described as more than ample. Therefore, we need to grapple with the idea that, we, the church, cannot flee the arena, the time and place in history through which and in which we are called to live and serve.
Further, the rich person, like the disciples, keep the commandments. We need to grapple with the idea this is not enough. The commandments are just details, particulars. We need to look at the larger picture.
Hence, this question needs to be addressed: what does the world look like, really? And how do we, how should we respond to the world, really? (Slight pause.)
There are two answers to those questions. First, yes the world is broken. If you think that’s not true, please listen to the news. What are we going to do about that?
Second, yes things change constantly, the world changes constantly. If you think that’s not true, please listen to the news. What are we going to do about that?
Well, this is what history suggests to me: the details do not matter as much as seeing the entire picture, envisioning the whole. Foreseeing and seeing are imperative.
Put in a more colloquial way, when we pay too much attention to the tree or to the trees, we miss the fact that a forest stands in front of us. That forest is waiting to be identified, inviting us to grapple with it. (Slight pause.)
Let me put that trees/forest concept another way. In my Church History Survey course the professor was painfully aware students needed to keep up with the reading. Fall a week behind, it’s hard to catch up.
So each week there was a 10 question short answer quiz. The professor was generous. The tests were only 10% of the grade. One answer each week was “Sir John Free-be” so you would get at least 10% on each quiz without doing the reading.
This same teacher also said the importance of facts is to give context. But it is much more important to know and understand the broad sweep of history, the big picture.
Knowing Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 is not as important as knowing the voyages of the explorers in that era are about the beginnings a new economic system called capitalism. The facts— the tree— that’s Columbus. The broad sweep— the forest— that’s capitalism. Which is more important— Columbus or Capitalism?
So a forest is a larger picture. Our Christian forest is not about specific rules but about how we live our lives. So living within the rules is good. Living out from the rules is our calling. Put another way, Scripture constantly asks: where is our heart?
Loving one another is not a rule. Why? A rule is static, immoveable, a noun. Love is an action, a motion, a verb.
All that brings up another question about anticipation and identification. What is the purpose of this Church? This is a question with which this church shall be grappling in the next year and beyond the next year, a question with which this church should never stop grappling.
In order to faithfully grapple with this question we need to have foresight and sight— anticipation and identification. These have nothing to do with what programs we have, who the pastor is, even who the leadership is.
We all need to faithfully grapple with the question ‘what is the purpose of this church?’ And one way to work out that purpose might be that we all need to learn something from history.
Static, immoveable does not work. Action, motion does work. Change is not easy. But it is inevitable. Success is not a goal. Being faithful is.
So let me make one suggestion as to what being faithful might entail. I maintain faithfulness means living out from the rules, living out from what is the reality of now into the reality of what can be, seeing the big picture, perhaps even seeing the way of life to which God calls us.
We therefore need to live out our lives, live out the life of this church in covenant love. And covenant love means growth. Covenant love means change.
And that, my friends, suggests what yet another step might be. And it is a really, really big step. We— all of us together— need to trust God— God who is faithful. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
10/14/2018
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: “President Harry S. Truman said this: ‘The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.’ Author Michael Lewis says this: ‘Program management is the existential threat you never really imagined as a risk. But Program management is the innovation that never occurs, the knowledge that is never created, because you have ceased to lay groundwork for it. It is what you never learned that might have saved you.’”
BENEDICTION: The Word of God guides us and assures us of God’s saving grace, God’s healing love, God’s eternal promises. 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.
It’s Not the Particulars!
“You know the commandments: ‘No killing; no committing adultery; no stealing; no bearing false witness; no defrauding; Honor your father and mother.’” — Mark 10:19.
It feels like I have done a lot of traveling on church business in the last two weeks. I was twice in Homer, once in Binghamton for Susquehanna Association work and once in Syracuse for New York Conference business.
Obviously, the shortest trip on that list was Binghamton, an hour or so, depending on where in that metropolis you’re headed. All in all, that’s a lot of time in the car.
When traveling in a car alone some people listen music but some listen to a book and some prefer novels, some prefer non-fiction. I’m different. I listen to academic lectures, often lectures on history. I know— history: boring!!! Well, boring for most people. Not for me.
As I listen I always find out new information, new insights, new ways of looking at things. Indeed, I have often said to be a good theologian you need to be a good historian. Christianity is steeped, even based in history— Greek History, Roman History, Western History, Church History.
Our claim as Christians is Jesus was real, lived in history, at a specific time, in a specific place. Our claim as Christians is with the advent of the Christ God was in the world then, has been in the world throughout history. Our claim is God is in the world, our world— here, now, with us in our present history. (Slight pause.)
Well, I’m lectures to which I’m currently listening are Foundations of Western Civilization. It would be redundant to say the foundations of Western civilization contain Greek History, Roman History, Western History, Church History. They do.
In the last couple of lectures I’ve stumbled on information I’d not known before, new ways of looking at things. I even found out something about Upstate New York. To illustrate, I need to point out an obvious fact about Upstate.
Generally, this area was settled by Europeans between the late-1700s and the mid-1800s. What was going on in America in that era? Americans saw ourselves, America saw itself as inheritors, keepers, preservers of Greek and Roman tradition.
Hence, many names of places in this area come out of the history of Greece and Rome: Syracuse, Cicero, Vestal, Cincinnatus, Pharsalia— all of them out of that history. It’s that last one— Pharsalia— that caught my attention when I heard it in a lecture. I knew those other names had Greek and Roman connections but I had not associated the name Pharsalia with Rome.
Pharsalia is the name of an epic Roman poem about a battle between an army led by Julius Caesar and one led by Pompey— Pompey— yes, another Roman name with a town name in this area. Pharsalia refers to the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 B.C.E. So Pharsalia is the name of yet one more place in this area taken from the Greco-Roman tradition and affirms what was happening in the era of European settlement in Upstate New York.
Another thing I heard was more general but much more important. Despite the title of the famous book by Gibbon The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire neither declined nor fell. Things changed but the Empire remained quite intact.
Indeed, in the era in which Gibbon claimed decline happened, Rome was led by two competent emperors— Diocletian and Constantine. They were competent because they foresaw and saw— anticipated and identified— change in the Empire. And they dealt with those changes, made structural adjustments in how Rome was governed.
Now yes, you may think that’s a boring idea. But anticipating and identifying what will and what is happening is important. Therefore, instead of getting tied up in details, concentrating only on right now, competent leadership looks at the whole picture.
And so it’s inaccurate to say the Roman Empire declined. The Empire simply changed, constantly changed. Of course, everything changes constantly. It’s a lesson we can and should learn from history. (Slight pause.)
These words are in Mark. “You know the commandments: ‘No killing; no committing adultery; no stealing; no bearing false witness; no defrauding; Honor your father and mother.’” (Slight pause.)
There are three conversations in this reading. I think we need to consider the three of them as one. Commentaries suggest the writer of Mark meant them to be seen as one and that insight could be a key to understanding the thrust of the whole passage.
But first, we need to grapple with the idea that what is said to the rich person is not a call to abandon the world. Neither is it a suggestion to become a wandering mendicant, a beggar.
The disciples left all to follow Jesus. Their future is described as more than ample. Therefore, we need to grapple with the idea that, we, the church, cannot flee the arena, the time and place in history through which and in which we are called to live and serve.
Further, the rich person, like the disciples, keep the commandments. We need to grapple with the idea this is not enough. The commandments are just details, particulars. We need to look at the larger picture.
Hence, this question needs to be addressed: what does the world look like, really? And how do we, how should we respond to the world, really? (Slight pause.)
There are two answers to those questions. First, yes the world is broken. If you think that’s not true, please listen to the news. What are we going to do about that?
Second, yes things change constantly, the world changes constantly. If you think that’s not true, please listen to the news. What are we going to do about that?
Well, this is what history suggests to me: the details do not matter as much as seeing the entire picture, envisioning the whole. Foreseeing and seeing are imperative.
Put in a more colloquial way, when we pay too much attention to the tree or to the trees, we miss the fact that a forest stands in front of us. That forest is waiting to be identified, inviting us to grapple with it. (Slight pause.)
Let me put that trees/forest concept another way. In my Church History Survey course the professor was painfully aware students needed to keep up with the reading. Fall a week behind, it’s hard to catch up.
So each week there was a 10 question short answer quiz. The professor was generous. The tests were only 10% of the grade. One answer each week was “Sir John Free-be” so you would get at least 10% on each quiz without doing the reading.
This same teacher also said the importance of facts is to give context. But it is much more important to know and understand the broad sweep of history, the big picture.
Knowing Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 is not as important as knowing the voyages of the explorers in that era are about the beginnings a new economic system called capitalism. The facts— the tree— that’s Columbus. The broad sweep— the forest— that’s capitalism. Which is more important— Columbus or Capitalism?
So a forest is a larger picture. Our Christian forest is not about specific rules but about how we live our lives. So living within the rules is good. Living out from the rules is our calling. Put another way, Scripture constantly asks: where is our heart?
Loving one another is not a rule. Why? A rule is static, immoveable, a noun. Love is an action, a motion, a verb.
All that brings up another question about anticipation and identification. What is the purpose of this Church? This is a question with which this church shall be grappling in the next year and beyond the next year, a question with which this church should never stop grappling.
In order to faithfully grapple with this question we need to have foresight and sight— anticipation and identification. These have nothing to do with what programs we have, who the pastor is, even who the leadership is.
We all need to faithfully grapple with the question ‘what is the purpose of this church?’ And one way to work out that purpose might be that we all need to learn something from history.
Static, immoveable does not work. Action, motion does work. Change is not easy. But it is inevitable. Success is not a goal. Being faithful is.
So let me make one suggestion as to what being faithful might entail. I maintain faithfulness means living out from the rules, living out from what is the reality of now into the reality of what can be, seeing the big picture, perhaps even seeing the way of life to which God calls us.
We therefore need to live out our lives, live out the life of this church in covenant love. And covenant love means growth. Covenant love means change.
And that, my friends, suggests what yet another step might be. And it is a really, really big step. We— all of us together— need to trust God— God who is faithful. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
10/14/2018
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: “President Harry S. Truman said this: ‘The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t know.’ Author Michael Lewis says this: ‘Program management is the existential threat you never really imagined as a risk. But Program management is the innovation that never occurs, the knowledge that is never created, because you have ceased to lay groundwork for it. It is what you never learned that might have saved you.’”
BENEDICTION: The Word of God guides us and assures us of God’s saving grace, God’s healing love, God’s eternal promises. 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, October 7, 2018
SERMON ~ 10/07/2018 ~ “From the Earth”
READINGS: 10/07/2018 ~ Proper 22 ~ Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 22) ~ Job 1:1, 2:1-10; Psalm 26; Genesis 2:18-24; Psalm 8; Hebrews 1:1-4, 2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16 ~ Columbus Day/Indigenous People’s Day Weekend ~ World-wide Communion Sunday ~ Communion Sunday.
From the Earth
“...Yahweh, God, said, ‘It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.’” — Genesis 2:18.
I have often regaled you with tales of my days as a professional writer. And, to be clear, I was a writer mostly for theater related projects. And, since I have been a writer and people who know me know that, occasionally someone will say to me their impression of most writers is that most writers are loners.
Many have that impression. It is not far fetched. Even I think most writers are loners. They go off to their towers, ivory or otherwise, and scribble, scribble, scribble— or these days type, type, type on a computer— pages and pages and pages of prose.
Then the writer emerges, finalized copy in hand, ready to share it with the world. And the world is not permitted to change a single letter, word, comma or paragraph, thank you.
But there is something unique about being a writer for theater which sets those of us involved in the profession apart. We are different breed than most writers— novelists, essayists, etc.
How are theater writers different? This is a given: theater is a collaborative art.
It takes many, many people of great talent— actors, directors, producers, musicians, set, sound and lighting designers, sometimes even other writers, multiple writers— to present a stage play. And all of these collaborators will bring change to what has been written.
It is a demand of the art of theater to embrace change in the process of creating. It is the nature of the art of theater to incorporate change in the process of creating. It is the character of the art of theater to include change in the process of creating.
Hence, a theater writer may initially find some tower in which to write. But the theater writer needs to know and understand that, upon emerging from said tower, change is a part of the process of creating. And perhaps what is equally important is to understand collaboration, working with others, is a part of the process of creating.
Having said occasionally someone will say their impression is that most writers are loners, the truth is as a writer for theater I am not a loner. No one who works in theater can be a loner.
The profession does not allow for that. In fact, more than one person has noticed I try to collaborate when I write and I try to collaborate in many things I do. I do not think I am a born collaborator.
I think I learned how to collaborate (and I found out that I like to collaborate). So because of my background and my training in theater I collaborate. It’s what theater people do. We collaborate. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Genesis. “...Yahweh, God, said, ‘It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.’” (Slight pause.)
I think you probably know this reading is the second of two takes on creation in the first chapters of Genesis. Please notice, I did not call these creation stories.
Why? Neither of these takes are descriptions of creation— not even close. Hence, they are not stories which concern how creation came about. So, if this is not a story about creation or even about how creation happened, what is it? (Slight pause.)
There are a bunch of things which jump out for me. But let’s start with the obvious. I hope the translation [1] I used made it clear the word ‘adam’ [2] is not a name. The adamah is the earth, the ground, the dust of the ground. Adam is, therefore, an earth creature, made out of the ground, from the ground. Equally, ish is not a name but a word which means giver of life.
Additionally, Yahweh, God, has made this earth creature and loves what God has been made. How do I know God loves the earth creature?
In words which came before the section of Scripture we heard today God acted as a bellows and breathes life into the adam. This “breath of life” is God’s own living breath.
This is a divine act. And this act provides the only distinction between humans and animals. God does not breathe into the animals. They are simply created out of the adamah, out of the earth.
Additionally and therefore, the adam, this earth creature, is a combination of the substance of the earth and the image of God, this breath of God. What seems clear is this passage constitutes a profound statement about human identity, about who we are.
Now, having formed the adam having breathed life into the adam, what happens? Together with this adam, Yahweh, God, sets to a task. They begin a collaboration. The task? They name things.
God creates things and brings them to the adam so they can be named. This is not merely a collaboration. We watch as a relationship is developed.
Further, God has an ulterior motive which is stated quite clearly. God seeks a companion for the adam, the earth creature. I want to suggest this is when yet another level of collaboration happens.
God, you see, does not take this next step in isolation from the earth creature. God creates ish— the name which means giver of life— God creates ish out of the earth creature, out of the adam.
Thereby, the collaboration deepens and becomes richer and becomes inclusive of yet another earth creature made out of the adam and made out of the breath of God. Hence by its nature, by its reality, this very act instructs humanity about what we should be doing and what we need to be doing. We need to collaborate with one another, rely on one another, support one another. (Slight pause.)
Let me state the obvious. As I said minutes ago, this take on creation does not concern how creation came about. If this is a story about anything it is a story about relationship— a story about relationship with God— a story about relationship with other humans.
And yes, you may be tired of hearing me using the word ‘covenant.’ But because this is a story about relationship with God and relationship with other humans this is a story about covenant.
Something we have to realize, need to realize, is that covenants— because they are collaborative— covenants are not contracts. Contracts do not change. They are and remain static.
Covenants, by their nature renew, animate, revive, regenerate, create, re-create, alter, live, breathe and yes, covenants change. And also yes, covenant is about collaboration.
It is a demand of the art of covenant to embrace change. It is a demand of the nature of covenant incorporate change. It is a demand of the fiber of covenant to include change.
Covenant, you see, is about the process of creating. Covenant is about the process of creating with God. Covenant is about the process of creating with others.
And oh yes, covenant is about the process of both creating and growing. Covenant is about the process of creating and growing in love, growing in peace, growing in wisdom, growing in knowledge, growing in understanding. And that, my friends is both a real story of creation and the real story of creation. We are invited by God to grow— to grow in love, in peace, in wisdom, in knowledge, in understanding. Amen.
10/07/2018
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The idea that Scripture should be taken literally is a relatively modern concept. Here’s proof that this idea is a modern concept and that Scripture needs to be seen as living and breathing and lives and breathes with us. The Talmud is an ancient commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures. It was in place by the year 200 of the Common Era. This is a quote from the Talmud: ‘To not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justice, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work but neither are you free to abandon it.’”
BENEDICTION: The love of God lasts for an eternity. The reign of God is in the present tense, not the future when we acknowledge and participate in the work of God’s will. So, let us go forth knowing that the grace of God is deeper than our imagination, the strength of Christ is stronger than our need and the communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than all our togetherness. May God guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
[1]
This is the translation used and the introduction which preceded the reading of Genesis 2:18-23 [Inclusive Language Version]
Because we do not read the passages from Scripture in their original languages, the translation we use today helps us hear some of the meanings behind words we often take as names. These meanings indicate something richer is happening here than mere naming.
[18] ...Yahweh, God, said, “It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.” [19] So also out of the ground, from the soil, out of the adamah, Yahweh, God, formed all the animals, every wild beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the earth creature, the adam, so these could be named. Whatever the earth creature, the adam, called every living one, that became its name. [20] The earth creature gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field, all the wild animals.
But none of them proved to be a fitting companion, a partner for the adam, the earth creature. [21] So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side. [22] Yahweh then fashioned the two halves into male and female and presented them to one another.
[23] The male realized what had happened and said,
“This time this is the one!
Bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
Now this one will be called ish”—
ish a word which means source of life
“and I shall be called adam”—
adam— a word which means from the ground
“for out of me was this one taken.”
Here ends this reading from Scripture.
[2] Adam is pronounced a-dam.
From the Earth
“...Yahweh, God, said, ‘It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.’” — Genesis 2:18.
I have often regaled you with tales of my days as a professional writer. And, to be clear, I was a writer mostly for theater related projects. And, since I have been a writer and people who know me know that, occasionally someone will say to me their impression of most writers is that most writers are loners.
Many have that impression. It is not far fetched. Even I think most writers are loners. They go off to their towers, ivory or otherwise, and scribble, scribble, scribble— or these days type, type, type on a computer— pages and pages and pages of prose.
Then the writer emerges, finalized copy in hand, ready to share it with the world. And the world is not permitted to change a single letter, word, comma or paragraph, thank you.
But there is something unique about being a writer for theater which sets those of us involved in the profession apart. We are different breed than most writers— novelists, essayists, etc.
How are theater writers different? This is a given: theater is a collaborative art.
It takes many, many people of great talent— actors, directors, producers, musicians, set, sound and lighting designers, sometimes even other writers, multiple writers— to present a stage play. And all of these collaborators will bring change to what has been written.
It is a demand of the art of theater to embrace change in the process of creating. It is the nature of the art of theater to incorporate change in the process of creating. It is the character of the art of theater to include change in the process of creating.
Hence, a theater writer may initially find some tower in which to write. But the theater writer needs to know and understand that, upon emerging from said tower, change is a part of the process of creating. And perhaps what is equally important is to understand collaboration, working with others, is a part of the process of creating.
Having said occasionally someone will say their impression is that most writers are loners, the truth is as a writer for theater I am not a loner. No one who works in theater can be a loner.
The profession does not allow for that. In fact, more than one person has noticed I try to collaborate when I write and I try to collaborate in many things I do. I do not think I am a born collaborator.
I think I learned how to collaborate (and I found out that I like to collaborate). So because of my background and my training in theater I collaborate. It’s what theater people do. We collaborate. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Genesis. “...Yahweh, God, said, ‘It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.’” (Slight pause.)
I think you probably know this reading is the second of two takes on creation in the first chapters of Genesis. Please notice, I did not call these creation stories.
Why? Neither of these takes are descriptions of creation— not even close. Hence, they are not stories which concern how creation came about. So, if this is not a story about creation or even about how creation happened, what is it? (Slight pause.)
There are a bunch of things which jump out for me. But let’s start with the obvious. I hope the translation [1] I used made it clear the word ‘adam’ [2] is not a name. The adamah is the earth, the ground, the dust of the ground. Adam is, therefore, an earth creature, made out of the ground, from the ground. Equally, ish is not a name but a word which means giver of life.
Additionally, Yahweh, God, has made this earth creature and loves what God has been made. How do I know God loves the earth creature?
In words which came before the section of Scripture we heard today God acted as a bellows and breathes life into the adam. This “breath of life” is God’s own living breath.
This is a divine act. And this act provides the only distinction between humans and animals. God does not breathe into the animals. They are simply created out of the adamah, out of the earth.
Additionally and therefore, the adam, this earth creature, is a combination of the substance of the earth and the image of God, this breath of God. What seems clear is this passage constitutes a profound statement about human identity, about who we are.
Now, having formed the adam having breathed life into the adam, what happens? Together with this adam, Yahweh, God, sets to a task. They begin a collaboration. The task? They name things.
God creates things and brings them to the adam so they can be named. This is not merely a collaboration. We watch as a relationship is developed.
Further, God has an ulterior motive which is stated quite clearly. God seeks a companion for the adam, the earth creature. I want to suggest this is when yet another level of collaboration happens.
God, you see, does not take this next step in isolation from the earth creature. God creates ish— the name which means giver of life— God creates ish out of the earth creature, out of the adam.
Thereby, the collaboration deepens and becomes richer and becomes inclusive of yet another earth creature made out of the adam and made out of the breath of God. Hence by its nature, by its reality, this very act instructs humanity about what we should be doing and what we need to be doing. We need to collaborate with one another, rely on one another, support one another. (Slight pause.)
Let me state the obvious. As I said minutes ago, this take on creation does not concern how creation came about. If this is a story about anything it is a story about relationship— a story about relationship with God— a story about relationship with other humans.
And yes, you may be tired of hearing me using the word ‘covenant.’ But because this is a story about relationship with God and relationship with other humans this is a story about covenant.
Something we have to realize, need to realize, is that covenants— because they are collaborative— covenants are not contracts. Contracts do not change. They are and remain static.
Covenants, by their nature renew, animate, revive, regenerate, create, re-create, alter, live, breathe and yes, covenants change. And also yes, covenant is about collaboration.
It is a demand of the art of covenant to embrace change. It is a demand of the nature of covenant incorporate change. It is a demand of the fiber of covenant to include change.
Covenant, you see, is about the process of creating. Covenant is about the process of creating with God. Covenant is about the process of creating with others.
And oh yes, covenant is about the process of both creating and growing. Covenant is about the process of creating and growing in love, growing in peace, growing in wisdom, growing in knowledge, growing in understanding. And that, my friends is both a real story of creation and the real story of creation. We are invited by God to grow— to grow in love, in peace, in wisdom, in knowledge, in understanding. Amen.
10/07/2018
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The idea that Scripture should be taken literally is a relatively modern concept. Here’s proof that this idea is a modern concept and that Scripture needs to be seen as living and breathing and lives and breathes with us. The Talmud is an ancient commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures. It was in place by the year 200 of the Common Era. This is a quote from the Talmud: ‘To not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justice, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work but neither are you free to abandon it.’”
BENEDICTION: The love of God lasts for an eternity. The reign of God is in the present tense, not the future when we acknowledge and participate in the work of God’s will. So, let us go forth knowing that the grace of God is deeper than our imagination, the strength of Christ is stronger than our need and the communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than all our togetherness. May God guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
[1]
This is the translation used and the introduction which preceded the reading of Genesis 2:18-23 [Inclusive Language Version]
Because we do not read the passages from Scripture in their original languages, the translation we use today helps us hear some of the meanings behind words we often take as names. These meanings indicate something richer is happening here than mere naming.
[18] ...Yahweh, God, said, “It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.” [19] So also out of the ground, from the soil, out of the adamah, Yahweh, God, formed all the animals, every wild beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the earth creature, the adam, so these could be named. Whatever the earth creature, the adam, called every living one, that became its name. [20] The earth creature gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field, all the wild animals.
But none of them proved to be a fitting companion, a partner for the adam, the earth creature. [21] So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side. [22] Yahweh then fashioned the two halves into male and female and presented them to one another.
[23] The male realized what had happened and said,
“This time this is the one!
Bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
Now this one will be called ish”—
ish a word which means source of life
“and I shall be called adam”—
adam— a word which means from the ground
“for out of me was this one taken.”
Here ends this reading from Scripture.
[2] Adam is pronounced a-dam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)