04/21/2019 ~ Resurrection of the Christ ~ Easter Day ~ *Acts 10:34-43 or Isaiah 25:6-9; Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 or Acts 10:34-43; John 20:1-18 or
Mark 16:1-8. Used: 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 [ILV], John 20:1-18.
Trusting Truth
“These words seemed to those who listened to be an idle tale, nonsensical, and they refused to believe. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Upon getting there this apostle stooped and looked in but could see nothing but the linen cloths, the wrappings, on the ground.” — Luke 24:11-12.
If nothing else, he was... methodical. If nothing else, he was... careful. If nothing else, he looked at every piece of evidence available and... examined it.
Peter simply sought truth. That was Peter, all right— methodical, careful, seeker of truth.
And so Peter’s tendency was to listen. Peter listened with care. Peter examined everything these women said.
And Peter knew these women well. They had been through a lot together.
They had traveled with the Rabbi all over the Roman Provence of Judea. Indeed, they were there, together, when the Rabbi spoke to a large crowd on a plain, when the Rabbi spoke about the poor, the hungry, the excluded being blessed.
They were there, together, when the Rabbi spoke about loving one’s enemies, not being judgmental, about forgiveness, there when that large crowd got fed. They were there, together, when a healing happened to the Centurion’s daughter— the Centurion’s daughter— a Gentile woman!
They were there, together, when the Rabbi spoke about not hiding light, spoke about letting light shine. Indeed, it seemed to all of them the Rabbi often spoke about light, never about night.
And yet... and yet... they were all there that short time ago when night seemed to envelop them. They were all there when the Rabbi was executed, an enemy of the State, murdered by the State, murdered by... Rome.
And so Peter, by the nature of that relationship, that common experience, that bond with these women, trusted them as tellers of the truth. Peter trusted what these women said about that morning— that they had gone to the tomb— trusted what they said they found there, trusted that as... truth. But that was also when Peter decided he had to go to the tomb.
After all, Peter was Peter. Peter needed to look at every piece of evidence available and... examine. Peter had to seek... truth.
So alone, he set off to the tomb and ran part of the way. But he was no longer twenty. After a bit, the pace got slower.
In an odd way Peter was grateful for that. The time walking allowed him to once again think about what he had heard, what he had experienced. Peter remembered the time the Rabbi sent out the seventy with nothing, no purse, no bag, no sandals.
They returned filled with joy. The Rabbi said the Spirit of God had been with them. Peter realized what the Rabbi was teaching them: trust God above all else.
And then... and then... Peter remembered that time John and James and Peter all accompanied the Rabbi, went up the mountain to pray. And they prayed.
And all of them, together, had a vision. Peter remembered there was light. Peter remember feeling a sense of peace.
Peter remembered he felt the presence of God, the embrace of God, the arms of God surround him. But what did that vision, that light, that sense of peace, that presence, that embrace, say about the Rabbi, say about God? (Slight pause.)
Peter reached the tomb and reminded himself to be methodical, careful. This apostle stooped and looked in. (Slight pause.)
There was nothing to see except exactly what the women had said would be seen— linen cloths, wrappings, on the ground. (Slight pause.) Peter stood up, took a breath, then another.
Despite being alone, out loud he asked, “What do I really know? What are the facts?” Peter was Peter.
Peter had seen the blood of the Rabbi. It was real. Peter knew his friend, the Rabbi, had been executed. Peter took yet another a deep breath and sat on a nearby stone.
Of course, Peter knew the Rabbi spoke about the poor, the hungry, the excluded being blessed, about loving one’s enemies, about not being judgmental, about forgiveness, about light, about the Spirit of God. But Peter also knew the Rabbi taught them over and over and over again to trust God.
Perhaps Peter was unnerved by the reality of it all, the memories of time spent with the Rabbi, the reality of the execution, the reality of an empty tomb. His body began to quake. Peter sobbed.
Tears streamed down his face, his beard. He wept and wept and wept, his head in his hands. (Long pause.) Suddenly Peter knew, experienced, an overwhelming sense of peace of God, the presence of God, the embrace of God, the arms of God. Peter knew the Rabbi, Jesus, was there with him. Peter felt someone touch him, tap him on the shoulder.
Peter opened his eyes and looked up. There was no one near him, touching him. Peter stopped weeping, wiped the tears away. He had realized something he knew all along.
Peter realized that over and over and over again this Rabbi, this Jesus offered a singular message. Trust God— trust that the peace of God, the presence of God, is with us always. Trust that God walks with us, no matter what.
Peter realized this is precisely what the Rabbi, this Jesus had done— trust God. Even when being murdered by the State, murdered by Rome the Rabbi, this Jesus trusted God. (Slight pause.) Peter— Peter who was methodical, careful, Peter who constantly examined things, Peter who sought the truth— Peter realized trust in God mattered. Peter realized trusting God means seeking truth— God’s truth.
And what is God’s truth? Peter knew what Jesus taught. Jesus taught God’s truth consists of peace, justice, hope, light, freedom, joy, love.
Peter realized this Rabbi, this Jesus, embodied the truth of God. Peter realized the truth of God and only the truth of God reflects this reality.
It was at that point Peter— methodical, careful, Peter, Peter who always sought truth, knew there was only one course to follow... trust— simply trust God. And after all, Peter knew, Peter could feel the presence of Christ, there next to him, there, as he sat on that rock.
And Peter did trust this truth: Jesus was not in the tomb. Jesus was present, alive, resurrected. Christ had risen. (Slight pause.) Amen.
04/21/2019 - Easter Sunday -10:00 A.M. Service
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I need to say two things: first, in Aramaic, which would have been spoken in Roman Judea in New Testament times, to be saved meant to be made alive. Second, I want to suggest to merely say ‘Happy Easter’ is not a Christian sentiment. So, let me make a suggestion: if someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ smile and say, ‘Christ is risen.’ ‘Christ is risen’ is the Christian sentiment.”
BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing and then please join with me in the responsive Easter acclamation found in the bulletin— May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the love of Christ, Jesus, and in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit this day and forever.
And please join with me in the Easter Acclamation.
ONE: Rejoice, people of God! Christ is risen from the dead! Go in peace to love and serve God. Christ is with you always. Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
MANY: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Sunday, March 31, 2019
SERMON ~ 03/31/2019 ~ Fourth Sunday in Lent ~ “Supernatural”
03/31/2019 ~ Fourth Sunday in Lent ~ Joshua 5:9-12; Psalm 32; 2 Corinthians 5:16-21; Luke 15:1-3, 11b-32.
Supernatural
“From now on, therefore, we regard no one from what might be called a human point of view, mere human judgment. Even if we did once regard Christ in these terms, that is not how we know Christ now.” — 2 Corinthians 5:16.
Last week I started off my comments with these words: “Many of you know this. I’ve probably said it hundreds of times.” I then referred to being a proud graduate of Bangor Theological Seminary.
What I want to say this week you have also heard me say probably hundreds of times. The faith tradition of my youth was Roman Catholic.
My first 10 years of schooling— First Grade through Sophomore year in High School— were all spent in parochial schools, Catholic Schools. The first six years of that schooling were in the same grade school, one connected with the local parish church my family attended.
It’s the name of the parish church, hence, it’s the name of the grade school, I want to mention. The church, the grade school, had what many would see as a horrible even somewhat frightening name: Fourteen Holy Martyrs— Fourteen Holy Martyrs grade school, Fourteen Holy Martyrs church.
Goggle that name— Fourteen Holy Martyrs— and the church and school show up. This group of saints, a grouping which dates from the 14th century in the Rhineland, was just that— a grouping.
These saints did not live in the 14th Century. This grouping of saints were not even alive at the same time. All of them also, by far, predated the 14th Century but got grouped together in that era.
They were grouped together and venerated because people were encouraged to pray for the intercession of these saints with God. The influence of that intercession was believed to be effective in multiple forms of healing. And the healing being sought in the 14th Century was quite specific: healing from bubonic plague, the Black Death.
Now, when you look up these 14 saints what you find out is in Germany, in the Rhineland, they were not known as Fourteen Holy Martyrs. They were called Fourteen Holy Helpers.
And each of them were connected to a specific healing, each saint connected to a different healing— fever, diseases of the eye, etc, etc. In short, in terms of Catholic tradition, the intercession of these saints on behalf of people helped cure various diseases. I suppose since the bubonic plague was so horrific, any kind of healing would do.
That having been said, one does have to wonder what in the American psyche translated the name of these fourteen saints from “Helpers” to “Martyrs.” This is especially true since, in the legends of these saints— and these saints are not particularly traceable to real people but were legends— in the legends of these saints none of them appear to have actually suffered a martyr’s death.
To be clear, I labeled that Fourteen Holy Martyrs name as horrible since I sometimes still wonder what kind of effect a name like that had on impressionable youngsters attending a grade school thusly named. Did that name somehow traumatize them for life? Did that name mean some of the students might think that they, themselves, were also headed for martyrdom?
Some probably did think that. Not I. If one takes theology seriously one does not indulge in that kind of transference and early on I already took theology seriously.
I make that statement about taking theology seriously because what I am about to say happened when I was in the Fourth Grade, or at least that’s what my memory says. Even if that memory is slightly inaccurate, I know it happened when I was still attending Fourteen Holy Martyrs since I also know in the Seventh Grade I switched schools and started to attend Saint Ignatius Loyola Grade School. So this happened no later than the Sixth Grade; I think earlier.
In any case, around that point in time I got into a deep theological discussion with my parents. I stated the premise that the grace of God is not natural, not normal. The grace of God is outside what is natural, outside of what is normal.
Further, that the grace of God is, itself, a gift from God is not normal either. Why” Grace is a free gift and there is nothing normal about a free gift. So if the grace of God is not natural it is, thereby... supernatural. Natural is what we humans do; supernatural is the work of God, said I. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Second Corinthians: “From now on, therefore, we regard no one from what might be called a human point of view, mere human judgment. Even if we did once regard Christ in these terms, that is not how we know Christ now.” (Slight pause.)
In the Roman Catholic tradition two kinds of grace are identified— Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace. I won’t get into the differences here. Neither I nor you have that kind of time today.
So, let’s get right to the point. What is grace? The Roman definition, that is the Roman Catholic definition says grace is the supernatural help of God granted in and through the reality of the Christ. [1]
This is not to say the grace of God only happened after the birth of Christ. The grace of God can be found all over Scripture.
Indeed, the Roman church, itself, says the grace of God was available before Christ. God is, after all, God. Rule one— do not put God in a box. Rule 2— see rule one: do not put God in a box.
But that very thought— not placing God in a box— brings us to Paul’s writing. Something common in all the lectionary readings assigned for today, but especially in the Corinthians and in the parables found in Luke, is that joy is available in the restorative love of God.
I need to be clear: joy is not happiness. We get happiness from having fun or doing something we like. Joy is found only in deep, lasting, full relationships, especially a deep, lasting, full relationship with God.
The reality of that joy happens because the Christ has opened up a new way of knowing, says Paul. The Christ has opened up a new way to see a new world.
Further, in the Christ the reconciling love of God is clearly revealed. And then Paul pushes this idea still one more step.
Paul’s claim is that because of the grace of God we— we— are commissioned to be engaged in the ministry of reconciliation, ambassadors for God in the ministry of reconciliation. This is not natural. This not what humans do normally. This is supernatural. (Slight pause.)
One of my commentaries on this reading says (quote:) “Nothing may be more difficult for Christians in North America than adopting the new way of discernment inherent in the gospel.” Why? (Quote:) “To be reconciled to God means to be an agent of reconciliation... for the world.”
Please note: the words from this commentary were not ripped from recent headlines. This commentary is many, many years old. (Slight pause.)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor, theologian, an anti-Nazi dissident. The writings of Bonhoeffer on the role of Christianity have become widely influential.
The book The Cost of Discipleship has been described as a modern classic. Bonhoeffer died in a Nazi concentration camp on April 9, 1945, just before the end of WWII. Hence, Bonhoeffer was a martyr, a martyr of the Christian faith.
In a sermon on Second Corinthians Bonhoeffer said this (quote:) “Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.” (Slight pause.)
What was Bonhoeffer getting at? What was Paul getting at? I may be wrong but I think they are getting at... the supernatural. (Quote:) “...through Christ, the world was fully reconciled to God, who did not hold our transgressions against us— who did not hold our transgressions against us— but instead entrusted us with this message of reconciliation.”
If that does not turn the world as we know it upside down, I do not know what does. That is not natural. That is supernatural.
For we humans that we are empowered by God, entrusted by God to be a part of reconciliation is supernatural. It is a gift of God, the work of God. Question: are we willing to participate in the work God sets before us? Amen.
03/31/2019
United Church of Christ, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “This saying has been going around. I think it applies. ‘Our job is not to judge others. Our job is not to figure out if someone is deserving of something. Our job is to lift those who are fallen. Our job is to restore those who are broken. Our job is to heal those who are hurting.’ Simply striving to do that it is supernatural and will, by the power of acting in that way, turn the world as we know it upside down. Here’s another way to put it. As theologians we need to understand theology is not a hammer. Hammers are only good at hitting nails. Our theology is not a hammer. Our theology needs to be glue which mends the world and holds it together.”
BENEDICTION: Let us seek to love as we have been loved by God, welcoming our brothers and sisters. Let us rejoice in God’s goodness and steadfast love. Let us follow where God leads. Let us go on our way with Christ as our companion. 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]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm
Supernatural
“From now on, therefore, we regard no one from what might be called a human point of view, mere human judgment. Even if we did once regard Christ in these terms, that is not how we know Christ now.” — 2 Corinthians 5:16.
Last week I started off my comments with these words: “Many of you know this. I’ve probably said it hundreds of times.” I then referred to being a proud graduate of Bangor Theological Seminary.
What I want to say this week you have also heard me say probably hundreds of times. The faith tradition of my youth was Roman Catholic.
My first 10 years of schooling— First Grade through Sophomore year in High School— were all spent in parochial schools, Catholic Schools. The first six years of that schooling were in the same grade school, one connected with the local parish church my family attended.
It’s the name of the parish church, hence, it’s the name of the grade school, I want to mention. The church, the grade school, had what many would see as a horrible even somewhat frightening name: Fourteen Holy Martyrs— Fourteen Holy Martyrs grade school, Fourteen Holy Martyrs church.
Goggle that name— Fourteen Holy Martyrs— and the church and school show up. This group of saints, a grouping which dates from the 14th century in the Rhineland, was just that— a grouping.
These saints did not live in the 14th Century. This grouping of saints were not even alive at the same time. All of them also, by far, predated the 14th Century but got grouped together in that era.
They were grouped together and venerated because people were encouraged to pray for the intercession of these saints with God. The influence of that intercession was believed to be effective in multiple forms of healing. And the healing being sought in the 14th Century was quite specific: healing from bubonic plague, the Black Death.
Now, when you look up these 14 saints what you find out is in Germany, in the Rhineland, they were not known as Fourteen Holy Martyrs. They were called Fourteen Holy Helpers.
And each of them were connected to a specific healing, each saint connected to a different healing— fever, diseases of the eye, etc, etc. In short, in terms of Catholic tradition, the intercession of these saints on behalf of people helped cure various diseases. I suppose since the bubonic plague was so horrific, any kind of healing would do.
That having been said, one does have to wonder what in the American psyche translated the name of these fourteen saints from “Helpers” to “Martyrs.” This is especially true since, in the legends of these saints— and these saints are not particularly traceable to real people but were legends— in the legends of these saints none of them appear to have actually suffered a martyr’s death.
To be clear, I labeled that Fourteen Holy Martyrs name as horrible since I sometimes still wonder what kind of effect a name like that had on impressionable youngsters attending a grade school thusly named. Did that name somehow traumatize them for life? Did that name mean some of the students might think that they, themselves, were also headed for martyrdom?
Some probably did think that. Not I. If one takes theology seriously one does not indulge in that kind of transference and early on I already took theology seriously.
I make that statement about taking theology seriously because what I am about to say happened when I was in the Fourth Grade, or at least that’s what my memory says. Even if that memory is slightly inaccurate, I know it happened when I was still attending Fourteen Holy Martyrs since I also know in the Seventh Grade I switched schools and started to attend Saint Ignatius Loyola Grade School. So this happened no later than the Sixth Grade; I think earlier.
In any case, around that point in time I got into a deep theological discussion with my parents. I stated the premise that the grace of God is not natural, not normal. The grace of God is outside what is natural, outside of what is normal.
Further, that the grace of God is, itself, a gift from God is not normal either. Why” Grace is a free gift and there is nothing normal about a free gift. So if the grace of God is not natural it is, thereby... supernatural. Natural is what we humans do; supernatural is the work of God, said I. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Second Corinthians: “From now on, therefore, we regard no one from what might be called a human point of view, mere human judgment. Even if we did once regard Christ in these terms, that is not how we know Christ now.” (Slight pause.)
In the Roman Catholic tradition two kinds of grace are identified— Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace. I won’t get into the differences here. Neither I nor you have that kind of time today.
So, let’s get right to the point. What is grace? The Roman definition, that is the Roman Catholic definition says grace is the supernatural help of God granted in and through the reality of the Christ. [1]
This is not to say the grace of God only happened after the birth of Christ. The grace of God can be found all over Scripture.
Indeed, the Roman church, itself, says the grace of God was available before Christ. God is, after all, God. Rule one— do not put God in a box. Rule 2— see rule one: do not put God in a box.
But that very thought— not placing God in a box— brings us to Paul’s writing. Something common in all the lectionary readings assigned for today, but especially in the Corinthians and in the parables found in Luke, is that joy is available in the restorative love of God.
I need to be clear: joy is not happiness. We get happiness from having fun or doing something we like. Joy is found only in deep, lasting, full relationships, especially a deep, lasting, full relationship with God.
The reality of that joy happens because the Christ has opened up a new way of knowing, says Paul. The Christ has opened up a new way to see a new world.
Further, in the Christ the reconciling love of God is clearly revealed. And then Paul pushes this idea still one more step.
Paul’s claim is that because of the grace of God we— we— are commissioned to be engaged in the ministry of reconciliation, ambassadors for God in the ministry of reconciliation. This is not natural. This not what humans do normally. This is supernatural. (Slight pause.)
One of my commentaries on this reading says (quote:) “Nothing may be more difficult for Christians in North America than adopting the new way of discernment inherent in the gospel.” Why? (Quote:) “To be reconciled to God means to be an agent of reconciliation... for the world.”
Please note: the words from this commentary were not ripped from recent headlines. This commentary is many, many years old. (Slight pause.)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor, theologian, an anti-Nazi dissident. The writings of Bonhoeffer on the role of Christianity have become widely influential.
The book The Cost of Discipleship has been described as a modern classic. Bonhoeffer died in a Nazi concentration camp on April 9, 1945, just before the end of WWII. Hence, Bonhoeffer was a martyr, a martyr of the Christian faith.
In a sermon on Second Corinthians Bonhoeffer said this (quote:) “Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more than they are doing now. Christians should take a stronger stand in favor of the weak rather than considering first the possible right of the strong.” (Slight pause.)
What was Bonhoeffer getting at? What was Paul getting at? I may be wrong but I think they are getting at... the supernatural. (Quote:) “...through Christ, the world was fully reconciled to God, who did not hold our transgressions against us— who did not hold our transgressions against us— but instead entrusted us with this message of reconciliation.”
If that does not turn the world as we know it upside down, I do not know what does. That is not natural. That is supernatural.
For we humans that we are empowered by God, entrusted by God to be a part of reconciliation is supernatural. It is a gift of God, the work of God. Question: are we willing to participate in the work God sets before us? Amen.
03/31/2019
United Church of Christ, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “This saying has been going around. I think it applies. ‘Our job is not to judge others. Our job is not to figure out if someone is deserving of something. Our job is to lift those who are fallen. Our job is to restore those who are broken. Our job is to heal those who are hurting.’ Simply striving to do that it is supernatural and will, by the power of acting in that way, turn the world as we know it upside down. Here’s another way to put it. As theologians we need to understand theology is not a hammer. Hammers are only good at hitting nails. Our theology is not a hammer. Our theology needs to be glue which mends the world and holds it together.”
BENEDICTION: Let us seek to love as we have been loved by God, welcoming our brothers and sisters. Let us rejoice in God’s goodness and steadfast love. Let us follow where God leads. Let us go on our way with Christ as our companion. 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]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm
Sunday, March 24, 2019
SERMON ~ 03/24/2019 ~ Third Sunday in Lent ~ “Radical Christianity”
READINGS: 03/24/2019 ~ Third Sunday in Lent ~ Isaiah 55:1-9; Psalm 63:1-8; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; Luke 13:1-9 ~ Note: 1 Corinthians 1:18-28 Added.
Radical Christianity
“...the message about the cross is foolishness, complete absurdity, to those who are perishing, headed for ruin, but to us who are being saved, experiencing salvation, it is the power of God.” — 1 Corinthians 1:18.
Many of you know this. I’ve probably said it hundreds of times. I am a proud graduate of Bangor Theological Seminary, Bangor, Maine. I have often said one of the very positive things about attending Bangor Theological Seminary was, before I was called to the be the Associate at a five church cooperative in Waldo County, Maine, I got a chance to do a lot of preaching.
The reason I got that chance is twofold. First, I a took a course in preaching which qualified me to be on a list of supply preachers kept by the Seminary. Second, Bangor Seminary, the city of Bangor itself, is in a rural area of a rural state.
Therefore, especially in Northern Maine, there are many, many small churches in many, many tiny rural towns— crossroads really— churches which accessed the Seminary preaching supply list. They relied on Seminary students for Sunday fill-in when necessary. Some of those churches used only that supply list Sunday to Sunday.
Hence, in the two years before I accepted the call to the Waldo County Cooperative— 104 Sundays— I preached 47 times in 23 locations. Obviously, 47 Sundays is nearly half the number of Sundays in the course of those two years. And that this supply work happened in 23 locations tells you I was called back to the same churches a lot. (Slight pause.)
So, have you ever been to Aroostook County, Maine? Aroostook is the largest county by area east of the Rocky Mountains. And early one Sunday morning Bonnie and I were on a long drive headed north to a church up in “The County” as it is known locally. I had a supply assignment.
She was driving and I was reading a text book. It was a theology text book. I had an exam the next day. Have you ever read a theology text book?
If you think the writing of Paul is dense, you have never read a current theology text book. One paragraph struck me as being particularly dense. So I turned to Bonnie and said, “Let me read this paragraph for you and please tell me if you understand what the author is getting at.”
And I did— I read it out loud to Bonnie. And when I had read it to myself or when I read it out loud for Bonnie to hear, she was not and I was not able to understand what the author was getting at. And indeed, whether we are talking about the Apostle Paul writing on theology two millennia ago or a current writer of theology, theology is, by its nature, is dense, hard to understand, hard to comprehend.
I was reminded of that incident of reading a paragraph to Bonnie a couple of weeks ago when I was mentoring a young pastor. That pastor told me Seminary taught them it was their duty to preach the Gospel. I took exception to that statement.
The work of a pastor, said I, is not just preach the Gospel but to help people understand the Gospel. If it’s your duty to preach the Gospel and no one understands what you say, that’s not going to help them or you. (Slight pause.)
I would be the first to say sometimes I am successful at helping people understand the Gospel, sometimes not so much. I also would be the first to say helping people understand the Gospel is something I try to learn and to do afresh every week. (Slight pause.)
And these are words found in the work known as First Corinthians: “...the message about the cross is foolishness, complete absurdity, to those who are perishing, headed for ruin, but to us who are being saved, experiencing salvation, it is the power of God.” (Slight pause.)
Well this is evident: Paul has a message to convey. (Quote:) “...the message about the cross...” But how are we to understand Paul’s message about the cross these two millennia later?
Perhaps we need to ask ‘what was Paul’s message?’ Was it as radical as Paul seems to be claiming in this passage— (quote:) “Has not God turned the wisdom of this world into folly?”
Indeed, how radical is Christianity? Our resident theologian, the one who makes things sound so complex, is the Apostle Paul. And certainly, what is clear amidst the complexity is this: a central topic in this passage is salvation.
But what did salvation mean to Paul? This seems to be evident: salvation meant one is saved from the powers which destroy— the powers which destroy— that’s commonly referred to as sin— one is saved from the powers which destroy and the consequences of the powers which destroy.
Now, there is something we need to remember here, something I have said numerous times. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew.
What was salvation for the Jews? For Jews salvation refers to the redeeming action of God in saving the people of Israel from their various exiles.
However, that salvation is not limited to the ancient exiles of Israel. Salvation also includes the present exile— an exile from God. Hence, coming back to that thing so many call sin, one is saved from the powers which destroy... now.
One is saved from this exile, an exile from God not in some afterlife but now, right now. (Slight pause.)
I know: all that sounds like theology. It teeters toward the complex, not easy to understand. So let me try to untangle that just a little. (Slight pause.)
Is the love of God absolute and unconditional? There are obviously different ways to speak of divine love but salvation always comes down to that question: ‘is the love of God absolute and unconditional?’
A plethora of biblical passages from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures can be invoked to support positions which say God’s love is unconditional. Equally a plethora of biblical passages from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures can be invoked to support positions which say God’s love is limited, conditional. But the important question is not the biblical texts we cite.
The important question is ‘which texts are to be given priority?’ So, within the expanse of Biblical revelation we have to ask what vision governs our reading of Scripture?
If we believe the love God offers is conditional, limited, then we’ll read Scripture one way. If we believe the love God offers is unconditional, unlimited, then we’ll read Scripture another way.
So the question here is not the texts or how many we cite to support one position or the other. That is simply not relevant because there is an obvious logical, to say nothing of theological, problem with claiming the love of God is wrapped up in conditions.
The problem is to read the texts in a transactional way turns God into a broker, a salesperson, a banker, an divine entity who makes deals. Conditions do not address love. Conditions turn love into a mere transaction.
Therefore one simple question needs to be asked: is God the very God we Christians claim God to be? Or should God be described as a divinity who deals in reward and punishment? Here’s another way to put it: is God that radical, so radical that God loves unconditionally? (Slight pause.)
Let me tell you who often deals in the kind of transactions we think of as reward and punishment. Let me tell you who often deals in brokering.
That would be us— homo sapiens, humans. Do we want God to be God— or do we want God to be human, just like us?
You do know the old joke line: God created us in God’s own image and we returned the favor. We need to stop returning that favor. We need to stop turning God into us.
And, if truth be told, we humans are transactional. We too often deal in a kind of love which can only be labeled as transactional. There is no doubt about this: we humans make all kinds of deals around relationship.
And I think, at least in part, that’s Paul’s point. God is so radical that, when it comes to love, God does not deal in transactions.
And yes, that is hard for we humans to understand. But I hope I helped a little with some understanding in these last minutes. If I didn’t I apologize and I shall give it another try next week.
That having been said, I don’t care how complex Paul or any other theologian is. It really all comes down to just this: God loves us. God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us.
Are we ready to accept a God Who is that radical? Are we ready to accept a Christianity which is that radical? Amen.
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: “A couple minutes ago I said ‘God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us.’ That can be labeled as covenant love. And it is a radical idea. God also wants us to be in covenant with one another. That can also be called covenant love. And that can also be labeled as a radical idea. So, this is the bottom line about theology: it doesn’t have to be as complex as we make it out to be— talk about a radical idea— because it is this simple: love God; love neighbor. And let’s check in with that radical idea once I awhile and try to keep it as un-transactional as possible.”
BENEDICTION: God’s steadfast love endures forever. Let us live our days offering thanks to God who feeds our souls. Let us go on our way with Christ as our companion. And may 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.
Radical Christianity
“...the message about the cross is foolishness, complete absurdity, to those who are perishing, headed for ruin, but to us who are being saved, experiencing salvation, it is the power of God.” — 1 Corinthians 1:18.
Many of you know this. I’ve probably said it hundreds of times. I am a proud graduate of Bangor Theological Seminary, Bangor, Maine. I have often said one of the very positive things about attending Bangor Theological Seminary was, before I was called to the be the Associate at a five church cooperative in Waldo County, Maine, I got a chance to do a lot of preaching.
The reason I got that chance is twofold. First, I a took a course in preaching which qualified me to be on a list of supply preachers kept by the Seminary. Second, Bangor Seminary, the city of Bangor itself, is in a rural area of a rural state.
Therefore, especially in Northern Maine, there are many, many small churches in many, many tiny rural towns— crossroads really— churches which accessed the Seminary preaching supply list. They relied on Seminary students for Sunday fill-in when necessary. Some of those churches used only that supply list Sunday to Sunday.
Hence, in the two years before I accepted the call to the Waldo County Cooperative— 104 Sundays— I preached 47 times in 23 locations. Obviously, 47 Sundays is nearly half the number of Sundays in the course of those two years. And that this supply work happened in 23 locations tells you I was called back to the same churches a lot. (Slight pause.)
So, have you ever been to Aroostook County, Maine? Aroostook is the largest county by area east of the Rocky Mountains. And early one Sunday morning Bonnie and I were on a long drive headed north to a church up in “The County” as it is known locally. I had a supply assignment.
She was driving and I was reading a text book. It was a theology text book. I had an exam the next day. Have you ever read a theology text book?
If you think the writing of Paul is dense, you have never read a current theology text book. One paragraph struck me as being particularly dense. So I turned to Bonnie and said, “Let me read this paragraph for you and please tell me if you understand what the author is getting at.”
And I did— I read it out loud to Bonnie. And when I had read it to myself or when I read it out loud for Bonnie to hear, she was not and I was not able to understand what the author was getting at. And indeed, whether we are talking about the Apostle Paul writing on theology two millennia ago or a current writer of theology, theology is, by its nature, is dense, hard to understand, hard to comprehend.
I was reminded of that incident of reading a paragraph to Bonnie a couple of weeks ago when I was mentoring a young pastor. That pastor told me Seminary taught them it was their duty to preach the Gospel. I took exception to that statement.
The work of a pastor, said I, is not just preach the Gospel but to help people understand the Gospel. If it’s your duty to preach the Gospel and no one understands what you say, that’s not going to help them or you. (Slight pause.)
I would be the first to say sometimes I am successful at helping people understand the Gospel, sometimes not so much. I also would be the first to say helping people understand the Gospel is something I try to learn and to do afresh every week. (Slight pause.)
And these are words found in the work known as First Corinthians: “...the message about the cross is foolishness, complete absurdity, to those who are perishing, headed for ruin, but to us who are being saved, experiencing salvation, it is the power of God.” (Slight pause.)
Well this is evident: Paul has a message to convey. (Quote:) “...the message about the cross...” But how are we to understand Paul’s message about the cross these two millennia later?
Perhaps we need to ask ‘what was Paul’s message?’ Was it as radical as Paul seems to be claiming in this passage— (quote:) “Has not God turned the wisdom of this world into folly?”
Indeed, how radical is Christianity? Our resident theologian, the one who makes things sound so complex, is the Apostle Paul. And certainly, what is clear amidst the complexity is this: a central topic in this passage is salvation.
But what did salvation mean to Paul? This seems to be evident: salvation meant one is saved from the powers which destroy— the powers which destroy— that’s commonly referred to as sin— one is saved from the powers which destroy and the consequences of the powers which destroy.
Now, there is something we need to remember here, something I have said numerous times. The earliest followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Jesus was a Jew.
What was salvation for the Jews? For Jews salvation refers to the redeeming action of God in saving the people of Israel from their various exiles.
However, that salvation is not limited to the ancient exiles of Israel. Salvation also includes the present exile— an exile from God. Hence, coming back to that thing so many call sin, one is saved from the powers which destroy... now.
One is saved from this exile, an exile from God not in some afterlife but now, right now. (Slight pause.)
I know: all that sounds like theology. It teeters toward the complex, not easy to understand. So let me try to untangle that just a little. (Slight pause.)
Is the love of God absolute and unconditional? There are obviously different ways to speak of divine love but salvation always comes down to that question: ‘is the love of God absolute and unconditional?’
A plethora of biblical passages from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures can be invoked to support positions which say God’s love is unconditional. Equally a plethora of biblical passages from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures can be invoked to support positions which say God’s love is limited, conditional. But the important question is not the biblical texts we cite.
The important question is ‘which texts are to be given priority?’ So, within the expanse of Biblical revelation we have to ask what vision governs our reading of Scripture?
If we believe the love God offers is conditional, limited, then we’ll read Scripture one way. If we believe the love God offers is unconditional, unlimited, then we’ll read Scripture another way.
So the question here is not the texts or how many we cite to support one position or the other. That is simply not relevant because there is an obvious logical, to say nothing of theological, problem with claiming the love of God is wrapped up in conditions.
The problem is to read the texts in a transactional way turns God into a broker, a salesperson, a banker, an divine entity who makes deals. Conditions do not address love. Conditions turn love into a mere transaction.
Therefore one simple question needs to be asked: is God the very God we Christians claim God to be? Or should God be described as a divinity who deals in reward and punishment? Here’s another way to put it: is God that radical, so radical that God loves unconditionally? (Slight pause.)
Let me tell you who often deals in the kind of transactions we think of as reward and punishment. Let me tell you who often deals in brokering.
That would be us— homo sapiens, humans. Do we want God to be God— or do we want God to be human, just like us?
You do know the old joke line: God created us in God’s own image and we returned the favor. We need to stop returning that favor. We need to stop turning God into us.
And, if truth be told, we humans are transactional. We too often deal in a kind of love which can only be labeled as transactional. There is no doubt about this: we humans make all kinds of deals around relationship.
And I think, at least in part, that’s Paul’s point. God is so radical that, when it comes to love, God does not deal in transactions.
And yes, that is hard for we humans to understand. But I hope I helped a little with some understanding in these last minutes. If I didn’t I apologize and I shall give it another try next week.
That having been said, I don’t care how complex Paul or any other theologian is. It really all comes down to just this: God loves us. God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us.
Are we ready to accept a God Who is that radical? Are we ready to accept a Christianity which is that radical? Amen.
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: “A couple minutes ago I said ‘God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us.’ That can be labeled as covenant love. And it is a radical idea. God also wants us to be in covenant with one another. That can also be called covenant love. And that can also be labeled as a radical idea. So, this is the bottom line about theology: it doesn’t have to be as complex as we make it out to be— talk about a radical idea— because it is this simple: love God; love neighbor. And let’s check in with that radical idea once I awhile and try to keep it as un-transactional as possible.”
BENEDICTION: God’s steadfast love endures forever. Let us live our days offering thanks to God who feeds our souls. Let us go on our way with Christ as our companion. And may 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.
Sunday, March 17, 2019
SERMON ~ Second Sunday in Lent ~ “Covenant Made”
READINGS: 03/17/2019 ~ Second Sunday in Lent ~ Genesis 15:1-12, 17-18; Psalm 27; Philippians 3:17-4:1; Luke 13:31-35 or Luke 9:28-36, (37-43a) ~ Note: Saint Patrick’s Day.
Covenant Made
“On that day Yahweh, God, made a covenant with Abram...” — Genesis 15:18.
It happens all the time. People enter our lives. Then we move on or they move on and in a sense we forget them. But do we?
I was recently reminded twice in one week of someone who was in my life 40 years ago. And I was reminded of this person because of conversations I had with two friends at two different times. Things they said brought this person to mind.
Why did that happen? I don’t know. But when, for whatever reason, something like that does happen my sense is I’m supposed to pay attention.
This person’s name was Caterina Jarboro. She was an African-American classical singer. She died in 1986 at the age of 90.
I looked up her obituary in the New York Times to see if the facts stated there jibed with my memory. [1] Generally they did. But I have more detail from the stories she told me then the Times offered, so let me share some recollections.
I met Caterina when I was working with the Actor’s Fund of America. She was a volunteer. Some of what she told me refers to often forgotten theater history and some of what she said concerns American history many of us know about. So I hope as I tell you about Caterina to make these references clear. (Slight pause)
Despite being a classically trained singer, an opera singer, Caterina worked on Broadway. She was in the original 1921 Broadway production of Shuffle Along. It was the first Broadway show ever written and produced by African-Americans.
Many theater professionals were skeptical a black-written show would appeal to Broadway audiences. But it ran for 504 performances and earned $9 million, a long run and a large sum for its time.
The book writers were names you’ve probably never heard, Flournoy Miller and Aubrey Lyles. The best known song in Shuffle Along was I’m Just Wild about Harry. The writers of all the songs in the show were Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake. [2]
Of those four writers— Miller, Lyles, Sissle and Blake— Blake gained the most notoriety. Besides I’m Just Wild about Harry the songs In Honeysuckle Time and Memories of You were among his hits. In 1981 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan.
Back to Caterina— now that I’ve mentioned her Broadway work I’ll move on to opera. She made her United States opera debut in Verdi’s Aida in a 1933 Summer Opera series at the Hippodrome, a very large New York City Theater. It was the first time a black woman had the lead role in an all-white opera company in America.
Both before and after that appearance she toured for a number of seasons in Europe. Needless to say she returned to the States as WWII started. After returning she had recitals at Town Hall and Carnegie Hall.
Caterina once told me this story: upon her return to America in 1941 she approached an agent to see if she could get a tour started stateside. Of course, the well known African-American classical singer in that era was Marian Anderson.
In 1939 the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to allow Anderson to sing in Constitution Hall for an integrated audience. So Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt arranged for Anderson to perform on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. A crowd of 75,000 gathered for that and there was a radio audience of millions.
Caterina was told by that agent she approached there was room for only one black female classical singer in America and currently that singer was Marion Anderson. So no, there would be no room for Caterina Jarboro or a Caterina Jarboro tour. One black classical singer in America was enough, thank you. (Slight pause.)
Caterina taught me a lot by her attitude, by how she approached her volunteer work at the Actors Fund. She was precise. She was dedicated. She was faithful. And her story, her many stories, spoke volumes to me.
And yes, she was extraordinarily talented. And yes, because of the world in which she lived, the era in which she lived, she was never able receive the acclaim she deserved. That must have been excruciatingly hard to deal with, hard to comprehend.
But she persisted. In a way she was relentless. She never surrendered, never gave up. She always moved forward with a steady, sure hand.
Because the world is what it is she knew there would be roadblocks. But she also knew there was work to be done. And she was someone who could be trusted, someone who could be counted on to do what she could. (Long pause.)
These words are in Genesis: “On that day Yahweh, God, made a covenant with Abram...” (Slight pause.)
I want you to notice several things about this reading. Abram gathers a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtledove and a young pigeon. Abram even cuts the larger animals in two.
The darkness, the smoking barrier, the fire pot, the flaming torch we hear about are images fraught with the symbolism of covenant making in the Ancient Near East. Hence, they are not meant as mysterious. That these are symbols of covenant making would have been clear to those who first read these words.
Now, when God says words that give the land (quote:) “to your descendants,” therefore when the covenant, itself, is established, when God enacts the covenant, itself, Abram is (quote:) “in a deep trance.” Therefore Abram does nothing to establish the covenant, enact the covenant or respond to the covenant.
So there is no question about this. The covenant made by God with us is not a two way agreement. It is God Who makes the covenant with us.
The covenant God offers is, like grace, a free gift. God initiates this covenant. God enacts this covenant. God establishes the covenant. To use a phrase I used last week, God is the prime mover. The covenant is not of our doing
Further, what Abram has done is not covenant making. Abram participates. Abram participates by gathering and slaughtering the animals. So what has Abram really done? Abram trusted God.
So you might ask, if Abram has done nothing to initiate the covenant, to enact the covenant, to establish the covenant, where is our place in this covenant? What are we to do? I think the key is simple and sometimes hard deal with, hard to comprehend because we firmly believe we are in control of everything.
That having been said, let me ask a key question yet again, where is our place in this covenant? (Slight pause.) We are invited by God to participate— participate— in the covenant. And for us mere participation can be hard. It does not feel like enough. We want to do more. Perhaps we even want be in control. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest there is something for us to do, something we can do. But it has nothing to do with control. It is about relinquishing control. We are to do what Abram did. We are called to trust God. (Slight pause.)
Let’s go back to the story of Caterina Jarboro. She was in Shuffle Along, the first Broadway show ever written and produced by African-Americans. She toured for a number of seasons in Europe.
She was the first black woman to have the lead role in an all-white opera company in America. But she was not able to receive the acclaim she deserved since there was room for only one Marian Anderson in America. And yes, that must have been hard to deal with, hard to comprehend.
And what was she doing when I met her? She was volunteering for The Actors Fund. In volunteering she was raising money to help those in her profession in need.
What was she really doing when I met her? She was persisting. She was being relentless. She had never surrendered, never given up.
She was always moving forward with a sure, steady hand. She knew there was more to life than roadblocks. She trusted that. (Slight pause.)
So, why was I reminded of Caterina twice in one week? Perhaps I was reminded so I could share her story. And perhaps I was reminded so I could note that our real part in the covenant is to trust God. And that, I think, not just our part in covenant. That is the real lesson of covenant: trust God.
Why? The world is what it is. Caterina knew that. The world now is not the way God would have it. Caterina knew that.
And we need to trust God so we can be empowered to do the work of God and the will of God. Doing the work of God and the will of God is the result of trusting God. Amen.
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: “Theologian Walter Brueggemann said this (quote:) ‘Covenant (and, therefore, true spirituality), consists of learning the skills and sensitivities that include both the courage to assert self and the grace to abandon self to another’ (unquote). In short, covenant is not possible unless you recognize the needs of others.’ The needs of others— it’s that love your neighbor thing we keep hearing about. And I would suggest to love your neighbor we actually need to trust God.”
BENEDICTION: Let our hearts take courage. Our God meets us where our needs rest. God is our shelter and shield. God’s blessings outnumber the stars. Let us go on our way with Christ as our companion. And may 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] https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/16/obituaries/caterina-jarboro.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffle_Along
Covenant Made
“On that day Yahweh, God, made a covenant with Abram...” — Genesis 15:18.
It happens all the time. People enter our lives. Then we move on or they move on and in a sense we forget them. But do we?
I was recently reminded twice in one week of someone who was in my life 40 years ago. And I was reminded of this person because of conversations I had with two friends at two different times. Things they said brought this person to mind.
Why did that happen? I don’t know. But when, for whatever reason, something like that does happen my sense is I’m supposed to pay attention.
This person’s name was Caterina Jarboro. She was an African-American classical singer. She died in 1986 at the age of 90.
I looked up her obituary in the New York Times to see if the facts stated there jibed with my memory. [1] Generally they did. But I have more detail from the stories she told me then the Times offered, so let me share some recollections.
I met Caterina when I was working with the Actor’s Fund of America. She was a volunteer. Some of what she told me refers to often forgotten theater history and some of what she said concerns American history many of us know about. So I hope as I tell you about Caterina to make these references clear. (Slight pause)
Despite being a classically trained singer, an opera singer, Caterina worked on Broadway. She was in the original 1921 Broadway production of Shuffle Along. It was the first Broadway show ever written and produced by African-Americans.
Many theater professionals were skeptical a black-written show would appeal to Broadway audiences. But it ran for 504 performances and earned $9 million, a long run and a large sum for its time.
The book writers were names you’ve probably never heard, Flournoy Miller and Aubrey Lyles. The best known song in Shuffle Along was I’m Just Wild about Harry. The writers of all the songs in the show were Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake. [2]
Of those four writers— Miller, Lyles, Sissle and Blake— Blake gained the most notoriety. Besides I’m Just Wild about Harry the songs In Honeysuckle Time and Memories of You were among his hits. In 1981 he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan.
Back to Caterina— now that I’ve mentioned her Broadway work I’ll move on to opera. She made her United States opera debut in Verdi’s Aida in a 1933 Summer Opera series at the Hippodrome, a very large New York City Theater. It was the first time a black woman had the lead role in an all-white opera company in America.
Both before and after that appearance she toured for a number of seasons in Europe. Needless to say she returned to the States as WWII started. After returning she had recitals at Town Hall and Carnegie Hall.
Caterina once told me this story: upon her return to America in 1941 she approached an agent to see if she could get a tour started stateside. Of course, the well known African-American classical singer in that era was Marian Anderson.
In 1939 the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to allow Anderson to sing in Constitution Hall for an integrated audience. So Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt arranged for Anderson to perform on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. A crowd of 75,000 gathered for that and there was a radio audience of millions.
Caterina was told by that agent she approached there was room for only one black female classical singer in America and currently that singer was Marion Anderson. So no, there would be no room for Caterina Jarboro or a Caterina Jarboro tour. One black classical singer in America was enough, thank you. (Slight pause.)
Caterina taught me a lot by her attitude, by how she approached her volunteer work at the Actors Fund. She was precise. She was dedicated. She was faithful. And her story, her many stories, spoke volumes to me.
And yes, she was extraordinarily talented. And yes, because of the world in which she lived, the era in which she lived, she was never able receive the acclaim she deserved. That must have been excruciatingly hard to deal with, hard to comprehend.
But she persisted. In a way she was relentless. She never surrendered, never gave up. She always moved forward with a steady, sure hand.
Because the world is what it is she knew there would be roadblocks. But she also knew there was work to be done. And she was someone who could be trusted, someone who could be counted on to do what she could. (Long pause.)
These words are in Genesis: “On that day Yahweh, God, made a covenant with Abram...” (Slight pause.)
I want you to notice several things about this reading. Abram gathers a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtledove and a young pigeon. Abram even cuts the larger animals in two.
The darkness, the smoking barrier, the fire pot, the flaming torch we hear about are images fraught with the symbolism of covenant making in the Ancient Near East. Hence, they are not meant as mysterious. That these are symbols of covenant making would have been clear to those who first read these words.
Now, when God says words that give the land (quote:) “to your descendants,” therefore when the covenant, itself, is established, when God enacts the covenant, itself, Abram is (quote:) “in a deep trance.” Therefore Abram does nothing to establish the covenant, enact the covenant or respond to the covenant.
So there is no question about this. The covenant made by God with us is not a two way agreement. It is God Who makes the covenant with us.
The covenant God offers is, like grace, a free gift. God initiates this covenant. God enacts this covenant. God establishes the covenant. To use a phrase I used last week, God is the prime mover. The covenant is not of our doing
Further, what Abram has done is not covenant making. Abram participates. Abram participates by gathering and slaughtering the animals. So what has Abram really done? Abram trusted God.
So you might ask, if Abram has done nothing to initiate the covenant, to enact the covenant, to establish the covenant, where is our place in this covenant? What are we to do? I think the key is simple and sometimes hard deal with, hard to comprehend because we firmly believe we are in control of everything.
That having been said, let me ask a key question yet again, where is our place in this covenant? (Slight pause.) We are invited by God to participate— participate— in the covenant. And for us mere participation can be hard. It does not feel like enough. We want to do more. Perhaps we even want be in control. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest there is something for us to do, something we can do. But it has nothing to do with control. It is about relinquishing control. We are to do what Abram did. We are called to trust God. (Slight pause.)
Let’s go back to the story of Caterina Jarboro. She was in Shuffle Along, the first Broadway show ever written and produced by African-Americans. She toured for a number of seasons in Europe.
She was the first black woman to have the lead role in an all-white opera company in America. But she was not able to receive the acclaim she deserved since there was room for only one Marian Anderson in America. And yes, that must have been hard to deal with, hard to comprehend.
And what was she doing when I met her? She was volunteering for The Actors Fund. In volunteering she was raising money to help those in her profession in need.
What was she really doing when I met her? She was persisting. She was being relentless. She had never surrendered, never given up.
She was always moving forward with a sure, steady hand. She knew there was more to life than roadblocks. She trusted that. (Slight pause.)
So, why was I reminded of Caterina twice in one week? Perhaps I was reminded so I could share her story. And perhaps I was reminded so I could note that our real part in the covenant is to trust God. And that, I think, not just our part in covenant. That is the real lesson of covenant: trust God.
Why? The world is what it is. Caterina knew that. The world now is not the way God would have it. Caterina knew that.
And we need to trust God so we can be empowered to do the work of God and the will of God. Doing the work of God and the will of God is the result of trusting God. Amen.
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: “Theologian Walter Brueggemann said this (quote:) ‘Covenant (and, therefore, true spirituality), consists of learning the skills and sensitivities that include both the courage to assert self and the grace to abandon self to another’ (unquote). In short, covenant is not possible unless you recognize the needs of others.’ The needs of others— it’s that love your neighbor thing we keep hearing about. And I would suggest to love your neighbor we actually need to trust God.”
BENEDICTION: Let our hearts take courage. Our God meets us where our needs rest. God is our shelter and shield. God’s blessings outnumber the stars. Let us go on our way with Christ as our companion. And may 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] https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/16/obituaries/caterina-jarboro.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuffle_Along
Sunday, March 10, 2019
SERMON ~ 03/10/2019 ~ First Sunday in Lent ~ “Near Occasions”
READINGS: 03/10/2019 ~ First Sunday in Lent ~ Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16; Romans 10:8b-13; Luke 4:1-13 ~ Service at Chenango Valley Home.
Near Occasions
“In reply Jesus said, ‘It also says, ‘Do not put God to the test.’” — Luke 4:12
Sometimes you meet someone and you connect with that person immediately and you cannot ever quite understand why you have made that connection. On the other hand and on other occasions you can connect with someone and right away you fully understand that connection.
Back when I lived in New York City and was active in professional theater I made a connection, became a friend with someone, and it was easy to understand why we made an immediate connection. But the real reason we connected was not the obvious one. The obvious connection was theater— she was a dancer and actor, I was a writer. But there were also great differences between us and those differences were quite large.
I was, for instance, from New York City. She was from Omaha, Nebraska. Those are worlds apart.
Interestingly, the real connection was our schools and our schooling. We had both gone to a parochial grade school, a Catholic school, one of us in Omaha, one of us in New York City.
But it was not just that we had both attended a Catholic school. Both schools were staffed by the same order of teaching nuns— Dominicans, the order of Saint Dominic. This is an order well known for its outstanding teachers.
In claiming that having Dominican nuns as teachers was the significant connection, let me illustrate that with just one story and I think you’ll see what I mean. In instructing their charges about religion we both heard exactly the same thing concerning sin.
This is what was said: the responsibility of any individual was to try to avoid being a sinner. And how did one avoid being a sinner?
The individual had to keep away from what the nuns called the “near occasions of sin.” Here’s an example and it the one they used. In both Omaha and New York City might add they used the same example! If gambling on horses is a sin— and believe me, the nuns very much thought gambling on horses was a sin— if gambling on horses is a sin then one must never go to a racetrack.
After all, just being at a racetrack puts you physically in a place where the sin of gambling on horses was quite close. And when you are that close to gambling you might be tempted to gamble. A racetrack was, hence, a near occasion of sin. So stay away from racetracks since when you are at one sin sits there waiting to take possession of you.
These nuns had, I think, never spoken to my late grandfather. My grandfather had, himself, never actually been to a racetrack even though he lied about five miles from one. But, illegal though this practice was, he had his own personal bookie, a bookmaker, and he placed bets on the nags regularly.
My point is twofold. One reason my friend and I connected quickly is we had, essentially, the same grade school training, the same grade school experience, despite the fact that the locations where we spent our youth were half a continent away.
My second point has to do with today’s Gospel reading. You probably noticed in this reading Jesus encounters a bunch of near occasions of sin. So, is this reading about overcoming the near occasions of sin or is it about something else? (Slight pause.)
We hear this in the work commonly called Luke: “In reply Jesus said, ‘It also says, ‘Do not put God to the test.’” (Slight pause.)
Perhaps a good place to start in thinking about this is by asking the obvious question: what is the Biblical definition of sin? The Biblical definition of sin is simple and straightforward.
Sin is breaking covenant. Therefore and hence, sin is anything imperfect. The last time I looked none of us are perfect. (If anyone here is perfect you can leave now.) So, in that sense we are all sinners.
But I want to suggest this reading is not about us nor is it about our transgressions, our sins, whatever they might be. This reading is about God. Therefore, a basic statement needs to be made.
We are not the ones who seek to be in covenant with God. God reaches out to us and seeks to be covenant with us. God is, to use the classic language, the prime mover.
Here’s a different way of saying that. God loves us. God loves us unconditionally no matter where we are at, even no matter what we do.
Therefore, the next obvious question becomes what should we do in response to the fact that God loves us? Indeed, given this is the season known as Lent, some people suggest we should give up something.
It is sometimes suggested we abstain from things. By the way, not fact from things; abstain from things. There’s a difference. Fact is like not eating for a long, long time. Abstain is not doing. O.K.? It’s suggested we should abstain from things, not have them.
Say, for instance, abstain from chocolate or ice cream. I think a lot of people are shaking their heads ‘no’ on that one, right? O.K. So, what we should do? Should we abstain?
I have a list of things from which we might abstain, that has been going around recently. It’s a couple of years old and it is attributed to Pope Francis.
Here it is: abstain from hurting words, words that hurt; say kind words. Abstain from sadness; be filled with gratitude. Abstain from anger; be filled with patience. Abstain from pessimism; be filled with hope. Abstain from worries; trust God.
Abstain from complaints; contemplate simplicity. Abstain from pressures; be prayerful. Abstain from bitterness; be joyful. Abstain from selfishness; be compassionate. Abstain from grudges; be reconciled; abstain from words; be silent, listen. (Slight pause.)
Did you notice this is actually a list of positives, things we can and should do rather than things we should not do, things from which we might really abstain like ice cream and chocolate. I am quite sure each of you could add something else to this list, something you could do.
For me, doing is central in keeping covenant with God. We need to search and find out what can we do to make things better. What can we do to make things better?
We need to find solutions rather than complain about problems. We need to discover what can we do to work toward the fulness of a covenant with God.
And that brings me back to what covenant is about. As I said earlier, “God loves us unconditionally no matter where we are at, even no matter what we do.” (Slight pause.)
On Wednesday last, Ash Wednesday, people and pastors from my church, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational, from Broad Street United Methodist Church, from Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church, from Emmanuel Episcopal Church and from the First Baptist Church— five churches— gathered together for an Ash Wednesday Service. Five churches we gathered as one in Christ. Now right there— that’s doing something.
Ashes were imposed. Ashes are not meant to be a symbol of the wrath of God or sorrow, though I am sure some take it that way. Rather ashes are a symbol of our mortality, our frailty, our imperfection.
Hence, they are also a symbol which says we need to do the work of God here, now in our time— doing! The work of God is about doing. The work of God is about the aforementioned kind words, gratitude, patience, hope, trust, simplicity, prayerfulness, joy, compassion, reconciliation, listening.
So perhaps what we need to ask during this season we call Lent is what can we do? Here’s my suggestion. We can strive to be in covenant with God.
The way I see it, being in covenant with God is at one and the same time amazingly easy and dreadfully hard. Being in covenant with God means loving God and loving our neighbor. Covenant— that is very easy to say. Covenant— that is dreadfully hard to do.
And yes, we will never be perfect at the work of covenant. Who is? Perfection is not the point.
Doing the work of God is the point. And if Lent is about anything that’s what it is about: striving to do the work and the will of God, striving to love God and love one another. Amen.
03/10/2019
Chenango Valley Home, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I earlier mentioned five churches gathered on Ash Wednesday for a Union Service. In the sermon my colleague the Rev. Dr. David Spiegel said this about our imperfection, our sin, and the response of God. ‘We cannot out-sin God, cannot sin in any amount which exceeds God’s capacity to forgive us, God’s fervor in embracing us, God’s willingness to love us.’ How about that? Our imperfection includes our ability to sin. We are not even perfect at that!”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. Let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may 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.
Near Occasions
“In reply Jesus said, ‘It also says, ‘Do not put God to the test.’” — Luke 4:12
Sometimes you meet someone and you connect with that person immediately and you cannot ever quite understand why you have made that connection. On the other hand and on other occasions you can connect with someone and right away you fully understand that connection.
Back when I lived in New York City and was active in professional theater I made a connection, became a friend with someone, and it was easy to understand why we made an immediate connection. But the real reason we connected was not the obvious one. The obvious connection was theater— she was a dancer and actor, I was a writer. But there were also great differences between us and those differences were quite large.
I was, for instance, from New York City. She was from Omaha, Nebraska. Those are worlds apart.
Interestingly, the real connection was our schools and our schooling. We had both gone to a parochial grade school, a Catholic school, one of us in Omaha, one of us in New York City.
But it was not just that we had both attended a Catholic school. Both schools were staffed by the same order of teaching nuns— Dominicans, the order of Saint Dominic. This is an order well known for its outstanding teachers.
In claiming that having Dominican nuns as teachers was the significant connection, let me illustrate that with just one story and I think you’ll see what I mean. In instructing their charges about religion we both heard exactly the same thing concerning sin.
This is what was said: the responsibility of any individual was to try to avoid being a sinner. And how did one avoid being a sinner?
The individual had to keep away from what the nuns called the “near occasions of sin.” Here’s an example and it the one they used. In both Omaha and New York City might add they used the same example! If gambling on horses is a sin— and believe me, the nuns very much thought gambling on horses was a sin— if gambling on horses is a sin then one must never go to a racetrack.
After all, just being at a racetrack puts you physically in a place where the sin of gambling on horses was quite close. And when you are that close to gambling you might be tempted to gamble. A racetrack was, hence, a near occasion of sin. So stay away from racetracks since when you are at one sin sits there waiting to take possession of you.
These nuns had, I think, never spoken to my late grandfather. My grandfather had, himself, never actually been to a racetrack even though he lied about five miles from one. But, illegal though this practice was, he had his own personal bookie, a bookmaker, and he placed bets on the nags regularly.
My point is twofold. One reason my friend and I connected quickly is we had, essentially, the same grade school training, the same grade school experience, despite the fact that the locations where we spent our youth were half a continent away.
My second point has to do with today’s Gospel reading. You probably noticed in this reading Jesus encounters a bunch of near occasions of sin. So, is this reading about overcoming the near occasions of sin or is it about something else? (Slight pause.)
We hear this in the work commonly called Luke: “In reply Jesus said, ‘It also says, ‘Do not put God to the test.’” (Slight pause.)
Perhaps a good place to start in thinking about this is by asking the obvious question: what is the Biblical definition of sin? The Biblical definition of sin is simple and straightforward.
Sin is breaking covenant. Therefore and hence, sin is anything imperfect. The last time I looked none of us are perfect. (If anyone here is perfect you can leave now.) So, in that sense we are all sinners.
But I want to suggest this reading is not about us nor is it about our transgressions, our sins, whatever they might be. This reading is about God. Therefore, a basic statement needs to be made.
We are not the ones who seek to be in covenant with God. God reaches out to us and seeks to be covenant with us. God is, to use the classic language, the prime mover.
Here’s a different way of saying that. God loves us. God loves us unconditionally no matter where we are at, even no matter what we do.
Therefore, the next obvious question becomes what should we do in response to the fact that God loves us? Indeed, given this is the season known as Lent, some people suggest we should give up something.
It is sometimes suggested we abstain from things. By the way, not fact from things; abstain from things. There’s a difference. Fact is like not eating for a long, long time. Abstain is not doing. O.K.? It’s suggested we should abstain from things, not have them.
Say, for instance, abstain from chocolate or ice cream. I think a lot of people are shaking their heads ‘no’ on that one, right? O.K. So, what we should do? Should we abstain?
I have a list of things from which we might abstain, that has been going around recently. It’s a couple of years old and it is attributed to Pope Francis.
Here it is: abstain from hurting words, words that hurt; say kind words. Abstain from sadness; be filled with gratitude. Abstain from anger; be filled with patience. Abstain from pessimism; be filled with hope. Abstain from worries; trust God.
Abstain from complaints; contemplate simplicity. Abstain from pressures; be prayerful. Abstain from bitterness; be joyful. Abstain from selfishness; be compassionate. Abstain from grudges; be reconciled; abstain from words; be silent, listen. (Slight pause.)
Did you notice this is actually a list of positives, things we can and should do rather than things we should not do, things from which we might really abstain like ice cream and chocolate. I am quite sure each of you could add something else to this list, something you could do.
For me, doing is central in keeping covenant with God. We need to search and find out what can we do to make things better. What can we do to make things better?
We need to find solutions rather than complain about problems. We need to discover what can we do to work toward the fulness of a covenant with God.
And that brings me back to what covenant is about. As I said earlier, “God loves us unconditionally no matter where we are at, even no matter what we do.” (Slight pause.)
On Wednesday last, Ash Wednesday, people and pastors from my church, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational, from Broad Street United Methodist Church, from Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church, from Emmanuel Episcopal Church and from the First Baptist Church— five churches— gathered together for an Ash Wednesday Service. Five churches we gathered as one in Christ. Now right there— that’s doing something.
Ashes were imposed. Ashes are not meant to be a symbol of the wrath of God or sorrow, though I am sure some take it that way. Rather ashes are a symbol of our mortality, our frailty, our imperfection.
Hence, they are also a symbol which says we need to do the work of God here, now in our time— doing! The work of God is about doing. The work of God is about the aforementioned kind words, gratitude, patience, hope, trust, simplicity, prayerfulness, joy, compassion, reconciliation, listening.
So perhaps what we need to ask during this season we call Lent is what can we do? Here’s my suggestion. We can strive to be in covenant with God.
The way I see it, being in covenant with God is at one and the same time amazingly easy and dreadfully hard. Being in covenant with God means loving God and loving our neighbor. Covenant— that is very easy to say. Covenant— that is dreadfully hard to do.
And yes, we will never be perfect at the work of covenant. Who is? Perfection is not the point.
Doing the work of God is the point. And if Lent is about anything that’s what it is about: striving to do the work and the will of God, striving to love God and love one another. Amen.
03/10/2019
Chenango Valley Home, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I earlier mentioned five churches gathered on Ash Wednesday for a Union Service. In the sermon my colleague the Rev. Dr. David Spiegel said this about our imperfection, our sin, and the response of God. ‘We cannot out-sin God, cannot sin in any amount which exceeds God’s capacity to forgive us, God’s fervor in embracing us, God’s willingness to love us.’ How about that? Our imperfection includes our ability to sin. We are not even perfect at that!”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. Let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may 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.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
SERMON ~ 03/03/2019 ~ “Transfiguration and Reality”
03/03/2019 ~ Transfiguration Sunday ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Last Sunday Before the Season of Lent ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Communion Sunday ~ Exodus 34:29-35; Psalm 99; 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2; Luke 9:28-36, (37-43a).
Transfiguration and Reality
“Therefore, because we have this ministry through God’s mercy, we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.” — 2 Corinthians 4:1.
I have often referenced my theater work in my Sunday comments. When I do so most of the time the relationship I draw is to the work of being a writer. This characterization is true.
However, to paint my theater work in a way which is that narrow also short changes what I did. This is a list not of all but of some of what I did.
I was a stage manager for an Off-off Broadway production. I had a hand in designing lighting and sets, even helped build some of those sets.
I directed— both plays and club acts, booked musicians for gigs, coached singers and actors. I was an advisor at the High School of Performing Arts.
I was the business manager of a Children’s Theater. Let me translate that one: I kept track of finances, yes. But drew up schedules— made sure people were where they were supposed to be for performances— wrote grants, one of which was a National Endowment for the Arts which grant we got, grants through which the operation survived.
Last on this brief list, I was an executive with The Actors Fund of America. This is a charitable organization which supports performers and behind-the-scenes workers in arts and entertainment— film, theater, television, music, etc.
The Fund offers social services from financial assistance to employment training. It operates the Actors Home, a nursing and assisted living facility. (Slight pause.)
Now, when I worked for the Fund I was one of two people who went through the estate of Basil Rathbone. Those of you over 50 will know exactly who Basil Rathbone is. Those of you under fifty will probably have to Google him.
Suffice it to say Rathbone, a British character actor, played both heros and villains— Sherlock Holmes and Pontius Pilate to name one of each— and in the 1940s was one of the highest paid Hollywood actors. After Rathbone and his wife died their lawyers rummaged through the estate, got what they thought was of value and handed the rest over to the Fund.
To them what was left looked like— and I’ll use the Yiddish word here— dreck— what was left looked like dreck, rubbish, trash. It was not dreck.
And I plowed through all this stuff. Now, at that point I already had a reputation for evaluating theatrical memorabilia— memorabilia— items of historical interest associated with memorable people.
Right now I don’t and you don’t have time for me to try explain why I had that reputation. Please take it for what it’s worth.
But this is an example of the difference between something of worth and dreck. Rathbone’s first Actors Equity contract, the first time he appeared on Broadway— valuable— no doubt about it. An 8x10 glossy picture of a place setting from a dinner party the Rathbones threw in Hollywood— not so much in terms of value.
Now, when you do something like this— go through what someone has left behind— you need to be ruthless about what is of value and what is not. The picture— dreck; the contract— not dreck, And then you throw the dreck— that picture— out, get rid of it. (Slight pause.)
As of today, I will be the pastor in this place for another 120 days. Let me be blunt: after 23 plus years I am having separation anxiety. To combat that I have just stared to separate some the dreck from non dreck in my office. I’ve not gotten too far but I’ve started.
I came across this. (The pastor holds up what looks like a rolled up newspaper wrapped in rubber bands.) If it looks like newspaper wrapped in rubber hands, that’s what it is. I used this in a Children’s Time not long after I got here.
Why did I save it? This harkens back to my own childhood. When I was perhaps in the first or second grade my friends and I would play what we called baseball in front of the house on the streets of Brooklyn with this.
We were young. So we had little bats and this was what our so-called ball looked like. It would not break any windows, especially care windows. It would not hurt any of us if we were hit by it.
I don’t remember what I said at that Children’s Time. But I have kept this on my desk for 20 plus years.
Why? Probably because it’s about my childhood. But let’s face it. It’s dreck— rubbish, trash, even if I am emotionally attached to it. (Slight pause.)
We hear this in 2 Corinthians: “Therefore, because we have this ministry through God’s mercy, we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.” (Slight pause.)
Every commentary I’ve seen says one thing about this passage. It is very complex. Hence, figuring out what Paul is trying to do here is not easy. But I want to make a suggestion. Paul is encouraging us to go back to essentials— get rid of the dreck, the trash, the rubbish.
You see, I found it fascinating, instructive and informative that this reading is the assigned lection from the Epistles today. Why?
As you heard earlier, today is called Transfiguration Sunday. In each year of the three year lectionary cycle one of the Transfiguration stories is read from one of the Gospels on this Last Sunday Before Lent.
And what is the Transfiguration? Here’s a $64 word, one you also heard earlier. The Transfiguration is a theophany, an experience of the real presence of God.
Which brings us back to Paul. The apostle clearly brings up the Torah, the teachings, Moses, then says this (quote:) “And we... reflect the glory of our God (and) grow brighter and brighter as we are being transformed into the same image we reflect. This is the work of our God, who is Spirit.”
Any Jew in New Testament times would recognize what Paul says here. (Quote:) “the glory of our God”— glory— in Hebrew Kabod— which means the real presence of God. And what is the Transfiguration? It is an experience of the real presence of God.
And that is, I think, why Paul insists ministry is present through God’s mercy and we should not give into discouragement, we should not lose heart. God is present. God walks with us.
That is the reality we Christians claim, the claim of the Transfiguration, the claim of the Resurrection. God is present. God walks with us. (Slight pause.)
To reiterate and be to be blunt: after 23 plus years here I have separation anxiety. To combat that I have just stared to separate some dreck from non dreck in my office.
And this week I came across some memorabilia. (The pastor holds up what looks like a rolled up newspaper wrapped in rubber bands.) But this is dreck. (The pastor drops this object to the floor of the nave.)
Why do I say that? It may tie me emotionally to the past. But should that be my focus? And what should be my focus? (Slight pause.)
For these 23 plus years I have done my best as I tried to focus not on the idea that God is present to me, walks with me. I have tied to focus on the idea that God is present to us— all of us. God walks with us— all of us.
And yes, at times I have been discouraged. At times Paul had to have been discouraged also or the Apostle to the Gentiles would have never written (quote:) “we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.”
And we, you and I, should not be discouraged. We, you and I, should not lose heart. Why?
(Quote:) “We have this ministry through God’s mercy, we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.” And that, my friends, is not dreck.
Ministry here, in this place, at this time, is granted to us by God and God is with us. God does walk with us. Amen.
03/03/2019
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I am going to say something about my process in preaching. That’s different. Often I don’t say anything about that. I usually work a month or two ahead in planning sermons. I decide on which reading I will preach, I formulate a sermon title and I make notes to myself as to where I think I might go with a sermon. And then I sit down with Mary Williams and shs pushes me. ‘What do you mean by that?’she says. And she helps me think it through. In any case, the note I made over a month ago said: ‘We need to daily realize Christ is with us as we do the work and the will of God. This is a message of the Transfiguration and Paul understood hope is central because of the reality of the Christ. The Transfiguration story— it really is just a story— but it is meant to help us and give language with which we can express a foretaste of the reality of the Risen Christ.’”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. So let us live in the light God offers. And, therefore, let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may 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.
Transfiguration and Reality
“Therefore, because we have this ministry through God’s mercy, we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.” — 2 Corinthians 4:1.
I have often referenced my theater work in my Sunday comments. When I do so most of the time the relationship I draw is to the work of being a writer. This characterization is true.
However, to paint my theater work in a way which is that narrow also short changes what I did. This is a list not of all but of some of what I did.
I was a stage manager for an Off-off Broadway production. I had a hand in designing lighting and sets, even helped build some of those sets.
I directed— both plays and club acts, booked musicians for gigs, coached singers and actors. I was an advisor at the High School of Performing Arts.
I was the business manager of a Children’s Theater. Let me translate that one: I kept track of finances, yes. But drew up schedules— made sure people were where they were supposed to be for performances— wrote grants, one of which was a National Endowment for the Arts which grant we got, grants through which the operation survived.
Last on this brief list, I was an executive with The Actors Fund of America. This is a charitable organization which supports performers and behind-the-scenes workers in arts and entertainment— film, theater, television, music, etc.
The Fund offers social services from financial assistance to employment training. It operates the Actors Home, a nursing and assisted living facility. (Slight pause.)
Now, when I worked for the Fund I was one of two people who went through the estate of Basil Rathbone. Those of you over 50 will know exactly who Basil Rathbone is. Those of you under fifty will probably have to Google him.
Suffice it to say Rathbone, a British character actor, played both heros and villains— Sherlock Holmes and Pontius Pilate to name one of each— and in the 1940s was one of the highest paid Hollywood actors. After Rathbone and his wife died their lawyers rummaged through the estate, got what they thought was of value and handed the rest over to the Fund.
To them what was left looked like— and I’ll use the Yiddish word here— dreck— what was left looked like dreck, rubbish, trash. It was not dreck.
And I plowed through all this stuff. Now, at that point I already had a reputation for evaluating theatrical memorabilia— memorabilia— items of historical interest associated with memorable people.
Right now I don’t and you don’t have time for me to try explain why I had that reputation. Please take it for what it’s worth.
But this is an example of the difference between something of worth and dreck. Rathbone’s first Actors Equity contract, the first time he appeared on Broadway— valuable— no doubt about it. An 8x10 glossy picture of a place setting from a dinner party the Rathbones threw in Hollywood— not so much in terms of value.
Now, when you do something like this— go through what someone has left behind— you need to be ruthless about what is of value and what is not. The picture— dreck; the contract— not dreck, And then you throw the dreck— that picture— out, get rid of it. (Slight pause.)
As of today, I will be the pastor in this place for another 120 days. Let me be blunt: after 23 plus years I am having separation anxiety. To combat that I have just stared to separate some the dreck from non dreck in my office. I’ve not gotten too far but I’ve started.
I came across this. (The pastor holds up what looks like a rolled up newspaper wrapped in rubber bands.) If it looks like newspaper wrapped in rubber hands, that’s what it is. I used this in a Children’s Time not long after I got here.
Why did I save it? This harkens back to my own childhood. When I was perhaps in the first or second grade my friends and I would play what we called baseball in front of the house on the streets of Brooklyn with this.
We were young. So we had little bats and this was what our so-called ball looked like. It would not break any windows, especially care windows. It would not hurt any of us if we were hit by it.
I don’t remember what I said at that Children’s Time. But I have kept this on my desk for 20 plus years.
Why? Probably because it’s about my childhood. But let’s face it. It’s dreck— rubbish, trash, even if I am emotionally attached to it. (Slight pause.)
We hear this in 2 Corinthians: “Therefore, because we have this ministry through God’s mercy, we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.” (Slight pause.)
Every commentary I’ve seen says one thing about this passage. It is very complex. Hence, figuring out what Paul is trying to do here is not easy. But I want to make a suggestion. Paul is encouraging us to go back to essentials— get rid of the dreck, the trash, the rubbish.
You see, I found it fascinating, instructive and informative that this reading is the assigned lection from the Epistles today. Why?
As you heard earlier, today is called Transfiguration Sunday. In each year of the three year lectionary cycle one of the Transfiguration stories is read from one of the Gospels on this Last Sunday Before Lent.
And what is the Transfiguration? Here’s a $64 word, one you also heard earlier. The Transfiguration is a theophany, an experience of the real presence of God.
Which brings us back to Paul. The apostle clearly brings up the Torah, the teachings, Moses, then says this (quote:) “And we... reflect the glory of our God (and) grow brighter and brighter as we are being transformed into the same image we reflect. This is the work of our God, who is Spirit.”
Any Jew in New Testament times would recognize what Paul says here. (Quote:) “the glory of our God”— glory— in Hebrew Kabod— which means the real presence of God. And what is the Transfiguration? It is an experience of the real presence of God.
And that is, I think, why Paul insists ministry is present through God’s mercy and we should not give into discouragement, we should not lose heart. God is present. God walks with us.
That is the reality we Christians claim, the claim of the Transfiguration, the claim of the Resurrection. God is present. God walks with us. (Slight pause.)
To reiterate and be to be blunt: after 23 plus years here I have separation anxiety. To combat that I have just stared to separate some dreck from non dreck in my office.
And this week I came across some memorabilia. (The pastor holds up what looks like a rolled up newspaper wrapped in rubber bands.) But this is dreck. (The pastor drops this object to the floor of the nave.)
Why do I say that? It may tie me emotionally to the past. But should that be my focus? And what should be my focus? (Slight pause.)
For these 23 plus years I have done my best as I tried to focus not on the idea that God is present to me, walks with me. I have tied to focus on the idea that God is present to us— all of us. God walks with us— all of us.
And yes, at times I have been discouraged. At times Paul had to have been discouraged also or the Apostle to the Gentiles would have never written (quote:) “we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.”
And we, you and I, should not be discouraged. We, you and I, should not lose heart. Why?
(Quote:) “We have this ministry through God’s mercy, we do not give into discouragement, we do not lose heart.” And that, my friends, is not dreck.
Ministry here, in this place, at this time, is granted to us by God and God is with us. God does walk with us. Amen.
03/03/2019
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I am going to say something about my process in preaching. That’s different. Often I don’t say anything about that. I usually work a month or two ahead in planning sermons. I decide on which reading I will preach, I formulate a sermon title and I make notes to myself as to where I think I might go with a sermon. And then I sit down with Mary Williams and shs pushes me. ‘What do you mean by that?’she says. And she helps me think it through. In any case, the note I made over a month ago said: ‘We need to daily realize Christ is with us as we do the work and the will of God. This is a message of the Transfiguration and Paul understood hope is central because of the reality of the Christ. The Transfiguration story— it really is just a story— but it is meant to help us and give language with which we can express a foretaste of the reality of the Risen Christ.’”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. So let us live in the light God offers. And, therefore, let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may 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.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
SERMON ~ 02/24/2019 ~ “Golden Rules”
02/24/2019 ~ Seventh Sunday after the Epiphany, Known in Some Traditions as the Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time (Proper 2 ) ~ Genesis 45:3-11, 15; Psalm 37:1-11, 39-40; 1 Corinthians 15:35-38, 42-50; Luke 6:27-38.
Golden Rules
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” — Luke 6:31
One of the adjunct professors at Bangor Seminary, the place I went to seminary, Dana Sawyer, had an interesting background. A Native American who grew up on the Penobscot Tribe reservation near Old Town, just north of Bangor, he had a Ph.D. in Far Eastern Religion.
Of course, you do not get that degree without having visited the Far East numerous times. Then he, a Native American with a degree in Far Eastern Religion, returned to Maine to teach at the University level. The particular class he taught at Bangor was, appropriately, World Religions.
This background was fascinating but something he said I found even more fascinating. He insisted the religion most practiced world wide, most practiced in America, was what he called folk religion.
What did he mean? (I could spend a half an hour unpacking that thought.) Here’s an American example he used: Fundamentalism is a folk religion, said he. How so? Fundamentalism has absolutely no basis in historic Christianity and began only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Following the Civil War, tensions developed among Christians in America. Scholarly Biblical criticism, a practice of Scriptural study which dates back millennia, started to be seen as something which encouraged social and cultural change. That very encouragement of social, cultural change was unacceptable to some, at least in part because of a resistance to social, cultural change.
And so, The Fundamentals, a series of papers, was published between 1910 and 1915, published in Los Angeles of all places, supported by an oil baron, right out of the Gilded Age who had some reason to resist social, cultural change because of his status. The bottom line is Christianity had never seen anything like organized Fundamentalism before. And this was organized by big money.
While many think Fundamentalism is ancient, obviously this is new, a little more than 100 years old. And it is, in fact, a largely American idea. This American idea spread to other faith traditions, Islamic Fundamentalism being the prime example. They had never had Fundamentalists before. I am sure the irony of that is not lost on you.
To put this into perspective, Fundamentalism is not a theological reevaluation of Christianity. This is a social movement, a cultural movement, whose mission was to resist change in society. I need to be clear. I am not saying people who follow Fundamentalism are insincere in what is believed. I am saying the movement itself stems from social, cultural and late origins.
United Church of Christ pastor Lillian Daniel has published a book whose title reflects my sentiments: Tired of Apologizing for a Church I Don’t Belong To is the title. The Christianity I know, the Christianity to which I belong, historic Christianity, cannot be labeled a folk religion as it is not based simply on a current cultural, social trend. Fundamentalism is based on what was a new cultural, social trend just 100 years ago and, hence, as Dana Sayer, my professor, said, can be labeled a folk religion. (Slight pause.)
From time to time many of you have heard me say I have Jesuit training. My follow up line after that is, “Scratch a Jesuit, you get a Protestant.” That would be me.
I was, however, never in a classroom taught by Jesuits. Rather, since my father taught at a Jesuit High School for his entire working career, Jesuits were my friends.
Jesuits came to family parties. I went on trips with Jesuits. I played softball and basketball with Jesuits. Jesuits staffed the Summer camp I attended.
Question: most of the time how do we really learn, especially how do we learn about life, about how to behave, about how life should be lived? We learn from family. We learn from friends.
A competent teacher will tell you a significant chunk of learning happens outside any classroom wall. When Jesuits are friends of the family, it is hard to not be influenced by their thinking, to not learn from their thinking. (Slight pause.)
Jesuit have an interesting practice of which I know. Every ten years they publish a list of four priorities which will be the “mission of the Jesuit order” for the next ten years. They just published a new list.
First, “show the way to God through discernment and... Spiritual Exercises.” Next, “walk with the poor, the outcasts of the world, those whose dignity has been violated, in a mission of reconciliation and justice.” Third, “accompany young people in the creation of a hope-filled future.” Last, “collaborate in the care of (the earth) our Common Home.” (Slight pause.)
We find this being spoken by the Christ in the work known as Luke/Acts in the portion called Luke: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Slight pause)
The quote you just heard is often called The Golden Rule. It is found in many faith traditions and in many social traditions, in many cultures. It dates at least back to the Code of Hammurabi, 1,700 yeas before the birth of Christ. (Slight pause.)
Now, I think most of you are aware I had what might be called multiple careers before seminary. One piece of that was a nine year stint on and off working on Wall Street.
Do you know what The Golden Rule on Wall Street is? (Slight pause.) Those who have the gold make the rules. Its corollary is those who have power hoard power. Another corollary: those who dominate strive to perpetuate dominance.
These are cultural, secular golden rules. The question for us around that is simple: is following that golden rule, a cultural golden rule, a secular golden rule, the place to which God calls us, the place to which God calls the church? (Slight pause.)
Occasionally someone will say there are liberal interpretations of the Bible. Others will say there are conservative interpretations. Nether position is accurate.
What I am about to say is neither liberal nor conservative. The challenges with which Scripture presents us as we examine it, as we seek God’s Word and God’s will are multiple when it comes to the culture. The first challenge is that we need to identify the cultural trappings in Scripture which are based on the era in which Scripture was written.
That alone is not easy. After all, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, contain at least five different documents written over the course of a number centuries and then woven together so they appear to someone who reads the text only in translation and not in the original language to be just one, single, singular document. If you’re reading in the original languages the differences jump out at you.
Each of those documents, woven together as one, written in different eras, need to be unpacked for the cultural content in the era in which they were written. And, when you are reading the words in the original language, it becomes evident sometimes one sentence is written in one era and the very next sentence is written five hundred years later and addresses a different cultural context.
After that, after the cultural contents are identified, the question for us becomes what is God saying? To where does God call us?
So, not only do we need to identify the cultural, social content. We need to neutralize it as we seek the will of God.
But there is another challenge. What does our culture, today, say to us? You see, to identify what our culture today says to us, its influence on us, is an even harder task than looking at an ancient culture in the Scriptural text.
After all, perhaps we cannot fully identify all aspects of an ancient culture. But we can identify many of them.
I think identifying today’s culture is a more daunting challenge. Why? We are living in and with our own culture. It is second nature to us. We do not even notice it.
And just like we should strive to identify cultural practices in ancient times when we read Scripture and naturalize those, we need to identify today’s cultural trends. And then we need to neutralize today’s cultural trends and yet again ask ‘what is God saying?’ ‘To where does God call us?’ ‘To where does God call the church?’
All of this points us to one place when looking at Scripture. Will we be overcome, will we be overwhelmed by the culture which surrounds us when we read Scripture? (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to my friends the Jesuits and their current ten year program. I would sum up that ten year program with just several words: discernment; reconciliation and justice; the creation of a hope-filled future; the earth, our Common Home. (Slight pause.)
As I said, Scripture is neither liberal nor conservative. That summation of the Jesuit program is neither liberal nor conservative. Why? Living into and with these ideas is about a way of life. Living into and with these ideas is how we learn about life, about how we learn to behave, about how life should be lived, about living together.
Christianity is not about rules. Christianity is not about the culture. Christianity is about a way of life. That is one reason why each time the Jesuits post a program it’s for ten years. This is about a ten year exercise in practicing a way of life with specifics. To practice a way of life takes time.
Will anyone ever be perfect at the practice? No. The idea is to practice and strive to improve every day. Perhaps more importantly the idea is to strive, as well as we are able, to see the world as God sees the world. How does God see the world?
I hear this is just one of the things Jesus said about living life as we strive to know God and to know the will of God: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Now that, my friends, is not a golden rule. That is a counter-cultural idea since those words are about God’s culture, not human culture. Amen.
02/24/2019
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: “Let me quote Reinhold Niebuhr: ‘Nothing worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love.’ Do I get occasionally discouraged? Yes. But I understand my own frailty and mortality. I understand I live in a culture. I understand I need to pay attention to God’s culture. The culture is temporary. God is not.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go in joy and in love and in peace. God reigns. Therefore, let us go forth in the name of Christ proclaiming the peace of God which surpasses understanding. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the presence of Christ be with us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Golden Rules
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” — Luke 6:31
One of the adjunct professors at Bangor Seminary, the place I went to seminary, Dana Sawyer, had an interesting background. A Native American who grew up on the Penobscot Tribe reservation near Old Town, just north of Bangor, he had a Ph.D. in Far Eastern Religion.
Of course, you do not get that degree without having visited the Far East numerous times. Then he, a Native American with a degree in Far Eastern Religion, returned to Maine to teach at the University level. The particular class he taught at Bangor was, appropriately, World Religions.
This background was fascinating but something he said I found even more fascinating. He insisted the religion most practiced world wide, most practiced in America, was what he called folk religion.
What did he mean? (I could spend a half an hour unpacking that thought.) Here’s an American example he used: Fundamentalism is a folk religion, said he. How so? Fundamentalism has absolutely no basis in historic Christianity and began only in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Following the Civil War, tensions developed among Christians in America. Scholarly Biblical criticism, a practice of Scriptural study which dates back millennia, started to be seen as something which encouraged social and cultural change. That very encouragement of social, cultural change was unacceptable to some, at least in part because of a resistance to social, cultural change.
And so, The Fundamentals, a series of papers, was published between 1910 and 1915, published in Los Angeles of all places, supported by an oil baron, right out of the Gilded Age who had some reason to resist social, cultural change because of his status. The bottom line is Christianity had never seen anything like organized Fundamentalism before. And this was organized by big money.
While many think Fundamentalism is ancient, obviously this is new, a little more than 100 years old. And it is, in fact, a largely American idea. This American idea spread to other faith traditions, Islamic Fundamentalism being the prime example. They had never had Fundamentalists before. I am sure the irony of that is not lost on you.
To put this into perspective, Fundamentalism is not a theological reevaluation of Christianity. This is a social movement, a cultural movement, whose mission was to resist change in society. I need to be clear. I am not saying people who follow Fundamentalism are insincere in what is believed. I am saying the movement itself stems from social, cultural and late origins.
United Church of Christ pastor Lillian Daniel has published a book whose title reflects my sentiments: Tired of Apologizing for a Church I Don’t Belong To is the title. The Christianity I know, the Christianity to which I belong, historic Christianity, cannot be labeled a folk religion as it is not based simply on a current cultural, social trend. Fundamentalism is based on what was a new cultural, social trend just 100 years ago and, hence, as Dana Sayer, my professor, said, can be labeled a folk religion. (Slight pause.)
From time to time many of you have heard me say I have Jesuit training. My follow up line after that is, “Scratch a Jesuit, you get a Protestant.” That would be me.
I was, however, never in a classroom taught by Jesuits. Rather, since my father taught at a Jesuit High School for his entire working career, Jesuits were my friends.
Jesuits came to family parties. I went on trips with Jesuits. I played softball and basketball with Jesuits. Jesuits staffed the Summer camp I attended.
Question: most of the time how do we really learn, especially how do we learn about life, about how to behave, about how life should be lived? We learn from family. We learn from friends.
A competent teacher will tell you a significant chunk of learning happens outside any classroom wall. When Jesuits are friends of the family, it is hard to not be influenced by their thinking, to not learn from their thinking. (Slight pause.)
Jesuit have an interesting practice of which I know. Every ten years they publish a list of four priorities which will be the “mission of the Jesuit order” for the next ten years. They just published a new list.
First, “show the way to God through discernment and... Spiritual Exercises.” Next, “walk with the poor, the outcasts of the world, those whose dignity has been violated, in a mission of reconciliation and justice.” Third, “accompany young people in the creation of a hope-filled future.” Last, “collaborate in the care of (the earth) our Common Home.” (Slight pause.)
We find this being spoken by the Christ in the work known as Luke/Acts in the portion called Luke: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Slight pause)
The quote you just heard is often called The Golden Rule. It is found in many faith traditions and in many social traditions, in many cultures. It dates at least back to the Code of Hammurabi, 1,700 yeas before the birth of Christ. (Slight pause.)
Now, I think most of you are aware I had what might be called multiple careers before seminary. One piece of that was a nine year stint on and off working on Wall Street.
Do you know what The Golden Rule on Wall Street is? (Slight pause.) Those who have the gold make the rules. Its corollary is those who have power hoard power. Another corollary: those who dominate strive to perpetuate dominance.
These are cultural, secular golden rules. The question for us around that is simple: is following that golden rule, a cultural golden rule, a secular golden rule, the place to which God calls us, the place to which God calls the church? (Slight pause.)
Occasionally someone will say there are liberal interpretations of the Bible. Others will say there are conservative interpretations. Nether position is accurate.
What I am about to say is neither liberal nor conservative. The challenges with which Scripture presents us as we examine it, as we seek God’s Word and God’s will are multiple when it comes to the culture. The first challenge is that we need to identify the cultural trappings in Scripture which are based on the era in which Scripture was written.
That alone is not easy. After all, the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, contain at least five different documents written over the course of a number centuries and then woven together so they appear to someone who reads the text only in translation and not in the original language to be just one, single, singular document. If you’re reading in the original languages the differences jump out at you.
Each of those documents, woven together as one, written in different eras, need to be unpacked for the cultural content in the era in which they were written. And, when you are reading the words in the original language, it becomes evident sometimes one sentence is written in one era and the very next sentence is written five hundred years later and addresses a different cultural context.
After that, after the cultural contents are identified, the question for us becomes what is God saying? To where does God call us?
So, not only do we need to identify the cultural, social content. We need to neutralize it as we seek the will of God.
But there is another challenge. What does our culture, today, say to us? You see, to identify what our culture today says to us, its influence on us, is an even harder task than looking at an ancient culture in the Scriptural text.
After all, perhaps we cannot fully identify all aspects of an ancient culture. But we can identify many of them.
I think identifying today’s culture is a more daunting challenge. Why? We are living in and with our own culture. It is second nature to us. We do not even notice it.
And just like we should strive to identify cultural practices in ancient times when we read Scripture and naturalize those, we need to identify today’s cultural trends. And then we need to neutralize today’s cultural trends and yet again ask ‘what is God saying?’ ‘To where does God call us?’ ‘To where does God call the church?’
All of this points us to one place when looking at Scripture. Will we be overcome, will we be overwhelmed by the culture which surrounds us when we read Scripture? (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to my friends the Jesuits and their current ten year program. I would sum up that ten year program with just several words: discernment; reconciliation and justice; the creation of a hope-filled future; the earth, our Common Home. (Slight pause.)
As I said, Scripture is neither liberal nor conservative. That summation of the Jesuit program is neither liberal nor conservative. Why? Living into and with these ideas is about a way of life. Living into and with these ideas is how we learn about life, about how we learn to behave, about how life should be lived, about living together.
Christianity is not about rules. Christianity is not about the culture. Christianity is about a way of life. That is one reason why each time the Jesuits post a program it’s for ten years. This is about a ten year exercise in practicing a way of life with specifics. To practice a way of life takes time.
Will anyone ever be perfect at the practice? No. The idea is to practice and strive to improve every day. Perhaps more importantly the idea is to strive, as well as we are able, to see the world as God sees the world. How does God see the world?
I hear this is just one of the things Jesus said about living life as we strive to know God and to know the will of God: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Now that, my friends, is not a golden rule. That is a counter-cultural idea since those words are about God’s culture, not human culture. Amen.
02/24/2019
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: “Let me quote Reinhold Niebuhr: ‘Nothing worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love.’ Do I get occasionally discouraged? Yes. But I understand my own frailty and mortality. I understand I live in a culture. I understand I need to pay attention to God’s culture. The culture is temporary. God is not.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go in joy and in love and in peace. God reigns. Therefore, let us go forth in the name of Christ proclaiming the peace of God which surpasses understanding. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the presence of Christ be with us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
SERMON ~ 02/17/2019 ~ “Attitudes and the Beatitudes”
02/17/2019 ~ Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany, Known in Some Traditions as the Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ (Proper 1 ) ~ Jeremiah 17:5-10; Psalm 1; 1 Corinthians 15:12-20; Luke 6:17-26.
Attitudes and the Beatitudes
“...the whole crowd was trying to touch Jesus for power came out of the Rabbi healing them all. Then Jesus looked at the disciples and said:...” — Luke 6:19-20a.
I have oftentimes regaled you with stories of my faith journey, my faith background or rather I should put that in the plural: my backgrounds. Briefly, I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition, moved over to the Episcopalian tradition and wound up in the Congregational tradition.
I then went to Bangor Seminary where I had classmates across numerous traditions from Roman Catholic to Baptist to Unitarian to Quaker. In that situation one cannot avoid learning about how things are seen in these various faith traditions.
Just being in class with people from all those backgrounds is informative and stimulating. Outside the classroom conversations are simply amazing.
Given that background and education, it should not surprise you that I know, maintain contacts and friendships with folks across that spectrum. And so I want to tell a story about an Episcopal priest I knew.
He was a British national but had been ordained in the American Episcopal Church. He had been serving a church in Louisiana, all the way down on the delta. Then he got called to serve a church in New York City. Louisiana — New York City— these are two different worlds.
How different? The service in an Episcopal Church has about 40 or 45 minutes of just liturgy. The celebration of Communion is a given at nearly every main service.
Well, when serving that church in Louisiana if this priest did not preach for at least one hour at each of those services, the parishioners would have run him out of town. Once in New York City, if the sermon of this priest ran a half a second past twenty minutes, the parishioners would have run him out of town.
Please notice, what I just said has nothing to do with the theology, liturgy or preaching in an Episcopal Church. It does not even say anything about ‘what makes a good sermon?’
All this is totally and inexorably tied up in the culture of the churches that priest served. I don’t think I am telling any secrets if I said the culture on opposite sides of the Mason-Dixon line is a tad different.
In short, local church culture overrules and overcomes practice, sometimes theology, but certainly denominational norms. And this story more so about local culture, the culture in those two particular churches served by that priest and about how the local culture in those specific places holds sway, than it is even about that North-South divide. I know that because I know Episcopal Churches in New York City. I know Episcopal Churches where the sermon can’t be longer than ten minutes. I know Episcopal Churches in New York City where the sermon probably needs to be thirty minutes. (Slight pause.)
As I indicated earlier, this last week Saint Valentine’s Day was celebrated— cupids, flowers, candy, fancy dinners. [1] That’s the way it’s done, is it not? That’s the way we celebrate Saint Valentine’s Day, right? (Slight pause.)
Say what? Saint Valentine was a 3rd-century Roman priest, a bishop who ministered to persecuted Christians, a servant of God martyred for this work. For the life of me I cannot find the connection with Saint Valentine, a martyred priest and bishop and the thing we do with cupids, flowers, candy, fancy dinners. (Slight pause.) Can you say ‘it’s the culture?’
The way Saint Valentine’s day is celebrated is certainly not about the person whose name is fixed on that date. This, therefore, does need to be noticed: the culture finds excuses and fixates on specific ways of doing something just because the culture wants to do it that way, even when doing it the way the culture wants to do it makes absolutely no sense.
So, what should we call this? I’ve got it! Fake news— let’s call it fake news. (Slight pause.) No— I think someone has used that label already— probably not a good idea. (Slight pause.)
These words are found in the Gospel of Luke: “...the whole crowd was trying to touch Jesus for power came out of the Rabbi healing them all. Then Jesus looked at the disciples and said:...” (Long pause.)
I think most of you know since we publish this fact in our Newsletter, there is a Revised Common Lectionary, a list of recommended readings for each Sunday in the Liturgical Year. Among the readings this week three of the four assigned readings contain beatitudes. But what is a beatitude?
In the reading from Jeremiah we heard the Prophet say, “Blessed are those who / put their trust in Yahweh, God, / whose hope is with Yahweh, God.” In the Luke reading we heard Jesus insist, “You who are poor are blessed, / for the reign of God is yours.”
However and equally we heard Jeremiah say, “The human heart is devious / more deceitful / than anything else; / it is desperately sick—...” And then Jesus says, “...woe to you who are rich, / for you are now receiving / your consolation, your comfort / in full.”
This should be abundantly clear: a beatitude is not simply a declaration of something good or special or nice. And that is precisely why I started my comments with these specific words from Sermon on the Plain: “Then Jesus looked at the disciples and said:...” then I stopped. (Long pause.)
Question: what is Jesus doing here? What was Jeremiah doing? To what and to where are Jeremiah and Jesus trying to point us? What are we being told when we hear beatitudes? The evidence suggests it’s not simply about good, special or nice. (Slight pause.)
Theologian Richard Rhor claims the message God has for us is transformative because God is transformative. Therefore, in order to be faithful we need to strive to be transformed ourselves. [2]
Certainly one of our issues with God Who is transformative, one of the reasons we grapple to understand God as transformative, this God Who invites us to be transformed, is we get tied up in the messages with which our culture surrounds us. These cultural messages tend to be aimed at maintaining the status quo, making things just like they used to be in some imaginary time past when thing were perfect. I’m historian. I’m still looking for that time when things were perfect. (Slight pause.)
Coming back to the culture and to be clear, when I use the word ‘culture’ it applies to a multitude of levels. It applies to global culture, national culture, regional culture, local culture. I highlighted the Valentine’s celebration and the sermons in two Episcopal Churches as examples because one is national and one is quite local.
The New York Times recently published an article by a Dutch national who was here for graduate studies. She wrote about the Valentine’s Day festivities of cupids, flowers, candy, fancy dinners and her lack of understanding these.
Her spouse, an Israeli also here for graduate studies, for whom these rituals also seemed alien, was pressured by friends into bring her flowers and chocolate. He did. She was horrified.
She threatened divorce if he ever again brought overpriced roses or chocolates to her in mid-February. He was happy about that since all he wanted to do in mid-February was to concentrate on graduate work, study, research.
In the article her comments said these rituals try to perpetuate a lethal combination of Hollywood sentimentality and Victorian romanticism. She objected to the tyranny of perfect romance.
She prefers a flawed relationship over the fairy tale love of candlelight dinners, red roses, walks on the beach. To her imperfect love seems preferable to that. [3]
I am reminded lyricist Ira Gershwin, someone well known for writing love songs, wrote these words to a tune by his brother George in all the way back in 1931. It was meant to illustrate this dichotomy between romanticism and the reality of relationship by employing irony.
(Quote:) “Blah, blah, blah, blah— moon / Blah, blah, blah— above / Blah, blah, blah, blah— croon / Blah, blah, blah— love. / Tra la, la, la; tra la, la, la, la— merry month of May / Tra la, la, la; tra la, la, la, la— 'neath a cloud of grey.” [4] There are another couple of choruses but you get the idea and I don’t meant to bore you. (Slight pause.)
As to the culture of the local church, the story of the local differences between sermon length, it speaks about the need for the local church to see beyond its own walls. I think we are not terrible at that. But we can always be better on many, many levels.
This brings me back to the reflections of Richard Rhor on God, the God Who we Christians claim is transformative, the God Who we Christians claim can help us transform. Indeed, I want to suggest any beatitude we find in Scripture is not there to point to something good, special or nice.
That should be evident precisely because of the dichotomies heard in the beatitudes found in both Jeremiah and in the Sermon on the Plain. The place to which beatitudes point is in no way the kind of world our culture sees. The place to which beatitudes point is not the kind of world we see in front of us. The place to which beatitudes point is the kind of world God sees, God envisions.
And that is our challenge in a nutshell. The kind of world God sees, God envisions, is one where we put our trust and hope in Yahweh, God.
The kind of world God sees, the kind of world God envisions, is one where the hungry are fed. The kind of world God sees, the kind of world God envisions, is one where the equity, peace, justice, freedom, joy, hope, peace and love of God reigns. The question for us is can we also see, envision the kind of world which encompasses God’s vision. Your call. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
02/17/2019
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: “Those of you who know me well know I often use the word covenant. What does it mean to covenant with God? Here’s the short version: it means we commit to growth— spiritual growth, growth in understanding, growth in wisdom, growth in love. Covenant means we strive to refuse to be trapped by our human failings, trapped by our culture.”
BENEDICTION: Depart in peace for God’s promised covenant is real and is forever. And may the love of God guide us, the word of the Christ empower us and the gifts of the Spirit dwell in us, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] A the Children’s time the pastor gave out heart shaped things and asked of this showed love. These theologically astute children said “no.” God shows love and helping each other shows love.
[2] https://cac.org/personal-and-universal-2019-02-15/
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/well/family/against-romance-an-un-valentine.html?fallback=0&recId=1HDWlqe73QC4MojjT4yPF1WFJzo&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=NY&recAlloc=home-geo&geoCountry=US&blockId=home-living-vi&imp_id=66027691&action=click&module=Smarter%20Living&pgtype=Homepage
[4] https://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/b/blahblahblah.html
The song is Blah, Blah, Blah. It was in the 1931 film Delicious.
Attitudes and the Beatitudes
“...the whole crowd was trying to touch Jesus for power came out of the Rabbi healing them all. Then Jesus looked at the disciples and said:...” — Luke 6:19-20a.
I have oftentimes regaled you with stories of my faith journey, my faith background or rather I should put that in the plural: my backgrounds. Briefly, I grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition, moved over to the Episcopalian tradition and wound up in the Congregational tradition.
I then went to Bangor Seminary where I had classmates across numerous traditions from Roman Catholic to Baptist to Unitarian to Quaker. In that situation one cannot avoid learning about how things are seen in these various faith traditions.
Just being in class with people from all those backgrounds is informative and stimulating. Outside the classroom conversations are simply amazing.
Given that background and education, it should not surprise you that I know, maintain contacts and friendships with folks across that spectrum. And so I want to tell a story about an Episcopal priest I knew.
He was a British national but had been ordained in the American Episcopal Church. He had been serving a church in Louisiana, all the way down on the delta. Then he got called to serve a church in New York City. Louisiana — New York City— these are two different worlds.
How different? The service in an Episcopal Church has about 40 or 45 minutes of just liturgy. The celebration of Communion is a given at nearly every main service.
Well, when serving that church in Louisiana if this priest did not preach for at least one hour at each of those services, the parishioners would have run him out of town. Once in New York City, if the sermon of this priest ran a half a second past twenty minutes, the parishioners would have run him out of town.
Please notice, what I just said has nothing to do with the theology, liturgy or preaching in an Episcopal Church. It does not even say anything about ‘what makes a good sermon?’
All this is totally and inexorably tied up in the culture of the churches that priest served. I don’t think I am telling any secrets if I said the culture on opposite sides of the Mason-Dixon line is a tad different.
In short, local church culture overrules and overcomes practice, sometimes theology, but certainly denominational norms. And this story more so about local culture, the culture in those two particular churches served by that priest and about how the local culture in those specific places holds sway, than it is even about that North-South divide. I know that because I know Episcopal Churches in New York City. I know Episcopal Churches where the sermon can’t be longer than ten minutes. I know Episcopal Churches in New York City where the sermon probably needs to be thirty minutes. (Slight pause.)
As I indicated earlier, this last week Saint Valentine’s Day was celebrated— cupids, flowers, candy, fancy dinners. [1] That’s the way it’s done, is it not? That’s the way we celebrate Saint Valentine’s Day, right? (Slight pause.)
Say what? Saint Valentine was a 3rd-century Roman priest, a bishop who ministered to persecuted Christians, a servant of God martyred for this work. For the life of me I cannot find the connection with Saint Valentine, a martyred priest and bishop and the thing we do with cupids, flowers, candy, fancy dinners. (Slight pause.) Can you say ‘it’s the culture?’
The way Saint Valentine’s day is celebrated is certainly not about the person whose name is fixed on that date. This, therefore, does need to be noticed: the culture finds excuses and fixates on specific ways of doing something just because the culture wants to do it that way, even when doing it the way the culture wants to do it makes absolutely no sense.
So, what should we call this? I’ve got it! Fake news— let’s call it fake news. (Slight pause.) No— I think someone has used that label already— probably not a good idea. (Slight pause.)
These words are found in the Gospel of Luke: “...the whole crowd was trying to touch Jesus for power came out of the Rabbi healing them all. Then Jesus looked at the disciples and said:...” (Long pause.)
I think most of you know since we publish this fact in our Newsletter, there is a Revised Common Lectionary, a list of recommended readings for each Sunday in the Liturgical Year. Among the readings this week three of the four assigned readings contain beatitudes. But what is a beatitude?
In the reading from Jeremiah we heard the Prophet say, “Blessed are those who / put their trust in Yahweh, God, / whose hope is with Yahweh, God.” In the Luke reading we heard Jesus insist, “You who are poor are blessed, / for the reign of God is yours.”
However and equally we heard Jeremiah say, “The human heart is devious / more deceitful / than anything else; / it is desperately sick—...” And then Jesus says, “...woe to you who are rich, / for you are now receiving / your consolation, your comfort / in full.”
This should be abundantly clear: a beatitude is not simply a declaration of something good or special or nice. And that is precisely why I started my comments with these specific words from Sermon on the Plain: “Then Jesus looked at the disciples and said:...” then I stopped. (Long pause.)
Question: what is Jesus doing here? What was Jeremiah doing? To what and to where are Jeremiah and Jesus trying to point us? What are we being told when we hear beatitudes? The evidence suggests it’s not simply about good, special or nice. (Slight pause.)
Theologian Richard Rhor claims the message God has for us is transformative because God is transformative. Therefore, in order to be faithful we need to strive to be transformed ourselves. [2]
Certainly one of our issues with God Who is transformative, one of the reasons we grapple to understand God as transformative, this God Who invites us to be transformed, is we get tied up in the messages with which our culture surrounds us. These cultural messages tend to be aimed at maintaining the status quo, making things just like they used to be in some imaginary time past when thing were perfect. I’m historian. I’m still looking for that time when things were perfect. (Slight pause.)
Coming back to the culture and to be clear, when I use the word ‘culture’ it applies to a multitude of levels. It applies to global culture, national culture, regional culture, local culture. I highlighted the Valentine’s celebration and the sermons in two Episcopal Churches as examples because one is national and one is quite local.
The New York Times recently published an article by a Dutch national who was here for graduate studies. She wrote about the Valentine’s Day festivities of cupids, flowers, candy, fancy dinners and her lack of understanding these.
Her spouse, an Israeli also here for graduate studies, for whom these rituals also seemed alien, was pressured by friends into bring her flowers and chocolate. He did. She was horrified.
She threatened divorce if he ever again brought overpriced roses or chocolates to her in mid-February. He was happy about that since all he wanted to do in mid-February was to concentrate on graduate work, study, research.
In the article her comments said these rituals try to perpetuate a lethal combination of Hollywood sentimentality and Victorian romanticism. She objected to the tyranny of perfect romance.
She prefers a flawed relationship over the fairy tale love of candlelight dinners, red roses, walks on the beach. To her imperfect love seems preferable to that. [3]
I am reminded lyricist Ira Gershwin, someone well known for writing love songs, wrote these words to a tune by his brother George in all the way back in 1931. It was meant to illustrate this dichotomy between romanticism and the reality of relationship by employing irony.
(Quote:) “Blah, blah, blah, blah— moon / Blah, blah, blah— above / Blah, blah, blah, blah— croon / Blah, blah, blah— love. / Tra la, la, la; tra la, la, la, la— merry month of May / Tra la, la, la; tra la, la, la, la— 'neath a cloud of grey.” [4] There are another couple of choruses but you get the idea and I don’t meant to bore you. (Slight pause.)
As to the culture of the local church, the story of the local differences between sermon length, it speaks about the need for the local church to see beyond its own walls. I think we are not terrible at that. But we can always be better on many, many levels.
This brings me back to the reflections of Richard Rhor on God, the God Who we Christians claim is transformative, the God Who we Christians claim can help us transform. Indeed, I want to suggest any beatitude we find in Scripture is not there to point to something good, special or nice.
That should be evident precisely because of the dichotomies heard in the beatitudes found in both Jeremiah and in the Sermon on the Plain. The place to which beatitudes point is in no way the kind of world our culture sees. The place to which beatitudes point is not the kind of world we see in front of us. The place to which beatitudes point is the kind of world God sees, God envisions.
And that is our challenge in a nutshell. The kind of world God sees, God envisions, is one where we put our trust and hope in Yahweh, God.
The kind of world God sees, the kind of world God envisions, is one where the hungry are fed. The kind of world God sees, the kind of world God envisions, is one where the equity, peace, justice, freedom, joy, hope, peace and love of God reigns. The question for us is can we also see, envision the kind of world which encompasses God’s vision. Your call. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
02/17/2019
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: “Those of you who know me well know I often use the word covenant. What does it mean to covenant with God? Here’s the short version: it means we commit to growth— spiritual growth, growth in understanding, growth in wisdom, growth in love. Covenant means we strive to refuse to be trapped by our human failings, trapped by our culture.”
BENEDICTION: Depart in peace for God’s promised covenant is real and is forever. And may the love of God guide us, the word of the Christ empower us and the gifts of the Spirit dwell in us, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] A the Children’s time the pastor gave out heart shaped things and asked of this showed love. These theologically astute children said “no.” God shows love and helping each other shows love.
[2] https://cac.org/personal-and-universal-2019-02-15/
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/well/family/against-romance-an-un-valentine.html?fallback=0&recId=1HDWlqe73QC4MojjT4yPF1WFJzo&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=NY&recAlloc=home-geo&geoCountry=US&blockId=home-living-vi&imp_id=66027691&action=click&module=Smarter%20Living&pgtype=Homepage
[4] https://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/b/blahblahblah.html
The song is Blah, Blah, Blah. It was in the 1931 film Delicious.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
SERMON ~ 02/10/2019 ~ “I Traditioned”
READINGS: 02/10/2019 ~ Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany, Known in Some Traditions as the Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Isaiah 6:1-8, (9-13); Psalm 138; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Luke 5:1-11.
I Traditioned
“For I, Paul, handed on to you first of all, as of first importance, what I, myself, had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that Christ was buried, and that, on the third day, Christ was raised in accordance with the Scriptures.” — 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
When I sensed a call to ordained ministry the first thing I did is I spoke with my Pastor. The first thing we did together is set up a discernment committee at my church. A discernment committee helps guide someone seeking ordination in that process and asks tough questions about what the specific sense of call might be.
Since I had not seen the inside of a classroom for 20 plus years at that point they suggested I take a class at Bangor Seminary to see how the academics went. I took survey course in the Hebrew Scriptures with Dr. Ann Johnston.
For the first paper she assigned she said we could be creative. We could, in fact, write a standard academic paper. Or we could write a play, a poem, do a painting.
The visual works would need a written explanation and written works would need plenty of footnotes. But we could do anything an artist might do.
I was a playwright. I wrote a play, a comedy, based on the story of the Burning Bush. That’s right: a comedy based on the story of the Burning Bush. Here’s an example of what was in the play.
MOSES: The bush— it burns but it is not consumed. How does that work?
GOD: Yeah.... I have my special effects people. They are very good. Someday I might let a guy named Cecil B. DeMille use them. But right now, they are my people.
The paper came back with an A+ on the top. Ann told me the A+ was because I had used what was in Scripture word for word but just added extra words to it.
I had been faithful to the Scripture, faithful to what the passage said. I had also clearly understood what the passage said. When someone did a work of art, that is what she looked for— faithfulness and understanding.
Ann also explained in writing a play I had engaged in an ancient Hebrew tradition called Midrash. That was the first time I had ever even heard the word Midrash. I wound up doing my Master’s Thesis on Midrash.
Those of you who have been here for Christmas Eve or Easter Sunday service know I usually offer a Midrash sermon, a Midrash meditation, on those feast days. The idea is to retell the story in a way which I hope helps people better understand it.
The best explanation of Midrash I have ever seen was written by Roman Catholic theologian Richard Rhor. This is some of that what Rhor stated. (Slight pause.)
Rather than seeking certain, unchanging answers, Midrash allows for many possibilities, many levels of faith-filled meaning relevant and applicable to the reader. This helps build empathy, understanding, relationship with the text.
Midrash lets a Scripture passage challenge you in a spiritual way. This allows a passage to help you change, grow, entice you to respond with questions.
Some of the questions could be ‘What does this passage ask of me?’ ‘How might this apply to my life, my family, my church, my neighborhood, my country?’
Rhor states biblical passages often proceed from historical incidents. But the real message conveyed by Scripture does not even try to communicate events with factual accuracy. The writers of Scripture are not journalists or historians. They are theologians.
Further, since before New Testament times rabbis have used the story telling called Midrash, this form called Midrash, to reflect on and communicate on at least four levels, the same levels we find in Scripture. The levels are literal meaning, deep meaning, comparative meaning, hidden meaning.
The literal does not get to the root so it is not helpful for the soul and it is the most dangerous level for and to reality. Deep meaning offers symbolic, allegoric applications. Comparative meaning compares different texts to explore new understanding.
Last, hidden meaning— hidden meaning gets at mystery. When hidden meaning is explored with the story telling of Midrash that encourages growth, learning and discourages literalism.
This is also clear. Jesus consistently ignored any exclusionary, triumphalist, punitive, texts found in the Hebrew Scriptures in favor of passages which emphasize inclusion, mercy, honesty, something Midrash does well— explore inclusion, mercy, honesty— these the reflections of theologian Richard Rhor. (Slight pause.)
And I Corinthians says: “For I, Paul, handed on to you first of all, as of first importance, what I, myself, had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that Christ was buried, and that, on the third day, Christ was raised in accordance with the Scriptures.” (Slight pause.)
Paul here refers to the Scriptures. What Scriptures? The same Scriptures Jesus read, what we today commonly call the Hebrew Scriptures. So Paul is handing on the Hebrew Scriptures.
Now, there is no adequate translation for the words we translate as “I handed on.” The closest we can come is to say “I traditioned,” which is not good English. That’s why we don’t translate it that way. However, to say “I traditioned” does make sense in a peculiar kind of way.
To illustrate what that means, here’s an example I’ve used before. We all have family traditions. But do we do things the same way our grandparents did? No. Why? We took those traditions and made them our own.
And what has Paul done with the Hebrew Scriptures? Paul has explored those writings and now understands them in a new way. That brings up something I think is often misunderstood about this passage. (Quote:) “...that Christ died... that Christ was buried... that... Christ was raised.” (Slight pause.)
What is Paul doing here? Is Paul saying this is a prophecy found in the Hebrew Scriptures? I think we often take it that way. But is that what the Apostle to the Gentiles is getting at? (Slight pause.)
First, let’s state the obvious, something noted when this passage was introduced. It is not the Gospels but the letters of Paul which are the earliest writings found in the New Testament.
The apostle here quotes an early statement of faith which pre-dates Paul’s writings. Hence, the passage may reflect some of the earliest testimony about the resurrection.
Next, we need to realize Paul’s writings say precious little about the life of Jesus. In fact, the statement of faith found in this passage is one of the few places Paul says anything about the fact that the even Christ lived.
That having been said, Paul takes what the Hebrew Scriptures say about the Messiah— not what is said about Jesus but what is said about the Messiah— Paul takes what the Hebrew Scriptures say about the Messiah and expounds on that. And exactly what is said about the Messiah?
Promises are made about the Messiah. Do note, these are not prophecies about the Messiah. These are promises.
Paul then sees the promises about the Messiah and the reality of what happened to Jesus as one. Paul takes what was handed on, the promises about the Messiah, and traditions them, made them his own, brings understanding to them, passes that on.
Paul’s thinking is clearly in line with what the Hebrew Scriptures say. So Paul has done nothing radical but is simply being a good theologian. And in so doing Paul practices Midrash because Paul’s project is to explore meaning.
In that exploration Paul thereby allows, encourages growth, allows and learning. Therefore, just like Jesus, Paul does not settle for mere literalism. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest we need to make Scripture our own. We need to try understand what Scripture meant in ancient times, in the time when the Hebrew Scriptures were written, in the time when the New Testament was written.
And then we need to try to understand Scripture for today, for our time, for us. Just as Paul did and just as Paul encourages others to do, we need to make Scripture our own. (Slight pause.)
So, what is a call to ministry? Perhaps a call to ministry is about Midrash, at least in part. Perhaps a call to ministry is about making Scripture our own.
I find it interesting that we, in the Protestant tradition believe we are all called to ministry, for we say we are called to be a priesthood of all believers. And yes, we are, thereby, called to make Scripture our own.
Making Scripture our own does not break with tradition. Indeed, do you remember what Ann Johnston, my Hebrew Scriptures professor, told me about why I got an A+? It was because I had been faithful to what the Scripture said. I might add I had been faithful to what the Scripture really said.
So how can we be faithful to Scripture? We can be faithful in the same way Jesus was faithful. We can be faithful by understanding that we need to emphasize inclusion, mercy, honesty— oh, yes— love. We need to emphasize God’s love for all people. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
02/10/2019
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: “I have told this story about Ann Johnston, my Hebrew Scriptures teacher, before. Another student said to me, ‘All Ann ever wants us to do is re-write Scripture.’ ‘No,’ said I. ‘Ann wants us to be able to talk about Scripture using our own words. Unless you use your own words it won’t make any sense to others. That brings me back to the priesthood of all believers. The purpose of talking about Scripture, using your own words, is not to convert anyone. The purpose is to support one another, care for one another, share the love of God with one another. When we do that we are ministering to one another, loving one another and doing ministry which is what being among the priesthood of believers is about.”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. Let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may 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.
I Traditioned
“For I, Paul, handed on to you first of all, as of first importance, what I, myself, had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that Christ was buried, and that, on the third day, Christ was raised in accordance with the Scriptures.” — 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
When I sensed a call to ordained ministry the first thing I did is I spoke with my Pastor. The first thing we did together is set up a discernment committee at my church. A discernment committee helps guide someone seeking ordination in that process and asks tough questions about what the specific sense of call might be.
Since I had not seen the inside of a classroom for 20 plus years at that point they suggested I take a class at Bangor Seminary to see how the academics went. I took survey course in the Hebrew Scriptures with Dr. Ann Johnston.
For the first paper she assigned she said we could be creative. We could, in fact, write a standard academic paper. Or we could write a play, a poem, do a painting.
The visual works would need a written explanation and written works would need plenty of footnotes. But we could do anything an artist might do.
I was a playwright. I wrote a play, a comedy, based on the story of the Burning Bush. That’s right: a comedy based on the story of the Burning Bush. Here’s an example of what was in the play.
MOSES: The bush— it burns but it is not consumed. How does that work?
GOD: Yeah.... I have my special effects people. They are very good. Someday I might let a guy named Cecil B. DeMille use them. But right now, they are my people.
The paper came back with an A+ on the top. Ann told me the A+ was because I had used what was in Scripture word for word but just added extra words to it.
I had been faithful to the Scripture, faithful to what the passage said. I had also clearly understood what the passage said. When someone did a work of art, that is what she looked for— faithfulness and understanding.
Ann also explained in writing a play I had engaged in an ancient Hebrew tradition called Midrash. That was the first time I had ever even heard the word Midrash. I wound up doing my Master’s Thesis on Midrash.
Those of you who have been here for Christmas Eve or Easter Sunday service know I usually offer a Midrash sermon, a Midrash meditation, on those feast days. The idea is to retell the story in a way which I hope helps people better understand it.
The best explanation of Midrash I have ever seen was written by Roman Catholic theologian Richard Rhor. This is some of that what Rhor stated. (Slight pause.)
Rather than seeking certain, unchanging answers, Midrash allows for many possibilities, many levels of faith-filled meaning relevant and applicable to the reader. This helps build empathy, understanding, relationship with the text.
Midrash lets a Scripture passage challenge you in a spiritual way. This allows a passage to help you change, grow, entice you to respond with questions.
Some of the questions could be ‘What does this passage ask of me?’ ‘How might this apply to my life, my family, my church, my neighborhood, my country?’
Rhor states biblical passages often proceed from historical incidents. But the real message conveyed by Scripture does not even try to communicate events with factual accuracy. The writers of Scripture are not journalists or historians. They are theologians.
Further, since before New Testament times rabbis have used the story telling called Midrash, this form called Midrash, to reflect on and communicate on at least four levels, the same levels we find in Scripture. The levels are literal meaning, deep meaning, comparative meaning, hidden meaning.
The literal does not get to the root so it is not helpful for the soul and it is the most dangerous level for and to reality. Deep meaning offers symbolic, allegoric applications. Comparative meaning compares different texts to explore new understanding.
Last, hidden meaning— hidden meaning gets at mystery. When hidden meaning is explored with the story telling of Midrash that encourages growth, learning and discourages literalism.
This is also clear. Jesus consistently ignored any exclusionary, triumphalist, punitive, texts found in the Hebrew Scriptures in favor of passages which emphasize inclusion, mercy, honesty, something Midrash does well— explore inclusion, mercy, honesty— these the reflections of theologian Richard Rhor. (Slight pause.)
And I Corinthians says: “For I, Paul, handed on to you first of all, as of first importance, what I, myself, had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that Christ was buried, and that, on the third day, Christ was raised in accordance with the Scriptures.” (Slight pause.)
Paul here refers to the Scriptures. What Scriptures? The same Scriptures Jesus read, what we today commonly call the Hebrew Scriptures. So Paul is handing on the Hebrew Scriptures.
Now, there is no adequate translation for the words we translate as “I handed on.” The closest we can come is to say “I traditioned,” which is not good English. That’s why we don’t translate it that way. However, to say “I traditioned” does make sense in a peculiar kind of way.
To illustrate what that means, here’s an example I’ve used before. We all have family traditions. But do we do things the same way our grandparents did? No. Why? We took those traditions and made them our own.
And what has Paul done with the Hebrew Scriptures? Paul has explored those writings and now understands them in a new way. That brings up something I think is often misunderstood about this passage. (Quote:) “...that Christ died... that Christ was buried... that... Christ was raised.” (Slight pause.)
What is Paul doing here? Is Paul saying this is a prophecy found in the Hebrew Scriptures? I think we often take it that way. But is that what the Apostle to the Gentiles is getting at? (Slight pause.)
First, let’s state the obvious, something noted when this passage was introduced. It is not the Gospels but the letters of Paul which are the earliest writings found in the New Testament.
The apostle here quotes an early statement of faith which pre-dates Paul’s writings. Hence, the passage may reflect some of the earliest testimony about the resurrection.
Next, we need to realize Paul’s writings say precious little about the life of Jesus. In fact, the statement of faith found in this passage is one of the few places Paul says anything about the fact that the even Christ lived.
That having been said, Paul takes what the Hebrew Scriptures say about the Messiah— not what is said about Jesus but what is said about the Messiah— Paul takes what the Hebrew Scriptures say about the Messiah and expounds on that. And exactly what is said about the Messiah?
Promises are made about the Messiah. Do note, these are not prophecies about the Messiah. These are promises.
Paul then sees the promises about the Messiah and the reality of what happened to Jesus as one. Paul takes what was handed on, the promises about the Messiah, and traditions them, made them his own, brings understanding to them, passes that on.
Paul’s thinking is clearly in line with what the Hebrew Scriptures say. So Paul has done nothing radical but is simply being a good theologian. And in so doing Paul practices Midrash because Paul’s project is to explore meaning.
In that exploration Paul thereby allows, encourages growth, allows and learning. Therefore, just like Jesus, Paul does not settle for mere literalism. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest we need to make Scripture our own. We need to try understand what Scripture meant in ancient times, in the time when the Hebrew Scriptures were written, in the time when the New Testament was written.
And then we need to try to understand Scripture for today, for our time, for us. Just as Paul did and just as Paul encourages others to do, we need to make Scripture our own. (Slight pause.)
So, what is a call to ministry? Perhaps a call to ministry is about Midrash, at least in part. Perhaps a call to ministry is about making Scripture our own.
I find it interesting that we, in the Protestant tradition believe we are all called to ministry, for we say we are called to be a priesthood of all believers. And yes, we are, thereby, called to make Scripture our own.
Making Scripture our own does not break with tradition. Indeed, do you remember what Ann Johnston, my Hebrew Scriptures professor, told me about why I got an A+? It was because I had been faithful to what the Scripture said. I might add I had been faithful to what the Scripture really said.
So how can we be faithful to Scripture? We can be faithful in the same way Jesus was faithful. We can be faithful by understanding that we need to emphasize inclusion, mercy, honesty— oh, yes— love. We need to emphasize God’s love for all people. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
02/10/2019
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: “I have told this story about Ann Johnston, my Hebrew Scriptures teacher, before. Another student said to me, ‘All Ann ever wants us to do is re-write Scripture.’ ‘No,’ said I. ‘Ann wants us to be able to talk about Scripture using our own words. Unless you use your own words it won’t make any sense to others. That brings me back to the priesthood of all believers. The purpose of talking about Scripture, using your own words, is not to convert anyone. The purpose is to support one another, care for one another, share the love of God with one another. When we do that we are ministering to one another, loving one another and doing ministry which is what being among the priesthood of believers is about.”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. Let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may 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.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
SERMON ~ 02/03/2019 ~ “Agape”
READINGS: 02/03/2019 ~ Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Jeremiah 1:4-10; Psalm 71:1-6; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; Luke 4:21-30 ~ Schedule to Join the Church - Todd Bachman and Elizabeth Bronson Scheduled to Join Church ~ Soup and Bread Pot Luck Lunch ~ Communion Sunday.
Agape
“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” — 1 Corinthians 13:7-8a
Some of you know this. My bet is not everyone knows this. I am currently a member of the Board of the New York Conference of the United Church of Christ. No— the Board does not have a fancier name than that. It’s simply the Board.
As to my participation on Boards with the Denomination, a long time ago I traveled to Cleveland a number of times in the course of two years and participated in an ad hoc Board with the Church at the National Level. It was formed to examine a specific issue. But my current commitments in our denomination are with the Susquehanna Association and the New York Conference.
The Association commitments— three Boards, the Committee on Authorized Ministry, the General Ministry Team and the Unified Fitness Review Board— take up more time than my duties with the Conference Board. But in this coming week I will execute one of those duties with that Board.
Now that the fiscal year is completed and accounting done, as a member of the Board I shall be writing a number of thank you notes to churches who contributed funds to the Conference. Those funds used to be called O.C.W.M.— Our Churches Wider Mission. They are now called L.C.B.S.— Local Church Basic Support. We in the United Church of Christ like to abbreviate all of these names.
Either way the money represents what each church voluntarily gives to the Conference, a portion of which is passed on to the Church at the National Level. Perhaps key questions here are why should local Churches voluntarily give money to the Conference? And why would a member of the Board, as opposed to the Conference Minister for instance, be sending out those kinds of missives? (Slight pause.)
For a moment let me take you back to what happened at my first formal Board meeting. We were privileged to have the General Counsel of the National Church offer a two hour course in the ethical standards expected not just of church boards but of all non-profit boards.
One of the things which stuck in my brain was the discussion of a specific ethical standard. As is true of many non-profit boards, members of the Conference Board come from specific segments of a broad constituency. In this case Board members come from all our Associations across the Conference. And in my case, I am from the Susquehanna Association.
However, once on a Board the ethical standard for any non-profit but especially churches, says the origin of a constituency, that specific affiliation, is a moot point. As a Board member any individual member is now responsible to represent the whole.
In short, I am there to represent not just the Susquehanna Association, not just this church, but the whole Conference, from churches on Long Island to churches in Manhattan, to churches on the St. Lawrence Seaway, to churches in the Rochester area to churches in the Buffalo area to churches in the Jamestown area. I am there to represent churches large and to represent churches small. Again, to represent the whole is an ethical standard. (Slight pause.)
These words are found in 1 Corinthians: “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” (Slight pause.)
As was mentioned when this reading was introduced, there are six words in Greek for love. We speakers of English are confined to one word.
Here is the list of those Greek words with a brief explanation of each. Eros, a physical expression of love; Philia, friendship sometimes referred to as brotherly or sisterly love; Ludus, playful love; Pragma, longstanding love; Philautia, love of self and to be clear we are not talking about a positive reference as refers to vanity as opposed to a protective love of self.
Last we have Agape. Agape is unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love.
It is fairly well known that, in this passage, Paul addresses Agape. I would also say when we gather around the table as we did this morning, we are directly addressing Agape love, unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love.
And yes, as a community we should be aware we need to have a special affinity for one another. As a community we need to be aware we are bonded in and by Agape love for one another.
But the very meaning of the word should also instruct us about the greater impact, the effect of Agape love. Agape love should not and does not end in this place with those gathered around the table. Agape love should not and does not end with those here gathered.
The very meaning of the word should instruct us that, having bonded here in this place at this time around that table, this unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love needs to move beyond this place, this time, that table. [The pastor has pointed to the Communion table in this worship space.] Indeed, the very symbol of the table, the sharing of a meal, speaks to the human universality of Paul’s intent. The tactile experience of the cup and the bread, the reality of that, should speak to us about the meaning of Agape love. (Slight pause.)
Earlier in this service it was wonderful to receive new members into our Congregation. In the ceremony we pray that (quote:), “Together may we live in the Spirit, binding one another up in love, sharing in the life and worship of the church... and serving the world....”— the world. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to my service in the Susquehanna Association and the New York Conference. You may not be aware of this. In terms of our polity each member of this church is a member of the Susquehanna Association. Each member of this church is a member of the New York Conference.
In fact, the positions I hold on these boards are not meant solely for members of the clergy. They all have members of the laity serving on them. The last member of the laity to serve on the New York Conference Board was the late Ron Herrett. And I think I’m not wrong about this for those of you who remember Don Burr I believe he also served on the New York Conference Board.
So, your Agape love, your unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love does not end with this church. Agape love, your unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love extends— it extends to our Conference, our Association. Indeed, our collective responsibility— all of us, not just the pastor— our collective responsibility to the Association and to the Conference is an outgrowth of the universality of Agape love.
But there is more. Agape love invites us to see all humanity— not just Christians, all humanity— with the eyes of another of those Greek words for love— Philia, love for all our brothers and sisters. In fact, Philia goes beyond love for brothers and sisters. Philia is about love for all God’s creation. (Slight pause.)
I need to add one thing. We Christians have yet another name for Agape. We call it covenant love. And covenant love is in many ways demanding.
What covenant love demands of us is growth. Covenant love demands learning. Covenant love demands that we see new horizons constantly, that we remember the past but leave it in the past. Perhaps most importantly covenant love demands that we hold one another’s humanity and well being as precious. (Slight pause.)
We all know and can probably recite by heart Paul’s words. (Quote:) “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” The challenge for us is can we meet that standard? Amen.
02/03/2019
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “You may have heard it said we need faith, hope and charity and the Bible tells us that. But the Bible does not tell us that. Agape translates into Latin as Caritas. Caritas was then translated into the Anglo-Saxon language tree as charity. But when that translation happened it still meant Agape, unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love. It did not mean charity, giving something to someone in need. And as I may have just illustrated Paul’s challenge to us in using the word Agape is much more demanding than charity.”
BENEDICTION: Let us, above all, surround ourselves with the perfect love of God, a love which binds everything together in harmony. And 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.
Agape
“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” — 1 Corinthians 13:7-8a
Some of you know this. My bet is not everyone knows this. I am currently a member of the Board of the New York Conference of the United Church of Christ. No— the Board does not have a fancier name than that. It’s simply the Board.
As to my participation on Boards with the Denomination, a long time ago I traveled to Cleveland a number of times in the course of two years and participated in an ad hoc Board with the Church at the National Level. It was formed to examine a specific issue. But my current commitments in our denomination are with the Susquehanna Association and the New York Conference.
The Association commitments— three Boards, the Committee on Authorized Ministry, the General Ministry Team and the Unified Fitness Review Board— take up more time than my duties with the Conference Board. But in this coming week I will execute one of those duties with that Board.
Now that the fiscal year is completed and accounting done, as a member of the Board I shall be writing a number of thank you notes to churches who contributed funds to the Conference. Those funds used to be called O.C.W.M.— Our Churches Wider Mission. They are now called L.C.B.S.— Local Church Basic Support. We in the United Church of Christ like to abbreviate all of these names.
Either way the money represents what each church voluntarily gives to the Conference, a portion of which is passed on to the Church at the National Level. Perhaps key questions here are why should local Churches voluntarily give money to the Conference? And why would a member of the Board, as opposed to the Conference Minister for instance, be sending out those kinds of missives? (Slight pause.)
For a moment let me take you back to what happened at my first formal Board meeting. We were privileged to have the General Counsel of the National Church offer a two hour course in the ethical standards expected not just of church boards but of all non-profit boards.
One of the things which stuck in my brain was the discussion of a specific ethical standard. As is true of many non-profit boards, members of the Conference Board come from specific segments of a broad constituency. In this case Board members come from all our Associations across the Conference. And in my case, I am from the Susquehanna Association.
However, once on a Board the ethical standard for any non-profit but especially churches, says the origin of a constituency, that specific affiliation, is a moot point. As a Board member any individual member is now responsible to represent the whole.
In short, I am there to represent not just the Susquehanna Association, not just this church, but the whole Conference, from churches on Long Island to churches in Manhattan, to churches on the St. Lawrence Seaway, to churches in the Rochester area to churches in the Buffalo area to churches in the Jamestown area. I am there to represent churches large and to represent churches small. Again, to represent the whole is an ethical standard. (Slight pause.)
These words are found in 1 Corinthians: “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” (Slight pause.)
As was mentioned when this reading was introduced, there are six words in Greek for love. We speakers of English are confined to one word.
Here is the list of those Greek words with a brief explanation of each. Eros, a physical expression of love; Philia, friendship sometimes referred to as brotherly or sisterly love; Ludus, playful love; Pragma, longstanding love; Philautia, love of self and to be clear we are not talking about a positive reference as refers to vanity as opposed to a protective love of self.
Last we have Agape. Agape is unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love.
It is fairly well known that, in this passage, Paul addresses Agape. I would also say when we gather around the table as we did this morning, we are directly addressing Agape love, unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love.
And yes, as a community we should be aware we need to have a special affinity for one another. As a community we need to be aware we are bonded in and by Agape love for one another.
But the very meaning of the word should also instruct us about the greater impact, the effect of Agape love. Agape love should not and does not end in this place with those gathered around the table. Agape love should not and does not end with those here gathered.
The very meaning of the word should instruct us that, having bonded here in this place at this time around that table, this unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love needs to move beyond this place, this time, that table. [The pastor has pointed to the Communion table in this worship space.] Indeed, the very symbol of the table, the sharing of a meal, speaks to the human universality of Paul’s intent. The tactile experience of the cup and the bread, the reality of that, should speak to us about the meaning of Agape love. (Slight pause.)
Earlier in this service it was wonderful to receive new members into our Congregation. In the ceremony we pray that (quote:), “Together may we live in the Spirit, binding one another up in love, sharing in the life and worship of the church... and serving the world....”— the world. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to my service in the Susquehanna Association and the New York Conference. You may not be aware of this. In terms of our polity each member of this church is a member of the Susquehanna Association. Each member of this church is a member of the New York Conference.
In fact, the positions I hold on these boards are not meant solely for members of the clergy. They all have members of the laity serving on them. The last member of the laity to serve on the New York Conference Board was the late Ron Herrett. And I think I’m not wrong about this for those of you who remember Don Burr I believe he also served on the New York Conference Board.
So, your Agape love, your unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love does not end with this church. Agape love, your unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love extends— it extends to our Conference, our Association. Indeed, our collective responsibility— all of us, not just the pastor— our collective responsibility to the Association and to the Conference is an outgrowth of the universality of Agape love.
But there is more. Agape love invites us to see all humanity— not just Christians, all humanity— with the eyes of another of those Greek words for love— Philia, love for all our brothers and sisters. In fact, Philia goes beyond love for brothers and sisters. Philia is about love for all God’s creation. (Slight pause.)
I need to add one thing. We Christians have yet another name for Agape. We call it covenant love. And covenant love is in many ways demanding.
What covenant love demands of us is growth. Covenant love demands learning. Covenant love demands that we see new horizons constantly, that we remember the past but leave it in the past. Perhaps most importantly covenant love demands that we hold one another’s humanity and well being as precious. (Slight pause.)
We all know and can probably recite by heart Paul’s words. (Quote:) “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” The challenge for us is can we meet that standard? Amen.
02/03/2019
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “You may have heard it said we need faith, hope and charity and the Bible tells us that. But the Bible does not tell us that. Agape translates into Latin as Caritas. Caritas was then translated into the Anglo-Saxon language tree as charity. But when that translation happened it still meant Agape, unconditional, altruistic, universal, inclusive love. It did not mean charity, giving something to someone in need. And as I may have just illustrated Paul’s challenge to us in using the word Agape is much more demanding than charity.”
BENEDICTION: Let us, above all, surround ourselves with the perfect love of God, a love which binds everything together in harmony. And 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)