SERMON ~ 03/18/2012 ~ By Grace

03/18/2012 ~ Fourth Sunday in Lent ~ Numbers 21:4-9; Psalm 107:1-3, 17-22; Ephesians 2:1-10; John 3:14-21.

By Grace

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what God has made us, God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus to do the good things, which God prepared for us to do beforehand, from the beginning, to be our way of life.” — Ephesians 2: 8-9.

Friday morning those of us in the theology business woke to news of a change in personnel, a change in staffing— so to speak. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury— the position fondly referred to by clerics as ABC— has decided to step down at the end of this year.

The popular press insisted the Archbishop was retiring. He could have, after all, stayed on at least another eight years before a mandatory age limit would catch up with him. Williams would have nothing of that retirement claptrap.

He insisted he’s simply trading one position for another, has decided to do something different, not retire. He will become reacquainted and more involved with academia. He will be a college professor.

Williams is no stranger to that arena. He has two doctorates and was a full professor by the age of 36, very young to achieve that rank in the British education system.

His new post will be Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. There is no real equivalent to that position in American colleges but, besides teaching, the duties include being responsible for the running of the College and being the chair at meetings of the College Council. So, it is somewhat but not quite like being a college president.

In an interview the Archbishop, a well known theologian and teacher before he took on the duties of leadership for the Anglican Communion, offered a number of justifications for moving on. Among them are the end of this year will mark 10 years in the post of Archbishop and just over 20 as a bishop.

He genuinely feels after 10 years it’s proper to pray and to reflect on and to review options. In doing so he realized there are a number of initiatives he started as Archbishop which will have run their course by year’s end.

Additionally, every 10 years whoever is Archbishop of Canterbury convenes a Lambeth Conference, a gathering of Bishops in the Anglican Communion. The next conference is on the docket is for 2018, the year he would be required to retire. Further, he knows from experience that these conferences take five years to plan. Hence, if he leaves the post now, the person who follows will have five years to prepare.

Having offered a number of reasons for this decision, Williams said the bottom line is not just that he felt it’s time to move on. It’s that if he does so now, he will be acting in a very professional manner. He will be honoring the institution he serves and giving a successor the time to take the reins of the job and be successful. (Slight pause.)

And we hear these words in Ephesians: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what God has made us, God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus to do the good things, which God prepared for us to do beforehand, from the beginning, to be our way of life.” (Slight pause.)

I confess clergy often speak of being called to our profession, to being called to do what we do— in effect being called by God to be pastors... or Archbishops. I have never been particularly comfortable with this terminology. After all, the term is used nearly exclusively for pastors. Therefore, it’s always seemed way too limiting to me.

It is beyond me why, for instance, we cannot say everyone is in some way called. We are called be nurses, bankers, assembly line workers. I believe people are called to all kinds of work.

To be clear, we may not like what we are doing or what we wind up doing. We may feel we need to get out of what we’re doing.

In fact, in cases where we have a low comfort level with a job, my bet is we are not called. And, if we are working at something to which we not called, it’s likely we will do our best to get out of it.

But, to be realistic, it may take time to extricate ourselves from what might be termed for lack of a better phrase ‘simply work’— not something that we feel comfortable doing but something which keeps bread on the table. In short, doing something that is simply work is clearly not a calling but it can be a necessity. And what we do to survive, for most of us, is not who we are, really.

Indeed, the famous composer Richard Rodgers, who wrote some of the most memorable music of the Twentieth Century, said the mistake people most often made when they met him was to confuse who he was as a person with his music, his work. Work is a part of us, but we should never let it define who we are. Work is what we do, not who we are. (Slight pause.)

Of all the things God does for us, the fact that God showers grace upon us is paramount. We, all of us and each of us, possess an abundance of grace, an abundance of God given talents. With the movement back to academia, Archbishop Williams is about to embark on putting a set of talents he had not been fully using back into play.

Indeed, if you think your talents might be underutilized in your current work, the Archbishop would sympathize. Williams expressed some of those frustrations with the position of Archbishop. He sees himself as a teacher and he did not see himself as an administrator or diplomat, the prime talents needed by an Archbishop of Canterbury, although he did have the talent to be an administrator, to be a diplomat. He did these things well.

And, despite having two doctorates, Rowan seems to be a down to earth fellow— have you seen his picture?— all bushy beard and eyebrows about two inches in length— and I suspect the clerical office he filled had way to much pomp and circumstance for him. As a comparison and on a personal note, when people introduce me as the Rev. Joe Connolly, I stop them short and say, “No, no. I’m irreverent Joe Connolly.” (Slight pause.)

Well, all that brings me back to who we are. (Slight pause.) By now, this quote from Marianne Williamson has been repeated so often it’s become cliché. But that does not mean it fails to resonate.

(Quote:) “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.”

“Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do.”

“We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others” (unquote).

And that, my friends, brings us back to the quote from Ephesians. All the talents we have— and they are a myriad— are gifts from God. We are children of God. We are (to quote Ephesians quite exactly): “God’s... work... of... art...” (Slight pause.)

Today we accepted the all church offering known as One Great Hour of Sharing. That offering, among all those we accept, should be a reminder to us that we are not alone. It should a reminder to us that we are simply one of all God’s children. It should a reminder to us that God showers grace on everyone.

It should a reminder to us that God calls us— there’s that word again– calls us— to seek justice, to work for the freedom of all God’s children. And it should be a reminder to us that God calls us to be one, to live in unity, to live in harmony and to love. (Slight pause.)

Yes, God surrounds us with grace. God surrounds us with love. And God calls each of us to walk in the will of God, to love one another as we remember each of us is a child of God, filled with grace. Amen.

03/18/2012
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: “To paraphrase what I said earlier: ‘What scares you more— the voice within us that speaks of our shortcomings, or of our true power? And by “true power” I mean our identity beyond mere egotism— power which comes from God.’”

BENEDICTION: There is but one message in Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness, there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the Creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit, ever present, keep our hearts and minds in God’s knowledge and care this day and forever more. Amen.

SERMON ~ 03/11/2012 ~ Signs, Miracles and Wisdom

03/11/2012 ~ Third Sunday in Lent ~ Exodus 20:1-17; Psalm 19; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; John 2:13-22 ~ Dedication of the Quilts from the Chenango Piecemakers Quilt Guild for Use at the Roots and Wings Domestic Violence Program and for Newborns at Chenango Memorial Hospital.

Signs, Miracles and Wisdom

“Those who are Jewish demand signs, call for miracles; Greeks look for wisdom.” — 1 Corinthians 1:22.

I think we, in the church, can get a little possessive, a little unbending when it comes to our own territory. I think about that possessiveness every time I hear someone use the word “unchurched.”

Unchurched— I don’t even know what that word means. Unless it means someone else worshiping in a way which does not have the approval of the individual, of the person, using the word “unchurched.” In short, it often it sounds as if it is being used as a pejorative, a put down.

Well, I suppose I have a fairly broad definition of church. And to my way of thinking, I’m satisfied to let someone choose their own way of being church.

There is, however, something else to be considered here. And that actually comes back to the definition not of ‘unchurched’ but of ‘church.’ What is church? Perhaps the secret is in how I just put it: being church— not a noun— not a naming but a verb, an action word.

You see, church is not something which is. But it is something you do. And, rumor to the contrary, church is not something you do alone. Hence, church, by definition, means community.

And church is not just a community of people you like or a community of people who are just like you, although that may, in fact, be both why and how a church initially gathers. If truth be told, that’s how the early church, the New Testament Church, gathered. So being church means being community.

Now, we do need to turn to theology, the study of our understanding of God, and away from the sociology, in this case the study of how people gather. Community, in the theological sense, means there are all kinds of people, in all shapes and all sizes and all ages and all persuasions and all ethnicities who gather together to form church, to be church.

And among those in the gathering you, individually, might like some of the people and might not like others. And you might be like some of the people and you might not be like others.

Which, to be blunt, means someone might claim that going off in the woods to commune with nature is church. Indeed, that’s a definition of church I’ll bet we’ve all heard. But it is not church.

Why? Going off into the woods does not even meet the simplest definition of church, that of community, so it is not an accurate description of church.

Or rather, that definition of church can only be accurate if, as you go into the woods, you bring a whole lot of people with you, some of whom you like and some of whom you do not like, some who are like you and some who are not like you and you are all somehow communing with nature, together. (Slight pause.) You think you can do that? Go off in the woods with a whole group of people? That’s a really big camp, isn’t it? (Slight pause.)

And these words are found in the work known as first Corinthians: “Those who are Jewish demand signs, call for miracles; Greeks look for wisdom.” (Slight pause.)

Perhaps the real question which needs to be asked here is what are true signs? What are true miracles? What is true wisdom? And, indeed, another question which should be central for us is what does it mean to be in community? (Slight pause.)

The one central and communal thing we do in the church, in theory at least, is worship. And, rumors to the contrary, worship is not and has never been something between the individual and God. That definition is a modern heresy.

Why? Worship can be logically described as private, but it can never be logically described personal. It is always communal.

So, perhaps that begs yet another question. What is our understanding of God, our communal understanding of God? What does the presence of God in our lives mean? Is it possible that, just like the Greeks, we have some pre-conceived notions about how God should behave and enjoy imposing that on others.

After all, just look around, just look at the headlines in the newspapers and you can see people from many walks of life using the words of Jesus to draw neat lines when it comes to what they think God looks like and what they think God wants. For instance, it is common for people to proclaim ‘if you are not for us, or with us, you are against us,’ thus misusing Matthew 12:30.’

That usage is nothing more than an attempt to demonize people, to split people into groups of ‘us and them,’ ‘clean and unclean,’ ‘acceptable and unacceptable.’ When this is done people are simply attempting to condemn other people who are not like them or do not think like them. This is a way of approaching life which rejects the possibility of equity, reject the notion that God might seek equity among people.

Further and again, just look at those headlines today and what do you see? And any questioning which probes an underlying belief is condemned, deemed as not permissible. This questioning is condemned, even though it seems evident that underlying beliefs often lead to specific behaviors, behaviors which run counter to the notion of equity. And, needless to say, it should be no surprise if those specific behaviors on the part of public people should somehow become specific policies— policies not just imposed on some people but imposed on all people. (Slight pause.)

Well, here’s an observation. It seems to me as if people are insisting— perhaps because of trying to impose things on others— humility might not be a vital and valid and vibrant part of true and deep faith. (Slight pause.) Friends, since when did humility stop being a vital and valid and vibrant part of Christianity?

The way I see it, a Christian understanding of who we are as a people of God says we are not to be swaggering or brash. A Christian understanding about who we are as a people of God says we are but one of many peoples in this world and, as such, are not sanctioned by God to be a sole voice of authority.

A Christian understanding about who we are as a people of God says we are not just to tolerate to our neighbors. We are to love our neighbors. A Christian understanding about who we are as a people of God says we are to love those who are not like us. A Christian understanding about who we are as a people of God, therefore, says humility needs to be a integral part of faith. (Slight pause.)

For a moment let come back to that definition of church. This is what the Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, one Archbishop of Canterbury says— a definition of church: “No one can be written off; no group, no nation, no minority can just be a scapegoat to resolve our fears and uncertainties. We cannot assume that any human face we see has no divine secret to disclose: this includes those who are culturally or religiously strange to us, these people who so often don’t count in the world’s terms....” (Unquote) [Pause].

In a couple moments we will practice being church. How? We will dedicate the quilts made by the Chenango Picemakers, quilts to be distributed both to newborns the Domestic Violence program. And how is that being church?

It is being church not just because it is a symbol of our community. It is being church because it is a symbol of the greater community. It is inclusive. And that, you see, that is church: being community for everyone. Amen.

03/11/2012
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’d like to come back to what I said in the sermon about going off into the woods and calling that church, since I’ve labeled it as ‘not church’ but I did not elaborate. My bet is the people who call ‘being in the woods alone’ church are not actually ‘unchurched.’ Their church might be going to sporting events or concerts or movies, places where you mingle with people, where you do have community. But, again, church is never done alone. (The pastor holds up a quilt which was among those dedicated at the time of prayer.) Which makes this church.”

BENEDICTION: This is the message of Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness, there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the Creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and care of God this day and forever more. Amen.

03/04/2012 ~ SERMON ~ Explaining the Impossible

03/04/2012 ~ Second Sunday in Lent ~ Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16; Psalm 22:23-31; Romans 4:13-25; Mark 8:31-38 or Mark 9:2-9 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Used Lent Communion Service Adapted from the Iona Community.

Explaining the Impossible

“Then Avraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘To a man who is a hundred years old can children be born? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” — Genesis 17:17.

They Might Be Giants is the title of a fairly obscure film released in 1971. Despite its obscurity, it had some very impressive people connected with it. James Goldman, best know as the writer of A Lion in Winter wrote the screenplay. Lion won Katharine Hepburn her third Best Actress Academy Award— three out of four.

Other people connected with They Might Be Giants included Joanne Woodward, the winner of an Academy Award for The Three Faces of Eve and George C. Scott, who infamously refused two Academy Award nominations, once for The Hustler and once for Patton. Needless to say, having refused the nominations, Scott never won an Academy Award.

The plot of the Giants film runs something like this: Justin Playfair, the part played by Scott, is a millionaire who seems to retreat into a fantasy life after the death of his wife. He imagines himself to be the legendary but fictional detective Sherlock Holmes.

He dresses the part, complete with a deerstalker hat and pipe. He acts the part by playing the violin and spending days at a time in a home-made criminal laboratory. Last, he seems to be constantly paranoid about plots he thinks are being hatched by an arch-enemy, a person he believes to be one Professor Moriarty, but is actually his brother.

Justin’s real brother, worried about Justin’s mental state, has the pseudo-Sherlock placed under observation in a mental institution and tries to get power of attorney. So, the aforementioned paranoia does not seem very misplaced.

A psychiatrist, the part played by Joanne Woodward, becomes fascinated by this case. Her name? Why, of course, her name is Dr. Watson. Get it? Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson? O.K. we’re on the same page there.

Dr. Watson has Justin released because he demonstrates a knack for deduction, just like Holmes. After all, he can’t really be crazy if he can do that, can he?

Well, I am sure you can figure out what happens next: Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes begin a search for Professor Moriarty. Together, they follow all manner of bizarre and (to Watson) unintelligible clues. Needless to say, the two grow closer and more fond of each other in the process. (Slight pause.)

Is the delusional Holmes character really crazy? I don’t think so. You see, there is one scene where the pseudo-detective explains exactly why he is sane and that scene also explains the title of the film. The character played by Scott offers this explanation which makes a reference to a famous episode in the novel Don Quixote.

The delusional knight, Quixote, tries to fight a windmill, thinking windmills are really giants. Windmills are, of course, not really giants. The old knight loses his fight to a windmill when one of the sails, one of those arms, swoops down and knocks Don Quixote to the ground.

The mistake the Don made, says the Holmes character, is to believe windmills are giants. That, insists the detective, is clearly delusional.

You need to understand, he says, it’s not that the windmills are giants. It’s that the windmills might be giants. Hence, the title of the film— They Might Be Giants— a film about someone who acts like Sherlock Holmes, who seems delusional but probably is not, and his psychiatrist, Dr. Watson. (Slight pause.)

And these words are found in the work know as Genesis: “Then Avraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘To a man who is a hundred years old can children be born? Can Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’” (Slight pause.)

I think those of us who have lived and live in the late Twentieth and Early Twenty-first Centuries have a tendency to try to explain things. That’s not a bad thing. Explanations are often both good and profitable.

But then, when we come across things which seem to defy explanation, which seem impossible, we still do that. We try to explain them. We try to explain away the impossible. And I think we try to do that especially when it comes to Scripture.

Let me offer an example. I have a friend, a true scholar, who insists Avraham is a hundred years old and Sarah is ninety years old and they conceive a child. But then he explains this impossibility away in the next breath.

It means what it says, he continues, except in that era and in that place, each year there were two harvests. So, given the calculation recorded in the passage, the counting is determined by agricultural cycles, not by calendar years. Therefore, they count two years for every one calendar year.

This math, obviously, makes Avraham 50 and Sarah 45 at the time of the story. And while that is still fairly old to have children, it is not totally impossible. So, the impossible gets logically explained away.

I take issue with the premise that says count one year as two. Why? It ignores the idea that the writer of this story knew exactly how it was being told, that the writer of this story knew the details being offered were an impossibility.

In short, it explains away the impossible when the impossibility of the story may be the very point the teller of the tale is trying to make. This explanation also makes a very large and, I think, very invalid presumption. It presumes both the writer of the story and those who first heard the story did not understand the literary value, all the shades of meanings and all the possibilities, that convey in this story about Avraham and Sarah in terms of the impossible might present.

So, suppose we try to refrain from doing that. Suppose we try to refrain from simply explaining away the impossible. The way I see it, that leaves two options.

First, take the story in a literal way. The story happened exactly the way it says it happened. Avraham and Sarah were old, they had a child and, if you continue to follow the rest of the story as it unfolds, despite the fact that they were already old, they lived quite a long time after that. Maybe.

The second option? The age factor is here in this story on purpose. And the impossibility of the age factor is meant to tell us something that has nothing what-so-ever to do with age. I think this is the case on several counts.

As was mentioned when the reading was introduced, this story is not about the miracle of theophany, not a story about an experience of the real presence of God. Even though the story does tell us about the experience of the real presence of God, I don’t think this aspect of the story is central.

Further, I don’t think this story is about the miracle of two people conceiving a child well beyond the age at which that’s normal. So, even though the story does tell us about the miracle of two people beyond child bearing years having a child, that’s not central.

So, what is this story about? Again, this is a story about the covenant of God with humanity. In fact, what is the only miracle being addressed here? The real and only miracle here is that God insists on being in covenant with humanity, insists on being in covenant with us. (Slight pause.)

We, in the early Twenty-first Century, can be over-analytical in our thinking. We try to explain things away.

Indeed, that’s what those on the theological right do. They do it by insisting the stories in Scripture are to be taken literally. Insisting what we find in Scripture be taken in a literal sense is just another way of explaining the stories we find away.

We try to do that even though the the real meat and the real meaning of many of these stories is not about what happened. It’s about message of covenant.

So, just like the character George C. Scott played, we need to be at least a little wary of pinning things down. We need to be wary of seeing giants and presuming them to be real when the truth might be a little more subtle than that. (Slight pause.)

This morning we celebrated the Sacrament of Table. Some insist the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ. Some say this is simply a remembrance. But I think a more fluid understanding, one which says God is present to us here and now and we are empowered to be present to one another as the sacrament is celebrated is both more paradoxical and more subtle. And maybe even more satisfying.

So, in the end, the message we find in Scripture is all of these: subtle and simple, a paradox and direct. And, yes— satisfying. That message? God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us. Amen.

03/04/2012
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: “It is sometimes said we are surrounded by Angels. If by that you mean what the word Angel really means, I agree. You see, Angel really means ‘messenger from God.’ And we get messages from God in many ways: subtle and simple, a paradox and direct. But the messages come at us from messengers more often and in more ways than we think. And the one message God is always sending is this: covenant.”

BENEDICTION: Do not be ashamed to question all that denies God’s reign. The promises of God are for all. Let us trust in the promises of God. Let us understand, believe in and hold to God’s covenant. Let us depart in confidence and joy knowing that God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts. Amen.

SERMON ~ 02/26/2012 ~ The Sign of the Covenant Fulfilled

02/26/2012 ~ First Sunday in Lent ~ Genesis 9:8-17; Psalm 25:1-10; 1 Peter 3:18-22; Mark 1:9-15.

The Sign of the Covenant Fulfilled

“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God, saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the dominion of God has come near, the reign of God is at hand. Change your minds and believe this good news.’” — Mark 1:14-15.

I was recently copied in on an e-mail, at least in part because I am currently the Moderator of the Susquehanna Association. This missive was from one of our Susquehanna pastors and sent to our Conference Ministry team— the Rev. Dr. Rita Root, our Interim Conference Minister, and the two Associates, the Rev. Marian Shearer and the Rev. Freeman Palmer.

The request was that at some point during the Annual Meeting of the New York Conference, which is being held in Binghamton this year, an arrangement be made for a panel discussion on Church Governance. The reasoning (and this is a quote from the e-mail) is that several pastors in our Association have been seeking advice and guidance because their churches face challenges presented by out of date by-laws and out of date governance structures.

(As an aside, I was once told by a C.E.O. that any corporation worth its salt, rewrote its by-laws every two or three years. Good luck with that in the context of church!)

In any case, since the Annual Meeting of the Conference is in Binghamton, the geographical center of the Susquehanna Association, members of the laity in this area might attend that kind of panel discussion. Clearly the pastor who sent the e-mail is of that opinion.

Now, to be clear, I don’t know if I was copied in on that e-mail because I am the Moderator of the Susquehanna Association. Or it may be some folks know I have seen two re-writings of our by-laws here, in this church. Or perhaps it’s because some folks know that about ten years ago I was on the Committee which revised the New York Conference by-laws. Or perhaps it’s because some folks know that about two years ago I was on the Committee which revised the Susquehanna Association by-laws.

All right. I admit it. I am a by-laws junkie. (Slight pause.) And, if you believe that, there’s a little bridge property in Brooklyn I’d be happy to sell you. (Slight pause.)

What I do admit to is a knack for being able to envision how systems operate. Which is probably why I’ve had the opportunity (?)— that’s opportunity, question mark— to work on so many by-laws projects. But, if there’s one thing I know about by-laws, about constitutions, even about laws of any kind it’s this: we have the ability to make them work and we have the ability to render them ineffective.

Indeed, I once asked an Episcopal a priest about the by-laws at his Church. He said, “Joe, I’ve served five churches. I know every last one of them had by-laws. I’ve never seen any of them, not one copy. We simply ignore them, do what we’re supposed to do and we get along just fine.”

In fact, when things are running well, people often ignore by-laws. When things are not running well, there is a tendency to use by-laws as a cudgel, insist the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law be observed. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Mark: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God, saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the dominion of God has come near, the reign of God is at hand. Change your minds and believe this good news.’” (Slight pause.)

In the introduction to her recent book, Christianity After Religion, Diana Butler Bass— who addressed the Annual Meeting of the New York Conference a couple of years ago— says this (quote): “Christianity After Religion is concerned with religion and change— specifically how Christianity, especially Christianity in the United States, is changing and how people are questioning conventional patterns of faith and belief.”

“...let me be perfectly clear,” she continues. “I do not think it is wise to adapt religions to contemporary tastes willy-nilly. As the gloomy nineteenth-century Anglican Dean, William Inge, once said, ‘Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.’ I do, however,” Bass allows, “think it is exceedingly wise for faithful people to intentionally engage emerging religious questions in order to reform, renew and re-imagine ancient traditions in ways that make sense to contemporary people.”

She goes on to say ‘Most people accept that technology, politics, and social conditions change. But many also think religion will shield them from the consequences of change in these secular arenas. Others think a return to the [quote] “faith of our fathers” will slow or stop worrisome or unwanted social change.’

She says ‘Neither of these... is true. Faith can neither insulate from change nor prevent change.... Perhaps a call to return to older forms of faith may delay change— but only in the way Roman persecutions slowed the spread of Christianity or the inquisition turned back the advance of Protestantism. History teaches the “faith of our fathers” may have won some battles, but has lost many a war.’

Diana Butler Bass then asks this question: ‘Is there a better way to understand change and faith in these days when the ground seems so unsteady beneath us?’ [1] (Slight pause.) In the Genesis reading assigned for today, God says the bow is (quote): “...the sign of the covenant.”

And the writer of the Gospel called Mark labels that writing as (quote) “the good news of Jesus, the Christ.” Shortly thereafter it says Jesus proclaims the (quote) “Good News.” (Slight pause.) So why is this work called “the good news of Jesus, the Christ,” if what Jesus proclaims is the (quote) “Good News?” What is the difference? Is there any difference? (Slight pause.)

It seems to me these readings direct us back to the question posed by Diana Butler Bass (quote): ‘Is there a better way to understand change and faith in these days when the ground seems so unsteady beneath us?’ (Slight pause.)

You don’t have to take my word for this. You can see it. Structures come and go. Governments come and go. Empires come and go. The one constant we see and the one constant which can be seen is the covenant of God with humanity.

Further, in Jesus we can see the embodiment of the covenant. In Jesus we can see the compassion, the joy, the peace, the freedom, the hope, the love envisioned by God for humanity. Hence, Jesus preaches the Good News— the reality of the covenant— and Jesus embodies the Good News— compassion, joy, peace, freedom, hope, love— the reality of the covenant. (Slight pause.)

So, do we live in turbulent, tumultuous, even frightening times? Yes. We do. But no more turbulent, tumultuous or frightening than the time of Noah. And no more turbulent, tumultuous or frightening than the time of Jesus.

These times may not even be more turbulent, tumultuous or frightening than the time of our parents or grandparents or great grandparents, many of whom lived through a great depression and world wars. And yes, times change. Conditions change. Circumstances change. So, where can we and should we find solace? (Slight pause.)

We need to seek the covenant and to be in relationships of covenant, relationships to which God calls us and which God wants us to have. We need to understand that God calls our race to love God and neighbor.

So, rather than any structure, this is the place— covenant— where we must find foundation. Indeed, we need to understand that the message preached by Jesus is that the covenant of God is real and present and foundational. We need to understand that Jesus is a sign to us that the covenant of God is real and present and foundational and fulfilled. Amen.

02/26/2012
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: “You may have noticed that toward the end of the Gospel reading Jesus says (quote): ‘Change your minds and believe this good news.’ Change your minds... meaning that the covenant is not real is a common belief. Change your minds... believe that the covenant is real. Meaning do not rely in the temporal but on the eternal.”

BENEDICTION: We are children of God, beloved and blessed. Let us be renewed in this season which hold the promise of resurrection at its close. And yes, hear and believe the Good News: God reigns now. Let us depart in confidence and joy knowing that God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts. Amen.

[1] In this sequence, the first and second paragraph is a direct quote and what follows is edited. If I have not communicated what Bass intended, it is the fault of this writer, not the fault of Bass. In any case, all this is an excerpt from the book by Bass, Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening, and can be found here:

http://www.newsandpews.com/2012/02/spiritual-awakening-by-diana-butler-bass-author-of-christianity-after-religion/#.T0gGi7_qghI.facebook

SERMON ~ 02/19/2012 ~ "Listening?"

IMPORTANT NOTE: Six Words for Lent, a devotional booklet produced by members of the congregation was distributed in the course of this sermon. [1] To see the booklet and to follow along as that booklet is reviewed, you need to see it as a PDF file on line. God to this website for that file:

http://www.uccnorwichny.org/

Also note, that file can be downloaded for your individual use. However, also note, if you are trying to follow along for the sermon because this is a PDF file on line the booklet appears to be presented sideways and you will have to scan forward and backwards to see the pages in order. All of which is to say, printing out the booklet first and placing the pages in the right sequence is a good idea.

02/19/2012 ~ The Last Sunday After the Epiphany, Known in Many Traditions as Transfiguration Sunday and in others as the Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time. It is the Last Sunday before the Season of Lent; 2 Kings 2:1-12; Psalm 50:1-6; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6; Mark 9:2-9 ~ Six Words for Lent Devotional Handed Out.

Listening?

“Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them; and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This is my Beloved, my Own. Listen to this One!’” — Mark 9:7.

As has I hope been made evident, this Sunday, the last one before we enter the season of Lent, is the Feast of the Transfiguration. It is so known, in part, because each year a version of that episode is read from one of the Gospels.

This year, year “B,” it’s Mark’s turn. Last year, year ‘A,’ was Matthew and year ‘C,’ next year, will be Luke. Each of the authors has a slightly different take on the tale. Each sees it from a different perspective.

Words and images are like that. Each person has their own take. Each person sees things, hears things, in a slightly different way.

By way of proof that premise that each of us sees in different ways, let me offer a verbal picture for your mind’s eye. I ask that you close your eyes for a moment and try to imagine this: a field of wheat, just as dawn brakes, shimmering in a freshly minted sun. A slight breeze gently bends golden grain. The whole field seems to move to a single tempo as if an invisible conductor was waving a baton, now and then changing the tempos of the wind in the flowing field. (Slight pause.)

Now, my bet is each of you has conjured up a different image for those words. You see, neither images nor words are static. To reiterate: we don’t all perceive the same thing the same way.

So too, these words from Mark and the words used to describe the Transfiguration in the other Gospels help us imagine Jesus and Moses and Elijah, and imagine a voice and a cloud. But again, it’s unlikely any of us imagines it in exactly the same way.

Well, let’s do an experiment— another one— with imagination and images with the devotional booklet that was developed by Bonnie Connolly and Linda Oehme. I’m going to hand out this book and we’ll look through it together. I do ask that right now you only look at the cover which says simply Six Words for Lent. Don’t look inside. [Pause while these booklets are being distributed.]

The words and the pictures in this devotional are meant to be meditations, with pictures for each day of Lent and six words for each day of Lent. What do the words mean? What do the pictures mean? I know what they mean to me.

Or, rather, I think I know what they mean to me right now, as I look at them. Tomorrow, they might mean something else. And they might mean something else again next week. But I certainly don’t know what they might mean to you. As I said, we each see things differently.

So, since this booklet is meant to be a devotional, a meditation, what I’d like to do is go through this together, page by page. I’ll recite the words and pause at each page. What I hope to do is to try to let you meditate on each page for a moment and I invite you to ask yourself to where might these words and these images lead you, right now. (Slight pause.)

“The hands of God point upward!”

“Time to pray and give thanks.”

“Sometimes... I really feel turned upside down.”

“Does it grow up or down?”

“Closed door. Wonder what’s behind it?”

“Defying gravity: easy. Overcoming fear: hard.”

“God takes ordinary and makes extraordinary.”

“During life’s storms trust and obey.”

“God the door to infinite possibilities.”

“It’s empty, right? ...think about it.”

“Looked for answers... found new questions.”

“Everyone has coats of many colors.”

“Never alone, even on an island.”

“Raw or cooked? Outsides are deceiving.”

“Reminds me of my grandma’s lap.”

“If only the walls could talk.”

“Beautiful to see, painful to touch.”

“Symbolism: a reminder of God’s grace.”

“Gardens can be special meeting places.”

“Change is mandatory. Growth is optional.”

“Have you wandered from God’s path?”

“God clothes the flowers in the field.”

“Sometimes nature cleans our human messes.”

“At the Lord’s table give thanks.”

“God created it; please maintain it.”

“Keep your lamps trimmed and burning.”

“God is good all the time.”

“Hear: God’s word; speak God’s truth.”

“I’ll make you fishers of people.”

“This door is open to all.”

“Needles intertwined to form and to protect.”

“When life’s rocky drink Living Water.”

“Once you start hard to stop.”

“In Christ many parts, one body.”

“Family makes a house a home.”

“I need to pray every day.”

“Creation was God’s first precious gift.”

“The day’s end is often welcomed.”

“‘The Rock’ builds a strong foundation.”

“Reflection of God is in us.”

(Long pause.) So— interesting exercise. Can you, personally, conjure up an image of a transfigured Christ? And, if so, what does an image of a transfigured Christ mean to you, personally? Please note: when I ask what the image of a transfigured Christ means to you I did not ask what that image might look like. I asked what it means. (Slight pause.)

Many take the Season of Lent as a time to give something up, to do penance, even to be morose. I want to suggest that is not at all the way to approach Lent.

And I want to suggest this is why, on the Sunday right before Lent, we read the story of the Transfiguration. Not only does the story ask us to imagine what the transfigured Christ might mean to us, personally. Lent invites us to ask what the resurrected Christ might mean to us, personally.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not relegating the passion of Christ to a subcategory. When it comes to Lent, I am suggesting that the reason for the Season is the resurrection of Christ.

I am suggesting that the season of Lent, by definition, must point not to the Crucifixion of Christ but to the resurrection of Christ. You see, if Lent does not point to the resurrection of Christ, it renders the death of Christ... meaningless. (Slight pause.)

So, let’s turn to the back page of the devotional. (Slight pause as the pastor holds up the back page of that devotional.) And what does it say there? “Alleluia! Christ is risen, indeed! Alleluia!” (Slight pause.)

You see, for me, that Christ is risen is central to Christian faith. And the resurrection of Christ is the reason I keep coming back to the covenant which proclaims “Love God; love neighbor.”

Indeed, the image I hold of a risen Christ tells me the covenant is real. The image I hold of a risen Christ empowers me to love God and love neighbor. The image of a risen Christ tells me that God loves us now and throughout all eternity.

The image I hold of a resurrected Christ says loving God and loving neighbor is the standard for all people. The image I hold of a resurrected Christ tells me that God imagines a world without conflict. The image I hold of a resurrected Christ tells me God imagines a world without economic injustice. (Slight pause.)

So, let our journey together through Lent begin. Let us imagine. Let us imagine the world as God sees the world— peaceful, just. For what we are invited to imagine when we hear the words: “Alleluia! Christ is risen, indeed! Alleluia!”— is a world in which the will of God prevails, the love of God is present, the justice of God reigns. Just imagine! Amen.

02/19/2012
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: “Are the Hebrew Scriptures— the so called Old Testament— and the Christian Scriptures— the so called New Testament— connected? I need you to notice something. The words spoken from the cloud say: ‘Listen to this One!’ The words of the Shema, the Great Commandment say ‘Hear, O Israel.’ Listen. Hear. The words do not direct us to any action except listening, hence, engaging, hence imagining. It is only when we listen that we can begin to understand what to do. So, perhaps we do need to hear and to see and to imagine as God would have us hear and see and imagine.”

BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing from the words of the Prophet Isaiah in the 60th chapter (Isaiah 60:19-20): The sun shall no longer be / your light by day, / nor for brightness shall the moon / give light to you by night; / but Yahweh, God, will be your everlasting light, / and God will be your glory. Amen.

[1] Photos by Bonnie Scott Connolly. Words by Linda Oehme. Production and Layout by Cheri Willard

SERMON 2/12/12 ~ God Who Is Personal, Not Perfect

02/12/2012 ~ Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ 2 Kings 5:1-14; Psalm 30; 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; Mark 1:40-45.

God Who Is Personal, Not Perfect

“Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out a hand and touched the person with leprosy, and said, ‘I am willing. Be cleansed!’” — Mark 1:41

As you may know, once a month on Sunday I do a service of worship at Chenango Valley Home at Three in the afternoon. I will do one today. I never do the same sermon I do here. In fact, I always use a lectionary reading I did not look at for the morning service.

Why? Every once in a while, someone from the home is both here in this church for the morning service and there in the afternoon for the service at the Home.

Additionally, each month, one member of our music team— they rotate— comes with me to Chenango Valley Home to provide music. Now, if you’ve ever been at Chenango Valley Home you know the layout, but if you don’t know it, there is a room akin to a living room on the main floor. A piano available in that space and that’s where the service is held.

When Tom Rasely comes to the afternoon service (as he will today), he brings his guitar. As I am sure you also know, Tom is not only a master on the instrument and can play nearly anything on it, he also makes anything he plays sound good— or as the folks in the music business like to say— sound sweet.

Having said our musicians come over to Chenango Valley Home, I need to give a “shout out” to our parishioner, Clea Stanard, now a resident at the home. For many years she played piano for the service.

A number of local clergy do the same thing: provide a service once a month at Chenango Valley Home on Sunday afternoon. Now, I hope this does not sound like I’m bragging, but the staff at Chenango Valley Home tells me more residents attend the service I lead than the service anyone else leads.

I am well convinced our musicians being there helps the attendance level. Frankly, I am well convinced, since Bonnie comes to the service too, that helps the attendance. And she gets to listen to two sermons one Sunday a month that way. (She will probably say she listens to way more than two, but I’m, not going there right now!)

In any case, I also try to make the service— and maybe this has an effect on the attendance— I also try to make the service there feel like (pardon the expression) real church. I know— where two or three are gathered is real church. But what I try do is to bring with me some accoutrements, some trappings of a service held in our meeting house, this building.

So, besides a preacher and a musician, there is a bulletin. This is the one from today. [The pastor hold up a copy of the one which will be used today, first the front side, then the back.]

I use— as you may be able to see from where your sitting— fairly large print so all the people can follow. And I always put the full readings I am using in the bulletin. As you can also see, I also put a picture on the back. It is always a picture keyed to one of the readings. These pictures are available as a free download at the Vanderbilt Divinity School Library website, so it’s pretty easy to do.

With the picture, I also print an explanation of what the picture is about. The picture I used today is one of a stained glass window. The glass is at the Star of the Sea Painted Church in Kalaupapa, Hawaii. It depicts Father Damien deVeuster (who is commonly know just as Father Damien) and Mother Marianne Cope. Both served the colony of lepers on the island.

Hansen’s disease is the proper term for leprosy. It is believed to have spread to Hawaii from China in the 1840s. It spread rapidly and a cure was unknown at that time. Hence, this precipitated the urgent need for complete and total isolation of those who contracted the disease.

Kalaupapa is surrounded on three sides by the Pacific ocean and cut off from the rest of the island on the fourth side by 1600-foot cliffs. In 1866, the first leprosy victims were shipped there. The colony existed for 7 years before Damien arrived. At that point, this site was void of all amenities. There were no buildings, no shelters. No potable water was available.

When Damien arrived he did more than simply be a minister of faith. He built homes, churches, wells, coffins. He arranged for medical services and funding from Honolulu. In short, he did what was needed. Having contracted the disease, Damien died in 1889.

Mother Marianne, the other person pictured in the window, was the Superior General at St. Joseph’s Hospital, in Syracuse, from 1870 to 1877. It was, believe it or not, the first public hospital in Syracuse. In 1883, after a time as head of her order, Marianne left for missionary work in the Hawaiian Islands.

There she became involved with treating those who had leprosy. But she did not get to Kalaupapa until 1888, both to care for Father Damien who was dying, and who was already known internationally for his heroic care of the leper colony— and to assume his role in work among the afflicted. She died of natural causes in 1918. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work know as Mark: “Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out a hand and touched the person with leprosy, and said, ‘I am willing. Be cleansed!’” (Slight pause.)

In his book on the history of Christianity, British historian Diarmaid MacCulloch makes this claim: the god, the supreme deity who emerges from Greek philosophy, is all perfect and, therefore, not just immune to change, but devoid of the passion which denotes change. On the other hand, the God of the Hebrews— Yahweh— is personal, tangible, intimate.

This is a God who walks in the garden of Eden. This God of emotions and intimacy, he says, is one reason the constant experience of the Jews— that of being marginalized by the empires which surrounded them— Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and finally Rome— did not kill their faith. They understood that God was not simply all powerful but that God was passionate and concerned with them and that, no matter what happened, God stood with them.

And, indeed, there was never a more vivid and personal expression of what the intimacy God offers looks like than what we find in the Gospels. Jesus feels. Jesus weeps. Jesus gets angry. Jesus counsels. Jesus makes friends.

Jesus even tells jokes. (You need to understand that when you read the Gospels in the original language there are jokes, mostly puns, which simply cannot be translated.) Jesus makes jokes.

In short, Jesus is intimate and the Jesus expressed in the Gospels is expressed in an intimate way. And then, of course, Jesus dies— the most telling intimacy of all. (Slight pause.)

Even with the death of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, our Christian understanding is that Jesus, who is the Christ and is inseparable from the Christ, lives. Our Christian understanding is that Jesus is resurrected and is with us. And our Christian understanding is that God, the Spirit, and Jesus, the Christ, and Yahweh, God— the God we Christians label as Trinity— three persons one God, inseparable— this God stands with us at all times and in all places and in all circumstances. This God is personal and this God personally with us... in an act of love. (Slight pause.)

About 95% of the population actually carries an immunity from Hansen’s disease. And today Hansen’s disease is treatable. Still, one might ask what would call a Father Damien and Mother Maryanne to work with those who had the disease when there was no cure available and it was seen as highly contagious? (Slight pause.)

I want to suggest that they understood God is personal. Jesus is personal. The Spirit is personal. I want to suggest they understood that Yahweh, God, stands with us at all times and in all places and in all circumstances, that Jesus, the Christ, stands with us at all times and in all places and in all circumstances, that the Paraclete, the Spirit, stands with us at all times and in all places and in all circumstances. (Slight pause.)

You see, God reaches out to us. And it is personal. And God calls us to reach out to others. And it is personal. (Slight pause.)

The Israelites understood this: God may be my personal God. And perhaps that makes God personal.

But God is the God of all people. And that is what makes it really personal. Why? Because God is concerned with all people. Hence, we are called to be concerned with all people. (Slight pause.)

You’ve heard me say this hundreds of times: this love God, love neighbor slogan that you hear me repeat time and time again is not meant to be a snappy aphorism, a snappy advertising slogan. Love God, love neighbor is personal. And when we love God and love neighbor we become empowered and are personally empowered by God to act in a personal way with God and with one another. Amen.

02/12/2012
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: “Last week I said that a lot of people say ‘Well, it’s just me and Jesus’ or ‘It’s just me and God.’ And that think that’s what makes it personal. Not true. What makes it personal is that God is the God of all people and calls us to be with one another in times of joy, in times of pain— all the time.”

BENEDICTION: Let us trust God to provide all we really need. God knows us, loves us and blesses us in Jesus, the Christ. Let us love one another as Christ has loved us. 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.

Diarmaid MacCulloch. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Pg. 2.

Sermon ~ 02/05/2012 ~ The Message of the Good News

02/05/2012 ~ Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany ~ The Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Isaiah 40:21-31; Psalm 147:1-11, 20; 1 Corinthians 9:16-23; Mark 1:29-39 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Souper Bowl Sunday.

The Message of the Good News

“So Jesus went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message of the Good News in their synagogues and casting out demons.” — Mark 1:39.

Those who study religious trends in American society have come up with a new set of initials to describe what they think is going on in one specific segment of our life together. Perhaps some of you have heard this description. SBNR— Spiritual But Not Religious. There is a segment of the American population who claims to be just that— spiritual but not religious.

There is even an SBNR web site: . I know. It’s not a catchy URL, but it’s got the right letters and the dot org after it, right? There’s even an SBNR Facebook page for those of you on Facebook.

The paradox of spiritual but not religious is obvious. Spiritual— a word which had once been used to describe a faithful people— a group— has become a way some use to describe an individual as a person of faith. At the same time, it seems an individual, making some kind of claim to be spiritual, has no intent about integrating into a group— a people of faith.

The irony is also obvious. A word— religious— which had once been used to describe a people of faith has become a way some use to describe others as unfaithful people.

However, these terms— spiritual and religious— especially when used together, are, at best, simply and only cultural terms, having nothing to do with either spirituality or religion. Why? How? Do me a favor: define— define meaning not your personal definition but some kind of broad, universal definition which would work for most everyone— define these words: spiritual, religious. (Slight pause.)

I’ll use a conspicuous example: it would be hard to say Mother Theresa was not spiritual. But it would be equally hard to say Mother Theresa was not religious.

Indeed, it would be hard to say Mahatma Gandhi was not spiritual. But it would be equally hard to say Mahatma Gandhi was not religious.

It would be hard to say the Dalai Lama is not spiritual. But it would be equally hard to say Dalai Lama is not religious.

O.K. Let’s state the obvious: it would be hard to say Jesus was not spiritual. It would be equally hard to say Jesus was not religious. So why is that kind of thing said so often today?

Well, a number of books have already been published on the topic and the titles explain why. The most popular two of these books are: Spiritual But Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America by Robert C. Fuller and Spiritual But Not Religious: A Call To Religious Revolution In America by Sven E. Erlandson. You notice I’m sure, both of these, just in their titles, concentrate on American culture, American society.

The very existence of these studies calls attention to the obvious— SBNR— spiritual but not religious— has nothing to do with spirituality or religion. Spiritual but not religious is a cultural branding, a branding which is, therefore, neither spiritual nor religious. So, perhaps rather than buying into these descriptions that people use— spiritual and religious— it would be fruitful to come grips with what the terms spiritual and religious might really mean. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the Gospel we have come to call Mark: “So Jesus went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message of the Good News in their synagogues and casting out demons.” (Slight pause.)

It seems to me a place to start exploring what spiritual and religious might mean is by taking a quick look at why I’ve just labeled these terms cultural. Part of that has to do with the cultural limits people often place on the current definitions.

Spiritual is often used to mean simply a feeling about God or an awareness of God experienced by an individual. Religious is often used to mean paying strict attention to a set of rules or dogmas. Equally and however... a lot of people miss this one... equally and however people who self identify with the word ‘religious’ tend to addressing individualism.

You see, it was not that long ago a lot of people who labeled themselves as religious said this a lot: “It’s just me and Jesus.” Well, if it’s just you and Jesus, what happened to all your neighbors Jesus so often talks about.

But equally, my experience of the claim to be spiritual, not religious would be this: “It’s just me and God.” So, perhaps the central issue, as I see it at least, is both sides insist on the primacy of ‘I,’ a position which ignores ‘we.’

That brings us back to the question: how can we best describe what is spiritual and what is religious? (Slight pause.) I hope this seems obvious: spiritual and religious are inseparable. And I think that is the example Jesus offers in this reading.

Jesus goes about (quote): “...proclaiming the message of the Good News...” And what is the Good News Jesus proclaims? The Good News Jesus proclaims is that the dominion of God, the realm of God, the reality of God has drawn near and is tangible.

The Prophet Isaiah explains the reality of God this way (quote) “...but those who wait for Yahweh, God, / shall renew their strength, / they shall mount up, soar with / wings like eagles, / they shall run and not be weary, / they shall walk and never tire.” (Slight pause.) You know what that is? That is a proclamation about the spiritual— a sense of the real presence of God, a sense of the reality of God.

Indeed, for Jesus God is personal, a real presence. After all, Jesus calls God Abba. And, as I am sure many of you know, Abba is not Father. Abba is Daddy— Daddy God— a close, personal, spiritual presence.

And Jesus also tends to neighbors. Jesus feels the presence of God and understands, therefore, the need for first the proclamation of that presence. But, because of that presence, Jesus heals the mother-in-law of Simon. Jesus casts out demons.

And, just to be clear, we take that word ‘demons’ too literally by far. How so? We are still casting out demons today. These demons are called hunger, poverty, violence, injustice, neglect.

We need to understand Jesus was dealing with those same demons. And hunger, poverty, violence, injustice, neglect are no less vile than any kind of demonic possession we can imagine and probably more so. (Our brains conjure up these images when the reality of injustice stands in front of us.)

So, this brings us back again to spiritual and religious. What does it mean to be spiritual? What does it mean to be religious?

Let me put it simply. To be spiritual can mean loving God. To be religious can mean loving neighbor. I also need you to notice that loving God and loving neighbor are intertwined throughout Scripture. I also need you to notice that loving God and loving neighbor are not separate entities in Scripture.

All of which is to say to insist if one is spiritual but not religious one is making a cultural statement. The two— spiritual and religious— cannot be thought of separately. Why? They are simply two aspects of the great commandment: love God; love neighbor. Amen.

02/05/2012
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: “It is often a surprise to me that the left and the right mirror each other so precisely. “It’s just me and Jesus” and “Spiritual but not religious” say exactly the same thing. Perhaps they gain traction because one side thinks it has slapped down the other by figuring out something clever to say. Believe me, nothing has ever been more cleverly said or said better than when Jesus said, ‘Love God; love neighbor. On these hang all the law and the prophets.’”

BENEDICTION: Surely God will empower our ministry; surely God will supply for our needs when we are about the work of God; may this God, the God who formed the universe, bless us with the courage, the knowledge, the wisdom and the fortitude to serve the Gospel of Christ, empowered by the Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.