SERMON ~ 04/22/2012 ~ Third Sunday of Easter ~ Repentance and Forgiveness

04/22/2012 ~ Third Sunday of Easter ~ Acts 3:12-19; Psalm 4; 1 John 3:1-7; Luke 24:36b-48.

Repentance and Forgiveness

“Then Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures and said to them, ‘That is why the Scriptures say the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in the name of the Messiah to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.  You are witnesses of all this.’” — Luke 24: 45-48.

As most of you know, I have been serving this church since 1996.  Only the Rev. Mr. Samuel Scoville, who served from 1861 to 1879, served a longer stint as pastor here.

I mention the distance from the time I arrived because I want to address something I distinctly remember saying from this pulpit when I first got here.  I said the biggest problem our nation faced is a lack of critical thinking on the part of its citizens.

As I listened to the radio just this morning I heard an interview with the well known African-American Pastor, T. D. Jakes, who was plugging his latest book.  He said (and I quote) “people have stopped thinking.”  So, I am not the only one worried about this.

However, I realize there are other issues.  The problem is both more complex and more subtle than simply a dearth of critical thinking.  Among other problems, our populace is not well served by what has loosely been called the “the media.”  This would include both the so called “main stream media” and even the not so main stream media.

Let me offer one simple example of a media problem: the reporting done on presidential polling.  It feels like a new poll about the approaching presidential election comes out several times a week.

With each new poll one candidate goes up and one candidate goes down.  The numbers seem to change daily.  And new attention is given to the numbers by members of the fourth estate daily.

I probably don’t have to tell you, the vast majority of these polls are taken on a nation-wide basis.  Hence, the key question they ask and try to answer is this: what do a majority of people across the nation, right now— never mind on Election Day in November but right now— what do a majority of the people think when it comes the candidate for whom they might cast a ballot.

Well, you might make the argument that only the real voting in November will mean something, so why even bother taking a poll?  But I would suggest polls do give us information of some value.  For instance, they can detect trends.

However, there is one very, very big caveat which by far too few people seem to talk about.  No one, no news organization, no polling organization, takes the poll which really needs to be taken.

You see, the only polls being run are, as I said, nation-wide.  These are of little or no value.  Why?  That’s not how we elect a president.  We do not elect a president by popular vote— never have.  We do not elect a president on a single national ballot— never have.

We elect a president on fifty separate state ballots, on a state by state by state basis according to the combined number of representatives and senators each state has in congress.  Hence, in order to really take the pulse of the electorate, you need to do 50 separate, individual state by state polls.

What does the nation think, as a whole?  That question does not matter in a presidential election.  The so called “electoral college” renders national numbers for the popular vote meaningless.

To use some real math here, in the 2008 election John McCain garnered just under 46% of the popular vote.  And the final 2008 nation-wide polls were, in fact, fairly accurate, within a percentage point, when it came to predicting the total popular vote.

But McCain won only 32% of the vote in the Electoral College.  So those polls were off by, oh, a mere 14% with the only vote which really counts— the Electoral College vote.  (Slight pause.)  And yet still we listen to these statistics about nation-wide polling and these statistics are constantly publicized, given credence even.  These statistics are totally meaningless.

Why are these statistics gathered?  Why do we pay attention?  Who is wrong here?  Is it the media or is it us?

Is this just a good way for the media to sell advertising space?  Or is the media actually trying to hide the reality from us?

Or do we simply and willfully— willfully— ignore the reality of how the presidential election operates?  Or is the real problem perhaps that we are readily and easily mislead?  Have we stopped thinking?  (Pause.)

And these words are from the work commonly referred to as Luke: “Then Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (the pastor repeats this phrase for emphasis: understand the Scriptures) and said to them, ‘That is why the Scriptures say the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in the name of the Messiah to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.  You are witnesses of all this.’”  (Slight pause.)

As I said at the start, I have been serving this church since 1996.  In all that time, I believe I have been pretty consistent with a basic message.

And as I have noted before, Tom Rasely even wrote a song about it: It All Comes Down to This.  Love neighbor; love God.  There’s nothing very tricky; there’s nothing very hard.

Equally, you need to wonder why we pay any attention at all to the polling I outlined earlier.  There is nothing tricky and hard about the Electoral College system, if you pay attention to how it operates, if you think.

And the message in Scripture is not tricky or hard, if you pay attention, if you think.  Loving neighbor and loving God, the eternal covenant with God, should leap off nearly every page of the Bible, if we read carefully, if we think.

That leads to a pair of very simple questions based in the Gospel passage read today.  “What is repentance and what is forgiveness?”

I find many people don’t like the words ‘repentance’ and ‘forgiveness.’  Perhaps they simply don’t know what these words mean.  But the real meanings of these words are not tricky or hard to discern.

You see, many people think repentance means being sorry.  And many think, if you’ve done nothing wrong, why do you need forgiveness.

However, theologically, Biblically, the word ‘repentance’ does not in any way mean being sorry.  Repentance means turning toward God, offering one’s life to God, committing one’s self to be in partnership with God— repentance.  (Slight pause.)

Yeah, but what about this forgiveness stuff?  (Slight pause.)  Tell me, do you know anyone who is perfect?  (The pastor looks at his wife and says: “Put your hand down Bonnie.”)  O.K.  Then, in the human sense, we all need to be forgiven on some level.

Even so, that kind of forgiveness is not what forgiveness is about in the theological or Biblical sense.  Theological forgiveness means God accepts us no matter where we’re at.

Or, to paraphrase the slogan so popular in our denomination, ‘no matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey,’ God loves you.  So, theologically, Biblically, forgiveness is not about being forgiven for wrong doing.  Theologically, Biblically, forgiveness is about the love God offers to each of us and to all of us no matter where we are or what we’ve done.

I guess what I am trying to say is we need to use just a smidgeon of critical thinking when it comes to Scripture.  And just like how people follow the polls at election time, when we pay attention to the wrong thing, to poor analysis, we can be mislead.  When we treat repentance or forgiveness as if they meant being sorry or needing mercy for doing something wrong, we are looking at the wrong things.

And there is nothing tricky or hard about this.  Repentance: strive to be in partnership with God.  Forgiveness: God loves us no matter what happens.

And Tom is right in his lyric.  There is nothing very tricky and nothing very hard about understanding Scripture.  Love neighbor; love God.  Amen.

04/22/2012
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: “There is one other thing I’ve stressed in my time here.  It’s that the covenant God makes with humanity can be traced throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.  And when this passage says “Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” that’s what it getting at.  The Bible, as a whole, is the story of God’s journey with humanity and it is the story of the unconditional love God has for humanity.”

BENEDICTION: Let us place our trust in God.  Let us go from this place to share the Good News as we are witnesses.  And this is, indeed, the Good News: by God we are blessed; in Jesus, the Christ, the beloved of God, we are made whole.  Let us depart in confidence and joy that the Spirit of God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts.  Amen.

04/15/2012 ~ Second Sunday of Easter ~ The Message of the Resurrection

04/15/2012 ~ Second Sunday of Easter ~ Acts 4:32-35; Psalm 133; 1 John 1:1-2:2 ; John 20:19-31.

The Message of the Resurrection

“This, then, is the message we have heard from Jesus, the Christ, and proclaim to you, that God is light and in God the light is never absent, there is no night at all.” — 1 John 1:5.

What do I believe? (Slight pause.) How should I believe? (Slight pause.) Who am I? (Slight pause.) Diana Butler Bass says these are the three questions organized religion has centered on for hundreds of years. What do I believe? (Slight pause.) How do I believe? (Slight pause.) Who am I? [1] (Slight pause.)

I have, several times before, mentioned Diana Butler Bass. She is a church historian. She is a member of the laity. She is an Episcopalian. She is a best selling author of books about the current state of the church.

I, in fact, used words of Bass as the Thought for Meditation in the Easter Sunday bulletin. (Quote:) “The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.”

In a recent article Bass said religion always entails the three “Bs” used in those questions I asked at the start— believing, behaving and belonging. [2] However, over the course centuries, the meaning of believing, behaving and belonging has been looked at in different ways.

Bass says for the last 300 years or so these believing, behaving and belonging questions have been translated into something other than what they might seem to ask on the surface. Believing has meant: ‘What does my church say I should think about God?’ Behaving has meant: ‘What are the rules my church asks me to follow?’ Belonging has meant: ‘What does it mean to be a faithful church member?’

You probably noticed the meanings of the questions have to do not with the individual and with the community and even with the church. These questions are about authority. More importantly, they are about who wields authority.

And that’s the rub. In our era, in the modern era, in the 21st Century, questions about believing, behaving and belonging as these relate to authority have become meaningless. This is especially true with young people.

Why is the data suggesting young people attend church less and less? Believing, behaving and belonging questions have been and often are being asked in ways which are alien to them. These questions are being asked as if they are about authority.

Today, states Bass, believing, behaving and belonging questions are less about authority and who wields it and have become more personal. Bass suggests these alternatives. How do I believe? What should I believe? [3] Whose am I?

Put this way, the underlying questions, the real questions being asked, become: ‘How do I understand faith, especially when it seems to conflict with science and pluralism?’ ‘How do my actions make a difference in the world?’ ‘How do my relationships shape me and shape my understanding of self?’

Please notice, believing, behaving, and belonging still matter. Those are there in the questions. But the ways in which people engage each area have undergone a revolution. The questions I just recited are 21st Century questions. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as First John: “This, then, is the message we have heard from Jesus, the Christ, and proclaim to you, that God is light and in God the light is never absent, there is no night at all.” (Slight pause.)

There is a television commercial currently running about how computers can empower and connect people. The commercial features a landscaping company in Minnesota. Except the commercial takes place in the Winter and you don’t do landscaping in Minnesota in the Winter— at least not garden landscaping. You do snow plowing.

So, the commercial explains how computers help the people of this company, who do snow plowing in the winter, react to the quick changing mid-winter weather conditions in Minnesota. And how do computers help?

Everyone in the chain of command can communicate instantaneously with everyone else and anyone in the chain of command, people out in the field at midnight, can make a determination about a change in how a job is being done, about sending a plow to a different location. Power is decentralized and placed in the hands of the people.

Everyone is empowered to react to conditions. Everyone is empowered to make changes. Everyone is an equal part of the command structure. Or, at least, that’s what the commercial is selling— individual empowerment. No they are not selling computers. They are selling individual empowerment.

And that, individual empowerment, is actually the really big discussion we are having in society today. Is each person going to be both empowered and empowering? Or, as we move forward, will we live in a society that is top down, much as it has been, frankly, for centuries, where all decisions are made for us and we are told what to do. (Slight pause.)

Earlier I quoted that Easter Thought for Meditation written by Bass. Let me do it again. “The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.” (Slight pause. The next phrase is whispered:) It’s about you!

In the course of the service on Easter Sunday I make sure I remind people about two things. First, resurrection is a Jewish premise. It predates Christianity.

I also remind people we need to understand a very basic theological aspect about resurrection. Resurrection is not and never was considered resuscitation or reanimation. It is not about a body coming back to life in the same way it had been living.

Resurrection is what it says it is: resurrection. It is, therefore, unlike any other human experience. (Slight pause.)

So, what is the message of resurrection? What does it mean? What do we, you and I, think it means? (Slight pause.)

The statement made by the writer of First John (quote:) “...God is light and in God the light is never absent, there is no night at all.” That is beautifully, wonderfully, magnificently poetic and absolutely ambiguous. It is meant to be so.

Equally, that kind of statement means discerning what the resurrection means is up to me. It is my individual responsibility to decide what the resurrection means for me.

Now, since I am called to the ministry of sharing the Word, that’s what I do. I try to share the Word. I try to share what the message of Jesus, what the message of Christianity means to me.

Equally, however, I do not try or I hope I do not try impose what I believe on anyone else. Why?

You see, the point of all of us gathering as the church is not what the resurrection or Christianity or the reality of God means to me, Pastor Joe. The point is what the resurrection, Christianity, the reality of God means to means to you, each and every one of you.

And, in the words of Diana Butler Bass, “Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection.” (Slight pause.)

For me at least, trusting in the resurrection— trusting God— is the point. And I cannot trust God for you. I can be a guide, a mentor, a coach, a pastor. But you need to trust God for yourself.

And that, my friends, is not just the challenge of life in the 21st Century. That is, I think, the challenge of Christianity.

So, the question to be asked is not ‘do you believe in God?’ Any fool can do that. Can you, can we, come to a point in the relationship with God where trusting God becomes central to that relationship?

So, what does the resurrection mean? Trust God. Amen.

04/22/2012
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: “I have said this here before. The theologian Nicholas Thomas Wright states that New Testament times were not unlike today, the 21st Century. In New Testament times nearly everybody believed in the gods or in a God. Very few took it seriously. And today nearly everybody believed in the gods or in a God. Very few take it seriously. And what do we need to do to take God seriously? Trust God.”

BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing: we go into the world carrying forth God’s love. Let us go from this place and offer the peace of God which surpasses all understanding to all we meet, and may the Peace of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and companionship of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, this day and forever more. Amen.

[1] It does need to be noted that the pastor mis-spoke in attempting to quote Bass at this point. The second question should have been “How do I behave?”

[2] This is where that article can be found:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/a-resurrected-christianit_b_1410143.html

[3] To give Bass her due the pastor once again misquoted her. Here it should have read: “What should I do?”

04/08/2012 ~ Sermon ~ Easter Sunday ~ “Speaking to the Silence”

04/08/2012 ~ Resurrection of the Lord ~ 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 Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7; John 20:1-18 ~ Used: John 19:31-34, 38-42 [ILV]; 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 [ILV]; Mark 16:1-8 [ILV].

Speaking to the Silence

“So they went out and fled from the tomb, bewildered, trembling and amazed;....” — Mark 16:8.

It was still early in the morning. The sun had barely come up over the Judean hills. And yet, the three women had been running for quite a while. They were exhausted.

Magdala, always the most astute of the three, noticed a cave off to the left of the dusty road, pointed and said, “There. Let’s get in there.”

She fell in behind Mary and Salome. It seemed as if it was by a shear act of her will, by her physical presence, rather than by any use of brut force, that she prodded to the other two women toward the craggy opening.

Once they had moved into the shadows, beyond the mouth of the crevice, she said: “Go. And keep going. Don’t stop.”

And go they did. Deeper and deeper into the cavern they went until they were enveloped by a darkness comparable to a moonless night.

Once the light had become that dim, Magdala gave another command. “Good. Stop. Sit.” And sit they did. (Slight pause.)

As deep as they were inside the cave, they could no longer hear any sounds from the world beyond the opening. Since they had been running, it was not totally silent. Indeed, at first, all that could be heard was the sound of heavy breathing, as each of them recuperated from running. Still, a sense of real silence— that being disconnected from the reality of noise— enveloped them as they sat with their thoughts.

Once they had recovered, once their breathing had become less labored, it was not long before Salome started to weep loudly. Tears had actually been streaming from her eyes for quite some time, but now she was sobbing.

Mags— all Magdala’s friends called her by that nickname— Mags slid over to where Salome was and hugged her friend. “It’s all right, Sal. It’s all right.”

Salome seemed to calm down a little. Between sobs she finally said, “I’m frightened.”

Mags said nothing. She just squeezed her a little tighter.

“I’m frightened too,” offered Mary, trying to reassure Salome.

In the midst of her crying, Salome tried to ask a question. “Was... was... was that an angel in the tomb?”

Magdala was compassionate but rarely tactful. “I don’t know if it was an angel,” she said. “I don’t know what an angel looks like. I’ve never seen one.”

“I do know an angel is a messenger from God. And I do know what we heard certainly sounded like a message from God.”

Mags paused and then said, “You know, there did seem to be— I, I don’t know what to call it— a haze of light all around us as we heard those words.” She hesitated slightly. “And, well, now that you’ve said it out loud— yes, perhaps it was an angel. Perhaps it was a message from God.”

With that Mary began to sob too. “Mary— what’s wrong?” asked Mags.

“Now I’m really frightened. I’m not sure I want to hear a message from God.” Mags slid over to Mary and hugged her even harder than she had hugged Salome.

Ever practical, Mags was blunt: “Being frightened is not going to help. We need to try to figure out what is happening, what has happened.”

Whether it was the directness of the statement or the logic of the statement or simply the fact that Mags had reached out to her friends and given them both a bear hug did not matter. The result was Mary and Salome suddenly became calm.

“O.K.” said Mags. “What did happen?”

“Well, when we got to the tomb,” offered Salome, “it was open. The stone was rolled away.”

“Who was there?” asked Mags.

Mary jumped in. “I think it was an angel.”

“Why?”

“We heard a message. We are all in agreement about that, right?”

“Yes,” said Mags, but persisted in her questioning. “And what was that message?”

Salome repeated what they had all heard. “Do not be alarmed! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the One who was crucified. He has been raised and is not here.”

“That’s what we heard.”said Mags. “That’s what was said. What was the message? There is always more in a message than what is said. What were we supposed to understand?”

“Even though we are afraid, I think we are not supposed to be,” said Salome.

“Yes. What else.”

“We need to go tell Peter and the others?”

“Yes. But all that is still only what we heard. What is it we need to know? What is it we need to understand?”

“Somehow Jesus is alive?” offered Mary. “Somehow Jesus has been raised?”

“I think there must be more to it,” Mags said. “But I can’t figure it out. Maybe... maybe we do need to go tell the others. That might help. Let’s head back.”

Mags stood. The others followed her lead. Together, they moved toward the light at the opening of the cave.

They had nearly come to the entrance when Mary said, “Wait! Wait! I know! I have it. If Jesus was not there, then somehow God acted. God raised Jesus. Is that not what Jesus said would happen?”

“Yes!” said Salome. “Yes! But that means more than Jesus is alive. That also means, somehow, Jesus predicted what came to pass.”

“Yes!” said Mary. “It means we can trust in the promises God makes.”

“Yes!” said Mags. “But it means even more than that. It means we can place our whole lives in God’s care. It means we can trust God.” (Slight pause.)

They moved out into a bright morning light at the entrance to the cave. Having been in the dark for so long, at first they needed to shield their eyes and feel their way along the path.

Once they had become accustomed to the light Mags took charge again and pointed down the road toward town. The three of them set off in silence. A couple of minutes later, separately, each of them realized they were all weeping. Silently, without a word being spoken, they reached out and held hands.

“Who should we tell first?” asked Mary.

“Peter,” said Mags.

“And who after that?” asked Salome.

“Everyone,” said Mags.

Hand in hand in hand, the three of them walked down the road together. And they knew what they would say. Hold on to each other. Trust God. Jesus has been raised. Amen.

04/08/2012
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 am sure the well known American composer Irving Berlin was a nice fellow. I hold nothing against him. Among other works, he wrote the songs Easter Parade and It’s a Lovely Day, Happy Easter. But these are not Christian sentiments. These are secular sentiments. If someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ shake their hand and say, ‘Christ is risen.’”

BENEDICTION AND UNISON PRAYER — PASTOR: 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.
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!
ALL: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!

03/25/2012 ~ Fifth Sunday in Lent ~ Heart and Soul

03/25/2012 ~ Fifth Sunday in Lent ~ Jeremiah 31:31-34; Psalm 51:1-12 or Psalm 119:9-16; Hebrews 5:5-10; John 12:20-33 ~ Feast of the Annunciation of the Christ ~ Isaiah 7:10-14; Psalm 45 or Psalm 40:5-10; Hebrews 10:4-10; Luke 1:26-38 ~ Used Jeremiah 31:31-34, Psalm 51:1-12 (Keyed to the Anthem) and John 12:20-33 (All ILV).

Heart and Soul

“...this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” — Jeremiah 31:33


The late Rollo May was psychologist who was and is known for being the author of several influential books in that field. But he also had a background in theology and was a close friend of the great Twentieth Century theologian Paul Tillich.

Indeed, after attaining a Bachelor’s Degree at Oberlin College— and by the way Oberlin College is a college associated with the United Church of Christ— he went to Union Theological Seminary— by the way, a Seminary associated with the United Church of Christ— for a Divinity Degree. Only after that did he go to Columbia University for a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.

In one of May’s books, Freedom and Destiny, he looked at issues of freedom. In that writing he took note of one example of predictable behavior in a large group. When the temperature reaches 90 degrees on a Summer day in a major costal city, we have the ability to forecast, he wrote, with great accuracy, what percentage of the population, will go to the beach.

Then he stated the potential obvious problem with that kind of projection. When we get to the point where we can determine not just how many will go to the beach but who will go to the beach, we will have lost our freedom. (Slight pause.)

Just eight years ago (it seems like eight light years), as the campaign for the presidential election of 2004 was in full progress— to be clear this was the George W. Bush/John Kerry election— weeks before any votes were actually cast or counted, I read a New York Times article about statistics and the upcoming election. The article made two things plain.

First, strictly from the standpoint of numbers, from the standpoint of looking at an election as a horse race, why someone voted for a particular candidate did not much matter. But exactly who voted did matter.

As to precisely who would vote for whom, as to which individual voted for Bush and which individual voted for Kerry— that could not be determined. On the other hand, what could be determined is, given a specific population, how many votes would be likely to go to one candidate or the other. And early on the data showed that the race was very, very close.

Indeed, the article actually said the election probably came down to just a few voters. Who would win that election came down to this: ‘for which candidate would some 10,000 swing voters in Ohio cast a ballot?’

As has been well documented, who voted for whom in the rest of the country did not matter. After all the votes in the rest of the country had been counted, the election was a dead heat. Now, the article had only one thing wrong in what it presented, those weeks in advance of the election.

You see, the election did not come down to which candidate some 10,000 specific swing voters in Ohio might cast a ballot. The election came down to which candidate some 50,000 specific swing voters in Ohio did cast a ballot. (Slight pause.)

Over 121 million votes were cast and weeks before the election it was known that swing voters in Ohio would decide the national result. I think 10,000 or 50,000 is, in this case, a negligible difference. (Slight pause.)

When we know not just how many but who, we will lose our freedom. That statistic makes it seem like some bean counters were painfully close to knowing not just how many but who, does it not? (Slight pause.)

I don’t know about you, but habits are my friends. When, for instance, my morning routine is somewhat changed— somehow changed, altered or upset, it’s not just that my coffee gets too cold. The whole day seems to go awry.

In fact, there is a lot of research which says habits are good. Why? We get into a routine and we can do that routine without giving it serious thought.

I recently read that when people back out of driveways they do so based on developed habit. In short, people often back out of driveways without thinking. Sounds dangerous, doesn’t it?

In fact, the danger of habit and nearly the definition of habit, is doing something by repetition, doing something so often that it allows for an absence of thinking. Habit can be thought of as things we do on automatic pilot.

Question: does the fact that our votes can be easily and closely tracked mean people vote on automatic pilot? Does the fact that our votes can be easily and closely tracked mean people are voting by habit, voting without thinking or does it simply mean people are following some kind of herd instinct? And even if it is a herd instinct, is that not a habit? (Pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Jeremiah: “...this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Slight pause.)

As I have said here before, I did not learn to drive a car until I moved to Maine, relatively late in life as those things go. After I had been driving a couple of years, a friend at work said he occasionally saw me drive in and drive out of the parking lot and he could see how careful I was as I drove.

He then said people who learned to drive as he had, when they are in their teens, didn’t pay attention at all while they were driving. They drove by habit. I told him I found that really, really, really frightening— driving by habit. (Slight pause.)

Is our relationship with God simply or only a habit? Is our attendance at church to worship God as a community of faith simply or only a habit? Is there such a thing as a habit of the heart or does real relationship, real love, real heart, require more of us than a habit, more than an unthinking response to a repetitive situation? (Slight pause.)

There are, unquestionably, parts of relationships which fall under the realm of habit and even demand some form of habitual interaction. On the other hand, when relationship is simply habit— ritual— if it does not consist of something deeper, richer, wider than habit can it be called relationship? (Slight pause.)

Put another way: is God real for us? Or is God simply a matter of practice, ritual? Or is God someone with Whom we actually interact? (Slight pause.)

You’ve heard me say this many times: it all comes down to this— love neighbor, love God. I said it so often Tom Rasely wrote a song about it and credited me with the lyric. After all, I said it.

But, let me posit this: loving God and loving neighbor is about living life fully. And if we are to live life fully we need to be aware that the world around us is constantly changing. Hence, we need to be ready for change, ready to change.

So, if we are to be ready for change, loving God and loving neighbor cannot simply or only be about habit, can it? Unquestionably, when it comes to relationships, relying simply on habit can be dangerous— a little like backing out of a driveway without thinking. (Slight pause. Referring to his spouse, the pastor says:) Oh, I’m sorry Bonnie, I just backed into you. (Slight pause.)

Let me put that in yet a different way. We need to engage our whole being, both our body and soul, our mind and spirit, in relationship— in a relationship with God. Said differently yet again, we need to free our emotions from habitual responses so they may be open to new life. Indeed, it is only when our emotions are free from the trap of habit that they can become fully engaged, fully involved in relationship. (Slight pause.)

My good friend, the Rev. Dr. Susan Polizzi, formerly of the First Baptist Church of Norwich across the street, put a portion of a poem by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, J. R. R. Tolkien, I Sit And Think, on her Facebook page this week. It seemed to me that, in a quiet way, the poem something about engaging in relationship over time. So, I’d like to end with that poem.

I sit beside the fire and think
of all that I have seen,
of meadow-flowers and butterflies
in summers that have been;

Of yellow leaves and gossamer
in autumns that were there,
with morning mist and silver sun
and wind upon my hair.

I sit beside the fire and think
of how the world will be
when winter comes without a spring
that I shall never see.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood, in every spring,
there is a different green.

I sit beside the fire and think
of people long ago,
and people who will see a world
that I shall never know.

But all the while I sit and think
of times there were before,
I listen for returning feet
and voices at the door.

(Slight pause.) Relationship— love, body, soul, wholeness. Or as it says in Jeremiah: “...I will put my Law within them, in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Amen.

03/25/2012
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 probably would not surprise any of you to know I am a fan of the plays of William Shakespeare. But I have seen more Shakespeare preformed poorly than I care to mention. Why? The actors did not understand what they were saying. They were saying it by rote. By rote is not the way we should be engaging in a relationship with God. We need to engage with God fully, with our whole self, body and soul.”

BENEDICTION: God has written the law of love within us. We are empowered to live according to that law, through the Redeemer, Jesus. In Christ, we experience God’s presence together. Where Christ leads, let us follow. Where God calls us to service, let us go. And may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge of God, the love of Jesus, the Christ and the companionship of the Holy Spirit, this day and forevermore. Amen.

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.