Sermon ~ October 2, 2011 ~ TEN?

October 2, 2011 ~ Proper 22 ~ Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20; Psalm 19; Isaiah 5:1-7; Psalm 80:7-15; Philippians 3:4b-14; Matthew 21:33-46 ~ Neighbors in Need Offering ~ World Wide Communion Sunday.

TEN?

A Dialogue by Tom Rasely and Joe Connolly

TOM: OK, ladies and jelly-spoons. Today we’re going talk about the Ten Commandments.

JOE: The what?

TOM: No, not ‘The What.’ The Ten Commandments. You know, like in the movie you’ve probably seen on television— they filmed it back in the 1950s. It had Charlton Heston in it. He played Moses. The movie got it’s name from the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses. So, the Ten Commandments I want to talk about are the Ten Commandments you can find in the Bible in the Book called Exodus— Exodus in the 20th Chapter.

JOE: Exodus? Yeah, I know Exodus was a movie, but I thought that was a movie with Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint, not Charlton Heston. And it was they made in the 1960s, not the 1950s.

TOM: No, no, no. The Heston movie is a story about ancient Israel.

JOE: I thought the Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint movie was about Israel.

TOM: (Annoyed.) Well, it is. But the movie with Heston is called The Ten Commandments. And it tells the story about Israel, a story from the book of Exodus that’s in the Bible. It’s story is about what happened 3,000 years ago. The Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint movie called Exodus but tells the story about the founding of the modern country known as Israel. That story is about what happened just 60 years ago.

JOE: Well, then, they’re still both movies about Israel.

TOM: O.K. wonderful! You’re a movie critic, are you? So which one are you? Siskel or Ebert?

JOE: Siskel is no longer with us. He died.

TOM: Great— you should be Siskel, then.

JOE: Right— now about this Ten Commandments stuff— I could be wrong, but I thought you could also find the Ten Commandments in the Bible in places other than the 20th Chapter of Exodus.

TOM: You can find them in other places in the Bible. There is a different version of the Ten Commandments in the 5th Chapter of Deuteronomy. And there is yet another version in the 34th chapter of Exodus. But I wanted to talk only about the ones in the 20th Chapter of Exodus. [1]

JOE: But, hold on. If there are Ten Commandments in Exodus 34 and Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5 and Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, that makes 30 Commandments, doesn’t it? That would be a lot of commandments to follow. Sounds kind of hard. And why would you want to talk only about the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20? What makes them so special?

TOM: (Simmering.) O.K. Now, today I want to talk about the Ten Commandments we find in the 20th Chapter of Exodus. O.K.? (Pause.)

JOE: O.K. (Slight pause.) They are not commandments, you know.

TOM: (Sarcastic.) Oh right. They’re only called The Ten Commandments. They’re not really commandments. I should have known that— all that ‘thou shalt not’ stuff. They can’t really mean it, right?

JOE: I’m serious. They are not commandments. They are Words.

TOM: That’s brilliant. What else would they be?

JOE: No, I mean they are Words. Words with a capital ‘W.’

TOM: Ooh! W-W-W-words. Yeah, that makes sense.

JOE: What I mean is: they’re not commands. There is actually no command tense in the Hebrew Language. So, in Hebrew, you can’t give anyone a command. Therefore, they cannot be commandments but they are and they can be called Words— capital ‘W’ Words, meaning Words from God. In fact, in Hebrew they are referred to by three different names. They are called “the ten words,” or “the ten sayings” or “the ten matters” but in Hebrew they are not called the “Ten Commandments.” Even when the phrase which describes what we so inaccurately call the “Ten Commandments” is spoken in the Greek, the Greek word used is “decalogue.” Decalogue means “ten words” or “ten terms.” Bottom line: it does not mean “Ten Commandments.”

TOM: Fine. Next you’re going to say that there aren’t really ten of them. (Slight pause.)

JOE: There aren’t.

TOM: Of course there are ten of them.

JOE: How can you be so sure?

TOM: Because there’s a copy cut in stone right in the capital building of the State of South Carolina— etched in the side of the building— two tablets. (Slight pause.) I saw it on CNN. (Slight pause.) I saw it on FOX News. (Slight pause.) So, I know it’s true. (Slight pause.) I even saw it on MSNBC. OK?

JOE: Well (sighs), that image of two tablets we often find on the walls of buildings is a representation of what we have come to call the Ten Commandments— or at least it’s a representation of the ones found in the 20th Chapter of the Book called Exodus. But, in fact, just within those ten, different groups look at them in different ways. Jewish people number them differently than Reformed Protestants who number them differently again than those in the Orthodox tradition who number them differently again than those who are Catholics and Lutherans. And so, yes— even when numbered differently, as all these different traditions do, ten is the traditional number we use when we refer to them. But ten is not really the issue here.

TOM: So, what do you mean ten isn’t the issue? Look, I’ve got a Bible right here, and this is what says right there in the chapter heading “The Ten Commandments.” There: what do you think of that?

JOE: Well, when you consider how the Bible was put together, you quickly come to an understanding that all those chapter headings were added much, much later by editors. They were put there by people who did not write the actual words of in the Bible.

TOM: Oh, yeah, right— and I suppose the chapter and verse numbers were added later too.

JOE: They were.

TOM: Oh come on. Don’t be ridiculous. Peter and Paul made sure chapters and verses were in the King James Bible. That’s the one Peter and Paul used, isn’t it? And, look, how else could those early Hebrews know where to find all their favorite verses if things weren’t numbered? Bookmarks hadn’t been invented yet, and they sure were a long way from being able to look up things on-line, like I do. I really like Google, don’t you? You can find anything.

JOE: Now, now, now— slow down. And let’s start at the beginning, shall we? How was the Bible written?

TOM: Well, well... maybe it wasn’t written. Maybe it just came together.

JOE: Yes, well some people do think that it just came together, kind of by itself. But the Bible was written and compiled and edited by people across the expanse of a long, long period of time. The Hebrew Scriptures were written and compiled and edited over the course of almost the entire one thousand years before Jesus was born. In fact, if we look at just the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, we know this section contains at least four documents written different at very different times by different people. This portion of Scripture was written between about one thousand years before Jesus was born and about 500 years before Jesus was born. Then, these four documents were combined into one document probably right after the Jews spent time in captivity, in exile in Babylon. And, needless to say, if the Pentateuch came together about 500 years before Jesus was born, that’s about... oh,... (Joe makes calculations in the air) 2,100 years before the King James Bible was translated and published.

TOM: All right, that’s all very interesting. But I really don’t care about ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek or about this document stuff or when the Bible was published or even about translating. I just care about the Ten Commandments. So, let’s get back to them.

JOE: Well, now, you may not care about ancient Hebrew or Ancient Greek, or about when the Bible was published or even about translating, but translating from these ancient languages is really the key here. You see, contrary to popular belief, Paul and Peter did not speak or write in Elizabethan English. Those two apostles many have communicated in ancient Greek, but certainly not in 17th Century English. Now, we know Paul could actually write in Greek, since one part of a letter by Paul says it is written in his own hand. But we are not even sure if Peter did write. Maybe he just dictated and what he said got written down. So, it’s possible someone, maybe a scribe— a secretary— just copied down what Peter said.

TOM: Peter had a secretary? Cool.

JOE: Like I said, the New Testament, the Christian Scriptures, are all written in ancient Greek. The Scriptures used by the Israelites are written mostly in ancient Hebrew. And, since most of us speak English and read Scripture in English, we need to realize we are not reading the original version. I’d suggest that in order to really understand what is being said, you need to know something about translation and how that works. Then, on top of that, while you probably don’t need to be fluent in ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, it is helpful to know just a little bit about how those languages work.

TOM: Like I said, that’s all very interesting. But I really don’t care about ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek and I still don’t care about translating. I just care about the Ten Commandments. So, let’s get back to them.

JOE: You do have a one track agenda, don’t you?

TOM: I was thinking maybe it would be a good idea if the Ten Commandments got an update.

JOE: An update??

TOM: Yeah. Like number 1: “No other gods.” I mean, come on. This is the 21st century; we’re supposed to be open-minded. How can we stand for “no other gods?”

JOE: Open minded? That’s more like empty minded.

TOM: What?

JOE: I didn’t say anything.

TOM: And then there’s number 2.

JOE: What’s wrong with that one?

TOM: Not one, two.

JOE: All right, is there something the matter with that one too?

TOM: One-two? (They look at each other.) Skip it. The problem is number two is way long. I mean, you start off with “You shall not make for yourself any graven image,” and by the time you get to the part with “thousands of them that love me keep my commandments,” you’ve pretty much lost track of what you were reading. And then you’ve got this “jealous God” business. I thought God was supposed to be… you know... nice.

JOE: Oh?

TOM: You know, kind of like a holy Santa Claus or something.

JOE: Oh???

TOM: Yeah, like Santa Claus. We ask and God gives.

JOE: God as Santa Claus?

TOM: And number 3. Look at number 3. “You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.” I mean, GOD! Who would do a thing like that? And then along comes number 4, talking about the Sabbath. First of all, who uses a word like Sabbath anymore? And then six days this, and six days that, and six days blah, blah, blah. It’s all over the Scripture. I just want things more simple— modern.

JOE: Really. God as Santa Claus? Jolly? Fat?

TOM: Boy, you sure have a way of straying from the point. This is not about God. This is about the Ten Commandments. So, let’s get back to them. And I guess we could leave the next bunch alone, right?

JOE: Oh, really?

TOM: Yeah. I mean, it’s probably still not a good idea to murder or steal or bear false witness or commit adultery. So we leave them. Although, poor old Dr. Phil to say nothing of Jerry Springer— and who would want to say anything about Jerry Springer— poor old Dr. Phil would be out of a job if people didn’t murder or steal or bear false witness or commit adultery, wouldn’t he?

JOE: Any other thoughts, Mr. Scribe?

TOM: Only one. And that’s number 10.

JOE: One is ten? That can’t be right.

TOM: No, there are ten-or however you want to put it, but I want to talk about one.

JOE: What’s that about tenors? We aren’t talking about the choir, you know.

TOM: Are you doing that on purpose?

JOE: But you just said tenor…

TOM: Look, ten— just ten! Just ten! Not tenor! Ten— number ten— it’s got that business of coveting. I have to tell you, I’ve lived in the same place all my life and never once have I coveted my neighbor’s ox. Or my neighbor’s a… my neighbor’s a...

JOE: Donkey?

TOM: (Relieved.) OK, yeah, right! My neighbor’s donkey. Anyway, enough with the coveting. If I really, really want something but don’t actually get it, I’m just dreaming about it, right? No foul, no harm. Right? Who cares? So, you see? I think the Ten Commandments really do need to be re-worked— this coveting stuff has got to go.

JOE: Well, that’s a lot of history you’d be throwing away.

TOM: Well, I sure don’t like throwing history away. So, maybe if we just brought the coveting up to date it would make more sense. Maybe it should say, “Don’t covert your neighbor’s truck” or “Don’t covert your neighbor’s swimming pool.” You know— just make it modern.

JOE: Well, the ten commandments already were re-worked, you know.

TOM: Oh? When? Did Fox News cover that? They are fair and balanced. They cover everything. I’m sure Fox would not miss a re-work of the ten commandments. Re-working the ten commandments— that would be news.

JOE: I guess I need to bring you up to speed. The Ten Commandments were re-worked. You can find that re-working in the Gospels.

TOM: Godspell? Isn’t that a musical?

JOE: Not Godspell. The re-working of the Ten Commandments is in the Gospels. The Gospels— the first four books you find in the New Testament? The story of Jesus?

TOM: Oh, those! And Jesus revised the Ten Commandments? In the Gospels?

JOE: Yup! Revised and abridged. In the Gospels you can find where Jesus said there are just two commandments.

TOM: Two??? Who’s going to set that up on a stone on some state capital building? Two is simply not impressive enough.

JOE: Look at what Jesus says in the book of Matthew, chapter 22, starting with verse 37…

TOM: Oh, so I was right about that chapter and verse thing, huh?

JOE: (Ahem.) When Jesus was asked what is the greatest Word from God, this was the answer: “‘Love God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two hang all the Law and Prophets.”

TOM: All of it, huh?

JOE: Yes. And then in the book that we know as The Gospel According to the School of John, in chapter 13, verse 34, it says, “A new [commandment] I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

TOM: That’s it?

JOE: That’s it. That’s all that is needed.

TOM: And you’re saying they’re not commandments?

JOE: They are imperatives. They are a call to action. They are a call for interaction. And they are Words... Words to us and for us. They are Words offered to you and Words offered to me. They need no revision; they do need application. They need no particular scrutiny to be understood; they do need to be heeded.

TOM: Well, I suppose so. But the Ten Commandments are still there behind those two Jesus talked about, even if it’s like you said— not Ten Commandments but ten Words.

JOE: Well.....

TOM: Well what?

JOE: Perhaps the basic question is not about commandments at all. Perhaps the basic questions the Bible addresses is simple: What is Scripture about? Is the Bible about the decrees of God or is the Bible about the character of God? If the Bible is about the decrees of God, then there are not just ten commandments. There are 613 commandments to be found in the Torah. These are what the Rabbis call The Law of Moses.

TOM: 613? I could never keep track of 613 commandments, let alone obey them!

JOE: Well, don’t worry about keeping track of all those commandments. After all, if you accept what Jesus said about the two commandments, then it can it all actually be reduced to just one Word.

TOM: Yeah, right— one Word.

JOE: No. It’s true. What Jesus said can all be reduced to just one Word.

TOM: All right, Mr. Smarty-pants— one Word. What it is?

JOE: Covenant.

TOM: Covenant? What does that mean?

JOE: Some say Covenant is the structure by which the biblical text organizes itself. But it goes beyond that. The word covenant illustrates the relationship we need to have with God and the relationships we need to have with each other. Covenant means commitment. Covenant means a commitment living with one another. Covenant means a commitment to respecting one another. Covenant means a commitment to appreciating the gifts God gives to each of us. Covenant means a commitment to listening to one another. Covenant is a commitment to growth, a commitment to the sharing of joy, a commitment to the making of peace, a commitment to a future of hope, a commitment to the reality of love. Covenant explains, illuminates and illustrates the character of God. So, you see? One word— covenant— one Word— capital ‘W’ word. So, what do you say to that?

TOM: (Thinking with a shrug.) Amen?

JOE: Amen.

10/02/2011
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: “There is no question about this: Scripture is not about rules. It is about relationship— relationship with God and relationships with others and the relationship in which these intersect. Those relationships are what Scripture labels as covenant.”

BENEDICTION: Let us never fear to seek the truth God reveals. Let us live as a resurrection people. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith as the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.

[1] Deuteronomy 5:6-21; Exodus 34:1-27; Exodus 20:2-17.

09/25/2011 ~ SERMON ~ Teachings

09/25/2011 ~ Proper 21 ~ Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary time ~ Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 17:1-7; Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16; Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32; Psalm 25:1-9; Philippians 2:1-13; Matthew 21:23-32.

Teachings

“Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; / incline your ears, listen to the words of my mouth.” — Psalm 78:1

I know there are some who would accuse me of being a voracious reader. Yes, guilty— I admit it. And I read mostly non-fiction. But, rumor to the contrary, I do read some fiction (especially science fiction— that’s my thing, I’m sorry).

Now, as to that non-fiction end of the spectrum, what I read is quite eclectic. I read everything from real science (as opposed to its fictional counterpart) to biography to history to mathematics to sociology and, of course, theology.

On the other hand, there are some books I’ve avoided and that includes ones on theology. Once, way before I entered seminary, the well known German theologian Hans Küng published the work Does God Exist? Surprisingly, that work reached the New York Times bestseller list, so I sought it out.

I distinctly remember going to a bookstore, taking it from a shelf and hefting the book. It was heavy. I turned to the last page, just to see exactly how long it was— 839 pages.

As I held the book in my hand, the only thought running through my head was: “Hans! You blew it! You wrote 839 pages when a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to answer the question ‘Does God Exist?’ would have saved a whole lot of trees. I placed the tome back on the bookshelf and I walked out of the store.

I never have read that book. And, yes, I have read some of Küng’s work— like it or not, you get to read some of what famous theologians say while you are in seminary— but I have not that one.

Despite the fact that I have not read this work, I do know some things the book has to say because of my seminary experience. So I need to offer some of that information in defense of Hans.

In this work— Does God Exist?— he tries to explore the difference between intellect and the will, between emotion and reason, between heart and mind. After all, most people think faith takes up where intellect can go no further. Most people think faith has nothing to do with fact. But is that true? (Slight pause.)

When I was a kid on the mean streets of Brooklyn a common thing to say, a common taunt was: “I don’t know and I don’t care.” Even back then, as a child, I realized the truth of that. I realized if one does not know, it is nearly impossible to care. And that sentiment especially applies to relationships. So, I take this to be a given: the better you know a person, the more you care.

Indeed, I believe not only are knowing and caring intertwined, I am firmly convinced knowing and caring winds back to faith and facts, which are also intertwined. To explore that idea, that facts and faith are and need to be interconnected, let me run some statistics by you.

Before I do so I want to offer the caution that surveys can be poor measures at best, but these number are from one survey. Did you know that about 34% of Americans believe in UFOs? To go along with that, about 30% take the Bible literally. 33% believe in ghosts. 25% accept astrology as fact based. [1] (Slight pause.) My bet is you’re seeing a pattern here. It’s a fairly close matrix, isn’t it.

The famous astronomer and cosmologist Carl Sagan said that of all the possible reasons people give for UFO sightings, ‘beings’ visiting from another planet or another galaxy is the least likely— the least likely— explanation for UFOs. I think the same is true of all those numbers. The explanation being insisted on for the phenomena being referenced is the least likely choice. (Slight pause.)

So, listen again to these words from the work known as Psalm 78: “Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; / incline your ears, listen to the words of my mouth.” (Slight pause.)

What is the teaching in this Psalm, the teaching to which we are instructed to incline our ears? What are the facts of faith— facts of faith— presented? (Slight pause.)

(Quote:) “In the sight of the ancestors / You performed marvels / in the land of Egypt,... You split the sea and led them through it, / You made the waters stand like a wall. / You guided them with a cloud by day, / and all night long with the light of a fire.”

This is the teaching to which the Hebrew Scriptures always return. God rescues the people of Israel from Egypt— not how God rescues but that God does rescue the people of Israel from Egypt. In referencing the Exodus event, the intent of the message here is to be clear that God is the one who offers salvation.

Indeed, please note that our culture seems to think the important part of the Exodus event is the giving of the Commandments. No. The important part of the Exodus event is the relationship God establishes with the people of Israel in bringing them out of Egypt.

The important part of Exodus is not Sinai. The important part of Exodus is Suez: the crossing of the sea. Hence, to coin a phrase, and say it briefly, the important message of Exodus is Suez not Sinai— Suez not Sinai.

You see, the giving of the Commandments, the Sinai event, does not do much to establish a relationship or to forward a relationship. These are rules. These are limitations. The action of the escape from Egypt both establishes and forwards a relationship.

I need to note that when a Jewish family sits to celebrate the Passover Seder together, they remember the escape from Egypt. The giving of the Commandments on Mount Horeb is not mentioned once— the Passover event is central. (Slight pause.)

I want to come back to the simple question Hans Küng broached: “Does God Exist?” Surely, the answer ‘yes’ requires faith. But is faith sightless? Is faith based in ignorance? Or does faith require us to be educated?

The short answer is ‘yes’— faith does require us to be educated. The longer answer has to do with that 34% who believe in UFOs, the 30% who take the Bible literally, the 33% who believe in ghosts and the 25% who accept astrology as fact based.

Frankly, it would be a cheap shot to say these people who believe these things are ignorant. They are not. It would be an even cheaper shot to say they are stupid. They are not. It would be the cheapest shot of all to say they are gullible. They are not.

The most likely explanation for what, on the surface, seems like a good portion of the population failing to base their judgments on fact is that they are not culturally attuned to basing those judgments on fact. And this is especially true when it comes to Scripture.

And what are the facts found in Scripture? The claim made by Scripture is that God seeks to be in a relationship of covenant with humanity. The claim made by Scripture is that God loves us. However, the claim made by not just our culture but by many cultures is that rules matter more than relationships— a cultural claim— rules matter more than relationships— not the claim of Scripture.

So, since the facts presented to us in Scripture are these: God loves us and wants to covenant with us, what is it we need to learn? (Slight pause.) I could be wrong, but I think the piece that we need to pay attention to is to ask: ‘what the stories found in Scripture mean.’ Meaning trumps everything.

People too often ask ‘what do the stories say?’ because that response is culturally ingrained. But, if we ask ‘what do the stories mean’ then we have come to a place where true learning about what Scripture tells us can start. (Slight pause.)

That saying I leaned on streets of Brooklyn: “I don’t know and I don’t care” is true. If you don’t know, you will not care. That sentiment, to reiterate, especially applies to relationships.

So, I take this to be a given: the more deeply you know God, the more you will care about God, the more the covenant God has made with humanity, this covenant which says ‘God loves all people’ will matter. And because of that, the more you know about God the more you will know something about loving neighbor. (Slight pause.)

Who is watching carefully now? Did you notice something different about the bulletin today? The opening hymn was labeled a “hymn of love.” The middle hymn was labeled a “hymn of covenant.” The closing hymn was labeled a “hymn of trust.”

Love— God loves us; covenant— because of love, God covenants with us; trust— we often think in terms of humans trusting God. But we need to think of that the other way around. Yes, we should trust God but God trusts us to love others. Now, that is really amazing. And that is a learning. Amen.

09/25/2011
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 can sum up the Bible in one word: ‘love.’ But, to be more expansive than that, let’s use those three mentioned earlier: ‘love, covenant, trust.’ If we don’t understand the meaning of Scripture with those words, if we insist there is more to it, we don’t understand Scripture.”

BENEDICTION: The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our need. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. O Holy Triune God, guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

09/18/2011 ~ Proper 20 ~ Twenty-fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 16:2-15; Psalm 105:1-6, 37-45; Jonah 3:10-4:11; Psalm 145:1-8; Philippians 1:21-30; Matthew 20:1-16.

Acts of Love, Moments of Love

“‘Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?’” — Matthew 20:15a.

I have often mentioned here that I have some background as a writer in theater. Also, as many of you know, I am a fan of the composer Stephen Sondheim.

And so, perhaps simply because of nostalgia, wanting to be in touch with my past, I keep tabs on the doings in professional theater. Hence and therefore, I am aware a revival of my favorite Sondheim show, Follies, a production which features the Broadway diva Bernadette Peters, opened this week.

It is a show considered by many to be Sondheim’s seminal work, but one not widely known outside of theater circles. Well known or not, the reviews for this production were glowing.

If one only considers the setting for Follies, it is an intriguing premise. The action takes place in a theater about to be torn down and replaced by a parking lot.

The stage of the old theater is where a review known as The Follies played year after year after year. The story depicts a reunion of Follies girls, chorus girls who have come there to trade reminiscences, have a drink and tell a lie or two about themselves as they enjoy each other’s company, perhaps for the last time.

The action concentrates on two of these former show girls and the men, the stage door Johnnies, they married. As the tale unfolds, you find out the men these chorines married were not the men they were dating when they were young. They each wound up marrying the man the other woman was dating.

One married a sophisticated chap, now a diplomat, and lives on Park Avenue. On the surface that marriage seems cold, bitter. The other lives in the mid-west. She married a regular guy, a traveling salesman, but longs for the excitement she thinks she might have missed out on, living the high life in the big city.

Hence, questions hang over the interactions of these four people as the evening evolves. Did each girl marry the right guy? Or should they have stayed with their first love? How do they feel about where they wound up? Each gave up something in the transaction. What were the trade offs? Were the trades worth the cost? And is love simply a trade off, a transaction, and that’s all?

One character reflectively sings these words: “The road you didn’t take / Hardly comes to mind, / Does it? / The door you didn’t try, / Where could it have led? / The choice you didn’t make / Never was defined. / Was it? / Dreams you didn’t dare / Are dead. / Were they ever there? / Who said! / I don’t remember, / I don’t remember / At all.” [1] (Slight pause.)

Throughout the unfolding reunion party, the audience watching today can see ghost like figures, unseen by these two couples. The ghosts are the younger versions of the older characters. They never speak to their older selves but stand near their counterparts, observing. This allows the audience to see these relationships as trapped in time— trapped in and by the past, trapped in and by the present.

Follies, you see, is a musical not just about a reunion and a theater being torn down. The irony found in the title is that the show addresses human follies, human limitations. And the show addresses life and love and the passage of time and the importance of art and choices and the possibilities of success and failure.

Now, I attended the opening night of the first production of Follies. And just two days later I was sitting in a classroom at New York University where Stephen Sondheim was, personally, offering some thoughts about human follies— thoughts about life and love and the passage of time and the importance of art and choices and the possibilities of success and failure.

By this time Sondheim had written four hit shows— the lyrics for West Side Story and Gypsy and both music and lyrics for A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and Company. It was fascinating to hear him address how commercial theater operates. He was blunt.

“You are only as good as your last show,” Sondheim said. “If your last show was a success, then it becomes that much easier to raise money for the next one. A flop doesn’t mean your finished. It does mean everything is harder the next time out.”

He went on to be clear that the intrinsic value of a work of art was not the same thing as commercial success. Sondheim knows what he wants to see in his work. He gave and gives great importance to real value. But in our society, commercial success means works of little intrinsic value and works of great intrinsic value are equal, if they are equally successful.

Decisions are based on return. Hence, there is only one basic question we ask. What is the return for cost? What is the return for cost? (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Matthew: “‘Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?’” (Slight pause.)

A classic question for our age, world wide, is not ‘what is something worth?’ We do not ask ‘what is the depth and dimension of something?’ We do not ask, ‘what is the value?’ We ask: ‘what does it cost?’ We justify everything by cost, not by value, not by meaning.

We seem to look only at math, only at numbers, when the depth, dimension and the spirit of life entails so much more than that. Asking what something costs while not asking about value may seem like a modern malady. It is not.

This is, in many ways, the problem of the laborers who went into the vineyard early. They concentrate on cost. So they expect to be reimbursed. They expect a return.

But is asking what something cost, is asking what return you get, something we should ask about relationships? How often have you heard the phrase, “How much do you love me?”

I want to suggest that if there is something you’re feeling that you are labeling as love and you can quantify it— as in “how much?”— it is not love. Love cannot be measured. (Slight pause.)

These words from the work known as Jonah have a message for us too (quote): “Is this not exactly what I said would happen, when I was still in my own country? That is why I left and fled to Tarshish; I knew that you are a God who is gracious and merciful, tender and compassionate, slow to anger, rich in kindness, and abounding in steadfast love,...”

Put another way, Jonah knew God loves. And Jonah knew that love cannot be quantified, love cannot be measured. Love cannot even be confined to time. So, Jonah did not want to go to Nineveh. Why?

Deep love, true love is not transactional. Jonah was demanding a transaction. Jonah wanted to see the Ninevehites punished, but knew God is (quote): “...ready to relent from punishing or violence.” (Slight pause.)

And so it is in the vineyard. At the end of the day, the workers line up for their pay. And what is their complaint? Their real complaint is that they are not paid in coin. Their real complaint is with what the landowner chooses to give.

The landowner chooses to give of self. Hence, what the landowner really chooses to give is not a wage. What the landowner chooses to give is love. Love, you see, cannot be quantified. Love is just there. Love is giving of one’s self. (Slight pause.)

As I indicated, we live in a world where we quantify everything, including love. And perhaps that’s Jonah’s complaint and the complaint of the vineyard workers: we do not know what to do with unconditional love, eternal love. But, of course, we think of human love as trapped in time. Is it?

The love God offers is eternal love. It is not trapped in time. The love God offers is unconditional love, love that cannot be broken into transactions. But, if the love God offers is a part of love, even human love, then human love is not trapped in or by time, either.

Indeed, the love God offers transcends human love but offers us a way to see love which is beyond our imagining. And, indeed, the love God offers is, in the words of Paul, love which surpasses our understanding. Still, it is real love. And it is eternal. Amen.

09/18/2011
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: “We experience love in specific acts, in specific moments. God, on the other hand, is always loving, and loves all people. I want to suggest that, while we cannot really understand that, this is the theological truth: God loves not just in acts and in moments, but for all time and in all ways.”

BENEDICTION: God surprises us and provides for us. Let us trust God and give thanks. Let us seek God’s will. And may the blessing of the God of Abraham and Sarah, the God of Jesus born of our sister Mary, the one who is the Christ, and the Holy Spirit who broods over the world as a mother hen over chicks, be upon us and remain with us always.

[1] The Road You Didn’t Take from Follies by Sondheim.

THE SERMON FROM THE SUNDAY AFTER 09/11/2001

This is the sermon from 09/16/2001, the Sunday after 9/11/2001. Not a word has been changed.

*********************************************

09/16/2001 - Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost - Jeremiah 4:11-12, 22-28; Psalm 14 or Exodus 32:7-14; Psalm 51:1-10; 1 Timothy 1:12-17; Luke 15:1-10; Sunday Bulletin Service Theme: God is their refuge; Used Romans 8:18-23 and Luke 15:1-32; note: since the 15th chapter of Luke is a single literary unit, the whole chapter was read. The Sunday after the terrorist attack on Washington and New York.

The Ultimate Concern

In Luke’s Gospel the son who has stayed at home says to his father, “...‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.’” — Luke 15:29.


Where were you when it happened? Were you at work? At home? On the road? Were you alone? With someone? Did someone call and tell you to turn on the television or radio?

Or were you out of touch, fishing or hiking and not find out about the terrorism until many hours after it happened? Just like Pearl Harbor or the Challenger disaster, we all will long remember where we were or in whose company we found ourselves.

I’m sure you’ve heard this said by others, but it seems to have credence. At 8:48 on Tuesday morning, life, as we know it, changed forever. The way we live our lives will never be the same for our country or the world. This is because, as Secretary of State Powell eloquently stated, the actions Tuesday were not merely or only an attack on this country. They were an attack on civilization... all civilization.

And, as Shimon Peres noted, this is not a clash between civilizations— for instance: the Muslim world versus the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish worlds. The is a clash within each of these structures among those who condone unacceptable behavior toward other people and those who don’t condone it.

We all know there are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews who believe, as Christians do, that we are accountable, in God’s dominion, for responsible behavior toward all people, so to label any group as liable would be emotionally immature. Therefore, let us act in an emotionally mature fashion about this, abandoning inappropriate anger.

It would also be wise for us to remember what President Lincoln said of the South during the Civil War: “They pray to the same God.” No one needs to go to war with the millions of Muslims who pray to the same God we do. [1] To be theologically clear: we may have different means of expression and even different understandings, but God is God.

There are, of course, some individuals in each of these groups, Christians included, Americans included, who are nihilists. A dictionary definition says nihilists are people who deny there is any sound basis for knowledge or truth as perceived by most of humanity. Hence, nihilists are individuals who see only their own, personal truth, nothing else. Because any individualistic truth eventually turns virulent since it is inbred, these people believe only self-proclaimed insight matters.

There’s an eventual latent consequence to inbred truth: it leads to a self-centered belief that one is not to be held responsible for behavior towards others, therefore anything goes. It’s little wonder this kind of position culminates in believing one’s own law and insisting that one’s own understanding of the law must reign supreme. This kind of thinking only results in a conclusion which insists the ends justify the means.

Christianity and all the great world religions, when well understood, have, at their core, a history which rejects nihilism, rejects ignorance, rejects insular judgments, rejects legalism, rejects the darkness found when one surrenders to an impulse which says cruelty to others is acceptable behavior. Indeed, the great world religions often use metaphors, verbal equations which state that God is light or knowledge or truth.

None of these metaphors can be construed to suggest God somehow condones harboring hate. None of the metaphors even suggest that God is law. The most common metaphor used says God is love. (Pause.)

Now, I’ll bet a few of you are sitting there saying, well Joe, you’ve presented a fine intellectual analysis of what’s gone on here, but I need an emotional place on which to hang my hat. I need to emotionally grapple with what’s happened. (Pause.) Yes, I agree. And so do I. And so do millions and millions of other people.

But grappling with this situation emotionally is not going to happen just yet. It’s too soon. That’s going to take months, perhaps even years. There will be a long process in just identifying our own emotions, a long process grieving for ourselves and for others.

And I can even tell you what it will be like when we’ve come to the point where we have all actually succeeded in emotionally grappling with the terror of last Tuesday. (Pause.) We will have succeeded in emotionally grappling with the terror of last Tuesday, when we’ve finally managed to forgive those who perpetrated this horror.

In the meantime, the thing about which we must be careful is we might presume that, in our response, we are not and should not be held responsible for our behavior towards others, or that we might think cruelty is acceptable behavior, or that we might believe anything goes, or perhaps even believe that our own law and our own understanding of the law reigns supreme. If we start down that road we might end up claiming the ends justifies the means. (Pause.) Let us not, ourselves, turn toward a vision of darkness which leads to such sure destructiveness. (Pause.)

And in Luke’s Gospel the son who has stayed at home says to his father, “...‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends.’” (Pause.)

In the modern era we seem to have forgotten something. Religion does not offer information about facts. Religion speaks about meaning. Hence, if we are religious, attempting to explore how many days it took God to create the world is not a valid position. Delving into ‘why’ God created the world is.

When those who practice religion defend the great symbols of religion, symbols such as creation, as fact and not symbol, they merely surrender any power such symbols might have to move us emotionally. Symbols offer dimension, depth, meaning and address our emotional lives. Facts are strangely one dimensional.

Indeed, in a classic definition of religion the question is asked “What is our ultimate concern?” If truth be told, before Tuesday in the late 20th and early 21st century we, meaning humanity, not only Americans, had all kinds of ultimate concerns which mostly ignored meaning, dimension and depth.

After all, the classic question of our age, world wide, is not ‘what is something worth, what is the depth and dimension of its value,’ but ‘what does it cost?’ We justify everything by what it cost, not by what it is worth, not by its value, not by its meaning.

Indeed, that may have been a mistake made by the perpetrators of Tuesday’s attack. They seem to have thought, because they saw us asking about cost rather than value, we would ask what was the loss in terms of cost, when our response has been to concentrate on asking what this meant in human terms, in terms of value, in terms of dimension and depth of the loss. We realized it was our spirit which was assaulted.

Asking what something cost and not asking what is something worth, asking about its value may seem like a modern malady at first. But over the history of humanity one of our problems seems to be that we are constantly sidetracked into looking only at cost, only at facts, when the depth, dimension and spirit of life entail so much more than that.

This is, in many ways, the problem of the son who stayed at home. He is just as lost, if not even more lost, than his prodigal brother. His brother, in the end, understood something about what life is worth, the value of life, as opposed to what life cost.

Despite being what many might deem the ‘faithful son,’ the one who stayed and worked asks why he has never been given ‘even a young goat?’ He is asking ‘what’s the cost?’ (Pause.)

It seems to me that last Tuesday has the potential, if we allow it, to move us to asking questions about depth, dimension and spirit, questions about what our ultimate concern might really be. Is our ultimate concern cost or is our ultimate concern value?

Is our ultimate concern the God of light and hope and justice and peace and knowledge and freedom and truth? Or is our ultimate concern wrapped up in a nihilism of asking what things cost? Is our ultimate concern wrapped up in seeking our own, individual, inbred, virulent truth in which the ends justify the means? Or does the thought that the Creator of the universe loves us deeply, despite our flaws, have value? (Pause.)

Who were you with last Tuesday? (Pause.) Were you with someone who you did not care for but someone who God called you to love deeply? Or were you with someone you loved, but even so, you still could not begin to process the unfolding events?

Did you find yourself helping someone else as you watched in horror together? Indeed, was that person you were with someone you did not like or was it someone you loved? Or did that even matter, as you recognized your common humanity? And how did you emotionally grapple with recognizing your common humanity? (Pause.)

Where were you last Tuesday? At what place did your spirit find itself? What was your ultimate concern? (Pause.) Were you seeking depth, dimension? Were you concerned with the Spirit of God? Was your life centered on the God of hope, justice, peace, freedom, truth and knowledge, the God of love who constantly invites us out of darkness and into the light? Amen.

09/16/2001
United Church of Christ, Norwich, NY

END PIECE - It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Many of you have heard these words. They are from the memorial service of the United Church of Christ. ‘Friends, we gather here in the protective shelter of God’s healing love. We are free to pour out our grief, release our anger, face our emptiness, and know that God cares. We gather here as God’s people, conscious of others who have died and of the frailty of our own existence on earth. We come to comfort and to support one another in our common loss. We gather to hear God’s word of hope that can drive away our despair and move us to offer God our praise.’ As we gather here each Sunday it is well to remember that, as Christians, we believe the protective shelter of God’s care, God’s healing love is available to all people.”

[1] The two previous paragraphs are adapted from an article by Thomas L. Friedman in the NY Times, Smoking or Non-smoking? - 09/14/2001.

SERMON ~ 09/04/2011 ~ Love One Another

09/04/2011 ~ Proper 18 ~ 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 12:1-14; Psalm 149; Ezekiel 33:7-11; Psalm 119:33-40; Romans 13:8-14 ; Matthew 18:15-20 — Note: Communion Will Be on 9/11/2011 ~ Labor day Weekend ~ Note: John Kolb and Lilit Danielyan Join the Church.

Love One Another

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” — Romans 13:8.


I am sure I have told this story here once before. I want to repeat it in the hope that it illustrates a larger point.

As many of you probably know, I worked behind the scenes in professional theater and as all of you probably do know, work of any kind in theater is sporadic at best. Hence, more years ago than I care to name I did a temporary stint with The Harris Poll in a year they were doing surveys for a presidential election.

One call I made was to Alabama. When I got to the demographic questions: age range, income range, etc., etc., the question for religious affiliation read this way: “Are you Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or other?” The person responded: “I’m a Baptist.”

Now, in order for an individual’s response to be counted, the person needs to answer all the questions with their words but they did need to respond only in the categories with which they were presented. Having not heard one of the aforementioned categories, I asked the question in a different way.

“Now,” I said earnestly, “historically many people would say Baptists fall under the category of Protestant. ‘Are you Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or other?’”

“I am a Baptist.” Try as I might, I could not get this person to chose the Protestant category.

I was reminded of that story because of a small brouhaha, a kerfuffle— whatever this thing is— which developed this week when Lillian Daniel, a United Church of Christ pastor at a large church in a suburb of Chicago, well known as a writer with a couple of books under her belt, wrote something which was widely circulated— at least among pastors it was widely circulated— online. In this brief piece she addressed how people call themselves “spiritual” but not “religious.”

She told a story about someone who sat next to her on an airplane. The person discovered she was a pastor and spent the entire flight telling Lillian about how he was “spiritual” but not “religious,” in part because of all the churches to which he had belonged and which had damaged him in some way.

Reverend Daniel writes (quote): “...when I meet a math teacher, I don’t feel the need to say I hated math.... when I meet a chef, I don’t need to let it be known that I can’t cook.... I keep that stuff to myself. But everybody loves to tell a minister what’s wrong with the church— and it’s usually a church that bears no relation to the one I serve.” [1]

While I hesitate to reduce Lillian’s writing to a couple of words, I think the essence of what she then said is this: to be “spiritual” rather than “religious” is a common claim these days. This approach insists if one can see God in a sunset one can, therefore, eliminate the need for church.

That line of thinking, however, does nothing but place a person as comfortably normal within the self-centered American culture. And indeed, it is within the self-centeredness of American culture where people often find religion dull but, on the other hand, often experience themselves uniquely fascinating.

Lillian insisted the place where real spirituality is found is within a religious community. She said those who join a community are brave enough to encounter God with and among other real human beings in that community.

Now, I’d be the first to say that Lillian’s approach was a little snarky, sarcastic and impertinent. It was irreverent in tone. And, yes, she had used a sharp knife.

Of course, therefore, she offended some people. And some of them, probably most of them, were pastors. They responded, as you can these days— online. They took umbrage to both her sharp knife and to her calling them out.

You see, many pastors claim that ‘spiritual’ label as their own. Indeed, some of pastors, despite the fact that they serve the institutions of religion— churches— themselves question a need to be ‘religious.’

Clearly, what Lillian was trying to do was to make the case that if one is outside of a community of faith being ‘spiritual’ is not an easy claim to make. You see, historically, a claim about being aware of the presence of God insists that those same people who are aware of the presence of God are called by God to live in community.

Indeed, even those who live in cloisters and hermitages rely on the greater community for survival. Those who live in solitude do not hate society. They are the first to acknowledge, if it was not for the support of the greater community, they could not do what they do. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as Romans: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” (Slight pause.)

So, this argument about ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ was the hot topic which bounced around the Internet among pastors this week. What crossed my mind as I watched that discussion develop is that among most Americans this was not a hot topic.

I am quite sure the hot topic around the water cooler was not what it means to be ‘spiritual’ or what it means to be ‘religious.’ The hot topic was more likely to be ‘who are the new contestants for that popular television program Dancing with the Stars?’

Now, this may surprise you, but to my mind the interesting discussion was not the discussion about ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious.’ The interesting discussion this week was about Dancing with the Stars. (I see a couple of faces going ‘What?’)

Why? Why would I think that? I think this heated argument among pastors was a little like the person from Alabama who would not place Baptists among Protestants. The real issue is one of categories.

To my mind ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’ are both very, very, very secular categories. For me they are, therefore, not particularly pertinent, not particularly interesting. Indeed, they are not categories with which I am comfortable and, unless I was using some kind of shorthand— maybe that’s what Lillian was doing— these are not categories I would normally use.

So, why do I think these categories are inadequate? They are self referential. This is how these categories are most often spoken about [the pastor speaks in a haughty tone:] “I am spiritual, you know.” Or [the pastor speaks in a gruff tone:] “I am religious— go to church— you know what I mean?” These categories, hence, address self— what you do. They do not address the reality and the presence of God.

If God is brought directly into the mix of the discussion you get a very different approach. Here are a couple of questions about God which I think should be in the mix and which I think, therefore, pushes out those two categories: ‘Is God one?’ ‘Are there many gods?’ ‘Is God— as we Christians claim— three “persons” in One God?’

Then there are the slightly more personal and more self referential questions which arise from that but God is still at the center. ‘Did God create us?’ ‘Did we create God?’ ‘Did the gods create us or did we create the gods?’ ‘Are we in God?’ ‘Is God within us?’

And then there are the most self-referential questions in this group, ‘What is your experience of God?’ and ‘How can you share that experience with one another without being self-referential. A final question presents itself and this is: ‘how do you acknowledge the reality and the presence of God not just for yourself, but for others— not just for yourself, but for others?’

I think Paul addresses all of these God questions in this passage. Paul, you see, understands God calls us to a community of love. Paul understands loving one another produces true faithfulness. Love— love of both God and neighbor— is what produces community.

Last, I suppose what all this says is categories are both created by us and those categories can be dangerous. They simply break people into tribes. Creating categories does nothing but create tribalism.

I, for instance, am always wary of that commonly used category: ‘churched’ and ‘unchurched.’ ‘Churched’ or ‘unchurched’ by whose standard, by what church?
So, I agree with Paul where this is recorded in Romans (quote): “...the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” Paul, you see, here merges categories: love... law. And, as far as I can tell any category we create is probably too small for God, except one. And that is the category called love. Amen.

09/04/2011
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: “We live in an era, in a world where we sometimes struggle for struggle for self-identity. Perhaps people seek to break things into categories such as ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ because they are seeking some kind of identity which sets them apart, individualizes them. But that is the interesting and wonderful thing about love. It both joins us together as one and sets us apart as individuals. Indeed that is the interesting and wonderful thing about God. The Christian claim has always been that God sees us as individuals and sees us in community.”

BENEDICTION
Let us go forth in the Spirit of Christ. Let us seek the will of God. Let us put aside ambition and conceit for the greater good. Let us serve in joyfully. And now hear this is prayer of Melanesian Islanders: May Jesus be the canoe that holds us up in the sea of life. May Jesus be the rudder that keeps us in the straight road. May Jesus be the outrigger that supports us in times of trial. May the Spirit of Jesus be our sail that carries us through each day. Amen.

[1] http://christiancentury.org/article/2011-08/you-can-t-make

Note: this is the full writing. The piece which got the most response was a cut-down version of this. This is the cut down version:

http://www.ucc.org/feed-your-spirit/daily-devotional/spiritual-but-not-religious.html

Sermon ~ Poor in Spirit? ~ 08/21/2011 ~ A Sermon on the Occasion of “Water from the Well Part II”

08/21/2011 ~ Proper 16 ~ 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ 10th Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 1:8-2:10; Psalm 124; Isaiah 51:1-6; Psalm 138; Romans 12:1-8; Matthew 16:13-20 ~ Used These Passages from Scripture: Call to Worship Based on Psalm 100; Ecclesiastes 3, selected verses, adapted (in the Ceremony of Shalom; Matthew 5:1-10, 13-16; Responsive Reading Based on Psalm 55 from the translation used in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer; Responsive Reading Based on Psalm 149 [ILV]; A Reading from the Talmud ~ The Sunday Featuring Water from the Well II and the Music of Joseph Martin ~ Ceremony of Shalom for Eli Craig ~ Water from the Well II; a Union Service with the United Church of Christ, First Congregational of Norwich and the Sherburne United Church of Christ.

Poor in Spirit?

“Blessed are those who are poor in spirit: the Dominion of heaven is theirs.” — Matthew 5:3.


Mikhail Baryshnikov is a Soviet-born Russian-American dancer, choreographer, actor and, certainly, one of the great ballet artists of the 20th century. Baryshnikov was involved in the 1981 American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award, a televised tribute to Fred Astaire.

The very first to speak on the broadcast, he said this (quote): “I have been invited to say something concerning how we dancers feel about Fred Astaire. It’s no secret: we hate him. (Slight pause.) He gives us complexes because he’s too perfect.” [1] (Slight pause.)

That’s probably how a lot of us feel about the Beatitudes, isn’t it? We hate them. How can you live up to that kind of perfection? (Slight pause.)

Well, I’ve got good news. We don’t have to be perfect. It’s not our job. And perfection is not what the Beatitudes are about.

As indicated earlier, after the Beatitudes comes a series of “you are” statements. These amplify and illuminate the Beatitudes. So, this is not simply a list of unattainable goals since the “you are” statements insist we are already blessed by God. (Slight pause.)

Baryshnikov and Astaire are graceful people. And being poor in spirit has to do with grace, not poverty. Indeed, one translation renders “Blessed are the poor in spirit” as “Blessed are the debonaire.”

And that’s the point. A person who is debonaire is one who moves through life with a sense of God. A person who moves through life with a sense of God is grace-filled. A grace-filled person is confident in the reality of God, confident the presence of God.

Those who are grace-filled have no need to claim or exhibit a robust ego because their identity rests in God, their security rests in God. So, the poverty of spirit addressed here stems from the humility one discovers through striving to grow into deeply knowing God. (Slight pause.)

There is also an ethical dimension to the beatitudes. Knowledge of God, you see, leads to action. And it is not individual action but communal action because, in the context of the Gospel, it is not the individual being pronounced as blessed. The community hears itself as blessed, sees itself as blessed.

And, since these pronouncements are made by Jesus, the community cannot remain passive. The Beatitudes, thereby, become and are a call to action. [2] (Slight pause.)

Now, we have gathered here today and we have celebrated music. Why? What’s the connection. What does song have to do with action? (Slight pause.) Everything.

Music, singing, is filled with its own sense of God given grace since it allows us to, physically, make a proclamation about grace and, thereby, a proclamation of the presence grace. As such, in the very act of singing, our assertion is that we rely on the grace of God and on the mercy of God.

Why? Music, when offered to God, is a recognition of the reality of God and a recognition of the presence of God. So, indeed blessed are the debonaire. Blessed are those who know grace by walking in the paths of God and doing the work of God and the will of God. Blessed are those who sing praise to God. Amen.

United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
08/21/2011

A READING FROM THE TALMUD AND A BENEDICTION

The Torah is the first five books of the Bible. This is a reading from the Jewish commentary on the Torah, known as the Talmud.

After all creation was formed, God called the angels together and asked them what they thought of it. One of them said, “Something is lacking: the sound of praise to the Creator.” So God created music. And music was heard in the whisper of the wind, in the chirp of the birds, in the tympani of the thunder. But that was not enough, so God gave humanity the gift of song. And down through the ages this gift has blessed, comforted and inspired many souls. This gift is a part of the covenant; we have the blessings and wonder which the gift from God bestows on and in us; and God is pleased when a joyful noise is heard.

Hear now this blessing: let us walk in the Spirit, remembering that we are one in Christ, for, in the Dominion of God, the grace of true freedom is the inheritance of those who walk in the love of God.

And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.

[1] http://www.reelclassics.com/Actors/Astaire/astaire-article3.htm

[2] The Interpreter’s Bible: The Electronic Edition. This is found in the section on this passage.

Sermon ~ 08/07/2011 ~ The Sounds of Silence

08/07/2011 ~ Proper 14 ~ 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Eighth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Genesis 37:1-4, 12-28; Psalm 105: 1-6, 16-22, 45b; 1 Kings 19:9-18 {Note: used 9-15}; Psalm 85:8-13; Romans 10:5-15; Matthew 14:22-33 ~ Communion Sunday.

The Sounds of Silence

“Then there was a great and powerful wind, so strong that it tore the mountain apart and shattered the rocks in pieces by the power of Yahweh— but Yahweh was not in the whirlwind. And after the wind there was an earthquake. But Yahweh was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake there came a fire but Yahweh was not in the fire. And after the fire there was a sound of sheer silence.” — 1 Kings 19:11b-12.


Sir Richard Attenborough is a good actor, probably best known for the part of the crazy Billionaire in the film Jurassic Park. But Attenborough is an even better film director than he is an actor.

Attenborough directed Gandhi, the film about one of the great civil rights leaders of the 20th Century, Mohandas Gandhi. The Mahatma’s methods— Mahatma means Great Spirit— the Mahatma’s methods of non-violent protest were adopted around the world and led to advances for the rights of many people in many nations.

The makers of that film biography are clear when it came to the limitations of their project. They say this in the introduction to the published screenplay (quote): “No one’s life can be encompassed in one telling.”

“There is no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record and to try to find one’s way to the heart of the person...”

Hence, in an effort to frame the film in such a way as to help audiences understand Gandhi’s life, to places these in context, the film both opens and closes with an image of violence: the assassination of Gandhi. The film, indeed, contains a lot of violence.

I once heard Attenborough asked in an interview why a film which is essentially about non-violence might contain so much violence. The director said for him one of the paradoxes of making the film was you can’t portray non-violence without addressing violence, without showing violent acts. The contrast is essential. (Slight pause.)

To a certain extent, I find myself in the same place as Attenborough. I want to talk about silence. So I need to talk about sound, even noise.

Of this I am convinced: as humans we are, both by nature and by the nurturing Spirit of God, called to communicate. Many of us do that in more than one way. But certainly one way many people communicate is through sound.

Since I am a song writer, people sometimes ask me what my favorite type of music is. The question always puzzles me. You see, as a song writer, I say music is simply organized sound.

So for me, the deeper question needs to be ‘how is the sound we’re talking about organized? Is it organized in a way which can communicate something to me or can communicate something to someone else?’

Asking the question that way leaves me open to being able to appreciate— perhaps not fully understand or even like but to appreciate— many types and styles of music. Asking the question that way opens the possibility that communication is central, rather than my own vision which might be relatively narrow.

Indeed, Julian Treasure a musician, an author and consultant who advises businesses around the world, especially retailers and hotels, on how to use sound— Musac is what my guess he advises about— Treasure says each of us comes to the table with filters. And these filters block communication.

Among the filters he lists are culture, language, values, beliefs, attitudes, expectations and intentions. And both those who are trying to communicate and those with whom are trying to communicate come to the table with a set of filters. Further, it’s likely each person coming to the table brings a very different set of judgments about those filters.

That, I think, brings me to the key point about sound: sound is not about noise. Sound is about listening and listening carefully, trying to cancel out inappropriate filters.

Those who study these things tell us we actually listen 60% of the time. On the other hand, we retain only 25% of what we hear. And we retain that 25% only when we concentrate really, really hard on just listening. (Slight pause.)

And these words are from the work known as First Kings: “...after the fire there was a sound of sheer... silence.” (Slight pause.)

Question: is God still speaking? (Slight pause.) That’s what our denomination claims— God is still speaking. (Slight pause.) How do we know, especially if we retain only 25% of what we hear even when we concentrate?

Indeed, in the words of Paul Simon does it not often seem that in our era we have (quote): “People talking without speaking” and we have (quote): “People hearing without listening”? [1] (Slight pause.)

And again, let’s ask questions: if God is still speaking, through whom does God speak? And are we listening? (Slight pause.)

A couple of weeks ago my friend Tom Rasely, who you just heard a little earlier, led the service and offered these words of wisdom from Mark Twain (quote): “The right word may be effective, but no word is ever as effective as a well-timed... pause.”

Tom then went on to say that, as a musician, he is very aware of pauses. In music you can have a series of notes, sounds, interrupted by what are referred to as ‘rests.’ Rests are silences that give a musician, as well as the listener, time to pause and
reflect on what has happened, time to consider, time to prepare for what will happen next.

Indeed, Tom tells students sometimes what you don’t play can make what you do play sound even better. But still, silence can be unsettling. When we hear nothing, especially for long periods of time, it can be unnerving. (Long pause— about 35 seconds.) See?

And then we have Peter— Peter in a boat on the lake. Peter who really, really listened when Christ said “Come.” What was Peter’s problem?

Why did Peter start to sink? Did Peter stop listening? Or was Peter simply distracted by noise of the wind? (Quote): “Peter noticed how strong the wind was, became frightened and, beginning to sink,...” (Slight pause.)

I want to suggest that Peter had a deeper problem than noise. You see, Peter was doing just fine until noise other than the voice of Jesus got in the way.

And when other noise got in the way, it was not that Peter stopped hearing. The voice of Jesus was still there.

Peter stopped trusting. Was Peter distracted? Probably. But I think trust is what helps us concentrate really, really hard on what’s really, really important.

Therefore, I do want to suggest God does speak in the silence. And God does speak with many voices. God speaks in the voices of the loving spirits those around us. God speaks in the voices of members of the community of faith.

God does speak, especially when we trust God. And that leaves us with an obvious question: where and when does God not speak? (Slight pause.)

God does not speak through the noise known as injustice. Is something fair and beneficial to all concerned? [2] If it is not fair and beneficial to all, the sound we hear is the sound of injustice. When we see and when we hear the sound of injustice, we know God is not speaking. (Slight pause.)

God does not speak through the noise known as violence. God does not speak in the violence known as oppression— economic oppression, physical oppression, cultural oppression, the kind of violence which sets people apart as being different or strange or simply unacceptable. When we hear and when we see the sound of violence, we know God is not speaking.

So, it seems to me our job, our goal is to listen for God because God does speak. And in order to hear God speak, we need to concentrate really, really hard.

In many ways that is what Gandhi did. He filtered out the noise of injustice and the noise of violence.

And I believe the best way to filter out the noise of injustice and violence is to trust God. (Slight pause.) Is God still speaking?

Yes. I believe God is still speaking. So, that leaves a final question: do we trust God to the point where we listen hard enough to filter out the noise of violence and the noise of injustice and really hear both that God is still speaking. And really hear what God is saying. Indeed, can we hear what God says even in the silence? Amen.

08/07/2011
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The last words of Paul Simon’s The Sounds of Silence are these (quote): ‘The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls— And tenement halls— And whispered in the sounds of silence.’ I know Paul is Jewish, but I don’t know if he is a Hebrew scholar also. I do know that, whereas in English we think of words as being solid and having a set meaning, in Hebrew, words change meanings as you hear them and have multiple meanings. What we translate as ‘sheer silence’ can also be translated as ‘whisper,’— whispered silence— and there’s Paul Simon: whispered in the sounds of silence. Indeed, Elijah hears that whispered silence and so stands at the mouth of the cave and listens for God. Listening for God is, I think, the key.”

BENEDICTION: We are called to care in a world which can be uncaring, commissioned as lovers among some who may offer back indifference. Know this: God is with us in all our days. So, let us go forth knowing that the grace of God is deeper than our imagination, the strength of Christ is stronger than our need and the communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than all our togetherness. May God guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.

[1] The “Special Music” at this service was The Sounds of Silence sung by Tom Rasely.

[2] Two tests combined into one of the Four Way Test practiced by Rotarians.