07/21/2013 ~ Ninth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 11 ~ Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Amos 8:1-12; Psalm 52; Genesis 18:1-10a; Psalm 15; Colossians 1:15-28; Luke 10:38-42 ~ Special Music: Tom Rasely.
Hospitality
“...Abraham took cheese and milk and the calf which had been prepared, placed it before the travelers and waited near them under the tree while they ate.” — Genesis 18:8.
Many people do not realize there are two kinds of theater jobs, two classes of theater jobs. There are regular gigs, jobs which are quite steady and pay a set salary. There are not so regular gigs, jobs which feel like they might disappear tomorrow and often do. Back when I was writing for theater I held both kinds.
The latter kind, the disappearing kind of gig, is the type most would associate with the actor-slash-restaurant wait staff who, when delivering a meal, might break into song on request. The former kind of gig, the steady, often well-paying gig, is when a person has a part in a long running play or as a recurring soap opera character or even a job backstage— like box office treasurer.
I had one of the backstage solid gigs when I worked for the theatrical charity The Actors Fund of America. [1] Now, before getting a paid job there, I had volunteered time. And so, when I was a volunteer, I once went to a fund raising event held at an art gallery.
As the event was winding down, I got on the elevator to leave and by chance Josh Logan and Nedda Harrigan Logan were the only people to get on with me. Nedda was on the Board of the Fund.
Now, if you don’t know a lot about theater, those two names may mean nothing to you. But Josh Logan co-wrote and directed the shows Mister Roberts and South Pacific. You’ve probably heard of those. He also directed the film versions of both.
Nedda was an actress. During World War II, she was one of the founders of the organization known as the Stage Door Canteen. Her father was Edward “Ned” Harrigan, the composer and vaudeville performer about whom George Cohan wrote the famous song: H-A-Double R-I— G-A-N spells Harrigan— he was that Harrigan.
In any case, here I am— and I was at that point a theater novice— here I am alone, on an elevator with Josh Logan and Nedda Harrigan Logan— theater royalty. Josh and Nedda looked at each other, nodded, smiled and reached out their hands to shake mine. They introduced themselves by name: “Hi, I’m Josh Logan.” “Hi, I’m Nedda Harrigan Logan.” (As if I did not know exactly who they were!)
My reaction was natural. I responded by shaking their hands and saying, “Hi, I’m Joe Connolly.”
Nothing else was said. But they had been friendly to a novice. I was, in fact, so much of a novice, I did not know this is a fairly common practice in theater. Put out your hand, introduce yourself, be friendly.
You see, in theater the only place your station in life matters is when it comes to where your name appears in the Playbill. Face to face, eyeball to eyeball, theater people are all equals. Why? Theater people rely on each other.
After all, theater is live. An actor with a bit part can ruin a performance. That actor might get fired right after the house lights come up, but actors rely on actors. So it’s a given: everyone is equal in front of an audience. (Slight pause.)
And we find these words in the work known as Genesis: “...Abraham took cheese and milk and the calf which had been prepared, placed it before the travelers and waited near them under the tree while they ate.” (Slight pause.)
Langston Hughes was a Africa-American poet, novelist, playwright, an innovator in the then new literary art form called jazz poetry and a leader of the Harlem Renaissance. The poem I am about to read was written by Hughes and published in 1938. [2] So, this poem by far pre-dates current headlines. But it sounds strangely, hauntingly contemporary. (Slight pause.)
“This is for the kids who die, / Black and white, / For kids will die certainly. / The old and rich will live on awhile, / As always, / Eating blood and gold, / Letting kids die.”
“Kids will die in the swamps of Mississippi / Organizing sharecroppers / Kids will die in the streets of Chicago / Organizing workers / Kids will die in the orange groves of California / Telling others to get together / Whites and Filipinos, / Negroes and Mexicans, / All kinds of kids will die / Who don’t believe in lies, and bribes, and contentment / And a lousy peace.”
“Of course, the wise and the learned / Who pen editorials in the papers, / And the gentlemen with Dr. in front of their names / White and black, / Who make surveys and write books / Will live on weaving words to smother the kids who die, / And the sleazy courts, / And the bribe-reaching police, / And the blood-loving generals, / And the money-loving preachers / Will all raise their hands against the kids who die, / Beating them with laws and clubs and bayonets and bullets / To frighten the people— / For the kids who die are like iron in the blood of the people— / And the old and rich don’t want the people / To taste the iron of the kids who die, / Don’t want the people to get wise to their own power,....” [3]
“Listen, kids who die— / Maybe, now, there will be no monument for you / Except in our hearts / Maybe your bodies’ll be lost in a swamp / Or a prison grave, or the potter’s field, / Or the rivers where you’re drowned... [4] / But the day will come— / You are sure yourselves that it is coming— / When the marching feet of the masses / Will raise for you a living monument of love, / And joy, and laughter, / And black hands and white hands clasped as one, / And a song that reaches the sky— / The song of the life triumphant / Through the kids who die.” [5] (Pause.)
Again, even though written a long time ago, these are the hauntingly contemporary words of Langston Hughes, words published in 1938. (Slight pause.)
As was said earlier the narrative we heard from Genesis seems ordinary. Abraham, a nomad, is resting in the shade of a tent on a blistering afternoon and in typical nomadic fashion extends hospitality to three strangers who suddenly appear. (Slight pause.)
Most commentators insist this is not ordinary. The travelers represent a theophany, an experience of the real presence of God. Commentators also insist God is present to renew the covenant already made with Sarah and Abraham.
Last, they insist that the hospitality extended by Abraham and Sarah is not meant to please the visitors. Quite the contrary, the hospitality offered is a paradigm of how the other should be treated— with openness, with equity. As it happens, in treating these visitors with openness and equity, Abraham and Sarah welcome God. (Slight pause.)
Theologian Richard Rohr notes we live in an interesting era, in a time when people say things are non-negotiable, make non-negotiable demands. However, he says, a lot of those non-negotiable demands have to do with the violent protection of property— the violent protection of property. He then observes Jesus had non-negotiable demands also.
The non-negotiable demands of Jesus include loving neighbor. They include justice, healing and restoration for the poor. This is also a non-negotiable: never exclude anyone— ever. Hospitality is to be extended to all.
In fact, of all the things Jesus mentions as non-negotiable— you’ll find the non-negotiable demands of Jesus when you read the Beatitudes— of all the things Jesus mentions as non-negotiable, a right to commit violent acts is not on that list. The protection of property is not on that list. (Slight pause.)
Another theologian, Henri Nouwen, said this (quote): “Much violence is based on the illusion that life is a property to be defended and not to be shared.” So yes, there are connections here between sexism, racism, militarism, nationalism. These are all forms of violence which protect some kind of turf, some property. (Slight pause.)
It has occurred to me that we really do not understand Biblical hospitality. We hear the word hospitality and we confine it to being cordial, welcoming. But Biblical hospitality includes justice. Biblical hospitality includes peace. Biblical hospitality includes freedom. Biblical hospitality includes dignity.
Biblical hospitality means we need to strive to make justice and peace and freedom and dignity happen for all people. Biblical hospitality, you see, is a place where justice, peace, freedom and dignity can happen because we rely on one another.
And this— this is what people do who rely on each other. [The pastor leaves the pulpit and walks up to several parishioners who are sitting in pews, shakes their hands and says]: “Hi. I’m Joe Connolly.” (Needless to say the parishioners each respond with their own names.) [The pastor does not to the pulpit but finishes the comments below standing in the center isle of the Nave.]
As I said, this is done in the theater. In the theater everyone is equal in front of an audience. In life all people are equal in front of God. And hospitality— Biblical hospitality— being present to our neighbor, striving to make justice and peace and freedom and dignity happen for all people— is our true calling from God because we are equal, all of us, before God. Amen.
07/21/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Just so you know that my encounter with Josh and Nedda Logan was not a fluke, after I started working for The Actors Fund one of the great actresses of the 20th Century dropped by my office, stuck out her hand and said, “Hi, I’m Helen Hayes.” (As if I would not have known!) With God, the handshake is know as Covenant. And God knows the world can be fraught with handshakes of greed, anxiety and violence. But God realizes handshakes of greed, anxiety, and violence are countered when commit to the work of the Dominion of God. So, God offers the handshake of Covenant since our hands do the work of the Dominion.”
BENEDICTION: We can find the presence of God in unexpected places. God’s light leads us to places we thought not possible just moments ago. God’s love abounds and will live with us throughout eternity. The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our needs. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. May the one triune God sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
[1] A note on grammar/spelling: this organization is “The Actors Fund” (i.e.: Actors, plural— a fund for all actors.)
[2] The Collected Works of Langston Hughes, Volume 1, 1921-1940, pg. 138-140.
[3] “To believe an Angelo Herndon, or even get together.” This line was removed here just to avoid have to explain who Angelo Herndon was (a socialist).
[4] “Libknecht” - This word was removed here just to avoid needing to explain who Libknecht was. He was a socialist.
[5] http://books.google.com/books?id=uuREXd_sZyoC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=LANGSTON+HUGHES+WHEN+KIDS+DIE&source=bl&ots=R1FGSHOpFL&sig=hELWGeBV0Tr5GsSqAzHWwH1y1SQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z0nsUa3mMoWGqgGEoICgAg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=LANGSTON%20HUGHES%20WHEN%20KIDS%20DIE&f=false
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Sunday, July 14, 2013
SERMON ~ 07/14/2013 ~ “Neighbors”
07/14/2013 ~ Eighth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 10 ~ Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Amos 7:7-17; Psalm 82; Deuteronomy 30:9-14; Psalm 25:1-10; Colossians 1:1-14; Luke 10:25-37.
Neighbors
“But the expert on the Law, seeking self justification, pressed Jesus further: ‘And just who is my neighbor?’” — Luke 10:29.
Those of you who know me really well know my sense of humor leans heavily on the verbal and on satire. By way of suggesting how hard satire is to pull off, the great American playwright George Kaufman, said this: ‘In theater, satire is what opens on Friday night and closes on Saturday night.’ [1]
Kaufman was, of course, the premier playwright and the premier satirist of his day. He was also one of the writers who wrote material for The Marx Brothers.
Unlike some other Vaudeville acts— acts like The Three Stooges who relied on physical humor— The Marx Brothers heavily relied on verbal humor and satire. The humor of The Marx Brothers, hence, lines up quite well with my sensibilities.
And though not written by Kaufman whose work I greatly admire, one of my favorite pieces of Marx Brother schtick is a song sung by Groucho Marx. It’s found in the film Horse Feathers. The song is Whatever It Is, I’m Against It!
This is part of the lyric: “I don’t know what they have to say, / It makes no difference anyway, / Whatever it is, I’m against it. / No matter what it is or who commenced it, / I’m against it. // Your proposition may be good, / But let’s have one thing understood, / Whatever it is, I’m against it. / And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it, / I’m against it.” [2] (Slight pause.)
Blogger Deana Nall recently posted a piece about some Christians who seem to start with the premise of being against things and therefore being angry about things. Among the items she listed were these: some Christians are against and angry about gay people having rights, about abortion, evolution, feminism. They are against and angry at Muslims, at people needing government assistance. [3]
She also says some Christians even seem to be against and get angry about things that aren’t real. People, for instance, express anger because prayer is not allowed in schools. However, prayer is allowed in schools.
Prayer can’t be organized by the teachers or the administration but take my word for this: any High School Senior who, in order to graduate, needs to pass a single Regents exam in a subject at which and in which they have not excelled knows about prayer in schools. They fervently practice prayer in schools.
Also among the things which are not real but at which people express anger is the so called ‘War on Christmas,’ an idea drawn up by a publicist. There’s another phony one going around: that the Pledge of Allegiance is somehow being taken out of schools. Some of you may have heard about that one and some may not have heard about it.
If you haven’t heard about it, there’s a good reason. It’s simply not true. But there are so many posts on Facebook making the claim that the pledge is being banned you would think it’s a fact.
All of which is to say even when an item is false it seems to be hard to convince those making the false claims that they are untrue. Frankly, the speed with which these kinds of falsehoods spread leads me to think people enjoy being angry and therefore invent things about which they can be against.
In other words, it seems to me we have an epidemic in America. There is an epidemic of Whatever It Is, I’m Against It. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work know as Luke: “But the expert on the Law, seeking self justification, pressed Jesus further: ‘And just who is my neighbor?’” (Slight pause.)
When this reading from Luke was introduced you heard it said that (quote): “Hospitals, helping groups and civic awards are named after the so called Good Samaritan.” And there is no question but that the Samaritan did good.
But is doing good the point of the story? (Slight pause.) I want to suggest there is a more important point to the story than that the Samaritan did some good. You see, the Samaritan did not just do good. The Samaritan also did well.
I maintain nearly everyone can do and does do some good, whether it’s rescuing a stray cat or watering a thirsty plant or giving directions to a traveler lost in an unfamiliar town. Put another way, nearly everyone does some random act of kindness over the course of time. We all do good.
Doing well is a very different issue. In order to do well, one needs to have and to practice discipline. One needs to practice the discipline of acceptance, the discipline of self control and the discipline of... love.
Please do not mis-understand me: there is such a thing as justified anger. I am not discounting that. I am discounting unjustified anger. Unjustified anger is simply undisciplined.
Further, people do make up things they can be against and at which they can be angry. That action clearly lacks discipline. Now, I feel compelled to point out several interesting aspects of how undisciplined this really is.
For starters, if you’re against something, angry about something which is made up, you do not have to do anything real or constructive to rectify the issue. After all, it’s bogus. It does not exist.
Next, being angry at the imaginary both allows reality to be ignored and allows doing what is constructive to lay fallow. Needless to say, failing to do what is constructive and helpful means that which is in desperate need of action is left totally undone. Last, isn’t refusing to be constructive nothing more than a tacit approval of anarchy? (Slight pause.)
Coming back to the reading, I am sure over time most of you have heard that Samaritans were considered to be outcasts by Jews in New Testament times. And so, Jesus, in telling this tale, turns the world of those who hear the story upside down by using an outcast as an example of someone who does good.
I think our culture understands this is, since the lowly cultural outcast does good, we need to do good also. But what our culture does not seem to understand is this story is not just about doing good. The story also says we need to do good with someone and for someone who, like the Samaritan, is an outcast in our culture.
And that’s where we come back to the concept of doing well, the concept that we need to have the discipline to do well. And this is where the three disciplines I mentioned earlier come into play: the discipline of acceptance, the discipline of self control and the discipline of love.
It is not easy to engage in practices of acceptance, self control or love, especially with those who our culture considers outcast— especially the poor, the working poor, the homeless— those who for whatever reason we don’t believe belong in our group, in our tribe. It is, in fact, much easier to be against, easier to be hostile, easier to be angry at those with whom we do not want to be associated.
But it is clear this is not what we are called to do by Jesus. Perhaps the point Jesus seems to make can be phrased this way: we are not just called to do good. We are called to be good.
That brings us back to the first question, the one the expert on the law asked: ‘Just who is my neighbor?’ I think a key point of the story is our neighbor is not only or simply the one in need.
Our neighbor is also the outcast. Our neighbor is also the person who might live just down the street, the one with whom we are not sure we would want to have dinner or shake hands or (dare I say it) sit in the same pew in which they are sitting.
So, I think the question Jesus really poses is not the easy one. The easy one being: ‘are we willing to do good?’ Yes— we are willing to do good. Everyone is willing to do good. The question Jesus really poses is ‘are we willing to do well— to be good— while we are doing good?’
And doing well— being good while we are doing good— that’s what I call the discipline different than the ones I’ve already mentioned. This is he discipline of discipleship. Sp maybe the real an deep question is: are we called to be disciples? Are we called to discipleship? Amen.
07/14/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Pastor and theologian Brian Mclaren says this (quote): ‘I spent many years as a card-carrying Calvinist. I understand its appeal... because it’s a highly coherent... self-reinforcing closed system and it gives its defenders a feeling of true superiority, in a humble yet exclusively privileged sort of way. But I believe Calvinism... rests on some erroneous assumptions. One of those assumptions is... the greatest heresy of monotheism, namely, a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Election as being for exclusive privilege rather than for... service for the common good.’” [4]
BENEDICTION: May the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ be among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us as we scatter into the world. 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] Yes, I do know that the real quote is this: “Satire is what closes on Saturday night.” But I felt for a general audience (meaning a congregation not comprised of all theater people, an audience filled with people who are unfamiliar theater references) I needed to be a little more precise and, thereby, illustrative in conveying meaning.
[2] Written by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby.
[3] You can find that blog entry here:
[4] This actually came off Brian’s Facebook page. I believe he had written this in a book and he was quoting himself.
Neighbors
“But the expert on the Law, seeking self justification, pressed Jesus further: ‘And just who is my neighbor?’” — Luke 10:29.
Those of you who know me really well know my sense of humor leans heavily on the verbal and on satire. By way of suggesting how hard satire is to pull off, the great American playwright George Kaufman, said this: ‘In theater, satire is what opens on Friday night and closes on Saturday night.’ [1]
Kaufman was, of course, the premier playwright and the premier satirist of his day. He was also one of the writers who wrote material for The Marx Brothers.
Unlike some other Vaudeville acts— acts like The Three Stooges who relied on physical humor— The Marx Brothers heavily relied on verbal humor and satire. The humor of The Marx Brothers, hence, lines up quite well with my sensibilities.
And though not written by Kaufman whose work I greatly admire, one of my favorite pieces of Marx Brother schtick is a song sung by Groucho Marx. It’s found in the film Horse Feathers. The song is Whatever It Is, I’m Against It!
This is part of the lyric: “I don’t know what they have to say, / It makes no difference anyway, / Whatever it is, I’m against it. / No matter what it is or who commenced it, / I’m against it. // Your proposition may be good, / But let’s have one thing understood, / Whatever it is, I’m against it. / And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it, / I’m against it.” [2] (Slight pause.)
Blogger Deana Nall recently posted a piece about some Christians who seem to start with the premise of being against things and therefore being angry about things. Among the items she listed were these: some Christians are against and angry about gay people having rights, about abortion, evolution, feminism. They are against and angry at Muslims, at people needing government assistance. [3]
She also says some Christians even seem to be against and get angry about things that aren’t real. People, for instance, express anger because prayer is not allowed in schools. However, prayer is allowed in schools.
Prayer can’t be organized by the teachers or the administration but take my word for this: any High School Senior who, in order to graduate, needs to pass a single Regents exam in a subject at which and in which they have not excelled knows about prayer in schools. They fervently practice prayer in schools.
Also among the things which are not real but at which people express anger is the so called ‘War on Christmas,’ an idea drawn up by a publicist. There’s another phony one going around: that the Pledge of Allegiance is somehow being taken out of schools. Some of you may have heard about that one and some may not have heard about it.
If you haven’t heard about it, there’s a good reason. It’s simply not true. But there are so many posts on Facebook making the claim that the pledge is being banned you would think it’s a fact.
All of which is to say even when an item is false it seems to be hard to convince those making the false claims that they are untrue. Frankly, the speed with which these kinds of falsehoods spread leads me to think people enjoy being angry and therefore invent things about which they can be against.
In other words, it seems to me we have an epidemic in America. There is an epidemic of Whatever It Is, I’m Against It. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work know as Luke: “But the expert on the Law, seeking self justification, pressed Jesus further: ‘And just who is my neighbor?’” (Slight pause.)
When this reading from Luke was introduced you heard it said that (quote): “Hospitals, helping groups and civic awards are named after the so called Good Samaritan.” And there is no question but that the Samaritan did good.
But is doing good the point of the story? (Slight pause.) I want to suggest there is a more important point to the story than that the Samaritan did some good. You see, the Samaritan did not just do good. The Samaritan also did well.
I maintain nearly everyone can do and does do some good, whether it’s rescuing a stray cat or watering a thirsty plant or giving directions to a traveler lost in an unfamiliar town. Put another way, nearly everyone does some random act of kindness over the course of time. We all do good.
Doing well is a very different issue. In order to do well, one needs to have and to practice discipline. One needs to practice the discipline of acceptance, the discipline of self control and the discipline of... love.
Please do not mis-understand me: there is such a thing as justified anger. I am not discounting that. I am discounting unjustified anger. Unjustified anger is simply undisciplined.
Further, people do make up things they can be against and at which they can be angry. That action clearly lacks discipline. Now, I feel compelled to point out several interesting aspects of how undisciplined this really is.
For starters, if you’re against something, angry about something which is made up, you do not have to do anything real or constructive to rectify the issue. After all, it’s bogus. It does not exist.
Next, being angry at the imaginary both allows reality to be ignored and allows doing what is constructive to lay fallow. Needless to say, failing to do what is constructive and helpful means that which is in desperate need of action is left totally undone. Last, isn’t refusing to be constructive nothing more than a tacit approval of anarchy? (Slight pause.)
Coming back to the reading, I am sure over time most of you have heard that Samaritans were considered to be outcasts by Jews in New Testament times. And so, Jesus, in telling this tale, turns the world of those who hear the story upside down by using an outcast as an example of someone who does good.
I think our culture understands this is, since the lowly cultural outcast does good, we need to do good also. But what our culture does not seem to understand is this story is not just about doing good. The story also says we need to do good with someone and for someone who, like the Samaritan, is an outcast in our culture.
And that’s where we come back to the concept of doing well, the concept that we need to have the discipline to do well. And this is where the three disciplines I mentioned earlier come into play: the discipline of acceptance, the discipline of self control and the discipline of love.
It is not easy to engage in practices of acceptance, self control or love, especially with those who our culture considers outcast— especially the poor, the working poor, the homeless— those who for whatever reason we don’t believe belong in our group, in our tribe. It is, in fact, much easier to be against, easier to be hostile, easier to be angry at those with whom we do not want to be associated.
But it is clear this is not what we are called to do by Jesus. Perhaps the point Jesus seems to make can be phrased this way: we are not just called to do good. We are called to be good.
That brings us back to the first question, the one the expert on the law asked: ‘Just who is my neighbor?’ I think a key point of the story is our neighbor is not only or simply the one in need.
Our neighbor is also the outcast. Our neighbor is also the person who might live just down the street, the one with whom we are not sure we would want to have dinner or shake hands or (dare I say it) sit in the same pew in which they are sitting.
So, I think the question Jesus really poses is not the easy one. The easy one being: ‘are we willing to do good?’ Yes— we are willing to do good. Everyone is willing to do good. The question Jesus really poses is ‘are we willing to do well— to be good— while we are doing good?’
And doing well— being good while we are doing good— that’s what I call the discipline different than the ones I’ve already mentioned. This is he discipline of discipleship. Sp maybe the real an deep question is: are we called to be disciples? Are we called to discipleship? Amen.
07/14/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Pastor and theologian Brian Mclaren says this (quote): ‘I spent many years as a card-carrying Calvinist. I understand its appeal... because it’s a highly coherent... self-reinforcing closed system and it gives its defenders a feeling of true superiority, in a humble yet exclusively privileged sort of way. But I believe Calvinism... rests on some erroneous assumptions. One of those assumptions is... the greatest heresy of monotheism, namely, a misunderstanding of the doctrine of Election as being for exclusive privilege rather than for... service for the common good.’” [4]
BENEDICTION: May the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ be among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us as we scatter into the world. 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] Yes, I do know that the real quote is this: “Satire is what closes on Saturday night.” But I felt for a general audience (meaning a congregation not comprised of all theater people, an audience filled with people who are unfamiliar theater references) I needed to be a little more precise and, thereby, illustrative in conveying meaning.
[2] Written by Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby.
[3] You can find that blog entry here:
[4] This actually came off Brian’s Facebook page. I believe he had written this in a book and he was quoting himself.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
SERMON ~ 07/07/2013 ~ SEVENTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST ~ “IN PAIRS”
07/07/2013 ~ Seventh Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 9 ~ Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ 2 Kings 5:1-14; Psalm 30; Isaiah 66:10-14; Psalm 66:1-9; Galatians 6:(1-6), 7-16; Luke 10:1-11, 16-20 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Pastor Joe Also Preaches at the North Guilford Church.
In Pairs
“...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” — Luke 10:1.
The musical 1776 purports to be about how the American Declaration of Independence came together. I have friends who insist on watching the movie version every July 4th (just on Thursday, last). One of the characters portrayed in the show is a founder of this nation, John Adams. Unquestionably, Adams had a pivotal role in our origins.
He was a Harvard lawyer and a member of the committee who worked with the main writer of the aforementioned Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, on composing this document. It declared America was and had a right to be an independent nation. In an amazing career, Adams was also our First Vice President and our second President.
Additionally, this native of Massachusetts was a Delegate to the First Continental Congress, the Second Continental Congress, our Minister to the Court of St. James, to the Netherlands and to France. Last, acting in that capacity of Minister, what we today would commonly call an ambassador, Adams was pivotal in negotiating the treaty which ended the Revolutionary War.
In that very same show, 1776, Adams is pictured as making a pronouncement many today would call prophecy. These words are given to the actor portraying Adams (quote): “I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm; and that three or more become a Congress!” (Slight pause.)
Now, as I said, many might agree with that sentiment. However, there is a problem. John Adams never said those words. John Adams never wrote those words. Peter Stone, the Librettist for 1776, wrote those words.
You see, the musical 1776 presents a myth, a myth about the making of the Declaration of Independence, certainly. Was the Continental Congress slow to act when, in fact, the Revolution had already started?
Yes. Therefore, frustration with Congress does, to a certain extent, explain how the Declaration developed. So, one question about that quote which surely must arise is this: is presenting a fabrication to support a myth always appropriate?
I need to be clear: there are several meanings attached to the word myth. One suggests whatever topic being considered is simply a fabrication, a falsehood. In short, that kind of myth denies a deeper truth. However, another meaning suggests a myth— while clearly a fabrication, a falsehood— that myth is being offered in an effort to uncover a deeper truth, a deeper meaning. (Slight pause.)
America, not unlike a lot of other countries, abounds in myths. Some of them uncover deeper truths. Some do not. Unfortunately and therefore, some myths deny reality.
Here’s one American myth which denies reality. America is a country founded on Christian principles and was founded by Christians.
A claim which says America is a country founded on Christian principles by Christians is simply incompetent in its reading of history— incompetent. On the other hand, when I hear that claim, I wonder why it would be of any conceivable importance?
And then I realize... it is a myth. And I ask myself, what myth is actually being claimed here and why? (Slight pause.)
This is a truth about myths in general: many are based in a tribal experience. Hence, I think making a claim about America as being founded on Christian principles by Christians is trying to make a claim about America being a part of the tribe known as Christianity. And that leads me to ask the obvious: what are Christian tribal claims? Are there any? (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the Gospel we commonly call Luke: “...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” (Slight pause.)
A movie just opened up whose title proclaims an obvious American myth: The Lone Ranger. That American myth is so obvious the title needs little explanation.
We Americans believe one person can do it all. Please notice, what I did not say. I did not say one person fails to make a difference. That is a deep truth: one person can and does make a difference.
But the American myth is one person can do it all. When you think about it, that myth gets repeated over and over and over again in movies. Indiana Jones, Rambo, The Fugitive and nearly every John Wayne movie ever made follows the sole hero myth.
And then there’s the whole list of so called Super Hero movies from Batman to Superman to Captain America. All these have the same thing in common. The individual will triumph without any help from anyone. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the Christian myth is exactly the opposite. You see, Jesus sends the disciples out... in pairs. Now, a lot of attention is paid to what follows that description— the detailed instructions to the disciples and the prophesies, what will happen to them.
But I believe the short simple phrase about being sent out in pairs is pivotal. The disciples, you see, are never alone. Not a one of them has to do everything on their own. They have someone next to them all the time to support them. I think this is a key as to how and to why they are successful. (Slight pause.)
Well, in short, a basic Christian myth— myth meaning a key to a deeper truth— is not The Lone Ranger. Nor is it Indiana Jones or Rambo or The Fugitive or Batman or Superman or Captain America or The Flash or The Green Lantern— etc., etc., etc.
Indeed, if there is any basic myth into which Christianity buys— a basic deep truth into which Christianity buys— it is this one: love your neighbor. And so, Jesus sends the disciples out in pairs for mutual support. In my book, that is the real, deep truth, the reality of loving neighbor is based on support— mutual support. (Slight pause.)
Last, I have said this here before, but I need to note a piece of American History we seem to have forgotten or we ignore. It’s called the Declaration of Independence. Most of us remember that toward the beginning this document says that among our rights are the pursuit of (quote): “...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What we forget is that at the very end, the closing words say this (quote): “...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” — we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. (Slight pause.) So, if this nation is, as some claim, a Christian nation, then I think we need to live up to the words in the Declaration which insist we are not lone rangers, which insist we need to mutually support one another.
We need to support our neighbor. We need to follow the commandment Jesus gave us to love our neighbor. I firmly believe that Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs simply as a lesson in mutual support. Amen.
07/07/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “If we are, in fact, a Christian Country, what is the claim of the Bible about what that might mean. Again and again it legitimates not the people on the top but the people on the bottom or those who move toward helping those on the bottom. It takes an amazing degree of denial and selective attention to miss this obvious pattern in Scripture.”
BENEDICTION:
Redeemer Who sustains us, visit Your people; pour out Your courage upon us, that we may hurry to make welcome all people not only in our concern for others, but by serving them generously and faithfully in Your name. 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.
In Pairs
“...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” — Luke 10:1.
The musical 1776 purports to be about how the American Declaration of Independence came together. I have friends who insist on watching the movie version every July 4th (just on Thursday, last). One of the characters portrayed in the show is a founder of this nation, John Adams. Unquestionably, Adams had a pivotal role in our origins.
He was a Harvard lawyer and a member of the committee who worked with the main writer of the aforementioned Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, on composing this document. It declared America was and had a right to be an independent nation. In an amazing career, Adams was also our First Vice President and our second President.
Additionally, this native of Massachusetts was a Delegate to the First Continental Congress, the Second Continental Congress, our Minister to the Court of St. James, to the Netherlands and to France. Last, acting in that capacity of Minister, what we today would commonly call an ambassador, Adams was pivotal in negotiating the treaty which ended the Revolutionary War.
In that very same show, 1776, Adams is pictured as making a pronouncement many today would call prophecy. These words are given to the actor portraying Adams (quote): “I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm; and that three or more become a Congress!” (Slight pause.)
Now, as I said, many might agree with that sentiment. However, there is a problem. John Adams never said those words. John Adams never wrote those words. Peter Stone, the Librettist for 1776, wrote those words.
You see, the musical 1776 presents a myth, a myth about the making of the Declaration of Independence, certainly. Was the Continental Congress slow to act when, in fact, the Revolution had already started?
Yes. Therefore, frustration with Congress does, to a certain extent, explain how the Declaration developed. So, one question about that quote which surely must arise is this: is presenting a fabrication to support a myth always appropriate?
I need to be clear: there are several meanings attached to the word myth. One suggests whatever topic being considered is simply a fabrication, a falsehood. In short, that kind of myth denies a deeper truth. However, another meaning suggests a myth— while clearly a fabrication, a falsehood— that myth is being offered in an effort to uncover a deeper truth, a deeper meaning. (Slight pause.)
America, not unlike a lot of other countries, abounds in myths. Some of them uncover deeper truths. Some do not. Unfortunately and therefore, some myths deny reality.
Here’s one American myth which denies reality. America is a country founded on Christian principles and was founded by Christians.
A claim which says America is a country founded on Christian principles by Christians is simply incompetent in its reading of history— incompetent. On the other hand, when I hear that claim, I wonder why it would be of any conceivable importance?
And then I realize... it is a myth. And I ask myself, what myth is actually being claimed here and why? (Slight pause.)
This is a truth about myths in general: many are based in a tribal experience. Hence, I think making a claim about America as being founded on Christian principles by Christians is trying to make a claim about America being a part of the tribe known as Christianity. And that leads me to ask the obvious: what are Christian tribal claims? Are there any? (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the Gospel we commonly call Luke: “...Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead in pairs to every town and place the Rabbi intended to visit...” (Slight pause.)
A movie just opened up whose title proclaims an obvious American myth: The Lone Ranger. That American myth is so obvious the title needs little explanation.
We Americans believe one person can do it all. Please notice, what I did not say. I did not say one person fails to make a difference. That is a deep truth: one person can and does make a difference.
But the American myth is one person can do it all. When you think about it, that myth gets repeated over and over and over again in movies. Indiana Jones, Rambo, The Fugitive and nearly every John Wayne movie ever made follows the sole hero myth.
And then there’s the whole list of so called Super Hero movies from Batman to Superman to Captain America. All these have the same thing in common. The individual will triumph without any help from anyone. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the Christian myth is exactly the opposite. You see, Jesus sends the disciples out... in pairs. Now, a lot of attention is paid to what follows that description— the detailed instructions to the disciples and the prophesies, what will happen to them.
But I believe the short simple phrase about being sent out in pairs is pivotal. The disciples, you see, are never alone. Not a one of them has to do everything on their own. They have someone next to them all the time to support them. I think this is a key as to how and to why they are successful. (Slight pause.)
Well, in short, a basic Christian myth— myth meaning a key to a deeper truth— is not The Lone Ranger. Nor is it Indiana Jones or Rambo or The Fugitive or Batman or Superman or Captain America or The Flash or The Green Lantern— etc., etc., etc.
Indeed, if there is any basic myth into which Christianity buys— a basic deep truth into which Christianity buys— it is this one: love your neighbor. And so, Jesus sends the disciples out in pairs for mutual support. In my book, that is the real, deep truth, the reality of loving neighbor is based on support— mutual support. (Slight pause.)
Last, I have said this here before, but I need to note a piece of American History we seem to have forgotten or we ignore. It’s called the Declaration of Independence. Most of us remember that toward the beginning this document says that among our rights are the pursuit of (quote): “...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What we forget is that at the very end, the closing words say this (quote): “...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” — we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. (Slight pause.) So, if this nation is, as some claim, a Christian nation, then I think we need to live up to the words in the Declaration which insist we are not lone rangers, which insist we need to mutually support one another.
We need to support our neighbor. We need to follow the commandment Jesus gave us to love our neighbor. I firmly believe that Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs simply as a lesson in mutual support. Amen.
07/07/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “If we are, in fact, a Christian Country, what is the claim of the Bible about what that might mean. Again and again it legitimates not the people on the top but the people on the bottom or those who move toward helping those on the bottom. It takes an amazing degree of denial and selective attention to miss this obvious pattern in Scripture.”
BENEDICTION:
Redeemer Who sustains us, visit Your people; pour out Your courage upon us, that we may hurry to make welcome all people not only in our concern for others, but by serving them generously and faithfully in Your name. 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.
Monday, July 1, 2013
SERMON ~ 06/30/2013 ~ Sixth Sunday after Pentecost ~ “The Discipline of Freedom”
06/30/2013 ~ Sixth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 8 ~ Thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ 2 Kings 2:1-2, 6-14; Psalm 77:1-2, 11-20; 1 Kings 19:15-16, 19-21; Psalm 16; Galatians 5:1, 13-25; Luke 9:51-62 ~ Annual Organizational Meeting of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational of Norwich, NY ~ 5th Sunday Hymn Sing; A Ceremony Honoring Members in Long Standing.
The Discipline of Freedom [1]
“...you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; but be careful or this freedom will provide an opportunity for self-indulgence. Rather, serve one another through works of love since the whole law is summed up in a single command: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” — Galatians 5:13.
In a recent article the well known Pastor and Author Jim Wallis addressed what he calls “the common good.” He, in fact, wrote a book about it and he originally thought was it going to be somewhat political. But, he says (quote): “...ultimately, what I discovered in the end is it was more spiritual than political.”
Wallis elaborates: ‘having traveled around the country speaking about the book there is a great hunger on the part of people to pursue the common good.’ On the other hand, he also saw deep cynicism about social change even being possible.
The cynicism about Washington and Wall Street is overwhelming. Virtually no one trusts the political system or marketplace to be fair, honest, moral or even open to doing the right thing. Most Americans seem to believe the primary institutions of our public life completely lack integrity.
Sadly, Wallis continues, that cynicism extends to churches and other religious institutions. Why? People do not regard religious institutions as playing an independent leadership role for the common good that can hold the other institutions accountable. In short, when it comes institutions, including churches, there is a lack of trust.
But Wallis does not despair about either the break down of the common good nor the lack of trust when it comes to institutions. Again, why? As he toured around the country addressing the common good the comment he heard most from those who came to see him was this (quote): “I felt inspired tonight to commit myself and to take personal action.” [2] (Slight pause.)
And as Paul tells us: “...the whole law is summed up in a single command: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Slight pause.)
We meet here today to do institutional work. Whether we like it or not, whether we like institutions or not, no civilization since the dawn of time has functioned without institutions. And that reality presents us with at least some section of the paradox Paul muses about in this reading.
If we need institutions— and history says we do need institutions— what makes institutions work? What makes institutions responsive? (Slight pause.) We do. You and I together make institutions work. We make institutions responsive.
And how is that done? It’s done through loving our neighbor. And loving one’s neighbor is not easy; it never has been. So, as Paul suggests, we need to realize what makes loving one’s neighbor difficult is that love is a discipline.
And herein lies the real paradox: loving one’s neighbor is not just a discipline. It is an institutional discipline. You see, as soon as one’s neighbor is involved, as soon as it is not just one person alone doing everything on their own, then, by definition, you have an institution.
What is an institution? An institution is any assembly, any body of more than one person united.
Now, my suggestion about loving neighbor is this: the church is the only institution on the planet which can serve the common good. Why? The church is the only place, the only institution where our common goal, our true goal is the common good— the common good we call ‘loving neighbor.’
And how is that done? Each individual needs to love one neighbor, then the next neighbor, then the next neighbor, one neighbor at a time. It is on this simple precept the institution known as church is built. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
06/30/2013
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Now this is a real question for you to consider. Life in the church is sometimes compared to the very institutional life called life as a citizen. So, does our citizenship lie here, in the reality and the joys and the trials of daily life. Or does our citizenship rest in the reality of the Dominion of God, a place where God loves all people and all people love one another. It is a question of citizenship. And I believe God says we are all citizens.”
COMMISSION AND BENEDICTION:
ONE: Now go! Go, led by the marvelous light of Christ! Go, be a blessing!
MANY: Let us be a blessing! Let us be a light for the world! Let us be the Body of Christ! Amen! And again— Amen!
ONE: 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] It should be noted that this sermon is shorter than one offered on a “regular” Sunday. That is because in the course of this service there are two “special events.” One portion of the service is devoted to honoring our members in long standing. Another portion is devoted to our Annual Organizational Meeting.
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-post-cynical-christia_b_3474122.html
The Discipline of Freedom [1]
“...you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; but be careful or this freedom will provide an opportunity for self-indulgence. Rather, serve one another through works of love since the whole law is summed up in a single command: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” — Galatians 5:13.
In a recent article the well known Pastor and Author Jim Wallis addressed what he calls “the common good.” He, in fact, wrote a book about it and he originally thought was it going to be somewhat political. But, he says (quote): “...ultimately, what I discovered in the end is it was more spiritual than political.”
Wallis elaborates: ‘having traveled around the country speaking about the book there is a great hunger on the part of people to pursue the common good.’ On the other hand, he also saw deep cynicism about social change even being possible.
The cynicism about Washington and Wall Street is overwhelming. Virtually no one trusts the political system or marketplace to be fair, honest, moral or even open to doing the right thing. Most Americans seem to believe the primary institutions of our public life completely lack integrity.
Sadly, Wallis continues, that cynicism extends to churches and other religious institutions. Why? People do not regard religious institutions as playing an independent leadership role for the common good that can hold the other institutions accountable. In short, when it comes institutions, including churches, there is a lack of trust.
But Wallis does not despair about either the break down of the common good nor the lack of trust when it comes to institutions. Again, why? As he toured around the country addressing the common good the comment he heard most from those who came to see him was this (quote): “I felt inspired tonight to commit myself and to take personal action.” [2] (Slight pause.)
And as Paul tells us: “...the whole law is summed up in a single command: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Slight pause.)
We meet here today to do institutional work. Whether we like it or not, whether we like institutions or not, no civilization since the dawn of time has functioned without institutions. And that reality presents us with at least some section of the paradox Paul muses about in this reading.
If we need institutions— and history says we do need institutions— what makes institutions work? What makes institutions responsive? (Slight pause.) We do. You and I together make institutions work. We make institutions responsive.
And how is that done? It’s done through loving our neighbor. And loving one’s neighbor is not easy; it never has been. So, as Paul suggests, we need to realize what makes loving one’s neighbor difficult is that love is a discipline.
And herein lies the real paradox: loving one’s neighbor is not just a discipline. It is an institutional discipline. You see, as soon as one’s neighbor is involved, as soon as it is not just one person alone doing everything on their own, then, by definition, you have an institution.
What is an institution? An institution is any assembly, any body of more than one person united.
Now, my suggestion about loving neighbor is this: the church is the only institution on the planet which can serve the common good. Why? The church is the only place, the only institution where our common goal, our true goal is the common good— the common good we call ‘loving neighbor.’
And how is that done? Each individual needs to love one neighbor, then the next neighbor, then the next neighbor, one neighbor at a time. It is on this simple precept the institution known as church is built. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
06/30/2013
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Now this is a real question for you to consider. Life in the church is sometimes compared to the very institutional life called life as a citizen. So, does our citizenship lie here, in the reality and the joys and the trials of daily life. Or does our citizenship rest in the reality of the Dominion of God, a place where God loves all people and all people love one another. It is a question of citizenship. And I believe God says we are all citizens.”
COMMISSION AND BENEDICTION:
ONE: Now go! Go, led by the marvelous light of Christ! Go, be a blessing!
MANY: Let us be a blessing! Let us be a light for the world! Let us be the Body of Christ! Amen! And again— Amen!
ONE: 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] It should be noted that this sermon is shorter than one offered on a “regular” Sunday. That is because in the course of this service there are two “special events.” One portion of the service is devoted to honoring our members in long standing. Another portion is devoted to our Annual Organizational Meeting.
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-post-cynical-christia_b_3474122.html
Sunday, June 16, 2013
06/16/2013 ~ Fourth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 6 ~ Eleventh Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ 1 Kings 21:1-10, (11-14), 15-21a; Psalm 5:1-8; 2 Samuel 11:26-12:10, 13-15; Psalm 32; Galatians 2:15-21; Luke 7:36-8:3 ~ Father’s Day on the Secular Calendar.
Salvation
“I will not nullify the grace of God; for if justification is available only through the law, then Christ died needlessly, for nothing.” — Galatians 2:21.
I am sure by now you have all, at a bare minimum, heard of Facebook or are, yourselves, on Facebook. To be blunt, Facebook— or at least what people post on it— can be very annoying, since so many use it to broadcast their pet political peeves.
And no, I am not interested in who you voted for, what policy or politician you like or do not like, who or what you are for or against. (Between you and me, people post things on Facebook they would not tell you if they were sitting at a picnic table in your backyard, drinking iced tea and chatting.)
In short, if you’re not going to say it to me in my backyard when we are sharing iced tea and you are staring into my eyes, please don’t say it to me on Facebook. Thank you. (Slight pause.)
Having pointed out this specific downside of Facebook, one of its benefits is sometimes people share interesting articles or write about books they are reading or have read. When someone does that, they aren’t really taking a position about anything. In fact, it’s like we are sitting in the backyard, drinking iced tea and chatting.
You see, with those kinds of posts it’s up to me to follow up. It’s up to me to go look at the article, to search out the book, to see what interests that other person and why. And if they are a close friend or a colleague, I may indeed want to follow up. After all, it’s likely we have things in common.
And that is exactly what happened this week. A colleague posted a link to an article and I did follow up. The article was about prayer and was written by Rabbi Richard A. Block, President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis.
These are among the thoughts about prayer Rabbi Block offered (quote): “Within a few terse verses, the Abraham narrative reveals the fundamental theology of the Torah— that God knows, and to some extent can be known, by human beings; that God has consciousness and will and can, if God chooses, communicate with people; that God commands, blesses, rewards... that God is aware of and intervenes in human affairs.”
“Perhaps the most profound aspect of this ancient narrative is that God and people, both individuals and nations, can be in a relationship.... a relationship called ‘a covenant.’ This covenant has binding promises and expectations. It is a relationship with mutual accountability.”
“Abraham’s story... attempts to discern the mystery of the Divine. Jewish tradition has more than 100 names for God. This testifies to the many ways God has been experienced, each of them evocative and fragmentary.” (Slight pause.)
I need to point out that the Rabbi is in no way denying the central claim of Judaism: that God is one. Rather, this teacher is addressing the experience of God who is one and the multitude of ways language attempts to deal with that experience. (Slight pause.)
“So,” the Rabbi continues, “the impossibility of knowing God fully and the profoundly personal character of each person’s relationship with God is clear. Why... does one of the prayers we use address God this way (quote): ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’ instead of simply saying (quote): ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?’ Because each individual had to find God for their own self. And so must we.” [1] (Slight pause.)
And these words are found in the work commonly known as Galatians: “I will not nullify the grace of God; for if justification is available only through the law, then Christ died needlessly, for nothing.” (Slight pause.)
You probably noticed the commentary offered before the Galatians reading said: “This passage uses the phrase commonly translated as (quote): ‘faith in Christ.’ Most scholars agree the phrase should be translated as (quote): ‘the faith of Christ’ — ‘Faith in Christ— faith of Christ.” (Slight pause.)
In all the true letters of Paul— fourteen letters are attributed to Paul but Paul actually wrote seven of them. Of the remaining seven, five are clearly not by Paul and who the writer is on the other two letters is in doubt.
And, to be clear: all these Epistles are quite ancient. But based on internal evidence in the letters themselves, the ones we know are not by Paul are likely to have been written after Paul died, probably written by disciples of the Apostle.
Now, in all the true letters of Paul each time you see the phrase “faith in Christ” in the New Revised Standard translation there is no question but that these words can be translated and probably should be translated as “the faith of Christ.” In a study Bible there will be a footnote and it will say that. As was also stated earlier, this translation— ‘the faith of Christ,’— not only helps to make these words clearer it helps illuminate the Protestant thesis of justification by faith.
Why? What is the faith of Christ? Is Christ showing us the way, offering an example about relationship with God? Why, yes— of course.
Further, this translation is not a denial of the Trinity, as some might think. To understand and strive to emulate the faith of Christ does not say Jesus fails to be the Second Person of the Trinity. Quite the opposite: it reenforces that concept. (Slight pause.)
This brings me back to the reflections about prayer by Rabbi Block. Prayer needs to be grounded in sound theology.
The Rabbi does that with some simple thoughts which you heard. God knows us; we can know God; God makes covenant with us, a relationship with mutual accountability; that relationship and accountability informs each of us and the community, together, about God.
Having addressed theology, in the same article the Rabbi addresses the practical and says (quote): “...there are three Jewish prayer themes: Wow! Help! and Thanks! ‘Wow’ prayers express radical amazement at the universe and its order, majesty, nature, beauty, the marvelous complexity of the human body, the miracle of life itself.”
“‘Help’ prayers articulate our deepest needs, hopes, fears, aspirations, longings. ‘Thanks’ prayers— these give voice to gratitude for our blessings— ...and the opportunity to be God’s partners in the ongoing work of creation,....” [2] (Slight pause.)
There is a question often asked in and by the populist religion embedded in American culture. Please note: I singled out religion of American culture, not Christian culture. The question? Are you saved?
Given the theology of prayer laid out by the Rabbi and what I’ve lifted up from the passage in Galatians, that question— ‘Are you saved?’— cannot be taken seriously. The question, itself, comes out of the culture, not out of theology.
It is based on a misunderstanding of our relationship with God. The very implication of the question is that being saved is a static state, a state it does not involved relationship. (Slight pause.)
Needless to say, when I officiate at a wedding, I meet with the couple several times before the ceremony. In the course of that I always ask: ‘What is covenant?’
I also answer my own question. Covenant is a mutual commitment to growth. With marriage, it is a three way commitment to growth among the people getting married and God. God is, you see, a part of the commitment— a commitment to growth. (Slight pause.)
I asked Cheri to put a list of quotes about salvation on an insert in the bulletin this week. Do read through them when you have time. [3]
There are two I want to raise up. Theologian N. T. Wright says this (quote): “...the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us.”
Barbara Brown Taylor, a Pastor, says this (quote): “While Isaiah might have agreed that salvation comes from heaven, he would never have agreed to leave it there. Any notion of salvation that does not include just rulers, honest judges, an equitable economy, and peace among the nations, would have made Isaiah scratch his head. Heaven may be God’s test kitchen, but the pudding is intended for earth.” (Slight pause.)
Salvation— something intended for earth. Are you saved? In the words of Paul, “...if justification is available only through the law, then Christ died needlessly, for nothing.” So, yes. We are saved. Amen.
06/16/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Speaking of Facebook, another Facebook friend, in this case the nationally known Christian author, Diana Butler Bass posted this quote from the 17th Century Congregational Preacher Jonathan Edwards: ‘Christian practice is much more to be preferred as evidence of salvation than sudden conversion, mystical enlightenment, or the mere experience of emotional comfort that begins and ends with contemplation.’”
BENEDICTION: Let us walk with and in the Spirit— showing the fruits of 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] You can find the article by the Rabbi here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-richard-a-block/the-god-i-don’t-believe-in_b_3408535.html?fb_action_ids=10151658252981907&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151658252981907%22%3A1374384326108972}&action_type_map={%2210151658252981907%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]
Note: some of the verbiage offered by the Rabbi has been slightly altered just to fit the tempo of the narrative in the sermon. The author of the sermon has tried to maintain the meaning intended by the Rabbi. Any alteration of the original meaning is the fault of the sermon writer and not the Rabbi.
[2] See Endnote # 1
[3] The Insert Information
QUOTES ABOUT SALVATION
“While Isaiah might have agreed that salvation comes from heaven, he would never have agreed to leave it there. Any notion of salvation that does not include just rulers, honest judges, an equitable economy, and peace among the nations, would have made Isaiah scratch his head. Heaven may be God’s test kitchen, but the pudding is intended for earth.” — Barbara Brown Taylor
“Salvation is a word for the divine spaciousness that comes to human beings in all the tight places where their lives are at risk, regardless of how they got there or whether they know God’s name.” — Barbara Brown Taylor
“Evil is not a force, but merely the absence of good; and the devil is not God’s counterpart (as the devil would be in systems called duelist, which assume counterpoised forces of good and evil) but simply created a being who has chosen the not-good over the good. The devil embarrasses modern Christians but was indisputably real to Jesus and the early church. The devil is as much a part of revelation as the church itself. But the role of the devil in the economy of salvation is minimal or, at most, ambiguous. The devil has loomed so large in Western imagination not because the devil is so crucial to Christian theology but because the devil is so needed by Christian people as a way of expressing just barely within the limits of orthodoxy the real power that the absence of good can have.” — John Boswell
“Here and there an individual or group dares to love and rises to the majestic heights of moral maturity. So in a real sense this is a great time to be alive. Therefore, I am not yet discouraged about the future. Granted that the easygoing optimism of yesterday is impossible. Granted that those who pioneer in the struggle for peace and freedom will still face uncomfortable jail terms, painful threats of death; they will still be battered by the storms of persecution, leading them to the nagging feeling that they can no longer bear such a heavy burden, and the temptation of wanting to retreat to a more quiet and serene life. Granted that we face a world crisis which leaves us standing so often amid the surging murmur of life’s restless sea. But every crisis has both its dangers and its opportunities. It can spell either salvation or doom. In a dark confused world the kingdom of God may yet reign in the hearts of men.” — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“A man must live in this world and work out his own salvation in the midst of temptation.” — Frank Yerby
“The message of salvation is more than our verbal proclamation of the gospel. We must redefine evangelism to include how we live and interact with people— what it means for us to call them into God’s family to become members of God’s household. This is as important as our ability to accurately quote scriptures.” — Brenda Salter McNeil — A Credible Witness: Reflections on Power, Evangelism and Race
“Although it is not always socially acceptable, not always popular, we are called to the ministry of reconciliation. We have been entrusted with a specific message— that Jesus Christ died to reconcile us to God and to each other. The two things were accomplished at the same time, in the same act of salvation.... This is our story, and we have a mandate to tell it.” — Brenda Salter McNeil, A Credible Witness.
“The struggle between sin and salvation is not confined to some inner world... it is fought out in the economic and political, and in the cultural and ecclesisastical spheres as well.” — Donald Dorr, Catholic missionary priest
“We all readily agree that God forgives sin, that Jesus brought salvation from sin, but we have a very hard time seeing ourselves as those who need forgiveness and salvation. We watch the evening news or read the newspaper and decide that we really are not so bad after all; the things we may have done— may have done!— are not anything compared to what other people are doing.... We will never have an accurate picture of ourselves and our fallen human condition until we understand that there is no sin we are incapable of committing.... [But] God has come to bring the people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins. We are forgiven as soon as we grasp the fact that we need forgiveness.” — Mary Anna Vidakovich
“Radical Christians must pursue more than a successful strategy; we must seek a deeper faith. Only then will we have the assurance of salvation, not because of what we have accomplished, but because we have allowed God’s grace and mercy to flow through our lives.” — Jim Wallis
“Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura: we are saved by the grace of God alone— not by anything we do; our salvation is through faith alone— we only need to believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who died to redeem us; the Bible is the only norm of doctrine and life— the only true standard by which teachings and doctrines are to be judged.” — The Protestant principles of Martin Luther
“There is never time in the future in which we will work out our salvation. The challenge is in the moment; the time is always now.” — James Baldwin
“Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.” — Buddha
“Courage is a kind of salvation.” — Plato
“The first step in a person’s salvation is knowledge of their sin.” — Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 4 B.C.E.–C.E. 65, Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist
“Human salvation demands the divine disclosure of truths surpassing reason.” — Thomas Aquinas
“The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human meekness and human responsibility.” — Vaclav Havel
“The salvation of mankind lies only in making everything the concern of all.” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“My salvation was a free gift. I didn’t have to work for it and it’s better than any gold medal that I’ve ever won.” — Betty Cuthbert
“In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don’t baptize the children of single mothers because they weren’t conceived in the sanctity of marriage. These are today’s hypocrites. Those who clericalize the church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation.” — Pope Francis
“...the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us.” — N. T. Wright
“If your salvation was dependent on your ability to read and understand scripture, Jesus would have been an author.” — Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience
“[All the ancient wisdom] tells us that work is necessary to us, as much a part of our condition as mortality; that good work is our salvation and our joy; that shoddy or dishonest or self-serving work is our curse and our doom. We have tried to escape the sweat and sorrow promised in Genesis - only to find that, in order to do so, we must forswear love and excellence, health and joy.” — Wendell Berry, The Art of the Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays
“Even if no salvation should come, I want to be worthy of it at every moment.” — Franz Kafka
“If you try to add to God's salvation you subtract. If you try to merit God's salvation you haven’t believed at all, even if you try to do a little bit.” — Timothy Keller
“God has accomplished your salvation. But has not yet perfected your circumstances. Do not confuse the two.” — Kristen Heitzmann
“The root of almost every schism and heresy from which the Christian Church has suffered, has been because of the effort of men to earn, rather than receive their salvation; and the reason preaching is so commonly ineffective is, that it often calls on people to work for God rather than letting God work through them.” — John Ruskin (1819-1900)
Salvation
“I will not nullify the grace of God; for if justification is available only through the law, then Christ died needlessly, for nothing.” — Galatians 2:21.
I am sure by now you have all, at a bare minimum, heard of Facebook or are, yourselves, on Facebook. To be blunt, Facebook— or at least what people post on it— can be very annoying, since so many use it to broadcast their pet political peeves.
And no, I am not interested in who you voted for, what policy or politician you like or do not like, who or what you are for or against. (Between you and me, people post things on Facebook they would not tell you if they were sitting at a picnic table in your backyard, drinking iced tea and chatting.)
In short, if you’re not going to say it to me in my backyard when we are sharing iced tea and you are staring into my eyes, please don’t say it to me on Facebook. Thank you. (Slight pause.)
Having pointed out this specific downside of Facebook, one of its benefits is sometimes people share interesting articles or write about books they are reading or have read. When someone does that, they aren’t really taking a position about anything. In fact, it’s like we are sitting in the backyard, drinking iced tea and chatting.
You see, with those kinds of posts it’s up to me to follow up. It’s up to me to go look at the article, to search out the book, to see what interests that other person and why. And if they are a close friend or a colleague, I may indeed want to follow up. After all, it’s likely we have things in common.
And that is exactly what happened this week. A colleague posted a link to an article and I did follow up. The article was about prayer and was written by Rabbi Richard A. Block, President of the Central Conference of American Rabbis.
These are among the thoughts about prayer Rabbi Block offered (quote): “Within a few terse verses, the Abraham narrative reveals the fundamental theology of the Torah— that God knows, and to some extent can be known, by human beings; that God has consciousness and will and can, if God chooses, communicate with people; that God commands, blesses, rewards... that God is aware of and intervenes in human affairs.”
“Perhaps the most profound aspect of this ancient narrative is that God and people, both individuals and nations, can be in a relationship.... a relationship called ‘a covenant.’ This covenant has binding promises and expectations. It is a relationship with mutual accountability.”
“Abraham’s story... attempts to discern the mystery of the Divine. Jewish tradition has more than 100 names for God. This testifies to the many ways God has been experienced, each of them evocative and fragmentary.” (Slight pause.)
I need to point out that the Rabbi is in no way denying the central claim of Judaism: that God is one. Rather, this teacher is addressing the experience of God who is one and the multitude of ways language attempts to deal with that experience. (Slight pause.)
“So,” the Rabbi continues, “the impossibility of knowing God fully and the profoundly personal character of each person’s relationship with God is clear. Why... does one of the prayers we use address God this way (quote): ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’ instead of simply saying (quote): ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?’ Because each individual had to find God for their own self. And so must we.” [1] (Slight pause.)
And these words are found in the work commonly known as Galatians: “I will not nullify the grace of God; for if justification is available only through the law, then Christ died needlessly, for nothing.” (Slight pause.)
You probably noticed the commentary offered before the Galatians reading said: “This passage uses the phrase commonly translated as (quote): ‘faith in Christ.’ Most scholars agree the phrase should be translated as (quote): ‘the faith of Christ’ — ‘Faith in Christ— faith of Christ.” (Slight pause.)
In all the true letters of Paul— fourteen letters are attributed to Paul but Paul actually wrote seven of them. Of the remaining seven, five are clearly not by Paul and who the writer is on the other two letters is in doubt.
And, to be clear: all these Epistles are quite ancient. But based on internal evidence in the letters themselves, the ones we know are not by Paul are likely to have been written after Paul died, probably written by disciples of the Apostle.
Now, in all the true letters of Paul each time you see the phrase “faith in Christ” in the New Revised Standard translation there is no question but that these words can be translated and probably should be translated as “the faith of Christ.” In a study Bible there will be a footnote and it will say that. As was also stated earlier, this translation— ‘the faith of Christ,’— not only helps to make these words clearer it helps illuminate the Protestant thesis of justification by faith.
Why? What is the faith of Christ? Is Christ showing us the way, offering an example about relationship with God? Why, yes— of course.
Further, this translation is not a denial of the Trinity, as some might think. To understand and strive to emulate the faith of Christ does not say Jesus fails to be the Second Person of the Trinity. Quite the opposite: it reenforces that concept. (Slight pause.)
This brings me back to the reflections about prayer by Rabbi Block. Prayer needs to be grounded in sound theology.
The Rabbi does that with some simple thoughts which you heard. God knows us; we can know God; God makes covenant with us, a relationship with mutual accountability; that relationship and accountability informs each of us and the community, together, about God.
Having addressed theology, in the same article the Rabbi addresses the practical and says (quote): “...there are three Jewish prayer themes: Wow! Help! and Thanks! ‘Wow’ prayers express radical amazement at the universe and its order, majesty, nature, beauty, the marvelous complexity of the human body, the miracle of life itself.”
“‘Help’ prayers articulate our deepest needs, hopes, fears, aspirations, longings. ‘Thanks’ prayers— these give voice to gratitude for our blessings— ...and the opportunity to be God’s partners in the ongoing work of creation,....” [2] (Slight pause.)
There is a question often asked in and by the populist religion embedded in American culture. Please note: I singled out religion of American culture, not Christian culture. The question? Are you saved?
Given the theology of prayer laid out by the Rabbi and what I’ve lifted up from the passage in Galatians, that question— ‘Are you saved?’— cannot be taken seriously. The question, itself, comes out of the culture, not out of theology.
It is based on a misunderstanding of our relationship with God. The very implication of the question is that being saved is a static state, a state it does not involved relationship. (Slight pause.)
Needless to say, when I officiate at a wedding, I meet with the couple several times before the ceremony. In the course of that I always ask: ‘What is covenant?’
I also answer my own question. Covenant is a mutual commitment to growth. With marriage, it is a three way commitment to growth among the people getting married and God. God is, you see, a part of the commitment— a commitment to growth. (Slight pause.)
I asked Cheri to put a list of quotes about salvation on an insert in the bulletin this week. Do read through them when you have time. [3]
There are two I want to raise up. Theologian N. T. Wright says this (quote): “...the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us.”
Barbara Brown Taylor, a Pastor, says this (quote): “While Isaiah might have agreed that salvation comes from heaven, he would never have agreed to leave it there. Any notion of salvation that does not include just rulers, honest judges, an equitable economy, and peace among the nations, would have made Isaiah scratch his head. Heaven may be God’s test kitchen, but the pudding is intended for earth.” (Slight pause.)
Salvation— something intended for earth. Are you saved? In the words of Paul, “...if justification is available only through the law, then Christ died needlessly, for nothing.” So, yes. We are saved. Amen.
06/16/2013
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 Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Speaking of Facebook, another Facebook friend, in this case the nationally known Christian author, Diana Butler Bass posted this quote from the 17th Century Congregational Preacher Jonathan Edwards: ‘Christian practice is much more to be preferred as evidence of salvation than sudden conversion, mystical enlightenment, or the mere experience of emotional comfort that begins and ends with contemplation.’”
BENEDICTION: Let us walk with and in the Spirit— showing the fruits of 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] You can find the article by the Rabbi here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-richard-a-block/the-god-i-don’t-believe-in_b_3408535.html?fb_action_ids=10151658252981907&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151658252981907%22%3A1374384326108972}&action_type_map={%2210151658252981907%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]
Note: some of the verbiage offered by the Rabbi has been slightly altered just to fit the tempo of the narrative in the sermon. The author of the sermon has tried to maintain the meaning intended by the Rabbi. Any alteration of the original meaning is the fault of the sermon writer and not the Rabbi.
[2] See Endnote # 1
[3] The Insert Information
QUOTES ABOUT SALVATION
“While Isaiah might have agreed that salvation comes from heaven, he would never have agreed to leave it there. Any notion of salvation that does not include just rulers, honest judges, an equitable economy, and peace among the nations, would have made Isaiah scratch his head. Heaven may be God’s test kitchen, but the pudding is intended for earth.” — Barbara Brown Taylor
“Salvation is a word for the divine spaciousness that comes to human beings in all the tight places where their lives are at risk, regardless of how they got there or whether they know God’s name.” — Barbara Brown Taylor
“Evil is not a force, but merely the absence of good; and the devil is not God’s counterpart (as the devil would be in systems called duelist, which assume counterpoised forces of good and evil) but simply created a being who has chosen the not-good over the good. The devil embarrasses modern Christians but was indisputably real to Jesus and the early church. The devil is as much a part of revelation as the church itself. But the role of the devil in the economy of salvation is minimal or, at most, ambiguous. The devil has loomed so large in Western imagination not because the devil is so crucial to Christian theology but because the devil is so needed by Christian people as a way of expressing just barely within the limits of orthodoxy the real power that the absence of good can have.” — John Boswell
“Here and there an individual or group dares to love and rises to the majestic heights of moral maturity. So in a real sense this is a great time to be alive. Therefore, I am not yet discouraged about the future. Granted that the easygoing optimism of yesterday is impossible. Granted that those who pioneer in the struggle for peace and freedom will still face uncomfortable jail terms, painful threats of death; they will still be battered by the storms of persecution, leading them to the nagging feeling that they can no longer bear such a heavy burden, and the temptation of wanting to retreat to a more quiet and serene life. Granted that we face a world crisis which leaves us standing so often amid the surging murmur of life’s restless sea. But every crisis has both its dangers and its opportunities. It can spell either salvation or doom. In a dark confused world the kingdom of God may yet reign in the hearts of men.” — Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“A man must live in this world and work out his own salvation in the midst of temptation.” — Frank Yerby
“The message of salvation is more than our verbal proclamation of the gospel. We must redefine evangelism to include how we live and interact with people— what it means for us to call them into God’s family to become members of God’s household. This is as important as our ability to accurately quote scriptures.” — Brenda Salter McNeil — A Credible Witness: Reflections on Power, Evangelism and Race
“Although it is not always socially acceptable, not always popular, we are called to the ministry of reconciliation. We have been entrusted with a specific message— that Jesus Christ died to reconcile us to God and to each other. The two things were accomplished at the same time, in the same act of salvation.... This is our story, and we have a mandate to tell it.” — Brenda Salter McNeil, A Credible Witness.
“The struggle between sin and salvation is not confined to some inner world... it is fought out in the economic and political, and in the cultural and ecclesisastical spheres as well.” — Donald Dorr, Catholic missionary priest
“We all readily agree that God forgives sin, that Jesus brought salvation from sin, but we have a very hard time seeing ourselves as those who need forgiveness and salvation. We watch the evening news or read the newspaper and decide that we really are not so bad after all; the things we may have done— may have done!— are not anything compared to what other people are doing.... We will never have an accurate picture of ourselves and our fallen human condition until we understand that there is no sin we are incapable of committing.... [But] God has come to bring the people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins. We are forgiven as soon as we grasp the fact that we need forgiveness.” — Mary Anna Vidakovich
“Radical Christians must pursue more than a successful strategy; we must seek a deeper faith. Only then will we have the assurance of salvation, not because of what we have accomplished, but because we have allowed God’s grace and mercy to flow through our lives.” — Jim Wallis
“Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura: we are saved by the grace of God alone— not by anything we do; our salvation is through faith alone— we only need to believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who died to redeem us; the Bible is the only norm of doctrine and life— the only true standard by which teachings and doctrines are to be judged.” — The Protestant principles of Martin Luther
“There is never time in the future in which we will work out our salvation. The challenge is in the moment; the time is always now.” — James Baldwin
“Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.” — Buddha
“Courage is a kind of salvation.” — Plato
“The first step in a person’s salvation is knowledge of their sin.” — Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 4 B.C.E.–C.E. 65, Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist
“Human salvation demands the divine disclosure of truths surpassing reason.” — Thomas Aquinas
“The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human meekness and human responsibility.” — Vaclav Havel
“The salvation of mankind lies only in making everything the concern of all.” — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“My salvation was a free gift. I didn’t have to work for it and it’s better than any gold medal that I’ve ever won.” — Betty Cuthbert
“In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don’t baptize the children of single mothers because they weren’t conceived in the sanctity of marriage. These are today’s hypocrites. Those who clericalize the church. Those who separate the people of God from salvation.” — Pope Francis
“...the work of salvation, in its full sense, is (1) about whole human beings, not merely souls; (2) about the present, not simply the future; and (3) about what God does through us, not merely what God does in and for us.” — N. T. Wright
“If your salvation was dependent on your ability to read and understand scripture, Jesus would have been an author.” — Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience
“[All the ancient wisdom] tells us that work is necessary to us, as much a part of our condition as mortality; that good work is our salvation and our joy; that shoddy or dishonest or self-serving work is our curse and our doom. We have tried to escape the sweat and sorrow promised in Genesis - only to find that, in order to do so, we must forswear love and excellence, health and joy.” — Wendell Berry, The Art of the Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays
“Even if no salvation should come, I want to be worthy of it at every moment.” — Franz Kafka
“If you try to add to God's salvation you subtract. If you try to merit God's salvation you haven’t believed at all, even if you try to do a little bit.” — Timothy Keller
“God has accomplished your salvation. But has not yet perfected your circumstances. Do not confuse the two.” — Kristen Heitzmann
“The root of almost every schism and heresy from which the Christian Church has suffered, has been because of the effort of men to earn, rather than receive their salvation; and the reason preaching is so commonly ineffective is, that it often calls on people to work for God rather than letting God work through them.” — John Ruskin (1819-1900)
Sunday, June 2, 2013
06/02/2013 ~ SERMON ~ “From Whence?”
06/02/2013 ~ Second Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 4 ~ Ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ 1 Kings 18:20-21, (22-29), 30-39; Psalm 96; 1 Kings 8:22-23, 41-43; Psalm 96:1-9; Galatians 1:1-12; Luke 7:1-10 ~ Communion Sunday.
From Whence?
“I want you to know, I assure you my brothers and sisters: the gospel I proclaim to you is no mere human invention. I did not receive it from any person, nor was I schooled in it. I received it, it came by a revelation, from Jesus, the Christ.” — Galatians 1:11-12
Tanya Marie Luhrmann is a professor in the Stanford University Anthropology Department. She has gained some notoriety since she is an academic who writes an occasional column for the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.
Luhrmann has also written a number of books. But it is her most recent work, When God Talks Back, which has been noticed in church circles. And, indeed, her Times columns are largely based on her research for this book. And it is her research, both past and current, on the topic of what is loosely termed evangelical churches, about which those in church circles have taken notice.
One of the things her research has brought to the fore concerns beliefs. What people believe or do not believe was the topic of her most recent Times article. She told a story about a charismatic evangelical church where people often made comments which suggested they had complicated ideas about the reality of God. In a prayer group one devout person said this (quote): “I don’t believe it, but I’m sticking to it. That is my definition of faith.”
This remark was flippant. But, in a real sense, this person decided it was better behaving as if God were real than not. This person had devised a modern version of what is commonly called Pascal’s Wager.
In the 1600s Blaise Pascal said given the possibility that God does exist, infinite gain is associated with that belief. Therefore, a rational person should live as though God exists. After all, if God does not exist, there will be only a finite, temporary loss— Pascal’s wager.
In reflecting on the complexity of actual beliefs in churches, Luhrmann says anthropologists conclude the role of belief is greatly overstated. Religion arises not from belief but as a way for social groups to experience themselves as groups.
When they do so they felt bigger, better, more alive. Religious ideas help make sense of this experience of being part of something greater. In short, people don’t go to church because of a belief in God; people believe in God because they go to church.
In fact, you can argue that religious belief as we now conceptualize it— with its perceived reliance on a series of beliefs— is in one sense an entirely modern phenomenon. When the King James Bible was printed, ‘to believe’ meant ‘to hold dear.’ ‘I believe in God’ meant ‘Given the reality of God as a fact of the universe, I hereby pledge to God my heart and soul and loyalty, trusting in the mercy of God.’
To be clear, says Luhrmann belief is not unimportant. But we often think the most important thing to understand about religion is why people believe and/or what people believe. We think belief precedes action and explains choice. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Galatians: “I want you to know, I assure you my brothers and sisters: the gospel I proclaim to you is no mere human invention. I did not receive it from any person, nor was I schooled in it. I received it, it came by a revelation, from Jesus, the Christ.” (Slight pause.)
I have two $64 words for you: apophatic and kataphatic— good ones, right? There are apophatic people and kataphatic people.
Apophatic people say God is indescribable, that you cannot come up with an image or word for God that works. Kataphatic people say, while acknowledging there is no correct image, God needs to be visualized in something— a burning bush, the wind, a mother hen, even that totally inept, inappropriate description: God as an old white guy with a beard. (The pastor points to the choir who sits directly in front of the pulpit and says:) Got a laugh out of these folks!
I want to suggest that in this passage from Galatians Paul is struggling a way to describe what God has done. Paul wants to be kataphatic— to find an image— but realizes that to be apophatic, to do away with any image, is an option.
In short, Paul has had an indescribable experience, a mystical experience of God. And Paul does not know what to say about it or even to do about it. Indeed, as the text tells us, Paul wanders off to Asia before bothering to go to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles.
But Paul does try to tell us something about that experience. What are we told? We are told about the basic paradox Paul has encountered: the Gospel is based on personal experience and the Gospel comes from God— is based on experience and comes from God. Put another way: Paul has had an experience of God and there is no adequate way to describe it. (Slight pause.)
One of my seminary professors, now retired from teaching and a Facebook friend, The Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller, posted what follows on Facebook this week. Given that Glenn is a nationally respected and a very careful scholar, I think he must have written this or it would have been posted with an attribution to someone.
This is what Dr. Miller said (quote): “Faith is among the most complex of human activities. It involves belief, reasoning, emotions, personal relationships and human will. It is far too easy to look at one or another of these and to think that we have identified the nature of faith.”
“Perhaps, given the complexity of human religious experience, it is inevitable that certain aspects of faith will find their home more among some people than among others. The Myers-Briggs personality test suggests we all have some preferences for our relationship to the world and that is okay. The catholicity of the church consists, not only of faith’s international character, but of the capacity of the church to embrace the experiences— experiences— of all women and men.”
Dr. Miller continues: “The church is not the church unless it has both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the orthodox and the mystic. God’s final purpose may be to led us to completeness— he says parenthetically— which is my understanding of the Biblical promise of perfection— but that does not mean the eradication of who we presently are.”
“We are too quick to try to overcome this natural human diversity by means of theologies that are ultimately self-serving. A servant theology begins and ends with the recognition that God is always at work in the religious life of the other, if we would only see it”— the words of the Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller. (Slight pause.)
That brings us back to an idea I’ve often mentioned. Is it true that churches might simply consists of like people worshiping with like people— apophatic and kataphatic? Do we simply break out into groups— orthodox and mystic?
Put differently, I think the question Paul, effectively, places before us is the same one the premise of there being orthodox people and mystic people presents and the same one sociologists place before us. Do people go to church because they believe in God or do people believe in God because they go to church?
I think Paul struggles with that question. Paul struggles with it because the answer, as the Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller suggests, is not one or the other.
You see, God calls people to be church. And these people offer many understandings of God.
In the words of the late Andrew Greeley, before religion became creed or catechism it is poetry; before religion became creed or catechism it is images; before religion became creed or catechism it is story. And it is not just story. It is our story.
Further, this poetry, these images, these stories defy death— defy death— with glimpses of hope, with moments of life-renewing experience that are shared and enacted in communal rituals. That is, in fact, what communion refers to, is it not? Glimpses of hope, moments of life renewing experience shared in communal ritual.
So, are we, is the church a noun? Are we, the church, simply a sociologically gathered group? Or are we called to be church— a verb? Be church. More importantly, are we called to be church by God? Well, I may be wrong, but I think the answer to these questions is ‘yes.’ Amen.
06/02/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The late Andrew Greeley, whom I quoted earlier was a scholar, anthropologist, priest. He died this week. He said this (quote): ‘Religion is the result of two incurable diseases from which humankind suffers— life, from which we die, and hope, which hints that there might be more meaning to life than a termination in death.’”
BENEDICTION: People of God, God keeps faith forever. Go from this place filled with new life, ready to bear the good news of God’s promises. And should you find yourself feeling worried or discouraged, remember the wondrous love of God, the healing power of Christ Jesus, and the bold courage of the Holy Spirit. These go with you today and always. Amen!
From Whence?
“I want you to know, I assure you my brothers and sisters: the gospel I proclaim to you is no mere human invention. I did not receive it from any person, nor was I schooled in it. I received it, it came by a revelation, from Jesus, the Christ.” — Galatians 1:11-12
Tanya Marie Luhrmann is a professor in the Stanford University Anthropology Department. She has gained some notoriety since she is an academic who writes an occasional column for the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.
Luhrmann has also written a number of books. But it is her most recent work, When God Talks Back, which has been noticed in church circles. And, indeed, her Times columns are largely based on her research for this book. And it is her research, both past and current, on the topic of what is loosely termed evangelical churches, about which those in church circles have taken notice.
One of the things her research has brought to the fore concerns beliefs. What people believe or do not believe was the topic of her most recent Times article. She told a story about a charismatic evangelical church where people often made comments which suggested they had complicated ideas about the reality of God. In a prayer group one devout person said this (quote): “I don’t believe it, but I’m sticking to it. That is my definition of faith.”
This remark was flippant. But, in a real sense, this person decided it was better behaving as if God were real than not. This person had devised a modern version of what is commonly called Pascal’s Wager.
In the 1600s Blaise Pascal said given the possibility that God does exist, infinite gain is associated with that belief. Therefore, a rational person should live as though God exists. After all, if God does not exist, there will be only a finite, temporary loss— Pascal’s wager.
In reflecting on the complexity of actual beliefs in churches, Luhrmann says anthropologists conclude the role of belief is greatly overstated. Religion arises not from belief but as a way for social groups to experience themselves as groups.
When they do so they felt bigger, better, more alive. Religious ideas help make sense of this experience of being part of something greater. In short, people don’t go to church because of a belief in God; people believe in God because they go to church.
In fact, you can argue that religious belief as we now conceptualize it— with its perceived reliance on a series of beliefs— is in one sense an entirely modern phenomenon. When the King James Bible was printed, ‘to believe’ meant ‘to hold dear.’ ‘I believe in God’ meant ‘Given the reality of God as a fact of the universe, I hereby pledge to God my heart and soul and loyalty, trusting in the mercy of God.’
To be clear, says Luhrmann belief is not unimportant. But we often think the most important thing to understand about religion is why people believe and/or what people believe. We think belief precedes action and explains choice. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Galatians: “I want you to know, I assure you my brothers and sisters: the gospel I proclaim to you is no mere human invention. I did not receive it from any person, nor was I schooled in it. I received it, it came by a revelation, from Jesus, the Christ.” (Slight pause.)
I have two $64 words for you: apophatic and kataphatic— good ones, right? There are apophatic people and kataphatic people.
Apophatic people say God is indescribable, that you cannot come up with an image or word for God that works. Kataphatic people say, while acknowledging there is no correct image, God needs to be visualized in something— a burning bush, the wind, a mother hen, even that totally inept, inappropriate description: God as an old white guy with a beard. (The pastor points to the choir who sits directly in front of the pulpit and says:) Got a laugh out of these folks!
I want to suggest that in this passage from Galatians Paul is struggling a way to describe what God has done. Paul wants to be kataphatic— to find an image— but realizes that to be apophatic, to do away with any image, is an option.
In short, Paul has had an indescribable experience, a mystical experience of God. And Paul does not know what to say about it or even to do about it. Indeed, as the text tells us, Paul wanders off to Asia before bothering to go to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles.
But Paul does try to tell us something about that experience. What are we told? We are told about the basic paradox Paul has encountered: the Gospel is based on personal experience and the Gospel comes from God— is based on experience and comes from God. Put another way: Paul has had an experience of God and there is no adequate way to describe it. (Slight pause.)
One of my seminary professors, now retired from teaching and a Facebook friend, The Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller, posted what follows on Facebook this week. Given that Glenn is a nationally respected and a very careful scholar, I think he must have written this or it would have been posted with an attribution to someone.
This is what Dr. Miller said (quote): “Faith is among the most complex of human activities. It involves belief, reasoning, emotions, personal relationships and human will. It is far too easy to look at one or another of these and to think that we have identified the nature of faith.”
“Perhaps, given the complexity of human religious experience, it is inevitable that certain aspects of faith will find their home more among some people than among others. The Myers-Briggs personality test suggests we all have some preferences for our relationship to the world and that is okay. The catholicity of the church consists, not only of faith’s international character, but of the capacity of the church to embrace the experiences— experiences— of all women and men.”
Dr. Miller continues: “The church is not the church unless it has both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Francis of Assisi, the orthodox and the mystic. God’s final purpose may be to led us to completeness— he says parenthetically— which is my understanding of the Biblical promise of perfection— but that does not mean the eradication of who we presently are.”
“We are too quick to try to overcome this natural human diversity by means of theologies that are ultimately self-serving. A servant theology begins and ends with the recognition that God is always at work in the religious life of the other, if we would only see it”— the words of the Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller. (Slight pause.)
That brings us back to an idea I’ve often mentioned. Is it true that churches might simply consists of like people worshiping with like people— apophatic and kataphatic? Do we simply break out into groups— orthodox and mystic?
Put differently, I think the question Paul, effectively, places before us is the same one the premise of there being orthodox people and mystic people presents and the same one sociologists place before us. Do people go to church because they believe in God or do people believe in God because they go to church?
I think Paul struggles with that question. Paul struggles with it because the answer, as the Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller suggests, is not one or the other.
You see, God calls people to be church. And these people offer many understandings of God.
In the words of the late Andrew Greeley, before religion became creed or catechism it is poetry; before religion became creed or catechism it is images; before religion became creed or catechism it is story. And it is not just story. It is our story.
Further, this poetry, these images, these stories defy death— defy death— with glimpses of hope, with moments of life-renewing experience that are shared and enacted in communal rituals. That is, in fact, what communion refers to, is it not? Glimpses of hope, moments of life renewing experience shared in communal ritual.
So, are we, is the church a noun? Are we, the church, simply a sociologically gathered group? Or are we called to be church— a verb? Be church. More importantly, are we called to be church by God? Well, I may be wrong, but I think the answer to these questions is ‘yes.’ Amen.
06/02/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The late Andrew Greeley, whom I quoted earlier was a scholar, anthropologist, priest. He died this week. He said this (quote): ‘Religion is the result of two incurable diseases from which humankind suffers— life, from which we die, and hope, which hints that there might be more meaning to life than a termination in death.’”
BENEDICTION: People of God, God keeps faith forever. Go from this place filled with new life, ready to bear the good news of God’s promises. And should you find yourself feeling worried or discouraged, remember the wondrous love of God, the healing power of Christ Jesus, and the bold courage of the Holy Spirit. These go with you today and always. Amen!
Sunday, May 26, 2013
05/26/2013 ~ Trinity Sunday ~ The First Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proverbs 8:1-4, 22-31; Psalm 8; Romans 5:1-5; John 16:12-15 ~ Memorial Day Weekend.
Growing in Understanding
[Jesus said] “I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.” — John 16:12.
As I am sure you know, on March the 13th the Catholic Church elected a new Pope— Francis. Please note (and when the election happened I did not, myself, know about this rule of grammar): grammatically, Francis should not be known as Pope Francis the First but should be known simply as Pope Francis. This is the case despite the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the first Pope to be known by the name Francis.
Apparently, the rule is you are not to call anything or anyone “The First” until there is a second. What that means, for instance, is the person we now call Queen Elizabeth the First was simply Queen Elizabeth until Elizabeth the Second came along in 1952.
Back to the Pope— since more than 40% of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics live in Latin America and Francis is from Argentina, this may have been a logical choice. Francis is also, of course, a Jesuit, the first one elected to the Papacy. So, in fact, the Pope and I have something in common in our backgrounds: Jesuit training.
And, if Jesuits are known for anything, it is that they are innovative thinkers. They seem to be able to think (pardon the cliché) outside the box.
Certainly, this Pope has already thrown some surprises at the entrenched bureaucracy in the Vatican. And some of these have been widely covered in the popular press.
They include foregoing a bit of the ceremony, the paraphernalia, the vestments commonly associated with the Papacy. The pontiff has also made statements about the church needing to better connect with and serve those who live in poverty. I suppose that might be enough to get many a bureaucracy in an uproar.
But this Pope does seem to be striving to move the entrenched along. Just last week, by declaring that everyone was redeemed, including atheists, the Pope shook things up again. I need to say, that kind of statement did not surprise me for two reasons.
First, this is the type of assessment— that even atheists are redeemed— which does not seem to often get filtered into the populist press and/or populist folk beliefs commonly held by many Christians. However, it is the kind of thing regularly said, even emphasized, by serious theologians— redemption is universal.
To be clear: it is not even the kind of thing often said by leaders who have institutional axes to grind both in Catholicism and in Protestantism. I, for instance, think the previous Pope would have had a hard time delivering this kind of opinion. (Too many axes to grind.)
The second reason this did not surprise me is Francis is a Jesuit. You see, aside from thinking outside the box, that Jesuit training to which I earlier referred helps an individual do two things. It helps one think things through with great clarity. Put another way, it creates habits which insist that a person maintains an open mind.
Jesuit training also insists people are important. Jesuit training, thereby, makes the claim that a person needs to maintain an open heart. Open mind; open heart; most of the time this is a sure formula for dealing with reality and challenging others to do the same— open mind, open heart. Seems like a simple formula, doesn’t it? (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as the Gospel According to the School of John: [Jesus said] “I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.” (Slight pause.)
So, how did this Papal statement about atheists come to the front? In the course of offering a sermon (I’ve read Francis often speaks ‘off the cuff’ in the course of offering a sermon), Francis retold the story of the disciples being upset when someone outside their group was doing good. And complained about that to Jesus. The Pope said the disciples were intolerant and Jesus broadened the horizons of the disciples by condoning the good that was being done.
The root of doing good, said Francis, is in all creation— God created and it was good. Therefore, we all have this good, even atheists. Put yet another way, redemption— life with God and neighbor— is about meeting people where they are at and not about meeting people where we are at. That’s not an easy one: redemption is about meeting people where they are at and not about meeting people where we are at.
In commenting on what the Pope said about universal redemption, James Martin, another Jesuit, wrote this (quote:) “That’s always been a Christian belief. You can find St. Paul saying it in the First Letter to Timothy.... but rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully and with such evident joy.... In this era of religious controversies, it is a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories”— narrow categories. (Slight pause.)
Today, as you heard earlier, is Trinity Sunday. We make a mistake when we think in terms which suggest ‘Trinity’ is a category. We make a mistake when we think in terms which suggest simply or only a naming of God, a way to describe God, a noun. Indeed, we often use terms like Father, Son, Holy Spirit or Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. These are namings. These are descriptions.
Trinity, you see, is not a noun in the sense that Trinity is not simply or only a naming. Trinity must been seen as a verb.
Put another way, to say God is three is to say God is relational, God is always in the midst of, in the action of relating. This way of looking at God opens up a notion of God as mystery who can never fully be understood or fully named with our rational, instrumental, mechanical minds. (Slight pause.)
Theologian Richard Rohr— a Franciscan, not a Jesuit (see, now I’m off track)— says this (quote): “God is relational and known in relationship. Any notion of God not giving, not totally loving, is a theological impossibility.”
“God only and always loves. You cannot reverse, slow down or limit an overflowing waterwheel of divine compassion and mercy. God, understanding God, goes in only one direction— toward ever more life and ever more creative love,... a love that is stronger than death” (unquote). [Slight pause.]
In a couple of minutes you will be invited to recite The Nicene Creed. (Hey! It’s Trinity Sunday). So, in a couple of minutes you will be invited to recite The Nicene Creed. We Westerners tend to think this Creed or any Creed is about professing statements of belief. It’s about what we think. It is not about what we think. That The Nicene Creed is not about stating a series of beliefs can been seen in the first words (quote): “We believe in one God,...”
In Latin, the original language of this Creed, the word used for “We believe...” is ‘Credo.’ The word ‘Credo’ does not lend itself to any kind of intellectual profession of faith.
You see, ‘Credo’ means I give my heart fully. There is nothing intellectual about that. There is movement and motion and action and relationship in giving one’s heart. But it is not a naming. Credo does not act like a noun. Credo is not an intellectual concept.
Credo is something to which we can witness and to which we can attest but not something which we can fully or adequately name. Giving of one’s heart fully is an action and that action can be encompassed and explained only by love and through love and in love. It is about the action called love. (Slight pause.)
All that brings be back to the words found in the Gospel (quote): “I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.” (Slight pause.)
I think Jesus is here addressing our relationship with God. And, if there is anything relationship demands it is growth. If there is anything love demands it is growth. Can we ever fully, intellectually understand love? No. Can we grow in love? Yes.
And I think that is what we are called to do. We are called to grow in love. We are called to grow in our love of God and we are called to grow in our love of neighbor. And that is the real way we can name the Trinity— by understanding that Trinity and love and growth are all not just verbs but never ending verbs, verbs which point to continued growth. (Slight pause.) After all, have you not heard? God is still speaking. Oh, you’ve heard that, haven’t you? Amen.
05/26/2013
Trinity Sunday
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “This saying is often attributed to G. K. Chesterton (quote): ‘Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.’ I would suggest, rather, that Christianity is something which requires love. Love requires growth. Growth requires action. Christianity is, hence, not something about static statements. It is about being and doing. And, to unpack Chesterton, therefore it is something which people hesitate to try. It is not easy.”
BENEDICTION :May the God of Trinity, Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, be with us in faith and in love and guide us in truth and peace; and may the blessing of this God be among us and remain with us always. Amen.
Growing in Understanding
[Jesus said] “I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.” — John 16:12.
As I am sure you know, on March the 13th the Catholic Church elected a new Pope— Francis. Please note (and when the election happened I did not, myself, know about this rule of grammar): grammatically, Francis should not be known as Pope Francis the First but should be known simply as Pope Francis. This is the case despite the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the first Pope to be known by the name Francis.
Apparently, the rule is you are not to call anything or anyone “The First” until there is a second. What that means, for instance, is the person we now call Queen Elizabeth the First was simply Queen Elizabeth until Elizabeth the Second came along in 1952.
Back to the Pope— since more than 40% of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics live in Latin America and Francis is from Argentina, this may have been a logical choice. Francis is also, of course, a Jesuit, the first one elected to the Papacy. So, in fact, the Pope and I have something in common in our backgrounds: Jesuit training.
And, if Jesuits are known for anything, it is that they are innovative thinkers. They seem to be able to think (pardon the cliché) outside the box.
Certainly, this Pope has already thrown some surprises at the entrenched bureaucracy in the Vatican. And some of these have been widely covered in the popular press.
They include foregoing a bit of the ceremony, the paraphernalia, the vestments commonly associated with the Papacy. The pontiff has also made statements about the church needing to better connect with and serve those who live in poverty. I suppose that might be enough to get many a bureaucracy in an uproar.
But this Pope does seem to be striving to move the entrenched along. Just last week, by declaring that everyone was redeemed, including atheists, the Pope shook things up again. I need to say, that kind of statement did not surprise me for two reasons.
First, this is the type of assessment— that even atheists are redeemed— which does not seem to often get filtered into the populist press and/or populist folk beliefs commonly held by many Christians. However, it is the kind of thing regularly said, even emphasized, by serious theologians— redemption is universal.
To be clear: it is not even the kind of thing often said by leaders who have institutional axes to grind both in Catholicism and in Protestantism. I, for instance, think the previous Pope would have had a hard time delivering this kind of opinion. (Too many axes to grind.)
The second reason this did not surprise me is Francis is a Jesuit. You see, aside from thinking outside the box, that Jesuit training to which I earlier referred helps an individual do two things. It helps one think things through with great clarity. Put another way, it creates habits which insist that a person maintains an open mind.
Jesuit training also insists people are important. Jesuit training, thereby, makes the claim that a person needs to maintain an open heart. Open mind; open heart; most of the time this is a sure formula for dealing with reality and challenging others to do the same— open mind, open heart. Seems like a simple formula, doesn’t it? (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as the Gospel According to the School of John: [Jesus said] “I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.” (Slight pause.)
So, how did this Papal statement about atheists come to the front? In the course of offering a sermon (I’ve read Francis often speaks ‘off the cuff’ in the course of offering a sermon), Francis retold the story of the disciples being upset when someone outside their group was doing good. And complained about that to Jesus. The Pope said the disciples were intolerant and Jesus broadened the horizons of the disciples by condoning the good that was being done.
The root of doing good, said Francis, is in all creation— God created and it was good. Therefore, we all have this good, even atheists. Put yet another way, redemption— life with God and neighbor— is about meeting people where they are at and not about meeting people where we are at. That’s not an easy one: redemption is about meeting people where they are at and not about meeting people where we are at.
In commenting on what the Pope said about universal redemption, James Martin, another Jesuit, wrote this (quote:) “That’s always been a Christian belief. You can find St. Paul saying it in the First Letter to Timothy.... but rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully and with such evident joy.... In this era of religious controversies, it is a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories”— narrow categories. (Slight pause.)
Today, as you heard earlier, is Trinity Sunday. We make a mistake when we think in terms which suggest ‘Trinity’ is a category. We make a mistake when we think in terms which suggest simply or only a naming of God, a way to describe God, a noun. Indeed, we often use terms like Father, Son, Holy Spirit or Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. These are namings. These are descriptions.
Trinity, you see, is not a noun in the sense that Trinity is not simply or only a naming. Trinity must been seen as a verb.
Put another way, to say God is three is to say God is relational, God is always in the midst of, in the action of relating. This way of looking at God opens up a notion of God as mystery who can never fully be understood or fully named with our rational, instrumental, mechanical minds. (Slight pause.)
Theologian Richard Rohr— a Franciscan, not a Jesuit (see, now I’m off track)— says this (quote): “God is relational and known in relationship. Any notion of God not giving, not totally loving, is a theological impossibility.”
“God only and always loves. You cannot reverse, slow down or limit an overflowing waterwheel of divine compassion and mercy. God, understanding God, goes in only one direction— toward ever more life and ever more creative love,... a love that is stronger than death” (unquote). [Slight pause.]
In a couple of minutes you will be invited to recite The Nicene Creed. (Hey! It’s Trinity Sunday). So, in a couple of minutes you will be invited to recite The Nicene Creed. We Westerners tend to think this Creed or any Creed is about professing statements of belief. It’s about what we think. It is not about what we think. That The Nicene Creed is not about stating a series of beliefs can been seen in the first words (quote): “We believe in one God,...”
In Latin, the original language of this Creed, the word used for “We believe...” is ‘Credo.’ The word ‘Credo’ does not lend itself to any kind of intellectual profession of faith.
You see, ‘Credo’ means I give my heart fully. There is nothing intellectual about that. There is movement and motion and action and relationship in giving one’s heart. But it is not a naming. Credo does not act like a noun. Credo is not an intellectual concept.
Credo is something to which we can witness and to which we can attest but not something which we can fully or adequately name. Giving of one’s heart fully is an action and that action can be encompassed and explained only by love and through love and in love. It is about the action called love. (Slight pause.)
All that brings be back to the words found in the Gospel (quote): “I still have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.” (Slight pause.)
I think Jesus is here addressing our relationship with God. And, if there is anything relationship demands it is growth. If there is anything love demands it is growth. Can we ever fully, intellectually understand love? No. Can we grow in love? Yes.
And I think that is what we are called to do. We are called to grow in love. We are called to grow in our love of God and we are called to grow in our love of neighbor. And that is the real way we can name the Trinity— by understanding that Trinity and love and growth are all not just verbs but never ending verbs, verbs which point to continued growth. (Slight pause.) After all, have you not heard? God is still speaking. Oh, you’ve heard that, haven’t you? Amen.
05/26/2013
Trinity Sunday
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “This saying is often attributed to G. K. Chesterton (quote): ‘Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.’ I would suggest, rather, that Christianity is something which requires love. Love requires growth. Growth requires action. Christianity is, hence, not something about static statements. It is about being and doing. And, to unpack Chesterton, therefore it is something which people hesitate to try. It is not easy.”
BENEDICTION :May the God of Trinity, Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, be with us in faith and in love and guide us in truth and peace; and may the blessing of this God be among us and remain with us always. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)