12/15/2013 ~ Third Sunday of Advent ~ Sunday in Advent on Which We Commemorate Love ~ Isaiah 35:1-10; Psalm 146:5-10 or Luke 1:46b-55; James 5:7-10; Matthew 11:2-11 ~ Music Sunday Added Readings: Isaiah 40:3-5; Isaiah 11:1-6, 10; Isaiah 9:2b, 6-7; Luke 2:15-17 ~ Music Sunday Canceled Due to Snow! Rescheduled for 1/5/2014.
Living in the Moment
“A voice cries out: / ‘In the wilderness / prepare the way for Yahweh; / make straight in the desert / a highway for our God.’” — Isaiah 40:3.
The late comedian George Cariln is famous for a lot of ironic but iconic one liners. I like many of them.
Certainly one of my favorite Carlin quotes is this one: “I went to a bookstore and asked the clerk, ‘Where’s the self-help section?’ In return I got a glowering stare. ‘If I told you,’ was the response, ‘it would defeat the purpose of self-help, wouldn’t it?’” (Slight pause.)
There is little doubt that one of the slogans of the self-help movement has been to (quote:) “live in the moment.” One author who wrote about this called it “the power of now.”
Whereas the implication of this current popular way of looking at one’s life and the world is that only now is important— only now, not the past nor the future— I think living in the moment needs to be approached in a different way. Indeed, I think the idea of living in the moment is an important concept. I approve of the idea.
Therefore, one of the things I think needs to be brought to the fore when we talk about living in the moment is the thought that it encompasses not just the present but the past and the future as well. I think when living in the moment, when living in the present, can somehow encompass the past and the future, it really does have the potential to be life changing.
You see, living in the moment while forgetting the past or the future is nothing more than ego-centric— not a good place to be, I think. That kind of approach insists only our time— not the past— is important. It insists only our time— not the future— has significant potential. In short, if only now matters ‘living in the moment’ rejects others— other times, other places, other people. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Isaiah: “A voice cries out: / “In the wilderness / prepare the way for Yahweh; / make straight in the desert / a highway for our God.” (Slight pause.)
I have said this here before: Biblical prophecy is not about predicting the future. That Biblical prophecy is about predicting the future is a conceit of the popular culture. Saying that Biblical prophecy is about predicting the future is, to put it bluntly, an anti-Biblical sentiment.
Biblical prophecy is not about prognostication. Biblical prophecy concerns speaking truth— a truth— about the Word of God.
I have also said this: in order to begin to understand what we read in Scripture we need to place ourselves in the time and the place of the people who were first hearing the writings. And, indeed, those who wrote what we now call Scripture and those who first heard what we now call Scripture did not know it as Scripture at that point in time. What was recorded was, in fact, nothing more than an attempt to understand their own experience of God.
They certainly did not think in terms of making a prediction that would be listened to as if it said about anything concrete or definitive about what might happen in the future. They were simply trying to address what God might be saying to them, right then.
In fact, it might be said that they were living in that moment. But in so doing, they were trying to make sense of the places from which they had come and the places to which God might be calling them. They were looking to the past and to the future but being in the moment.
Therefore, for us to use what we read in Scripture as a prediction of what might happen, is to start in the wrong place. In short, we always first need to ask what they recorded might have meant to them.
Indeed, I think what we fail to realize in what was recorded in the Fortieth Chapter of Isaiah is the immediacy of it. Let me repeat it: “A voice cries out: / ‘In the wilderness / prepare the way for Yahweh; / make straight in the desert / a highway for our God.’”
So, if they were living in the moment what was it they might have heard from these words? What might they have discerned? (Slight pause.) Perhaps one thing they might have heard was that God beckoned them to do the work of God, right then— in that place and in that time.
Given that concept, given that idea, we need to put ourselves in their shoes in order to begin to discern what Scripture might be saying to us. Certainly one question for us is this: ‘can we hear something in these writings about the place to which God calls us?’ (Slight pause.)
And that brings us to Luke. (Quote:) “When the angels had left and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, ‘Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this event which has taken place and which God has made known to us.’” (Slight pause.)
So, is this simply about the birth of the Messiah or is there sometime more being said? (Slight pause.) You see, once we understand Isaiah in its own context, on its own terms the words of Isaiah can clearly read as Biblical prophecy— speaking a Word of truth about God.
I say that because the Word which Isaiah speaks addresses God who calls us to do the work of God. And perhaps we miss this next piece. the birth of the Messiah also addresses God who calls us to do the work of God.
How so? It has been often said the birth of the Messiah is about the in-breaking of God into our lives.
Hence, the Biblical prophecy Isaiah addresses is that God beckons us to do the work of God right now in our place and in our time. And the birth of the Messiah also tells us God beckons us to do the work of God right now in our place and in our time.
And I do not think we have to look too far to find out what that work might be. We are to feed the hungry, clothe those in tatters, care for and comfort those who are ill, etc., etc., etc.
Last, I want to suggest the real way we can do those things God calls us to do, is by living in the moment. The real way we can do those things God calls is to do, is by listening to the Word of God and by recognizing what we are to do now and the places to which God continues to call us in the future. Put differently, this is the call of God: we are to live in the moment— God’s moment— remembering that God forgets neither the past nor the future. Amen.
12/15/2013
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: “There is no question that living in the moment calls us to remember the past, the history of the relationship of God and humanity, calls us to be aware that what we do today shall effect the future of our race. We should also be reminded that God calls us to live in the moment by reaching out to those around us as we share the love God offers to us with all people— that’s all people, not just some people. And perhaps, when we do all that we are, ourselves, fulfilling a prophecy by striving to do the will of God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go in hope and in joy and in peace, for we find love in the One who has made covenant with us. And, indeed, God reigns. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Sunday, December 8, 2013
SERMON ~ 12/08/2013 ~ “That One Shall Not Judge”
12/08/2013 ~ Second Sunday of Advent ~ The Sunday in Advent on Which We Commemorate Peace ~ Isaiah 11:1-10; Psalm 72:1-7, 18-19; Romans 15:4-13; Matthew 3:1-12 ~ Ceremony of .-: (Shalom) for Margaret Rasely.
That One Shall Not Judge
“The spirit of Yahweh, God, / shall rest on this branch, / the spirit of wisdom and understanding, / the spirit of counsel and strength, / the spirit of knowledge and / reverence for Yahweh.” — Isaiah 11:2.
A little bit ago there was much ink spilled in the print media and air time spent on cable news, over the air television and radio about the phenomena labeled as Thanksgivukkah. This— Thanksgivukkah— was the convergence of the American holiday, Thanksgiving, and the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. Needless to say that was last Thursday, November 28th, 2013.
Much of that ink and air time was given over to the thought that this was the last time these holidays would converge for the next 77,000 years. Now, I don’t mean to be a spoil sport, but this is meaningless. In a real sense it was just made up out of whole cloth. What do I mean by made up?
First, Hanukkah actually started on the 27th, not the 28th. Second, Thanksgiving— at least the version mandated by secular authority as opposed to any religious celebration of giving thanks— did not even have the firm, set date it currently has— the fourth Thursday in November— until Congress made it so by passing a law setting it that way. And when did that law take effect? 1943.
Before that, the American Thanksgiving was a movable feast, most often celebrated on the fifth Thursday in November, when there was a fifth Thursday. But from the time of George Washington until the time Lincoln, the date observed varied from state to state. Lincoln issued a proclamation affixing the date to that last Thursday and after that most folks adhered to it— most but not all.
And of course, the Jewish calendar— that’s a lunar calendar— 28 days IN each month. Because of that, some years have more months that others to keep the calendar from getting totally out of wack with the seasons.
And this is year 5,774 on the Jewish calendar. As to Hanukkah and its date, the feast has a history of about 2,000 years. But that’s less than half of the aforementioned 5,000 plus years on the Jewish calendar. So Hanukkah’s a newcomer.
Well, look at all these facts. If Thanksgiving was not a fixed date until 1943, by definition that fixed date is new. And while Hanukkah is much older, it’s new on its calendar.
Add to that the fact that Hanukkah really started on the 27th, not the 28th, and the fact that these two dates never coincided before and barely converged now and shall not converge for another 77,000 years, there is only one conclusion to draw. This story was made up to entertain. And that is all it is— entertainment.
Which is also to say, the story was really not worth the amount of the ink and the amount of air time devoted to it. But it did attract a whole lot of noise. (Slight pause.)
Now, also recently, much ink and much air time was devoted to the fact that stores opened on Thanksgiving. And much of what was said had to do with painting merchants as putting money over family.
To be clear, I agree. I do not think it’s good that stores opened. And does it pit money over family? Why yes, it does.
But do you know why Thanksgiving was set by Congress as the fourth Thursday in November, as opposed to the fifth Thursday in November? (Slight pause.) It was set that way (in 1943, mind you) to ensure that the selling season before Christmas was as long as possible. And when it was set up that way, Congress was very vocal in saying it was about money and it was not about family and it was definitely not about religion.
So there is one more thing which should be clear about this move to the fourth Thursday for Thanksgiving. Commerce, if not Congress, was usurping Christmas for its own purposes.
Now, having mentioned that Christmas, the Feast of the Incarnation, the Feast of the birth of the Messiah has been usurped, let me make one more point. As you heard earlier, we are not now in the season of Christmas. [1]
In the church the season of Christmas happens from December the 25th to the 5th of January. We are now in the season of Advent. But you might not be able to tell it’s Advent based on the hustle and bustle of the cultural noise— cultural noise— we see around us.
To be clear, I have nothing against commerce. But I do ask that we make one distinction. Please do not confuse commerce of any kind with the Feast of the Incarnation, the Feast of the birth of the Messiah. The two have nothing in common. (Slight pause.)
And we find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The spirit of Yahweh, God, / shall rest on this branch, / the spirit of wisdom and understanding, / the spirit of counsel and strength, / the spirit of knowledge and / reverence for Yahweh.” (Slight pause.)
Based on what I just said, I hope this much is evident. The culture in which we live imposes a lot of things on us which are simply frivolous. Many of those things the culture imposes are not in any way dangerous and many of those things can be great fun.
But, for the most part, many of those things the culture imposes on us should not be taken seriously. They should not become or be made into the center of our lives. Why should we should waste energy, precious energy, on things which are no more than cultural noise? (Slight pause.)
In the passage the Prophet Isaiah speaks of the One on whom the Spirit of Yahweh, God, shall rest. The Prophet says that this One shall not judge by what the eyes see, by appearances, or decide by what the ears hear or by hearsay. In short, this one shall be focused on God— and focused on God, alone. In short, this one realizes nothing else matters but God. (Slight pause.)
The world throws a lot of stuff at us— appearances. Our ears hear a lot of “stuff.” But it is really, really of little matter— this stuff.
So, for me, a pivotal question becomes this: ‘What is really, really important?’ (Slight pause.) For me, the made up stuff has become less and less important over time.
For me the key issue has become ‘How does my relationship with God grow and how does God call me to grow in relationship with others?’ For me the key issue becomes ‘how do I turn my life toward God, turn my life over to God?’ (Slight pause.)
In the Gospel John the Baptizer says this (quote): “Change your hearts and minds,....” In the older, more archaic translation instead of saying “Change your hearts and minds...” a single word is used— repent.
As I have said here before, ‘repent’ in no way means to feel sorry or to regret. Repent means to turn your life toward God. Repent means to turn your life over to God. And perhaps more precisely, repent means, as much as possible, to ignore the clutter in the culture around us which distracts us from God. (Slight pause.)
I think one reason the church celebrates and we should celebrate Advent, why we should take Advent seriously, is the celebration should help us move away from the cultural clutter— the noise around us. Advent, you see, is meant as a time to grapple with the idea that God is with us at all times, in all places and in all ways because of the birth of the Messiah, the Christ, this one they called Jesus.
Therefore, Advent is meant as a time to help us see through culture clutter. (Slight pause.) Can all that cultural clutter be fun? Why, yes it can. It can be lots of fun. I have a lot of fun, myself, with it.
But we need to see cultural clutter as mere background noise. We need to realize the central message of Christmas is summed up in that other name connected with Jesus, the one we find here in the Gospel of Matthew— Emmanuel: God is with us. Amen.
12/08/2013
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: “This, the Second Sunday in Advent, we commemorated Peace. As I have said here many times before, the Peace of God is not the absence of conflict. The Peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God. And, as Christians, we recognize the presence of God at all times and in all places. It is my hope that in when recognize the presence of God that helps us filter out the cultural clutter which surrounds us.”
BENEDICTION: Let us be present to one another as we go from this place. Let us share our gifts, our hopes, our memories, our pain and our joy. Go in peace for God is with us. Go in joy for God knows every fiber of our being. Go in hope for God reveals to us, daily, that we are a part of God’s new creation. Go in love, for we rest assured, by Christ, Jesus, that God is steadfast. And may the peace of God which surpasses understanding be with us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] At the beginning of the service each week the day being celebrated on the Christian Calendar is noted.
That One Shall Not Judge
“The spirit of Yahweh, God, / shall rest on this branch, / the spirit of wisdom and understanding, / the spirit of counsel and strength, / the spirit of knowledge and / reverence for Yahweh.” — Isaiah 11:2.
A little bit ago there was much ink spilled in the print media and air time spent on cable news, over the air television and radio about the phenomena labeled as Thanksgivukkah. This— Thanksgivukkah— was the convergence of the American holiday, Thanksgiving, and the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. Needless to say that was last Thursday, November 28th, 2013.
Much of that ink and air time was given over to the thought that this was the last time these holidays would converge for the next 77,000 years. Now, I don’t mean to be a spoil sport, but this is meaningless. In a real sense it was just made up out of whole cloth. What do I mean by made up?
First, Hanukkah actually started on the 27th, not the 28th. Second, Thanksgiving— at least the version mandated by secular authority as opposed to any religious celebration of giving thanks— did not even have the firm, set date it currently has— the fourth Thursday in November— until Congress made it so by passing a law setting it that way. And when did that law take effect? 1943.
Before that, the American Thanksgiving was a movable feast, most often celebrated on the fifth Thursday in November, when there was a fifth Thursday. But from the time of George Washington until the time Lincoln, the date observed varied from state to state. Lincoln issued a proclamation affixing the date to that last Thursday and after that most folks adhered to it— most but not all.
And of course, the Jewish calendar— that’s a lunar calendar— 28 days IN each month. Because of that, some years have more months that others to keep the calendar from getting totally out of wack with the seasons.
And this is year 5,774 on the Jewish calendar. As to Hanukkah and its date, the feast has a history of about 2,000 years. But that’s less than half of the aforementioned 5,000 plus years on the Jewish calendar. So Hanukkah’s a newcomer.
Well, look at all these facts. If Thanksgiving was not a fixed date until 1943, by definition that fixed date is new. And while Hanukkah is much older, it’s new on its calendar.
Add to that the fact that Hanukkah really started on the 27th, not the 28th, and the fact that these two dates never coincided before and barely converged now and shall not converge for another 77,000 years, there is only one conclusion to draw. This story was made up to entertain. And that is all it is— entertainment.
Which is also to say, the story was really not worth the amount of the ink and the amount of air time devoted to it. But it did attract a whole lot of noise. (Slight pause.)
Now, also recently, much ink and much air time was devoted to the fact that stores opened on Thanksgiving. And much of what was said had to do with painting merchants as putting money over family.
To be clear, I agree. I do not think it’s good that stores opened. And does it pit money over family? Why yes, it does.
But do you know why Thanksgiving was set by Congress as the fourth Thursday in November, as opposed to the fifth Thursday in November? (Slight pause.) It was set that way (in 1943, mind you) to ensure that the selling season before Christmas was as long as possible. And when it was set up that way, Congress was very vocal in saying it was about money and it was not about family and it was definitely not about religion.
So there is one more thing which should be clear about this move to the fourth Thursday for Thanksgiving. Commerce, if not Congress, was usurping Christmas for its own purposes.
Now, having mentioned that Christmas, the Feast of the Incarnation, the Feast of the birth of the Messiah has been usurped, let me make one more point. As you heard earlier, we are not now in the season of Christmas. [1]
In the church the season of Christmas happens from December the 25th to the 5th of January. We are now in the season of Advent. But you might not be able to tell it’s Advent based on the hustle and bustle of the cultural noise— cultural noise— we see around us.
To be clear, I have nothing against commerce. But I do ask that we make one distinction. Please do not confuse commerce of any kind with the Feast of the Incarnation, the Feast of the birth of the Messiah. The two have nothing in common. (Slight pause.)
And we find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The spirit of Yahweh, God, / shall rest on this branch, / the spirit of wisdom and understanding, / the spirit of counsel and strength, / the spirit of knowledge and / reverence for Yahweh.” (Slight pause.)
Based on what I just said, I hope this much is evident. The culture in which we live imposes a lot of things on us which are simply frivolous. Many of those things the culture imposes are not in any way dangerous and many of those things can be great fun.
But, for the most part, many of those things the culture imposes on us should not be taken seriously. They should not become or be made into the center of our lives. Why should we should waste energy, precious energy, on things which are no more than cultural noise? (Slight pause.)
In the passage the Prophet Isaiah speaks of the One on whom the Spirit of Yahweh, God, shall rest. The Prophet says that this One shall not judge by what the eyes see, by appearances, or decide by what the ears hear or by hearsay. In short, this one shall be focused on God— and focused on God, alone. In short, this one realizes nothing else matters but God. (Slight pause.)
The world throws a lot of stuff at us— appearances. Our ears hear a lot of “stuff.” But it is really, really of little matter— this stuff.
So, for me, a pivotal question becomes this: ‘What is really, really important?’ (Slight pause.) For me, the made up stuff has become less and less important over time.
For me the key issue has become ‘How does my relationship with God grow and how does God call me to grow in relationship with others?’ For me the key issue becomes ‘how do I turn my life toward God, turn my life over to God?’ (Slight pause.)
In the Gospel John the Baptizer says this (quote): “Change your hearts and minds,....” In the older, more archaic translation instead of saying “Change your hearts and minds...” a single word is used— repent.
As I have said here before, ‘repent’ in no way means to feel sorry or to regret. Repent means to turn your life toward God. Repent means to turn your life over to God. And perhaps more precisely, repent means, as much as possible, to ignore the clutter in the culture around us which distracts us from God. (Slight pause.)
I think one reason the church celebrates and we should celebrate Advent, why we should take Advent seriously, is the celebration should help us move away from the cultural clutter— the noise around us. Advent, you see, is meant as a time to grapple with the idea that God is with us at all times, in all places and in all ways because of the birth of the Messiah, the Christ, this one they called Jesus.
Therefore, Advent is meant as a time to help us see through culture clutter. (Slight pause.) Can all that cultural clutter be fun? Why, yes it can. It can be lots of fun. I have a lot of fun, myself, with it.
But we need to see cultural clutter as mere background noise. We need to realize the central message of Christmas is summed up in that other name connected with Jesus, the one we find here in the Gospel of Matthew— Emmanuel: God is with us. Amen.
12/08/2013
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: “This, the Second Sunday in Advent, we commemorated Peace. As I have said here many times before, the Peace of God is not the absence of conflict. The Peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God. And, as Christians, we recognize the presence of God at all times and in all places. It is my hope that in when recognize the presence of God that helps us filter out the cultural clutter which surrounds us.”
BENEDICTION: Let us be present to one another as we go from this place. Let us share our gifts, our hopes, our memories, our pain and our joy. Go in peace for God is with us. Go in joy for God knows every fiber of our being. Go in hope for God reveals to us, daily, that we are a part of God’s new creation. Go in love, for we rest assured, by Christ, Jesus, that God is steadfast. And may the peace of God which surpasses understanding be with us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] At the beginning of the service each week the day being celebrated on the Christian Calendar is noted.
Monday, December 2, 2013
SERMON ~ 12/01/2013 ~ “Keep Awake”
12/01/2013 ~ The First Sunday of Year ‘A’ of the Three Year Cycle of Lectionary Readings ~ First Sunday of Advent, the Sunday We Commemorate Hope ~ Isaiah 2:1-5; Psalm 122; Romans 13:11-14; Matthew 24:36-44 ~ Communion Sunday.
Keep Awake
NOTE: IF YOU ARE READING THIS ON THE BLOG POST, THERE ARE SOME VISUALS THE CONGREGATION SAW WHICH YOU WILL FIND ONLY IN THE PDF VERSION OF THE TEXT ON THE WEB SITE OF THE NORWICH CHURCH UNDER THE DATE OF THIS SERMON:.
ALSO, YOU CAN CLICK ON THIS PDF FILE AND THAT WILL BE JUST THE VISUALS.
“Therefore, keep awake— be vigilant, for you do not know the day on which your Savior is coming.” — Matthew 24:42.
Many of you know the Nichols family who used to be members here. However, some of you do not know them, since they moved to Western Pennsylvania about— my memory says five or six years ago. Needless to say, some of you were not attending this church that long ago.
Micah Nichols, one of four brothers, must have been in Middle School (or maybe still in Elementary School) depending on when the family left when the family left at that point. I presume that since I know he is now a Rotary Exchange Student and he is a Senior in High School.
Now, of all the places one could be a Rotary Exchange Student, Micah certainly wound up in one of the most exotic and perhaps even a little dangerous since there has been a little violence in the capital earlier this week. He is currently in Thailand. I know this because I am Micah’s Facebook friend.
And not only does he post on Facebook he writes an occasional blog. And just so I say this out loud, I have told him by e-mail he is a magnificent writer. He writes well, he is a keen observer and his insights are interesting. Well, Micah added a post to his blog just a couple of days ago and it contained yet another fascinating observation.
In what he wrote he first noted his Thai language abilities are coming along nicely. They are not yet what he would call great— and knowing Micah my bet is he has high standards for determining what is great— they are not what he would yet call great but they are improving.
After a couple of months in country he can understand much, as he listens to conversation in Thai. It is always a good feeling, he said, to realize you can understand what people are saying, even without dedicating your total focus to it.
As to the fascinating observation he made, this is a direct quote from that recent blog post of Micah Nichols: “Something mildly interesting about Thai culture is that there is no such thing as sarcasm. Being an American, a lot of my humor is sarcastic. This causes some definite communication issues and certainly makes Thai people think I’m absolutely insane.”
“For example, someone will tell me about how busy their day will be. I might say something along the lines of ‘oh, that should be fun, right?’ I normally get strange looks in response— but I think I’m slowly training my host family to understand sarcastic humor.” [1] (Slight pause.)
I have another Facebook friend who is fond of occasionally posting picture with a single sarcastic phrase attached. He posted some this week. The pictures from this week were interesting from a historical perspective, given the season. They were pictures of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade taken in the 1930s.
Back in the 1930s the parade had what we might think of as some pretty bizarre balloons. In part because these photos got posted, I’ve done research about the parade. And I think the balloons and floats in the parade back then in the 30s and even some photos from some later dates were pretty strange when seen through today’s eyes.
There are several peculiar strange dragons— balloons— which traversed the parade route in different years. I found them quite off-putting. There is one of a disembodied head. So you can see a couple of these pictures, let me pass out a sheet with some of them on it. [Pause as the pastor passes out sheets with pictures on it.]
[The pastor keeps talking as the pictures are passed out: “two sides on these; two different sheets— one has tinted pictures on it, the other doesn’t.” The pastor returns to the pulpit.]
THE VISUALS:
Some of those seem pretty strange, right— with today’s eyes, at least. Well, my friend who posted this on Facebook is in the habit as I suggested of posting a number of strange pictures, not just these from the parade.
And he posts strange pictures with some regularity. The caption he gives them is always the same. The caption is meant to be sarcastic, I’m sure. He posts a strange picture and then he proclaims: “Further Proof of the Apocalypse.” Proof of the Apocalypse? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel we have come to know as Matthew: “Therefore, keep awake— be vigilant, for you do not know the day on which your Savior is coming.” (Slight pause.)
So, let’s ask the obvious question: is this text meant to be apocalyptic? Is this text meant to be about the end of time in the modern sense, in our sense? Or, for our purposes today, would it be more accurate to take the words in this text as sarcastic? (Slight pause.)
I want to be careful here. I have no need to demythologize these words, to make them too modern, to take all the interesting imagery found in the passage in such a way as to render the words meaningless and, therefore, useless. To do so would be to rob the images of the early Christian witness they were meant to be and are.
But taken in the context of the times in which they were written, the witness was not intended to convey despair. Taken in the context of the times, New Testament times, this is a witness about hope. But how can that be since, when we look at this text with our modern eyes, it is easy to read fear into them? (Slight pause.)
Just like sarcasm does not come across in a Thai culture, in the culture of New Testament times, these words are not meant to convey a message about fear. They would not have even understood— they— the people in New Testament times— would have even understood what seeing these words as fearful was about. This is witness is about hope for them. This is a witness, you see, about the consummating activity of God.
Indeed, we need to carefully listen to the witness of the text. And we do need to allow the symbols found therein to evoke in us a sense of urgency. We do need to allow the symbols found therein to create some expectancy about the future God might have for us and a sense of anticipation about the future God might have for humanity.
How so? This passage, you see, begins and ends with declarations that the hour in which the hope of God is fully realized but cannot be known— the hour cannot be known. And the fact that Jesus and the angels are not privy to the time should provide a sharp warning against speculation and any overeagerness to seek some kind of hidden message. In fact, any claim to special insight about the future based on this passage merely exposes human arrogance and pretense.
Therefore, we need to acknowledge there is actually a positive word in the very unknowable-ness of the hour. We need to be reminded that we should not live as speculators guessing about the future nor as prospectors hunting for gold nuggets in the text. We need to live as a people to whom a promise has been given.
And we need to count on the reliability of the One who makes promises of hope. You see, it is not that the future is somehow mysteriously shrouded and that armchair predictors of the apocalypse must seek to break the secret code and discover when the end will be. The promises God makes do not depend on the natural possibilities inherent in the past or the present. [2]
All of which is to say, taken in the context of the times in which this was written, this is not a warning of any kind. This is not about, as some today might have it— this is not about being afraid because the end is near. This is about being aware that doing the work of God right now is a necessary component of the Christian way of living.
And what does doing the work of God right now mean for us today? It means feeding the hungry— something we participated in just last week— sheltering the homeless, clothing those in tatters, welcoming the alien in our midst, offering adequate healthcare for everyone.
Therefore, doing the will of God means offering a word of hope. That— offering hope— is the message of Advent promise. And the Advent promise is the promise of the Messiah— God in our midst. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
12/01/2013
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: “I hope this is clear: our culture effects our understandings— just like sarcasm won’t make sense in Thai there are things which won’t make sense in our culture becasue it’s alien to us. An example: as you know, it was cold yesterday, in the single digits. Today it supposed to be over 40. But Bonnie and I came here from Maine. What the culture in Maine says is when you see single digits expect that to last for several weeks— sometimes below single digits for several weeks. My point is we need to examine how the culture informs us. A friend of mine said when he found out we were going to Norwich, ‘Oh, you’re going to the tropics, aren’t you? Does a language accommodate sarcasm? If not, you will not get the jokes. Is the message of God meant to be one of hope? If your cultural tendencies steer you away from hope and toward fear, you will not be able to grasp that God offers hope.”
BENEDICTION: Let us know and understand that our hope is in God. May we carry the peace of God where ever we go. Let us share that peace and that hope, which is God’s, with all whom we meet. For God reigns and the joy of God’s love is a present reality. Amen.
[1] Used with permission.
[2] Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary, Based on the NRSV, by Walter Brueggemann (Editor) , Charles B. Cousar (Editor) , Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Editor) , James D. Newsome Jr. (Editor) — this from the electronic version, which is exactly the same as the print version.
Keep Awake
NOTE: IF YOU ARE READING THIS ON THE BLOG POST, THERE ARE SOME VISUALS THE CONGREGATION SAW WHICH YOU WILL FIND ONLY IN THE PDF VERSION OF THE TEXT ON THE WEB SITE OF THE NORWICH CHURCH UNDER THE DATE OF THIS SERMON:
ALSO, YOU CAN CLICK ON THIS PDF FILE AND THAT WILL BE JUST THE VISUALS.
“Therefore, keep awake— be vigilant, for you do not know the day on which your Savior is coming.” — Matthew 24:42.
Many of you know the Nichols family who used to be members here. However, some of you do not know them, since they moved to Western Pennsylvania about— my memory says five or six years ago. Needless to say, some of you were not attending this church that long ago.
Micah Nichols, one of four brothers, must have been in Middle School (or maybe still in Elementary School) depending on when the family left when the family left at that point. I presume that since I know he is now a Rotary Exchange Student and he is a Senior in High School.
Now, of all the places one could be a Rotary Exchange Student, Micah certainly wound up in one of the most exotic and perhaps even a little dangerous since there has been a little violence in the capital earlier this week. He is currently in Thailand. I know this because I am Micah’s Facebook friend.
And not only does he post on Facebook he writes an occasional blog. And just so I say this out loud, I have told him by e-mail he is a magnificent writer. He writes well, he is a keen observer and his insights are interesting. Well, Micah added a post to his blog just a couple of days ago and it contained yet another fascinating observation.
In what he wrote he first noted his Thai language abilities are coming along nicely. They are not yet what he would call great— and knowing Micah my bet is he has high standards for determining what is great— they are not what he would yet call great but they are improving.
After a couple of months in country he can understand much, as he listens to conversation in Thai. It is always a good feeling, he said, to realize you can understand what people are saying, even without dedicating your total focus to it.
As to the fascinating observation he made, this is a direct quote from that recent blog post of Micah Nichols: “Something mildly interesting about Thai culture is that there is no such thing as sarcasm. Being an American, a lot of my humor is sarcastic. This causes some definite communication issues and certainly makes Thai people think I’m absolutely insane.”
“For example, someone will tell me about how busy their day will be. I might say something along the lines of ‘oh, that should be fun, right?’ I normally get strange looks in response— but I think I’m slowly training my host family to understand sarcastic humor.” [1] (Slight pause.)
I have another Facebook friend who is fond of occasionally posting picture with a single sarcastic phrase attached. He posted some this week. The pictures from this week were interesting from a historical perspective, given the season. They were pictures of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade taken in the 1930s.
Back in the 1930s the parade had what we might think of as some pretty bizarre balloons. In part because these photos got posted, I’ve done research about the parade. And I think the balloons and floats in the parade back then in the 30s and even some photos from some later dates were pretty strange when seen through today’s eyes.
There are several peculiar strange dragons— balloons— which traversed the parade route in different years. I found them quite off-putting. There is one of a disembodied head. So you can see a couple of these pictures, let me pass out a sheet with some of them on it. [Pause as the pastor passes out sheets with pictures on it.]
[The pastor keeps talking as the pictures are passed out: “two sides on these; two different sheets— one has tinted pictures on it, the other doesn’t.” The pastor returns to the pulpit.]
THE VISUALS:
Some of those seem pretty strange, right— with today’s eyes, at least. Well, my friend who posted this on Facebook is in the habit as I suggested of posting a number of strange pictures, not just these from the parade.
And he posts strange pictures with some regularity. The caption he gives them is always the same. The caption is meant to be sarcastic, I’m sure. He posts a strange picture and then he proclaims: “Further Proof of the Apocalypse.” Proof of the Apocalypse? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel we have come to know as Matthew: “Therefore, keep awake— be vigilant, for you do not know the day on which your Savior is coming.” (Slight pause.)
So, let’s ask the obvious question: is this text meant to be apocalyptic? Is this text meant to be about the end of time in the modern sense, in our sense? Or, for our purposes today, would it be more accurate to take the words in this text as sarcastic? (Slight pause.)
I want to be careful here. I have no need to demythologize these words, to make them too modern, to take all the interesting imagery found in the passage in such a way as to render the words meaningless and, therefore, useless. To do so would be to rob the images of the early Christian witness they were meant to be and are.
But taken in the context of the times in which they were written, the witness was not intended to convey despair. Taken in the context of the times, New Testament times, this is a witness about hope. But how can that be since, when we look at this text with our modern eyes, it is easy to read fear into them? (Slight pause.)
Just like sarcasm does not come across in a Thai culture, in the culture of New Testament times, these words are not meant to convey a message about fear. They would not have even understood— they— the people in New Testament times— would have even understood what seeing these words as fearful was about. This is witness is about hope for them. This is a witness, you see, about the consummating activity of God.
Indeed, we need to carefully listen to the witness of the text. And we do need to allow the symbols found therein to evoke in us a sense of urgency. We do need to allow the symbols found therein to create some expectancy about the future God might have for us and a sense of anticipation about the future God might have for humanity.
How so? This passage, you see, begins and ends with declarations that the hour in which the hope of God is fully realized but cannot be known— the hour cannot be known. And the fact that Jesus and the angels are not privy to the time should provide a sharp warning against speculation and any overeagerness to seek some kind of hidden message. In fact, any claim to special insight about the future based on this passage merely exposes human arrogance and pretense.
Therefore, we need to acknowledge there is actually a positive word in the very unknowable-ness of the hour. We need to be reminded that we should not live as speculators guessing about the future nor as prospectors hunting for gold nuggets in the text. We need to live as a people to whom a promise has been given.
And we need to count on the reliability of the One who makes promises of hope. You see, it is not that the future is somehow mysteriously shrouded and that armchair predictors of the apocalypse must seek to break the secret code and discover when the end will be. The promises God makes do not depend on the natural possibilities inherent in the past or the present. [2]
All of which is to say, taken in the context of the times in which this was written, this is not a warning of any kind. This is not about, as some today might have it— this is not about being afraid because the end is near. This is about being aware that doing the work of God right now is a necessary component of the Christian way of living.
And what does doing the work of God right now mean for us today? It means feeding the hungry— something we participated in just last week— sheltering the homeless, clothing those in tatters, welcoming the alien in our midst, offering adequate healthcare for everyone.
Therefore, doing the will of God means offering a word of hope. That— offering hope— is the message of Advent promise. And the Advent promise is the promise of the Messiah— God in our midst. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
12/01/2013
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: “I hope this is clear: our culture effects our understandings— just like sarcasm won’t make sense in Thai there are things which won’t make sense in our culture becasue it’s alien to us. An example: as you know, it was cold yesterday, in the single digits. Today it supposed to be over 40. But Bonnie and I came here from Maine. What the culture in Maine says is when you see single digits expect that to last for several weeks— sometimes below single digits for several weeks. My point is we need to examine how the culture informs us. A friend of mine said when he found out we were going to Norwich, ‘Oh, you’re going to the tropics, aren’t you? Does a language accommodate sarcasm? If not, you will not get the jokes. Is the message of God meant to be one of hope? If your cultural tendencies steer you away from hope and toward fear, you will not be able to grasp that God offers hope.”
BENEDICTION: Let us know and understand that our hope is in God. May we carry the peace of God where ever we go. Let us share that peace and that hope, which is God’s, with all whom we meet. For God reigns and the joy of God’s love is a present reality. Amen.
[1] Used with permission.
[2] Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary, Based on the NRSV, by Walter Brueggemann (Editor) , Charles B. Cousar (Editor) , Beverly Roberts Gaventa (Editor) , James D. Newsome Jr. (Editor) — this from the electronic version, which is exactly the same as the print version.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/24/2013 ~ “The Messiah of God”
11/24/2013 ~ The Feast of the Reign of Christ ~ Proper 29 ~ Thirty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost ~ Last Sunday After Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 23:1-6; Luke 1:68-79; Jeremiah 23:1-6; Psalm 46; Colossians 1:11-20; Luke 23:33-43 ~ Operation Christmas Child Commissioning.
The Messiah of God
“People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” — Luke 23:35.
Malcolm Gladwell writes non-fiction books that usually go right to the top of the Best Seller list when first published. His most recent work is David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants.
The author starts this book with an exegesis of the David and Goliath story from Scripture. Exegesis— that’s a $64 word which means looking at a text and doing a critical explanation and/or interpretation of it. Most often the word exegesis is used when speaking about religious texts.
However, exegesis can apply to any text. Our Norwich High School students who have had Mr. Bernstein’s Advanced Placement Literature and Composition classes, even though they many not know this, have practiced exegesis and probably practiced it really hard.
I am sure Mr. Bernstein has asked students to do this kind of analysis many times. And, as I suggested, you can exegete any text— from Shakespeare to Salinger to Shaw to Scripture. Textual analysis is a universal possibility.
Well, let me come back to the David and Goliath story and the exegesis Gladwell does with it. First, he describes the place, the valley where David and Goliath do battle.
The Israelite army and Philistine army— about equal in strength— wind up encamped on opposite edges of a ravine in a stand-off. Neither wants to descend to the valley only to have to fight their way up the other hill. I am sure you’ve heard the cliché attached with that one— uphill battle. Uphill battles are hard to win.
So Goliath, a giant— many scholars suggest this is simply an exceptionally tall man, maybe close to 7 feet tall— Goliath, a giant wearing armor, offers a challenge. Fight me. Your warrior wins, you win and we, the Philistines, become your slaves. I win, the opposite happens.
Then the short, young shepherd, clothed perhaps only in an animal skin, challenges that armor clad giant. Of course, the shepherd defies all odds and wins. This— David conquering Goliath— has become a metaphor in our language for someone who overcomes terrible odds and improbably winds up a victor.
But is that what happened? Or does the story say something else and we simply ignore it? (Slight pause.) In the analysis Gladwell offers, he insists we misread the story.
In the original text, Goliath says he can see David carrying two sticks. But the text also clearly tells us David carries a single staff. There is only one conclusion to be drawn: Goliath sees things blurry or double. In fact, if Goliath is as tall as some think, both that height and blurry or double vision might be caused by an overactive pituitary gland.
Further, he is led down the hill by a servant. He doesn’t come down by himself. So he is not just someone with bad eyesight. He is probably clumsy too. He cannot clamor down the hill alone.
And he wears all that armor. He can’t move quickly. Goliath probably wants to fight David in close quarters with a spear and a sword.
David, on the other hand, is mobile and agile. He can get close but can scamper away. David also carries a deadly weapon. The sling is not the children’s toy with which many of us are familiar.
It is made of a single piece of cloth and two lines. It was whirled overhead five to six times a second before release.
As to the stones used, we know the terrain in this area. We know the kind of stones found there. They are both small and heavy. So David picks up a small but dense stone to use in the sling.
Last, we know in ancient times people, like shepherds, were sharpshooters— so skilled they could kill a bird in flight with a stone hurled from a sling. And that stone came out of the sling at a speed similar to a modern bullet shot from a gun. (Slight pause.)
Was there a risk for the Israelites? Yes— it was huge. On the other hand, Saul probably overestimated the strengths of Goliath and underestimated the advantages of David. So the Israelites were worried and hesitant. But, says Gladwell, it was David who really had the upper hand, not Goliath. [1]
In short, most of us misread the story. And all you need to do is the exegetical work, the analysis, to realize there is something beyond the obvious in the story. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke. “People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” (Slight pause.)
I think we find ourselves in a similar place with this reading and we need to analyze it to help make any sense. The reading is, you see, not as straightforward as it seems. On the surface, it’s a story about the crucifixion.
But if that’s the case, why did the compilers of the lections place a crucifixion story on the last Sunday before Advent, the season which moves us toward Christmas, the season we celebrate the birth of the Messiah? And why did the Church, in its wisdom, declare the Feast of the Reign of Christ on this day? And where is there any good news here? After all, it’s about crucifixion. (Slight pause.)
Well, this is what I think is going on. In this short passage, this crucifixion scene, Jesus is referred to by three different titles: ‘King of the Jews,’ ‘the Chosen One’ and ‘ the Messiah.’ All these are messianic titles— titles of a Messiah. So over and over again in this reading we find a proclamation: Jesus is the Messiah of God.
When that is taken into consideration, we need to ask the obvious question. Should our focus be on the crucifixion or should our focus lie elsewhere?
And, indeed, in order to help with that focus, let’s take a step back from this specific story and see it in the context of an overview of the Gospel known as Luke. In the Second Chapter of this work— when do we read the Second Chapter of this work? Christmas Eve. In the Second Chapter of this work when the angels appear to the shepherds, what is said?
“...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” [2]
And here, in today’s passage from Luke, Jesus is being crucified. And what is it we hear? Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
We hear Messiah at the birth of Jesus. We hear Messiah when Jesus is murdered. (Slight pause.) So, is this passage about the crucifixion? Or is this passage about something else? (Slight pause.)
As I hope is obvious to you, the real topic of this passage is not crucifixion. The central concern is a proclamation which insists Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
Even though it will take another three centuries for the church to form the doctrine we call Trinity, we can see its beginnings here. You see, at first, the Christian movement is made up of faithful Jews. So Jesus is seen as the Messiah of God.
And that brings us to why this is an appropriate reading for the last Sunday before the Season of Advent. Advent invites us to prepare for the Season of Christmas.
Rumor to the contrary, Christmas is not a secular holiday. Christmas is or should be a solemn occasion. Why? Christmas is a remembrance which celebrates the in-breaking of God into the life of the world and into our own lives. Personally, I cannot imagine a more solemn reason for celebration.
And after all, this is what the Second Chapter of Luke says: “...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” Amen.
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: “Given what I said today, there are two more things I need to say about exegesis, this analysis of Scripture. It is not new. It was not invented in the last century. The Prophets practiced exegesis; Jesus practiced exegesis; Paul practiced exegesis; faithful Christians have practiced exegesis for 2,000 years. Second, exegesis is easy. It works using one simple rule: don’t ask what Scripture says; ask what it means. Or as I’ve often said, I don’t take Scripture literally; I take it seriously.”
BENEDICTION: Let us walk in the light God provides. Let us thank God for reaching out to us in love. Let us be daily recreated in the image of God who wants us to live with justice as our guide and freedom as our goal. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts and minds in the companionship of the Holy Spirit and the love of God this day and evermore. Amen.
[1] Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, Little, Brown and Company.
[2] Luke 2:10-11 [ILV]
The Messiah of God
“People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” — Luke 23:35.
Malcolm Gladwell writes non-fiction books that usually go right to the top of the Best Seller list when first published. His most recent work is David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants.
The author starts this book with an exegesis of the David and Goliath story from Scripture. Exegesis— that’s a $64 word which means looking at a text and doing a critical explanation and/or interpretation of it. Most often the word exegesis is used when speaking about religious texts.
However, exegesis can apply to any text. Our Norwich High School students who have had Mr. Bernstein’s Advanced Placement Literature and Composition classes, even though they many not know this, have practiced exegesis and probably practiced it really hard.
I am sure Mr. Bernstein has asked students to do this kind of analysis many times. And, as I suggested, you can exegete any text— from Shakespeare to Salinger to Shaw to Scripture. Textual analysis is a universal possibility.
Well, let me come back to the David and Goliath story and the exegesis Gladwell does with it. First, he describes the place, the valley where David and Goliath do battle.
The Israelite army and Philistine army— about equal in strength— wind up encamped on opposite edges of a ravine in a stand-off. Neither wants to descend to the valley only to have to fight their way up the other hill. I am sure you’ve heard the cliché attached with that one— uphill battle. Uphill battles are hard to win.
So Goliath, a giant— many scholars suggest this is simply an exceptionally tall man, maybe close to 7 feet tall— Goliath, a giant wearing armor, offers a challenge. Fight me. Your warrior wins, you win and we, the Philistines, become your slaves. I win, the opposite happens.
Then the short, young shepherd, clothed perhaps only in an animal skin, challenges that armor clad giant. Of course, the shepherd defies all odds and wins. This— David conquering Goliath— has become a metaphor in our language for someone who overcomes terrible odds and improbably winds up a victor.
But is that what happened? Or does the story say something else and we simply ignore it? (Slight pause.) In the analysis Gladwell offers, he insists we misread the story.
In the original text, Goliath says he can see David carrying two sticks. But the text also clearly tells us David carries a single staff. There is only one conclusion to be drawn: Goliath sees things blurry or double. In fact, if Goliath is as tall as some think, both that height and blurry or double vision might be caused by an overactive pituitary gland.
Further, he is led down the hill by a servant. He doesn’t come down by himself. So he is not just someone with bad eyesight. He is probably clumsy too. He cannot clamor down the hill alone.
And he wears all that armor. He can’t move quickly. Goliath probably wants to fight David in close quarters with a spear and a sword.
David, on the other hand, is mobile and agile. He can get close but can scamper away. David also carries a deadly weapon. The sling is not the children’s toy with which many of us are familiar.
It is made of a single piece of cloth and two lines. It was whirled overhead five to six times a second before release.
As to the stones used, we know the terrain in this area. We know the kind of stones found there. They are both small and heavy. So David picks up a small but dense stone to use in the sling.
Last, we know in ancient times people, like shepherds, were sharpshooters— so skilled they could kill a bird in flight with a stone hurled from a sling. And that stone came out of the sling at a speed similar to a modern bullet shot from a gun. (Slight pause.)
Was there a risk for the Israelites? Yes— it was huge. On the other hand, Saul probably overestimated the strengths of Goliath and underestimated the advantages of David. So the Israelites were worried and hesitant. But, says Gladwell, it was David who really had the upper hand, not Goliath. [1]
In short, most of us misread the story. And all you need to do is the exegetical work, the analysis, to realize there is something beyond the obvious in the story. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke. “People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” (Slight pause.)
I think we find ourselves in a similar place with this reading and we need to analyze it to help make any sense. The reading is, you see, not as straightforward as it seems. On the surface, it’s a story about the crucifixion.
But if that’s the case, why did the compilers of the lections place a crucifixion story on the last Sunday before Advent, the season which moves us toward Christmas, the season we celebrate the birth of the Messiah? And why did the Church, in its wisdom, declare the Feast of the Reign of Christ on this day? And where is there any good news here? After all, it’s about crucifixion. (Slight pause.)
Well, this is what I think is going on. In this short passage, this crucifixion scene, Jesus is referred to by three different titles: ‘King of the Jews,’ ‘the Chosen One’ and ‘ the Messiah.’ All these are messianic titles— titles of a Messiah. So over and over again in this reading we find a proclamation: Jesus is the Messiah of God.
When that is taken into consideration, we need to ask the obvious question. Should our focus be on the crucifixion or should our focus lie elsewhere?
And, indeed, in order to help with that focus, let’s take a step back from this specific story and see it in the context of an overview of the Gospel known as Luke. In the Second Chapter of this work— when do we read the Second Chapter of this work? Christmas Eve. In the Second Chapter of this work when the angels appear to the shepherds, what is said?
“...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” [2]
And here, in today’s passage from Luke, Jesus is being crucified. And what is it we hear? Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
We hear Messiah at the birth of Jesus. We hear Messiah when Jesus is murdered. (Slight pause.) So, is this passage about the crucifixion? Or is this passage about something else? (Slight pause.)
As I hope is obvious to you, the real topic of this passage is not crucifixion. The central concern is a proclamation which insists Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
Even though it will take another three centuries for the church to form the doctrine we call Trinity, we can see its beginnings here. You see, at first, the Christian movement is made up of faithful Jews. So Jesus is seen as the Messiah of God.
And that brings us to why this is an appropriate reading for the last Sunday before the Season of Advent. Advent invites us to prepare for the Season of Christmas.
Rumor to the contrary, Christmas is not a secular holiday. Christmas is or should be a solemn occasion. Why? Christmas is a remembrance which celebrates the in-breaking of God into the life of the world and into our own lives. Personally, I cannot imagine a more solemn reason for celebration.
And after all, this is what the Second Chapter of Luke says: “...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” Amen.
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: “Given what I said today, there are two more things I need to say about exegesis, this analysis of Scripture. It is not new. It was not invented in the last century. The Prophets practiced exegesis; Jesus practiced exegesis; Paul practiced exegesis; faithful Christians have practiced exegesis for 2,000 years. Second, exegesis is easy. It works using one simple rule: don’t ask what Scripture says; ask what it means. Or as I’ve often said, I don’t take Scripture literally; I take it seriously.”
BENEDICTION: Let us walk in the light God provides. Let us thank God for reaching out to us in love. Let us be daily recreated in the image of God who wants us to live with justice as our guide and freedom as our goal. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts and minds in the companionship of the Holy Spirit and the love of God this day and evermore. Amen.
[1] Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, Little, Brown and Company.
[2] Luke 2:10-11 [ILV]
Sunday, November 17, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/17/2013 ~ “The Peaceable Kingdom?”
11/17/2013 ~ Proper 28 ~ Thirty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Sixth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Isaiah 65:17-25; Isaiah 12 **; Malachi 4:1-2a; Psalm 98; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13; Luke 21:5-19 ~ NOTE: Joe Does Children’s Time.
The Peaceable Kingdom?
“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” — Isaiah 65:25
Some of us were alive fifty years ago this coming Friday and some of us were not. And a little like that more recent tragedy— 9/11— one of the questions always posed to those who experienced that date fifty years ago— 11/22/1963— one of the questions posed is often the same as it is for 9/11.
Where were you when you heard the news? Of course, in the case of 1963 the question is: ‘where were you when you heard that the President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had been killed?’
As the years have passed, however, another and very different question about what happened back then has weighed on the American psyche. And the question is valid whether or not you were alive on that date. In short, this question even resonates with people who did not experience the event.
The question? Was there some kind of conspiracy afoot to brazenly and brutally assassinate the President? Put another way, was more than one person involved in this murder? Or was this killing simply the demented work of a single individual who was acting alone? (Slight pause.)
Movies have been made asking this question. Movies have even been made supplying answers to this question. Countless books have been written on the topic. One estimate I saw said there are 2,000 books rehashing various conspiracy theories as they ask over and over ‘was there more than one person was involved?’
According to a 2003 ABC News Poll, 70 percent of Americans believe Kennedy’s death was the result of a plot and not the act of a lone killer. Fifty-one percent believe that even if only one person did pull the trigger, there was some kind of support system for the perpetrator. 7 percent of those polled actually believe the person who the Warren Commission declared to be the sole actor in this crime was not even involved.
The same poll said there are five top assassination conspiracy theories. They are— in no particular order— first, the Soviets did it. After all, Khrushchev snubbed Kennedy when they first met and then Kennedy bested Khrushchev when the Soviet Premier was forced to back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Slight pause.)
Next— the Mafia did it. In fact, the CIA— the Central Intelligence Agency— had contacts with organized crime about assassinating Fidel Castro. The mob was heavily invested in casinos in Havana. And then Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion. That ended any hopes they had of returning to those casinos . Further, the mob did not like Kennedy’s crusading brother, Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. So, maybe the Mafia did do it. (Slight pause.)
No— the Cubans probably did it. U.S. agents did try to assassinate Castro, says this thesis and Castro decided to return the favor. In fact, in 1968 Lyndon Johnson told ABC News (and this is a quote— quote): “Kennedy was trying to get to Castro but Castro got to him first.” (Slight pause.)
I heard this next one a lot when I was young. Lyndon Johnson did it. Who had the most to gain? The one who became president. The gist of this conspiracy tale says Johnson received help from the CIA and from wealthy tycoons who believed they would have access to more profit under a Johnson administration.
There is actually a variation on this one which says that Johnson was aided by another man who would become president— George H. W. Bush. Bush was then a rising star in the CIA and also happened to be in Dallas on the day of the assassination.
That segues into the last theory in the top five. The CIA did it. They are, of course, an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one variation suggests the assassin, the one the Warren Commission says acted alone, was a CIA operative. (Slight pause.)
Well, despite all the theories about the assassination, there is one possibility for the very existence of the theories which I personally have never heard anyone else say. Therefore, I suppose you could label this as my conspiracy theory. And what is my conspiracy theory?
My conspiracy theory says that all these theories have nothing at all to do with what happened on November the 22nd, 1963. Indeed, my conspiracy theory says there is a simple reason all the rest of those conspiracy theories even exist.
My conspiracy theory says the only thing the very existence of conspiracy theories proves is... people do not trust the government. And, since the official government report says there was a single assassin and no conspiracy, that conclusion must be wrong, since it’s the official position of the government— a government which cannot be trusted. (Slight pause.)
CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a local reporter in Dallas in 1963. That day is still with him. In some ways his take is similar to mine. He recently described 11/22/1963 and the several days after the assassination on the program he now moderates, Face the Nation. He said (quote:) “It was the weekend America lost its innocence.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” (Slight pause.)
When the passage from Isaiah was introduced this was said (quote): “...the entire work known as Isaiah involves waiting. Waiting for God inevitably and invariably involves faith and trust.” (Slight pause.)
This passage describes a state of peace which seems quite unattainable— a wolf and the lamb together, a lion who eats straw. And then there is that promise of what we think of as a peace like existence: they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that we cannot get to a place where we experience the peace of God unless we trust God. But I think an initial question needs to be asked, a question which might allow us to get to that place of trust: what is the peace of God? (Slight pause.)
From a Biblical perspective, the peace of God is not the absence of violence. The peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God.
Hence, the peaceable kingdom we all claim to seek is not necessary one where violence is banished. We find peace— real peace— when we trust that the presence of God is with us and that the presence of God is real, no matter what the circumstance.
Trust in God is, you see, the key to being aware of the presence of God. And that being aware of the presence of God leads us to an inner peace. (Slight pause.)
There is a quote attributed to one Claude AnShin Thomas which has recently been floating around the internet. Postings of this quote say Thomas is War Veteran and Buddhist Monk. Is he? I don’t know. It does not matter. I think these words are relevant. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “Peace is not an idea. Peace is not a political movement, not a theory or a dogma. Peace is a way of life: living mindfully in the presence moment. It is not a question of politics but of actions. It is not a matter of improving a political system or taking care of homeless people.”
“These are valuable but will not, alone, end war and suffering. We must stop the endless wars which rage within. Imagine, if everyone stopped the war within themselves. There would be no seeds from which war could grow.” (Slight pause.)
In some ways that’s about our inner psychological states, is it not? That helps toward trust, does it not? You see, I believe that, when we begin to trust God, we will find inner wars less invasive. We will find that begets love and love begets peace.
And I think trusting God is the very thing Isaiah addresses in this passage. When we trust God we are empowered to love. When we are empowered to love, the peace of God— the real presence of God— becomes tangible. Amen.
11/17/2013
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: “Randy Glasbergen is a nationally syndicated Cartoonist who happens live in Sherburne, just a couple miles down the road. And he is very funny. Or at least he is someone who says things funny, rather than saying funny things. He just published a cartoon which says this: ‘What really happened to the Thanksgiving turkey’ And under that caption are a couple of turkeys in discussion about what really happened: ‘Some say the CIA killed the turkey... others think it was the mob... conspiracy theorists think there was more than one ax swung from multiple positions by people on the grassy knoll.’ Perhaps conspiracy is where you look for it. And perhaps we are unaware of the peace of God, the presence of God because we fail to seek to do the work of God and the will of God.”
BENEDICTION: A kind and just God sends us out into the world as bearers of truth which surpasses our understanding. God watches over those who respond in love. So, let us love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. Let us be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
The Peaceable Kingdom?
“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” — Isaiah 65:25
Some of us were alive fifty years ago this coming Friday and some of us were not. And a little like that more recent tragedy— 9/11— one of the questions always posed to those who experienced that date fifty years ago— 11/22/1963— one of the questions posed is often the same as it is for 9/11.
Where were you when you heard the news? Of course, in the case of 1963 the question is: ‘where were you when you heard that the President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had been killed?’
As the years have passed, however, another and very different question about what happened back then has weighed on the American psyche. And the question is valid whether or not you were alive on that date. In short, this question even resonates with people who did not experience the event.
The question? Was there some kind of conspiracy afoot to brazenly and brutally assassinate the President? Put another way, was more than one person involved in this murder? Or was this killing simply the demented work of a single individual who was acting alone? (Slight pause.)
Movies have been made asking this question. Movies have even been made supplying answers to this question. Countless books have been written on the topic. One estimate I saw said there are 2,000 books rehashing various conspiracy theories as they ask over and over ‘was there more than one person was involved?’
According to a 2003 ABC News Poll, 70 percent of Americans believe Kennedy’s death was the result of a plot and not the act of a lone killer. Fifty-one percent believe that even if only one person did pull the trigger, there was some kind of support system for the perpetrator. 7 percent of those polled actually believe the person who the Warren Commission declared to be the sole actor in this crime was not even involved.
The same poll said there are five top assassination conspiracy theories. They are— in no particular order— first, the Soviets did it. After all, Khrushchev snubbed Kennedy when they first met and then Kennedy bested Khrushchev when the Soviet Premier was forced to back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Slight pause.)
Next— the Mafia did it. In fact, the CIA— the Central Intelligence Agency— had contacts with organized crime about assassinating Fidel Castro. The mob was heavily invested in casinos in Havana. And then Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion. That ended any hopes they had of returning to those casinos . Further, the mob did not like Kennedy’s crusading brother, Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. So, maybe the Mafia did do it. (Slight pause.)
No— the Cubans probably did it. U.S. agents did try to assassinate Castro, says this thesis and Castro decided to return the favor. In fact, in 1968 Lyndon Johnson told ABC News (and this is a quote— quote): “Kennedy was trying to get to Castro but Castro got to him first.” (Slight pause.)
I heard this next one a lot when I was young. Lyndon Johnson did it. Who had the most to gain? The one who became president. The gist of this conspiracy tale says Johnson received help from the CIA and from wealthy tycoons who believed they would have access to more profit under a Johnson administration.
There is actually a variation on this one which says that Johnson was aided by another man who would become president— George H. W. Bush. Bush was then a rising star in the CIA and also happened to be in Dallas on the day of the assassination.
That segues into the last theory in the top five. The CIA did it. They are, of course, an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one variation suggests the assassin, the one the Warren Commission says acted alone, was a CIA operative. (Slight pause.)
Well, despite all the theories about the assassination, there is one possibility for the very existence of the theories which I personally have never heard anyone else say. Therefore, I suppose you could label this as my conspiracy theory. And what is my conspiracy theory?
My conspiracy theory says that all these theories have nothing at all to do with what happened on November the 22nd, 1963. Indeed, my conspiracy theory says there is a simple reason all the rest of those conspiracy theories even exist.
My conspiracy theory says the only thing the very existence of conspiracy theories proves is... people do not trust the government. And, since the official government report says there was a single assassin and no conspiracy, that conclusion must be wrong, since it’s the official position of the government— a government which cannot be trusted. (Slight pause.)
CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a local reporter in Dallas in 1963. That day is still with him. In some ways his take is similar to mine. He recently described 11/22/1963 and the several days after the assassination on the program he now moderates, Face the Nation. He said (quote:) “It was the weekend America lost its innocence.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” (Slight pause.)
When the passage from Isaiah was introduced this was said (quote): “...the entire work known as Isaiah involves waiting. Waiting for God inevitably and invariably involves faith and trust.” (Slight pause.)
This passage describes a state of peace which seems quite unattainable— a wolf and the lamb together, a lion who eats straw. And then there is that promise of what we think of as a peace like existence: they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that we cannot get to a place where we experience the peace of God unless we trust God. But I think an initial question needs to be asked, a question which might allow us to get to that place of trust: what is the peace of God? (Slight pause.)
From a Biblical perspective, the peace of God is not the absence of violence. The peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God.
Hence, the peaceable kingdom we all claim to seek is not necessary one where violence is banished. We find peace— real peace— when we trust that the presence of God is with us and that the presence of God is real, no matter what the circumstance.
Trust in God is, you see, the key to being aware of the presence of God. And that being aware of the presence of God leads us to an inner peace. (Slight pause.)
There is a quote attributed to one Claude AnShin Thomas which has recently been floating around the internet. Postings of this quote say Thomas is War Veteran and Buddhist Monk. Is he? I don’t know. It does not matter. I think these words are relevant. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “Peace is not an idea. Peace is not a political movement, not a theory or a dogma. Peace is a way of life: living mindfully in the presence moment. It is not a question of politics but of actions. It is not a matter of improving a political system or taking care of homeless people.”
“These are valuable but will not, alone, end war and suffering. We must stop the endless wars which rage within. Imagine, if everyone stopped the war within themselves. There would be no seeds from which war could grow.” (Slight pause.)
In some ways that’s about our inner psychological states, is it not? That helps toward trust, does it not? You see, I believe that, when we begin to trust God, we will find inner wars less invasive. We will find that begets love and love begets peace.
And I think trusting God is the very thing Isaiah addresses in this passage. When we trust God we are empowered to love. When we are empowered to love, the peace of God— the real presence of God— becomes tangible. Amen.
11/17/2013
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: “Randy Glasbergen is a nationally syndicated Cartoonist who happens live in Sherburne, just a couple miles down the road. And he is very funny. Or at least he is someone who says things funny, rather than saying funny things. He just published a cartoon which says this: ‘What really happened to the Thanksgiving turkey’ And under that caption are a couple of turkeys in discussion about what really happened: ‘Some say the CIA killed the turkey... others think it was the mob... conspiracy theorists think there was more than one ax swung from multiple positions by people on the grassy knoll.’ Perhaps conspiracy is where you look for it. And perhaps we are unaware of the peace of God, the presence of God because we fail to seek to do the work of God and the will of God.”
BENEDICTION: A kind and just God sends us out into the world as bearers of truth which surpasses our understanding. God watches over those who respond in love. So, let us love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. Let us be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/10/2013 ~ “Different”
11/10/2013 ~ Proper 27 ~ Thirty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Haggai 1:15b-2:9; Psalm 145:1-5, 17-21 or Psalm 98 ; Job 19:23-27a; Psalm 17:1-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5, 13-17; Luke 20:27-38 ~ Possibly Stewardship Sunday ~ Stewardship Sunday # 495 also ~ Veteran’s Day Weekend.
Different
“Jesus said to them, said to the Sadducees, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” — Luke 20:34-36.
In a recent article theologian Marcus Borg asked a pertinent question. “What does it mean to be Christian?” Please note, Borg did not say “What does it mean to be a Christian?” but rather, “What does it mean to be Christian?”
Only then did Borg asked the next and obvious question. “What makes a person a Christian?” (Slight pause.)
Borg’s purpose in writing the article with these questions was not to provide criteria for deciding who is and who is not a Christian. It was not about separating sheep from goats, about deciding who is in or who is out. Rather, the article asked ‘what lies at the heart of being Christian?’
And being Christian, says this writer, is not very much about believing a set of statements which might be construed as the right things. However (and to look at it differently), the notion that Christianity is about believing a set of teachings or doctrines is a widespread phenomena in our age. That, says this theologian, is a relatively recent distortion of Christianity.
Seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs, he says, began with the Reformation of the 1500s and the Enlightenment of the 1600s. And, unfortunately, seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs continues today in many quarters.
In fact, historically, even currently, many Protestants distinguished themselves from Catholics by using comparisons between what they believe and what Catholics believe. And, of course, historically, even currently, many Protestants divide themselves into multiple churches and denominations, often with each church or denomination distinguishing themselves from other churches and denominations by using comparisons between what they believe and what other churches believe.
Not only do we tend to miss that the origins of this happened in the 1500s and 1600s, but we do not realize in drawing those lines dissecting beliefs churches and people were merely mirroring what was happening in the world of that era. And this changed emphasis in the nature of belief and how it happens. And it was a result largely of modern science and scientific ways of knowing things.
You see, the Reformation leads to the Enlightenment. Without the Reformation there is no Enlightenment, case closed. And, once the Enlightenment dawns, it calls into question many conventional Christian ideas as people begin to study specific phenomena, begin to study why things really happen.
And so, the earth was, perhaps, not at the center of the universe. Creation, perhaps, did not take six days. And maybe a world-wide flood did not kill every land creature.
So, having listed some of the ideas the Enlightenment questioned— this concept of an earth centered universe, the nature of how creation happened, etc.— all that baggage— the real question becomes this: were these things, were these ideas items never actually involved in a real understanding of Christianity— never involved in a real understanding of Christianity? (Slight pause.)
“Jesus said to them, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” (Slight pause.)
Later in the same article Borg says the language of “believing” has, in fact, been part of Christianity from the first century onward, by far predating the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But before the Reformation “believing” did not refer primarily to believing the right doctrines.
Rather, to believe meant something like the word out of an old form of English known as Middle English— the word “belove.” The meaning of belief was to ‘belove’— to love God so much as to commit one’s self to a relationship of attentiveness and faithfulness. Commitment to God and fidelity to God are the ancient and the real meanings of faith and of believing.
I think when you carefully read the conversation Jesus has with the Sadducees you realize there is neither a denial nor a confirmation of the rules about a brother needing to marry the widow of another brother. Nor is there a denial or a confirmation of the resurrection. The effect of what Jesus says is this: God lives.
And a God who lives is a God to be beloved. A living God is a God with whom we need to be in an attentive and faithful relationship. In short, Christianity is not about a set of rules or theological precepts to be believed. Christianity is about having a relationship with a living God who, in turn, calls us to be in a relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
Well, I suspect know what you might be asking yourself now. How does all this fit in with the idea that this is our “Enlistment Sunday,” a day on which we invite people to make a financial commitment to the church? What’s that segue? Well, let me try to unpack it. (Slight pause.)
I have told you many times what the financial state of this church is. Our endowment pays for all the upkeep, case closed. Anything people pledge or put in the plate, we give away.
Therefore, let me address the practical first. All of us make decisions about our own finances. Often finances are formed by down to earth judgments like “how much money do I have in my budget to do XYZ.”
Now, sometimes what we loosely refer to as our heart influences decisions about money. Here’s an example I bet a lot of us have faced. We go to buy a new car. And we see a car we really, really like. We like how it looks. We like how it feels. In fact, we love it.
But there is a car over on the other side of the lot. It’s a good car and it costs less. But we don’t really love it. Do we follow our heart? (Slight pause.)
So, here’s what I am suggesting: first, please, make a sound financial decision. Do not give more than you are able. That makes no sense— giving more than you are able.
Next, whatever you give, please give because you love God. Personally, I think giving because you love God is the only way giving to any church makes sense. And also on the practical side, give because you think we— we— as a church, strive to do the work of God, strive to do the work of justice God would have us pursue. (Slight pause.)
So, an Enlistment Sunday is not about rules, definitely not about resurrection, and, most assuredly, not even about money. An Enlistment Sunday is about love of God— God who invites us to love our neighbor.
An, yes— that old question: who is our neighbor? Look around you in the pews— neighbors. Go out the doors, on to the streets— neighbors. Get on a plane, go to Chicago— neighbors. Go to London— neighbors. Go to Frankfort— neighbors. Go to Tehran— neighbors. (Slight pause.) And, do we love God. Amen.
Amen.
11/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
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: “Borg asked ‘What does it mean to be Christian?’ and ‘What makes a person a Christian?’ Clearly, it is not definitions. It is loving God who invites us to love neighbor.”
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.
Different
“Jesus said to them, said to the Sadducees, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” — Luke 20:34-36.
In a recent article theologian Marcus Borg asked a pertinent question. “What does it mean to be Christian?” Please note, Borg did not say “What does it mean to be a Christian?” but rather, “What does it mean to be Christian?”
Only then did Borg asked the next and obvious question. “What makes a person a Christian?” (Slight pause.)
Borg’s purpose in writing the article with these questions was not to provide criteria for deciding who is and who is not a Christian. It was not about separating sheep from goats, about deciding who is in or who is out. Rather, the article asked ‘what lies at the heart of being Christian?’
And being Christian, says this writer, is not very much about believing a set of statements which might be construed as the right things. However (and to look at it differently), the notion that Christianity is about believing a set of teachings or doctrines is a widespread phenomena in our age. That, says this theologian, is a relatively recent distortion of Christianity.
Seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs, he says, began with the Reformation of the 1500s and the Enlightenment of the 1600s. And, unfortunately, seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs continues today in many quarters.
In fact, historically, even currently, many Protestants distinguished themselves from Catholics by using comparisons between what they believe and what Catholics believe. And, of course, historically, even currently, many Protestants divide themselves into multiple churches and denominations, often with each church or denomination distinguishing themselves from other churches and denominations by using comparisons between what they believe and what other churches believe.
Not only do we tend to miss that the origins of this happened in the 1500s and 1600s, but we do not realize in drawing those lines dissecting beliefs churches and people were merely mirroring what was happening in the world of that era. And this changed emphasis in the nature of belief and how it happens. And it was a result largely of modern science and scientific ways of knowing things.
You see, the Reformation leads to the Enlightenment. Without the Reformation there is no Enlightenment, case closed. And, once the Enlightenment dawns, it calls into question many conventional Christian ideas as people begin to study specific phenomena, begin to study why things really happen.
And so, the earth was, perhaps, not at the center of the universe. Creation, perhaps, did not take six days. And maybe a world-wide flood did not kill every land creature.
So, having listed some of the ideas the Enlightenment questioned— this concept of an earth centered universe, the nature of how creation happened, etc.— all that baggage— the real question becomes this: were these things, were these ideas items never actually involved in a real understanding of Christianity— never involved in a real understanding of Christianity? (Slight pause.)
“Jesus said to them, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” (Slight pause.)
Later in the same article Borg says the language of “believing” has, in fact, been part of Christianity from the first century onward, by far predating the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But before the Reformation “believing” did not refer primarily to believing the right doctrines.
Rather, to believe meant something like the word out of an old form of English known as Middle English— the word “belove.” The meaning of belief was to ‘belove’— to love God so much as to commit one’s self to a relationship of attentiveness and faithfulness. Commitment to God and fidelity to God are the ancient and the real meanings of faith and of believing.
I think when you carefully read the conversation Jesus has with the Sadducees you realize there is neither a denial nor a confirmation of the rules about a brother needing to marry the widow of another brother. Nor is there a denial or a confirmation of the resurrection. The effect of what Jesus says is this: God lives.
And a God who lives is a God to be beloved. A living God is a God with whom we need to be in an attentive and faithful relationship. In short, Christianity is not about a set of rules or theological precepts to be believed. Christianity is about having a relationship with a living God who, in turn, calls us to be in a relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
Well, I suspect know what you might be asking yourself now. How does all this fit in with the idea that this is our “Enlistment Sunday,” a day on which we invite people to make a financial commitment to the church? What’s that segue? Well, let me try to unpack it. (Slight pause.)
I have told you many times what the financial state of this church is. Our endowment pays for all the upkeep, case closed. Anything people pledge or put in the plate, we give away.
Therefore, let me address the practical first. All of us make decisions about our own finances. Often finances are formed by down to earth judgments like “how much money do I have in my budget to do XYZ.”
Now, sometimes what we loosely refer to as our heart influences decisions about money. Here’s an example I bet a lot of us have faced. We go to buy a new car. And we see a car we really, really like. We like how it looks. We like how it feels. In fact, we love it.
But there is a car over on the other side of the lot. It’s a good car and it costs less. But we don’t really love it. Do we follow our heart? (Slight pause.)
So, here’s what I am suggesting: first, please, make a sound financial decision. Do not give more than you are able. That makes no sense— giving more than you are able.
Next, whatever you give, please give because you love God. Personally, I think giving because you love God is the only way giving to any church makes sense. And also on the practical side, give because you think we— we— as a church, strive to do the work of God, strive to do the work of justice God would have us pursue. (Slight pause.)
So, an Enlistment Sunday is not about rules, definitely not about resurrection, and, most assuredly, not even about money. An Enlistment Sunday is about love of God— God who invites us to love our neighbor.
An, yes— that old question: who is our neighbor? Look around you in the pews— neighbors. Go out the doors, on to the streets— neighbors. Get on a plane, go to Chicago— neighbors. Go to London— neighbors. Go to Frankfort— neighbors. Go to Tehran— neighbors. (Slight pause.) And, do we love God. Amen.
Amen.
11/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
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: “Borg asked ‘What does it mean to be Christian?’ and ‘What makes a person a Christian?’ Clearly, it is not definitions. It is loving God who invites us to love neighbor.”
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.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/03/2013 ~ “Systems 101”
11/03/2013 ~ Proper 26 ~ Thirty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost (If All Saints not observed on this day); Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4; Psalm 119:137-144; Isaiah 1:10-18; Psalm 32:1-7; 2 Thessalonians 1:1-4, 11-12; Luke 19:1-10 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Bells Play at This Service.
Systems 101
“Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” — Isaiah 1:16c-17.
I suspect all of us take note of milestones and celebrate them in some way or form. The events marking the milestones break out into two distinct groups: public events and private events.
Corporate, public milestones get celebrated in a universal way, observed by a whole community with public ceremonies. There may be very private aspects to these public observances but they are, none-the-less, communal.
There are other milestones we mark which can only be described as private and personal. These are most often observed only by an individual or by family members or by close friends.
Now, both of these kinds of milestones, the public and private, each also break into two categories. There are events we associate with joy and events we associate with sadness.
Among those private events we observe with joy are birthdays and wedding anniversaries. The private observances we mark with reserve and a sense of solemnity might include marking the anniversary date on which a close friend or a relative died.
And, as I’ve already indicated, the same is true on the public side of the spectrum. We joyfully mark some celebrations— national dates of note like the Fourth of July. We observe others with a sense of solemnity and sometimes sadness.
Indeed, in our history, in the history of this country, there have been many points of public distress. These range from the Battle of Bunker Hill to the burning of Washington in 1814 to the Battle of Gettysburg to the assassination of Lincoln to sinking of the Battleship Maine to the attack on Pearl Harbor to the assassination of John Kennedy to explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger to the tragedy of 9/11.
Needless to say, the further into the past we go, the less likely an event is to stir our emotions. The more recent the event, the more fixed it is in current memory, the more personal it becomes. Therefore, even though these events, especially the recent ones, are observed in a public way, the personal pain of these memories, the pain these memories bring is real.
Additionally, the most private person among us at some point participates in public moments, public markings both joyful and sad. And the most public person among us experiences private moments and private markings, joyful and sad. That there is a tension between public and private cannot be denied. (Slight pause.)
Tomorrow— Monday, November the Fourth, I will observe a hard personal anniversary. It is the thirtieth anniversary of my Mother’s death. As I have said here before, she died very young as those things go.
Further, she died of a form of cancer— cancer of the bladder— which, even thirty years ago, only took about ten percent of those who dealt with it. She was simply in the wrong group, not the ninety percent of the population who survive. She was among the ten percent who do not make it.
There is no denying this: the fact that she died young and the fact that the disease takes such a small segment of those who suffer from it does not feel fair. I’ve already outlived her time embodied in frail flesh by a number of years.
Not a day goes by when I fail to feel some personal pain about this. It leaves me asking the question ‘is there, was there any justice in that?’ (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” (Pause.)
So, what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice? What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice— personal justice or public justice— real, attainable? And what is the tension among these? (Pause.)
I’ll come back to those questions in a bit. (Slight pause.) I just want to take a little journey down the road, somewhere else. I give titles to all my sermons. Some pastors do; some do not. I called this sermon Systems 101. Why?
If you went to a typical undergraduate class in systems this is the first rule you would learn: there is no such thing as a perfect system. It does not exist.
Equally, if you did a Master’s Degree in theology or any of the associated areas, it’s likely a required course would be Systematic Theology. And, obviously, there is only one problem with giving a course the title of Systematic Theology. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Please note: I did not say ‘there is no such thing as a system.’ Systems exist, they are necessary, useful, helpful and they serve us quite well, thank you.
The job of anarchy and the job of an anarchist is to abolish and/or obstruct systems. The last time I looked neither anarchy nor anarchists— they don’t serve anyone except those who enjoy wallowing in chaos— no, thank you— not my cup of tea— anarchism.
Again and to reiterate, I did not say systems are bad things nor did I say systems fail to exist. What I said is there is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system ever invented has a flaw.
That brings me back to what I believe is the key issue this passage presents: that there is a tension between our private needs and our public needs. There is a tension between our private joy and our public joy. There is a tension between our private pain and our public pain.
We do have private needs. We do have private joy. We do have private pain. We do have public needs. We do have public joy. We do have public pain. And it seems to me all these— needs and joy and pain— are all inexorably intertwined.
So, if a perfect system cannot be constructed— and I do not think a perfect system can be constructed because of the joy and the needs and the pain tugging at one another— if a perfect system cannot be constructed what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice?
What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice real or attainable? Is justice personal, private? Is justice public, communal? (Slight pause.) Hard questions, these. (Slight pause.)
I think we make a basic mistake in our perception of justice. We perceive justice as an end. We understand justice as a result.
That’s where the words from this passage are instructive. For me the passage has a clear outline of what justice is about. Justice takes action. Justice moves. Justice is, therefore, for all people. Justice is a process, not an end. (Quote:) “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed....” (Slight pause.)
Which brings me back to my mother. When I was maybe six or seven, I saw a mugging take place outside the front window of the house. I was the only one there watching.
I ran and got my Mom. She rushed into the street. She was all of five foot two. But she shouted so loudly the attacker ran off. She brought the victim, a woman who was probably in her seventies, back into the house and called the police. (Slight pause.)
Action, you see, shifts our focus. Action takes the focus off us and places it on anyone who is denied justice. And action helps us realize that if any one person is denied justice, then we are all denied justice.
To be clear: action does not remove pain. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of pain. Action does not eliminate need. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of need.
To sum this up in the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have not lost faith. I am not in despair, because I know there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I would add that arc invites us toward action. Amen.
11/03/2013
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: “What is justice for all? These are the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (quote): ‘The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.’”
BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life. Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect. Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace which surpasses understanding, to live faithfully. 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.
Systems 101
“Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” — Isaiah 1:16c-17.
I suspect all of us take note of milestones and celebrate them in some way or form. The events marking the milestones break out into two distinct groups: public events and private events.
Corporate, public milestones get celebrated in a universal way, observed by a whole community with public ceremonies. There may be very private aspects to these public observances but they are, none-the-less, communal.
There are other milestones we mark which can only be described as private and personal. These are most often observed only by an individual or by family members or by close friends.
Now, both of these kinds of milestones, the public and private, each also break into two categories. There are events we associate with joy and events we associate with sadness.
Among those private events we observe with joy are birthdays and wedding anniversaries. The private observances we mark with reserve and a sense of solemnity might include marking the anniversary date on which a close friend or a relative died.
And, as I’ve already indicated, the same is true on the public side of the spectrum. We joyfully mark some celebrations— national dates of note like the Fourth of July. We observe others with a sense of solemnity and sometimes sadness.
Indeed, in our history, in the history of this country, there have been many points of public distress. These range from the Battle of Bunker Hill to the burning of Washington in 1814 to the Battle of Gettysburg to the assassination of Lincoln to sinking of the Battleship Maine to the attack on Pearl Harbor to the assassination of John Kennedy to explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger to the tragedy of 9/11.
Needless to say, the further into the past we go, the less likely an event is to stir our emotions. The more recent the event, the more fixed it is in current memory, the more personal it becomes. Therefore, even though these events, especially the recent ones, are observed in a public way, the personal pain of these memories, the pain these memories bring is real.
Additionally, the most private person among us at some point participates in public moments, public markings both joyful and sad. And the most public person among us experiences private moments and private markings, joyful and sad. That there is a tension between public and private cannot be denied. (Slight pause.)
Tomorrow— Monday, November the Fourth, I will observe a hard personal anniversary. It is the thirtieth anniversary of my Mother’s death. As I have said here before, she died very young as those things go.
Further, she died of a form of cancer— cancer of the bladder— which, even thirty years ago, only took about ten percent of those who dealt with it. She was simply in the wrong group, not the ninety percent of the population who survive. She was among the ten percent who do not make it.
There is no denying this: the fact that she died young and the fact that the disease takes such a small segment of those who suffer from it does not feel fair. I’ve already outlived her time embodied in frail flesh by a number of years.
Not a day goes by when I fail to feel some personal pain about this. It leaves me asking the question ‘is there, was there any justice in that?’ (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” (Pause.)
So, what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice? What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice— personal justice or public justice— real, attainable? And what is the tension among these? (Pause.)
I’ll come back to those questions in a bit. (Slight pause.) I just want to take a little journey down the road, somewhere else. I give titles to all my sermons. Some pastors do; some do not. I called this sermon Systems 101. Why?
If you went to a typical undergraduate class in systems this is the first rule you would learn: there is no such thing as a perfect system. It does not exist.
Equally, if you did a Master’s Degree in theology or any of the associated areas, it’s likely a required course would be Systematic Theology. And, obviously, there is only one problem with giving a course the title of Systematic Theology. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Please note: I did not say ‘there is no such thing as a system.’ Systems exist, they are necessary, useful, helpful and they serve us quite well, thank you.
The job of anarchy and the job of an anarchist is to abolish and/or obstruct systems. The last time I looked neither anarchy nor anarchists— they don’t serve anyone except those who enjoy wallowing in chaos— no, thank you— not my cup of tea— anarchism.
Again and to reiterate, I did not say systems are bad things nor did I say systems fail to exist. What I said is there is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system ever invented has a flaw.
That brings me back to what I believe is the key issue this passage presents: that there is a tension between our private needs and our public needs. There is a tension between our private joy and our public joy. There is a tension between our private pain and our public pain.
We do have private needs. We do have private joy. We do have private pain. We do have public needs. We do have public joy. We do have public pain. And it seems to me all these— needs and joy and pain— are all inexorably intertwined.
So, if a perfect system cannot be constructed— and I do not think a perfect system can be constructed because of the joy and the needs and the pain tugging at one another— if a perfect system cannot be constructed what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice?
What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice real or attainable? Is justice personal, private? Is justice public, communal? (Slight pause.) Hard questions, these. (Slight pause.)
I think we make a basic mistake in our perception of justice. We perceive justice as an end. We understand justice as a result.
That’s where the words from this passage are instructive. For me the passage has a clear outline of what justice is about. Justice takes action. Justice moves. Justice is, therefore, for all people. Justice is a process, not an end. (Quote:) “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed....” (Slight pause.)
Which brings me back to my mother. When I was maybe six or seven, I saw a mugging take place outside the front window of the house. I was the only one there watching.
I ran and got my Mom. She rushed into the street. She was all of five foot two. But she shouted so loudly the attacker ran off. She brought the victim, a woman who was probably in her seventies, back into the house and called the police. (Slight pause.)
Action, you see, shifts our focus. Action takes the focus off us and places it on anyone who is denied justice. And action helps us realize that if any one person is denied justice, then we are all denied justice.
To be clear: action does not remove pain. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of pain. Action does not eliminate need. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of need.
To sum this up in the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have not lost faith. I am not in despair, because I know there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I would add that arc invites us toward action. Amen.
11/03/2013
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: “What is justice for all? These are the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (quote): ‘The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.’”
BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life. Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect. Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace which surpasses understanding, to live faithfully. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)