05/04/2014 ~ Third Sunday of Easter ~ Acts 2:14a, 36-41; Psalm 116:1-4, 12-19; 1 Peter 1:17-23; Luke 24:13-35.
On the Road Again: the Journey
“They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while Jesus was talking to us on the road, explaining the Scriptures to us?’” — Luke 24:32.
As you know, Bonnie and I arrived here in Norwich from the great State of Maine. And, as you know— I think— once or twice or sometimes three times a year, we point the car north and head out toward Maine.
Cars, fortunately or unfortunately, are not like horses. If you take a horse down a road often enough, once a horse knows that road, you simply give the horse its head, point the horse on the right trail. The horse will take you wherever it is you usually go without much urging or coaxing or guidance.
While Bonnie and I occasionally kid each other that our car knows the way to Brunswick, Bangor and Deer Isle— the places we hang out in Maine— it does not. There may be a lot of horses under the hood but we need to guide those horses pretty carefully to get where we’re going. We know the road; metal horses don’t. (Slight pause.)
My guess is we take a lot of trips on which we don’t actually know the destination, trips when we don’t really know where we’re going. These include the first day of school, a first date, a new job, a marriage. If you think you know where you’re going with any of those, don’t trust that knowledge.
When we travel, when we go to a country we’ve never visited before, France, India, New Zealand— wherever— we don’t really know where we’re going. We simply know the name of the destination. (Slight pause.)
Not to pull something slightly different in here— 2014, as you know, marks the 200th Anniversary year of this church. One of the things we are doing to take note of that milestone is most weeks the cover of the bulletin reflects some aspect of those 200 years.
Please do me a favor? Take a look at the cover of today’s bulletin. (Slight pause.) There you will find the picture of one Reverend Mr. Samuel Scoville. Sam was the longest serving pastor this church has ever known. Sam served from 1861 to 1879— a total of 6,675 days.
As it happens, I am now the second longest serving pastor. The date I was called to this pulpit was June 2nd, 1996. Therefore— God willing and the creeks don’t rise— in mid-September— the 12th to be precise— I will have served this pulpit 6,676 days, one day longer than Sam.
Now, when Bonnie and I pointed our car south and first traveled from Bangor to Norwich, we did know what our destination was: Norwich. But we did not know what the journey would entail, what the journey would be.
Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, when members of the laity disguised a laity Sunday and surprised me with a Pastor’s Appreciation Sunday I had a fairly strong emotional reaction as I looked around the nave. That happened because I saw people with whom I had interacted over the years on many levels and in many ways.
I officiated at weddings of some of the people in attendance that day. I officiated at Memorial services for relatives and friends of some of the people in attendance that day. There were people present who I had counseled, consoled, visited in the hospital, visited at their home.
There were people whose children I have seen born and whose children I have Baptized. There were people whose children I have seen grow to maturity.
Of equal importance, there were people with whom I had shared a joke, a dinner, a round of golf, people with whom I had chatted about baseball, football, music, art, television shows, movies, performances at the Arts Council. Additionally, as I looked around the nave, in my mind’s eye I could see those who had been here and had moved away. And I could see those been freed from the bonds of this frail life. (Slight pause.)
You see, the trip from Bangor to Norwich was not the journey. That was only a trip down a road. The journey— the real journey— was being involved with people, involved with their lives, striving to know them as deeply as I could and, yes— striving to love them as well as I could.
Part of the point I am trying to make is this was not just my journey. People are born, people die, people leave for other locations, people return. And that is— all of it— the journey. And it is not just my journey. It is our journey, all of us, together with one another. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work commonly called Luke: “They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while Jesus was talking to us on the road, explaining the Scriptures to us?’” (Slight pause.)
I suspect Cleopas and a companion are walking down a road they have traveled often. I suspect they know their destination. That possibility can certainly be gleaned from the story.
But does that mean they know where they are going? Does that mean they know about the journey? I think not. And I think that’s what they find out from the traveler who joins them on the road.
I think what they really learn from that traveler is a lesson about being on the road, a lesson about the journey. Yes, Jesus explains the Scripture. Yes, Jesus explains the Messiah. But what is that explanation, really? (Slight pause.)
You have heard me say this on many occasions: the work known as Luke and the work known as Acts are two volumes of one work. We need to understand the stories in one resonate with the stories in the other. Taken as a whole, they inform us about both.
I think the reading we heard from Acts helps fill out the explanation of the Messiah. That passage is filled with illustrations explaining the Messiah, but let me concentrate on one verse (quote): “Even upon the most insignificant of my people, both women and men, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they will prophesy.” (Slight pause.)
As often as we take it this way, you see, the advent of the Messiah is not an end point, not a stopping point, not a goal, not a destination. It is especially not some promise about the “sweet by and by.”
Rather, the advent of the Messiah is an invitation for us to participate in the journey and a promise that, if we participate in the work of God, we will be empowered by God for that work. The advent of the Messiah is a sign and seal of a promise made to us by God that the covenant offered by God is real.
Jesus, you see, is not the destination. Jesus is not a goal. Jesus is the Messiah, a sign of the truth of the covenant.
Claiming Jesus is a destination and claiming Jesus as a destination is triumphalism, simply another way of saying ‘I win you lose.’ “I win, you lose” is not a Christian claim. The Christian claim is that with the advent of the Messiah we are and have been summoned by God to be a priesthood of believers, doing the will of God, doing the work of God.
Hence, the “Road to Emmaus” is not about a destination. The road to Emmaus is about the journey. And on that journey Jesus interpreted the Scriptures. Certainly therefore, some of this road is about learning. And some of this road is about learning from the journey. And some of this road is about learning on the journey. (Slight pause.)
If I know nothing else, I know this about the road, I know this about the journey: it does not matter how long the road is and it does not even matter if you fully know where you are going or where the road is going. Every journey starts with one given. Every journey starts with taking the first step.
Or perhaps even more to the point, every journey starts with being willing to take the first step. And that is, I think, the basic question posed to us by the story of the road to Emmaus: are we willing to be on the road, on the journey with God and with each other? Are we willing to learn? Are we willing to take that first step? Amen.
05/04/2014
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: “Theologian Miroslav Volf of Yale University has said this (quote): ‘Trust in God is a leap into the invisible, a risk taken in conviction that what cannot be seen is more secure than that which we can see.’ And, indeed, a willingness to be on the journey is a leap into the invisible, a risk taken in conviction that what cannot be seen is more secure than that which we can see. Are we willing?”
BENEDICTION: Let us serve the world in the name of Christ. Let the love of Christ find expression in us. 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.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
SERMON ~ 04/27/2014 ~ “Being Sent”
04/27/2014 ~ Second Sunday of Easter ~ Acts 2:14a, 22-32; Psalm 16; 1 Peter 1:3-9; John 20:19-31.
“Then Jesus said, ‘As Abba God has sent me, so I am sending you.’ After saying this, Jesus breathed on them and said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” — John 20:21b-22.
Today, this very morning— and you may know about this or have seen a story about it— today Pope Francis will hold a ceremony or has held a ceremony at which two Papal predecessors will be Canonized, declared Saints of the church. The new saints are John the XXIII and John Paul the II.
When something like this happens, when some church function with high visibility happens, be it in the Roman Church or another church, say Rick Warren’s Church, I believe the lens through which most people see these events focuses our view in such a way that we tend to see church as monolith. Put another way, when highly visible church events happen our tendency is to see the church both as a much more universal and a much more unified institution than either today’s reality or the reality of the record we find in history suggests.
Hence, today’s events lead me to ask two questions: ‘what is church?’ and ‘who is a saint?’ Put differently: ‘how do we define church’ and ‘how do we define sainthood?’
For starters, let me tackle the ‘what is church?’ question. (Slight pause.) First, for those of us in the Congregational tradition, the one thing we should never say (although I sometimes do find myself saying it) is using the word church to mean building.
This building is not a church. This building is a meeting house. The people are the church. In the Hebrew Scriptures the assembly or the congregation is the term used and it always refers to the people, not to a structure, not even an institution.
Next, today people often assume the early church was much more unified, more organized, more universal, more monolithic than that aforementioned record we find in history suggests. But in the first four centuries after the resurrection the church was very local and not very organized. Yes, there was a hierarchy with Bishops. But it was a local hierarchy. Each Bishop was in charge of their own see, their own area, their own territory.
In the early church each area often held different beliefs and even had different collections of what we, today, call Scripture— for the first four centuries! In short, beyond the local area top-down oversight and/or a broad sense of unity simply did not exist. The church was a bottom-up operation.
Some degree of unity does come into the picture when Constantine declares Christianity the official state religion of Rome and its Empire. That decree takes hold in the decade between 315 and 325 of the Common Era. In 325 the Council of Nicaea is summoned into session not by any cleric but by the Emperor.
This is, of course, the council which publishes the Nicene Creed. Constantine assumed a unified creed would produce a unified church and help unify the Empire. In that sense the writing of the Creed was a political act.
But the Creed did not really unify the church, nor was it meant to unify the church by those who wrote it. In fact, the Creed was composed to embody a broad understanding of Christianity.
Today we do not often acknowledge this truth about the Creed: it allows for a range of interpretation. As the Creed embodies a broad understanding of Christianity it, therefore, did not encourage a unity of belief in the Empire.
The political unity which did happen in that era came about more because Constantine enforced Council edicts— Constantine, the State, enforced council edicts. Among the most important of those edicts was no the Creed but was the adoption of the Roman Secular Calendar which moved the church away from the Lunar Calendar. In short, the State could only emphasize politics and practicality. Belief was a completely different matter. [1] (Slight pause.)
I’m trying to illustrate a simple idea here. What was true early on is still true today: the church is not a monolith. All church is local. All church is based in the local community.
That brings up the second and perhaps simpler question: what, or rather, who is a saint? John the XXIII and John Paul the II may or may not have been special people. But being special is not the actual church definition of a saint.
A saint is a person set aside by God to do the work and the will of God. And, God willing [the pastor leaves the pulpit, heads toward the congregation and points to different people in the congregation one by one], you are a saint and you are a saint and you are a saint and you are a saint. [The pastor returns to the front of the enter isle and says this:] We are all saints set aside by God to do the work and the will of God gathered in community, gathered in the local church. (Slight pause.)
These words are from that Gospel according to the School of John: “Then Jesus said, ‘As Abba God has sent me, so I am sending you.’ After saying this, Jesus breathed on them and said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (Slight pause as the pastor returns to the pulpit.)
When this reading was introduced it was noted the story names those in the room as disciples. These people were not just the leadership. This was the community. To use another word, these were the saints— people set aside by God to do the work and the will of God gathered in community. (Slight pause.)
Next, it needs to be noted the risen Christ repeats a phrase three times. “Peace be with you.”
The peace of God does not mean the absence of conflict. The peace of God acknowledges that the presence of God is real. Hence, “Peace be with you” repeated three times is meant to emphasize the reality of the presence of God. So the reality of the presence of God is affirmed by the risen Christ among the saints, the gathered community.
Once that is acknowledged, Christ says “As Abba God has sent me, so I am sending you.” (Slight pause.) For what are we, the saints, being sent? Are we being sent to conquer the world, to convert all humanity, to be empire? (Slight pause.)
Perhaps that would be the goal if the community of saints consisted of only the leadership of the Roman Empire. Conquest was, you see, the only goal of the Roman Empire. Conquest is, you see, the only goal of any empire.
Conquest is not the goal of the gathered local community, the saints. Conquest is not the goal of the church. (Slight pause.) So, what might be the goal of the gathered community of saints? Why and for what are we, the saints, being sent? (Slight pause.)
Later in the reading the risen Christ says this: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” I think we often mis-read these words.
And the reason we mis-read them is we do often think in terms of empire, we do think in terms of the church as monolith, as institution. Therefore, we tend read these words as if Christ has offered us some kind of universal power to forgive or to not forgive all humanity. That reading seems somewhat presumptions, does it not? That kind of reading seems to presume the church is empire.
When we read these words carefully and in the context of the community gathered and in the context of the saints gathered, what do we see? First, Christ is addressing the gathered community of saints. Second, Christ proclaims the presence of God and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” No small thing— that.
Then comes the words about forgiving and retaining. I am well convinced these words apply to the gathered community, to those sitting near us and next to us. I am well convinced these words apply to forgiving one another, to forgiving those we know.
You see, I am well convinced all church is local. I am well convinced the church is not about empire. (Slight pause.) I am well convinced the local church has no business as grandiose as forgiving or retaining anything unless we can forgive the saints right in this meeting house. And I think that’s what Jesus was saying.
After all, the one who is not there the first time— Didymus, Thomas— well, Thomas is going to need forgiveness. But it is not for doubting anything that Thomas will be in need of forgiveness. Thomas will be in need of forgiving for not trusting.
Which brings me to the last point. In the Greek the word for believe and the word for trust is the same— pistis. Belief is, you see, something we control. Either we believe something or we do not but we control that belief.
Trust, on the other hand, is something we do not control. Trust is something we surrender. And people who are connected to God trust God, surrender to God. People who are connected to God do not need to steer their own life, their own agenda.
People who are connected to God live in a state of grace, a state of trust. In short, those who hand themselves over to God, trust God. [2] (Slight pause.) Oh, yeah... that one’s not easy, either. (Slight pause.)
If you have heard me say this once, you have heard me say it a hundred times: the lesson found in the Bible can be summed up in four words: love God; love neighbor. Let me go even a little further than that, a little shorter than that. The lesson in the Bible can be summed up in two words: trust God. 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: “Last week— Easter Sunday— our Thought for Meditation was from Diana Butler Bass. She says this: ‘The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.’ Belief is, you see a fairly low bar. Trust... that’s another story.”
BENEDICTION: Go out in the strength and love God provides. Praise the deeds of God by the way you live, by the way you love. And may the steadfast love of God and the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great
[2] http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--Let-Go-of-Control--Let-God-s-Life-Flow.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=waK7AgKxdW8
Being Sent
“Then Jesus said, ‘As Abba God has sent me, so I am sending you.’ After saying this, Jesus breathed on them and said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” — John 20:21b-22.
Today, this very morning— and you may know about this or have seen a story about it— today Pope Francis will hold a ceremony or has held a ceremony at which two Papal predecessors will be Canonized, declared Saints of the church. The new saints are John the XXIII and John Paul the II.
When something like this happens, when some church function with high visibility happens, be it in the Roman Church or another church, say Rick Warren’s Church, I believe the lens through which most people see these events focuses our view in such a way that we tend to see church as monolith. Put another way, when highly visible church events happen our tendency is to see the church both as a much more universal and a much more unified institution than either today’s reality or the reality of the record we find in history suggests.
Hence, today’s events lead me to ask two questions: ‘what is church?’ and ‘who is a saint?’ Put differently: ‘how do we define church’ and ‘how do we define sainthood?’
For starters, let me tackle the ‘what is church?’ question. (Slight pause.) First, for those of us in the Congregational tradition, the one thing we should never say (although I sometimes do find myself saying it) is using the word church to mean building.
This building is not a church. This building is a meeting house. The people are the church. In the Hebrew Scriptures the assembly or the congregation is the term used and it always refers to the people, not to a structure, not even an institution.
Next, today people often assume the early church was much more unified, more organized, more universal, more monolithic than that aforementioned record we find in history suggests. But in the first four centuries after the resurrection the church was very local and not very organized. Yes, there was a hierarchy with Bishops. But it was a local hierarchy. Each Bishop was in charge of their own see, their own area, their own territory.
In the early church each area often held different beliefs and even had different collections of what we, today, call Scripture— for the first four centuries! In short, beyond the local area top-down oversight and/or a broad sense of unity simply did not exist. The church was a bottom-up operation.
Some degree of unity does come into the picture when Constantine declares Christianity the official state religion of Rome and its Empire. That decree takes hold in the decade between 315 and 325 of the Common Era. In 325 the Council of Nicaea is summoned into session not by any cleric but by the Emperor.
This is, of course, the council which publishes the Nicene Creed. Constantine assumed a unified creed would produce a unified church and help unify the Empire. In that sense the writing of the Creed was a political act.
But the Creed did not really unify the church, nor was it meant to unify the church by those who wrote it. In fact, the Creed was composed to embody a broad understanding of Christianity.
Today we do not often acknowledge this truth about the Creed: it allows for a range of interpretation. As the Creed embodies a broad understanding of Christianity it, therefore, did not encourage a unity of belief in the Empire.
The political unity which did happen in that era came about more because Constantine enforced Council edicts— Constantine, the State, enforced council edicts. Among the most important of those edicts was no the Creed but was the adoption of the Roman Secular Calendar which moved the church away from the Lunar Calendar. In short, the State could only emphasize politics and practicality. Belief was a completely different matter. [1] (Slight pause.)
I’m trying to illustrate a simple idea here. What was true early on is still true today: the church is not a monolith. All church is local. All church is based in the local community.
That brings up the second and perhaps simpler question: what, or rather, who is a saint? John the XXIII and John Paul the II may or may not have been special people. But being special is not the actual church definition of a saint.
A saint is a person set aside by God to do the work and the will of God. And, God willing [the pastor leaves the pulpit, heads toward the congregation and points to different people in the congregation one by one], you are a saint and you are a saint and you are a saint and you are a saint. [The pastor returns to the front of the enter isle and says this:] We are all saints set aside by God to do the work and the will of God gathered in community, gathered in the local church. (Slight pause.)
These words are from that Gospel according to the School of John: “Then Jesus said, ‘As Abba God has sent me, so I am sending you.’ After saying this, Jesus breathed on them and said: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (Slight pause as the pastor returns to the pulpit.)
When this reading was introduced it was noted the story names those in the room as disciples. These people were not just the leadership. This was the community. To use another word, these were the saints— people set aside by God to do the work and the will of God gathered in community. (Slight pause.)
Next, it needs to be noted the risen Christ repeats a phrase three times. “Peace be with you.”
The peace of God does not mean the absence of conflict. The peace of God acknowledges that the presence of God is real. Hence, “Peace be with you” repeated three times is meant to emphasize the reality of the presence of God. So the reality of the presence of God is affirmed by the risen Christ among the saints, the gathered community.
Once that is acknowledged, Christ says “As Abba God has sent me, so I am sending you.” (Slight pause.) For what are we, the saints, being sent? Are we being sent to conquer the world, to convert all humanity, to be empire? (Slight pause.)
Perhaps that would be the goal if the community of saints consisted of only the leadership of the Roman Empire. Conquest was, you see, the only goal of the Roman Empire. Conquest is, you see, the only goal of any empire.
Conquest is not the goal of the gathered local community, the saints. Conquest is not the goal of the church. (Slight pause.) So, what might be the goal of the gathered community of saints? Why and for what are we, the saints, being sent? (Slight pause.)
Later in the reading the risen Christ says this: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” I think we often mis-read these words.
And the reason we mis-read them is we do often think in terms of empire, we do think in terms of the church as monolith, as institution. Therefore, we tend read these words as if Christ has offered us some kind of universal power to forgive or to not forgive all humanity. That reading seems somewhat presumptions, does it not? That kind of reading seems to presume the church is empire.
When we read these words carefully and in the context of the community gathered and in the context of the saints gathered, what do we see? First, Christ is addressing the gathered community of saints. Second, Christ proclaims the presence of God and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” No small thing— that.
Then comes the words about forgiving and retaining. I am well convinced these words apply to the gathered community, to those sitting near us and next to us. I am well convinced these words apply to forgiving one another, to forgiving those we know.
You see, I am well convinced all church is local. I am well convinced the church is not about empire. (Slight pause.) I am well convinced the local church has no business as grandiose as forgiving or retaining anything unless we can forgive the saints right in this meeting house. And I think that’s what Jesus was saying.
After all, the one who is not there the first time— Didymus, Thomas— well, Thomas is going to need forgiveness. But it is not for doubting anything that Thomas will be in need of forgiveness. Thomas will be in need of forgiving for not trusting.
Which brings me to the last point. In the Greek the word for believe and the word for trust is the same— pistis. Belief is, you see, something we control. Either we believe something or we do not but we control that belief.
Trust, on the other hand, is something we do not control. Trust is something we surrender. And people who are connected to God trust God, surrender to God. People who are connected to God do not need to steer their own life, their own agenda.
People who are connected to God live in a state of grace, a state of trust. In short, those who hand themselves over to God, trust God. [2] (Slight pause.) Oh, yeah... that one’s not easy, either. (Slight pause.)
If you have heard me say this once, you have heard me say it a hundred times: the lesson found in the Bible can be summed up in four words: love God; love neighbor. Let me go even a little further than that, a little shorter than that. The lesson in the Bible can be summed up in two words: trust God. 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: “Last week— Easter Sunday— our Thought for Meditation was from Diana Butler Bass. She says this: ‘The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.’ Belief is, you see a fairly low bar. Trust... that’s another story.”
BENEDICTION: Go out in the strength and love God provides. Praise the deeds of God by the way you live, by the way you love. And may the steadfast love of God and the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great
[2] http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--Let-Go-of-Control--Let-God-s-Life-Flow.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=waK7AgKxdW8
Sunday, April 20, 2014
SERMON ~ 04/20/2014 ~ The Feast of the Resurrection ~ “Poetry, Perhaps”
04/20/2014 ~ Resurrection of the Christ ~ Easter Day ~ More Appropriately Known as The Feast of the Resurrection ~ Acts 10:34-43 or Jeremiah 31:1-6; Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24; Colossians 3:1-4 or Acts 10:34-43; John 20:1-18 or Matthew 28:1-10 ~ Used 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and John 20:1-18.
Poetry, Perhaps
“Jesus then said, ‘Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to Abba, ascended to God. Rather, go to the sisters and brothers and tell them I am ascending to Abba, to my God and your God.’” — John 20:17.
This is a poem Mary of Magdala [1] wrote when she came to understand she was called to write poetry and when she understood what it means to be a poet.
At first there were shadows.
Then it was night...
simply night.
The light came next.
But it was not visible light,
not light one saw.
It was light,
however,
which seemed to sear the soul—
sear the soul with its intensity,
sear the soul with
the length of its presence,
sear the soul with
a sense of its purpose,
sear the soul
because it felt
so unwavering in its reality.
It was light
which could be felt.
But it was light not seen.
It was light hidden
in plain sight. (Pause.)
Mags’ sleep that night— all her friends called her Mags because she was from the town of Magdala— Mags’ sleep that night was... restless. There were dreams.
There were dreams of long forgotten memories; there were dreams about shadows; there were dreams about light. Were she conscious, were she awake, she would have realized there was nothing in the dreams which made total sense. They were ambiguous yet precise. She slept— a sleep crowded with dreams. (Slight pause.)
Mags sat up suddenly, fully awake, sweating, gasping for air. She moved to stand and felt the age of her bones complaining about the effort. But stand she did.
She lifted a finger and scratched behind her ear as she wondered why the dreams had returned after they had been absent for so many years. Perhaps the dreams returned because she seemed to be writing less poetry these days. The truth is the events in these dreams were both a reality singed in her memory and yet distant, somehow disconnected. But still, they were all connected by one thing: poetry. (Slight pause.)
After realizing it was too early to rise, Mags once again rested on the side of the bed. As she sat in silence the memories of that time some thirty years ago erupted within her. There was the dinner with friends. After that they traveled to a garden and Jesus went off to find a quite place to pray.
Then, suddenly, a strange combination of Roman soldiers along with Temple guards were swarming all around them. Roman soldiers and Temple guards never cooperated with one another and yet here they were— together. It made no sense.
And they found Jesus and took the Rabbi away. Why were they interested in Jesus, a Rabbi— a Rabbi who preached about love? It made no sense.
And then... and then the next day— that dreadful day— they executed Jesus. Not that executing a Jew was abnormal. Hundreds of Jews were killed by the Romans every day. Hundreds of Jews were crucified by the Romans every day.
But Jesus was her friend. And she had watched while her friend was murdered. (Slight pause.) It hurt. (Slight pause.) It... made... no... sense. (Slight pause.)
She was thankful for Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph was a Pharisee. Joseph was wealthy. Joseph owned a fresh hewn tomb. Joseph took charge. The Rabbi was buried in the fresh hewn tomb. (Slight pause.)
After the Sabbath, early in the morning, Mags went to the tomb and saw the stone had been removed. She ran, she went to Simon and said, “The Rabbi has been taken from of the tomb!” (Pause.)
To this day she could not explain what happened after that. Jesus was there. The Rabbi was present to her. Mere words failed when Mags tried to speak about what happened, about a presence which seemed to sear the soul with its intensity, sear the soul because of its unwavering reality, sear the soul with a light that could be felt even though it was a light not seen, a light hidden in plain sight. (Pause.)
Time passed. Years passed. Then one day, she realized there were words she could use, words with which she could speak about those days. These words existed. And she started to write... poetry.
Poetry— a way of knowing, of expressing the possibility of grace. Poetry— a way of describing that which cannot be described. Poetry— the only language which broke the bonds of the finite and allowed a glimpse of the infinite.
And so she wrote. (Slight pause.) Over the years of composing, among the many poems she wrote, this is the one Mags liked the best. (Slight pause.)
I am dreaming, perhaps.
I am dreaming... of a time
which happened
and a time yet to come, perhaps.
I am dreaming
of the present, perhaps.
I am dreaming
of a reality unknowable,
a life unthinkable, perhaps,
a dream grounded
on groundless ground, perhaps.
The Presence Who
radically opened the present,
exposed its flaws and its truths,
its complexity and its simplicity
its longing and its fulfillment
is here, is now, is real, perhaps.
Proof of the Presence
seems lacking in faith, perhaps;
for proof of what is believed
seems to, perhaps, not care
for what is truly true,
for what is truly,
deeply believed,
deeply real, perhaps.
So perhaps, by insisting
I know that I do not know
what I really know,
what I really need to know
I can more fully know.
And what is it
I perhaps do not know—
that which is in reality known?
The Presence is real.
The Presence lives,
The Presence promises
to love forever...
and loving, perhaps, forever
is the reality of life.
(Slight pause.) How many years had it been? Thirty, at least. And this she knew: the Presence, the Rabbi, Jesus, was still there, still at her side.
And she wrote poetry about it. Why? Yes, the reality, the Presence was real but that’s not the reason she wrote. She wrote because perhaps she knew the ambiguous yet precise language of love exists in poetry. Amen.
04/20/2014
Easter Sunday — A.K.A. The Feast of the Resurrection
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: “I am sure the well known American composer Irving Berlin was a nice fellow. I hold nothing against him. Among other works, he wrote the songs Easter Parade and It’s a Lovely Day, Happy Easter. But these are not Christian sentiments. These are secular sentiments. If someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ shake their hand and say, ‘Christ is risen.’
BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing and then please join with me in the responsive Easter acclamation found in the bulletin: May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the love of Christ, Jesus, and in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit this day and forever.
ONE: Rejoice, people of God! Christ is risen from the dead! Go in peace to love and serve God. Christ is with you always. Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
MANY: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!
[1] Mary Magdalene is at best a bad translation of that name. Mary of Magdala is a more appropriate rendering of it.
Poetry, Perhaps
“Jesus then said, ‘Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to Abba, ascended to God. Rather, go to the sisters and brothers and tell them I am ascending to Abba, to my God and your God.’” — John 20:17.
This is a poem Mary of Magdala [1] wrote when she came to understand she was called to write poetry and when she understood what it means to be a poet.
At first there were shadows.
Then it was night...
simply night.
The light came next.
But it was not visible light,
not light one saw.
It was light,
however,
which seemed to sear the soul—
sear the soul with its intensity,
sear the soul with
the length of its presence,
sear the soul with
a sense of its purpose,
sear the soul
because it felt
so unwavering in its reality.
It was light
which could be felt.
But it was light not seen.
It was light hidden
in plain sight. (Pause.)
Mags’ sleep that night— all her friends called her Mags because she was from the town of Magdala— Mags’ sleep that night was... restless. There were dreams.
There were dreams of long forgotten memories; there were dreams about shadows; there were dreams about light. Were she conscious, were she awake, she would have realized there was nothing in the dreams which made total sense. They were ambiguous yet precise. She slept— a sleep crowded with dreams. (Slight pause.)
Mags sat up suddenly, fully awake, sweating, gasping for air. She moved to stand and felt the age of her bones complaining about the effort. But stand she did.
She lifted a finger and scratched behind her ear as she wondered why the dreams had returned after they had been absent for so many years. Perhaps the dreams returned because she seemed to be writing less poetry these days. The truth is the events in these dreams were both a reality singed in her memory and yet distant, somehow disconnected. But still, they were all connected by one thing: poetry. (Slight pause.)
After realizing it was too early to rise, Mags once again rested on the side of the bed. As she sat in silence the memories of that time some thirty years ago erupted within her. There was the dinner with friends. After that they traveled to a garden and Jesus went off to find a quite place to pray.
Then, suddenly, a strange combination of Roman soldiers along with Temple guards were swarming all around them. Roman soldiers and Temple guards never cooperated with one another and yet here they were— together. It made no sense.
And they found Jesus and took the Rabbi away. Why were they interested in Jesus, a Rabbi— a Rabbi who preached about love? It made no sense.
And then... and then the next day— that dreadful day— they executed Jesus. Not that executing a Jew was abnormal. Hundreds of Jews were killed by the Romans every day. Hundreds of Jews were crucified by the Romans every day.
But Jesus was her friend. And she had watched while her friend was murdered. (Slight pause.) It hurt. (Slight pause.) It... made... no... sense. (Slight pause.)
She was thankful for Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph was a Pharisee. Joseph was wealthy. Joseph owned a fresh hewn tomb. Joseph took charge. The Rabbi was buried in the fresh hewn tomb. (Slight pause.)
After the Sabbath, early in the morning, Mags went to the tomb and saw the stone had been removed. She ran, she went to Simon and said, “The Rabbi has been taken from of the tomb!” (Pause.)
To this day she could not explain what happened after that. Jesus was there. The Rabbi was present to her. Mere words failed when Mags tried to speak about what happened, about a presence which seemed to sear the soul with its intensity, sear the soul because of its unwavering reality, sear the soul with a light that could be felt even though it was a light not seen, a light hidden in plain sight. (Pause.)
Time passed. Years passed. Then one day, she realized there were words she could use, words with which she could speak about those days. These words existed. And she started to write... poetry.
Poetry— a way of knowing, of expressing the possibility of grace. Poetry— a way of describing that which cannot be described. Poetry— the only language which broke the bonds of the finite and allowed a glimpse of the infinite.
And so she wrote. (Slight pause.) Over the years of composing, among the many poems she wrote, this is the one Mags liked the best. (Slight pause.)
I am dreaming, perhaps.
I am dreaming... of a time
which happened
and a time yet to come, perhaps.
I am dreaming
of the present, perhaps.
I am dreaming
of a reality unknowable,
a life unthinkable, perhaps,
a dream grounded
on groundless ground, perhaps.
The Presence Who
radically opened the present,
exposed its flaws and its truths,
its complexity and its simplicity
its longing and its fulfillment
is here, is now, is real, perhaps.
Proof of the Presence
seems lacking in faith, perhaps;
for proof of what is believed
seems to, perhaps, not care
for what is truly true,
for what is truly,
deeply believed,
deeply real, perhaps.
So perhaps, by insisting
I know that I do not know
what I really know,
what I really need to know
I can more fully know.
And what is it
I perhaps do not know—
that which is in reality known?
The Presence is real.
The Presence lives,
The Presence promises
to love forever...
and loving, perhaps, forever
is the reality of life.
(Slight pause.) How many years had it been? Thirty, at least. And this she knew: the Presence, the Rabbi, Jesus, was still there, still at her side.
And she wrote poetry about it. Why? Yes, the reality, the Presence was real but that’s not the reason she wrote. She wrote because perhaps she knew the ambiguous yet precise language of love exists in poetry. Amen.
04/20/2014
Easter Sunday — A.K.A. The Feast of the Resurrection
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: “I am sure the well known American composer Irving Berlin was a nice fellow. I hold nothing against him. Among other works, he wrote the songs Easter Parade and It’s a Lovely Day, Happy Easter. But these are not Christian sentiments. These are secular sentiments. If someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ shake their hand and say, ‘Christ is risen.’
BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing and then please join with me in the responsive Easter acclamation found in the bulletin: May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the love of Christ, Jesus, and in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit this day and forever.
ONE: Rejoice, people of God! Christ is risen from the dead! Go in peace to love and serve God. Christ is with you always. Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
MANY: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!
[1] Mary Magdalene is at best a bad translation of that name. Mary of Magdala is a more appropriate rendering of it.
Monday, March 31, 2014
SERMON ~ 03/30/2014 ~ “Cause and Effect?”
03/30/2014 ~ Fourth Sunday in Lent ~ 1 Samuel 16:1-13; Psalm 23; Ephesians 5:8-14; John 9:1-41.
Cause and Effect? [1] [2]
“The disciples asked, ‘Rabbi, is the sin of this individual what caused the blindness or the sin of this individual’s parents?’” — John 9:2.
Here is a question to which we all want an answer: “Why?” Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Why did Mom always like you best? Why did this happen to me? Why was the one Jesus cured born blind? (Slight pause.)
O.K., as I do too often for some and not often enough for others I will yet again, relate this to baseball. Back when I was very young, when the New York Mets first came on the scene, they were the worst team who ever played the game at the major league level.
That season they set a new modern era record— a record yet to be broken— and lost a total of 120 games out of the 160 games they played. They finished 60 ½ games out of first place.
My late mother, also a baseball fan, noticed bad luck seemed to haunt the team. Nearly every game they lost was determined by a bad hop on a easy ground ball, a blown call by an umpire, a ball lost in the sun. Because of any and all of these mishaps opponents seemed to score the winning run. She fully believed there must be some cause for this waywardness of chance, this lack of luck. She constantly asked: why?
Perhaps it was some star in the sky out of place, some ill wind blowing over Coogan’s Bluff in the Bronx at the Polo Grounds. Mom, at one point and somewhat whimsically, wondered out loud if the manager, Casey Stengel, had done something in his early life or was currently doing something nefarious to warrant this fate, this streak of misfortune, a kind of no bad deed goes unpunished concept.
And after all, if the results on the field could at least be attributed to something, anything, what she saw might in some way be explained. Then, when a mere 8 years later the Mets shocked the Baseball universe by winning the World Series over a heavily favored Baltimore Orioles team, she was equally convinced the bad luck of the previous seven years was being paid back all at once.
She may have had a point. These were among the things that happened in that championship year: the Mets won each game of a double header, both by a score of 1-0, and in both games the weakest batter in the line-up, their pitcher, drove in the only and winning run.
The Mets had a no-hitter pitched against them in mid-September as they drove relentlessly toward the National League Pennant. And then, of course, there was the famous shoe polish incident in the last game of the World Series against Baltimore.
Pitcher Dave McNally bounced a pitch that appeared to have hit Mets left fielder Cleon Jones on the foot and skittered into the Mets’ dugout. Baltimore claimed the ball hit the dirt, not Jones. The umpire agreed.
Mets manager Gil Hodges then slowly walked from the dugout, showed the ball to the umpire who found a spot of shoe polish on the ball and awarded Jones first base. The next batter hit a home run. At first unlucky, now they were... lucky— cause and effect— and things do equal out— right?
Well, maybe; maybe not. But that, I think, is how we humans see things— we often see in terms of cause and effect. And, as this passage which written some 2,000 years ago might indicate, it’s not just we moderns who see things in scientific terms, who see cause and effect as if it were a mathematical idea. Aristotle, who lived 400 years before this passage from John was written saw things in terms of causality too— one of the bases of Aristotelian Philosophy— cause.
But I think there is a more important question contained in this passage than how do we see. The more important question is: how does God see? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel According to the School of John: “The disciples asked, ‘Rabbi, is the sin of this individual what caused the blindness or the sin of this individual’s parents?’” (Slight pause.)
One of the facets of Facebook is when you come on something, be it a picture or a cartoon or a saying you want to share with a friend, it’s easy to share it. The process is called tagging. Whatever it is you want to share you tag it with the name of your friend. And then they get an e-mail saying they have been tagged.
That happened to me this week. Someone tagged a cartoon with my name, knowing I would see it. The caption said: ‘which came first?’ The initial panel depicted a God figure who stretched out hands and there was a poof and a cloud of smoke. When the smoke cleared both a chicken and an egg appeared.
The next panel said “simultaneous creation.” The last panel had God saying, “Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh— simultaneous creation— they will never figure this one out.”
And, of course, a continual question we tend to ask is: ‘which came first— the chicken or the egg?’— cause and effect. But I wonder, is that the way God sees it? Or, better yet, is cause and effect a question God would even have? (Slight pause.)
Well, what is the implication of cause and effect? It implies there is some kind of economy at work. That economy could be labeled a debit and credit system. I think we buy into that. We believe everything in life is based on debits and credits.
We believe in an economy of merit. We believe we earn what we get. We believe we reap what we sow. We believe poor people cause poverty.
That is a very human reading of the world. Therefore, if a person is blind, even blind from birth, there must have been some debt, some liability incurred and that creates an obligation which must be either paid back or forgiven in some way.
But is that how God sees the world? (Slight pause.) I believe the economy with which God sees things might be called an economy of grace. And that is very, very hard for we humans to grasp.
Theologian Richard Rhor says we base almost everything in human culture on achievement, performance, accomplishment, payment, exchange value, appearance, worthiness of some sort. This might be called “meritocracy”— a rule of merit. Hence, unless we personally experience a dramatic breaking of the agreed-upon rules of merit, it is almost impossible to disbelieve or operate outside of this rigid logic. (Slight pause.)
So, does that state of being— merit— actually exist? It is a reality? Is everything based on debits and credits? Is merit always rewarded? Do we always earn what we get, always reap what we sow.
Or even in our own personal lives do we see sometimes thing we might call shortages or overages? Do we something get things we know we don’t really deserve? Do we sometimes pay a price we know we don’t really owe? Put another way: is the world fair?
Do poor people really cause poverty or is that a systemic problem? Is it possible that sometimes people work very hard for something and are never rewarded? (Slight pause.) And how does God see the world? (Slight pause.)
I firmly believe God sees the world in terms of grace. I believe that, for God, grace breaks our ironclad rule of cause and effect. Grace is God’s magnificent jailbreak from our self-made prisons. Grace is the undeserved key whereby God, the Divine Locksmith, for every life and for all of history, sets us free. (Slight pause.)
The key to entering into the new social order Jesus sees is never our own worthiness. It is always God’s graciousness.
In the realm of God we are all blessed by divine mercy and not by our own performance. Any attempt to measure or increase our worthiness in the eyes of God will always fall short, or will force us into a position of denial and pretense, and that often produces hypocrisy, even violence— to ourselves and to others. [3] (Slight pause.)
I need to be clear: an “economy of grace” as opposed to “economy of merit” is very hard for humans. As Rhor said, we base almost everything in human culture on achievement, performance, accomplishment, payment, exchange value, appearance— worthiness of some sort. However, all that is our own self made worthiness.
You see, it is God who determines our actual, our real worthiness. And God loves all people— no exceptions— even the person born blind— a very different way of looking at things.
All of which is to say, as the reading from Ephesians says (quote): “Live as children of light.” See the light; strive to see the light. Tall order, that— but it is the place to which God calls us. Amen.
03/30/2014
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: “I did something like this at a Children’s Time a while ago. If you look in your bulletin you will see an insert with two pictures, both taken by Bonnie. They are both of our niece and nephew, Phoebe and Clay. One captures them at about ages 4 and 6. That’s the black and white photo. The photo on the opposite page captures them at about 19 and 21. Question: how does God see them? Does God see them as young? Does God see them as they are in the older picture. Does God see them as they are now, some twelve years later? What is the vision God sees? Does God always see with the vision called love?”
BENEDICTION: There is but one message in Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge, love and care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] For those who might be listening to this Meditation online, it needs to be noted that the pastor was in the process of recovering from a late Winter cold. Hence, those who are used to the “normal” tones of the pastor will notice a difference.
[2] For those reading this plain text online, at the very end the pastor used 2 pictures. You will find those pictures embedded in the PDF file online.
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--The-Economy-of-Grace.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=xFzJyw-IlQw
Cause and Effect? [1] [2]
“The disciples asked, ‘Rabbi, is the sin of this individual what caused the blindness or the sin of this individual’s parents?’” — John 9:2.
Here is a question to which we all want an answer: “Why?” Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Why did Mom always like you best? Why did this happen to me? Why was the one Jesus cured born blind? (Slight pause.)
O.K., as I do too often for some and not often enough for others I will yet again, relate this to baseball. Back when I was very young, when the New York Mets first came on the scene, they were the worst team who ever played the game at the major league level.
That season they set a new modern era record— a record yet to be broken— and lost a total of 120 games out of the 160 games they played. They finished 60 ½ games out of first place.
My late mother, also a baseball fan, noticed bad luck seemed to haunt the team. Nearly every game they lost was determined by a bad hop on a easy ground ball, a blown call by an umpire, a ball lost in the sun. Because of any and all of these mishaps opponents seemed to score the winning run. She fully believed there must be some cause for this waywardness of chance, this lack of luck. She constantly asked: why?
Perhaps it was some star in the sky out of place, some ill wind blowing over Coogan’s Bluff in the Bronx at the Polo Grounds. Mom, at one point and somewhat whimsically, wondered out loud if the manager, Casey Stengel, had done something in his early life or was currently doing something nefarious to warrant this fate, this streak of misfortune, a kind of no bad deed goes unpunished concept.
And after all, if the results on the field could at least be attributed to something, anything, what she saw might in some way be explained. Then, when a mere 8 years later the Mets shocked the Baseball universe by winning the World Series over a heavily favored Baltimore Orioles team, she was equally convinced the bad luck of the previous seven years was being paid back all at once.
She may have had a point. These were among the things that happened in that championship year: the Mets won each game of a double header, both by a score of 1-0, and in both games the weakest batter in the line-up, their pitcher, drove in the only and winning run.
The Mets had a no-hitter pitched against them in mid-September as they drove relentlessly toward the National League Pennant. And then, of course, there was the famous shoe polish incident in the last game of the World Series against Baltimore.
Pitcher Dave McNally bounced a pitch that appeared to have hit Mets left fielder Cleon Jones on the foot and skittered into the Mets’ dugout. Baltimore claimed the ball hit the dirt, not Jones. The umpire agreed.
Mets manager Gil Hodges then slowly walked from the dugout, showed the ball to the umpire who found a spot of shoe polish on the ball and awarded Jones first base. The next batter hit a home run. At first unlucky, now they were... lucky— cause and effect— and things do equal out— right?
Well, maybe; maybe not. But that, I think, is how we humans see things— we often see in terms of cause and effect. And, as this passage which written some 2,000 years ago might indicate, it’s not just we moderns who see things in scientific terms, who see cause and effect as if it were a mathematical idea. Aristotle, who lived 400 years before this passage from John was written saw things in terms of causality too— one of the bases of Aristotelian Philosophy— cause.
But I think there is a more important question contained in this passage than how do we see. The more important question is: how does God see? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel According to the School of John: “The disciples asked, ‘Rabbi, is the sin of this individual what caused the blindness or the sin of this individual’s parents?’” (Slight pause.)
One of the facets of Facebook is when you come on something, be it a picture or a cartoon or a saying you want to share with a friend, it’s easy to share it. The process is called tagging. Whatever it is you want to share you tag it with the name of your friend. And then they get an e-mail saying they have been tagged.
That happened to me this week. Someone tagged a cartoon with my name, knowing I would see it. The caption said: ‘which came first?’ The initial panel depicted a God figure who stretched out hands and there was a poof and a cloud of smoke. When the smoke cleared both a chicken and an egg appeared.
The next panel said “simultaneous creation.” The last panel had God saying, “Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh— simultaneous creation— they will never figure this one out.”
And, of course, a continual question we tend to ask is: ‘which came first— the chicken or the egg?’— cause and effect. But I wonder, is that the way God sees it? Or, better yet, is cause and effect a question God would even have? (Slight pause.)
Well, what is the implication of cause and effect? It implies there is some kind of economy at work. That economy could be labeled a debit and credit system. I think we buy into that. We believe everything in life is based on debits and credits.
We believe in an economy of merit. We believe we earn what we get. We believe we reap what we sow. We believe poor people cause poverty.
That is a very human reading of the world. Therefore, if a person is blind, even blind from birth, there must have been some debt, some liability incurred and that creates an obligation which must be either paid back or forgiven in some way.
But is that how God sees the world? (Slight pause.) I believe the economy with which God sees things might be called an economy of grace. And that is very, very hard for we humans to grasp.
Theologian Richard Rhor says we base almost everything in human culture on achievement, performance, accomplishment, payment, exchange value, appearance, worthiness of some sort. This might be called “meritocracy”— a rule of merit. Hence, unless we personally experience a dramatic breaking of the agreed-upon rules of merit, it is almost impossible to disbelieve or operate outside of this rigid logic. (Slight pause.)
So, does that state of being— merit— actually exist? It is a reality? Is everything based on debits and credits? Is merit always rewarded? Do we always earn what we get, always reap what we sow.
Or even in our own personal lives do we see sometimes thing we might call shortages or overages? Do we something get things we know we don’t really deserve? Do we sometimes pay a price we know we don’t really owe? Put another way: is the world fair?
Do poor people really cause poverty or is that a systemic problem? Is it possible that sometimes people work very hard for something and are never rewarded? (Slight pause.) And how does God see the world? (Slight pause.)
I firmly believe God sees the world in terms of grace. I believe that, for God, grace breaks our ironclad rule of cause and effect. Grace is God’s magnificent jailbreak from our self-made prisons. Grace is the undeserved key whereby God, the Divine Locksmith, for every life and for all of history, sets us free. (Slight pause.)
The key to entering into the new social order Jesus sees is never our own worthiness. It is always God’s graciousness.
In the realm of God we are all blessed by divine mercy and not by our own performance. Any attempt to measure or increase our worthiness in the eyes of God will always fall short, or will force us into a position of denial and pretense, and that often produces hypocrisy, even violence— to ourselves and to others. [3] (Slight pause.)
I need to be clear: an “economy of grace” as opposed to “economy of merit” is very hard for humans. As Rhor said, we base almost everything in human culture on achievement, performance, accomplishment, payment, exchange value, appearance— worthiness of some sort. However, all that is our own self made worthiness.
You see, it is God who determines our actual, our real worthiness. And God loves all people— no exceptions— even the person born blind— a very different way of looking at things.
All of which is to say, as the reading from Ephesians says (quote): “Live as children of light.” See the light; strive to see the light. Tall order, that— but it is the place to which God calls us. Amen.
03/30/2014
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: “I did something like this at a Children’s Time a while ago. If you look in your bulletin you will see an insert with two pictures, both taken by Bonnie. They are both of our niece and nephew, Phoebe and Clay. One captures them at about ages 4 and 6. That’s the black and white photo. The photo on the opposite page captures them at about 19 and 21. Question: how does God see them? Does God see them as young? Does God see them as they are in the older picture. Does God see them as they are now, some twelve years later? What is the vision God sees? Does God always see with the vision called love?”
BENEDICTION: There is but one message in Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge, love and care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] For those who might be listening to this Meditation online, it needs to be noted that the pastor was in the process of recovering from a late Winter cold. Hence, those who are used to the “normal” tones of the pastor will notice a difference.
[2] For those reading this plain text online, at the very end the pastor used 2 pictures. You will find those pictures embedded in the PDF file online.
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--The-Economy-of-Grace.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=xFzJyw-IlQw
Sunday, March 23, 2014
SERMON ~ 03/23/2014 ~ “Inclusion”
03/23/2014 ~ Third Sunday in Lent ~ Exodus 17:1-7; Psalm 95; Romans 5:1-11; John 4:5-42.
Inclusion
“The Samaritan woman replied, ‘You are a Jew. How is it you ask a drink of me, a woman, a Samaritan?’ (That was because Jews had nothing to do with Samaritans.)” — John 4:9— Words from the Gospel According to the School of John.
There are some who accuse me of relating everything to baseball. Yes, the Dodgers did bear the Diamondbacks twice yesterday in Perth, Australia.) My wife would be among that group who accuse me of relating everything to baseball.
While that’s not really true— I do not relate everything to baseball— frankly, I do think some sound theology can be found in the game. Or rather there are some sound lessons for life and because of that some sound theological lessons to be found.
There is one lesson in particular in which I take great comfort. The best hitters in the game— the best hitters in the game— fail seven out of ten times. I think that statistic gives us a lesson about the nature of sin.
You see, we have an inaccurate idea when it comes to the definition, the nature of sin. We think sin, by its nature, means some kind of misdeed, doing something wrong. Therefore, we also believe that we, largely, do not sin. But sin is not about misdeeds nor about doing something wrong.
As I have often said here: the Biblical definition of sin is not some kind of misdeed or doing something wrong. The Biblical definition of sin is missing the mark.
But what is that mark? That mark is being in a right relationship, even a constructive relationship with God at all times and in all ways. Here’s another way to put that: being in right relationship, a constructive relationship with God at all times and in all ways means being perfect all the time.
If there is anything I know, I know I am not perfect. As I also like to say, if anyone here is perfect, please leave right now. Church is a place imperfect people gather. Needless to say, if we are not perfect according to the Biblical definition we do sin, both knowingly and unknowingly.
Which brings me back to baseball and why I find great comfort in the game. As I said, a batter is not perfect. A batter fails seven out of ten times. In fact, in baseball failing seven out of ten times is so good, that average might get you into the Hall of Fame. When it comes to perfection, I suspect we fail at least seven out of ten times, probably more.
Now, despite the fact that baseball is sometimes called America’s National Pastime, failure— especially failure seven out of ten times— does not jibe well with American theology. Please note: I said American theology as opposed to Christian theology.
Americans think of failure as unacceptable. It’s part of our national psyche and, hence, a part of our theology. After all, the motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II was this (quote:) “With willing hearts and skillful hands, the difficult we do at once; the impossible takes a bit longer”— American theology— failure is unacceptable. How about that— very different than Christian theology. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel According to the School of John: “The Samaritan woman replied, ‘You are a Jew. How is it you ask a drink of me, a woman, a Samaritan?’ (That was because Jews had nothing to do with Samaritans.)” (Slight pause.)
Wednesday evening, when we met for Bible Study and looked at this passage, one of the things we noted was it seemed to be kind of all over the map. While there is an overriding story, it also feels like there are a number of brief anecdotes being told.
That is also the nature of the entire Gospel— the structure seems a little scattered. And scholars have puzzled over that peculiarity in this narrative for a long time. They have come up with explanations— some plausible, some questionable.
One explanation suggests John was recorded in the era a new form of preserving writings was taking hold. It was called the codex. A codex looks similar to what we would call a book. Sheets are stacked in the right order and then bound together.
This explanation says some scribe was walking with the first version of the complete manuscript [the pastor leaves the pulpit and pantomimes the action of a scribe carrying a codex and tripping], that scribe tripped, the codex hit the ground and the pages scattered about. The scribe then put them back in the wrong sequence. It’s a funny story, but not likely.
Another story says there was a room full of scribes copying different sections. A scribe came in started to collect the pages in the right order from each section, got distracted, skipped over sections, realized the mistake and came back for the missed sections. But some pieces did not get exactly where they belonged. It’s also a funny story, but not likely.
Given the internal evidence in the language and the flow of story detail, I think the most likely explanation is a good portion of the manuscript was complied by one person— perhaps even someone named John. Then that person died and the disciples of that person added some things, removed some things, moved some things around and that is the version which has been handed on to us— a little scattered but readable.
You probably noticed that when we introduce a reading from this Gospel these words are often said: “The Gospel According to the School of John.” And that’s why we say “the School of John.” It’s likely there are a number of hands involved in this work.
That having been said, I think one question needs to be asked of this reading, in particular. Is there an overall theme which holds it together, which makes it feel like it belongs together? (Short pause.) The short answer is ‘yes.’
Pastor Bruce Epperly says this about the passage (quote:) “We all need living waters. We need spiritual and relational resources that refresh and transform our lives. God is willing to give us what we need for spiritual transformation in challenging times; we need to be open to God’s care, trusting God will supply our greatest needs.”
“There are no absolute guarantees of success— let me repeat that again— there are no absolute guarantees of success— or a cure for every ailment, but there is refreshment for the pilgrimage of life. This deep relational refreshment enables us to respond with grace to what is beyond our power and summon the reserves for a second wind in facing difficult challenges.” [1] (Slight pause.)
You see, God’s loving care is constant and universal. God’s gentle providence supersedes imperfection. The love of God embraces everyone at all times.
The love of God is all inclusive. In fact, the love of God is perfect and, thereby, allows us to not only see what perfection looks like but to feel embraced by it. (Slight pause.)
In a couple of minutes we will dedicate the quilts made by the Chenango Piecmakers Guild on Super Sew Sunday. Ask any quilt maker about perfection in a quilt and they might point out where each quilt has an imperfection.
After all, a quilt maker knows about each and every stitch and each and every mistake in a quilt they make. But do you know what I have never heard a quilt maker say? I have never heard a quilt maker say ‘I made this quilt intending that it not be used, intending that it not be in some way useful.’ (Slight pause.)
What makes the love of God perfect is God intends that love to be used, intends us to be useful to one another, to love one another, to be useful to the world around us. The love of God is so perfect that God embraces us for who we are.
And that, my friends is not just perfection. That is the real, inclusive, amazing love offered by God. Amen.
03/23/2014
United Church of Christ, First Congregational
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “St. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits, proposed a daily exercise, an exercise in discernment. Rather than focusing on what went right or wrong, what you did right or wrong, how you failed or how you succeeded throughout the day, this exercise encourages a person to reflect on moments in the day when you were aware of God— when you were present to the Presence— and those times when you were forgetful or distracted. I want to suggest this is a useful daily practice.”
BENEDICTION: Let us rest assured that God is among us and travels with us daily. Let us know that God’s Spirit empowers us to do things in the name of God we did not think possible. Therefore, let us share our love for God with others, confident that God will provide if we are faithful. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be in awe of no one else and nothing else because we are so in awe of God. Amen.
[1] Note: these words have been slightly edited for use in this sermon.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/livingaholyadventure/2014/03/the-adventurous-lectionary-the-third-sunday-in-lent-march-23-2014/
The Adventurous Lectionary: The Third Sunday in Lent, March 23, 2014 ~ By Bruce Epperly.
Inclusion
“The Samaritan woman replied, ‘You are a Jew. How is it you ask a drink of me, a woman, a Samaritan?’ (That was because Jews had nothing to do with Samaritans.)” — John 4:9— Words from the Gospel According to the School of John.
There are some who accuse me of relating everything to baseball. Yes, the Dodgers did bear the Diamondbacks twice yesterday in Perth, Australia.) My wife would be among that group who accuse me of relating everything to baseball.
While that’s not really true— I do not relate everything to baseball— frankly, I do think some sound theology can be found in the game. Or rather there are some sound lessons for life and because of that some sound theological lessons to be found.
There is one lesson in particular in which I take great comfort. The best hitters in the game— the best hitters in the game— fail seven out of ten times. I think that statistic gives us a lesson about the nature of sin.
You see, we have an inaccurate idea when it comes to the definition, the nature of sin. We think sin, by its nature, means some kind of misdeed, doing something wrong. Therefore, we also believe that we, largely, do not sin. But sin is not about misdeeds nor about doing something wrong.
As I have often said here: the Biblical definition of sin is not some kind of misdeed or doing something wrong. The Biblical definition of sin is missing the mark.
But what is that mark? That mark is being in a right relationship, even a constructive relationship with God at all times and in all ways. Here’s another way to put that: being in right relationship, a constructive relationship with God at all times and in all ways means being perfect all the time.
If there is anything I know, I know I am not perfect. As I also like to say, if anyone here is perfect, please leave right now. Church is a place imperfect people gather. Needless to say, if we are not perfect according to the Biblical definition we do sin, both knowingly and unknowingly.
Which brings me back to baseball and why I find great comfort in the game. As I said, a batter is not perfect. A batter fails seven out of ten times. In fact, in baseball failing seven out of ten times is so good, that average might get you into the Hall of Fame. When it comes to perfection, I suspect we fail at least seven out of ten times, probably more.
Now, despite the fact that baseball is sometimes called America’s National Pastime, failure— especially failure seven out of ten times— does not jibe well with American theology. Please note: I said American theology as opposed to Christian theology.
Americans think of failure as unacceptable. It’s part of our national psyche and, hence, a part of our theology. After all, the motto of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during World War II was this (quote:) “With willing hearts and skillful hands, the difficult we do at once; the impossible takes a bit longer”— American theology— failure is unacceptable. How about that— very different than Christian theology. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel According to the School of John: “The Samaritan woman replied, ‘You are a Jew. How is it you ask a drink of me, a woman, a Samaritan?’ (That was because Jews had nothing to do with Samaritans.)” (Slight pause.)
Wednesday evening, when we met for Bible Study and looked at this passage, one of the things we noted was it seemed to be kind of all over the map. While there is an overriding story, it also feels like there are a number of brief anecdotes being told.
That is also the nature of the entire Gospel— the structure seems a little scattered. And scholars have puzzled over that peculiarity in this narrative for a long time. They have come up with explanations— some plausible, some questionable.
One explanation suggests John was recorded in the era a new form of preserving writings was taking hold. It was called the codex. A codex looks similar to what we would call a book. Sheets are stacked in the right order and then bound together.
This explanation says some scribe was walking with the first version of the complete manuscript [the pastor leaves the pulpit and pantomimes the action of a scribe carrying a codex and tripping], that scribe tripped, the codex hit the ground and the pages scattered about. The scribe then put them back in the wrong sequence. It’s a funny story, but not likely.
Another story says there was a room full of scribes copying different sections. A scribe came in started to collect the pages in the right order from each section, got distracted, skipped over sections, realized the mistake and came back for the missed sections. But some pieces did not get exactly where they belonged. It’s also a funny story, but not likely.
Given the internal evidence in the language and the flow of story detail, I think the most likely explanation is a good portion of the manuscript was complied by one person— perhaps even someone named John. Then that person died and the disciples of that person added some things, removed some things, moved some things around and that is the version which has been handed on to us— a little scattered but readable.
You probably noticed that when we introduce a reading from this Gospel these words are often said: “The Gospel According to the School of John.” And that’s why we say “the School of John.” It’s likely there are a number of hands involved in this work.
That having been said, I think one question needs to be asked of this reading, in particular. Is there an overall theme which holds it together, which makes it feel like it belongs together? (Short pause.) The short answer is ‘yes.’
Pastor Bruce Epperly says this about the passage (quote:) “We all need living waters. We need spiritual and relational resources that refresh and transform our lives. God is willing to give us what we need for spiritual transformation in challenging times; we need to be open to God’s care, trusting God will supply our greatest needs.”
“There are no absolute guarantees of success— let me repeat that again— there are no absolute guarantees of success— or a cure for every ailment, but there is refreshment for the pilgrimage of life. This deep relational refreshment enables us to respond with grace to what is beyond our power and summon the reserves for a second wind in facing difficult challenges.” [1] (Slight pause.)
You see, God’s loving care is constant and universal. God’s gentle providence supersedes imperfection. The love of God embraces everyone at all times.
The love of God is all inclusive. In fact, the love of God is perfect and, thereby, allows us to not only see what perfection looks like but to feel embraced by it. (Slight pause.)
In a couple of minutes we will dedicate the quilts made by the Chenango Piecmakers Guild on Super Sew Sunday. Ask any quilt maker about perfection in a quilt and they might point out where each quilt has an imperfection.
After all, a quilt maker knows about each and every stitch and each and every mistake in a quilt they make. But do you know what I have never heard a quilt maker say? I have never heard a quilt maker say ‘I made this quilt intending that it not be used, intending that it not be in some way useful.’ (Slight pause.)
What makes the love of God perfect is God intends that love to be used, intends us to be useful to one another, to love one another, to be useful to the world around us. The love of God is so perfect that God embraces us for who we are.
And that, my friends is not just perfection. That is the real, inclusive, amazing love offered by God. Amen.
03/23/2014
United Church of Christ, First Congregational
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “St. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuits, proposed a daily exercise, an exercise in discernment. Rather than focusing on what went right or wrong, what you did right or wrong, how you failed or how you succeeded throughout the day, this exercise encourages a person to reflect on moments in the day when you were aware of God— when you were present to the Presence— and those times when you were forgetful or distracted. I want to suggest this is a useful daily practice.”
BENEDICTION: Let us rest assured that God is among us and travels with us daily. Let us know that God’s Spirit empowers us to do things in the name of God we did not think possible. Therefore, let us share our love for God with others, confident that God will provide if we are faithful. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be in awe of no one else and nothing else because we are so in awe of God. Amen.
[1] Note: these words have been slightly edited for use in this sermon.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/livingaholyadventure/2014/03/the-adventurous-lectionary-the-third-sunday-in-lent-march-23-2014/
The Adventurous Lectionary: The Third Sunday in Lent, March 23, 2014 ~ By Bruce Epperly.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
SERMON ~ 03/16/2014 ~ “Everything Old Is New Again”
03/16/2014 ~ Second Sunday in Lent ~ Genesis 12:1-4a; Psalm 121; Romans 4:1-5, 13-17; John 3:1-17 or Matthew 17:1-9.
Everything Old Is New Again
“Nicodemus said to Jesus, ‘How can this be possible? How can these things be?’ / Jesus replied, ‘Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you still do not understand these matters?’” — John 3:9-10.
At times we seem to live in a world where being oblivious to wisdom, to truth, even to our own history is a path society is bent on following. (Slight pause.) Sister Helen Prejean is best known for her work with prisoners on Death Row and the book she wrote about her experiences, Dead Man Walking. Needless to say, that book which was turned into a movie.
And yes, some would see the good sister as a radical. What follows is what Helen said in a recent interview as she reflected on the world in which we live today.
(Quote:) “We live in a culture where the name of God and Jesus is invoked to uphold state killing, to uphold war, to uphold tax cuts where rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. ...the reason Jesus was a threat to both Rome and the religious hierarchy of the day was Jesus thought the inauguration of a community so radical it threatened everybody was a good idea.”
“The way Jesus saw things, it wasn’t just the people who could keep the holiness codes and do all the hand washing who counted. It was also the people who never washed their hands. People who lived what was called sinful lives counted also. Jesus ate meals with them.”
“Jesus even inaugurated a community that incorporated children. And this was a time in which children were not considered to be persons.”
“If Jesus had been just a dreamy preacher and told everybody to love one another, that wouldn’t be threatening to the Romans or to anybody. Jesus espoused a radically new kind of community where wealthy people shared with people who had nothing, a community where no one was in need and everyone was treated with dignity.”
“And that’s what’s so threatening about the kind of community Jesus had in mind— it’s an inclusive community. That is the kind of community we need to have today”— Sister Helen Prejean. [1] (Slight pause.)
So, how radical is that? Or is it merely... moral? Does it question the current morals of society? I could be wrong, but this is my suspicion. Even Sister Helen, radical though she might be, is by far less radical than Jesus. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel according to the School of John: “Nicodemus said to Jesus, ‘How can this be possible? How can these things be?’ / Jesus replied, ‘Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you still do not understand these matters?’” (Slight pause.)
Question: was Jesus a radical? Or was Jesus merely reiterating what the Hebrew Scriptures had already laid down as a way of life? (Slight pause.)
This is clear from the story in the text: Jesus has little confidence in shallow belief. And Nicodemus embodies that perspective— shallow belief.
While impressed with what Jesus is doing and acknowledging miraculous deeds as proof of the presence of God, Nicodemus represents a curious but cautious person, a person well versed in finding paths of least resistence in the world, in polite society, a person who, none the less, asks questions. But Nicodemus, perhaps being self-protective, brings those questions (quote:) “by night.” (Slight pause.)
Faith, from the point of view of someone like Nicodemus, comes from weighing the evidence and drawing logical but middling conclusions. There is no hint of commitment.
Perhaps tragically— tragically in the classical sense of the word, meaning a failure of heroism— perhaps tragically there is no hint of risk taking in Nicodemus. Therefore, there is no hint that the society in which and of which Nicodemus is a part might be called into question by the kind of faith espoused by Nicodemus.
What is lacking in this kind of faith is a sense of openness to the Spirit. Let me be clear: in this passage the term “Spirit” denotes an entirely different world. This is a world vulnerable to the untamed Spirit of God. A world open to the incredibly new. [2]
This is the kind of world, the kind of faith envisioned by Jesus: incredibly new. In fact, it is also the kind of world envisioned by the Hebrew Scriptures. You see, in what Jesus is saying there is nothing new. It is all found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The possibility of this kind of world, one driven by the Spirit of God, has simply been ignored by society. In the words of the old song, what Jesus is saying is simple: Everything Old Is New Again.
Please note: my implication is not that the institution known as church is some sort of mastermind, like an evil Darth Vader type character, running everything in the world. But the church does need to be about distinguishing the difference between power and service.
And I think one problem the church often runs into is confusing power and service— power; service. Further, I think one problem both the church and greater society run into. And, you see there is a second problem both the church and society run into. That problem is that the church and society seem to constantly repeat the missteps of the past.
Ans example: when, in her most recent book, historian Doris Kerns Goodwin, writes this, she is speaking about the past. She is addressing problems in the United States Senate in the decade of the 1890s, some 120 years ago. (Quote:) “The United States Senate presented the most powerful obstacle to any... reform.”
The majority of the Senators (quote) “...were in thrall to business interests that filled their coffers through campaign contributions...” [3] See what I mean? Everything old is new again. (Slight pause.)
Theologian Bruce Epperly says we need to recognize God wants us to be alive to the potential all around us. The Spirit of God wants to give us spiritual CPR.
The Spirit of God wants to give life to that which is currently dormant within us. The Spirit of God wants to enable hope, wants to enable us to act anew.
The Spirit of God cannot be pinned down through doctrine, worship style, spiritual practice, ecclesiology. The Spirit of God is untamed.
The love of God is equally untamed. God loves the world, even this world with all its messiness— the kind of messiness about which Doris Kerns Goodwin wrote.
Condemnation— condemnation— is not part of the vision of God— those folks over there are bad, wrong, stupid [the pastor has pointed toward the left side of the nave and laughter erupts on that side of the church followed by laughter on the other side as they realize the pastor had not singled them out). Condemnation— O.K.— over here [the pastor points to the opposite side of the nave and there is more laughter] condemnation is not a part of the vision of God; affirmation— affirmation is a part of the vision of God. And, more importantly, this affirmation makes a claim on us— that we act within the will of God, show the love of God to all people.
Therefore, the working out of our relationship with God is not determined by our response to God. But it is conditioned by our response to God. See the difference? Not determined by our response to God but conditioned by our response to God. Working within the will of God opens us to relationship with God in all its fullness. [4]
In short, we need to make not just choices but wise choices. And what places those choices in the realm of wisdom is not that they to society and its wishes but that they conform to the will of God. (Slight pause).
In a couple of moments we will celebrate a choice Lilit Danielyan has made in becoming a citizen of the United States. We do this not to celebrate any nation. No nation is perfect.
We do this to support our sister Lilit. But I also need to note I think I know her well enough to say she strives to listen to the Spirit and to the will of God. [5]
And that, my friends, is what living in the will of God is about: do we try to listen to God? And that is the very place Jesus challenges Nicodemus. So, do we, like Nicodemus, merely play it safe, conform, or are we listening to God?
Indeed, I think one of the things Jesus says to Nicodemus is that God has already said everything Jesus is teaching. God has said it in the Law, said it in the Prophets.
Therefore, I suppose we are lucky. You see, one of the things we claim for the church today is that God is still speaking.
And I not only suspect that is true. I suspect what God has to say God has already said in the Law and the Prophets.
I suspect what God has to say God has already said with the coming of Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah. Therefore, everything old is new again. Hence, the question for us is obvious: are we listening? (Long pause.) Amen.
03/16/2014
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: “The great African-American preacher of the early 20th Century James Weldon Johnson used this phrase in a sermon: ‘Your arm’s too short to box with God.’ I think one of the biggest problems of our race is our vision of the love of God, the love which God offers is way too small. Equally, I think what goes hand in hand with that is the vision God has been repeating and repeating and repeating over the course of millennia is love. More love than we can imagine. And we keep forgetting. But God is good. God does keep reminding us.”
BENEDICTION: God’s love will surround us even when we do not ask for it. God’s voice speaks to us. Let us be attentive to it. Let us share this with others, confident that God will be with us. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] Sister Helen Prejean in Living the Questions: the Wisdom of Progressive Christianity. Note: the quote was slightly edited for size, flow and clarity. Despite that, in this use it does remains largely intact.
[2] Texts for Preaching in the electronic version of this publication in the commentary about this passage from John, the reading assigned for the day.
[3] Pg. 291. The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Simon & Schuster; 2013; ISBN-10:141654786X
[4] A lot of this language is adapted from The Adventurous Lectionary for the Second Sunday in Lent: 03/16/2014 ~ By Bruce Epperly.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/livingaholyadventure/2014/03/the-adventurous-lectionary-march-16-2014/
[5] . This was the ceremony for Lilit.
A TIME OF CELEBRATION
PASTOR: There are times events in the lives of individuals should be noted by the members of a church. Recently Lilit became a citizen of the United States of America. I think this is one of those times we need to take note. I invite Lilit to come forward.
PASTOR: Please join with me in the prayers found in the bulletin where appropriate.
INVITATION
ONE: God be with you.
MANY: And also with you.
ONE: Be free with your hearts.
MANY: We give them freely to God.
ONE: Let us give thanks to God.
MANY: It is right to give God thanks and praise.
PRAYER
ONE: Let us pray. O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us
through Jesus, the Christ. We ask that You look with compassion on the whole human family; take away any arrogance and hatred which can infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth that, in Your good time, all nations and races may serve you in harmony. Amen.
ONE: Let us give thanks to God for all the gifts so freely bestowed upon us.
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For the beauty and wonder of your creation, in earth and sky and sea,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For our daily food and drink, our homes and families and our friends,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For minds to think, and hearts to love, and hands to serve,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For health and strength to work and leisure to rest and play,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For the brave, the courageous, the faithful even when they face adversity,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For all valiant seekers of truth, liberty and justice,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For this nation and its people that we might be seekers of Your truth, Your liberty and Your justice.
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
[At this point the pastor invited anyone who wished to come forward to lay hands on Lilit while the final prayer was intoned.]
PRAYER
ONE: Let us once again be in an attitude of prayer. Holy God, who has given us this good land for our heritage, we humbly beseech You that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Your favor and glad to do Your will. Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord and confusion, from pride and arrogance and from every evil way. Defend our liberties and fashion into one united people the multitudes who come from many kindreds and tongues. Grant Your Spirit of Wisdom to those we entrust with the authority of government, that Your justice and peace may take hold at home and abroad. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness and in the day of trouble, let not our trust in You fail. Last, we ask that You bless Lilit and grant to her Your blessing on this adventure and in this place. Amen.
Everything Old Is New Again
“Nicodemus said to Jesus, ‘How can this be possible? How can these things be?’ / Jesus replied, ‘Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you still do not understand these matters?’” — John 3:9-10.
At times we seem to live in a world where being oblivious to wisdom, to truth, even to our own history is a path society is bent on following. (Slight pause.) Sister Helen Prejean is best known for her work with prisoners on Death Row and the book she wrote about her experiences, Dead Man Walking. Needless to say, that book which was turned into a movie.
And yes, some would see the good sister as a radical. What follows is what Helen said in a recent interview as she reflected on the world in which we live today.
(Quote:) “We live in a culture where the name of God and Jesus is invoked to uphold state killing, to uphold war, to uphold tax cuts where rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. ...the reason Jesus was a threat to both Rome and the religious hierarchy of the day was Jesus thought the inauguration of a community so radical it threatened everybody was a good idea.”
“The way Jesus saw things, it wasn’t just the people who could keep the holiness codes and do all the hand washing who counted. It was also the people who never washed their hands. People who lived what was called sinful lives counted also. Jesus ate meals with them.”
“Jesus even inaugurated a community that incorporated children. And this was a time in which children were not considered to be persons.”
“If Jesus had been just a dreamy preacher and told everybody to love one another, that wouldn’t be threatening to the Romans or to anybody. Jesus espoused a radically new kind of community where wealthy people shared with people who had nothing, a community where no one was in need and everyone was treated with dignity.”
“And that’s what’s so threatening about the kind of community Jesus had in mind— it’s an inclusive community. That is the kind of community we need to have today”— Sister Helen Prejean. [1] (Slight pause.)
So, how radical is that? Or is it merely... moral? Does it question the current morals of society? I could be wrong, but this is my suspicion. Even Sister Helen, radical though she might be, is by far less radical than Jesus. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel according to the School of John: “Nicodemus said to Jesus, ‘How can this be possible? How can these things be?’ / Jesus replied, ‘Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you still do not understand these matters?’” (Slight pause.)
Question: was Jesus a radical? Or was Jesus merely reiterating what the Hebrew Scriptures had already laid down as a way of life? (Slight pause.)
This is clear from the story in the text: Jesus has little confidence in shallow belief. And Nicodemus embodies that perspective— shallow belief.
While impressed with what Jesus is doing and acknowledging miraculous deeds as proof of the presence of God, Nicodemus represents a curious but cautious person, a person well versed in finding paths of least resistence in the world, in polite society, a person who, none the less, asks questions. But Nicodemus, perhaps being self-protective, brings those questions (quote:) “by night.” (Slight pause.)
Faith, from the point of view of someone like Nicodemus, comes from weighing the evidence and drawing logical but middling conclusions. There is no hint of commitment.
Perhaps tragically— tragically in the classical sense of the word, meaning a failure of heroism— perhaps tragically there is no hint of risk taking in Nicodemus. Therefore, there is no hint that the society in which and of which Nicodemus is a part might be called into question by the kind of faith espoused by Nicodemus.
What is lacking in this kind of faith is a sense of openness to the Spirit. Let me be clear: in this passage the term “Spirit” denotes an entirely different world. This is a world vulnerable to the untamed Spirit of God. A world open to the incredibly new. [2]
This is the kind of world, the kind of faith envisioned by Jesus: incredibly new. In fact, it is also the kind of world envisioned by the Hebrew Scriptures. You see, in what Jesus is saying there is nothing new. It is all found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The possibility of this kind of world, one driven by the Spirit of God, has simply been ignored by society. In the words of the old song, what Jesus is saying is simple: Everything Old Is New Again.
Please note: my implication is not that the institution known as church is some sort of mastermind, like an evil Darth Vader type character, running everything in the world. But the church does need to be about distinguishing the difference between power and service.
And I think one problem the church often runs into is confusing power and service— power; service. Further, I think one problem both the church and greater society run into. And, you see there is a second problem both the church and society run into. That problem is that the church and society seem to constantly repeat the missteps of the past.
Ans example: when, in her most recent book, historian Doris Kerns Goodwin, writes this, she is speaking about the past. She is addressing problems in the United States Senate in the decade of the 1890s, some 120 years ago. (Quote:) “The United States Senate presented the most powerful obstacle to any... reform.”
The majority of the Senators (quote) “...were in thrall to business interests that filled their coffers through campaign contributions...” [3] See what I mean? Everything old is new again. (Slight pause.)
Theologian Bruce Epperly says we need to recognize God wants us to be alive to the potential all around us. The Spirit of God wants to give us spiritual CPR.
The Spirit of God wants to give life to that which is currently dormant within us. The Spirit of God wants to enable hope, wants to enable us to act anew.
The Spirit of God cannot be pinned down through doctrine, worship style, spiritual practice, ecclesiology. The Spirit of God is untamed.
The love of God is equally untamed. God loves the world, even this world with all its messiness— the kind of messiness about which Doris Kerns Goodwin wrote.
Condemnation— condemnation— is not part of the vision of God— those folks over there are bad, wrong, stupid [the pastor has pointed toward the left side of the nave and laughter erupts on that side of the church followed by laughter on the other side as they realize the pastor had not singled them out). Condemnation— O.K.— over here [the pastor points to the opposite side of the nave and there is more laughter] condemnation is not a part of the vision of God; affirmation— affirmation is a part of the vision of God. And, more importantly, this affirmation makes a claim on us— that we act within the will of God, show the love of God to all people.
Therefore, the working out of our relationship with God is not determined by our response to God. But it is conditioned by our response to God. See the difference? Not determined by our response to God but conditioned by our response to God. Working within the will of God opens us to relationship with God in all its fullness. [4]
In short, we need to make not just choices but wise choices. And what places those choices in the realm of wisdom is not that they to society and its wishes but that they conform to the will of God. (Slight pause).
In a couple of moments we will celebrate a choice Lilit Danielyan has made in becoming a citizen of the United States. We do this not to celebrate any nation. No nation is perfect.
We do this to support our sister Lilit. But I also need to note I think I know her well enough to say she strives to listen to the Spirit and to the will of God. [5]
And that, my friends, is what living in the will of God is about: do we try to listen to God? And that is the very place Jesus challenges Nicodemus. So, do we, like Nicodemus, merely play it safe, conform, or are we listening to God?
Indeed, I think one of the things Jesus says to Nicodemus is that God has already said everything Jesus is teaching. God has said it in the Law, said it in the Prophets.
Therefore, I suppose we are lucky. You see, one of the things we claim for the church today is that God is still speaking.
And I not only suspect that is true. I suspect what God has to say God has already said in the Law and the Prophets.
I suspect what God has to say God has already said with the coming of Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah. Therefore, everything old is new again. Hence, the question for us is obvious: are we listening? (Long pause.) Amen.
03/16/2014
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: “The great African-American preacher of the early 20th Century James Weldon Johnson used this phrase in a sermon: ‘Your arm’s too short to box with God.’ I think one of the biggest problems of our race is our vision of the love of God, the love which God offers is way too small. Equally, I think what goes hand in hand with that is the vision God has been repeating and repeating and repeating over the course of millennia is love. More love than we can imagine. And we keep forgetting. But God is good. God does keep reminding us.”
BENEDICTION: God’s love will surround us even when we do not ask for it. God’s voice speaks to us. Let us be attentive to it. Let us share this with others, confident that God will be with us. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] Sister Helen Prejean in Living the Questions: the Wisdom of Progressive Christianity. Note: the quote was slightly edited for size, flow and clarity. Despite that, in this use it does remains largely intact.
[2] Texts for Preaching in the electronic version of this publication in the commentary about this passage from John, the reading assigned for the day.
[3] Pg. 291. The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Simon & Schuster; 2013; ISBN-10:141654786X
[4] A lot of this language is adapted from The Adventurous Lectionary for the Second Sunday in Lent: 03/16/2014 ~ By Bruce Epperly.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/livingaholyadventure/2014/03/the-adventurous-lectionary-march-16-2014/
[5] . This was the ceremony for Lilit.
A TIME OF CELEBRATION
PASTOR: There are times events in the lives of individuals should be noted by the members of a church. Recently Lilit became a citizen of the United States of America. I think this is one of those times we need to take note. I invite Lilit to come forward.
PASTOR: Please join with me in the prayers found in the bulletin where appropriate.
INVITATION
ONE: God be with you.
MANY: And also with you.
ONE: Be free with your hearts.
MANY: We give them freely to God.
ONE: Let us give thanks to God.
MANY: It is right to give God thanks and praise.
PRAYER
ONE: Let us pray. O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us
through Jesus, the Christ. We ask that You look with compassion on the whole human family; take away any arrogance and hatred which can infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth that, in Your good time, all nations and races may serve you in harmony. Amen.
ONE: Let us give thanks to God for all the gifts so freely bestowed upon us.
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For the beauty and wonder of your creation, in earth and sky and sea,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For our daily food and drink, our homes and families and our friends,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For minds to think, and hearts to love, and hands to serve,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For health and strength to work and leisure to rest and play,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For the brave, the courageous, the faithful even when they face adversity,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For all valiant seekers of truth, liberty and justice,
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
ONE: For this nation and its people that we might be seekers of Your truth, Your liberty and Your justice.
MANY: We offer thanks, O God.
[At this point the pastor invited anyone who wished to come forward to lay hands on Lilit while the final prayer was intoned.]
PRAYER
ONE: Let us once again be in an attitude of prayer. Holy God, who has given us this good land for our heritage, we humbly beseech You that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Your favor and glad to do Your will. Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord and confusion, from pride and arrogance and from every evil way. Defend our liberties and fashion into one united people the multitudes who come from many kindreds and tongues. Grant Your Spirit of Wisdom to those we entrust with the authority of government, that Your justice and peace may take hold at home and abroad. In the time of prosperity, fill our hearts with thankfulness and in the day of trouble, let not our trust in You fail. Last, we ask that You bless Lilit and grant to her Your blessing on this adventure and in this place. Amen.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
SERMON ~ 03/09/2014 ~ “Understanding”
03/09/2014 ~ First Sunday in Lent ~ Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7; Psalm 32; Romans 5:12-19; Matthew 4:1-11.
Understanding
“Do not be like a horse or a mule, / without understanding, / whose temper must be curbed / with bit and bridle, / else it will not stay near you.” — Psalm 32: 9.
Erik Parker is a Lutheran Pastor and also the writer of a blog I follow. The name of the blog is The Millennial Pastor. Eric is, you see, a part of the millennial generation.
According to the strict definition, a millennial is someone under 35. Eric both qualifies as a millennial and is a pastor in a Main Line denomination. Are millennial pastors rare?
While their numbers may be fewer than previous generations they are, perhaps, not as rare as you think. I, myself, was a mentor for a millennial pastor, Manda Adams, in our Susquehanna Association. She is now serving a church in the Buffalo area. Which is to emphasize you should not delude yourself: pastors who are also millennials are not like dragons or unicorns. They do exist.
At one point Manda was a member of an Open and Affirming United Church of Christ Congregation— a Congregation of 4,500— in Dallas, Texas. Which is also to emphasize you should not delude yourself: unlike dragons or unicorns an Open and Affirming United Church of Christ Congregation of 4,500 in Dallas, Texas also exists.
Back to Pastor Parker and his blog: in a recent post Eric insisted what the church does not need is Anchorman Christianity. For those unfamiliar with the movie Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and its current sequel, in using the term Anchorman Christianity Pastor Eric is not talking about real reporters who deliver real news.
Eric is addressing a certain strain of talking heads found in some media outlets, anchors who offer people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Of course, studies prove we don’t question inaccuracies that reenforce our own preconceived beliefs and/or prejudices. We accept them as true, even if they are dragons or unicorns.
Certainly one point Eric tries to make is we are the last defense against Anchorman Christianity. We are the last defense against these dragons and unicorns.
Now, in that blog Parker created a list to help identify what Anchorman Christianity looks like. To be clear: this list is very tongue in cheek and is meant to be funny. It is not meant to sound angry— some people might take it that was— it is not meant to sound angry, so please do see the humor in this.
So, to the list— first, Anchorman Christianity offers easy answers. After all, people don’t need good teaching and sound preaching. Easy answers are so much easier than in-depth explorations of faith, theology, history and ethics.
People also enjoy outrage, so Anchorman Christianity offers that. We are, by most counts, biologically inclined to respond viscerally to negative emotions like anger.
The media knows this well, says Eric. In church or on TV it is way easier to preach outrage— outrage about a range of issues from government to religion to personal agendas to money to the lack of money than to encourage people to grow in empathy and compassion.
Indeed, seeing the ‘other’ as human and their issues as problems we are called on to do something about takes work and a good measure of God’s help. After all, who has the energy to be calm, collected, compassionate, resourceful and tenacious? Outrage is easy.
Anchorman Christianity is evident when a preacher talks about the Bible people think they know as opposed to what the Bible really says. After all, the Bible says that God helps those who help themselves, says cleanliness is next to Godliness, says to thine own self be true, says love the sinner, hate the sin, says money is the root of all evil, says spare the rod, spoil the child.
No— the Bible says none of these. But it is undoubtedly more convenient to preach a Bible of fantasies and clichés, a Bible of dragons and unicorns than it is to preach on what is actually found in the pages of Scripture.
Anchorman Christianity also promises we will all get rich and never addresses the realities of the world and its brokenness in the church. Real economic and social issues— why, that’s too depressing. What does God care about that stuff, anyway?
Last, Anchorman Christianity preaches nostalgia, since people don’t really need to live in reality, don’t need to pay attention to what’s happening and don’t need to be... real. [1] Anchorman Christianity— it’s a world filled with dragons and unicorns. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Tanakh in the section known as The Writings in the portion called the Psalms, in the work known as Psalm 32. “Do not be like a horse or a mule, / without understanding, / whose temper must be curbed / with bit and bridle, / else it will not stay near you.” (Slight pause.)
Earlier I said one point Eric makes about Anchorman Christianity is we are the last defense against it, the last defense against dragons and unicorns. In short, we need to be both involved and educated to avoid being trapped by dragons and unicorns.
So, let me draw a parallel. Who stayed up late to watch the Oscars last Sunday? (Slight pause.) We have some. I did.
Part way through the proceedings the 75th Anniversary of the great picture The Wizard of Oz was marked with a celebration. It is one of my favorite films, there is no doubt about that. And I am glad they noted this anniversary.
But I did not hear in any media outlet any outcry of indignation because no mention was made of the other great film produced that same year. Indeed, although I think The Wizard is a great film, it actually lost money in it’s initial release. The other great film released the same year made over 100 times its production cost.
The Wizard won two Academy Awards. That other great film released the same year won eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture.
The Wizard told a fanciful, heart warming story— a wonderful story. But the other great film released that same year examined a personal tragedy set against a backdrop of national cataclysm— certainly more significant from the point of view of history, more significant from the point of view of social relations, more significant from the point of view of American freedom. That other great film was... Gone with the Wind.
Tell me, if The Wizard was recognized simply because it’s been 75 years since its release, why did Gone with the Wind not deserve at least the same recognition? Perhaps even more to the point, why has there been no hue and cry as to that lack of recognition.
Are we a society trapped in an Anchorman mentality, a society fixed on ignoring reality and truth? Are we a society trapped by dragons and unicorns? Perhaps we are. (Slight pause.)
For a moment let me take you through Psalm 32, since I think it deals with reality, truth. And I think dragons and unicorns are nowhere to be found in these words.
The song starts with an insistence that God is good, God is forgiving and the steadfast love of God endures forever— the basic message of the Gospel. In Romans Paul uses these words from this Psalm as the foundation for justification by faith. [2]
The truth, the reality of the goodness of God changes the focus of the Psalmist outward and places attention on others, shifts the focus of what the Psalmist says to one’s neighbor. Hence, forgiven and loved, we are called to teach others about the ways of God. This ministry of teaching is not presumptuous because this teaching is not a witness to one’s own ego but a witness to the love God offers.
Now, if we are called to bear witness to the love of God (and we are), to accomplish that God offers us an invitation to do something. We are invited to deal with reality and truth. Or, as the Psalmist puts it, we need to avoid being like (quote:) “a horse or a mule, without understanding.” (Slight pause.)
Earlier I mentioned millennials, this younger generation. You have probably often heard it said this group is not going to church, even though I mentioned two who are pastors. But there are a lot of institutions millennials are not frequenting or using. Church is merely one of many.
Why? Institutions have become involved in defending and even creating dragons and unicorns. Institutions have become involved in defending and even in creating dragons and unicorns despite the fact that dragons and unicorns do not exist.
Broadly, at least, millennials are not interested in these fantasies. From what I’ve seen, the motto of millennials is simple: get real; be real— especially when it comes to being in relationship with God. (Slight pause.)
Something we in the church need to understand about Scripture is this: the Bible is not like Aladdin’s lamp. [The pastor picks up a book and rubs it.] You cannot rub Scripture— (I’m sorry that’s a hymnal, I left the Bible back there) [this elicits a large laugh from the Congregation]— you cannot rub Scripture and think answers about God or about our life will magically appear. I personally know people who think that.
To use Scripture that way is to say the Bible lives in and supports a world of dragons and unicorns. It does not. Scripture, when examined studiously, is about reality, is about truth. So, Scripture can help us seek truth, seek reality.
Therefore, this should be obvious: one needs to study Scripture, one needs to grapple with Scripture in order to understand it. After all, this Psalm is very direct and even makes a claim about this straight out (quote): “Do not be like a horse or a mule, / without understanding,....” Amen.
03/09/2014
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: “When the Psalm was introduced this was said (quote): ‘The great writer of musical comedy, Oscar Hammerstein II, said song is what happens when the emotion being transmitted is too great to be conveyed by mere dialogue.’ And then Hammerstein wrote this lyric for the Musical South Pacific. ‘You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, / You’ve got to be taught from year to year, / It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, / You’ve got to be carefully taught.’ You see there is such a thing as false teaching. It’s what produces dragons and unicorns. And we are the last defense against it, the last defense when someone preaches that the love of God is not universal. And, if we don’t believe a message of hate— a message of dragons and unicorns is being preached in a lot of places— then we are not paying attention to what’s out there around us.”
[1] http://millennialpastor.net/2014/02/07/anchorman-christianity-9-steps-to-giving-people-what-they-want/
Note: this has been edited for size. The original is much longer.
[2] Texts for Preaching in the electronic version of this publication in the commentary about Psalm 32, the reading assigned for the day.
Understanding
“Do not be like a horse or a mule, / without understanding, / whose temper must be curbed / with bit and bridle, / else it will not stay near you.” — Psalm 32: 9.
Erik Parker is a Lutheran Pastor and also the writer of a blog I follow. The name of the blog is The Millennial Pastor. Eric is, you see, a part of the millennial generation.
According to the strict definition, a millennial is someone under 35. Eric both qualifies as a millennial and is a pastor in a Main Line denomination. Are millennial pastors rare?
While their numbers may be fewer than previous generations they are, perhaps, not as rare as you think. I, myself, was a mentor for a millennial pastor, Manda Adams, in our Susquehanna Association. She is now serving a church in the Buffalo area. Which is to emphasize you should not delude yourself: pastors who are also millennials are not like dragons or unicorns. They do exist.
At one point Manda was a member of an Open and Affirming United Church of Christ Congregation— a Congregation of 4,500— in Dallas, Texas. Which is also to emphasize you should not delude yourself: unlike dragons or unicorns an Open and Affirming United Church of Christ Congregation of 4,500 in Dallas, Texas also exists.
Back to Pastor Parker and his blog: in a recent post Eric insisted what the church does not need is Anchorman Christianity. For those unfamiliar with the movie Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and its current sequel, in using the term Anchorman Christianity Pastor Eric is not talking about real reporters who deliver real news.
Eric is addressing a certain strain of talking heads found in some media outlets, anchors who offer people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Of course, studies prove we don’t question inaccuracies that reenforce our own preconceived beliefs and/or prejudices. We accept them as true, even if they are dragons or unicorns.
Certainly one point Eric tries to make is we are the last defense against Anchorman Christianity. We are the last defense against these dragons and unicorns.
Now, in that blog Parker created a list to help identify what Anchorman Christianity looks like. To be clear: this list is very tongue in cheek and is meant to be funny. It is not meant to sound angry— some people might take it that was— it is not meant to sound angry, so please do see the humor in this.
So, to the list— first, Anchorman Christianity offers easy answers. After all, people don’t need good teaching and sound preaching. Easy answers are so much easier than in-depth explorations of faith, theology, history and ethics.
People also enjoy outrage, so Anchorman Christianity offers that. We are, by most counts, biologically inclined to respond viscerally to negative emotions like anger.
The media knows this well, says Eric. In church or on TV it is way easier to preach outrage— outrage about a range of issues from government to religion to personal agendas to money to the lack of money than to encourage people to grow in empathy and compassion.
Indeed, seeing the ‘other’ as human and their issues as problems we are called on to do something about takes work and a good measure of God’s help. After all, who has the energy to be calm, collected, compassionate, resourceful and tenacious? Outrage is easy.
Anchorman Christianity is evident when a preacher talks about the Bible people think they know as opposed to what the Bible really says. After all, the Bible says that God helps those who help themselves, says cleanliness is next to Godliness, says to thine own self be true, says love the sinner, hate the sin, says money is the root of all evil, says spare the rod, spoil the child.
No— the Bible says none of these. But it is undoubtedly more convenient to preach a Bible of fantasies and clichés, a Bible of dragons and unicorns than it is to preach on what is actually found in the pages of Scripture.
Anchorman Christianity also promises we will all get rich and never addresses the realities of the world and its brokenness in the church. Real economic and social issues— why, that’s too depressing. What does God care about that stuff, anyway?
Last, Anchorman Christianity preaches nostalgia, since people don’t really need to live in reality, don’t need to pay attention to what’s happening and don’t need to be... real. [1] Anchorman Christianity— it’s a world filled with dragons and unicorns. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Tanakh in the section known as The Writings in the portion called the Psalms, in the work known as Psalm 32. “Do not be like a horse or a mule, / without understanding, / whose temper must be curbed / with bit and bridle, / else it will not stay near you.” (Slight pause.)
Earlier I said one point Eric makes about Anchorman Christianity is we are the last defense against it, the last defense against dragons and unicorns. In short, we need to be both involved and educated to avoid being trapped by dragons and unicorns.
So, let me draw a parallel. Who stayed up late to watch the Oscars last Sunday? (Slight pause.) We have some. I did.
Part way through the proceedings the 75th Anniversary of the great picture The Wizard of Oz was marked with a celebration. It is one of my favorite films, there is no doubt about that. And I am glad they noted this anniversary.
But I did not hear in any media outlet any outcry of indignation because no mention was made of the other great film produced that same year. Indeed, although I think The Wizard is a great film, it actually lost money in it’s initial release. The other great film released the same year made over 100 times its production cost.
The Wizard won two Academy Awards. That other great film released the same year won eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture.
The Wizard told a fanciful, heart warming story— a wonderful story. But the other great film released that same year examined a personal tragedy set against a backdrop of national cataclysm— certainly more significant from the point of view of history, more significant from the point of view of social relations, more significant from the point of view of American freedom. That other great film was... Gone with the Wind.
Tell me, if The Wizard was recognized simply because it’s been 75 years since its release, why did Gone with the Wind not deserve at least the same recognition? Perhaps even more to the point, why has there been no hue and cry as to that lack of recognition.
Are we a society trapped in an Anchorman mentality, a society fixed on ignoring reality and truth? Are we a society trapped by dragons and unicorns? Perhaps we are. (Slight pause.)
For a moment let me take you through Psalm 32, since I think it deals with reality, truth. And I think dragons and unicorns are nowhere to be found in these words.
The song starts with an insistence that God is good, God is forgiving and the steadfast love of God endures forever— the basic message of the Gospel. In Romans Paul uses these words from this Psalm as the foundation for justification by faith. [2]
The truth, the reality of the goodness of God changes the focus of the Psalmist outward and places attention on others, shifts the focus of what the Psalmist says to one’s neighbor. Hence, forgiven and loved, we are called to teach others about the ways of God. This ministry of teaching is not presumptuous because this teaching is not a witness to one’s own ego but a witness to the love God offers.
Now, if we are called to bear witness to the love of God (and we are), to accomplish that God offers us an invitation to do something. We are invited to deal with reality and truth. Or, as the Psalmist puts it, we need to avoid being like (quote:) “a horse or a mule, without understanding.” (Slight pause.)
Earlier I mentioned millennials, this younger generation. You have probably often heard it said this group is not going to church, even though I mentioned two who are pastors. But there are a lot of institutions millennials are not frequenting or using. Church is merely one of many.
Why? Institutions have become involved in defending and even creating dragons and unicorns. Institutions have become involved in defending and even in creating dragons and unicorns despite the fact that dragons and unicorns do not exist.
Broadly, at least, millennials are not interested in these fantasies. From what I’ve seen, the motto of millennials is simple: get real; be real— especially when it comes to being in relationship with God. (Slight pause.)
Something we in the church need to understand about Scripture is this: the Bible is not like Aladdin’s lamp. [The pastor picks up a book and rubs it.] You cannot rub Scripture— (I’m sorry that’s a hymnal, I left the Bible back there) [this elicits a large laugh from the Congregation]— you cannot rub Scripture and think answers about God or about our life will magically appear. I personally know people who think that.
To use Scripture that way is to say the Bible lives in and supports a world of dragons and unicorns. It does not. Scripture, when examined studiously, is about reality, is about truth. So, Scripture can help us seek truth, seek reality.
Therefore, this should be obvious: one needs to study Scripture, one needs to grapple with Scripture in order to understand it. After all, this Psalm is very direct and even makes a claim about this straight out (quote): “Do not be like a horse or a mule, / without understanding,....” Amen.
03/09/2014
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: “When the Psalm was introduced this was said (quote): ‘The great writer of musical comedy, Oscar Hammerstein II, said song is what happens when the emotion being transmitted is too great to be conveyed by mere dialogue.’ And then Hammerstein wrote this lyric for the Musical South Pacific. ‘You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, / You’ve got to be taught from year to year, / It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, / You’ve got to be carefully taught.’ You see there is such a thing as false teaching. It’s what produces dragons and unicorns. And we are the last defense against it, the last defense when someone preaches that the love of God is not universal. And, if we don’t believe a message of hate— a message of dragons and unicorns is being preached in a lot of places— then we are not paying attention to what’s out there around us.”
[1] http://millennialpastor.net/2014/02/07/anchorman-christianity-9-steps-to-giving-people-what-they-want/
Note: this has been edited for size. The original is much longer.
[2] Texts for Preaching in the electronic version of this publication in the commentary about Psalm 32, the reading assigned for the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)