07/13/2014 ~ 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fifth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 10 ~ Genesis 25:19-34; Psalm 119:105-112; Isaiah 55:10-13; Psalm 65:(1-8), 9-13; Romans 8:1-11; Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Ceremony of .-: (Shalom) for Brooke Bonney.
In Parables
“Then the disciples came and asked Jesus, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’” — Matthew 13:10.
On a number of levels, really on any level, Pixar, the movie studio which makes animated films, is a great success story. It has produced only 14 films but among those are the three pictures in the Toy Story series and Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo and Up and The Incredibles. Odds are you recognized all those titles even if you did not see them.
The studio has racked up an astounding 27 Oscars. That’s not 27 nominations. That’s 27 Oscar wins in various categories. Their first film, Toy Story, was released in 1995, so that’s 27 Oscars for 14 films in less than twenty years.
Along with the late Steve Jobs of Apple Computer fame, one of the co-founders of Pixar Studios is Ed Catmull. Ed is currently the President of the firm and has lately been making the rounds of talk shows, promoting his book Creativity, Inc. In this work he tries to synthesize some lessons to be drawn from the experience of working at Pixar.
The first success at Pixar, Toy Story, was incredibly successful. And, as is often true with new ventures, success did not come easy.
On the other hand, Ed makes the point that what came after that first success was much, much harder. What was harder? Being successful the next time and the next time and the next time— 14 times in a row.
So, how did that happen? How is it Pixar that has had 14 successful moves and zero, nada, zilch flops? (Slight pause.)
Catmull has always said he us wary of maxims. He is suspicious of rules, because too often they turn out to be empty clichés, platitudes which impede thoughtfulness.
And, indeed, one piece of advice commonly given, a piece of advice we have all heard and largely accept this CEO says is inadequate. Catmull says he would replace “Trust the process” with “Trust the people”— rarely “Trust the process”— always “Trust the people.”
Even good people, he notes, get trapped by process when they follow it thoughtlessly. But when good people bring thoughtfulness— thoughtfulness— to bear on their work, you get results— results like 27 Oscars with 14 movies. Therefore, people are more important than process. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Matthew. “Then the disciples came and asked Jesus, ‘Why do you speak to them in parables?’” (Slight pause.)
So, what is a parable? (Slight pause.) Although Jesus has previously used metaphor in Matthew, in the Eleventh Chapter we, for the first time, encounter a story the writer of this Gospel labels as “parable.”
Parables purposefully use words and stories which have a wide range of meanings and functions. The categories used by parables include a figure of speech, a proverb, an aphorism, a riddle, a lesson, an allegory. In short, the term parable can apply to almost any kind of speech which is indirect, imprecise.
This kind of storytelling is indirect. Hence, the meaning of a parable cannot be settled on in as if it had a singular message. However, some meaning, if not a precise meaning, can be gleaned from the way parables function within the Gospels.
Put another way, it is not what parables mean which matters. It is how parables spur our thought process which matters.
Let me offer a definition of parable considered one of the best (quote): “The parable is a metaphor, a simile, a method of speech drawn from nature or common life. It engages the hearer by its vividness and/or its strangeness. Hence, it leaves us with doubt— it leaves us with doubt— about its precise application. Thereby, the function of a parable is to tease us into active thought.” The function of a parable is to tease us into active thought. (Slight pause.)
I often say this about the witness of Scripture. Scripture is not like checking the video tape in slow motion to see if a runner was tagged out. So, never, never, never ask what Scripture says. Always, always, always ask what Scripture means. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to Mr. Catmull and Pixar. As I said, he has one rule, one mantra: trust people. Why? Why trust people?
When you just trust the process— meaning when you do not put people first, when you fail to trust people— when you just trust the process, that is an invitation to passivity. Trusting process invites an individual to abdicate personal responsibility.
And when process is trusted over people, people become lulled, seduced by dull repetitions. When process is trusted too much, people produce empty versions of what was done before and limit their vision for the new.
I probably don’t need to remind you the eleventh commandment of the church is, “We’ve never done it that way before.” The unspoken implication of “We’ve never done it that way before” is: why should we try something new? Why should we do something different? Trust process!
Why, yes! That’s what we in the church should do— use the same process over and over and over again. Don’t trust people.
That doesn’t sound right to me. I hope it doesn’t sound right to you. (Slight pause.)
If you’re like me, you’ve probably heard the parable of the sower many times and may even have heard many sermons about the story. There are two obvious ways people tend to look it. One is to picture us, church people, as sowers. One is to picture church people as seed.
But I don’t think either of those tease us into active thought. Both the sower and the seed have to do with process. And active thought, not process, is the goal of the parable.
This suggests in order to glean any lesson in the story of the sower you should not look at any one aspect of the story. You need to look at the totality of the story.
And what constant is here? The soil— I think if there is any lesson in the story, we need to consider the ground, the dirt, the soil onto which the seed falls.
The sower will sow every time there is a planting and do so on all kinds of soil. The seed falls where the seed falls. But the ground— the ground is receptive or it is not.
Despite the fact that the ground just sits there, I want to suggest the ground is the active aspect of this story. And I want to suggest that we are the ground.
Are we receptive or we are not? Are we willing to be thoughtful or not? If we are receptive, thoughtful, then the process can live. But it’s people who make the process live. The process has no life on its own. (Slight pause.)
Now, what really interests me here is that God has an expectation of us. The expectation is that we, each of us, will be a part of the covenant God makes with humanity. When we participate in the Dominion of God, when we participate with the will of God, when we participate in the work of God, new life becomes possible.
Indeed, the expectation of God here is that we will be (quote:) “good soil.” Indeed, the expectation of God here is that we, the good soil, will yield (quote:) “a crop of grain some thirty, sixty or even a hundredfold of what was sown.” In short, I think the parable asks a simple question of us: ‘are we willing to be participants in the Dominion of God?’ (Slight pause.)
In a couple of minutes we will have a Ceremony of Shalom for Brooke Bonney, as she is off to college. I know Brooke fairly well. If memory serves, she has been with us at least since the age of three. (She is nodding her head ‘yes.’) And she has just been Confirmed.
I suspect she is, pardon the expression, good soil. We, the community of faith, have tried to surrounding her with our love and our support. And I, personally, have no doubt she will strive to pass that nurturing on. (Slight pause.)
Well, I suppose that’s what all this is really about is are we willing, ourselves, to be good soil? Are we willing to be a people who cultivate, a people to continue to think and grow, a people who do not become trapped by the process? (Slight pause.)
And why did Jesus speak in parables? Perhaps it was to tease us into active thought. Amen.
07/06/2014
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 words of Closing Hymn, Lead Us from Death to Life, say this: ‘Lead us from death to life, from falsehood to truth, despair to hope, fear to trust, hate to love, war to peace— let peace fill our hearts.’ It occurs that doesn’t happen without out thoughtful participation.”
BENEDICTION: 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, July 13, 2014
Monday, June 30, 2014
SERMON ~ 06/29/2014 ~ “Traveling Together”
06/29/2014 ~ Proper 8 ~ Thirteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ Genesis 22:1-14; Psalm 13; Jeremiah 28:5-9; Psalm 89:1-4, 15-18; Romans 6:12-23; Matthew 10:40-42 ~ Note: Matthew 10:24-39 Got Used (Previous Week’s Lectionary) ~ Annual Organizational Meeting in Our 200th Year ~ Communion Sunday ~ Ceremony of Shalom for Cathy Hammons ~ Dedication of the Bells ~ A Ceremony of Recognition as We Honor Members in Long Standing ~ Women of the Church Will Provide Breakfast for Men ~ Communion.
Traveling Together [1]
“The student should be glad to simply become like the teacher, the follower like the leader.” — Matthew 10:25a
Many moons ago when I arrived at Bangor Seminary I knew right away I was where I belonged. Why? The Rev. Dr. Marvin Ellison, the Rev. Dr. Susan Davies, the Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller and Dr. Ann Johnston were known to everyone as Marvin, Susan, Glenn and Ann.
The only exception to that was when we wanted to pull Susan’s leg. She had two doctorates, not one. So we would occasionally call her the Rev. Dr. Dr. or the Rev. Very Dr. Dr.
To be clear, it was not the informality that pleased me. What was evident is students were not studying under these teachers. We were studying with these teachers. We were studying, learning, growing together. (Slight pause.)
Over time I hope I have made a number of things clear as I have stood in this pulpit. Among the things I have tried to illuminate is that our own culture can get in the way of understanding what Scripture says. In the case of these particular words we heard from Mathew, I think our culture prevents us from seeing something that should be obvious.
You see there is no question about this: we live in a top-down culture, a culture that tends to place someone in charge. We, on the other hand, claim to be Congregationalists.
Unlike many denominations which are top-down, where only prelates have the final say, Congregationalists insist guidance and responsibilities are both shared and come from all parties, not just one. Indeed, that is one reason we elect officers, as we just have.
Hence, what I need you to notice about the 25th verse in the 10th Chapter of Matthew is the expectation that the student becomes like the teacher, the followed like leader. This is a situation of equity. This is not top down. I think too often our culture reads these words to say ‘always give deference to a leader, to a decider.’
That is exactly what it does not say. Yes, we all need some guidance. Yes, we all need to learn. Yes, we all need to grow.
However, once guidance is offered, learning assimilated, growth launched, the expectation of the Gospel is we will travel together. The expectation of the Gospel is we will together share guidance, responsibility, leadership.
Put another way, one thing which makes the Gospel challenging is it calls us to maturity. Further, there is an expectation that our day to day living will be maturely acted out— acted out in love, in compassion, with vigor, with patience, with understanding, with calm, with wisdom— all signs of maturity.
Put another way yet again, that sense of maturity to which the Gospel calls us should be displayed to everyone with whom we come in contact. Indeed, the Gospel call to us, therefore, is also a call to sense of maturity whereby we display a willingness to live in community with one another, a willingness to travel along the path of life together, a willingness to deeply touch each other’s lives. Indeed, to be a Christian means to live in community— community with all its beauty and all its flaws.
So, as we travel together into our 201st year as a community of faith, let each of us make a commitment to each other. Let us commit to being faithful to one another. Let us commit to sharing with one another. Let us commit to being a community willing to offer guidance to each other, to learn from each other, to grow together. Amen.
06/29/2014
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: “The bells we dedicated today are a good example of what I tried to illustrate in my comments. We got more bells to fill out harmonies. In short, one bell can play a note. Two or more can produce harmony.”
BENEDICTION: 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] Do note: given the activities mentioned above in today’s service, this sermon is brief.
Traveling Together [1]
“The student should be glad to simply become like the teacher, the follower like the leader.” — Matthew 10:25a
Many moons ago when I arrived at Bangor Seminary I knew right away I was where I belonged. Why? The Rev. Dr. Marvin Ellison, the Rev. Dr. Susan Davies, the Rev. Dr. Glenn Miller and Dr. Ann Johnston were known to everyone as Marvin, Susan, Glenn and Ann.
The only exception to that was when we wanted to pull Susan’s leg. She had two doctorates, not one. So we would occasionally call her the Rev. Dr. Dr. or the Rev. Very Dr. Dr.
To be clear, it was not the informality that pleased me. What was evident is students were not studying under these teachers. We were studying with these teachers. We were studying, learning, growing together. (Slight pause.)
Over time I hope I have made a number of things clear as I have stood in this pulpit. Among the things I have tried to illuminate is that our own culture can get in the way of understanding what Scripture says. In the case of these particular words we heard from Mathew, I think our culture prevents us from seeing something that should be obvious.
You see there is no question about this: we live in a top-down culture, a culture that tends to place someone in charge. We, on the other hand, claim to be Congregationalists.
Unlike many denominations which are top-down, where only prelates have the final say, Congregationalists insist guidance and responsibilities are both shared and come from all parties, not just one. Indeed, that is one reason we elect officers, as we just have.
Hence, what I need you to notice about the 25th verse in the 10th Chapter of Matthew is the expectation that the student becomes like the teacher, the followed like leader. This is a situation of equity. This is not top down. I think too often our culture reads these words to say ‘always give deference to a leader, to a decider.’
That is exactly what it does not say. Yes, we all need some guidance. Yes, we all need to learn. Yes, we all need to grow.
However, once guidance is offered, learning assimilated, growth launched, the expectation of the Gospel is we will travel together. The expectation of the Gospel is we will together share guidance, responsibility, leadership.
Put another way, one thing which makes the Gospel challenging is it calls us to maturity. Further, there is an expectation that our day to day living will be maturely acted out— acted out in love, in compassion, with vigor, with patience, with understanding, with calm, with wisdom— all signs of maturity.
Put another way yet again, that sense of maturity to which the Gospel calls us should be displayed to everyone with whom we come in contact. Indeed, the Gospel call to us, therefore, is also a call to sense of maturity whereby we display a willingness to live in community with one another, a willingness to travel along the path of life together, a willingness to deeply touch each other’s lives. Indeed, to be a Christian means to live in community— community with all its beauty and all its flaws.
So, as we travel together into our 201st year as a community of faith, let each of us make a commitment to each other. Let us commit to being faithful to one another. Let us commit to sharing with one another. Let us commit to being a community willing to offer guidance to each other, to learn from each other, to grow together. Amen.
06/29/2014
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: “The bells we dedicated today are a good example of what I tried to illustrate in my comments. We got more bells to fill out harmonies. In short, one bell can play a note. Two or more can produce harmony.”
BENEDICTION: 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] Do note: given the activities mentioned above in today’s service, this sermon is brief.
Friday, June 27, 2014
SERMON ~ 06/15/2014 ~ “Norwich, June 15th, 1845”
06/15/2014 ~ First Sunday after Pentecost ~ Known in Some Traditions as Trinity Sunday ~ Father’s Day on the Secular Calendar ~ Genesis 1:1-2:4a; Psalm 8; 2 Corinthians 13:11-13; Matthew 28:16-20 ~ A Union Service of Worship in West Park with First Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational and the Broad Street United Methodist Church in Celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the First Baptist Church and the 200th Anniversary of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational Followed by a Sharing a Meal.
NANCY:
These words are from the Gospel commonly called Matthew: “There {that is, on the mountain to which Jesus had directed them} the disciples saw the Risen Christ and fell down in homage and worshiped... but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:17).
[It should be noted this Sermon happened at a service in West Park, Norwich, New York. The current buildings which house the services of worship of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational border the park as does the Chenango County Courthouse. The Rev. Nancy Hale introduced the situation. The Rev. Mr. David Spiegel played the part of the Rev. Mr. Charles Johnson, the Pastor of the First Baptist Church. The Rev. Mr. Joseph Connolly played the part of the Rev. Mr. William Mason Richards, the Pastor of what was at that time known as the First Congregational Church.]
NANCY:
I need to ask you to use your imagination and paint a picture in your mind of what I am about to describe. You are here in Norwich, right where you find yourself now, except for one thing. The year is not 2014. The year is 1845. The date is the same as it is today. It is June the 15th. As it happens June the 15th, 1845 was also a Sunday. Yes, incredible as it seems, June the 15th, 1845 was also on a Sunday. But because you should be thinking that you are here in 1845, I ask that you put any modern sounds you might be hearing, like cars or horns out of you head. This is 1845. There are no cars. In 1845 the Chenango County Courthouse is already eight years old. [Nancy points to that building.] In 1845 the building in which the members of the First Baptist Church celebrate worship today, this building right here [Nancy points to the First Baptist Church], is in the process of being built. It is, in fact, nearing completion. This is a change in location for the Baptists, who had been conducting worship in a building on what is currently the East Park. From this time in 1845 right to the present day the building in which they worship will be and is across the way from the Congregationalists. The Congregational Meeting House is located on the same footprint as the current worship space. [Nancy points toward that building.] But it is not the same building. The structure in which the Congregationalists meet in 1845 is a building made of wood. It was built in 1819. It will burn down in 1860 and be replaced the following year by the brick structure in which their current worship space now resides. The Chenango Canal is also fairly new. The canal opened the same year as the courthouse, 1837. It will close in 1878 due to competition from the railroad. One more thing: in what you are about to hear, there will be a reference to a school 23 miles north on the canal. That school was then known as Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution. Today we know it as Colgate University.
That’s probably all you need to know to paint a picture in your mind of what is about to take place. And what is it which is about to take place? The pastor of the First Baptist Church in 1845, Charles Johnson, and the Pastor of the First Congregational Church in 1845, William Mason Richards, are about to meet here, between the two churches, for a little talk after their respective Sunday Services. One thing to note: we did not have a big enough budget to buy elaborate costumes, so you need to imagine these two pastors in period dress. And now, the talk between the two pastors.
JOE:
Mr. Johnson! Mr. Johnson! My, but it is good to see you. How is it going? ....the building... is it coming along on time?
DAVID:
Well, it seems to be, Mr. Richards. I guess people in this area learned a lot about working with stone when they built the courthouse and that canal. You do realize that not only the courthouse but all the 116 locks up and down the canal are made of stone.
JOE:
Oh, my yes. That blessed canal. If I was not a man of the cloth I would be using some pretty vile and harsh words about the canal.
DAVID:
My word, whatever do you mean? The canal is wonderful! It brought jobs to the county. It provides a fast, efficient way for our produce and our manufactured items to get to market— places as far away as New York City and Philadelphia! And, you know what the canal did? The canal has put Hamilton on the map. And you know what’s in Hamilton, do you not?
JOE:
Yes, yes, yes. I know.
DAVID:
Well, then say it!
JOE:
I shall not say it. I will not say it.
DAVID:
Then I shall. It put the Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution on the map. And, you know... it’s a Baptist School!
JOE:
Yes, yes, yes. The Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution— it’s a Baptist School. And Harvard and Yale are Congregational Schools.
DAVID:
Well, as far away from here as Harvard and Yale are, they might as well be in Europe. The Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution— imagine— it’s just 23 miles from here. And it’s a Baptist School. (Slight pause.) But tell me Mr. Richards, why is it you don’t like the canal, given the fine attributes I just outlined.
JOE:
It... it... it... smells.
DAVID:
That’s it? That’s your only complaint? It smells?
JOE:
I live my life by this rule: if it smells, something is rotten. If something is rotten something is wrong. As a man of the cloth, I mean to root out wrong. (Slight pause.) And besides, the canal will close.
DAVID:
The canal will close? Heaven forbid!
JOE:
You’ve heard of these things they call iron horses?
DAVID:
I’ve heard of them. I even rode on one.
JOE:
They will replace the canal.
DAVID:
I doubt it. Binghamton— and that’s a really big town— Binghamton does not even have any of those iron horses things yet. And it probably never will. Besides, I doubt they will ever amount to anything.
JOE:
Mark my word— in about 30 years time the iron horse will replace the canal.
DAVID:
You can’t be serious. I doubt that very much.
JOE:
And why do you doubt it? How can you doubt it? The iron horse represents change. You can’t stop change, you know. You can corral change; you can bend it, if you are diligent. No, you can’t stop change. But change can be forged into progress.
DAVID:
Iron horses are not progress.
JOE:
Whatever do you mean?
DAVID:
You just heard me say I’ve taken a ride on one of these iron horses, did you not?
JOE:
Why, yes I did.
DAVID:
Well then, the reason I say iron horses will not work, the reason I say iron horses are not a path to progress is the same reason you say you don’t like the canal.
JOE:
What are you getting at?
DAVID:
Have you ever taken a ride on an iron horse?
JOE:
Well, no.
DAVID:
They smell.
JOE:
They what?
DAVID:
They smell. They belch smoke; they snort coal dust; they exhale soot. And, when you ride one of these iron horse things, you can’t help but breathe in all that smoke, all that dust, all that soot. After I finished the ride I took and got off that dang contraption and not only did I smell of collected grime but I coughed and I coughed and I coughed for hours. Never again shall I even think about taking a ride on one of those contraptions. Give me a canal boat any day— quiet, calm, tranquil.
JOE:
Except when the horses and mules bray. But mark my word, the canal shall be a thing of the past very soon. The canal is not the way of progress. The canal sits in the way of progress.
DAVID:
But the canal is quiet. It’s calm. It’s tranquil. It’s even quick. It’s only 12 hours to Binghamton, five days to New York City. Now, that’s real progress. (Slight pause.)
JOE:
So tell me, what do your people think about progress? What do they think about the future? And whether or not they see an iron horse on the horizon, do they have.... doubts?
DAVID:
Doubts? Doubts about what?
JOE:
Doubts about the future.
DAVID:
How could we possibly have doubts? We’re putting up an edifice made of stone. This building will last forever.
JOE:
That’s what the Pharaohs did. They put up stone buildings. That’s what the Pharaohs said: ‘it will last forever.’ I like good solid wood buildings.
DAVID:
Wood does burn, you know. And I thought you were the one in favor of progress. Buildings of stone and brick and mortar— it’s the wave of the future. It’s the way to go. Stone is a symbol of progress. Stone is a symbol of change. The only question is will we, indeed, can we harness change? (Slight pause.)
JOE:
Maybe that’s the place from which doubt arises. I think we humans don’t like change. We like to be comfortable, quiet, tranquil. We like to be set in our ways. And we clearly don’t like doubt.
DAVID:
Well, you know what it says in Matthew 28: “...the disciples saw the Risen Christ and fell down in homage and worshiped... but some doubted.” Perhaps the disciples were simply comfortable and did not like the idea of change.
JOE:
Yes, but in that same Matthew passage right after those words, you know what the Risen Christ says? “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of Abba, God, and of the Only Begotten One, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have instructed. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
DAVID:
Well, perhaps that is the real difference between change and progress. Christ clearly instructed us to do. So, doing is our call! And, therefore, if change is a constant, it’s clear that the thing we can do and should do is to engage change and bend it, mold it until change does become progress.
JOE:
Yes, my friend, and when change is engaged, when change becomes progress, doubt is not banished. Doubt, indeed, is a necessary aspect of faith. To doubt is to be human. Therefore, if we don’t doubt, if we lack doubt, we lack faith. We have no faith. But, when we engage the world and all of the change the world brings, then doubt is still present. And when we engage the world doubt can be and is overcome. (Slight pause.)
DAVID:
Mr. Richards, I am always glad when I see you. We have such stimulating chats.
JOE:
Mr. Johnson, I am always glad to see you, since I know we are working toward the same goal: we work for the good of the people in this fair place called Norwich and we work toward the real goal of progress— that the realm of God is present in this place and in this time. (Slight pause.)
DAVID:
So, do you think that will be true— that we work for the good of the people of Norwich and that the real goal is progress toward the realm of God in— I don’t know— pick a date, pick a year— let’s say in the year 2014— in 2014 will it still be true?
JOE:
Of course it will be true. It will be true if we remain friends in Christ, one in Christ. If we are friends in Christ, one in Christ, then all things are possible. And, I might add, remaining friends in Christ? I firmly believe that’s the only thing that shall never change.
DAVID:
Amen.
JOE:
And again, amen.
06/15/2014
A Union Service of Worship in West Park with First Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational and the Broad Street United Methodist Church in Celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the First Baptist Church and the 200th Anniversary of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational Followed by a Sharing a Meal.
Norwich, June 15th, 1845
NANCY:
These words are from the Gospel commonly called Matthew: “There {that is, on the mountain to which Jesus had directed them} the disciples saw the Risen Christ and fell down in homage and worshiped... but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:17).
[It should be noted this Sermon happened at a service in West Park, Norwich, New York. The current buildings which house the services of worship of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational border the park as does the Chenango County Courthouse. The Rev. Nancy Hale introduced the situation. The Rev. Mr. David Spiegel played the part of the Rev. Mr. Charles Johnson, the Pastor of the First Baptist Church. The Rev. Mr. Joseph Connolly played the part of the Rev. Mr. William Mason Richards, the Pastor of what was at that time known as the First Congregational Church.]
NANCY:
I need to ask you to use your imagination and paint a picture in your mind of what I am about to describe. You are here in Norwich, right where you find yourself now, except for one thing. The year is not 2014. The year is 1845. The date is the same as it is today. It is June the 15th. As it happens June the 15th, 1845 was also a Sunday. Yes, incredible as it seems, June the 15th, 1845 was also on a Sunday. But because you should be thinking that you are here in 1845, I ask that you put any modern sounds you might be hearing, like cars or horns out of you head. This is 1845. There are no cars. In 1845 the Chenango County Courthouse is already eight years old. [Nancy points to that building.] In 1845 the building in which the members of the First Baptist Church celebrate worship today, this building right here [Nancy points to the First Baptist Church], is in the process of being built. It is, in fact, nearing completion. This is a change in location for the Baptists, who had been conducting worship in a building on what is currently the East Park. From this time in 1845 right to the present day the building in which they worship will be and is across the way from the Congregationalists. The Congregational Meeting House is located on the same footprint as the current worship space. [Nancy points toward that building.] But it is not the same building. The structure in which the Congregationalists meet in 1845 is a building made of wood. It was built in 1819. It will burn down in 1860 and be replaced the following year by the brick structure in which their current worship space now resides. The Chenango Canal is also fairly new. The canal opened the same year as the courthouse, 1837. It will close in 1878 due to competition from the railroad. One more thing: in what you are about to hear, there will be a reference to a school 23 miles north on the canal. That school was then known as Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution. Today we know it as Colgate University.
That’s probably all you need to know to paint a picture in your mind of what is about to take place. And what is it which is about to take place? The pastor of the First Baptist Church in 1845, Charles Johnson, and the Pastor of the First Congregational Church in 1845, William Mason Richards, are about to meet here, between the two churches, for a little talk after their respective Sunday Services. One thing to note: we did not have a big enough budget to buy elaborate costumes, so you need to imagine these two pastors in period dress. And now, the talk between the two pastors.
JOE:
Mr. Johnson! Mr. Johnson! My, but it is good to see you. How is it going? ....the building... is it coming along on time?
DAVID:
Well, it seems to be, Mr. Richards. I guess people in this area learned a lot about working with stone when they built the courthouse and that canal. You do realize that not only the courthouse but all the 116 locks up and down the canal are made of stone.
JOE:
Oh, my yes. That blessed canal. If I was not a man of the cloth I would be using some pretty vile and harsh words about the canal.
DAVID:
My word, whatever do you mean? The canal is wonderful! It brought jobs to the county. It provides a fast, efficient way for our produce and our manufactured items to get to market— places as far away as New York City and Philadelphia! And, you know what the canal did? The canal has put Hamilton on the map. And you know what’s in Hamilton, do you not?
JOE:
Yes, yes, yes. I know.
DAVID:
Well, then say it!
JOE:
I shall not say it. I will not say it.
DAVID:
Then I shall. It put the Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution on the map. And, you know... it’s a Baptist School!
JOE:
Yes, yes, yes. The Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution— it’s a Baptist School. And Harvard and Yale are Congregational Schools.
DAVID:
Well, as far away from here as Harvard and Yale are, they might as well be in Europe. The Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution— imagine— it’s just 23 miles from here. And it’s a Baptist School. (Slight pause.) But tell me Mr. Richards, why is it you don’t like the canal, given the fine attributes I just outlined.
JOE:
It... it... it... smells.
DAVID:
That’s it? That’s your only complaint? It smells?
JOE:
I live my life by this rule: if it smells, something is rotten. If something is rotten something is wrong. As a man of the cloth, I mean to root out wrong. (Slight pause.) And besides, the canal will close.
DAVID:
The canal will close? Heaven forbid!
JOE:
You’ve heard of these things they call iron horses?
DAVID:
I’ve heard of them. I even rode on one.
JOE:
They will replace the canal.
DAVID:
I doubt it. Binghamton— and that’s a really big town— Binghamton does not even have any of those iron horses things yet. And it probably never will. Besides, I doubt they will ever amount to anything.
JOE:
Mark my word— in about 30 years time the iron horse will replace the canal.
DAVID:
You can’t be serious. I doubt that very much.
JOE:
And why do you doubt it? How can you doubt it? The iron horse represents change. You can’t stop change, you know. You can corral change; you can bend it, if you are diligent. No, you can’t stop change. But change can be forged into progress.
DAVID:
Iron horses are not progress.
JOE:
Whatever do you mean?
DAVID:
You just heard me say I’ve taken a ride on one of these iron horses, did you not?
JOE:
Why, yes I did.
DAVID:
Well then, the reason I say iron horses will not work, the reason I say iron horses are not a path to progress is the same reason you say you don’t like the canal.
JOE:
What are you getting at?
DAVID:
Have you ever taken a ride on an iron horse?
JOE:
Well, no.
DAVID:
They smell.
JOE:
They what?
DAVID:
They smell. They belch smoke; they snort coal dust; they exhale soot. And, when you ride one of these iron horse things, you can’t help but breathe in all that smoke, all that dust, all that soot. After I finished the ride I took and got off that dang contraption and not only did I smell of collected grime but I coughed and I coughed and I coughed for hours. Never again shall I even think about taking a ride on one of those contraptions. Give me a canal boat any day— quiet, calm, tranquil.
JOE:
Except when the horses and mules bray. But mark my word, the canal shall be a thing of the past very soon. The canal is not the way of progress. The canal sits in the way of progress.
DAVID:
But the canal is quiet. It’s calm. It’s tranquil. It’s even quick. It’s only 12 hours to Binghamton, five days to New York City. Now, that’s real progress. (Slight pause.)
JOE:
So tell me, what do your people think about progress? What do they think about the future? And whether or not they see an iron horse on the horizon, do they have.... doubts?
DAVID:
Doubts? Doubts about what?
JOE:
Doubts about the future.
DAVID:
How could we possibly have doubts? We’re putting up an edifice made of stone. This building will last forever.
JOE:
That’s what the Pharaohs did. They put up stone buildings. That’s what the Pharaohs said: ‘it will last forever.’ I like good solid wood buildings.
DAVID:
Wood does burn, you know. And I thought you were the one in favor of progress. Buildings of stone and brick and mortar— it’s the wave of the future. It’s the way to go. Stone is a symbol of progress. Stone is a symbol of change. The only question is will we, indeed, can we harness change? (Slight pause.)
JOE:
Maybe that’s the place from which doubt arises. I think we humans don’t like change. We like to be comfortable, quiet, tranquil. We like to be set in our ways. And we clearly don’t like doubt.
DAVID:
Well, you know what it says in Matthew 28: “...the disciples saw the Risen Christ and fell down in homage and worshiped... but some doubted.” Perhaps the disciples were simply comfortable and did not like the idea of change.
JOE:
Yes, but in that same Matthew passage right after those words, you know what the Risen Christ says? “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of Abba, God, and of the Only Begotten One, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have instructed. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
DAVID:
Well, perhaps that is the real difference between change and progress. Christ clearly instructed us to do. So, doing is our call! And, therefore, if change is a constant, it’s clear that the thing we can do and should do is to engage change and bend it, mold it until change does become progress.
JOE:
Yes, my friend, and when change is engaged, when change becomes progress, doubt is not banished. Doubt, indeed, is a necessary aspect of faith. To doubt is to be human. Therefore, if we don’t doubt, if we lack doubt, we lack faith. We have no faith. But, when we engage the world and all of the change the world brings, then doubt is still present. And when we engage the world doubt can be and is overcome. (Slight pause.)
DAVID:
Mr. Richards, I am always glad when I see you. We have such stimulating chats.
JOE:
Mr. Johnson, I am always glad to see you, since I know we are working toward the same goal: we work for the good of the people in this fair place called Norwich and we work toward the real goal of progress— that the realm of God is present in this place and in this time. (Slight pause.)
DAVID:
So, do you think that will be true— that we work for the good of the people of Norwich and that the real goal is progress toward the realm of God in— I don’t know— pick a date, pick a year— let’s say in the year 2014— in 2014 will it still be true?
JOE:
Of course it will be true. It will be true if we remain friends in Christ, one in Christ. If we are friends in Christ, one in Christ, then all things are possible. And, I might add, remaining friends in Christ? I firmly believe that’s the only thing that shall never change.
DAVID:
Amen.
JOE:
And again, amen.
06/15/2014
A Union Service of Worship in West Park with First Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational and the Broad Street United Methodist Church in Celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the First Baptist Church and the 200th Anniversary of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational Followed by a Sharing a Meal.
Monday, June 9, 2014
SERMON ~ 06/08/2014 ~ Day of Pentecost ~ Seeing Visions; Dreaming Dreams
06/08/2014 ~ Day of Pentecost ~ A Celebration of the Rite of Confirmation ~ Baptism of Corey Johnson ~ Music Sunday ~ Acts 2:1-21 or Numbers 11:24-30; Psalm 104:24-34, 35b; 1 Corinthians 12:3b-13 or Acts 2:1-21; John 20:19-23 or John 7:37-39.
Seeing Visions; Dreaming Dreams [1]
“Your sons and your daughters will prophesy / and your young people will see visions / and your elders will dream dreams.” — Acts 2:17b.
I, personally, do not doubt God wants us to see visions and dream dreams. More particularly, I believe God wants us to see the visions God has for humanity and God wants us to dream the dreams God has for humanity. That begs the question: how do we humans get there, get to a place we are and can be empowered to see the visions and dream the dreams God would have us see and dream? (Slight pause.)
We will confirm three teens and one adult today. And, given our Protestant heritage— the priesthood of all believers— I, personally, think every adult should seek to be confirmed— seek to be confirmed— at least every fifteen to twenty years. Why? Well, why would any of us not want an opportunity to mature, to learn, to grow, to engage, to grapple with our faith?
After all, how else might we come to a place we are and can be empowered to see the visions and dream the dreams God would have us see and dream, if not by growing, if not through growth? Now, in fact, when we strive toward a maturity of faith, strive to learn, to grow, to engage, to grapple with our faith might that be just a little frightening? Perhaps— but is that a reason to not do it? (Slight pause.)
Theologian and Pastor, Rev. Brian McLaren says this (quote:) “You are not finished yet. You are ‘in the making.’ You have the capacity to learn, mature, think, change and grow. You also have the freedom to stagnate, regress, constrict and lose your way. Which road will you take?” {unquote} (Slight pause.)
It seems to me, as Christians, we have a pretty clear choice. Growth may sometimes be painful but I think we are called to growth by the Holy Spirit.
Or, in the words of Saint Catherine of Sienna, “Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.” Setting the world on fire: last time I looked that is supposed to be why we, as a church, practice the Rite of Confirmation. And that is why I, as a pastor, recommend not just Confirmation for our youth. I recommend adult Confirmation. Adult Confirmation is, you see, an opportunity for growth in the Spirit. Who would want less? Amen.
06/08/2015
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: “Author H. G. Wells said this (quote;) ‘Human history is more and more a race between education and catastrophe.’ On the more optimistic side, Winston Churchill said this: ‘Success is not final; failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.’”
BENEDICTION
The love of God is abundant and steadfast. When we give God’s love away, it returns in breathtaking abundance. Let us willingly participate in the grace God offers. May we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be in awe of God enough, that we need be in awe of nothing and no one else. And may the Word of God be on our tongues, the wisdom of God be with our thinking and the love of God be present in our hearts. Amen.
[1] Given that in this service there was a Baptism, Confirmation and we celebrated Music Sunday, this is a short Homily.
Seeing Visions; Dreaming Dreams [1]
“Your sons and your daughters will prophesy / and your young people will see visions / and your elders will dream dreams.” — Acts 2:17b.
I, personally, do not doubt God wants us to see visions and dream dreams. More particularly, I believe God wants us to see the visions God has for humanity and God wants us to dream the dreams God has for humanity. That begs the question: how do we humans get there, get to a place we are and can be empowered to see the visions and dream the dreams God would have us see and dream? (Slight pause.)
We will confirm three teens and one adult today. And, given our Protestant heritage— the priesthood of all believers— I, personally, think every adult should seek to be confirmed— seek to be confirmed— at least every fifteen to twenty years. Why? Well, why would any of us not want an opportunity to mature, to learn, to grow, to engage, to grapple with our faith?
After all, how else might we come to a place we are and can be empowered to see the visions and dream the dreams God would have us see and dream, if not by growing, if not through growth? Now, in fact, when we strive toward a maturity of faith, strive to learn, to grow, to engage, to grapple with our faith might that be just a little frightening? Perhaps— but is that a reason to not do it? (Slight pause.)
Theologian and Pastor, Rev. Brian McLaren says this (quote:) “You are not finished yet. You are ‘in the making.’ You have the capacity to learn, mature, think, change and grow. You also have the freedom to stagnate, regress, constrict and lose your way. Which road will you take?” {unquote} (Slight pause.)
It seems to me, as Christians, we have a pretty clear choice. Growth may sometimes be painful but I think we are called to growth by the Holy Spirit.
Or, in the words of Saint Catherine of Sienna, “Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire.” Setting the world on fire: last time I looked that is supposed to be why we, as a church, practice the Rite of Confirmation. And that is why I, as a pastor, recommend not just Confirmation for our youth. I recommend adult Confirmation. Adult Confirmation is, you see, an opportunity for growth in the Spirit. Who would want less? Amen.
06/08/2015
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: “Author H. G. Wells said this (quote;) ‘Human history is more and more a race between education and catastrophe.’ On the more optimistic side, Winston Churchill said this: ‘Success is not final; failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.’”
BENEDICTION
The love of God is abundant and steadfast. When we give God’s love away, it returns in breathtaking abundance. Let us willingly participate in the grace God offers. May we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be in awe of God enough, that we need be in awe of nothing and no one else. And may the Word of God be on our tongues, the wisdom of God be with our thinking and the love of God be present in our hearts. Amen.
[1] Given that in this service there was a Baptism, Confirmation and we celebrated Music Sunday, this is a short Homily.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
SERMON ~ "The Paraclete" ~ 05/25/2014 ~ Sixth Sunday of Easter
05/25/2014 ~ Sixth Sunday of Easter ~ Acts 17:22-31; Psalm 66:8-20; 1 Peter 3:13-22; John 14:15-21 ~ Memorial Day Weekend on the Secular Calendar.
The Paraclete
[Jesus said:] “....I will ask the One who sent me to give you another Advocate, another Paraclete, another Helper, to be with you always, forever— the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot accept, since the world neither sees Her nor recognizes Her. But you can recognize the Spirit, because She remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you.” — John 14:16-17.
George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart were both writing collaborators and theater titans. While Kaufman became famous about a decade earlier than Hart, their mutual notoriety lasted from the early 1930s through the early 1960s. Together but also separately, they wrote plays, musicals, reviews, directed and produced shows.
In 1938 together they wrote a play— The Fabulous Invalid. In part, the tale offered lamentations on how the theater of that era, a long, long time ago was dying.
Despite this premature obituary the institution known as theater somehow survives and lives on. Indeed, both Kaufman and Hart continued to have another two decades in which they were fabulously successful in the theatrical trade.
The name of that play, The Fabulous Invalid, has been and remains a code name for the theater. Why? It always seems like theater is dying— that is until the next hit production.
And yes, theater people often lament the theater is dying. That is, until they, themselves, become involved with the next hit production. In short, the theater just seems like it’s always dying. It’s not.
I suspect the real reason theater survives is because we are a race of story tellers. Theater is, you see, about telling stories. Further, I maintain one of the things which makes us human is we tell stories.
We tell stories to communicate, to make sense of the world around us. The art of telling stories— a central aspect of theater— will always be with us.
Now, that title— The Fabulous Invalid— is one many would apply to the church. After all, how often have you heard it said the church is dying?
It’s likely that was said about three days after Pentecost. It’s likely many of us have said it. And it can be readily argued Christianity in Europe and North America is in decline today— at least in terms of numbers, attendance, budgets, societal influence.
On the other hand, Lutheran Nadia Bolz-Weber recently published a sermon: Stop Saying the Church Is Dying. She draws a distinction between the cultural church— a church that probably is in decline— against a church who proclaims the Gospel, administers sacraments, names as sin the brokenness we find in the world.
Another Lutheran, Erik Parker, says what’s actually happening is not that the church is dying. Rather, the church is in transition, transforming from what for a number of generations it has been. Further, there is a serious flaw in saying the church is dying, especially if the self-centered implication is we today are killing the church.
Consider the weight of that claim over the course of 2,000 years of history. You see, at first the church barely survived getting off the ground. Even a cursory look at the facts will tell you it took nearly 400 years before the church could be called a viable institution within society.
Right after that, the church survived the trauma of becoming imperial, being designated as the religion of the state and taking on the failed structure of that state. Next, the church survived going to war— the Crusades. Then the church survived the Great Schism— East and West— something we in the West barely acknowledge— because those folks over there don’t count— right? I think not.
Still later the church survived the stress of reformations, the rancor of counter-reformations. The church survived the discovery of the so called new worlds.
The church survived numerous splits, scientific revolutions, nationalism, revivals, charismatic movements, global wars. (Slight pause.) And we think we can kill the church today? [1] Come on! (Slight pause.)
So, let me ask an obvious question: is the reason church survives not because we are an institution but because we are story tellers who tell the story of the love of God? Is the reason the church survives not because we are an institution but because we strive to understand and communicate the love of God, because we strive to be... relational? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as the Gospel According to the School of John— [Jesus said:] “...I will ask the One who sent me to give you another Advocate, another Paraclete, another Helper, to be with you always, forever— the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot accept, since the world neither sees Her nor recognizes Her. But you can recognize the Spirit, because she remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you.” (Slight pause.)
There is no question about this. We are conditioned by our culture to recognize some things and ignore others.
A case in point (quote): “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Slight pause.) What is most important, the prime word in this sentence? (Slight pause.) Our culture would insist ‘commandments’ is the important piece. And our culture would be wrong.
Throughout Scripture one thing is absolutely clear: the prime imperative is love. And love is, in every sense, the only commandment. All else is superfluous.
Put differently, God does not demand, command, compel, require, force, dictate, order, burden, saddle, mandate. God invites... God invites love. It is human society, our social context and its structures which demand, command, compel, require, force, dictate, order, burden, saddle, mandate. (Slight pause.)
If God invites love, the church is by definition more than an institution. The church is by definition a Spirit-led community proclaiming the gospel, administering sacraments, naming as sin the brokenness we find in the world. If God invites love, the church will exist long after structures of the current institutions are gone. (Slight pause.)
In saying we are a Spirit led community, not a structurally bound institution, I am also suggesting we mis-read Scripture. We read Scripture through a parochial, cultural lens. Our cultural lens instructs us to demand, command, compel, require, force, dictate, order, burden, saddle, mandate and presumes the church should do likewise. (Slight pause.)
But how did Jesus read Scripture? Did Jesus use the cultural lens of the Roman Empire, a cultural lens for which force was the imperative or did Jesus use a lens which sought to be led by the Spirit? (Slight pause.)
Methodist Adam Hamilton says the method Jesus used in reading Scripture is pretty clear. Jesus never set out doctrine or dogma or read scripture in a wooden way.
Jesus clearly favored passages that portray a God of mercy, a God who invites love. In short, Jesus was led by the Spirit in reading Scripture and did not try to tweak instruments of violence out of every jot and tittle. [2] (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to the fabulous invalid known as the church. It is Jesus who refers to (quote): “the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot accept,”— the world cannot accept— and then says (quote): “...you can recognize the Spirit, because She remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you.”
So, the challenge set forth here for us is to read the Scripture the same way Jesus did. Clearly, when we become enamored of a lens which encompasses only our own parochial, limited cultural context, we will see the church as dying.
On the other hand, when we read the words of Scripture with Spirit filled hearts and minds— then what Jesus says (quote): “you can recognize the Spirit, because She remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you”— what Jesus says will be both empowering and will empower us. You see, when we do read the words of Scripture with Spirit filled hearts and minds we are invited to love.
Further, when we read the words of Scripture with Spirit filled hearts and minds, we are invited to communicate to all people that the prime imperative is love. Put another way, we are invited to tell the story Jesus tells about God who loves. And we are invited to relate to each other. (Slight pause.) Love is, you see, is the only commandment. (Slight pause.)
Oh, and you know that thing our denomination— the United Church of Christ— keeps saying: “God is still speaking”? That’s what this Spirit of Truth, this Advocate, this Paraclete, this Helper is about: God is still speaking. 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: “Earlier, I claimed the Spirit is still speaking. Well, you heard and anthem today by Lloyd Larson. Mr. Larson adapted a poem by Samuel Longfellow, altered the words and made a really lovely anthem. We also sang a hymn for an Affirmation of Faith. I chose that hymn out of the 1904 Pilgrim Hymnal without realizing it was the same Samuel Longfellow poem. But Mr. Larson had changed the words of Longfellow just enough that at first I did not know it was the same poem. And, guess what? The words were different enough so that they were not they not the same, but they simply complimented each other. Now what was that I said? I think I said the Spirit is still speaking. What do you think? I think ‘yes.’”
BENEDICTION: Let us never fear to seek the truth God reveals. Let us live as a resurrection people. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith as the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] http://millennialpastor.net/2014/05/18/can-we-kill-the-church/
[2] Adam Hamilton, Making Sense of the Bible, HarperOne, © 2014, pg. 54.
The Paraclete
[Jesus said:] “....I will ask the One who sent me to give you another Advocate, another Paraclete, another Helper, to be with you always, forever— the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot accept, since the world neither sees Her nor recognizes Her. But you can recognize the Spirit, because She remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you.” — John 14:16-17.
George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart were both writing collaborators and theater titans. While Kaufman became famous about a decade earlier than Hart, their mutual notoriety lasted from the early 1930s through the early 1960s. Together but also separately, they wrote plays, musicals, reviews, directed and produced shows.
In 1938 together they wrote a play— The Fabulous Invalid. In part, the tale offered lamentations on how the theater of that era, a long, long time ago was dying.
Despite this premature obituary the institution known as theater somehow survives and lives on. Indeed, both Kaufman and Hart continued to have another two decades in which they were fabulously successful in the theatrical trade.
The name of that play, The Fabulous Invalid, has been and remains a code name for the theater. Why? It always seems like theater is dying— that is until the next hit production.
And yes, theater people often lament the theater is dying. That is, until they, themselves, become involved with the next hit production. In short, the theater just seems like it’s always dying. It’s not.
I suspect the real reason theater survives is because we are a race of story tellers. Theater is, you see, about telling stories. Further, I maintain one of the things which makes us human is we tell stories.
We tell stories to communicate, to make sense of the world around us. The art of telling stories— a central aspect of theater— will always be with us.
Now, that title— The Fabulous Invalid— is one many would apply to the church. After all, how often have you heard it said the church is dying?
It’s likely that was said about three days after Pentecost. It’s likely many of us have said it. And it can be readily argued Christianity in Europe and North America is in decline today— at least in terms of numbers, attendance, budgets, societal influence.
On the other hand, Lutheran Nadia Bolz-Weber recently published a sermon: Stop Saying the Church Is Dying. She draws a distinction between the cultural church— a church that probably is in decline— against a church who proclaims the Gospel, administers sacraments, names as sin the brokenness we find in the world.
Another Lutheran, Erik Parker, says what’s actually happening is not that the church is dying. Rather, the church is in transition, transforming from what for a number of generations it has been. Further, there is a serious flaw in saying the church is dying, especially if the self-centered implication is we today are killing the church.
Consider the weight of that claim over the course of 2,000 years of history. You see, at first the church barely survived getting off the ground. Even a cursory look at the facts will tell you it took nearly 400 years before the church could be called a viable institution within society.
Right after that, the church survived the trauma of becoming imperial, being designated as the religion of the state and taking on the failed structure of that state. Next, the church survived going to war— the Crusades. Then the church survived the Great Schism— East and West— something we in the West barely acknowledge— because those folks over there don’t count— right? I think not.
Still later the church survived the stress of reformations, the rancor of counter-reformations. The church survived the discovery of the so called new worlds.
The church survived numerous splits, scientific revolutions, nationalism, revivals, charismatic movements, global wars. (Slight pause.) And we think we can kill the church today? [1] Come on! (Slight pause.)
So, let me ask an obvious question: is the reason church survives not because we are an institution but because we are story tellers who tell the story of the love of God? Is the reason the church survives not because we are an institution but because we strive to understand and communicate the love of God, because we strive to be... relational? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as the Gospel According to the School of John— [Jesus said:] “...I will ask the One who sent me to give you another Advocate, another Paraclete, another Helper, to be with you always, forever— the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot accept, since the world neither sees Her nor recognizes Her. But you can recognize the Spirit, because she remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you.” (Slight pause.)
There is no question about this. We are conditioned by our culture to recognize some things and ignore others.
A case in point (quote): “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Slight pause.) What is most important, the prime word in this sentence? (Slight pause.) Our culture would insist ‘commandments’ is the important piece. And our culture would be wrong.
Throughout Scripture one thing is absolutely clear: the prime imperative is love. And love is, in every sense, the only commandment. All else is superfluous.
Put differently, God does not demand, command, compel, require, force, dictate, order, burden, saddle, mandate. God invites... God invites love. It is human society, our social context and its structures which demand, command, compel, require, force, dictate, order, burden, saddle, mandate. (Slight pause.)
If God invites love, the church is by definition more than an institution. The church is by definition a Spirit-led community proclaiming the gospel, administering sacraments, naming as sin the brokenness we find in the world. If God invites love, the church will exist long after structures of the current institutions are gone. (Slight pause.)
In saying we are a Spirit led community, not a structurally bound institution, I am also suggesting we mis-read Scripture. We read Scripture through a parochial, cultural lens. Our cultural lens instructs us to demand, command, compel, require, force, dictate, order, burden, saddle, mandate and presumes the church should do likewise. (Slight pause.)
But how did Jesus read Scripture? Did Jesus use the cultural lens of the Roman Empire, a cultural lens for which force was the imperative or did Jesus use a lens which sought to be led by the Spirit? (Slight pause.)
Methodist Adam Hamilton says the method Jesus used in reading Scripture is pretty clear. Jesus never set out doctrine or dogma or read scripture in a wooden way.
Jesus clearly favored passages that portray a God of mercy, a God who invites love. In short, Jesus was led by the Spirit in reading Scripture and did not try to tweak instruments of violence out of every jot and tittle. [2] (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to the fabulous invalid known as the church. It is Jesus who refers to (quote): “the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot accept,”— the world cannot accept— and then says (quote): “...you can recognize the Spirit, because She remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you.”
So, the challenge set forth here for us is to read the Scripture the same way Jesus did. Clearly, when we become enamored of a lens which encompasses only our own parochial, limited cultural context, we will see the church as dying.
On the other hand, when we read the words of Scripture with Spirit filled hearts and minds— then what Jesus says (quote): “you can recognize the Spirit, because She remains with you and will abide with you, and will be within you”— what Jesus says will be both empowering and will empower us. You see, when we do read the words of Scripture with Spirit filled hearts and minds we are invited to love.
Further, when we read the words of Scripture with Spirit filled hearts and minds, we are invited to communicate to all people that the prime imperative is love. Put another way, we are invited to tell the story Jesus tells about God who loves. And we are invited to relate to each other. (Slight pause.) Love is, you see, is the only commandment. (Slight pause.)
Oh, and you know that thing our denomination— the United Church of Christ— keeps saying: “God is still speaking”? That’s what this Spirit of Truth, this Advocate, this Paraclete, this Helper is about: God is still speaking. 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: “Earlier, I claimed the Spirit is still speaking. Well, you heard and anthem today by Lloyd Larson. Mr. Larson adapted a poem by Samuel Longfellow, altered the words and made a really lovely anthem. We also sang a hymn for an Affirmation of Faith. I chose that hymn out of the 1904 Pilgrim Hymnal without realizing it was the same Samuel Longfellow poem. But Mr. Larson had changed the words of Longfellow just enough that at first I did not know it was the same poem. And, guess what? The words were different enough so that they were not they not the same, but they simply complimented each other. Now what was that I said? I think I said the Spirit is still speaking. What do you think? I think ‘yes.’”
BENEDICTION: Let us never fear to seek the truth God reveals. Let us live as a resurrection people. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith as the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] http://millennialpastor.net/2014/05/18/can-we-kill-the-church/
[2] Adam Hamilton, Making Sense of the Bible, HarperOne, © 2014, pg. 54.
Monday, May 19, 2014
SERMON ~ 05/18/2014 ~ “Chosen”
05/18/2014 ~ Fifth Sunday of Easter ~ Acts 7:55-60 ; Psalm 31:1-5, 15-16; 1 Peter 2:2-10; John 14:1-14.
Chosen
“...you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim, praise and sing about the acts of the One who called you out of the night into the divine light— the marvelous light— of God.” — 1 Peter 2:9.
This church, the Norwich United Church of Christ, First Congregational, is now and has historically been known for its musicians, its music program, its support of music in the community. Indeed, many of our parishioners are musicians or know music well.
While some parishioners are not musicians let me go out on a limb with a generality: all our parishioners are at least familiar with music and/or have a deep appreciation of music, a culture of music. That’s one reason this church is known for its music. It’s a part of our culture.
That having been said, perhaps one reason I am the pastor with this congregation is because of my own background and appreciation of music. I have noted this here before, but let me say it again. I am a member of A.S.C.A.P., the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers as a lyricist.
Now, I think most of us know this about music but for a moment, let me lay out one basic. In choral singing, there are four primary parts: soprano, alto and variations thereof for women; tenor, bass and variations thereof for men. One voicing less well known is called countertenor— countertenor— one word not two.
A countertenor is a male singer but with a vocal range generally equivalent to alto. Indeed, I once had a chance to work with countertenor John Ferrante, best known for comedic appearances with composer Peter Schickele.
Schickele writes very funny music and is, of course, known as the fictitious character P. D. Q. Bach. P. D. Q.— the most dangerous musician since Nero. When countertenor Ferrante worked with Schickele on the P. D. Q. Bach canon he was known not a countertenor but as a bargain countertenor.
Back to the different vocal parts. Having mentioned countertenor, soprano, alto, tenor and bass, let me play some music for you. This will be an electronic adventure; let’s see if it works.
It is a portion of an aria from Giulio Cesare in Egitto— Julius Caesar in Egypt— by George Frideric Handel. The words are in Italian but it was composed for the Royal Academy of Music and first preformed in London in 1724. [1] [2] [There was a pause for playing the recording. For those reading this, the music is on the audio recording of the sermon on the church web site. Or you can go to the URLs in the footnotes to get to the audio.]
OR GO HERE TO LISTEN TO THE MUSIC: http://www.uccnorwichny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/RobertCrowe.G.F.Handel.GiulioCesareUSED1.mp3
In the recording to which you just listened the singer sounded like a soprano and the singer is a soprano. The singer was Robert Crowe, a male soprano. Male sopranos— even less known than countertenors. I might add, male sopranos are probably outside of our cultural understanding and maybe even outside of our cultural acceptance.
In fact, when interviewed on National Public Radio, Crowe said his experience was people who culturally know something about western classical music question even the possibility of a male soprano. But those who culturally know nothing of western classical music seem to accept the possibility. In short, cultural standards can overwhelm reality. Needless to say, cultural standards are not necessarily accurate. [3] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in First Peter: “...you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim, praise and sing about the acts of the One who called you out of the night into the divine light— the marvelous light— of God.” (Slight pause.)
When doing Bible study there are a number of basic precepts to follow. Three go hand in hand.
First, ask: ‘what is the social context, the accepted social behavior and standards of the time during which the Scripture being studied was written?’ Second, ask: ‘what is the social context, the accepted cultural behavior and standards of our own time?’
Third, ask: ‘how do those cultural standards, ancient and modern, influence us in ways which have nothing to do with theology?’ In short, ‘How do ancient and modern cultural standards influence us, alter in detrimental ways, what was written?’
An example: it’s pretty clear slavery is a common and an accepted social practice throughout the time Scripture is being written but not today. And it’s pretty clear you can find all kinds of support for slavery in Scripture. Does that mean slavery is sanctioned by God? No.
More problematic, however, is when a social practice is common in Biblical times and is also common today. An example: patriarchy, a system in which males are primary authority figures central to social organization, was common in Biblical times. Many see patriarchy as common today in various places and on multiple levels. Because we find patriarchy in both times, does that mean patriarchy is sanctioned by God?
The simple answer is “no.” But there is also a more complex approach which needs to be pursued: ‘how are cultural standards, common in Biblical times and common today— how are these cultural standards overcome?’ And can we, thereby— by overcoming the common standards approach an understanding of a place to which we are called by God?’
Put differently again, ‘how do we overcome what is merely cultural behavior, cultural baggage, and engage in theological behavior?’ (Slight pause.) Perhaps the first step is to try to identify what was simply and only cultural behavior in Scripture and what is simply and only cultural behavior today. (Slight pause.)
I would suggest and I don’t think I would get too many arguments about this. We live in a structured top-down culture. Therefore, people often hold offices of power. Hence, when we read about (quote): “a royal priesthood” we tend to think in terms of someone or some group holding an office with authority.
Culturally, then and now, in Biblical times and today, that’s what priesthood often refers to— someone or some group in an office with authority. But is this passage saying anything about an office of authority held by someone or by some group? I think not.
The imagery in this passage may seem exclusive since it claims us as a chosen race, a royal priesthood. However, there is an insistence on the unity of one body, one household, one race, one priesthood, one nation. There is an insistence on our unity as one people.
You see, the first audience of this letter were people who were displaced and dispossessed— spiritually, religiously, socially, economically, politically displaced, dispossessed. The author asserts in Christ God creates a place for those who have none.
This spiritual house is not a social club of like people which exists for its members. It is, rather, a household— at the head is God; the cornerstone is the Christ.
Those within this household have a new standing— no longer outcasts, no longer marginalized by social conditions. The language exalts this community as it stands before God striving to do the will of God. (Slight pause.)
Given the human temptation to convert a gift into a possession, we too often read passages such as this to mean our standing before God comes as a result of our own merit. We thereby exclude others from membership. The text grants no such license for exclusivity or condescension. God is, you see, the householder and not us. [4] (Slight pause.)
One of the things which makes this passage so powerful and so important is that in Biblical times top-down structure was a given. And yet this passage seeks to counteract a basic cultural message of that time.
This brings us back to male sopranos. Culturally a male soprano is a hard concept for us. And culturally, the very idea of equity— that we are all one before God— is a hard concept. But it is one of the bedrock concepts found in Scripture.
So, in terms of the passage I think the question with which we need to grapple becomes “who are priests?” And I think the answer is clear: all of us are priests. I also think we should not be honored or feel exalted by the office but challenged by it.
We should be challenged to seek the will of God and to do the will of God. Why? We— all of us— are one... and as one we are— all of us— chosen. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
05/14/2014
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: “As mentioned earlier, this afternoon I will be representing this Congregation at an ordination. And yes, authorized ministry is an office. But in our denomination authorized ministers narrow their responsibilities, generally to teaching and preaching. It is the priesthood of all believers— you, the Congregation, not the pastors— who are prime in accomplishing the multiple tasks of ministry in the church.”
BENEDICTION: Jesus assures us we will be empowered to do great works. We are, in fact, representatives of Christ, as we share the gifts God has granted us. And may the love of God the creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and the companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge of God and in the care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x1FCfhhrWY
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Cesare
[3] http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/05/15/male-soprano-crowe
[4] The analysis in several of the previous paragraphs is based on the information from Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary, Based on the NRSV - Years A, B and C, the Electronic Version, from the commentary on this lection.
Chosen
“...you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim, praise and sing about the acts of the One who called you out of the night into the divine light— the marvelous light— of God.” — 1 Peter 2:9.
This church, the Norwich United Church of Christ, First Congregational, is now and has historically been known for its musicians, its music program, its support of music in the community. Indeed, many of our parishioners are musicians or know music well.
While some parishioners are not musicians let me go out on a limb with a generality: all our parishioners are at least familiar with music and/or have a deep appreciation of music, a culture of music. That’s one reason this church is known for its music. It’s a part of our culture.
That having been said, perhaps one reason I am the pastor with this congregation is because of my own background and appreciation of music. I have noted this here before, but let me say it again. I am a member of A.S.C.A.P., the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers as a lyricist.
Now, I think most of us know this about music but for a moment, let me lay out one basic. In choral singing, there are four primary parts: soprano, alto and variations thereof for women; tenor, bass and variations thereof for men. One voicing less well known is called countertenor— countertenor— one word not two.
A countertenor is a male singer but with a vocal range generally equivalent to alto. Indeed, I once had a chance to work with countertenor John Ferrante, best known for comedic appearances with composer Peter Schickele.
Schickele writes very funny music and is, of course, known as the fictitious character P. D. Q. Bach. P. D. Q.— the most dangerous musician since Nero. When countertenor Ferrante worked with Schickele on the P. D. Q. Bach canon he was known not a countertenor but as a bargain countertenor.
Back to the different vocal parts. Having mentioned countertenor, soprano, alto, tenor and bass, let me play some music for you. This will be an electronic adventure; let’s see if it works.
It is a portion of an aria from Giulio Cesare in Egitto— Julius Caesar in Egypt— by George Frideric Handel. The words are in Italian but it was composed for the Royal Academy of Music and first preformed in London in 1724. [1] [2] [There was a pause for playing the recording. For those reading this, the music is on the audio recording of the sermon on the church web site. Or you can go to the URLs in the footnotes to get to the audio.]
OR GO HERE TO LISTEN TO THE MUSIC: http://www.uccnorwichny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/RobertCrowe.G.F.Handel.GiulioCesareUSED1.mp3
In the recording to which you just listened the singer sounded like a soprano and the singer is a soprano. The singer was Robert Crowe, a male soprano. Male sopranos— even less known than countertenors. I might add, male sopranos are probably outside of our cultural understanding and maybe even outside of our cultural acceptance.
In fact, when interviewed on National Public Radio, Crowe said his experience was people who culturally know something about western classical music question even the possibility of a male soprano. But those who culturally know nothing of western classical music seem to accept the possibility. In short, cultural standards can overwhelm reality. Needless to say, cultural standards are not necessarily accurate. [3] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in First Peter: “...you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim, praise and sing about the acts of the One who called you out of the night into the divine light— the marvelous light— of God.” (Slight pause.)
When doing Bible study there are a number of basic precepts to follow. Three go hand in hand.
First, ask: ‘what is the social context, the accepted social behavior and standards of the time during which the Scripture being studied was written?’ Second, ask: ‘what is the social context, the accepted cultural behavior and standards of our own time?’
Third, ask: ‘how do those cultural standards, ancient and modern, influence us in ways which have nothing to do with theology?’ In short, ‘How do ancient and modern cultural standards influence us, alter in detrimental ways, what was written?’
An example: it’s pretty clear slavery is a common and an accepted social practice throughout the time Scripture is being written but not today. And it’s pretty clear you can find all kinds of support for slavery in Scripture. Does that mean slavery is sanctioned by God? No.
More problematic, however, is when a social practice is common in Biblical times and is also common today. An example: patriarchy, a system in which males are primary authority figures central to social organization, was common in Biblical times. Many see patriarchy as common today in various places and on multiple levels. Because we find patriarchy in both times, does that mean patriarchy is sanctioned by God?
The simple answer is “no.” But there is also a more complex approach which needs to be pursued: ‘how are cultural standards, common in Biblical times and common today— how are these cultural standards overcome?’ And can we, thereby— by overcoming the common standards approach an understanding of a place to which we are called by God?’
Put differently again, ‘how do we overcome what is merely cultural behavior, cultural baggage, and engage in theological behavior?’ (Slight pause.) Perhaps the first step is to try to identify what was simply and only cultural behavior in Scripture and what is simply and only cultural behavior today. (Slight pause.)
I would suggest and I don’t think I would get too many arguments about this. We live in a structured top-down culture. Therefore, people often hold offices of power. Hence, when we read about (quote): “a royal priesthood” we tend to think in terms of someone or some group holding an office with authority.
Culturally, then and now, in Biblical times and today, that’s what priesthood often refers to— someone or some group in an office with authority. But is this passage saying anything about an office of authority held by someone or by some group? I think not.
The imagery in this passage may seem exclusive since it claims us as a chosen race, a royal priesthood. However, there is an insistence on the unity of one body, one household, one race, one priesthood, one nation. There is an insistence on our unity as one people.
You see, the first audience of this letter were people who were displaced and dispossessed— spiritually, religiously, socially, economically, politically displaced, dispossessed. The author asserts in Christ God creates a place for those who have none.
This spiritual house is not a social club of like people which exists for its members. It is, rather, a household— at the head is God; the cornerstone is the Christ.
Those within this household have a new standing— no longer outcasts, no longer marginalized by social conditions. The language exalts this community as it stands before God striving to do the will of God. (Slight pause.)
Given the human temptation to convert a gift into a possession, we too often read passages such as this to mean our standing before God comes as a result of our own merit. We thereby exclude others from membership. The text grants no such license for exclusivity or condescension. God is, you see, the householder and not us. [4] (Slight pause.)
One of the things which makes this passage so powerful and so important is that in Biblical times top-down structure was a given. And yet this passage seeks to counteract a basic cultural message of that time.
This brings us back to male sopranos. Culturally a male soprano is a hard concept for us. And culturally, the very idea of equity— that we are all one before God— is a hard concept. But it is one of the bedrock concepts found in Scripture.
So, in terms of the passage I think the question with which we need to grapple becomes “who are priests?” And I think the answer is clear: all of us are priests. I also think we should not be honored or feel exalted by the office but challenged by it.
We should be challenged to seek the will of God and to do the will of God. Why? We— all of us— are one... and as one we are— all of us— chosen. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
05/14/2014
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: “As mentioned earlier, this afternoon I will be representing this Congregation at an ordination. And yes, authorized ministry is an office. But in our denomination authorized ministers narrow their responsibilities, generally to teaching and preaching. It is the priesthood of all believers— you, the Congregation, not the pastors— who are prime in accomplishing the multiple tasks of ministry in the church.”
BENEDICTION: Jesus assures us we will be empowered to do great works. We are, in fact, representatives of Christ, as we share the gifts God has granted us. And may the love of God the creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and the companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge of God and in the care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x1FCfhhrWY
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Cesare
[3] http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/05/15/male-soprano-crowe
[4] The analysis in several of the previous paragraphs is based on the information from Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary, Based on the NRSV - Years A, B and C, the Electronic Version, from the commentary on this lection.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
SERMON ~ 05/11/2014 ~ Fourth Sunday of Easter ~ “I Am”
05/11/2014 ~ Fourth Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 2:42-47; Psalm 23; 1 Peter 2:19-25; John 10:1-10 ~ Festival of the Christian Home ~ A.K.A. Mother’s Day.
I Am
“I am the gate. / Whoever enters through me will be safe— / you will go in and go out and find pasture. / The thief comes only to steal / and slaughter and destroy. / I came that you might have life / and have it to the full.” — John 10:9-10
In a recent article the Rev. Dr. Martin Copenhaver, who will start a tenure as the President of Andover Newton Theological School June 1st, he addressed what might stand in the way of religious unity. Religious unity— or as the motto of our denomination The United Church of Christ has it (quoting John 17:21)— “That they may all be one.”
To address religious unity, Marty— I feel comfortable calling him Marty; I’ve met him— to address religious unity, Marty started with a shaggy dog story, an old joke. I rarely apologize, myself, for telling shaggy dog stories or old jokes but I should probably apologize in advance for the Rev. Dr. Copenhaver.
Marty started by saying what stands in the way of religious unity are not great differences but small ones. He told the old story of two people who had just met and were trying to discover the similarities and differences in their religious backgrounds.
One of them asked this question: “Are you Protestant or Catholic?”
The other one replied: “Protestant.”
The first one cracked a little smile and said, “Me too! What franchise?”
“Baptist.”
“Why that’s great! Me too!”
“Well,” said the second one also smiling just a little now, “we all know there are many of flavors of Baptists. Are you a Northern Baptist or are you a Southern Baptist?”
A little wary but certainly more hopeful the first one responded “Southern.”
“Oh, gee! That’s great. Me too!”
Given these were Baptists, the two spent some time making comparisons as to where their sympathies found a real home. Finally, the first one asked, “Are you Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or are you Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
With a cautious tone the second one replied, “Why, I am Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 and proud of it!”
The first one’s eyes lit up like they were on fire. “I knew it! I knew it! Die, you heretic!” (Slight pause.)
I need to note this kind of phenomenon is not limited to Baptists. Yes, in the United Church of Christ we pride ourselves on openness to faith traditions that are very different from our own.
However, at times we can be, if not critical at least not knowledgeable, even about a United Church of Christ nearby. For example, a church in Elmira in our Susquehanna Association is out of the Evangelical and Reform Tradition.
And the pastor at First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ in Greene comes out of the E & R tradition. After being ordained for over 20 years, Greene is the first church in the Congregational tradition that pastor has ever served.
But most of our churches and our contacts are Congregational. So, we know about Congregationalists. But how much do we know about the E & R tradition, a part of the United Church of Christ? Do we know that when the U.C.C. was formed in 1957 the E & R churches had Bishops?
Do we know E & R churches had to give up their Bishops? Why? The agreement of union called for a Congregational structure, less top-down than having Bishops would allow and less top-down than normal for those churches in the E & R tradition. (Slight pause.)
It seems to me whether we’re talking about churches or nearly any other topic, most of the time we want to and like to distinguish ourselves as different, even if those distinctions are cut very thin. Sigmund Freud called this phenomenon, “the narcissism of small differences.” [1] (Slight pause.)
Perhaps when we do this thin slicing what we are doing is protecting our turf, our territory. Perhaps there is some pride involved. Perhaps there is some insecurity involved. And let’s face it, it often seems we to want to be simply... tribal. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel according to the School of John: “I am the gate. / Whoever enters through me will be safe— / you will go in and go out and find pasture. / The thief comes only to steal / and slaughter and destroy. / I came that you might have life / and have it to the full.” (Slight pause.)
More than any other Gospel John addresses Christology. And the “I am” statements of Jesus appear only in John.
Now, let me unpack that $64 word for you— Christology. Christology is the study of the nature and person of Jesus, especially as that relates to the nature and person of Yahweh, God.
As I have said here before, when Jesus asks “who do you say that I am” those who first heard that question understood the actual question being asked was this: “how does the person Jesus, who we claim to be the Christ, the Messiah of God, fit into and fit with the concept that God is One.” Christology tries to study the relationship of God and Jesus.
That takes us to a simple basic: monotheism is the primary premise of Judaism. God is One.
So, if you are a Jew living in the First Century, how do you explain Jesus? Is Jesus something extra, another god? Is Jesus simply a wise Rabbi, a great teacher?
I think this passage helps us understand Jesus and probably helped those who first heard it understand Jesus. You see, Jesus is not making a self-comparison to the gate— I am the gate.
Nor is Jesus making a comparison to any of the other descriptions found in John— I am— comparisons to Bread, Light, a Door, a Good Shepherd, the Life, the Way, the Truth, the Vine. The important part of these sentences, the important part of these comparisons is not the object of the sentence. It is the subject and verb— “I am.”
You see, if we listened to these words with First Century ears, we would recognize right away that with the words “I am” Jesus is referring to Yahweh, God. And Yahweh, the name of God in Hebrew, is a form of the verb “to be”— “I am.”
So, Jesus claims “the gate” as a metaphor of self description and then says (quote:) “I came that you may have life and have it to the full.” Therefore, we also need to realize in the Jewish tradition the way people in the First Century would understand this— in te Jewish tradition God gives life and gives it to the full. Put another way, Jesus is here addressing a relationship with God.
That brings me back to what Freud called this phenomenon of “the narcissism of small differences.” As far as I can tell a lot of churches get caught up in what might loosely termed doctrinal differences. One of my favorites is when someone asks: “Have you found Jesus?” I sometimes want to say, “I did not know Jesus was lost.”
But the theologian in me also wants to say, “Did Jesus somehow become detached from Trinity? Has the Holy Spirit also gone AWOL?”
In all seriousness, asking someone about finding Jesus is narcissism. The question does not point to Jesus and does not point to the individual being engaged. The question is self referential and points only to the person asking the question.
In fact, the person asking the question appears to be seeking affirmation of what they believe. More troubling: the question, itself, separates Jesus from the Trinity.
I want to suggest the claim that Jesus is the Messiah does not separate Jesus from God or from the Holy Spirit. The point of Trinity is that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are inseparably intertwined. And that is, you see, both the impossible reality and the incredible truth: God is Trinity. (Slight pause.)
Well, Jesus— part of the Trinity— clearly taught God includes everyone. The God of Trinity makes no claim that some are unwelcome, unclean, unacceptable. The narcissism of small differences has no place with the God of Trinity. (Slight pause.)
True story: just last week I heard someone say one person was related to them by blood but another person who had married into the family was not related by blood. Now, in this day of DNA testing and genome decoding, being related by blood and not being related by blood is meaningless. DNA testing and genome decoding proves this: we are all related. (Slight pause.)
In several minutes, when we have the Prayers of the People, you will be invited to pray for the girls held captive in Nigeria. [2] Why? After all, they are in Africa. We are in North American.
According to reports, they are mostly Muslim. We are Christians. It’s likely I could slice this very thin, exercise the narcissism of small differences.
But, to quote John 17:21, we are all one. And so we pray. We pray not knowing the outcome. We pray believing God treasures each of us. We pray because we are one, relying on the mercy of God— God who is “I am”; God who is Trinity. Amen.
05/11/2014
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 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said this: ‘We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly… We aren’t going to have peace on Earth until we recognize this basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality.’”
BENEDICTION: Let us rejoice for Christ is risen. This service of worship is over but our service in the name of God continues outside these doors. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] http://www.ucc.org/feed-your-spirit/daily-devotional/too-close-for-comfort.html
[2] A full list of the names of all the girls was included in the bulletin. 96 names were unknown. Each of those was listed separately with this: “Child of God, Name Unknown.” Each person present was asked to pray for one or two of the names on the list.
I Am
“I am the gate. / Whoever enters through me will be safe— / you will go in and go out and find pasture. / The thief comes only to steal / and slaughter and destroy. / I came that you might have life / and have it to the full.” — John 10:9-10
In a recent article the Rev. Dr. Martin Copenhaver, who will start a tenure as the President of Andover Newton Theological School June 1st, he addressed what might stand in the way of religious unity. Religious unity— or as the motto of our denomination The United Church of Christ has it (quoting John 17:21)— “That they may all be one.”
To address religious unity, Marty— I feel comfortable calling him Marty; I’ve met him— to address religious unity, Marty started with a shaggy dog story, an old joke. I rarely apologize, myself, for telling shaggy dog stories or old jokes but I should probably apologize in advance for the Rev. Dr. Copenhaver.
Marty started by saying what stands in the way of religious unity are not great differences but small ones. He told the old story of two people who had just met and were trying to discover the similarities and differences in their religious backgrounds.
One of them asked this question: “Are you Protestant or Catholic?”
The other one replied: “Protestant.”
The first one cracked a little smile and said, “Me too! What franchise?”
“Baptist.”
“Why that’s great! Me too!”
“Well,” said the second one also smiling just a little now, “we all know there are many of flavors of Baptists. Are you a Northern Baptist or are you a Southern Baptist?”
A little wary but certainly more hopeful the first one responded “Southern.”
“Oh, gee! That’s great. Me too!”
Given these were Baptists, the two spent some time making comparisons as to where their sympathies found a real home. Finally, the first one asked, “Are you Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or are you Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
With a cautious tone the second one replied, “Why, I am Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 and proud of it!”
The first one’s eyes lit up like they were on fire. “I knew it! I knew it! Die, you heretic!” (Slight pause.)
I need to note this kind of phenomenon is not limited to Baptists. Yes, in the United Church of Christ we pride ourselves on openness to faith traditions that are very different from our own.
However, at times we can be, if not critical at least not knowledgeable, even about a United Church of Christ nearby. For example, a church in Elmira in our Susquehanna Association is out of the Evangelical and Reform Tradition.
And the pastor at First Congregational Church, United Church of Christ in Greene comes out of the E & R tradition. After being ordained for over 20 years, Greene is the first church in the Congregational tradition that pastor has ever served.
But most of our churches and our contacts are Congregational. So, we know about Congregationalists. But how much do we know about the E & R tradition, a part of the United Church of Christ? Do we know that when the U.C.C. was formed in 1957 the E & R churches had Bishops?
Do we know E & R churches had to give up their Bishops? Why? The agreement of union called for a Congregational structure, less top-down than having Bishops would allow and less top-down than normal for those churches in the E & R tradition. (Slight pause.)
It seems to me whether we’re talking about churches or nearly any other topic, most of the time we want to and like to distinguish ourselves as different, even if those distinctions are cut very thin. Sigmund Freud called this phenomenon, “the narcissism of small differences.” [1] (Slight pause.)
Perhaps when we do this thin slicing what we are doing is protecting our turf, our territory. Perhaps there is some pride involved. Perhaps there is some insecurity involved. And let’s face it, it often seems we to want to be simply... tribal. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel according to the School of John: “I am the gate. / Whoever enters through me will be safe— / you will go in and go out and find pasture. / The thief comes only to steal / and slaughter and destroy. / I came that you might have life / and have it to the full.” (Slight pause.)
More than any other Gospel John addresses Christology. And the “I am” statements of Jesus appear only in John.
Now, let me unpack that $64 word for you— Christology. Christology is the study of the nature and person of Jesus, especially as that relates to the nature and person of Yahweh, God.
As I have said here before, when Jesus asks “who do you say that I am” those who first heard that question understood the actual question being asked was this: “how does the person Jesus, who we claim to be the Christ, the Messiah of God, fit into and fit with the concept that God is One.” Christology tries to study the relationship of God and Jesus.
That takes us to a simple basic: monotheism is the primary premise of Judaism. God is One.
So, if you are a Jew living in the First Century, how do you explain Jesus? Is Jesus something extra, another god? Is Jesus simply a wise Rabbi, a great teacher?
I think this passage helps us understand Jesus and probably helped those who first heard it understand Jesus. You see, Jesus is not making a self-comparison to the gate— I am the gate.
Nor is Jesus making a comparison to any of the other descriptions found in John— I am— comparisons to Bread, Light, a Door, a Good Shepherd, the Life, the Way, the Truth, the Vine. The important part of these sentences, the important part of these comparisons is not the object of the sentence. It is the subject and verb— “I am.”
You see, if we listened to these words with First Century ears, we would recognize right away that with the words “I am” Jesus is referring to Yahweh, God. And Yahweh, the name of God in Hebrew, is a form of the verb “to be”— “I am.”
So, Jesus claims “the gate” as a metaphor of self description and then says (quote:) “I came that you may have life and have it to the full.” Therefore, we also need to realize in the Jewish tradition the way people in the First Century would understand this— in te Jewish tradition God gives life and gives it to the full. Put another way, Jesus is here addressing a relationship with God.
That brings me back to what Freud called this phenomenon of “the narcissism of small differences.” As far as I can tell a lot of churches get caught up in what might loosely termed doctrinal differences. One of my favorites is when someone asks: “Have you found Jesus?” I sometimes want to say, “I did not know Jesus was lost.”
But the theologian in me also wants to say, “Did Jesus somehow become detached from Trinity? Has the Holy Spirit also gone AWOL?”
In all seriousness, asking someone about finding Jesus is narcissism. The question does not point to Jesus and does not point to the individual being engaged. The question is self referential and points only to the person asking the question.
In fact, the person asking the question appears to be seeking affirmation of what they believe. More troubling: the question, itself, separates Jesus from the Trinity.
I want to suggest the claim that Jesus is the Messiah does not separate Jesus from God or from the Holy Spirit. The point of Trinity is that Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are inseparably intertwined. And that is, you see, both the impossible reality and the incredible truth: God is Trinity. (Slight pause.)
Well, Jesus— part of the Trinity— clearly taught God includes everyone. The God of Trinity makes no claim that some are unwelcome, unclean, unacceptable. The narcissism of small differences has no place with the God of Trinity. (Slight pause.)
True story: just last week I heard someone say one person was related to them by blood but another person who had married into the family was not related by blood. Now, in this day of DNA testing and genome decoding, being related by blood and not being related by blood is meaningless. DNA testing and genome decoding proves this: we are all related. (Slight pause.)
In several minutes, when we have the Prayers of the People, you will be invited to pray for the girls held captive in Nigeria. [2] Why? After all, they are in Africa. We are in North American.
According to reports, they are mostly Muslim. We are Christians. It’s likely I could slice this very thin, exercise the narcissism of small differences.
But, to quote John 17:21, we are all one. And so we pray. We pray not knowing the outcome. We pray believing God treasures each of us. We pray because we are one, relying on the mercy of God— God who is “I am”; God who is Trinity. Amen.
05/11/2014
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 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said this: ‘We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly… We aren’t going to have peace on Earth until we recognize this basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality.’”
BENEDICTION: Let us rejoice for Christ is risen. This service of worship is over but our service in the name of God continues outside these doors. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] http://www.ucc.org/feed-your-spirit/daily-devotional/too-close-for-comfort.html
[2] A full list of the names of all the girls was included in the bulletin. 96 names were unknown. Each of those was listed separately with this: “Child of God, Name Unknown.” Each person present was asked to pray for one or two of the names on the list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)