READINGS: 04/19/2015 ~ Third Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 3:12-19; Psalm 4; 1 John 3:1-7; Luke 24:36b-48 ~ Dedication of the Super Sew Quilts.
Terrified
“They were startled and terrified, in panic and fright; they thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you frightened? Why are you disturbed? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? Why do such ideas cross your mind?’” — Luke 24: 37-38.
Bonnie and I welcomed into the 21st Century into our lives last week. We got a pair of I-phones. [The pastor hold up an I-phone]
Up until a week ago, the only cell phones we had were Tracfones. To be blunt, I didn’t see the need for something more versatile. Making phone calls— what more do you need? A Tracfone does that. And it’s not expensive
So why did we get I-phones? I think, as many of you know, this Summer we are planning to travel across the country and back. We got the phones for that trip because it seemed reasonable to have something with us on which you can do more than simply make a phone call.
My colleague, the Rev. Chuck Taylor of the Emmanuel Episcopal Church, says the reason he does not have a smart phone is he is not smart enough. (If you know Chuck you know he is as smart as they come and he revels in self-deprecating humor.)
In any case, I don’t know if I’m smart but think I may be O.K. operating the phone, except when my fat, fumbling fingers hit the wrong button. And indeed, Bonnie’s pet name for me when it comes to electronic stuff is “geek.”
One reason for my geek-iness (is that a word— geek-iness?)— O.K.— one reason for my geek-iness is I got involved with computers early. I was still in my teen years.
As an aside and just to put into perspective how quickly things change in the computer field, arguably the I-pad changed computing forever. And, even though it feels like it’s been around a long time, the I-pad was released just five years ago this month.
A couple years before that the I-phone changed the phone industry forever. And that was released less than eight years ago. An I-Phone purchased today is roughly one million times more powerful than a main frame computer from 1975— a computer which took up a space the size of our Founder’s Room. [Again, the pastor holds up the phone.] And there it is, that size, one million times more powerful. I’ll turn it off.
Anyway, when I was so young the dinosaurs were still roaming the earth, there was no such thing as personal computers or tablets. There was nu such thing as cell phones— never mind smart phones— and I found myself operating one of those big main frame computer.
One day a supervisor of mine pointing to the machine I was operating said, “You’re not afraid of these things are you?”
I responded, “Why should I be? The machine tells me when I’ve done something wrong. When I’m doing something right it just keeps running. What’s there to be frightened about?”
There’s no question about this: we have a tendency to be frightened by the unfamiliar, frightened by what we don’t know, by what we don’t understand. And, needless to say, we are frightened by change— change like smart phones. [Again, the pastor holds up the phone.]
Change is, however, not new. I’ve used this story here before, but it is true and it makes an interesting point.
I once had a much older friend whose mother was born in 1870. She was 95 in 1965 and at her birthday party my friend asked her what, of all the developments over her lifetime, had brought the biggest change to her daily life.
Now, you need to understand the year before she was born the transcontinental railroad was finished. While she was alive she saw the invention of the telephone, the car, the airplane. So, those years go from the transcontinental railroad to spaceflight.
And what was her answer to the question what had changed her life the most? Ready to wear clothes had made the greatest change in her lifetime. When she was young the Sears catalogue didn’t even exist. People had to make their own clothes. The wealthy had clothes made for them.
Well, part of my point is certainly this: change: it is the only constant. Being frightened of it— should that be a choice? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Luke/Acts in the section known as Luke: “They were startled and terrified, in panic and fright; they thought they were seeing a ghost. Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you frightened? Why are you disturbed? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? Why do such ideas cross your mind?’” (Slight pause.)
I think we moderns have a problem when it comes to reading Scripture. The problem is obvious and simple to define: moderns— both conservatives and liberals— doesn’t matter which end of the spectrum you’re on— moderns misread Scripture, especially the Gospels, by trying to read the words of the Gospels as if they are a documentary about the life, the murder and the resurrection of Jesus.
They are not documentaries. It also needs to be said when carefully read, the text offered in the Gospels will allow for the words to be read as if they were recording a documentary.
Let’s take today’s reading as an example. First, the text tells us the disciples were terrified. Then it says they were joyful. At the very same time it says they were joyful it also says they were (quote:) “still disbelieving, incredulous, wondering.”
That makes no logical sense. It is a self-contradiction. To take this as if it was recording something, an event, you need to assume the writer of this passage did not understand what was being recorded, and therefore that the writer was (for lack of a better description) stupid.
But suppose the writers of Scripture, especially the Gospels, are trying to say something not connected to documentation? Indeed, let’s suppose the Gospels are written to claim something about theology. If that’s the case, perhaps we are on more solid ground when we ask “What does this passage mean?” rather than “What does this passage say?”
Additionally, I think the writers, especially the writers of the Gospels, are also trying to say something about how they feel, say something their emotional state. (Slight pause.) So, how do you say something about theology while saying something about how you feel, something about your emotional state?
Indeed, how do you say something about theology while saying something about how you feel, especially when you feel overwhelmed because you believe the covenant of God has changed. And then, on top of that, you realize that it’s not simply that the covenant has been changed. Rather, the covenant of God has been re-envisioned by God?
And what is that re-envisioning, that change you find so overwhelming? The theological, emotional statement you make as you write the Gospels is about the realization that the Messiah is Jesus. And this Jesus lived in community with your people for a goodly number of years.
And how do you explain that? What does that look like in the words you’re going to record? Perhaps those words look like this (quote:) “While joyful— while joyful— they were still disbelieving, incredulous, wondering.”
Those words make no sense in terms of someone trying to depict what’s happening. They do make theological, emotional sense. That’s because what’s being said is that the disciples are experiencing, have experienced, the real presence of God.
So, that Jesus is the Messiah, sent by God to affirm the covenant is not a reason to be terrified. It is reason to be (quote:) “joyful,” if you can deal with this re-envisioned change. (Slight pause.)
Earlier I said the only constant is change. And perhaps we believe that change only happens to us moderns. But I want to suggest overwhelming change is something with which the early church was constantly dealing.
And the theology found in the Gospels clearly states God has ushered in re-envisioned change. So, in the end, I think this story is not about being terrified or being joyful or even, as the detail in the story says, or even about Jesus eating fish— not about any of that. It is a theological and emotional expression which says there is a new understanding of the covenant with God, an understanding that the covenant is open to all people because Jesus lives, open to all people— not just a few— because Jesus lives.
And that is a really, really, really big change. How big? [The pastor hold up the cell phone again.] Bigger and quicker than smart phones. Amen.
04/19/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Often people, especially we moderns, ask did the stories in the Bible happen? The question, itself, is a moot point, not something the writers would have thought important. The stories are not written to report what happened. Especially when it comes to the Gospels, the stories are written to address theology and to express the emotional state of the people who wrote them concerning their experi3ence of God and their relationship with God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us place our trust in God. Let us go from this place to share the Good News as we are witnesses. And this is, indeed, the Good News: by God we are blessed; in Jesus, the Christ, the beloved of God, we are made whole. Let us depart in confidence and joy that the Spirit of God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts. Amen.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
SERMON ~ 04/12/2015 ~ “Testimony”
04/12/2015 ~ Second Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 4:32-35; Psalm 133; 1 John 1:1-2:2; John 20:19-31 ~ Communion Sunday.
Testimony
“The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” — Acts 4:33
More than a month ago I mentioned one of the ways both our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, and the Conference keeps in touch with the churches and the people of the Conference is with a weekly e-mail newsletter. And you can all sign up for it by going to the Conference website. This was a part of David’s reflection in that newsletter from a couple days ago. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “I am thinking about resurrection. When I was looking out my window, straining to see a crocus, the question that came to me was this: is God able to do a new thing in me?”
“Then, of course, I realized how presumptuous that question is. The question needs to be, ‘Am I able to allow the Holy Spirit to change me in ways that better embody what is holy in my life?’ Likewise, am I able to allow God to change me in ways that brings holiness into all the lives of the people whom my life touches?”
“...I love the story of the caterpillar, the chrysalis, and the butterfly,” David continued, “and I think it worked very well for the children’s message at the Easter service I attended! But it is the tangibility of the power of life over death that I am contemplating for this moment. And we always live life in this moment.”
“The next word I speak, the next text I type, the next phone call I answer— in those moments— how will I live the resurrection? I hope it will be intentionally, mindfully and with honest integrity.” [1] (Slight pause.)
I think this is a short version of what I believe David is getting at. What does the resurrection mean to me, to us right here, right now? How do we act that out in our lives right here, right now? (Slight pause.)
For a moment, let me take us in another direction. As I am sure you know, Pat Evans, our church historian, has been sorting through our of church history. This includes an ungodly amount of paper. She thought I’d be interested in something she discovered so gave me a folder with some papers this week.
In it were blue books, the kind given out in that ancient era of school when all tests were contained in these kinds of things. (The pastor holds one up.) And these blue books from this church did, indeed, contain tests.
Based on the questions therein— they were multiple choice questions and easy to answer— it was obvious these books dated from about thirty years ago, the 1980s, since Pastor John VanEpps was referenced in a question. For the most part, the questions were aimed at checking what people knew about both this church and the denomination.
I had the decided impression these tests were given both to confirmands and those seeking to join the church. And the questions ranged all the way from the somewhat serious— “What former pastor of this church served as the President of the United Church of Christ?” to the silly— “What is the name of the Rev. VanEpps’ cat?”
I know Rev. Avery Post served this church from 1952 to 1958. And I know Mr. Post served as President of the United Church of Christ at the National Level from 1977 to 1989. I have no idea what the name of John VanEpps’ cat was.
Now, this might lead some to ask what could possibly have been the purpose of such a test? I want to suggest such tests come from a way of understanding life, a way of thinking which claims life is about a series of facts rather than an idea.
Or, as my Church History professor once said, it may be important to remember Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. But it is much, much more important to grapple with the idea that the voyages of European explorers were about the beginnings, the birth of a new economic system. That economic system is called capitalism.
And yes, the date probably is important to help us place the context of when capitalism first came on the scene. But it is vital to understand the date points not to the voyages but to the bigger idea called capitalism. In short, to know the big idea is much more important than to know the details, the facts, the exact dates of the voyages. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Acts: “The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” (Slight pause.)
There is a concept in these words from Acts which frightens many Christians today, especially Mainline Christians— testimony. Speaking of testimony and, therefore, speaking of tests, let me ask: ‘what would a ceremony of membership in this church looked like— let’s say in 1877?’ (Slight pause.)
In a ceremony of membership there would have been an expectation that the candidate include something, say something, about their own Christian journey— a personal testimony. And, in a real sense, giving testimony back then or today is a test.
Indeed, in that testimony offered by those joining the church in the 1870s a person would be expected to say something about what they believed. And that person would probably also say something about why they wanted to join this church, as opposed to being in union with the Baptists or the Methodists.
But the testimony common then and even testimony common now usually tends to be a list of facts rather than a big idea. And yes, the questions in the blue book test, as I illustrated, were about facts, not ideas. That poses the obvious question: ‘what is testimony, really?’ (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, had it right. Testimony is not something spoken. Testimony is not about facts. Testimony is something done. Testimony asks the question: “how will I live the resurrection?” — how will I live the resurrection? (Slight pause.)
The Thought for Mediation on Easter Day, last week, was from Church historian Diana Butler Bass, an Episcopalian and a member of the laity. (Quote:) “The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.” (Slight pause.)
Testimony, you see, is not about facts. Indeed, one common testimony people offer today is the claim that they believe in the resurrection of the body. However, that testimony treats the resurrection as a fact.
But a fact is something which can be proved. Whether or not we believe a specific fact matters little. The fact exists. It doesn’t need our belief. The resurrection, as Butler suggests, is about trust.
Indeed, when we need provable facts to define our trust, then our trust ceases to be trust. Something either is or it is not. Trust is in no way a part of the equation when it comes to facts. Hence, for us as Christians, a key is ‘do we trust?’
Do we trust... resurrection? Do we trust... that God acts in our lives? Do we trust... hope? Do we trust... freedom? Do we trust... the presence of the Spirit of God? Do we trust... love? Amen.
04/12/2015
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “People mis-quote people all the time. Nothing against the Post Office (I have some good friends who work there), but on Tuesday they published a stamp in honor of the poet Maya Angelou. The stamp featured what purported to be a quote from her. But it was not. To be fair to the Post Office, the words used are widely attributed to Angelou. But were written by Joan Walsh Anglund and are from the book A Cup of Sun. But it does not matter who wrote the words. That is only a fact. The words embrace a helpful, big idea, so I shall repeat them. (Quote:) ‘A bird doesn’t sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song.’ And in order to be true for us, testimony needs to incorporate song, a song in which we trust. And if we make resurrection our own through trust, we will sing it. And the trust we express in that song will be in everything we do.” [2]
BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing: we go into the world carrying forth God’s love. Let us go from this place and offer the peace of God which surpasses all understanding to all we meet, and may the Peace of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and companionship of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] I have slightly edited David’s words for this context but I do not think I have altered their meaning. The original words can be found here:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=e6f9ee12-d870-49f9-87ed-19f4e160fadc&c=7fb50cf0-4c60-11e3-88de-d4ae52754055&ch=8020a000-4c60-11e3-89c4-d4ae52754055
[2]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/08/398317105/maya-angelous-forever-stamp-forever-in-error
Testimony
“The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” — Acts 4:33
More than a month ago I mentioned one of the ways both our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, and the Conference keeps in touch with the churches and the people of the Conference is with a weekly e-mail newsletter. And you can all sign up for it by going to the Conference website. This was a part of David’s reflection in that newsletter from a couple days ago. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “I am thinking about resurrection. When I was looking out my window, straining to see a crocus, the question that came to me was this: is God able to do a new thing in me?”
“Then, of course, I realized how presumptuous that question is. The question needs to be, ‘Am I able to allow the Holy Spirit to change me in ways that better embody what is holy in my life?’ Likewise, am I able to allow God to change me in ways that brings holiness into all the lives of the people whom my life touches?”
“...I love the story of the caterpillar, the chrysalis, and the butterfly,” David continued, “and I think it worked very well for the children’s message at the Easter service I attended! But it is the tangibility of the power of life over death that I am contemplating for this moment. And we always live life in this moment.”
“The next word I speak, the next text I type, the next phone call I answer— in those moments— how will I live the resurrection? I hope it will be intentionally, mindfully and with honest integrity.” [1] (Slight pause.)
I think this is a short version of what I believe David is getting at. What does the resurrection mean to me, to us right here, right now? How do we act that out in our lives right here, right now? (Slight pause.)
For a moment, let me take us in another direction. As I am sure you know, Pat Evans, our church historian, has been sorting through our of church history. This includes an ungodly amount of paper. She thought I’d be interested in something she discovered so gave me a folder with some papers this week.
In it were blue books, the kind given out in that ancient era of school when all tests were contained in these kinds of things. (The pastor holds one up.) And these blue books from this church did, indeed, contain tests.
Based on the questions therein— they were multiple choice questions and easy to answer— it was obvious these books dated from about thirty years ago, the 1980s, since Pastor John VanEpps was referenced in a question. For the most part, the questions were aimed at checking what people knew about both this church and the denomination.
I had the decided impression these tests were given both to confirmands and those seeking to join the church. And the questions ranged all the way from the somewhat serious— “What former pastor of this church served as the President of the United Church of Christ?” to the silly— “What is the name of the Rev. VanEpps’ cat?”
I know Rev. Avery Post served this church from 1952 to 1958. And I know Mr. Post served as President of the United Church of Christ at the National Level from 1977 to 1989. I have no idea what the name of John VanEpps’ cat was.
Now, this might lead some to ask what could possibly have been the purpose of such a test? I want to suggest such tests come from a way of understanding life, a way of thinking which claims life is about a series of facts rather than an idea.
Or, as my Church History professor once said, it may be important to remember Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. But it is much, much more important to grapple with the idea that the voyages of European explorers were about the beginnings, the birth of a new economic system. That economic system is called capitalism.
And yes, the date probably is important to help us place the context of when capitalism first came on the scene. But it is vital to understand the date points not to the voyages but to the bigger idea called capitalism. In short, to know the big idea is much more important than to know the details, the facts, the exact dates of the voyages. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Acts: “The apostles continued to testify with great power to the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, and they were all given great respect.” (Slight pause.)
There is a concept in these words from Acts which frightens many Christians today, especially Mainline Christians— testimony. Speaking of testimony and, therefore, speaking of tests, let me ask: ‘what would a ceremony of membership in this church looked like— let’s say in 1877?’ (Slight pause.)
In a ceremony of membership there would have been an expectation that the candidate include something, say something, about their own Christian journey— a personal testimony. And, in a real sense, giving testimony back then or today is a test.
Indeed, in that testimony offered by those joining the church in the 1870s a person would be expected to say something about what they believed. And that person would probably also say something about why they wanted to join this church, as opposed to being in union with the Baptists or the Methodists.
But the testimony common then and even testimony common now usually tends to be a list of facts rather than a big idea. And yes, the questions in the blue book test, as I illustrated, were about facts, not ideas. That poses the obvious question: ‘what is testimony, really?’ (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest our New York Conference Minister, David Gaewski, had it right. Testimony is not something spoken. Testimony is not about facts. Testimony is something done. Testimony asks the question: “how will I live the resurrection?” — how will I live the resurrection? (Slight pause.)
The Thought for Mediation on Easter Day, last week, was from Church historian Diana Butler Bass, an Episcopalian and a member of the laity. (Quote:) “The point isn’t that you believe in the resurrection. Any fool can believe in a resurrection from the dead. The point is that you trust in the resurrection. And that’s much, much harder to do.” (Slight pause.)
Testimony, you see, is not about facts. Indeed, one common testimony people offer today is the claim that they believe in the resurrection of the body. However, that testimony treats the resurrection as a fact.
But a fact is something which can be proved. Whether or not we believe a specific fact matters little. The fact exists. It doesn’t need our belief. The resurrection, as Butler suggests, is about trust.
Indeed, when we need provable facts to define our trust, then our trust ceases to be trust. Something either is or it is not. Trust is in no way a part of the equation when it comes to facts. Hence, for us as Christians, a key is ‘do we trust?’
Do we trust... resurrection? Do we trust... that God acts in our lives? Do we trust... hope? Do we trust... freedom? Do we trust... the presence of the Spirit of God? Do we trust... love? Amen.
04/12/2015
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 Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “People mis-quote people all the time. Nothing against the Post Office (I have some good friends who work there), but on Tuesday they published a stamp in honor of the poet Maya Angelou. The stamp featured what purported to be a quote from her. But it was not. To be fair to the Post Office, the words used are widely attributed to Angelou. But were written by Joan Walsh Anglund and are from the book A Cup of Sun. But it does not matter who wrote the words. That is only a fact. The words embrace a helpful, big idea, so I shall repeat them. (Quote:) ‘A bird doesn’t sing because it has an answer; it sings because it has a song.’ And in order to be true for us, testimony needs to incorporate song, a song in which we trust. And if we make resurrection our own through trust, we will sing it. And the trust we express in that song will be in everything we do.” [2]
BENEDICTION: Hear now this blessing: we go into the world carrying forth God’s love. Let us go from this place and offer the peace of God which surpasses all understanding to all we meet, and may the Peace of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and companionship of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] I have slightly edited David’s words for this context but I do not think I have altered their meaning. The original words can be found here:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=e6f9ee12-d870-49f9-87ed-19f4e160fadc&c=7fb50cf0-4c60-11e3-88de-d4ae52754055&ch=8020a000-4c60-11e3-89c4-d4ae52754055
[2]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/08/398317105/maya-angelous-forever-stamp-forever-in-error
Sunday, April 5, 2015
SERMON ~ 04/05/2015 ~ “Looking Backward; Looking Forward”
04/05/2015 ~ Resurrection of the Christ ~ Easter Day ~ *Acts 10:34-43 or Isaiah 25:6-9; Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24; 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 or Acts 10:34-43; John 20:1-18 or Mark 16:1-8.
Looking Backward; Looking Forward
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, perfumed oils, so that they might go and anoint Jesus.” — Mark 16:1. [1]
It had been a long night. Salome was tired. She left the small dwelling, left her friends, wandered down the road a short distance and sat on a large rock.
A few moments after that she felt moved to pray. As she prayed, Salome thought about her friend back at the house.
Her friend was not doing well. She had some expectation that her friend was about to die and the very thought of that impending death filled her with a sense of sadness. She continued to pray but she also started to cry. (Slight pause.)
Salome looked to the sky, perhaps thinking there might be some solace in the endless vista. She could see many stars but the moon already had completed its rendevous with the horizon. Hence, stars provided the only light.
However, she was also aware a hint of dawn, the promise of a new day, has started to bristle in the Eastern sky. For a reason which should have been obvious to her but she did not consider, as she cried and looked skyward and prayed, memories of a similar Spring morning a long time ago began to interrupt her prayers.
Her recollection of that morning some thirty years in the past was still vivid. Mary of Magdala, Salome, Salome’s sister, Mary— Mary the mother of James— woke before sunrise. [2]
Mags— most of Magdala’s friends called her Mags— Mags was the most organized of the three, the strongest of the three, the one who was the clear thinker. There was no two ways about it. Mags was their leader.
It was Mags, the organized one, who woke up the rest of them that morning. “We need to be there when the sun rises,” she insisted.
In the near dark, together, they made their way toward the tomb where Yeshua— the name Yeshua is Jesus in the Greek and it means God saves— they made their way toward the tomb where Jesus had been placed. These thirty years later, there was no question in the mind of Salome about one inescapable fact.
Jesus— having been declared an enemy of the state, having been crucified by the Roman authorities, having been murdered by the state— Jesus was dead. She was there when the tomb was sealed.
Yet, when they came upon the tomb that morning, the stone used to cover the cleft in the rock had been rolled away. Even so, they knew Jesus had been executed, knew the body had been placed in that tomb. That the stone was not in their way made no sense to them. And so they entered the tomb, fully expecting to see the body of the Rabbi. They did not.
Salome clearly remembered a young person was sitting in the tomb but her memory of what happened next was a little foggy. She thought these words were spoken: “Do not be afraid! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the One who was crucified. He has been raised and is not here.” (Slight pause.)
All these years later, the memory of those words took her breath away. Perhaps because she was thinking about those words she let out an audible sigh.
That’s when her sister, Mary, tapped her on the shoulder. “Mags wants to see you,” she said. “I think her time is near.”
“Oh, Mary,” said Salome trying to hold back tears. “Mags means so much to us. What shall we do without her?”
Mary could be quite practical. “There’s no time to fuss over that now. She wants to see you. She needs you.”
Mary and Salome returned to the house. Mags was sitting in a chair. She looked terrible. Her eyes did not seem to focus. Salome had seen death often enough. She knew Mags would soon die.
Mags waved at Salome and she approached the chair. Mags smiled and said in a whisper, “Right now I can’t help thinking about that morning at the tomb.” Salome and Mary nodded. Salome wondered if Mags realized she had been having those very same thoughts.
“We were very afraid. It took us some time,” Mags continued, “it took us some time but quite soon after that we understood what resurrection meant. We understood the presence of Jesus is real.”
Again Salome and Mary simply nodded. After all, they had experienced over and over and over what Mags was saying. The presence of Jesus is real. Resurrection affirms the covenant of God.
As Mary and Salome nodded, Mags smiled again. Then she said, “Do not be afraid. Jesus is with me. Jesus is with us.”
It was the last thing she said. She closed her eyes. A short time after that she stopped breathing. (Slight pause.)
After Mags had breathed her last, Salome leaned down and kissed the forehead of her friend. Then Salome stood tall and stiff and faced Mary. The two women looked each other in the eye and nodded. Then they hugged one another tight and they wept. (Slight pause.)
Hand in hand, they left the house. The sun was making its full presence known in the East. Suddenly they both started to laugh. They turned toward each other and looked each other in the eye again, smiling from ear to ear. Salome said, “It is like it was on that morning years ago: Jesus is with us.”
Mary said, “Do not be afraid. The promise of a new day is with us. I can feel the presence of the Rabbi. Jesus is with us and resurrection is real.”
Salome continued, “We are a part of the covenant God has made. We are a part of the presence of the living God. And it is as the Rabbi told us: we are and we need to be a part of doing the work of the living God, the work of healing, the work of forgiveness, the work of love.” Amen.
04/05/2015 ~ Easter Sunday
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I am sure the well known American composer Irving Berlin was a nice fellow. He wrote Easter Parade. He also wrote a lesser know Easter Song, It’s a Lovely Day, Happy Easter. I want to suggest, however, that to merely say, ‘Happy Easter’ is not a Christian sentiment. In fact, let me make a suggestion: if someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ shake their hand and say, ‘Christ is risen.’ ‘Happy Easter’ is a secular sentiment. Christ is risen is the Christian sentiment.”
EASTER ACCLAMATION AND BENEDICTION: Please join with me in the Easter Acclamation.
ONE: Rejoice, people of God! Christ is risen from the dead! Go in peace to love and serve God. Christ is with you always. Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
MANY: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!
May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the love of Christ, Jesus, and in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit this day and forever.
[1] This was said when the reading from Mark was introduced: “I need to something one thing about translation: Mary Magdalene is at best a bad translation of that name. The name offered in the translation you are about to hear is a more accurate rendering. The Inclusive Language Version of Scripture was used.
[2] This is the only place in the NT Canon this Salome is mentioned. In non-canonical works Salome is referred to as the sister of Mary. Hence, I have here taken the liberty of applying that relationship which may or may not be the case. On the other hand, Mary is referred to as “Mary the mother of James.” Elsewhere in the Canon it is clearly stated James is the brother of Jesus. But this is not said in Mark. Hence, while this is not said in Mark, the Canonical implication made by that relationship is that Mary is also the mother of Jesus. If that is the case and if Mary is the sister of Salome, then the relationship implied is that Salome is the Aunt of Jesus. And, if that is the case, it would make sense that not only was Salome the Aunt of Jesus but that Salome would embark on the journey to the tomb with Mary of Magdala and Mary the Mother of James.
Looking Backward; Looking Forward
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary of Magdala, and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, perfumed oils, so that they might go and anoint Jesus.” — Mark 16:1. [1]
It had been a long night. Salome was tired. She left the small dwelling, left her friends, wandered down the road a short distance and sat on a large rock.
A few moments after that she felt moved to pray. As she prayed, Salome thought about her friend back at the house.
Her friend was not doing well. She had some expectation that her friend was about to die and the very thought of that impending death filled her with a sense of sadness. She continued to pray but she also started to cry. (Slight pause.)
Salome looked to the sky, perhaps thinking there might be some solace in the endless vista. She could see many stars but the moon already had completed its rendevous with the horizon. Hence, stars provided the only light.
However, she was also aware a hint of dawn, the promise of a new day, has started to bristle in the Eastern sky. For a reason which should have been obvious to her but she did not consider, as she cried and looked skyward and prayed, memories of a similar Spring morning a long time ago began to interrupt her prayers.
Her recollection of that morning some thirty years in the past was still vivid. Mary of Magdala, Salome, Salome’s sister, Mary— Mary the mother of James— woke before sunrise. [2]
Mags— most of Magdala’s friends called her Mags— Mags was the most organized of the three, the strongest of the three, the one who was the clear thinker. There was no two ways about it. Mags was their leader.
It was Mags, the organized one, who woke up the rest of them that morning. “We need to be there when the sun rises,” she insisted.
In the near dark, together, they made their way toward the tomb where Yeshua— the name Yeshua is Jesus in the Greek and it means God saves— they made their way toward the tomb where Jesus had been placed. These thirty years later, there was no question in the mind of Salome about one inescapable fact.
Jesus— having been declared an enemy of the state, having been crucified by the Roman authorities, having been murdered by the state— Jesus was dead. She was there when the tomb was sealed.
Yet, when they came upon the tomb that morning, the stone used to cover the cleft in the rock had been rolled away. Even so, they knew Jesus had been executed, knew the body had been placed in that tomb. That the stone was not in their way made no sense to them. And so they entered the tomb, fully expecting to see the body of the Rabbi. They did not.
Salome clearly remembered a young person was sitting in the tomb but her memory of what happened next was a little foggy. She thought these words were spoken: “Do not be afraid! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the One who was crucified. He has been raised and is not here.” (Slight pause.)
All these years later, the memory of those words took her breath away. Perhaps because she was thinking about those words she let out an audible sigh.
That’s when her sister, Mary, tapped her on the shoulder. “Mags wants to see you,” she said. “I think her time is near.”
“Oh, Mary,” said Salome trying to hold back tears. “Mags means so much to us. What shall we do without her?”
Mary could be quite practical. “There’s no time to fuss over that now. She wants to see you. She needs you.”
Mary and Salome returned to the house. Mags was sitting in a chair. She looked terrible. Her eyes did not seem to focus. Salome had seen death often enough. She knew Mags would soon die.
Mags waved at Salome and she approached the chair. Mags smiled and said in a whisper, “Right now I can’t help thinking about that morning at the tomb.” Salome and Mary nodded. Salome wondered if Mags realized she had been having those very same thoughts.
“We were very afraid. It took us some time,” Mags continued, “it took us some time but quite soon after that we understood what resurrection meant. We understood the presence of Jesus is real.”
Again Salome and Mary simply nodded. After all, they had experienced over and over and over what Mags was saying. The presence of Jesus is real. Resurrection affirms the covenant of God.
As Mary and Salome nodded, Mags smiled again. Then she said, “Do not be afraid. Jesus is with me. Jesus is with us.”
It was the last thing she said. She closed her eyes. A short time after that she stopped breathing. (Slight pause.)
After Mags had breathed her last, Salome leaned down and kissed the forehead of her friend. Then Salome stood tall and stiff and faced Mary. The two women looked each other in the eye and nodded. Then they hugged one another tight and they wept. (Slight pause.)
Hand in hand, they left the house. The sun was making its full presence known in the East. Suddenly they both started to laugh. They turned toward each other and looked each other in the eye again, smiling from ear to ear. Salome said, “It is like it was on that morning years ago: Jesus is with us.”
Mary said, “Do not be afraid. The promise of a new day is with us. I can feel the presence of the Rabbi. Jesus is with us and resurrection is real.”
Salome continued, “We are a part of the covenant God has made. We are a part of the presence of the living God. And it is as the Rabbi told us: we are and we need to be a part of doing the work of the living God, the work of healing, the work of forgiveness, the work of love.” Amen.
04/05/2015 ~ Easter Sunday
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I am sure the well known American composer Irving Berlin was a nice fellow. He wrote Easter Parade. He also wrote a lesser know Easter Song, It’s a Lovely Day, Happy Easter. I want to suggest, however, that to merely say, ‘Happy Easter’ is not a Christian sentiment. In fact, let me make a suggestion: if someone walks up to you today and says, ‘Happy Easter’ shake their hand and say, ‘Christ is risen.’ ‘Happy Easter’ is a secular sentiment. Christ is risen is the Christian sentiment.”
EASTER ACCLAMATION AND BENEDICTION: Please join with me in the Easter Acclamation.
ONE: Rejoice, people of God! Christ is risen from the dead! Go in peace to love and serve God. Christ is with you always. Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
MANY: Christ is risen, indeed. Alleluia!
May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the love of Christ, Jesus, and in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit this day and forever.
[1] This was said when the reading from Mark was introduced: “I need to something one thing about translation: Mary Magdalene is at best a bad translation of that name. The name offered in the translation you are about to hear is a more accurate rendering. The Inclusive Language Version of Scripture was used.
[2] This is the only place in the NT Canon this Salome is mentioned. In non-canonical works Salome is referred to as the sister of Mary. Hence, I have here taken the liberty of applying that relationship which may or may not be the case. On the other hand, Mary is referred to as “Mary the mother of James.” Elsewhere in the Canon it is clearly stated James is the brother of Jesus. But this is not said in Mark. Hence, while this is not said in Mark, the Canonical implication made by that relationship is that Mary is also the mother of Jesus. If that is the case and if Mary is the sister of Salome, then the relationship implied is that Salome is the Aunt of Jesus. And, if that is the case, it would make sense that not only was Salome the Aunt of Jesus but that Salome would embark on the journey to the tomb with Mary of Magdala and Mary the Mother of James.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
SERMON ~ 03/22/2015 ~ “Covenant, Part V: Love God— It’s Emotional”
03/22/2015 ~ Fifth Sunday in Lent ~ Jeremiah 31:31-34; Psalm 51:1-12 or Psalm 119:9-16; Hebrews 5:5-10; John 12:20-33 ~ Soup and Bread Sunday.
Covenant, Part V:
Love God— It’s Emotional [1]
“...this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” — Jeremiah 31:33.
I have a friend in Maine who owns a Christmas tree farm. He says there really is such a thing as the perfect Christmas tree. It exists not in reality but in memory.
It exists only in the adult memory of childhood. Adult memory transforms the childhood Christmas tree into perfection.
Well, for reasons which escape me, last week I was conjuring up in my childhood memory a different perfect tree— a tree in a Merrie Melodies cartoon. Why that childhood memory was haunting me I don’t know. But these days we do have the Internet. So I was able to do some research and find the cartoon in question.
In this animation a dog says he’s off to catch a fox and just before he takes off at a gallop he insists, (quote:) “I know every tree in this forest!” At which point the dog in question runs helter-skelter and slams dead center into a tree, does total a face-plant.
The canine groans, “I know every tree in this forest! And here’s one of them.” It’s a cartoon. So the dog turns into liquid, slides down the side of the tree and becomes a puddle on the ground.
My adult memory of childhood says this was one of the funniest things I had ever seen— a dog doing a face-plant into a tree he knew was there— a perfectly funny tree. Now, I still think that scene is funny as an adult but for different reasons.
I think it’s funny because it illustrates something we all do nearly daily. We concentrate on where each tree is; each detail in our life is located. We pay attention to trees. And we ignore the forest. We pay attention to minutiae but ignore the big picture. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Jeremiah: “...this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Slight pause.)
I’m a veteran. The army told me it likes to break work down into little pieces. That way no piece overwhelms one soldier. Once all the little pieces get put together, the whole job gets done. And we are adept at breaking things into pieces.
But Scripture says the creation is singular. Everything is one. Everything is within the realm of God. There are no pieces.
We often take the words from Jeremiah and think they split out the mind from heart. I want to suggest these words mean not only do the mind and the heart need to be one but if anything the heart, not the mind, leads.
You see first and foremost, this passage is an insistence on the part of God that intentional, intertwined relationship is pivotal. That is a heart first vision, a vision which does not happen without or split out from the heart.
Second, God knows us. This indicates a depth of loving which overcomes and obliterates all social stratifications. There is no elitism, no dominant, powerful people.
This tends to be an issue for us because we do have a proclivity to split the world into pieces. We do tend to split out mind and heart, whereas God sees the world as one.
Further, that we are one people is a very hard concept for us, a very hard concept for our intellect. We like winners and losers. We like tribes. We are very good at splitting things into pieces, at identifying trees— not so good at identifying forests, seeing the whole.
That is why covenant love is the key here. When we split things into trees— elitism, domination and power come to the fore. Love is and needs to be the unifying glue for us, the glue which says there is no elitism, no domination, no power. There is only the love of God.
As the poem by Ann Weems Linda shared with us earlier said, “We’re good at planning!... It’s between parades that we don’t do so well.” [2] And in one of her poems the poet Maren Tirabassi says this, “Dear God, forgive us our illiteracy of the heart”— illiteracy of the heart.
I suspect that brand of illiteracy comes largely from concentrating on trees. And yes— trees are important. Trees are real. But we also slam right into them, do a face plant, way too often.
Unless we realize we are engulfed and embraced first by the love God offers, it matters not how many trees we encounter, how many trees we identify, how many trees we analyze. Indeed, the promise of God is that the trees are written on our hearts. The promise of God is that the trees are written on our hearts so we will recognize that trees make up big forest called love. Amen.
03/22/2015
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: “In Modern society it is often said, ‘Christ died for our sins.’ But that was not where the church was at for the first one thousand years of Christianity. It became a tree and we slammed right into it, did a face plant in it. Catholic priest and theologian says this (quote): ‘With that view, salvation depends upon a problem instead of a divine proclamation about the core nature of reality.... Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God.’ [3] This message is simple. Christ was raised for our sins. Everything, you see, starts with the love of God. It’s about the forest.”
BENEDICTION: God has written the law of love within us. We are empowered to live according to that law, through the Redeemer, Jesus. In Christ, we experience God’s presence together. Where Christ leads, let us follow. Where God calls us to service, let us go. And may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge of God, the love of Jesus, the Christ and the companionship of the Holy Spirit, this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] Note: this meditation was shorter than many offered by the pastor because the Church School offered a program in the course of the service.
[2] From the poem Between Parades by Ann Weems from her work Kneeling in Jerusalem.
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--Love--Not-Atonement.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=iXa_UNn2YaQ
Covenant, Part V:
Love God— It’s Emotional [1]
“...this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” — Jeremiah 31:33.
I have a friend in Maine who owns a Christmas tree farm. He says there really is such a thing as the perfect Christmas tree. It exists not in reality but in memory.
It exists only in the adult memory of childhood. Adult memory transforms the childhood Christmas tree into perfection.
Well, for reasons which escape me, last week I was conjuring up in my childhood memory a different perfect tree— a tree in a Merrie Melodies cartoon. Why that childhood memory was haunting me I don’t know. But these days we do have the Internet. So I was able to do some research and find the cartoon in question.
In this animation a dog says he’s off to catch a fox and just before he takes off at a gallop he insists, (quote:) “I know every tree in this forest!” At which point the dog in question runs helter-skelter and slams dead center into a tree, does total a face-plant.
The canine groans, “I know every tree in this forest! And here’s one of them.” It’s a cartoon. So the dog turns into liquid, slides down the side of the tree and becomes a puddle on the ground.
My adult memory of childhood says this was one of the funniest things I had ever seen— a dog doing a face-plant into a tree he knew was there— a perfectly funny tree. Now, I still think that scene is funny as an adult but for different reasons.
I think it’s funny because it illustrates something we all do nearly daily. We concentrate on where each tree is; each detail in our life is located. We pay attention to trees. And we ignore the forest. We pay attention to minutiae but ignore the big picture. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Jeremiah: “...this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: I will put my Law within them, in their minds, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Slight pause.)
I’m a veteran. The army told me it likes to break work down into little pieces. That way no piece overwhelms one soldier. Once all the little pieces get put together, the whole job gets done. And we are adept at breaking things into pieces.
But Scripture says the creation is singular. Everything is one. Everything is within the realm of God. There are no pieces.
We often take the words from Jeremiah and think they split out the mind from heart. I want to suggest these words mean not only do the mind and the heart need to be one but if anything the heart, not the mind, leads.
You see first and foremost, this passage is an insistence on the part of God that intentional, intertwined relationship is pivotal. That is a heart first vision, a vision which does not happen without or split out from the heart.
Second, God knows us. This indicates a depth of loving which overcomes and obliterates all social stratifications. There is no elitism, no dominant, powerful people.
This tends to be an issue for us because we do have a proclivity to split the world into pieces. We do tend to split out mind and heart, whereas God sees the world as one.
Further, that we are one people is a very hard concept for us, a very hard concept for our intellect. We like winners and losers. We like tribes. We are very good at splitting things into pieces, at identifying trees— not so good at identifying forests, seeing the whole.
That is why covenant love is the key here. When we split things into trees— elitism, domination and power come to the fore. Love is and needs to be the unifying glue for us, the glue which says there is no elitism, no domination, no power. There is only the love of God.
As the poem by Ann Weems Linda shared with us earlier said, “We’re good at planning!... It’s between parades that we don’t do so well.” [2] And in one of her poems the poet Maren Tirabassi says this, “Dear God, forgive us our illiteracy of the heart”— illiteracy of the heart.
I suspect that brand of illiteracy comes largely from concentrating on trees. And yes— trees are important. Trees are real. But we also slam right into them, do a face plant, way too often.
Unless we realize we are engulfed and embraced first by the love God offers, it matters not how many trees we encounter, how many trees we identify, how many trees we analyze. Indeed, the promise of God is that the trees are written on our hearts. The promise of God is that the trees are written on our hearts so we will recognize that trees make up big forest called love. Amen.
03/22/2015
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: “In Modern society it is often said, ‘Christ died for our sins.’ But that was not where the church was at for the first one thousand years of Christianity. It became a tree and we slammed right into it, did a face plant in it. Catholic priest and theologian says this (quote): ‘With that view, salvation depends upon a problem instead of a divine proclamation about the core nature of reality.... Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God.’ [3] This message is simple. Christ was raised for our sins. Everything, you see, starts with the love of God. It’s about the forest.”
BENEDICTION: God has written the law of love within us. We are empowered to live according to that law, through the Redeemer, Jesus. In Christ, we experience God’s presence together. Where Christ leads, let us follow. Where God calls us to service, let us go. And may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge of God, the love of Jesus, the Christ and the companionship of the Holy Spirit, this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] Note: this meditation was shorter than many offered by the pastor because the Church School offered a program in the course of the service.
[2] From the poem Between Parades by Ann Weems from her work Kneeling in Jerusalem.
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--Love--Not-Atonement.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=iXa_UNn2YaQ
Sunday, March 15, 2015
SERMON ~ 03/15/2015 ~ “Covenant, Part IV: Embracing Our Work of Art”
03/15/2015 ~ Fourth Sunday in Lent ~ Numbers 21:4-9; Psalm 107:1-3, 17-22; Ephesians 2:1-10; John 3:14-21.
Covenant, Part IV:
Embracing Our Work of Art
“For we are what God has made us, God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus to do the good things, which God prepared for us to do beforehand, from the beginning, to be our way of life.” — Ephesians 2:10.
The Rev. Ms. Nadia Bolz-Weber is an interesting person. She is a Lutheran. She is the founding pastor of the House for All Sinners and Saints in Denver, Colorado.
That church is in the denomination known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America— the same denomination as the folks from Christ Lutheran, right here in Norwich. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America labels the House for All Sinners and Saints as a mission congregation. I am not sure why that church carries this label, since it is an active, growing church of several hundred in the middle of a growing major metropolitan area.
Perhaps some of the label has to do with the fact that a staid Main Line Denomination is less than comfortable with either the Rev. Ms. Bolz-Weber or with the make up of the congregation. Neither of those— the pastor or the congregation— can be labeled as staid or fits preconceived notions of what a staid Main Line church looks like.
As for the Congregation, a story on National Public Radio described the people who attend the church this way: the congregation follows traditional Christian rites and a service looks like the traditional service in many other churches. At appropriate and appointed times the people sit and the people stand.
The people sing very traditional sounding hymns. However, the congregation does not seem to quite fit a traditional mode in terms of who attends. They look more like a crowd at a downtown metropolitan bookshop — hipsters, college professors, gay couples, grandmas in jeans and sweatshirts or hood-ies— than they look like the usual suspects.
As for Ms. Bolz-Weber— NPR used this description: the pastor, in her early forties, has short, dyed, moussed hair. She also has arm-loads of religious tattoos.
And yes, I’ve seen pictures of Nadia. Her arms are plastered with tattoos. Further, though she always wears a Roman collar signifying her office, she often wears short sleeve shirts. This sartorial choice means her tattoos are on full display. [1]
Additionally, I need to point out Pastor Bolz-Weber is a writer. Her books include Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television and Pastrix— that’s p-a-s-t-r-i-x— Pastrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint.
In a recent sermon Bolz-Weber told a personal story. She started by explaining why she missed Vespers the previous week. The fact that this congregation has a Vespers service tells you something about an adherence by this congregation to basic Lutheran traditions. In any case, she missed Vespers because she was in bed, sick with the flu.
These days she stays in bed when she has the flu because of something which happened 12 years ago. At that point in time, still in school, she felt driven to prove herself by finishing a thesis while having 2 pre-school children at home and maintaining a high GPA. She was convinced that she would, thereby, impress all her professors.
Well, when she was sick those 12 years ago with the flu, instead of going to bed, she kept going, kept working, not missing a beat. But she was so sick she passed out while driving, while behind the wheel of a car.
She is thankful it happened near her house, in her neighborhood, and not on a highway. Therefore, instead of crashing into other cars, she merely plowed down a neighbor’s mailbox before her car stopped in their snow covered flowerbed.
After the crash, when she came to and opened the door of the car, she passed out again in a snow-bank. The next time she regained consciousness paramedics were standing over her. Having earlier in her life been addicted to alcohol, the first thing she said to them was, “I’m not drunk.” Then she passed out again.
Later the ER doctor insisted there not a thing wrong with her except she had the flu. Then the doctor added, “When you’re that sick you need to go home and lay down. Do not, under any circumstances, drive.”
In that sermon Pastor Bolz-Weber said she hated that idea of going to bed. Why? Because it was a disruption to her very, very driven personality. You see, she placed her trust in her ability to perform. She placed her trust in her ability to do it all. She thought she was the one who controlled the possibility of perfection. [2] (Slight pause.)
These words are from the work known as Ephesians: “For we are what God has made us, God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus to do the good things, which God prepared for us to do beforehand, from the beginning, to be our way of life.” (Slight pause.)
Early in this reading from Ephesians we hear the word “saved.” Being saved— not a term heard very much in Main Line churches these days. Perhaps it conjures up too many recollections of old-time revivals, when and where people “got saved.” Even if only for a short spell— that got saved.
On the other hand, “saved” is a prominent biblical term. We also heard it in the Gospel reading. Perhaps we need to dust it off and have another look at it.
In fact, let my give you an interesting definition. I want to suggest saved means “life.” Indeed, saved means God gives life. Saved means we have God given life. (Slight pause.)
The entire history of both Judaism and Christianity agree on this: God gives life. Put another way, God is the prime mover. Hence and therefore, we are what the writer of Ephesians says we are— we are (quote:) “God’s work of art.”
So, the question for me is not “how do I grow into that?” I am there. You are there. We are God’s work of art already. Indeed, if we are God’s work of art, the question becomes, “How do we become comfortable with that?”
And that, I think, is the rub, the problem. I think we are not often comfortable with that. You see, when earlier I said Pastor Bolz-Weber placed her trust in her ability to do it all, I think that often we all fall into the same mode. We place our trust in our own ability to do it all.
When we place our trust in our own ability to do it all we forget two things. We forget we need to place our trust in God. And we forget we are God’s work of art.
The Lenten Devotional from Luther Seminary we made available for the asking this year puts it this way. (Quote:) “I used to think it was my job to save the world. It was exhausting, not to mention misguided. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment when I began to understand that it is God who does the saving”— and remember, in the context of Scripture saving means life giving— “I began to understand that it is God who does the saving. And I learned it was okay to surrender to God’s work and enjoy God’s gift of grace.”
That booklet continues: “Paul points out to the Ephesians that Christ invites us to partner in God’s redeeming work in the world. It’s not up to us alone to save; nor are we given an extra star on our heavenly deeds chart for the good we do. Each of us is particularly equipped by the Spirit to serve our neighbor and through faith we trust that God works in, despite and through us.” — words from A Lenten Devotional. [3] (Slight pause.)
I am well convinced that in order to deeply and truly love ourselves, we need to understand ourselves as God’s work of art. I am also well convinced that once we deeply and truly love ourselves because we are God’s work of art, then we become empowered to love others.
And what does it mean to love others? Often to love others means to simply be there for them, not to fix anything in particular, but just to let them know we are there to be present, to be a presence, to support, to offer care.
To be gentle in that way can be quite hard— to be a presence— to be gentle in that way , since fixing is something we humans like to do. Again, like Pastor Bolz-Weber, often we believe it’s our job to preform, to get results, to fix things, to work until we make perfection our own possession. (Slight pause.)
Well, I need to notice the track of this line of thought takes. First, once we recognize we are God’s work of art we can then come to a deeper and fuller understanding of what it means when it’s said God loves us.
Once we come to a deeper and fuller understanding when it’s said God loves us, we realize two things. First, perfection is not our doing nor our work. It is the work of God. Second, God calls us to love others since they are also God’s works of art.
Put differently, understanding we are God’s work of art, understanding God loves us that much, empowers us to love God and to love neighbor. Gee— love God; love neighbor. I think I have heard that somewhere before. Amen.
03/15/2015
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: “These days a lot of people talk about spirituality. Theologian Richard Rohr has this to say on that topic: ‘Authentic spirituality is.... is not and never has been about trying to change anyone else.’ I need to add something else: true Spirituality is about arriving at a deep understanding that we are not God. Only God is God.”
BENEDICTION: There is but one message in Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness, there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the Creator which is real, the Peace of the Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in God’s knowledge and care this day and forever more. Amen.
[1]
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/20/255281434/pastor-leads-a-new-brand-of-church-for-sinners-and-saints
[2]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/2015/03/a-sermon-on-addiction-and-the-problem-with-our-me-based-solutions/
[3] It should be noted that it’s unlikely Paul wrote Ephesians despite what the Lenten Devotional said.
Covenant, Part IV:
Embracing Our Work of Art
“For we are what God has made us, God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus to do the good things, which God prepared for us to do beforehand, from the beginning, to be our way of life.” — Ephesians 2:10.
The Rev. Ms. Nadia Bolz-Weber is an interesting person. She is a Lutheran. She is the founding pastor of the House for All Sinners and Saints in Denver, Colorado.
That church is in the denomination known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America— the same denomination as the folks from Christ Lutheran, right here in Norwich. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America labels the House for All Sinners and Saints as a mission congregation. I am not sure why that church carries this label, since it is an active, growing church of several hundred in the middle of a growing major metropolitan area.
Perhaps some of the label has to do with the fact that a staid Main Line Denomination is less than comfortable with either the Rev. Ms. Bolz-Weber or with the make up of the congregation. Neither of those— the pastor or the congregation— can be labeled as staid or fits preconceived notions of what a staid Main Line church looks like.
As for the Congregation, a story on National Public Radio described the people who attend the church this way: the congregation follows traditional Christian rites and a service looks like the traditional service in many other churches. At appropriate and appointed times the people sit and the people stand.
The people sing very traditional sounding hymns. However, the congregation does not seem to quite fit a traditional mode in terms of who attends. They look more like a crowd at a downtown metropolitan bookshop — hipsters, college professors, gay couples, grandmas in jeans and sweatshirts or hood-ies— than they look like the usual suspects.
As for Ms. Bolz-Weber— NPR used this description: the pastor, in her early forties, has short, dyed, moussed hair. She also has arm-loads of religious tattoos.
And yes, I’ve seen pictures of Nadia. Her arms are plastered with tattoos. Further, though she always wears a Roman collar signifying her office, she often wears short sleeve shirts. This sartorial choice means her tattoos are on full display. [1]
Additionally, I need to point out Pastor Bolz-Weber is a writer. Her books include Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television and Pastrix— that’s p-a-s-t-r-i-x— Pastrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint.
In a recent sermon Bolz-Weber told a personal story. She started by explaining why she missed Vespers the previous week. The fact that this congregation has a Vespers service tells you something about an adherence by this congregation to basic Lutheran traditions. In any case, she missed Vespers because she was in bed, sick with the flu.
These days she stays in bed when she has the flu because of something which happened 12 years ago. At that point in time, still in school, she felt driven to prove herself by finishing a thesis while having 2 pre-school children at home and maintaining a high GPA. She was convinced that she would, thereby, impress all her professors.
Well, when she was sick those 12 years ago with the flu, instead of going to bed, she kept going, kept working, not missing a beat. But she was so sick she passed out while driving, while behind the wheel of a car.
She is thankful it happened near her house, in her neighborhood, and not on a highway. Therefore, instead of crashing into other cars, she merely plowed down a neighbor’s mailbox before her car stopped in their snow covered flowerbed.
After the crash, when she came to and opened the door of the car, she passed out again in a snow-bank. The next time she regained consciousness paramedics were standing over her. Having earlier in her life been addicted to alcohol, the first thing she said to them was, “I’m not drunk.” Then she passed out again.
Later the ER doctor insisted there not a thing wrong with her except she had the flu. Then the doctor added, “When you’re that sick you need to go home and lay down. Do not, under any circumstances, drive.”
In that sermon Pastor Bolz-Weber said she hated that idea of going to bed. Why? Because it was a disruption to her very, very driven personality. You see, she placed her trust in her ability to perform. She placed her trust in her ability to do it all. She thought she was the one who controlled the possibility of perfection. [2] (Slight pause.)
These words are from the work known as Ephesians: “For we are what God has made us, God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus to do the good things, which God prepared for us to do beforehand, from the beginning, to be our way of life.” (Slight pause.)
Early in this reading from Ephesians we hear the word “saved.” Being saved— not a term heard very much in Main Line churches these days. Perhaps it conjures up too many recollections of old-time revivals, when and where people “got saved.” Even if only for a short spell— that got saved.
On the other hand, “saved” is a prominent biblical term. We also heard it in the Gospel reading. Perhaps we need to dust it off and have another look at it.
In fact, let my give you an interesting definition. I want to suggest saved means “life.” Indeed, saved means God gives life. Saved means we have God given life. (Slight pause.)
The entire history of both Judaism and Christianity agree on this: God gives life. Put another way, God is the prime mover. Hence and therefore, we are what the writer of Ephesians says we are— we are (quote:) “God’s work of art.”
So, the question for me is not “how do I grow into that?” I am there. You are there. We are God’s work of art already. Indeed, if we are God’s work of art, the question becomes, “How do we become comfortable with that?”
And that, I think, is the rub, the problem. I think we are not often comfortable with that. You see, when earlier I said Pastor Bolz-Weber placed her trust in her ability to do it all, I think that often we all fall into the same mode. We place our trust in our own ability to do it all.
When we place our trust in our own ability to do it all we forget two things. We forget we need to place our trust in God. And we forget we are God’s work of art.
The Lenten Devotional from Luther Seminary we made available for the asking this year puts it this way. (Quote:) “I used to think it was my job to save the world. It was exhausting, not to mention misguided. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment when I began to understand that it is God who does the saving”— and remember, in the context of Scripture saving means life giving— “I began to understand that it is God who does the saving. And I learned it was okay to surrender to God’s work and enjoy God’s gift of grace.”
That booklet continues: “Paul points out to the Ephesians that Christ invites us to partner in God’s redeeming work in the world. It’s not up to us alone to save; nor are we given an extra star on our heavenly deeds chart for the good we do. Each of us is particularly equipped by the Spirit to serve our neighbor and through faith we trust that God works in, despite and through us.” — words from A Lenten Devotional. [3] (Slight pause.)
I am well convinced that in order to deeply and truly love ourselves, we need to understand ourselves as God’s work of art. I am also well convinced that once we deeply and truly love ourselves because we are God’s work of art, then we become empowered to love others.
And what does it mean to love others? Often to love others means to simply be there for them, not to fix anything in particular, but just to let them know we are there to be present, to be a presence, to support, to offer care.
To be gentle in that way can be quite hard— to be a presence— to be gentle in that way , since fixing is something we humans like to do. Again, like Pastor Bolz-Weber, often we believe it’s our job to preform, to get results, to fix things, to work until we make perfection our own possession. (Slight pause.)
Well, I need to notice the track of this line of thought takes. First, once we recognize we are God’s work of art we can then come to a deeper and fuller understanding of what it means when it’s said God loves us.
Once we come to a deeper and fuller understanding when it’s said God loves us, we realize two things. First, perfection is not our doing nor our work. It is the work of God. Second, God calls us to love others since they are also God’s works of art.
Put differently, understanding we are God’s work of art, understanding God loves us that much, empowers us to love God and to love neighbor. Gee— love God; love neighbor. I think I have heard that somewhere before. Amen.
03/15/2015
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: “These days a lot of people talk about spirituality. Theologian Richard Rohr has this to say on that topic: ‘Authentic spirituality is.... is not and never has been about trying to change anyone else.’ I need to add something else: true Spirituality is about arriving at a deep understanding that we are not God. Only God is God.”
BENEDICTION: There is but one message in Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness, there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the Creator which is real, the Peace of the Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in God’s knowledge and care this day and forever more. Amen.
[1]
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/20/255281434/pastor-leads-a-new-brand-of-church-for-sinners-and-saints
[2]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/2015/03/a-sermon-on-addiction-and-the-problem-with-our-me-based-solutions/
[3] It should be noted that it’s unlikely Paul wrote Ephesians despite what the Lenten Devotional said.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
SERMON ~ 03/08/2015 ~ “The Covenant, Part III: or Don’t You Get It?”
03/08/2015 ~ Third Sunday in Lent ~ Exodus 20:1-17; Psalm 19; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; John 2:13-22.
The Covenant, Part III:
or Don’t You Get It?
“But we proclaim and we preach a Christ Who is crucified, a Messiah Who is nailed to a cross. To the Jews this is a stumbling block, an obstacle they cannot overcome; to the Greeks this is foolishness, madness.” — 1 Corinthians 1:23.
Many of you know Tom Rasely. In case you do not Tom Rasely, he was our Music Associate— guitarist, composer, arranger, jack of all trades— with this church for a little better than five years. Then he and his wife Cindy moved to Southern Indiana some three years ago to be closer to their grandchildren.
Well, Tom and Cindy have decided to pull up stakes again and move to Southwestern Michigan, which is even closer to their grandchildren. Grandchildren are precious and proximity is desirable. Now, if you do know Tom, it would also probably not surprise you if I said he had been working as a church musician in Southern Indiana.
But he is moving. So last Sunday, his final week in that church musician post, he was also the preacher. If you know Tom that also probably does not surprise you. What follows is a précis of that message. (Slight pause.)
When I was younger, I spent the better part of 5 years on the road. I toured through 26 states and Canada, playing my songs at Christian music concerts. Most of the time at these events a musician is expected to deliver their own testimony.
I never did. I consider the typical testimony, the way it is too often given, as being more than a bit egotistical and egocentric. The standard testimony makes a presumption that I know something about God you don’t or that something happened to me which is way more special than anything that’s ever happened to you.
Additionally, the testimony most often heard centers around a particularly heinous problem which got straightened out: drug addiction or grand theft, for example. Shock rather than sincerity is obviously the technique used and is perhaps even the message intended.
The other type of testimony often heard is more personal but equally problematic. It’s the kind which says something like ‘I survived four or five major heart attacks and God saved my life.’ That makes a less than kind assumption. It assumes the person who did not survive one heart attack fails to be worthy as is the person who has survived five.
I think if I were to give a testimony, said Tom, it would go something like this: “I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.” (Slight pause.) Well, that’s pretty boring, is it not? he said.
Even then, there are two first person singular pronouns in the statement. And my point is it’s not about me. It’s about God. It’s about God so loving the world.
Therefore, it’s not about God loving just me. And it’s not about God loving just you. It’s about God who so loved the world that God did not condemn the world. It’s about the Word Who became flesh and dwelt for a while among us.
And the bottom line is we meet here in church because God first loved us. That’s loved us as in loved everyone. And if that’s not the case, if God does not love everyone, then God does not love the world. And then we all ought to leave right now, go to McDonalds, have a cup of coffee and go home. (I know— those of you who know Tom can really hear Tom’s voice in that line!)
Then he said, you see we meet as community because God loves us. When we carry that message and that message alone out these doors and into the street, I think we finally hear a testimony worth giving. It’s not a testimony filled with I, me and mine.
This is a testimony given in community and a testimony filled with community. This is a testimony filled with love of the Creator. This is a testimony filled with love of the Creator that makes this claim: the Creator is the origin of love, itself. That’s a message we need to carry out of door and into the world. (Slight pause.)
Tom continued: we are now in the season of Lent. Lent is not a time of darkness, as some would have it.
Lent is a time of preparation, a time to consider what life would be like without the light of the love God offers. Lent is a time to remember we should arise and shine for (as Isaiah prophesied) our light has come.
We are, you see, not a people of the crucifixion. We are a people of the resurrection. God came to be with us in Jesus. God came to be one with us, to help us understand there is no gap. [1] — Tom Rasely. (Slight pause.)
And we hear from Paul in First Corinthians where these words are recorded: “But we proclaim and we preach a Christ Who is crucified, a Messiah Who is nailed to a cross. To the Jews this is a stumbling block, an obstacle they cannot overcome; to the Greeks this is foolishness, madness.” (Slight pause.)
Scholars are unanimous about this: not all the Epistles attributed to Paul are written by Paul. First Corinthians is one among the seven Epistles Paul actually wrote. Also, while Paul is a major figure in the work known as The Acts of the Apostles, most scholars think it’s unlikely the writer of Luke/Acts actually knew Paul.
Despite this lack of firsthand knowledge, the writer of Luke/Acts and Paul agree on a couple of basic facts about Paul. First, Paul was a devout Jew.
Second, Paul was a Pharisee, a member of a division within Judaism that said it’s important to maintain fidelity in a relationship with God. It’s important to understand the covenant of God and the God of the Covenant.
Last, at first Paul was a persecutor of Christianity. This means Paul knew enough about Christianity to oppose it.
All of these are factors about which Paul and the writer of Luke/Acts agree. When these things are placed side by side, the point being made is obvious: Christianity is a form of Judaism.
That raises a simple question: if Christianity is a form of Judaism, what do Jewish people believe? What is middle of the road Jewish theology? (Slight pause.) As has been noted for the last couple of weeks— this is part III of reflections about covenant. Jewish people are people of the covenant.
So, what does a theology of the covenant of God mean for Jewish people? [For each of these points the pastor counts them off by holding up an additional finger.] God is good. The God of Covenant is good. The covenant is a gift of God to humanity. And, having given humanity the gift of covenant, God expects nothing in return.
Given Jewish covenant theology, Paul’s position is obvious: in Jesus the covenant can be seen. In Jesus a continuation of the covenant can be seen. In Jesus the climax of the covenant can be seen. In Jesus the resolution of the covenant can be seen. In Jesus God has reached out in a very personal way to both each of us and to all of us. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to Tom Rasely. I think Tom has it right in a number of ways. First, it’s not about us. It’s about God and, specifically, it’s about the God of the covenant.
Second, the God of the covenant sent the Word Who became flesh and dwelt for a while among us. Third, this God of covenant so loved the world that God did not in any way condemn the world. And that, by the way, goes back to the initial theological covenant premise of the Jewish people: God is good.
Last and therefore, we are not a people of the crucifixion. We are people of the resurrection. The resurrection is an affirmation of covenant. (Slight pause.)
I think the message of Paul is clear throughout the seven letters of the Apostle. Jesus is not and cannot be separated from the God proclaimed in Hebrew Scriptures. It is a whole. It is a continuum.
In fact, the entirety of Paul’s writings can be reduced to one basic message: “Don’t you get it? Jesus is the Messiah. The Messiah is about the covenant of God, the covenant God made with humanity— a covenant of trust, a covenant of peace, a covenant of freedom, a covenant of love. This covenant is and has been established for all time, for eternity.”
Well, this is the way I see it: the message of the resurrection, the message of covenant embodied by Jesus, is not just that the covenant is real and true. The message of the resurrection embodied by Jesus says the covenant is eternal. Amen.
03/08/2015
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: “This [the Pastor holds up a Bible] is not a book. It is a library, a collection of books. If people make any mistake in reading Scripture it’s that they isolate stories and then read each story as an adventure story— the escape from Egypt, the life of Jesus— adventure stories. Scripture is not a group of adventure stories. It is a collection of books and the subject in each and every one of them and all of them together is covenant theology.”
BENEDICTION: This is the message of Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness, there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the Creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] This I believe is an essence of what Tom offered. These are, however, not exactly his words. Tom is aware that I have made some alterations and has granted permission for use of what he said. Note: Tom did send me a printed version of his original sermon and I was, hence, privy to his thoughts. Tom (and his music) can be reached at this website:
The Covenant, Part III:
or Don’t You Get It?
“But we proclaim and we preach a Christ Who is crucified, a Messiah Who is nailed to a cross. To the Jews this is a stumbling block, an obstacle they cannot overcome; to the Greeks this is foolishness, madness.” — 1 Corinthians 1:23.
Many of you know Tom Rasely. In case you do not Tom Rasely, he was our Music Associate— guitarist, composer, arranger, jack of all trades— with this church for a little better than five years. Then he and his wife Cindy moved to Southern Indiana some three years ago to be closer to their grandchildren.
Well, Tom and Cindy have decided to pull up stakes again and move to Southwestern Michigan, which is even closer to their grandchildren. Grandchildren are precious and proximity is desirable. Now, if you do know Tom, it would also probably not surprise you if I said he had been working as a church musician in Southern Indiana.
But he is moving. So last Sunday, his final week in that church musician post, he was also the preacher. If you know Tom that also probably does not surprise you. What follows is a précis of that message. (Slight pause.)
When I was younger, I spent the better part of 5 years on the road. I toured through 26 states and Canada, playing my songs at Christian music concerts. Most of the time at these events a musician is expected to deliver their own testimony.
I never did. I consider the typical testimony, the way it is too often given, as being more than a bit egotistical and egocentric. The standard testimony makes a presumption that I know something about God you don’t or that something happened to me which is way more special than anything that’s ever happened to you.
Additionally, the testimony most often heard centers around a particularly heinous problem which got straightened out: drug addiction or grand theft, for example. Shock rather than sincerity is obviously the technique used and is perhaps even the message intended.
The other type of testimony often heard is more personal but equally problematic. It’s the kind which says something like ‘I survived four or five major heart attacks and God saved my life.’ That makes a less than kind assumption. It assumes the person who did not survive one heart attack fails to be worthy as is the person who has survived five.
I think if I were to give a testimony, said Tom, it would go something like this: “I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.” (Slight pause.) Well, that’s pretty boring, is it not? he said.
Even then, there are two first person singular pronouns in the statement. And my point is it’s not about me. It’s about God. It’s about God so loving the world.
Therefore, it’s not about God loving just me. And it’s not about God loving just you. It’s about God who so loved the world that God did not condemn the world. It’s about the Word Who became flesh and dwelt for a while among us.
And the bottom line is we meet here in church because God first loved us. That’s loved us as in loved everyone. And if that’s not the case, if God does not love everyone, then God does not love the world. And then we all ought to leave right now, go to McDonalds, have a cup of coffee and go home. (I know— those of you who know Tom can really hear Tom’s voice in that line!)
Then he said, you see we meet as community because God loves us. When we carry that message and that message alone out these doors and into the street, I think we finally hear a testimony worth giving. It’s not a testimony filled with I, me and mine.
This is a testimony given in community and a testimony filled with community. This is a testimony filled with love of the Creator. This is a testimony filled with love of the Creator that makes this claim: the Creator is the origin of love, itself. That’s a message we need to carry out of door and into the world. (Slight pause.)
Tom continued: we are now in the season of Lent. Lent is not a time of darkness, as some would have it.
Lent is a time of preparation, a time to consider what life would be like without the light of the love God offers. Lent is a time to remember we should arise and shine for (as Isaiah prophesied) our light has come.
We are, you see, not a people of the crucifixion. We are a people of the resurrection. God came to be with us in Jesus. God came to be one with us, to help us understand there is no gap. [1] — Tom Rasely. (Slight pause.)
And we hear from Paul in First Corinthians where these words are recorded: “But we proclaim and we preach a Christ Who is crucified, a Messiah Who is nailed to a cross. To the Jews this is a stumbling block, an obstacle they cannot overcome; to the Greeks this is foolishness, madness.” (Slight pause.)
Scholars are unanimous about this: not all the Epistles attributed to Paul are written by Paul. First Corinthians is one among the seven Epistles Paul actually wrote. Also, while Paul is a major figure in the work known as The Acts of the Apostles, most scholars think it’s unlikely the writer of Luke/Acts actually knew Paul.
Despite this lack of firsthand knowledge, the writer of Luke/Acts and Paul agree on a couple of basic facts about Paul. First, Paul was a devout Jew.
Second, Paul was a Pharisee, a member of a division within Judaism that said it’s important to maintain fidelity in a relationship with God. It’s important to understand the covenant of God and the God of the Covenant.
Last, at first Paul was a persecutor of Christianity. This means Paul knew enough about Christianity to oppose it.
All of these are factors about which Paul and the writer of Luke/Acts agree. When these things are placed side by side, the point being made is obvious: Christianity is a form of Judaism.
That raises a simple question: if Christianity is a form of Judaism, what do Jewish people believe? What is middle of the road Jewish theology? (Slight pause.) As has been noted for the last couple of weeks— this is part III of reflections about covenant. Jewish people are people of the covenant.
So, what does a theology of the covenant of God mean for Jewish people? [For each of these points the pastor counts them off by holding up an additional finger.] God is good. The God of Covenant is good. The covenant is a gift of God to humanity. And, having given humanity the gift of covenant, God expects nothing in return.
Given Jewish covenant theology, Paul’s position is obvious: in Jesus the covenant can be seen. In Jesus a continuation of the covenant can be seen. In Jesus the climax of the covenant can be seen. In Jesus the resolution of the covenant can be seen. In Jesus God has reached out in a very personal way to both each of us and to all of us. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to Tom Rasely. I think Tom has it right in a number of ways. First, it’s not about us. It’s about God and, specifically, it’s about the God of the covenant.
Second, the God of the covenant sent the Word Who became flesh and dwelt for a while among us. Third, this God of covenant so loved the world that God did not in any way condemn the world. And that, by the way, goes back to the initial theological covenant premise of the Jewish people: God is good.
Last and therefore, we are not a people of the crucifixion. We are people of the resurrection. The resurrection is an affirmation of covenant. (Slight pause.)
I think the message of Paul is clear throughout the seven letters of the Apostle. Jesus is not and cannot be separated from the God proclaimed in Hebrew Scriptures. It is a whole. It is a continuum.
In fact, the entirety of Paul’s writings can be reduced to one basic message: “Don’t you get it? Jesus is the Messiah. The Messiah is about the covenant of God, the covenant God made with humanity— a covenant of trust, a covenant of peace, a covenant of freedom, a covenant of love. This covenant is and has been established for all time, for eternity.”
Well, this is the way I see it: the message of the resurrection, the message of covenant embodied by Jesus, is not just that the covenant is real and true. The message of the resurrection embodied by Jesus says the covenant is eternal. Amen.
03/08/2015
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: “This [the Pastor holds up a Bible] is not a book. It is a library, a collection of books. If people make any mistake in reading Scripture it’s that they isolate stories and then read each story as an adventure story— the escape from Egypt, the life of Jesus— adventure stories. Scripture is not a group of adventure stories. It is a collection of books and the subject in each and every one of them and all of them together is covenant theology.”
BENEDICTION: This is the message of Scripture: God loves us. Let us endeavor to let God’s love shine forth in our lives. For with God’s love and goodness, there is power to redeem, power to revive, power to renew, power to resurrect. So, may the love of God the Creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] This I believe is an essence of what Tom offered. These are, however, not exactly his words. Tom is aware that I have made some alterations and has granted permission for use of what he said. Note: Tom did send me a printed version of his original sermon and I was, hence, privy to his thoughts. Tom (and his music) can be reached at this website:
Sunday, March 1, 2015
SERMON ~ 03/01/2015 ~ “Covenant, Part II: Openness to....”
03/01/2015 ~ Second Sunday in Lent ~ Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16; Psalm 22:23-31; Romans 4:13-25; Mark 8:31-38 or Mark 9:2-9 ~ Communion Sunday.
Covenant, Part II: Openness to....
“God said, ‘...your wife Sarah shall bear you a child, who, since you have laughed, shall be named Yitzhak, Isaac, Laughter. I will establish my covenant with Yitzhak as an everlasting covenant and for all the descendants who shall follow.’” [1] — Genesis 17:19.
In our church newsletter just mailed on Friday so you may not have it yet, our historian, Pat Evans, tells some of the history from the 1950s when the Rev. Mr. Avery Post was the pastor. One of the participants in the Installation of Post was Rev. Mr. James A. G. Moore, Associate Minister of the New York Congregational Christian Conference— the New York Congregational Christian Conference being the body which was the predecessor of the New York Conference of the United Church of Christ, this structure to which we belong, the denomination.
The Rev. Mr. David Gaewski, our current Conference Minister, has preached here in Norwich twice. Upon arriving in the Conference, one of David’s projects has been to help get the Conference into the 21st Century, as least in terms of computers and communicating to the churches of the Conference and individual members of those churches— communicating by computers.
One significant way that has happened is the Conference now sends out a weekly e-mail newsletter. Anyone can sign up for this missive on the Conference web site. And please, I ask each of you to sign up for it. We should all be getting it.
Most weeks David authors a column called My Thoughts for the newsletter. What follows is some of what that column contained this week. (Slight pause.)
When the conversation begins about “the church of tomorrow,” I often become bored with how narrow the thinking can be. There is no single blueprint or template of what the church will look like in five, ten or twenty years. There never has been.
I also yawn when the conversation includes the phrase “this is a unique moment in church history.” Give me a break.
Every moment has been unique since the last supper. Corinth could not have foreseen Westminster Abbey in London. Thomas Aquinas could not have envisioned Old South Church in Boston. Salem could not have imagined Riverside Church in Manhattan. And it seems unlikely Martin Luther could have ever anticipated the entity we call the United Church of Christ.
Let me paraphrase Saint Paul since there is only one thing of which I am certain, says David in these comments. One day we will see face to face, but on this blue orb, the mirror will always be a dim reflection of the perfection of the Body of Christ.
Indeed, there will be no fewer “forms” of church in 2060 as there are in 2015. There is no single template for faithful witness. And we will struggle each day we have on earth to more fully reflect the image in which we are made.
So, at least let us change our terminology and use not “the church of tomorrow” but let’s use something like “the churches of tomorrow”— plural. Anything else is, in my humble opinion, at best arrogant or self-aggrandizing and in its worst iterations, it is an attempt to sell snake oil— the Rev. Mr. David Gaewski.
I think among the points David was trying to make some are quite obvious. Change not only happens, it is unpredictable and inevitable. It will happen in ways we cannot now foresee. We need to be open to the movement of the Spirit. [2] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Genesis: “God said, ‘...your wife Sarah shall bear you a child, who, since you have laughed, shall be named Yitzhak, Isaac, Laughter. I will establish my covenant with Yitzhak as an everlasting covenant and for all the descendants who shall follow.’” (Slight pause.)
First things first: if you were here last week and read the sermon title— and speaking of communicating in a 21st Century way— you did not have to be here last week to know the sermon title. You can read or hear the sermon from February 22nd online. But, if you were here last week, you know that sermon title last week was Covenant, Part I: Presence.
Today is Part II. Now, some of what I said last week is: a covenant is not a contract, since a contract is an agreement between parties. God gives the covenant as a free gift without expectation of anything in return.
Here, in Part II— and as we progress through Lent there will be more on covenant, more parts— here in Part II, nothing contradicts that idea of God giving a free gift. Again God takes the initiative. The Hebrew word used in expressing what happens in this reading says God gives a covenant, God speaks promises with Abraham and with the descendants of Abraham. Nothing is expected in return.
The promises made by God, however, are challenging. The challenge is not found in the details of the promises made. The challenge is found in the essence of those promises.
Indeed, I want to suggest we pay by far too much attention to the details. In this passage the details of these promises can be summed up as one: fertility— (quote:) “...I will make you most fruitful, exceedingly fruitful;...” and two: land— (quote:) “You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations...”
But the essence of these promises, what lies underneath these promises, is not found in the details. What lies underneath these promises is something which probably frightens us all. It’s the idea that change is inevitable. Change will happen.
And, in case you have not heard, none of us really likes change. Further, in terms of this passage it seems pretty clear that Abraham wants to resist change. (Quote:) “Then Avraham fell on his face and laughed,...” That’s meant to be irony. He doesn’t really want change.
That leaves us with a very serious question. We all know this: with or without God change is inevitable. Therefore, how can not just change— but the change God offers us— how can that change be incorporated into our life? (Slight pause.)
For me there is a simple one word answer: faith. That’s the one way we can be open to the inevitably of change. And I am not talking about just any kind of faith. Mature faith is necessary to cope with change. Which leaves us with yet another question: how is a mature faith cultivated? (Slight pause.)
Jesuit James Martin says this (quote:): “An adult life requires work. Think of it this way: you would not consider yourself equipped to face life with a third grader’s understanding of math. Yet people often expect the religious instruction they had in grade school to sustain them in the adult world.”
He also says, “...faith isn’t something you just have.... faith is like a garden: while you may already have the basics— soil, seed, water— you have to cultivate and nourish it. Like a garden, faith takes practice, persistence, even work.” [3] — James Martin, S.J. (Slight pause.)
Earlier I mentioned what David Gaewski wrote in the weekly Conference e-mail Newsletter. (Quote:) “When the conversation begins about ‘the church of tomorrow,’ I often become bored with how narrow the thinking can be.”
How do we, how can we avoid narrowness? How can we be open to not just change but the change God might have in store? I want to suggest a prime way to avoid narrowness and to be open to the change God might have in store is not just to have faith. It is important to have a mature faith, a lived faith, a studied faith.
I think a prime way of moving to a mature faith is to cultivate a lived faith, a faith in which we see everything through a prism— a prism which says God walks with us. In fact, the entire history of the church, all its 2,000 years worth of change tells us one thing.
In the words of James Martin, if we want to walk with God we need to treat faith like a garden. And that takes practice, persistence, work.
I think when we treat faith like a garden it’s not that change will fail to happen. We certainly won’t prevent change. It’s that we will be ready for all the colors of the flowers and all the nutrients of the edibles in that garden. Change will happen. And we will be ready for change. Amen.
03/01/2015
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: “Coming back to our history in this church, as you probably know Samuel Scoville was the Pastor here from 1861 to 1879 and was the son-in-law of Henry Ward Beecher. Just this week I came across a quote from Beecher. ‘Every tomorrow has two handles. We can take hold of it with the handle of anxiety or the handle of faith.’”
BENEDICTION: Do not be ashamed to question all that denies God’s reign. The promises of God are for all. Let us trust in the promises of God. Let us understand, believe in and hold to God’s covenant. Let us depart in confidence and joy knowing that God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts. Amen.
[1] It should be noted that when this passage was read the Hebrew pronunciations of the names were used. Additionally, it was explained when the passage was introduced that the meaning of those words would be offered and that those meanings were not a part of the original text.
[2] Note: I slightly edited what David wrote for this medium. Hence, I have not placed these words in quotation marks. I do not believe I have changed the meaning of what was written.
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=0376b5eb-72a3-4840-93d4-f7e87101cade&c=7fb50cf0-4c60-11e3-88de-d4ae52754055&ch=8020a000-4c60-11e3-89c4-d4ae52754055
[3] Page 32-32. The Jesuit Guide to Nearly Everything: A Spirituality for a Real Life, James Martin, S.J., HarperOne, New York, New York, 2010.
Covenant, Part II: Openness to....
“God said, ‘...your wife Sarah shall bear you a child, who, since you have laughed, shall be named Yitzhak, Isaac, Laughter. I will establish my covenant with Yitzhak as an everlasting covenant and for all the descendants who shall follow.’” [1] — Genesis 17:19.
In our church newsletter just mailed on Friday so you may not have it yet, our historian, Pat Evans, tells some of the history from the 1950s when the Rev. Mr. Avery Post was the pastor. One of the participants in the Installation of Post was Rev. Mr. James A. G. Moore, Associate Minister of the New York Congregational Christian Conference— the New York Congregational Christian Conference being the body which was the predecessor of the New York Conference of the United Church of Christ, this structure to which we belong, the denomination.
The Rev. Mr. David Gaewski, our current Conference Minister, has preached here in Norwich twice. Upon arriving in the Conference, one of David’s projects has been to help get the Conference into the 21st Century, as least in terms of computers and communicating to the churches of the Conference and individual members of those churches— communicating by computers.
One significant way that has happened is the Conference now sends out a weekly e-mail newsletter. Anyone can sign up for this missive on the Conference web site. And please, I ask each of you to sign up for it. We should all be getting it.
Most weeks David authors a column called My Thoughts for the newsletter. What follows is some of what that column contained this week. (Slight pause.)
When the conversation begins about “the church of tomorrow,” I often become bored with how narrow the thinking can be. There is no single blueprint or template of what the church will look like in five, ten or twenty years. There never has been.
I also yawn when the conversation includes the phrase “this is a unique moment in church history.” Give me a break.
Every moment has been unique since the last supper. Corinth could not have foreseen Westminster Abbey in London. Thomas Aquinas could not have envisioned Old South Church in Boston. Salem could not have imagined Riverside Church in Manhattan. And it seems unlikely Martin Luther could have ever anticipated the entity we call the United Church of Christ.
Let me paraphrase Saint Paul since there is only one thing of which I am certain, says David in these comments. One day we will see face to face, but on this blue orb, the mirror will always be a dim reflection of the perfection of the Body of Christ.
Indeed, there will be no fewer “forms” of church in 2060 as there are in 2015. There is no single template for faithful witness. And we will struggle each day we have on earth to more fully reflect the image in which we are made.
So, at least let us change our terminology and use not “the church of tomorrow” but let’s use something like “the churches of tomorrow”— plural. Anything else is, in my humble opinion, at best arrogant or self-aggrandizing and in its worst iterations, it is an attempt to sell snake oil— the Rev. Mr. David Gaewski.
I think among the points David was trying to make some are quite obvious. Change not only happens, it is unpredictable and inevitable. It will happen in ways we cannot now foresee. We need to be open to the movement of the Spirit. [2] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Genesis: “God said, ‘...your wife Sarah shall bear you a child, who, since you have laughed, shall be named Yitzhak, Isaac, Laughter. I will establish my covenant with Yitzhak as an everlasting covenant and for all the descendants who shall follow.’” (Slight pause.)
First things first: if you were here last week and read the sermon title— and speaking of communicating in a 21st Century way— you did not have to be here last week to know the sermon title. You can read or hear the sermon from February 22nd online. But, if you were here last week, you know that sermon title last week was Covenant, Part I: Presence.
Today is Part II. Now, some of what I said last week is: a covenant is not a contract, since a contract is an agreement between parties. God gives the covenant as a free gift without expectation of anything in return.
Here, in Part II— and as we progress through Lent there will be more on covenant, more parts— here in Part II, nothing contradicts that idea of God giving a free gift. Again God takes the initiative. The Hebrew word used in expressing what happens in this reading says God gives a covenant, God speaks promises with Abraham and with the descendants of Abraham. Nothing is expected in return.
The promises made by God, however, are challenging. The challenge is not found in the details of the promises made. The challenge is found in the essence of those promises.
Indeed, I want to suggest we pay by far too much attention to the details. In this passage the details of these promises can be summed up as one: fertility— (quote:) “...I will make you most fruitful, exceedingly fruitful;...” and two: land— (quote:) “You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations...”
But the essence of these promises, what lies underneath these promises, is not found in the details. What lies underneath these promises is something which probably frightens us all. It’s the idea that change is inevitable. Change will happen.
And, in case you have not heard, none of us really likes change. Further, in terms of this passage it seems pretty clear that Abraham wants to resist change. (Quote:) “Then Avraham fell on his face and laughed,...” That’s meant to be irony. He doesn’t really want change.
That leaves us with a very serious question. We all know this: with or without God change is inevitable. Therefore, how can not just change— but the change God offers us— how can that change be incorporated into our life? (Slight pause.)
For me there is a simple one word answer: faith. That’s the one way we can be open to the inevitably of change. And I am not talking about just any kind of faith. Mature faith is necessary to cope with change. Which leaves us with yet another question: how is a mature faith cultivated? (Slight pause.)
Jesuit James Martin says this (quote:): “An adult life requires work. Think of it this way: you would not consider yourself equipped to face life with a third grader’s understanding of math. Yet people often expect the religious instruction they had in grade school to sustain them in the adult world.”
He also says, “...faith isn’t something you just have.... faith is like a garden: while you may already have the basics— soil, seed, water— you have to cultivate and nourish it. Like a garden, faith takes practice, persistence, even work.” [3] — James Martin, S.J. (Slight pause.)
Earlier I mentioned what David Gaewski wrote in the weekly Conference e-mail Newsletter. (Quote:) “When the conversation begins about ‘the church of tomorrow,’ I often become bored with how narrow the thinking can be.”
How do we, how can we avoid narrowness? How can we be open to not just change but the change God might have in store? I want to suggest a prime way to avoid narrowness and to be open to the change God might have in store is not just to have faith. It is important to have a mature faith, a lived faith, a studied faith.
I think a prime way of moving to a mature faith is to cultivate a lived faith, a faith in which we see everything through a prism— a prism which says God walks with us. In fact, the entire history of the church, all its 2,000 years worth of change tells us one thing.
In the words of James Martin, if we want to walk with God we need to treat faith like a garden. And that takes practice, persistence, work.
I think when we treat faith like a garden it’s not that change will fail to happen. We certainly won’t prevent change. It’s that we will be ready for all the colors of the flowers and all the nutrients of the edibles in that garden. Change will happen. And we will be ready for change. Amen.
03/01/2015
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: “Coming back to our history in this church, as you probably know Samuel Scoville was the Pastor here from 1861 to 1879 and was the son-in-law of Henry Ward Beecher. Just this week I came across a quote from Beecher. ‘Every tomorrow has two handles. We can take hold of it with the handle of anxiety or the handle of faith.’”
BENEDICTION: Do not be ashamed to question all that denies God’s reign. The promises of God are for all. Let us trust in the promises of God. Let us understand, believe in and hold to God’s covenant. Let us depart in confidence and joy knowing that God is with us and let us carry Christ in our hearts. Amen.
[1] It should be noted that when this passage was read the Hebrew pronunciations of the names were used. Additionally, it was explained when the passage was introduced that the meaning of those words would be offered and that those meanings were not a part of the original text.
[2] Note: I slightly edited what David wrote for this medium. Hence, I have not placed these words in quotation marks. I do not believe I have changed the meaning of what was written.
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=0376b5eb-72a3-4840-93d4-f7e87101cade&c=7fb50cf0-4c60-11e3-88de-d4ae52754055&ch=8020a000-4c60-11e3-89c4-d4ae52754055
[3] Page 32-32. The Jesuit Guide to Nearly Everything: A Spirituality for a Real Life, James Martin, S.J., HarperOne, New York, New York, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)