10/15/2017 ~ Proper 23 ~ Twenty-eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 32:1-14; Psalm 106:1-6, 19-23; Isaiah 25:1-9; Psalm 23; Philippians 4:1-9; Matthew 22:1-14 ~ New Member Ceremony.
Advantages
“Finally, my beloved, my sisters and brothers, your thoughts should be wholly directed to all that is true, all that is honorable, all that deserves respect, all that is honest, all that is just, all that is pure, all that is decent, all that is pleasing, all that is commendable, all that is virtuous, all that is excellent and all that is worthy of praise. Think about these things.” — Philippians 4:8.
I don’t know if you caught this in the news during the past week, but the Pope is at it again. Perhaps the current Pontiff likes to upset applecarts.
This is a quote from Francis: “Tradition is a living reality.... The Word of God cannot be conserved in mothballs as if it were an old blanket to be preserved from parasites.... The Word of God is dynamic, always alive. It progresses and grows because it tends towards a fulfillment that we cannot stop.” (Slight pause.)
That having been said, I want to bring up a term that might sound very academic because it’s in German. It is often applied to studying the Bible. But believe me, this is not academic and it is not the exclusive property of those who study the Bible.
The term is “Sitz im Leben.” Somebody correct my German accent. (The pastor points to a parishioner who has offered a thumbs up.) She says it’s good. O.K.
Roughly translated it means “setting in life.” Sitz im Leben, when referring to the Bible, means ‘what is the situation in the passage you are reading?’ And it simultaneously asks ‘what your current situation?’
‘What is the situation?’ is a complex question. When you read a passage in Scripture you need to ask questions like, ‘what was the economic situation,’ ‘the government structure,’ ‘the cultural practices of the place and time the composition, itself, was written.’ All this goes into Sitz im Leben, the situation. Another question to ask is, if you can discern who wrote a passage, what is the Sitz im Leben of the writer or writers.
Then, if you want to attempt to apply the text being studied to what’s happening today, you need to ask ‘what is the Sitz im Leben today?’ And, if anything, asking what the Sitz im Leben today, is a much harder question to answer than what was the situation in ancient times. Why would it be harder?
That comes back to what the Pope said. “The Word of God is dynamic, always alive. It progresses and grows because it tends towards a fulfillment that we cannot stop.” We congregationalists would say it this way: there is still more light and truth to break forth from God’s Word. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Philippians: “Finally, my beloved, my sisters and brothers, your thoughts should be wholly directed to all that is true, all that is honorable, all that deserves respect, all that is honest, all that is just, all that is pure, all that is decent, all that is pleasing, all that is commendable, all that is virtuous, all that is excellent and all that is worthy of praise. Think about these things.” (Slight pause.)
So, what is my— my— personal Sitz im Leben, my situation? Let me be real simple about this. I am a Caucasian male in my 60s, who has a higher education.
And let me be clear when it comes to the advantages inherent in my Sitz im Leben. As a Caucasian male, in my 60s with a higher education, opportunities are out there in our society for me today which might not be afforded to someone of a different race or a different gender, no matter how well qualified.
Since there are literally thousands of studies which prove that those prejudices exist, I don’t really think I have to inform you that in modern society there are many disadvantages for women and people of color and advantages for Caucasian men. But let me illustrate that with a picture from a much earlier time where I was on both sides of that coin, at an advantage and at a disadvantage.
At the tender age of 19 I was already working in computer operations. I worked on a big IBM Main Frame computer, something that took up a space the size of the Founders’ Room. It was all Caucasian males on that side of the building.
If you walked across the hall to the Key Punch area, about 50 women were engaged in drudge work, punching data cards on key punch machines. There were a couple of women of color in that room, but not many.
As an aside, those of you who are under, I don’t know, 50 or 55 might need to meet with later and I will try to explain what a key punch machine and punch cards are, or were. My point is back in that time when dinosaurs still roamed the earth called the 1960s and even though I was only 19, just being a Caucasian male gave me access to a job for which none of those women would even be considered and I was paid a lot more than they were.
Now, for me, personally, here’s the other side of that coin. I had dropped out of college. It was the late 1960s. I was neither wealthy nor educated at that point. Therefore, guess who got drafted and went to Vietnam?
Again, since there are literally thousands of studies which prove this happened, I don’t really think have to inform you that in the late 1960s and even today many who go into our armed services lack a higher education and/or are not wealthy. Back in the 1960s that would have been me.
Now I hope, at least from the point of view of an individual, what I’ve said might help you unpack what Sitz im Leben really means. And that swings us around to the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, and the obvious question. On the level of the individual what was the Sitz im Leben of this person commonly called Paul of Tarsus?
Well, Paul was able to both read and write and traveled a lot. It is likely this Apostle knew at least 4 languages— Greek, Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew. Paul was a Rabbi, a teacher.
Which is to say it was not just that Paul had what we would today call an upper education. In this society, as one who could read, write, was well traveled and educated, it needs to be understood Paul was a member of the upper class in that society. Last, Paul was not just a Jew. Paul was a citizen of the Roman Empire.
So, please look at all the inherent advantages in the Sitz im Leben of the Apostle to the Gentiles— and when you hear the term Apostle to the Gentiles what you really need to hear is Apostle to the Romans because that’s who the Gentiles were— look at all the inherent advantages Paul was afforded given the Sitz im Leben I just described. Being a citizen of Rome alone probably kept Paul from being killed numerous times over the course of at least a dozen years.
Given Paul’s Sitz im Leben we now need to look at what Paul writes. As I am sure you know, the Roman Empire was a patriarchal society. Yet Paul insists that the people to whom this letter is sent cooperate with two women who have worked with the Rabbi defending and delivering the Good News, the Gospel.
That having been said, Paul then exhorts everyone that their thoughts should be directed to all that is true, honorable, deserves respect, is honest, is just, is pure, is decent, is pleasing, is commendable, is virtuous, is excellent and worthy of praise. Then Paul adds something. Think about these things. The implication is thinking helps doing.
Now, do me a favor. Please look again at all the inherent advantages Paul has. You see, despite that— despite having those advantages— Paul understands that being a follower of the living Christ means he needs to be one with those who are outcast and not capitalizing on those advantages for personal benefit or even for personal safety. Being a follower of the living Christ means not just standing in solidarity with anyone who might be labeled as ‘the other,’ labeled as different, but means working to change the system in a broken world. (Slight pause.)
And that bring us back to our Sitz im Leben, our situation in life, our world. Just living in America means because of our Sitz im Leben we have some built in advantages. Here’s a simple one: for the most part and for instance, we do not have to worry about contaminated drinking water.
As you heard earlier, this is world food day. [1] A lot of Americans are not well nourished. But most of us, most of us, have way more food thank folks in other places, other countries. And this is just simply true in vast swatches of our globe, our world.
Having mentioned those tow, these are simple examples, I think it behooves us to ask the obvious question. To where does the Gospel call us?
Does it call us to silently take advantage of our own Sitz im Leben? Or are we called on to defend and deliver the Good News, the Gospel?
As Pope Francis suggests, does defending and delivering the Good News, the Gospel, call us to profess the Word of God as a (quote:) “...dynamic reality, always alive, that progresses and grows because it tends towards a fulfillment that we cannot stop.” If the answer is ‘yes’ then the next question needs to be ‘how?’ (Slight pause.)
I think Paul has that answer. We need to both think about and do all that is true, honorable, deserves respect, is honest, is just, is pure, is decent, is pleasing, is commendable, is virtuous, is excellent and worthy of praise— tall order, that. Amen.
10/15/2017
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: “American poet John Greenleaf Whittier was a Quaker and a advocate of the abolition of slavery. He wrote this. ‘And so I find it well to come / For deeper rest to this still room, / For here the habit of the soul / Feels less the outer world’s control; / The strength of mutual purpose pleads / More earnestly our common needs; / And from the silence multiplied / By these still forms on either side, / The world that time and sense have known / Falls off and leaves us God alone.’— God alone. That we need God alone is perhaps what I tried to say today. And what I also think I said is what we really need and who we really are— and, by the way, we are all children of God— what we really need and who we really are is, unfortunately and too often, distracted by who we think we are and what we think we need.”
BENEDICTION: God can open our minds to what is true. God can fill our lives when we participate in the work of God’s realm, participate in seeking justice and peace and love. When we seek what is pleasing to God we are doing God’s will. And may the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your hearts and your minds in Christ, Jesus and the unity of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] The Church School children prepared Coffee Hour and learned about how food is needed in other places on our planet. Then the Children’s Time focused on that project.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Sunday, October 8, 2017
SERMON ~ 10/08/2017 ~ “I Did Everything Right”
10/08/2017 ~ Proper 22 ~ Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20; Psalm 19; Isaiah 5:1-7; Psalm 80:7-15; Philippians 3:4b-14; Matthew 21:33-46 ~ Columbus Day Known in Some Places as Indigenous Peoples’ Day a Holiday Weekend on the Secular Calendar.
I Did Everything Right
“I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the Law— blameless.” — Philippians 3:6b.
I’m afraid need to start my comments today with something I said in a sermon last month: I have to begin with a disclaimer. Rumor has it I’m a preacher and preachers tell stories. Rumor has it I’ve been known to tell a story or two and not just from the pulpit, but anytime to nearly anyone.
My problem this morning is I don’t know if I’ve told the story I am about to offer to various people— probably a hundred times— or if I’ve told it from the pulpit. I can’t remember.
I don’t think I’ve told this story from this pulpit, but if I have I apologize. My prayer is, if you’ve heard it before— and again, I’ve told it to hundreds of people probably— it won’t be too boring for you to hear it again.
On to the story— I can name the year this happened: 1961. I was twelve. I know it was 1961 because my family had just moved from a house in Brooklyn, New York where they had lived from September of 1929 through January of 1961— two generations of us— to a house in Queens, New York. For us, this house was new.
When this incident happened I was home alone in the house. I know my mother was not home because she had gone to a doctor’s appointment. I do have a brother and sister, but they were not home. I presume they were in school which makes sense because they went to a different school than I did.
Of course, it’s possible I was home because I was I sick. Did my mother keep me home from school because I was sick? I do not know. Sick or not the point is I was home— alone.
Now, that we were in a new house is a pertinent fact. My Mom had to travel 50 minutes by Subway to the old neighborhood for that doctor’s appointment.
All that having been said, if I was sick I think it is unlikely I was very sick. Why? I decided I would be productive. I decided I was going to help my mother out.
I decided that, while I was home alone and while she was out, I would surprise her. I would clean the bathroom, stem to stern— floors, tub, toilet.
And so, I got to work. When the floors and tub were done, I turned my attention to the toilet. For reasons now beyond me, I took the tank cover off the back top of the toilet and washed it in the tub.
Once I was satisfied it was clean, I lifted it out of the tub and moved it back toward the toilet. You, of course, do realize I was carrying a wet, slippery, heavy piece of porcelain with wet slippery hands.
I think my twelve year old brain did not quite grasp that. Just as I got near the toilet, not quite having made it, this rectangular chunk of white ceramic slipped from my grasp and shattered into hundreds of pieces on the floor.
Needless to say, when I felt the thing begin to slip, I gave up trying to hold on and let go. Therefore, both my hands were now stretched out parallel to the floor, palms down, facing the floor.
Well, there was one oddity about how that tank top shattered. My palms, as I said, faced downward. A single large shard of porcelain— which looked like a dagger about three inches long— logged itself dead center in the palm of my left hand.
I distinctly remember looking at it, amazed it was hanging there, sticking down from my palm, not falling out, just dangling. So, I did what any self confident twelve year old would do. I pulled the shard out. The wound, of course, began to bleed.
I ran to a closet, got a face cloth and pressed it very hard against my palm. Much to my surprise, the bleeding stopped. I think the piece of porcelain really was like a dagger. Had it been jagged, pulling it out would have done more damage. But it was a thin piece, narrow and smooth. So, when I extracted it, no additional damage was done.
Then, knowing my mother was at the doctor’s office, I called there. I got her on the line and explained what had happened. She handed the phone over to Doctor Gabriel Kirshenbaum— the family doctor for two generations.
With his soothing, deep resonant bass voice he calmly walked me through what had happened, what I had done in response, then assured me I would be fine. He did promise my mother would be home soon. He, in fact, gave her money for a cab so she would not have to take the Subway back home.
It was not until she walked through the door that my emotions exploded. I ran to her. I hugged her. She hugged me. And I cried and I cried and I cried.
“Why,” I asked, “why did this happen when I was trying to be helpful, when I trying to do everything right?” (Slight pause.)
We hear these words in the Letter commonly called Philippians: “I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the Law— blameless.” (Slight pause.)
There are those who say Paul was riddled with guilt over an inability to live as the law demanded. However, when this passage is examined carefully Paul obviously is claiming and is proud of the Hebrew heritage. Paul has defended tradition and is deeply involved in it.
Further and to be clear about what should be obvious, Paul is not renouncing doing things right. Paul does not see doing things right as a negative. So, where’s the guilt? Not here, or at least I don’t think so.
But that does pose the question ‘why is Paul not riddled with guilt?’ (Slight pause.) I think the answer is also obvious.
Paul explains that lack of guilt with testimony. Paul’s testimony, Paul’s claim is about an old understanding, a Hebrew understanding, of the relationship of God with humanity.
And Paul’s testimony, Paul’s claim, is also about a new understanding, a new understanding for Paul at least. And the new understanding says the Apostle to the Gentiles, this Apostle has come to better understand of that old relationship with God because of the reality of the Christ.
Why is it significant that Paul has both reclaimed an old understanding and come upon a new one? I personally think what makes this significant is that, in a real sense, these two understandings are one.
And that understanding is both simple and seems to constantly escape us: God loves humanity. Yes, there is no question based on Paul’s testimony that we, humanity, need to strive to do things right. However, and I think this is where Paul is coming from, we need to strive to do things not just right but well.
This is what I mean by doing things well: our doing, our action, is not what’s primary. It is the love God has for humanity which is primary.
That the love of God comes first is a hard thought for many of us. After all, we like to be and we even want to be in control. But we are not.
On the other hand, these words also present us with a paradox. The paradox stems from an insistence that the heritage of the Hebrews is not to be forsaken. After all, when it comes to justice based on the Law Paul is blameless. The paradox? If God is the prime mover, if God takes the initiative, how are we to move forward? Ignore the Law? (Slight pause.)
Paul’s answer is found in the verse I quoted. It says Paul was blameless when it came to justice based on the Law. What it says I think, and therefore, is true justice, God’s justice is not based on the law. Justice is not based on rules.
And that is a very hard concept for us to grasp. Let me phrase that the way it is more commonly said. Justice is not based on our works. We are not justified by works.
And that very basic idea, that justice is not based on our works, should lead to us to ask ‘what is the basis of justice?’ Or, more to the point, ‘what is the basis of God’s justice?’ (Slight pause.)
The basis of God’s justice is relationship. And that is precisely what Paul is driving at. You see, that God takes the initiative is a primary tenet of the Hebrew Scriptures. That God takes the initiative is a primary tenet of the reality of the Christ.
Should we have a response? Yes, we should. But any response on our part pales compared to God’s embrace of humanity, the love of God for humanity.
And that brings me back to the day I mentioned in 1961 I found a shard of porcelain hanging out of my left hand. Should I have not tried to help my mother? My answer is the same as Paul’s answer. Be blameless. Help as much as you can.
But perhaps more to the point, I think in trying to help my mother I was really trying to be about relationship. And yes, sometimes the best laid plans of twelve year old boys do go astray. And yes, there are times our work has no impact on justice or on relationship.
But as Paul insists, what will never go astray is the love God has for humanity. What we should never forget is God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us. And that, my friends, is Paul’s basic testimony. God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us. Amen.
10/08/2017
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: “My late Mother always downplayed Mother’s Day. She always said, ‘Don’t try to give me a present and be nice to me one day a year and forget to deal with the other 364 days.’ A point well taken. Relationship is constant. Love is constant. The law of love, in fact, needs to be our guidelines, our law.”
BENEDICTION: Let us never fear to seek the truth God reveals. Let us live as a resurrection people. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith as the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
I Did Everything Right
“I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the Law— blameless.” — Philippians 3:6b.
I’m afraid need to start my comments today with something I said in a sermon last month: I have to begin with a disclaimer. Rumor has it I’m a preacher and preachers tell stories. Rumor has it I’ve been known to tell a story or two and not just from the pulpit, but anytime to nearly anyone.
My problem this morning is I don’t know if I’ve told the story I am about to offer to various people— probably a hundred times— or if I’ve told it from the pulpit. I can’t remember.
I don’t think I’ve told this story from this pulpit, but if I have I apologize. My prayer is, if you’ve heard it before— and again, I’ve told it to hundreds of people probably— it won’t be too boring for you to hear it again.
On to the story— I can name the year this happened: 1961. I was twelve. I know it was 1961 because my family had just moved from a house in Brooklyn, New York where they had lived from September of 1929 through January of 1961— two generations of us— to a house in Queens, New York. For us, this house was new.
When this incident happened I was home alone in the house. I know my mother was not home because she had gone to a doctor’s appointment. I do have a brother and sister, but they were not home. I presume they were in school which makes sense because they went to a different school than I did.
Of course, it’s possible I was home because I was I sick. Did my mother keep me home from school because I was sick? I do not know. Sick or not the point is I was home— alone.
Now, that we were in a new house is a pertinent fact. My Mom had to travel 50 minutes by Subway to the old neighborhood for that doctor’s appointment.
All that having been said, if I was sick I think it is unlikely I was very sick. Why? I decided I would be productive. I decided I was going to help my mother out.
I decided that, while I was home alone and while she was out, I would surprise her. I would clean the bathroom, stem to stern— floors, tub, toilet.
And so, I got to work. When the floors and tub were done, I turned my attention to the toilet. For reasons now beyond me, I took the tank cover off the back top of the toilet and washed it in the tub.
Once I was satisfied it was clean, I lifted it out of the tub and moved it back toward the toilet. You, of course, do realize I was carrying a wet, slippery, heavy piece of porcelain with wet slippery hands.
I think my twelve year old brain did not quite grasp that. Just as I got near the toilet, not quite having made it, this rectangular chunk of white ceramic slipped from my grasp and shattered into hundreds of pieces on the floor.
Needless to say, when I felt the thing begin to slip, I gave up trying to hold on and let go. Therefore, both my hands were now stretched out parallel to the floor, palms down, facing the floor.
Well, there was one oddity about how that tank top shattered. My palms, as I said, faced downward. A single large shard of porcelain— which looked like a dagger about three inches long— logged itself dead center in the palm of my left hand.
I distinctly remember looking at it, amazed it was hanging there, sticking down from my palm, not falling out, just dangling. So, I did what any self confident twelve year old would do. I pulled the shard out. The wound, of course, began to bleed.
I ran to a closet, got a face cloth and pressed it very hard against my palm. Much to my surprise, the bleeding stopped. I think the piece of porcelain really was like a dagger. Had it been jagged, pulling it out would have done more damage. But it was a thin piece, narrow and smooth. So, when I extracted it, no additional damage was done.
Then, knowing my mother was at the doctor’s office, I called there. I got her on the line and explained what had happened. She handed the phone over to Doctor Gabriel Kirshenbaum— the family doctor for two generations.
With his soothing, deep resonant bass voice he calmly walked me through what had happened, what I had done in response, then assured me I would be fine. He did promise my mother would be home soon. He, in fact, gave her money for a cab so she would not have to take the Subway back home.
It was not until she walked through the door that my emotions exploded. I ran to her. I hugged her. She hugged me. And I cried and I cried and I cried.
“Why,” I asked, “why did this happen when I was trying to be helpful, when I trying to do everything right?” (Slight pause.)
We hear these words in the Letter commonly called Philippians: “I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the Law— blameless.” (Slight pause.)
There are those who say Paul was riddled with guilt over an inability to live as the law demanded. However, when this passage is examined carefully Paul obviously is claiming and is proud of the Hebrew heritage. Paul has defended tradition and is deeply involved in it.
Further and to be clear about what should be obvious, Paul is not renouncing doing things right. Paul does not see doing things right as a negative. So, where’s the guilt? Not here, or at least I don’t think so.
But that does pose the question ‘why is Paul not riddled with guilt?’ (Slight pause.) I think the answer is also obvious.
Paul explains that lack of guilt with testimony. Paul’s testimony, Paul’s claim is about an old understanding, a Hebrew understanding, of the relationship of God with humanity.
And Paul’s testimony, Paul’s claim, is also about a new understanding, a new understanding for Paul at least. And the new understanding says the Apostle to the Gentiles, this Apostle has come to better understand of that old relationship with God because of the reality of the Christ.
Why is it significant that Paul has both reclaimed an old understanding and come upon a new one? I personally think what makes this significant is that, in a real sense, these two understandings are one.
And that understanding is both simple and seems to constantly escape us: God loves humanity. Yes, there is no question based on Paul’s testimony that we, humanity, need to strive to do things right. However, and I think this is where Paul is coming from, we need to strive to do things not just right but well.
This is what I mean by doing things well: our doing, our action, is not what’s primary. It is the love God has for humanity which is primary.
That the love of God comes first is a hard thought for many of us. After all, we like to be and we even want to be in control. But we are not.
On the other hand, these words also present us with a paradox. The paradox stems from an insistence that the heritage of the Hebrews is not to be forsaken. After all, when it comes to justice based on the Law Paul is blameless. The paradox? If God is the prime mover, if God takes the initiative, how are we to move forward? Ignore the Law? (Slight pause.)
Paul’s answer is found in the verse I quoted. It says Paul was blameless when it came to justice based on the Law. What it says I think, and therefore, is true justice, God’s justice is not based on the law. Justice is not based on rules.
And that is a very hard concept for us to grasp. Let me phrase that the way it is more commonly said. Justice is not based on our works. We are not justified by works.
And that very basic idea, that justice is not based on our works, should lead to us to ask ‘what is the basis of justice?’ Or, more to the point, ‘what is the basis of God’s justice?’ (Slight pause.)
The basis of God’s justice is relationship. And that is precisely what Paul is driving at. You see, that God takes the initiative is a primary tenet of the Hebrew Scriptures. That God takes the initiative is a primary tenet of the reality of the Christ.
Should we have a response? Yes, we should. But any response on our part pales compared to God’s embrace of humanity, the love of God for humanity.
And that brings me back to the day I mentioned in 1961 I found a shard of porcelain hanging out of my left hand. Should I have not tried to help my mother? My answer is the same as Paul’s answer. Be blameless. Help as much as you can.
But perhaps more to the point, I think in trying to help my mother I was really trying to be about relationship. And yes, sometimes the best laid plans of twelve year old boys do go astray. And yes, there are times our work has no impact on justice or on relationship.
But as Paul insists, what will never go astray is the love God has for humanity. What we should never forget is God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us. And that, my friends, is Paul’s basic testimony. God loves us and wants to be in relationship with us. Amen.
10/08/2017
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: “My late Mother always downplayed Mother’s Day. She always said, ‘Don’t try to give me a present and be nice to me one day a year and forget to deal with the other 364 days.’ A point well taken. Relationship is constant. Love is constant. The law of love, in fact, needs to be our guidelines, our law.”
BENEDICTION: Let us never fear to seek the truth God reveals. Let us live as a resurrection people. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith as the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, October 1, 2017
SERMON ~ 10/01/2017 ~ “Right Relationship”
10/01/2017 ~ Proper 21 ~ Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 17:1-7 ~ Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16; Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32; Psalm 25:1-9; Philippians 2:1-13; Matthew 21:23-32 ~ Communion Sunday and World Wide Communion Sunday ~ Piano Dedication.
Right Relationship
“When John came to you walking on the road of righteousness— a right relationship with God— and justice, you did not believe, but tax collectors and prostitutes did.” — Matthew 21:32a.
What I am about to say is not true for some of us. But it is true both world wide and for many Americans. Facebook has become ubiquitous, omnipresent.
It seems to be everywhere, on our computers, on our phones, in our lives. Even if you do not have a computer and you do not have a have a so called smart phone, if you read the newspaper, watch television or have conversation with others, at some point Facebook will be mentioned. So the odds are you have at least heard of Facebook.
Facebook’s whole concept is one becomes friends— Facebook friends, that is— with other people. This is, as they say, social networking. Indeed, I am a Facebook friend with people I have never met face to face but with whom I am now networked.
Some are professional contacts, such as John Dorhauer, President and General Minister of the United Church of Christ. Some are simply friends of friends. For instance, David Spiegel, pastor at the First Baptist Church, and I are Facebook friends. Of course, we are not just colleagues. We are friends.
But, because of my Facebook friendship with David, one of his friends, William Field, a professor at Rutgers University and a member of a United Church of Christ Church in New Jersey, sent me a friend request. Why? I don’t really know.
Since I am David’s friend he might have seen something I posted and liked it. In any case, he sent me a friend request and I accepted. Hence, I am now his Facebook friend. We have never met face to face. Do we really know each? Ehhh, not really.
Well, and to be clear, what many people post on Facebook is frivolous, not a bad idea bit frivolous— what they had for dinner, where they are going, that they put up shelving in the kitchen. Family pictures, pet pictures, pictures of them standing in front of landmarks get posted. Well, I recently saw this funny write up about what people post on Facebook. Let me share it. (Slight pause.)
I am trying to make friends outside of Facebook by applying the same principles I use in Facebook. Therefore, today I walked down the street and told the people I passed what I had for dinner, how I felt at that moment, what I did last night, where I will go later and with whom.
I gave these people pictures of my family, of my cats, of me standing in front of landmarks. I even followed people down the block for hundreds of yards, listening to their conversations. I gave them a thumbs up and told them I liked what they said.
It turns out this worked just like Facebook works. When you do this people actually do follow you. I’ve done this for just a day and I already have four people following me: two police officers, a private investigator and a psychiatrist! (Slight pause.)
These words are in the work we have come to know as Matthew: “When John came to you walking on the road of righteousness— a right relationship with God— and justice, you did not believe, but tax collectors and prostitutes did.” (Slight pause.)
Question: which translation of the Bible did the Pilgrims bring with them to these shores? Hint: it was not the King James Bible.
The King James was the work of the English crown, the government and the Anglican Church. The other name by which the Pilgrims are known is, you see, Separatists. They did not agree with the actions of the crown or the church when it came to faith. Neither did the crown nor the church agree with their style of religious practice.
We Twenty-first Century Americans do not seem to get this. The religion an individual practiced in the 17th Century was determined by what the government said the religion of the individual needed to be. The individual had no say.
That, in part, explains why the Bible of the Pilgrims was the Geneva Bible. And, just FYI, the Geneva Bible was what Shakespeare would have used and quoted, since the King James was compiled after the death of the Bard.
This brings me to what I think of as the key word in this passage: righteousness. Today people most take righteousness to mean a person is morally right or justified.
In the translation I used today the word is elaborated on: righteousness— a right relationship with God. I think the one word translation in Geneva Bible, the one the Pilgrims used, is quite accurate. The Geneva Bible used the word right-wise— one is right-wise with God. (Slight pause.)
So, how does all this fit in with Facebook? Facebook may or may not be about real friendships, real relationships. As a New York Times columnist has said about this, our Facebook friends probably will not be able to water our flowers while we are away. But the actual human who lives next door, if we develop and have a real relationship with that person, might. (Slight pause.)
I think real relationships are about a binding trust, covenant. But I am not sure you can have or come to binding trust, covenant, just on a computer, just on Facebook.
Jesus, you see, had a right-wise relationship with God, a binding relationship with God. And Jesus says even some tax collectors and prostitutes have a right-wise relationship with God, a binding relationship with God.
And what is being in a right-wise relationship with God about? It is about trusting God totally, trusting that God walks with us no matter what happens in our lives. (Slight pause.)
And what trait did Jesus, the Messiah, have with God? As the reading from Philippians today reminded us, Jesus trusted God totally. (Pause.)
What I am about to say may sound like I am getting off my central idea here, that we need to emulate Jesus in our trust of God. But believe me, I am not.
Total trust, you see, by its nature involves our emotional life. And the language we call music unquestionably involves our emotional life. And so today we will dedicate a piano. As we do so we shall pray— this is in the liturgy— that “...we must, ourselves, be dedicated to seeking Your will and doing Your will.”
Unless we engage not just our intellect but our emotional lives in trusting God there is no way we can be dedicated to seeking and doing the will of God. And music helps us do that— engage emotionally.
Therefore, it is appropriate that today we dedicated this instrument. Also and indeed, as we encourage one another let us be in right-wise relationship with God and with one another, rather than being satisfied with the kinds of surface relationships we so often see all around us, that we so often see in society today. Amen.
10/01/2017 ~ Dedication of the Chaplin Family Piano
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: “You have probably heard me say this many times. The famous lyricist Oscar Hammerstein II said song happens in a musical when the emotions being conveyed are too great to be carried by mere dialogue. Our relationship with God is not and cannot be simply an intellectual relationship or even a distant relationship. Our relationship with God needs to be right-wise, fully engaged on all levels, including an emotional level. Therefore, make no mistake about this. Every time we sing a hymn certainly one purpose is to help us engage with God on an emotional level. And that has been true since some lyricist and some composer wrote the first Psalm.”
BENEDICTION: The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our need. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. O Holy Triune God, guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
Right Relationship
“When John came to you walking on the road of righteousness— a right relationship with God— and justice, you did not believe, but tax collectors and prostitutes did.” — Matthew 21:32a.
What I am about to say is not true for some of us. But it is true both world wide and for many Americans. Facebook has become ubiquitous, omnipresent.
It seems to be everywhere, on our computers, on our phones, in our lives. Even if you do not have a computer and you do not have a have a so called smart phone, if you read the newspaper, watch television or have conversation with others, at some point Facebook will be mentioned. So the odds are you have at least heard of Facebook.
Facebook’s whole concept is one becomes friends— Facebook friends, that is— with other people. This is, as they say, social networking. Indeed, I am a Facebook friend with people I have never met face to face but with whom I am now networked.
Some are professional contacts, such as John Dorhauer, President and General Minister of the United Church of Christ. Some are simply friends of friends. For instance, David Spiegel, pastor at the First Baptist Church, and I are Facebook friends. Of course, we are not just colleagues. We are friends.
But, because of my Facebook friendship with David, one of his friends, William Field, a professor at Rutgers University and a member of a United Church of Christ Church in New Jersey, sent me a friend request. Why? I don’t really know.
Since I am David’s friend he might have seen something I posted and liked it. In any case, he sent me a friend request and I accepted. Hence, I am now his Facebook friend. We have never met face to face. Do we really know each? Ehhh, not really.
Well, and to be clear, what many people post on Facebook is frivolous, not a bad idea bit frivolous— what they had for dinner, where they are going, that they put up shelving in the kitchen. Family pictures, pet pictures, pictures of them standing in front of landmarks get posted. Well, I recently saw this funny write up about what people post on Facebook. Let me share it. (Slight pause.)
I am trying to make friends outside of Facebook by applying the same principles I use in Facebook. Therefore, today I walked down the street and told the people I passed what I had for dinner, how I felt at that moment, what I did last night, where I will go later and with whom.
I gave these people pictures of my family, of my cats, of me standing in front of landmarks. I even followed people down the block for hundreds of yards, listening to their conversations. I gave them a thumbs up and told them I liked what they said.
It turns out this worked just like Facebook works. When you do this people actually do follow you. I’ve done this for just a day and I already have four people following me: two police officers, a private investigator and a psychiatrist! (Slight pause.)
These words are in the work we have come to know as Matthew: “When John came to you walking on the road of righteousness— a right relationship with God— and justice, you did not believe, but tax collectors and prostitutes did.” (Slight pause.)
Question: which translation of the Bible did the Pilgrims bring with them to these shores? Hint: it was not the King James Bible.
The King James was the work of the English crown, the government and the Anglican Church. The other name by which the Pilgrims are known is, you see, Separatists. They did not agree with the actions of the crown or the church when it came to faith. Neither did the crown nor the church agree with their style of religious practice.
We Twenty-first Century Americans do not seem to get this. The religion an individual practiced in the 17th Century was determined by what the government said the religion of the individual needed to be. The individual had no say.
That, in part, explains why the Bible of the Pilgrims was the Geneva Bible. And, just FYI, the Geneva Bible was what Shakespeare would have used and quoted, since the King James was compiled after the death of the Bard.
This brings me to what I think of as the key word in this passage: righteousness. Today people most take righteousness to mean a person is morally right or justified.
In the translation I used today the word is elaborated on: righteousness— a right relationship with God. I think the one word translation in Geneva Bible, the one the Pilgrims used, is quite accurate. The Geneva Bible used the word right-wise— one is right-wise with God. (Slight pause.)
So, how does all this fit in with Facebook? Facebook may or may not be about real friendships, real relationships. As a New York Times columnist has said about this, our Facebook friends probably will not be able to water our flowers while we are away. But the actual human who lives next door, if we develop and have a real relationship with that person, might. (Slight pause.)
I think real relationships are about a binding trust, covenant. But I am not sure you can have or come to binding trust, covenant, just on a computer, just on Facebook.
Jesus, you see, had a right-wise relationship with God, a binding relationship with God. And Jesus says even some tax collectors and prostitutes have a right-wise relationship with God, a binding relationship with God.
And what is being in a right-wise relationship with God about? It is about trusting God totally, trusting that God walks with us no matter what happens in our lives. (Slight pause.)
And what trait did Jesus, the Messiah, have with God? As the reading from Philippians today reminded us, Jesus trusted God totally. (Pause.)
What I am about to say may sound like I am getting off my central idea here, that we need to emulate Jesus in our trust of God. But believe me, I am not.
Total trust, you see, by its nature involves our emotional life. And the language we call music unquestionably involves our emotional life. And so today we will dedicate a piano. As we do so we shall pray— this is in the liturgy— that “...we must, ourselves, be dedicated to seeking Your will and doing Your will.”
Unless we engage not just our intellect but our emotional lives in trusting God there is no way we can be dedicated to seeking and doing the will of God. And music helps us do that— engage emotionally.
Therefore, it is appropriate that today we dedicated this instrument. Also and indeed, as we encourage one another let us be in right-wise relationship with God and with one another, rather than being satisfied with the kinds of surface relationships we so often see all around us, that we so often see in society today. Amen.
10/01/2017 ~ Dedication of the Chaplin Family Piano
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: “You have probably heard me say this many times. The famous lyricist Oscar Hammerstein II said song happens in a musical when the emotions being conveyed are too great to be carried by mere dialogue. Our relationship with God is not and cannot be simply an intellectual relationship or even a distant relationship. Our relationship with God needs to be right-wise, fully engaged on all levels, including an emotional level. Therefore, make no mistake about this. Every time we sing a hymn certainly one purpose is to help us engage with God on an emotional level. And that has been true since some lyricist and some composer wrote the first Psalm.”
BENEDICTION: The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our need. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. O Holy Triune God, guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
SERMON ~ 09/24/2017 ~ “Bread/ Love”
09/24/2017 ~ 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ (Proper 20) ~ Exodus 16:2-15; Psalm 105:1-6, 37-45; Jonah 3:10-4:11; Psalm 145:1-8 Philippians 1:21-30; Matthew 20:1-16.
Bread/ Love
“I have heard the complaining of the people of Israel; say to them, ‘At twilight, in the evening, you will eat meat and in the morning you will have your fill of bread. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, I am your God.’” — Exodus 16:12.
Those of you who have been around Chenango County for a while at least know the name Bruce MacDuffie. He is an Episcopal priest who served churches up and down this valley for quite some time. Bruce and I first met twenty plus years ago when, together, we attended an event in Syracuse, a day long class offered by the New Testament scholar Nicholas Thomas Wright.
The Rev. MacDuffie still does occasionally visit this neck of the woods. I think the last time I saw him was about a year ago. But most of the time is now found serving a church in Westminster, Vermont.
These days there is a downside and an upside when people move away. The downside: we don’t see them often. The upside: we keep track of them on Facebook.
And so last week Bruce had a Facebook entry which referred to the current PBS Ken Burns series on Vietnam. This is some of what he said. (Slight pause.)
I had no enthusiasm for further examining this sad patch of history and its ignorant misuse of power. A heart murmur exempted me from the draft, but at that stage, age 19, I was, idealistically, willing to do my part for the country.... Well, I now have, indeed, watched the first four episodes of the production. It is a great piece of work. [1] (Slight pause.)
Bruce has a couple of years in age on me but we are out of the same era. And, as most of you know, I did serve in Vietnam. But his immediate reaction was similar to mine. I had no enthusiasm for further examining this sad patch of history and the ignorant misuse of power.
Further, I often am either puttering on my computer or watching baseball at the time the series is being broadcast. This is relax time, personal time for me. So, to squeeze in watching a ten episode, 18 hour series that I might have to concentrate on and think about into my relax time is not something I was interested in doing.
But, on the second night of the series, I did stumble across it as I flipped through channels. I was doing other things so I could not watch continuously, but it did catch my eye and my interest.
Despite watching sporadically and watching only one part of one segment, right away I agreed with Bruce’s assessment: it is a great piece of work. Now, even though I was only able to watch only in small bits and pieces in thirty odd minutes of sporadic watching I saw two items to which I immediately related.
One, something of which I had personal experience, was a description, narrated by a veteran, of a mission on a helicopter. You take off, get some altitude and once you’re out of a populated area or a base camp, a chopper dives low over the rice patties, bumps up higher to cross any hills or get over trees, and then zooms back down to about five or ten feet above the fields.
The flight crew is trying to do one of two things: spot Viet Cong and go after them or draw fire from Viet Cong and invite them reveal their position and go after them. (Slight pause.) For me, it was riveting because I was listening to another GI describe that experience in plain, straightforward language the way I would have described it.
I saw a second thing with which I also had some personal experience. The program showed a film clip taken in the streets of downtown Saigon, one block from the National Assembly Building.
When I was first in Vietnam I was stationed two blocks from the National Assembly Building. Hence, my reaction to seeing this scene was, “I know every building in that shot.”
At that point I did not hesitate. I ran to my computer and ordered the series on DVD. I have not even opened the box yet, but I know I need to watch it. I also know I will need to devote my attention to it and really focus on it as I fit it into my schedule. I don’t yet know when that will be but I know I need to do it. (Slight pause.)
In a sermon just a couple of weeks ago I mentioned I did some soul searching when I got back from Vietnam. Past of that exercise was asking the question, ‘why had I survived when better than 50,000 of us did not?’
While I thank God every day for my safe return, there is only one thing I know for certain about the fact that I did come back. It is totally wrong— not merely inappropriate but totally wrong— to say God favored me.
Why is it wrong to say something like that? The implication is God wanted better than 50,000 G.I.s dead. I don’t think so. (Slight pause.)
We hear these words in the work known as Exodus: “I have heard the complaining of the people of Israel; say to them, ‘At twilight, in the evening, you will eat meat and in the morning you will have your fill of bread. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, I am your God.’” (Slight pause.)
The story of the miraculous feeding of the Israelites portrays God as zealous for the people of Israel. Hence, the question the very details of the reading poses is simple. Are the actions portrayed meant to be merely about welfare or is there something else going on? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the story about miraculous food is not about food. It is about a witness to liberation, the freedom Yahweh, God, offers and a witness to the presence of Yahweh, God.
You see, the following words refer to liberation, the freedom offered by God, and they are found in verse 7 (quote:): “...it was Yahweh Who brought you out of Egypt,...” These next words refer to the presence of God and they are found in verse 10 (quote:): “...they looked toward the desert, the wilderness, and there the kabod of God, the glory of Yahweh, appeared in the form of a cloud.”
Let me address that Hebrew word kabod. It is often translated as “glory.” But that’s because there is no equivalent in English. In one sense it means the presence of God. But there is more to kabod than that. Kabod also means a manifestation of God, hence the reference to the cloud.
I need to be clear on this count. Contrary to populist modern concepts, in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Christian Scriptures, the work we commonly call the Bible, the presence of God, a manifestation of God, is always— always— seen as a pretty frightening experience. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to what was said when this reading was introduced. The word manna means “what is it?” I think this purposeful verbal skewing, this word play, is a meaningful key to the reading and to the story.
You see, using word play to refer to the flakes of something— this fine substance, delicate, powdery, as fine as frost— using word play lets us know to not take the bread and meat pictured too seriously, too literally. Does God provide? Yes, God provides.
But what is it God actually provides? Manna— “what is it?” [2] This points us toward a deep truth. God provides liberation, freedom. God provides presence. Therefore, God provides love and God walks with us, no matter what happens because God loves us.
Hence, this is not a passage about who eats and who does not eat. This is not a passage about winning an losing. This is a passage about the constant, real presence of God, the love God offers, a passage about liberation, the freedom God offers, a passage about God who walks with us.
One clear reason I say this is a passage about the constant presence of God, God who walks with us, is scholars agree that manna, this “what is it,” does not stop until the Israelites enter Canaan. The manna does not stop for forty years. Therefore, this is about the constant, real presence of God, the love God offers, liberation and God who walks with us. (Slight pause.)
I have probably said this on Sunday mornings a couple hundred times. Here is another way to put the idea which says this passage is about the constant, real presence of God, the love God offers, liberation, freedom, God who walks with us.
God loves us and wants to covenant with us. God loves us and wants to covenant with us. What more is there to say? Amen.
09/24/2017
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: “Earlier I stated I was quite sure God did not want better than 50,000 G.I.s to die. All that comes down to is winners and losers. People do say winning and losing is up to God. Indeed, this is a claim made by American theology. For example, when a baseball player, a football player says they won because God helped them, that expresses American theology. It says someone wins and someone loses because God wanted it. That does not express Christian theology. Christian theology says God loves everyone. Winning and losing is not part of the love everybody equation. The love God has for us is a constant, real presence. God walks with us. And God walks with everyone.”
BENEDICTION: God surprises us. Let us trust God and give thanks. Let us seek God’s will. And may the blessing of the God of Abraham and Sarah, the God of Jesus born of our sister Mary, the one who is the Christ, and the Holy Spirit who broods over the world as a mother hen over chicks, be upon us and remain with us always. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] These words posted on Facebook are slightly edited for this context.
[2] This is what was said when the reading from Exodus was introduced:
The word manna, especially when tied to the phrase “bread from heaven” is a part of our language. That specific word is not used in this translation, despite the fact that this is the passage in which the word manna might be used. Why? At the end of this reading the Israelites refer to the substance commonly called manna and ask this question: “What is it?” In Hebrew the question “What is it?” is two words: mahn and hu. These two words, when playfully slurred together, sound like manna. Hence, in the original Hebrew this is a bit of word play, a little like when we say “whatisit” all slurred together in English. Indeed and obviously, that is exactly what word manna means: “whatisit.”
Bread/ Love
“I have heard the complaining of the people of Israel; say to them, ‘At twilight, in the evening, you will eat meat and in the morning you will have your fill of bread. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, I am your God.’” — Exodus 16:12.
Those of you who have been around Chenango County for a while at least know the name Bruce MacDuffie. He is an Episcopal priest who served churches up and down this valley for quite some time. Bruce and I first met twenty plus years ago when, together, we attended an event in Syracuse, a day long class offered by the New Testament scholar Nicholas Thomas Wright.
The Rev. MacDuffie still does occasionally visit this neck of the woods. I think the last time I saw him was about a year ago. But most of the time is now found serving a church in Westminster, Vermont.
These days there is a downside and an upside when people move away. The downside: we don’t see them often. The upside: we keep track of them on Facebook.
And so last week Bruce had a Facebook entry which referred to the current PBS Ken Burns series on Vietnam. This is some of what he said. (Slight pause.)
I had no enthusiasm for further examining this sad patch of history and its ignorant misuse of power. A heart murmur exempted me from the draft, but at that stage, age 19, I was, idealistically, willing to do my part for the country.... Well, I now have, indeed, watched the first four episodes of the production. It is a great piece of work. [1] (Slight pause.)
Bruce has a couple of years in age on me but we are out of the same era. And, as most of you know, I did serve in Vietnam. But his immediate reaction was similar to mine. I had no enthusiasm for further examining this sad patch of history and the ignorant misuse of power.
Further, I often am either puttering on my computer or watching baseball at the time the series is being broadcast. This is relax time, personal time for me. So, to squeeze in watching a ten episode, 18 hour series that I might have to concentrate on and think about into my relax time is not something I was interested in doing.
But, on the second night of the series, I did stumble across it as I flipped through channels. I was doing other things so I could not watch continuously, but it did catch my eye and my interest.
Despite watching sporadically and watching only one part of one segment, right away I agreed with Bruce’s assessment: it is a great piece of work. Now, even though I was only able to watch only in small bits and pieces in thirty odd minutes of sporadic watching I saw two items to which I immediately related.
One, something of which I had personal experience, was a description, narrated by a veteran, of a mission on a helicopter. You take off, get some altitude and once you’re out of a populated area or a base camp, a chopper dives low over the rice patties, bumps up higher to cross any hills or get over trees, and then zooms back down to about five or ten feet above the fields.
The flight crew is trying to do one of two things: spot Viet Cong and go after them or draw fire from Viet Cong and invite them reveal their position and go after them. (Slight pause.) For me, it was riveting because I was listening to another GI describe that experience in plain, straightforward language the way I would have described it.
I saw a second thing with which I also had some personal experience. The program showed a film clip taken in the streets of downtown Saigon, one block from the National Assembly Building.
When I was first in Vietnam I was stationed two blocks from the National Assembly Building. Hence, my reaction to seeing this scene was, “I know every building in that shot.”
At that point I did not hesitate. I ran to my computer and ordered the series on DVD. I have not even opened the box yet, but I know I need to watch it. I also know I will need to devote my attention to it and really focus on it as I fit it into my schedule. I don’t yet know when that will be but I know I need to do it. (Slight pause.)
In a sermon just a couple of weeks ago I mentioned I did some soul searching when I got back from Vietnam. Past of that exercise was asking the question, ‘why had I survived when better than 50,000 of us did not?’
While I thank God every day for my safe return, there is only one thing I know for certain about the fact that I did come back. It is totally wrong— not merely inappropriate but totally wrong— to say God favored me.
Why is it wrong to say something like that? The implication is God wanted better than 50,000 G.I.s dead. I don’t think so. (Slight pause.)
We hear these words in the work known as Exodus: “I have heard the complaining of the people of Israel; say to them, ‘At twilight, in the evening, you will eat meat and in the morning you will have your fill of bread. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, I am your God.’” (Slight pause.)
The story of the miraculous feeding of the Israelites portrays God as zealous for the people of Israel. Hence, the question the very details of the reading poses is simple. Are the actions portrayed meant to be merely about welfare or is there something else going on? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the story about miraculous food is not about food. It is about a witness to liberation, the freedom Yahweh, God, offers and a witness to the presence of Yahweh, God.
You see, the following words refer to liberation, the freedom offered by God, and they are found in verse 7 (quote:): “...it was Yahweh Who brought you out of Egypt,...” These next words refer to the presence of God and they are found in verse 10 (quote:): “...they looked toward the desert, the wilderness, and there the kabod of God, the glory of Yahweh, appeared in the form of a cloud.”
Let me address that Hebrew word kabod. It is often translated as “glory.” But that’s because there is no equivalent in English. In one sense it means the presence of God. But there is more to kabod than that. Kabod also means a manifestation of God, hence the reference to the cloud.
I need to be clear on this count. Contrary to populist modern concepts, in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Christian Scriptures, the work we commonly call the Bible, the presence of God, a manifestation of God, is always— always— seen as a pretty frightening experience. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to what was said when this reading was introduced. The word manna means “what is it?” I think this purposeful verbal skewing, this word play, is a meaningful key to the reading and to the story.
You see, using word play to refer to the flakes of something— this fine substance, delicate, powdery, as fine as frost— using word play lets us know to not take the bread and meat pictured too seriously, too literally. Does God provide? Yes, God provides.
But what is it God actually provides? Manna— “what is it?” [2] This points us toward a deep truth. God provides liberation, freedom. God provides presence. Therefore, God provides love and God walks with us, no matter what happens because God loves us.
Hence, this is not a passage about who eats and who does not eat. This is not a passage about winning an losing. This is a passage about the constant, real presence of God, the love God offers, a passage about liberation, the freedom God offers, a passage about God who walks with us.
One clear reason I say this is a passage about the constant presence of God, God who walks with us, is scholars agree that manna, this “what is it,” does not stop until the Israelites enter Canaan. The manna does not stop for forty years. Therefore, this is about the constant, real presence of God, the love God offers, liberation and God who walks with us. (Slight pause.)
I have probably said this on Sunday mornings a couple hundred times. Here is another way to put the idea which says this passage is about the constant, real presence of God, the love God offers, liberation, freedom, God who walks with us.
God loves us and wants to covenant with us. God loves us and wants to covenant with us. What more is there to say? Amen.
09/24/2017
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: “Earlier I stated I was quite sure God did not want better than 50,000 G.I.s to die. All that comes down to is winners and losers. People do say winning and losing is up to God. Indeed, this is a claim made by American theology. For example, when a baseball player, a football player says they won because God helped them, that expresses American theology. It says someone wins and someone loses because God wanted it. That does not express Christian theology. Christian theology says God loves everyone. Winning and losing is not part of the love everybody equation. The love God has for us is a constant, real presence. God walks with us. And God walks with everyone.”
BENEDICTION: God surprises us. Let us trust God and give thanks. Let us seek God’s will. And may the blessing of the God of Abraham and Sarah, the God of Jesus born of our sister Mary, the one who is the Christ, and the Holy Spirit who broods over the world as a mother hen over chicks, be upon us and remain with us always. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
[1] These words posted on Facebook are slightly edited for this context.
[2] This is what was said when the reading from Exodus was introduced:
The word manna, especially when tied to the phrase “bread from heaven” is a part of our language. That specific word is not used in this translation, despite the fact that this is the passage in which the word manna might be used. Why? At the end of this reading the Israelites refer to the substance commonly called manna and ask this question: “What is it?” In Hebrew the question “What is it?” is two words: mahn and hu. These two words, when playfully slurred together, sound like manna. Hence, in the original Hebrew this is a bit of word play, a little like when we say “whatisit” all slurred together in English. Indeed and obviously, that is exactly what word manna means: “whatisit.”
Sunday, September 17, 2017
SERMON ~ September 17, 2017 ~ “Meat and Potatoes”
September 17, 2017 ~ Proper 19 ~ Twenty Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 14:19-31; Psalm 114 or Exodus 15:1b-11, 20-21; Genesis 50:15-21; Psalm 103:(1-7), 8-13; Romans 14:1-12; Matthew 18:21-35 ~ Rally Day.
Meat and Potatoes
“We do not live for ourselves, nor do we die for ourselves. While we live, we live for Christ, Jesus, and when we die, we die for Christ, Jesus. So then, whether we live or whether we die, both in life and in death, we belong to Christ.” — Romans 14:7-8.
I don’t think there is any question about this. There are people we meet in life with whom we have an immediate connection. And so it was when I first met the Rev. Dr. Christopher Xenakis— the spelling of that last name is X-e-n-a-k-i-s— Xenakis.
Perhaps the connection happened because we are both veterans, perhaps because we are both pastors. Or maybe it’s because we both sit on our Susquehanna Association Committee on Authorized Ministry. But the reason matters not. We connect.
Chris has an interesting background. Born into an Eastern Orthodox family, in his late teens he shifted to a fundamentalist group and is now a United Church of Christ pastor, serving the Groton Community Church. The interesting background does not end there.
Ordained in 1979, Chris is a retired Navy Chaplain, has two doctorates— a Doctor of Ministry and a Ph.D. in World Politics. I suppose he should be addressed as the Rev. Dr. Dr. He is also certified in conflict mediation by Lombard Mennonite Peace Center.
Aside from numerous articles, his published books include What Happened to the Soviet Union? How and Why American Sovietologists Were Caught by Surprise and World Politics and the American Quest for Super-Villains, Demons and Bad Guys to Destroy.
Chris is currently working on a book about the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. This conference, effectively, created the economic system the world runs on today.
Chris recently published a web article which seems to have gone viral, at least in United Church of Christ circles— Is Autonomy Turning Ministers and Churchgoers into Turtles? What does he mean by turtles? Turtles are those who might withdraw from interactions with settings in our denomination beyond the local church— the Association, the Conference and the Church at the National setting.
In using this word turtles Chris is drawing on the work of sociologist Robert Putnam. Putnam, uses the word turtle in addressing a larger picture and says American life, itself, is based on social capital. The term social capital refers to networks, norms and trust that facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit.
In the past, we Americans were not as isolated from one another as we are now, says Putnam. When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was our propensity for civic association— our social capital— that impressed him as the key to making American democracy work. If a neighbor’s barn burned down, the entire community came together to help rebuild it.
Social capital encompasses the connections of friends, neighbors, community, institutions and, by its nature, the connections should keep expanding, become more broad. Indeed, life is much easier in a community blessed with substantial, expanding social capital. But, Putnam argues, social capital is in short supply in America today.
Chris is painfully aware of this pulling back trend and everyone is experiencing this pullback from those involved in scouting to those involved in Rotary. And, if this pulling back trend is happening outside the doors of our churches we are not immune from it inside the doors of our churches. To be clear, the result of this pull back tendency pushes us toward thinking our own autonomy, self centeredness, is at the core of our lives.
Hence, any ties with our Association, our Conference and the church in the National setting feel like they are distant, remote. But is autonomy a healthy response? (Slight pause.)
The Rev. Dr. Xenakis quotes Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber in this article on this topic. She says if you insist there is no need for others this is not about independence, strength, not about wanting to make your own decisions, not about saying you are as strong as h-e-double hockey sticks (and I just cleaned up that quote from the Rev. Ms. Bolz-Weber).
Rather, saying there is no need for others is about... fear. To allow myself to need someone else, says Bolz-Weber, is about making yourself vulnerable— vulnerable to be betrayed or to look weak. Therefore, when insistence on autonomy is the overwhelming factor, it is really fear— fear of vulnerability, the fear of looking weak which overcomes us. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work we have come to know as the Letter to the Church— church meaning the people gathered in community— Letter to the Church in Rome, commonly called Romans. “We do not live for ourselves, nor do we die for ourselves. While we live, we live for Christ, Jesus, and when we die, we die for Christ, Jesus. So then, whether we live or whether we die, both in life and in death, we belong to Christ.” (Slight pause.)
In this reading from Romans Paul addresses some specific quarrels and articulates a theological framework for dealing with them. Many will recognize and identify with the dilemma Paul faces here.
How can quarrels be mediated without destroying the fabric of the community? But it is the theological framework for unity, not the fissures Paul really addresses.
Indeed, what is most striking about the response of Paul is there is no attempt to decide any of the specific issues being raised. The Apostle effectively says, “You mean meat and potatoes matter? Tell me, really— who cares?”
Yes, it is plainly stated no one need to chastise or limit another’s rights or beliefs. It is, however and also, clear that the health of the community takes precedence over any autonomous right or belief.
Paul asserts it this way: we belong to God. God created us and, especially in the Christ-event, God has claimed us. That relationship takes precedence over all other needs, wants, desires without exception. What matters is the integrity of the relationship with God, not specific practices.
This text places pluralism firmly within a community context. The entire section of this letter begins with “Welcome those who are weak in faith,” and that “welcome” is heard seven verses later.
What Paul seeks in this passage is not merely the tolerance of diversity, a grudging acceptance of the inevitability of differences. Instead, Paul articulates an active welcome for those with conflicting views and practices.
If Christ welcomed all people, then we must find a way to welcome one another and respect the integrity of one another. Further, it would be mistaken to take this passage as an endorsement of any and all behavior. Why? Paul insists on limits in other places in this Epistle. (Slight pause.)
Debates will always characterize the life of the church, as one or another emphasis comes to the fore. But the debates should not prevent a common understanding of Who God is, a common understanding of the reality of God. The debates should also not prevent a common understanding of who we are and the reality of the need for all people to together seek the will of God. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to my friend and colleague the Rev. Dr. Christopher Xenakis. Chris says we live in a time of tremendous cultural and technological change and the church is changing, just as American society is changing. But, says Chris, something in human nature doesn’t like change. Congregations resist change; pastors resist change; but change is what we are all facing.
Quoting Putnam again Chris says modern American life brings out the turtle in all of us, which is where he got the title for this piece. People pull into their shells, and lock themselves in.
Chris then uses the motto of the United States. Chris says perhaps we need more E Pluribus Unum— out of many, one— in our time. Then, he says, diversity and community— diversity and community— might be exactly what we need to help us survive in the Twenty-First Century. [1] (Slight pause.)
In her recent book on polity— polity— how denominations govern themselves— in her recent book on the polity of the United Church of Christ, Mary Susan Gast says there is a mobility, a flexibility, in our treasured concept of covenant. Covenant yields a way of life which is always mobile, flexible, always on the move. God summons us to change and change can be sustained when we move beyond our comfort zones in faithful obedience.
And I think that is where Paul takes us in this passage. Paul takes us from being the turtles Chris addresses, the turtles autonomy makes us, and leads us toward a path where we can live into the freedom, mobility and flexibility of faithful obedience.
Why would I say that? Paul puts it this way: “whether we live or whether we die, both in life and in death, we belong to Christ.” It is not about us, not about autonomy. It is about community in Christ. Amen.
09/17/2017
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: “Today’s sermon title was Meat and Potatoes— meat and potatoes, something of an American icon. Another American icon is autonomy. In this passage Paul is letting us know it is not about meat and potatoes, it is not about autonomy. It is not about our icons. It is about the community of Christ. Life is about the community of Christ.”
BENEDICTION: We have observed this day to honor God, who promises to be with us as we go. We do not live or die to ourselves for Christ has claimed us. Hence, we are taught to value every person. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses our understanding, keep our hearts and minds in the love, knowledge and companionship of the Holy Spirit this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1]
https://carducc.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/is-autonomy-turning-ucc-authorized-ministers-and-churchgoers/
Meat and Potatoes
“We do not live for ourselves, nor do we die for ourselves. While we live, we live for Christ, Jesus, and when we die, we die for Christ, Jesus. So then, whether we live or whether we die, both in life and in death, we belong to Christ.” — Romans 14:7-8.
I don’t think there is any question about this. There are people we meet in life with whom we have an immediate connection. And so it was when I first met the Rev. Dr. Christopher Xenakis— the spelling of that last name is X-e-n-a-k-i-s— Xenakis.
Perhaps the connection happened because we are both veterans, perhaps because we are both pastors. Or maybe it’s because we both sit on our Susquehanna Association Committee on Authorized Ministry. But the reason matters not. We connect.
Chris has an interesting background. Born into an Eastern Orthodox family, in his late teens he shifted to a fundamentalist group and is now a United Church of Christ pastor, serving the Groton Community Church. The interesting background does not end there.
Ordained in 1979, Chris is a retired Navy Chaplain, has two doctorates— a Doctor of Ministry and a Ph.D. in World Politics. I suppose he should be addressed as the Rev. Dr. Dr. He is also certified in conflict mediation by Lombard Mennonite Peace Center.
Aside from numerous articles, his published books include What Happened to the Soviet Union? How and Why American Sovietologists Were Caught by Surprise and World Politics and the American Quest for Super-Villains, Demons and Bad Guys to Destroy.
Chris is currently working on a book about the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. This conference, effectively, created the economic system the world runs on today.
Chris recently published a web article which seems to have gone viral, at least in United Church of Christ circles— Is Autonomy Turning Ministers and Churchgoers into Turtles? What does he mean by turtles? Turtles are those who might withdraw from interactions with settings in our denomination beyond the local church— the Association, the Conference and the Church at the National setting.
In using this word turtles Chris is drawing on the work of sociologist Robert Putnam. Putnam, uses the word turtle in addressing a larger picture and says American life, itself, is based on social capital. The term social capital refers to networks, norms and trust that facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit.
In the past, we Americans were not as isolated from one another as we are now, says Putnam. When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s, it was our propensity for civic association— our social capital— that impressed him as the key to making American democracy work. If a neighbor’s barn burned down, the entire community came together to help rebuild it.
Social capital encompasses the connections of friends, neighbors, community, institutions and, by its nature, the connections should keep expanding, become more broad. Indeed, life is much easier in a community blessed with substantial, expanding social capital. But, Putnam argues, social capital is in short supply in America today.
Chris is painfully aware of this pulling back trend and everyone is experiencing this pullback from those involved in scouting to those involved in Rotary. And, if this pulling back trend is happening outside the doors of our churches we are not immune from it inside the doors of our churches. To be clear, the result of this pull back tendency pushes us toward thinking our own autonomy, self centeredness, is at the core of our lives.
Hence, any ties with our Association, our Conference and the church in the National setting feel like they are distant, remote. But is autonomy a healthy response? (Slight pause.)
The Rev. Dr. Xenakis quotes Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber in this article on this topic. She says if you insist there is no need for others this is not about independence, strength, not about wanting to make your own decisions, not about saying you are as strong as h-e-double hockey sticks (and I just cleaned up that quote from the Rev. Ms. Bolz-Weber).
Rather, saying there is no need for others is about... fear. To allow myself to need someone else, says Bolz-Weber, is about making yourself vulnerable— vulnerable to be betrayed or to look weak. Therefore, when insistence on autonomy is the overwhelming factor, it is really fear— fear of vulnerability, the fear of looking weak which overcomes us. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work we have come to know as the Letter to the Church— church meaning the people gathered in community— Letter to the Church in Rome, commonly called Romans. “We do not live for ourselves, nor do we die for ourselves. While we live, we live for Christ, Jesus, and when we die, we die for Christ, Jesus. So then, whether we live or whether we die, both in life and in death, we belong to Christ.” (Slight pause.)
In this reading from Romans Paul addresses some specific quarrels and articulates a theological framework for dealing with them. Many will recognize and identify with the dilemma Paul faces here.
How can quarrels be mediated without destroying the fabric of the community? But it is the theological framework for unity, not the fissures Paul really addresses.
Indeed, what is most striking about the response of Paul is there is no attempt to decide any of the specific issues being raised. The Apostle effectively says, “You mean meat and potatoes matter? Tell me, really— who cares?”
Yes, it is plainly stated no one need to chastise or limit another’s rights or beliefs. It is, however and also, clear that the health of the community takes precedence over any autonomous right or belief.
Paul asserts it this way: we belong to God. God created us and, especially in the Christ-event, God has claimed us. That relationship takes precedence over all other needs, wants, desires without exception. What matters is the integrity of the relationship with God, not specific practices.
This text places pluralism firmly within a community context. The entire section of this letter begins with “Welcome those who are weak in faith,” and that “welcome” is heard seven verses later.
What Paul seeks in this passage is not merely the tolerance of diversity, a grudging acceptance of the inevitability of differences. Instead, Paul articulates an active welcome for those with conflicting views and practices.
If Christ welcomed all people, then we must find a way to welcome one another and respect the integrity of one another. Further, it would be mistaken to take this passage as an endorsement of any and all behavior. Why? Paul insists on limits in other places in this Epistle. (Slight pause.)
Debates will always characterize the life of the church, as one or another emphasis comes to the fore. But the debates should not prevent a common understanding of Who God is, a common understanding of the reality of God. The debates should also not prevent a common understanding of who we are and the reality of the need for all people to together seek the will of God. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to my friend and colleague the Rev. Dr. Christopher Xenakis. Chris says we live in a time of tremendous cultural and technological change and the church is changing, just as American society is changing. But, says Chris, something in human nature doesn’t like change. Congregations resist change; pastors resist change; but change is what we are all facing.
Quoting Putnam again Chris says modern American life brings out the turtle in all of us, which is where he got the title for this piece. People pull into their shells, and lock themselves in.
Chris then uses the motto of the United States. Chris says perhaps we need more E Pluribus Unum— out of many, one— in our time. Then, he says, diversity and community— diversity and community— might be exactly what we need to help us survive in the Twenty-First Century. [1] (Slight pause.)
In her recent book on polity— polity— how denominations govern themselves— in her recent book on the polity of the United Church of Christ, Mary Susan Gast says there is a mobility, a flexibility, in our treasured concept of covenant. Covenant yields a way of life which is always mobile, flexible, always on the move. God summons us to change and change can be sustained when we move beyond our comfort zones in faithful obedience.
And I think that is where Paul takes us in this passage. Paul takes us from being the turtles Chris addresses, the turtles autonomy makes us, and leads us toward a path where we can live into the freedom, mobility and flexibility of faithful obedience.
Why would I say that? Paul puts it this way: “whether we live or whether we die, both in life and in death, we belong to Christ.” It is not about us, not about autonomy. It is about community in Christ. Amen.
09/17/2017
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: “Today’s sermon title was Meat and Potatoes— meat and potatoes, something of an American icon. Another American icon is autonomy. In this passage Paul is letting us know it is not about meat and potatoes, it is not about autonomy. It is not about our icons. It is about the community of Christ. Life is about the community of Christ.”
BENEDICTION: We have observed this day to honor God, who promises to be with us as we go. We do not live or die to ourselves for Christ has claimed us. Hence, we are taught to value every person. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses our understanding, keep our hearts and minds in the love, knowledge and companionship of the Holy Spirit this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1]
https://carducc.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/is-autonomy-turning-ucc-authorized-ministers-and-churchgoers/
Sunday, September 10, 2017
SERMON ~ September 10, 2017 ~ “Pesach”
September 10, 2017 ~ Proper 18 ~ Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 12:1-14; Psalm 149; Ezekiel 33:7-11; Psalm 119:33-40; Romans 13:8-14; Matthew 18:15-20 ~ Colorscape Weekend.
Pesach
“This is how you are to eat the animal: your loins girded, your belt buckled, your sandals on your feet, and a staff in your hand; you shall eat it hurriedly, in haste. It is the Passover of Yahweh.” — Exodus 12:11.
As I am sure we all know, John Adams was the second President of the United States. And John Adams was not just one of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence. John Adams was one of the driving intellectual forces behind the fact that the British Colonies which became the United States of America declared independence.
In a letter to his wife, Abigail, dated July 3rd 1776— and it should be noted Adams needs to be forgiven for naming the wrong date in the letter I am about to quote since the resolution to declare independence really did pass on July the 2nd of that year. Further, what actually happened on July the 4th was that the wording of the Declaration of Independence, itself, was approved. In any case, in a letter to his wife, Abigail, dated July 3rd 1776, Adams proved to be very much a predictor of the future, a prognosticator, by writing the following.
(Quote:) “The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable... in the history of America. I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as a great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God, Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.”
And so it is solemnized. Of course, it’s the Fourth we celebrate, not the Second. But we do, in fact, celebrate it with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other.
Also please note the other prediction by Adams contained in these words. He said “from one end of this continent to the other,” when the geographical limit of these thirteen burgeoning states was only the east coast.
This brings me to the fact that the independence of this nation is celebrated with many and various rituals and, as noted, some of them were predicted by Adams. But the very celebration with ritual defines a challenge. What does independence mean? And how is that idea of independence actually tied to our rituals of celebration?
Do these oft repeated rituals in some way help us understand independence? After all, I am sure we can all agree that true independence, real independence, is not about ritual. And what is true independence? What is real independence? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Exodus: “This is how you are to eat the animal: your loins girded, your belt buckled, your sandals on your feet, and a staff in your hand; you shall eat it hurriedly, in haste. It is the Passover of Yahweh.” (Slight pause.)
Many of you may have noticed the sermon title which clearly looks like it’s a peculiar word— Pesach. And, yes, it is peculiar. Pesach is a transliteration from the Hebrew for the word that means “Passover.”
This reading we heard concentrates on what might be called the procedures followed by the Israelites when the first Passover happened, the story of its origin. And, at the end of today’s passage, we hear this (quote:) “...all the following generations shall observe this forever as a feast day.”
And so it has been, year after year after year after year for something in the neighborhood of 3,000 years the Jewish people have kept Passover with ritual. If you have ever been to a Seder, the ritual meal of the Feast of Passover, you know there is a ceremony held before everyone eats a very real and often sumptuous meal. For those of you who have never been to a Seder, the ritual meal is a solemn retelling of the happenings recorded in Scripture concerning the Exodus event.
An explanation of the events is recited in the course of the ceremony. The illustrations therein contained range from eating a bitter herb such as horseradish which signifies the bitterness of the enslavement experienced by the Hebrew people to repeating and listing the plagues endured by the Egyptians.
There is also a reminder that the Israelites left with haste and so there was no time for bread dough to rise. Hence, matzah, the unleavened flatbread made of flour and water is consumed. There is much more to this ritual meal than what I’ve mentioned and it is ritual— all ritual.
However, when done in an appropriate way, a Seder ceremony contains enough narrative accompanying the ceremony so that the different pieces and aspects of the Seder helps examine the Exodus event with a fullness of detail. To be clear, all this ritual is rendered meaningless unless a participant in a Seder comes away with an understanding of the depth of meaning contained in the ritual.
A participant needs to try to mentally engage not just in the narrative of what happened but also to engage in what each part the Seder ritual represents. Therefore, the ritual, itself, is not the point of the Seder. The meanings behind the ritual are the point. (Slight pause.)
Well, before I get to the meanings behind the ritual, let me raise another issue. Perhaps because of modern movies and even earlier novels which dramatized the Exodus event, we tend to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of Israelites fleeing captivity in Egypt.
But most Biblical scholars agree, visualizing this story with multitudes of people is a figment of our collective imagination. It is much more likely that, if a real Exodus event happened— and there is some clear evidence an Exodus event did happen— at most— at most— several thousand people participated in it.
The very limits of those numbers should, I hope, push us to ask what does this Seder ritual mean? Since there were so few fleeing Egypt, why has the ritual been repeated for 3,000 years? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the ritual of the Seder has a singular meaning. Passover is a commemoration of the liberation of Israelites by God from slavery. Hence, Passover is not about the incident, not about the Exodus event, itself. Rather, Passover is about liberation— the liberation offered by God. (Slight pause.)
Let me add one thing. Those same Biblical scholars who suggest the size of the Exodus event was small also say the Exodus event is the most important episode of the Hebrew Scriptures. Why? Why is the Exodus the most important episode?
As much as there is narrative and as much as there are signs of the covenant God makes with the people of God all over the Hebrew Scriptures, the Exodus event is the singular and central sign of the covenant of God. You see, as I just suggested, the Exodus event is about the liberation, the freedom, the deliverance, the equity, the saving action, the redeeming, forgiving grace God offers. And that is what the covenant God offers is about.
So, the ritual is not in place to remind people about what happened. We know what happened. The ritual is in place to remind people about the liberation, the freedom, the deliverance, the equity, the saving action, the redeeming, forgiving grace God offers.
Therefore, what does covenant of God really mean? Oh, yes! I remember! The covenant of God really means God offers us liberation, freedom, deliverance, equity, saving action, redeeming, forgiving grace. That’s covenant. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to one Mr. John Adams and July 4th and the words of the Declaration of Independence. Many see the words which say that certain truths appear to be self-evident, and that those truths include all being created equal, being endowed by the Creator with the unalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the most important part of the Declaration.
Now, I’ve said this here before. I want to suggest there is a set of words toward the end of the Declaration are by far of much more import than those opening thoughts.
These words state that the signers rely on the protection of Divine Providence and they mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Pledging to each other lives, fortunes and sacred honor— that, my friends, means these people attempted to live in covenant with each other because of the covenant God offers— the words say, “Divine Providence.” And Adams, good Congregationalist that he was, would have known that and acknowledged that.
Well, that brings me back to us, to the church. We, the church, cannot be simply about ritual.
We, the church, need to be about being in covenant with God and being in covenant with each another. If we do that, if we remain in covenant with God and each other, we will be empowered to be mindful of God and fearless when it comes to the mission to which God calls us. Let me repeat that: mindful of God and fearless when it comes to the mission to which God calls us.
Indeed, in the passage from the Gospel reading Jesus says “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” The collectiveness of that statement, the mutual covenant, is the message we really need to hear even in those words. Why? Covenant with each other fulfills the covenant to which God calls us. Amen.
09/10/2017
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 think most of we moderns, when we think about covenant, say something like— ‘Covenant— well, it’s just me and God.’ That is not what Scripture says. Scripture says the covenant with God is worked out and acted our with each other. So, if our rituals do not remind us that we need to be in covenant with God and each other either we are doing it wrong or we need different rituals. And so, what is true independence? Perhaps real independence is interdependence on each other.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go forth in the Spirit of Christ. Let us seek the will of God. Let us put aside ambition and conceit for the greater good. Let us serve in joyous obedience. (Slight pause.) And hear this prayer of Melanesian Islanders: May Jesus be the canoe that holds us up in the sea of life. May Jesus be the rudder that keeps us on a straight course. May Jesus be the outrigger that supports us in times of trial. May the Spirit of Jesus be our sail that carries us through each day. Amen.
Pesach
“This is how you are to eat the animal: your loins girded, your belt buckled, your sandals on your feet, and a staff in your hand; you shall eat it hurriedly, in haste. It is the Passover of Yahweh.” — Exodus 12:11.
As I am sure we all know, John Adams was the second President of the United States. And John Adams was not just one of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence. John Adams was one of the driving intellectual forces behind the fact that the British Colonies which became the United States of America declared independence.
In a letter to his wife, Abigail, dated July 3rd 1776— and it should be noted Adams needs to be forgiven for naming the wrong date in the letter I am about to quote since the resolution to declare independence really did pass on July the 2nd of that year. Further, what actually happened on July the 4th was that the wording of the Declaration of Independence, itself, was approved. In any case, in a letter to his wife, Abigail, dated July 3rd 1776, Adams proved to be very much a predictor of the future, a prognosticator, by writing the following.
(Quote:) “The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable... in the history of America. I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as a great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God, Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more.”
And so it is solemnized. Of course, it’s the Fourth we celebrate, not the Second. But we do, in fact, celebrate it with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other.
Also please note the other prediction by Adams contained in these words. He said “from one end of this continent to the other,” when the geographical limit of these thirteen burgeoning states was only the east coast.
This brings me to the fact that the independence of this nation is celebrated with many and various rituals and, as noted, some of them were predicted by Adams. But the very celebration with ritual defines a challenge. What does independence mean? And how is that idea of independence actually tied to our rituals of celebration?
Do these oft repeated rituals in some way help us understand independence? After all, I am sure we can all agree that true independence, real independence, is not about ritual. And what is true independence? What is real independence? (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Exodus: “This is how you are to eat the animal: your loins girded, your belt buckled, your sandals on your feet, and a staff in your hand; you shall eat it hurriedly, in haste. It is the Passover of Yahweh.” (Slight pause.)
Many of you may have noticed the sermon title which clearly looks like it’s a peculiar word— Pesach. And, yes, it is peculiar. Pesach is a transliteration from the Hebrew for the word that means “Passover.”
This reading we heard concentrates on what might be called the procedures followed by the Israelites when the first Passover happened, the story of its origin. And, at the end of today’s passage, we hear this (quote:) “...all the following generations shall observe this forever as a feast day.”
And so it has been, year after year after year after year for something in the neighborhood of 3,000 years the Jewish people have kept Passover with ritual. If you have ever been to a Seder, the ritual meal of the Feast of Passover, you know there is a ceremony held before everyone eats a very real and often sumptuous meal. For those of you who have never been to a Seder, the ritual meal is a solemn retelling of the happenings recorded in Scripture concerning the Exodus event.
An explanation of the events is recited in the course of the ceremony. The illustrations therein contained range from eating a bitter herb such as horseradish which signifies the bitterness of the enslavement experienced by the Hebrew people to repeating and listing the plagues endured by the Egyptians.
There is also a reminder that the Israelites left with haste and so there was no time for bread dough to rise. Hence, matzah, the unleavened flatbread made of flour and water is consumed. There is much more to this ritual meal than what I’ve mentioned and it is ritual— all ritual.
However, when done in an appropriate way, a Seder ceremony contains enough narrative accompanying the ceremony so that the different pieces and aspects of the Seder helps examine the Exodus event with a fullness of detail. To be clear, all this ritual is rendered meaningless unless a participant in a Seder comes away with an understanding of the depth of meaning contained in the ritual.
A participant needs to try to mentally engage not just in the narrative of what happened but also to engage in what each part the Seder ritual represents. Therefore, the ritual, itself, is not the point of the Seder. The meanings behind the ritual are the point. (Slight pause.)
Well, before I get to the meanings behind the ritual, let me raise another issue. Perhaps because of modern movies and even earlier novels which dramatized the Exodus event, we tend to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of Israelites fleeing captivity in Egypt.
But most Biblical scholars agree, visualizing this story with multitudes of people is a figment of our collective imagination. It is much more likely that, if a real Exodus event happened— and there is some clear evidence an Exodus event did happen— at most— at most— several thousand people participated in it.
The very limits of those numbers should, I hope, push us to ask what does this Seder ritual mean? Since there were so few fleeing Egypt, why has the ritual been repeated for 3,000 years? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest the ritual of the Seder has a singular meaning. Passover is a commemoration of the liberation of Israelites by God from slavery. Hence, Passover is not about the incident, not about the Exodus event, itself. Rather, Passover is about liberation— the liberation offered by God. (Slight pause.)
Let me add one thing. Those same Biblical scholars who suggest the size of the Exodus event was small also say the Exodus event is the most important episode of the Hebrew Scriptures. Why? Why is the Exodus the most important episode?
As much as there is narrative and as much as there are signs of the covenant God makes with the people of God all over the Hebrew Scriptures, the Exodus event is the singular and central sign of the covenant of God. You see, as I just suggested, the Exodus event is about the liberation, the freedom, the deliverance, the equity, the saving action, the redeeming, forgiving grace God offers. And that is what the covenant God offers is about.
So, the ritual is not in place to remind people about what happened. We know what happened. The ritual is in place to remind people about the liberation, the freedom, the deliverance, the equity, the saving action, the redeeming, forgiving grace God offers.
Therefore, what does covenant of God really mean? Oh, yes! I remember! The covenant of God really means God offers us liberation, freedom, deliverance, equity, saving action, redeeming, forgiving grace. That’s covenant. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to one Mr. John Adams and July 4th and the words of the Declaration of Independence. Many see the words which say that certain truths appear to be self-evident, and that those truths include all being created equal, being endowed by the Creator with the unalienable rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the most important part of the Declaration.
Now, I’ve said this here before. I want to suggest there is a set of words toward the end of the Declaration are by far of much more import than those opening thoughts.
These words state that the signers rely on the protection of Divine Providence and they mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Pledging to each other lives, fortunes and sacred honor— that, my friends, means these people attempted to live in covenant with each other because of the covenant God offers— the words say, “Divine Providence.” And Adams, good Congregationalist that he was, would have known that and acknowledged that.
Well, that brings me back to us, to the church. We, the church, cannot be simply about ritual.
We, the church, need to be about being in covenant with God and being in covenant with each another. If we do that, if we remain in covenant with God and each other, we will be empowered to be mindful of God and fearless when it comes to the mission to which God calls us. Let me repeat that: mindful of God and fearless when it comes to the mission to which God calls us.
Indeed, in the passage from the Gospel reading Jesus says “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” The collectiveness of that statement, the mutual covenant, is the message we really need to hear even in those words. Why? Covenant with each other fulfills the covenant to which God calls us. Amen.
09/10/2017
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 think most of we moderns, when we think about covenant, say something like— ‘Covenant— well, it’s just me and God.’ That is not what Scripture says. Scripture says the covenant with God is worked out and acted our with each other. So, if our rituals do not remind us that we need to be in covenant with God and each other either we are doing it wrong or we need different rituals. And so, what is true independence? Perhaps real independence is interdependence on each other.”
BENEDICTION: Let us go forth in the Spirit of Christ. Let us seek the will of God. Let us put aside ambition and conceit for the greater good. Let us serve in joyous obedience. (Slight pause.) And hear this prayer of Melanesian Islanders: May Jesus be the canoe that holds us up in the sea of life. May Jesus be the rudder that keeps us on a straight course. May Jesus be the outrigger that supports us in times of trial. May the Spirit of Jesus be our sail that carries us through each day. Amen.
Sunday, September 3, 2017
SERMON ~ September 3, 2017 ~ “Genuine”
September 3, 2017 ~ Proper 17 ~ Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Exodus 3:1-15; Psalm 105:1-6, 23-26, 45b; Jeremiah 15:15-21; Psalm 26:1-8; Romans 12:9-21; Matthew 16:21-28 ~ Labor Day Weekend on the Secular Calendar ~ Communion Sunday.
Genuine
“Let love be genuine; your love must be sincere; hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Love one another with mutual affection, the affection of brothers and sisters; try to outdo one another in showing honor, respect.” — Romans 12: 9-10.
I need to confess I am about to offer two stories which are somewhat related about my late mother and I have drawn on them before. Some of you have heard them. Others have not.
Part one— as these things go, my mother died at a fairly young age— 58. That happened in November of 1983, just short of 34 years ago.
The specific fatal ailment was cancer of the bladder. Even back then only 10% of those who contracted cancer of the bladder died because of it.
And the doctors were confident they got it early, got it out and gave the family every assurance she would pull through. But 9 months after the cancer was first detected, diagnosed and operated on, she died.
10%— I sometimes say, she was simply in the wrong 10%. And you really do not understand what odds are until you realize no matter how favorable the odds might sound, you can still wind up on the wrong end of a 90/10 split.
When the cancer was first detected, I asked Mom if she was willing to pray with me privately. She was. And as we did so, as we prayed, I was overwhelmed with a sense that this was not going to end well.
I never told her about what I felt as we prayed. Perhaps I said nothing because sensing something on that kind of ethereal level has nothing to do with the cognitive, with logic. On the other hand, because I had an overwhelming understanding this was not going to end well, I was as prepared as I could have been for my mother to die at that young age. (Slight pause.)
Part two— a couple of weeks before she died, Mom and I prayed and had another long, private conversation. I think she was trying to wrap things up in a neat package, which would have been like her.
We talked about family. We talked about my Dad and how she had, in many ways, spent her adult life taking care of him.
And we talked about me. We talked about my brother. We talked about sister. In that part of the conversation my mother waxed philosophical about her children, whom she loved deeply.
I was her first child. My brother was her second child. He is 14 months younger than I. My sister was next, four years younger than I.
My Mom had interesting reflections about each of us. But one item stands out in my memory. She said I, the firstborn, was her experiment.
She said my brother, Jim, next in line, was her child. She said my sister, Rosemary, the last, was her play thing— her experiment, her child, her play thing— this from a woman essentially on her deathbed.
Now, you might criticize her characterizations, the psychological overtones, criticize a number of things about her analysis, criticize whatever you want. But I think there is something admirable in her ability to name and grapple with these attributes.
You see, what she did not say is something to the effect of “Jim was always my favorite child” or “Rosemary is smarter than you two boys put together.” Both then and now I took this assessment as loving and I took it as a reflection on her life and how she had coped more so than it being a description or a critique of her offspring and our individual characteristics, however flawed we were, are or might have been. She was reflecting in a succinct way the incredible complexity which makes up the workings of relationships deeply seeded in real love, genuine love, mature love. (Slight pause.)
We hear these words of Paul in Romans: “Let love be genuine; your love must be sincere; hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Love one another with mutual affection, the affection of brothers and sisters; try to outdo one another in showing honor, respect.” (Slight pause.)
The words from the passage we read today come with a basic problem. We read them in English.
Because we read these words in English, the temptation to which we might succumb is to domesticate them. We might see them as an appeal to a vague, sentimentalized love.
And when I blame the English language here, the problem is we have but one word for love. Of course, in English the word love can mean everything from deep affection expressed in a physical way to the ability to love another person so much that a need never, ever manifests itself that would be expressed in some form of manipulation.
Indeed, Greek has a number of words which address love and its many aspects. However, to blame English for its shortcomings and to exonerate Greek for its flexibility and breadth without addressing the central issue presented by what we call love in its many forms is a mistake.
Why? No matter what aspect of love we address, the central issue being contemplated by Paul with the word love— love in its many iterations— is our emotional life and the connection— the connection— of our emotional life with God and to God and with and to the people of God.
I maintain if your emotional life is disconnected from God, an important aspect of your emotional life lies fallow. Further, emotional life is extraordinarily complex.
Hence, because love is at the core of our extraordinarily complex emotional life, the very first mistake we can make when it comes to love is to define it. You see, the purpose of definition is restriction in some form. With something as complex as love, restrictions simply do not work.
So, let’s forego a definition and ask what does genuine, sincere love feel like? Or, perhaps more to the point I think Paul constantly tries to make throughout the Epistles— how does the love of God in the community of God and the Dominion of God work? (Slight pause.)
There is a version of Christianity, familiar to many, especially Americans, in which Christians are taught it is their duty to accept whatever evil comes their way. But that interpretation lets the craftiness of Paul’s words slip by here.
Evil need not be passively accepted, but neither does it need it be avenged. It does need to be confronted and not just confronted but confronted in love. Let me see if I can unpack that some. (Slight pause.)
In the year 2000, while this church was in the Open and Affirming process, the Rev. Mr. Bill Johnson was here for a weekend of workshops. He was, at that time, on the staff of the church at the National Level and assisting churches who were exploring the ONA process. Bill is now retired but is still active.
He recently put this statement on Facebook. (Quote:) “Hate speech does emotional, psychological and spiritual violence to the object of the animus as well as to the haters, though they are loathe to admit it. Hate speech is a mechanism of terrorism— let me say that again: hate speech is a mechanism of terrorism— designed to promote or perpetrate physical violence against the other. Claims that hate speech is free speech are absurd. There is no right to ‘Free Speech’ that does violence.” (Slight pause.)
That, I think, brings me back to my mother. In saying her three children were her experiment, her child and her plaything, she was being nothing more than genuine and lovingly genuine at that.
But last, and I think this most important, she was saying that she tried to be responsible in how she lived her life and how she loved. She was expressing a mature love.
And, as I already indicated, I think this was, additionally, an effort on her part to tie things up, to help her understand her own life, her own journey and some of that had to do with us, her children. And I believe the sentiments she expressed were in fact about a very mature love, even a very sophisticated understanding of one’s own place in the community and in the Dominion of God.
So, for me the question becomes and perhaps the lesson to learn becomes how do we respond in love, with love, through love. And perhaps what is of most importance, the place to which these words point, concerns our response of our love for God and the fact that how we love needs to be accomplished in a way that can only be described as responsible— responsible love. That’s what I think my mother was addressing, even on her deathbed: the idea that genuine love, true love strives to be responsible.
You know, being genuine, true, is something you cannot bottle, replicate or limit by definition. You can only strive to live that love out and strive to live that love out fully. Further— and I can guarantee this— you and I— we— will fall short of perfection as we strive to love one another in a responsible way. But strive we must, as this is the call of God on our lives.
And perhaps all that is why I said the word ‘love’ is not definable. You see love is an action and an action cannot be captured, defined, frozen.
And the action we need to take is acting in love and with love. So, what love is really about, I think, is living our lives as we strive to be responsible to and for ourselves, responsible to and for those around us, the community, and responsible to and for the Dominion of God. But of course, we need to remember the Dominion God and the will of God constantly develops and changes in our time, our place, our life. Amen.
09/03/2017
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: “ As you know usually say something at the end of the service. Bonus day, because you get tow things this morning. Bonus because I have two things to say. First, I came across this quote from the Catholic theologian Richard Rhor in my morning devotions and it seemed terribly pertinent and then I’ll say what I had prepared. (Quote:) “Our first forgiveness is not toward a particular sin or offense. Our first forgiveness, it seems to me, is toward reality itself: to forgive it for being so broken, a mixture of good and bad. First that paradox has to be overcome inside of us. Then, when we allow God to hold together the opposites within us, it becomes possible to do it over there, within us, in our neighbor and even our enemy.” And now what I prepared: “I have a feeling we live in an era when everyone wants what they want and, therefore, very few will work with others. It often seems to feel like there are no adults in the room, no one looking at the big picture. Everyone looks after only what their piece of the pie is about. The love about which Paul so often writes, the love God would have us practice, says everyone in the room needs to be an adult, everyone in the room needs to be looking at the big picture.”
BENEDICTION: Through God’s grace, by being attentive to God’s will, our deeds and our words will change our world for we will discover ways to proclaim release from the bondage or narrowness. Let us seek the God of Joy whose wisdom is our God. Let us go in peace to love and serve God. Amen.
Genuine
“Let love be genuine; your love must be sincere; hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Love one another with mutual affection, the affection of brothers and sisters; try to outdo one another in showing honor, respect.” — Romans 12: 9-10.
I need to confess I am about to offer two stories which are somewhat related about my late mother and I have drawn on them before. Some of you have heard them. Others have not.
Part one— as these things go, my mother died at a fairly young age— 58. That happened in November of 1983, just short of 34 years ago.
The specific fatal ailment was cancer of the bladder. Even back then only 10% of those who contracted cancer of the bladder died because of it.
And the doctors were confident they got it early, got it out and gave the family every assurance she would pull through. But 9 months after the cancer was first detected, diagnosed and operated on, she died.
10%— I sometimes say, she was simply in the wrong 10%. And you really do not understand what odds are until you realize no matter how favorable the odds might sound, you can still wind up on the wrong end of a 90/10 split.
When the cancer was first detected, I asked Mom if she was willing to pray with me privately. She was. And as we did so, as we prayed, I was overwhelmed with a sense that this was not going to end well.
I never told her about what I felt as we prayed. Perhaps I said nothing because sensing something on that kind of ethereal level has nothing to do with the cognitive, with logic. On the other hand, because I had an overwhelming understanding this was not going to end well, I was as prepared as I could have been for my mother to die at that young age. (Slight pause.)
Part two— a couple of weeks before she died, Mom and I prayed and had another long, private conversation. I think she was trying to wrap things up in a neat package, which would have been like her.
We talked about family. We talked about my Dad and how she had, in many ways, spent her adult life taking care of him.
And we talked about me. We talked about my brother. We talked about sister. In that part of the conversation my mother waxed philosophical about her children, whom she loved deeply.
I was her first child. My brother was her second child. He is 14 months younger than I. My sister was next, four years younger than I.
My Mom had interesting reflections about each of us. But one item stands out in my memory. She said I, the firstborn, was her experiment.
She said my brother, Jim, next in line, was her child. She said my sister, Rosemary, the last, was her play thing— her experiment, her child, her play thing— this from a woman essentially on her deathbed.
Now, you might criticize her characterizations, the psychological overtones, criticize a number of things about her analysis, criticize whatever you want. But I think there is something admirable in her ability to name and grapple with these attributes.
You see, what she did not say is something to the effect of “Jim was always my favorite child” or “Rosemary is smarter than you two boys put together.” Both then and now I took this assessment as loving and I took it as a reflection on her life and how she had coped more so than it being a description or a critique of her offspring and our individual characteristics, however flawed we were, are or might have been. She was reflecting in a succinct way the incredible complexity which makes up the workings of relationships deeply seeded in real love, genuine love, mature love. (Slight pause.)
We hear these words of Paul in Romans: “Let love be genuine; your love must be sincere; hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Love one another with mutual affection, the affection of brothers and sisters; try to outdo one another in showing honor, respect.” (Slight pause.)
The words from the passage we read today come with a basic problem. We read them in English.
Because we read these words in English, the temptation to which we might succumb is to domesticate them. We might see them as an appeal to a vague, sentimentalized love.
And when I blame the English language here, the problem is we have but one word for love. Of course, in English the word love can mean everything from deep affection expressed in a physical way to the ability to love another person so much that a need never, ever manifests itself that would be expressed in some form of manipulation.
Indeed, Greek has a number of words which address love and its many aspects. However, to blame English for its shortcomings and to exonerate Greek for its flexibility and breadth without addressing the central issue presented by what we call love in its many forms is a mistake.
Why? No matter what aspect of love we address, the central issue being contemplated by Paul with the word love— love in its many iterations— is our emotional life and the connection— the connection— of our emotional life with God and to God and with and to the people of God.
I maintain if your emotional life is disconnected from God, an important aspect of your emotional life lies fallow. Further, emotional life is extraordinarily complex.
Hence, because love is at the core of our extraordinarily complex emotional life, the very first mistake we can make when it comes to love is to define it. You see, the purpose of definition is restriction in some form. With something as complex as love, restrictions simply do not work.
So, let’s forego a definition and ask what does genuine, sincere love feel like? Or, perhaps more to the point I think Paul constantly tries to make throughout the Epistles— how does the love of God in the community of God and the Dominion of God work? (Slight pause.)
There is a version of Christianity, familiar to many, especially Americans, in which Christians are taught it is their duty to accept whatever evil comes their way. But that interpretation lets the craftiness of Paul’s words slip by here.
Evil need not be passively accepted, but neither does it need it be avenged. It does need to be confronted and not just confronted but confronted in love. Let me see if I can unpack that some. (Slight pause.)
In the year 2000, while this church was in the Open and Affirming process, the Rev. Mr. Bill Johnson was here for a weekend of workshops. He was, at that time, on the staff of the church at the National Level and assisting churches who were exploring the ONA process. Bill is now retired but is still active.
He recently put this statement on Facebook. (Quote:) “Hate speech does emotional, psychological and spiritual violence to the object of the animus as well as to the haters, though they are loathe to admit it. Hate speech is a mechanism of terrorism— let me say that again: hate speech is a mechanism of terrorism— designed to promote or perpetrate physical violence against the other. Claims that hate speech is free speech are absurd. There is no right to ‘Free Speech’ that does violence.” (Slight pause.)
That, I think, brings me back to my mother. In saying her three children were her experiment, her child and her plaything, she was being nothing more than genuine and lovingly genuine at that.
But last, and I think this most important, she was saying that she tried to be responsible in how she lived her life and how she loved. She was expressing a mature love.
And, as I already indicated, I think this was, additionally, an effort on her part to tie things up, to help her understand her own life, her own journey and some of that had to do with us, her children. And I believe the sentiments she expressed were in fact about a very mature love, even a very sophisticated understanding of one’s own place in the community and in the Dominion of God.
So, for me the question becomes and perhaps the lesson to learn becomes how do we respond in love, with love, through love. And perhaps what is of most importance, the place to which these words point, concerns our response of our love for God and the fact that how we love needs to be accomplished in a way that can only be described as responsible— responsible love. That’s what I think my mother was addressing, even on her deathbed: the idea that genuine love, true love strives to be responsible.
You know, being genuine, true, is something you cannot bottle, replicate or limit by definition. You can only strive to live that love out and strive to live that love out fully. Further— and I can guarantee this— you and I— we— will fall short of perfection as we strive to love one another in a responsible way. But strive we must, as this is the call of God on our lives.
And perhaps all that is why I said the word ‘love’ is not definable. You see love is an action and an action cannot be captured, defined, frozen.
And the action we need to take is acting in love and with love. So, what love is really about, I think, is living our lives as we strive to be responsible to and for ourselves, responsible to and for those around us, the community, and responsible to and for the Dominion of God. But of course, we need to remember the Dominion God and the will of God constantly develops and changes in our time, our place, our life. Amen.
09/03/2017
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: “ As you know usually say something at the end of the service. Bonus day, because you get tow things this morning. Bonus because I have two things to say. First, I came across this quote from the Catholic theologian Richard Rhor in my morning devotions and it seemed terribly pertinent and then I’ll say what I had prepared. (Quote:) “Our first forgiveness is not toward a particular sin or offense. Our first forgiveness, it seems to me, is toward reality itself: to forgive it for being so broken, a mixture of good and bad. First that paradox has to be overcome inside of us. Then, when we allow God to hold together the opposites within us, it becomes possible to do it over there, within us, in our neighbor and even our enemy.” And now what I prepared: “I have a feeling we live in an era when everyone wants what they want and, therefore, very few will work with others. It often seems to feel like there are no adults in the room, no one looking at the big picture. Everyone looks after only what their piece of the pie is about. The love about which Paul so often writes, the love God would have us practice, says everyone in the room needs to be an adult, everyone in the room needs to be looking at the big picture.”
BENEDICTION: Through God’s grace, by being attentive to God’s will, our deeds and our words will change our world for we will discover ways to proclaim release from the bondage or narrowness. Let us seek the God of Joy whose wisdom is our God. Let us go in peace to love and serve God. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)