02/24/2013 ~ Second Sunday in Lent ~ Genesis 15:1-12, 17-18; Psalm 27; Philippians 3:17-4:1; Luke 13:31-35 or Luke 9:28-36, (37-43a).
THE READING
Genesis 15:1b-12, 17-18 [ILV] ~ INTRODUCTION: The rituals explored in this passage are rituals of covenant, the great promise of God to humanity. Abram and Sarah are the vehicles through which the promises God makes are made to humanity. Hear now this reading as it is found in that portion of the Torah we have come to know as Genesis.
...the word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision:
“Fear not, Abram!
I am your shield;
I will make your reward very great.”
[2] Abram said, “My Sovereign, my God, what good are these blessings to me, so long as Sari and I continue childless? My only heir is a foreigner, Eliezer of Damascus, who lives in my household. [3] Because you have given me no offspring,” Abram continued, “an attendant born in my house will be my heir.”
[4] Then the word of Yahweh, God, came to Abram. God said, “This one shall not be your heir. No one but your very own flesh and blood shall be your heir.” [5] Then God took Abram outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can! As many as that— so shall your descendants be.” [6] And Abram believed Yahweh; and God reckoned it to Abram as righteousness.
[7]Yahweh then said to Abram, “I am God who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land as a possession.”
[8] Abram asked, “Sovereign God, how am I to know I shall possess it?”
[9] God answered, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old and a turtledove and a young pigeon.” [10] Abram brought all these, cut them in half and placed each half opposite the other. But Abram did not cut the birds in two. [11] Then birds of prey flew down on the carcasses but Abram drove them away.
[12] Now, as the sun was about to set, a deep trance fell upon Abram. And a deep and terrifying darkness enveloped him.
[17] When the sun had set and it was dark, a smoking barrier, a fire pot, and a flaming torch appeared. These passed between the halves of the sacrifices. [18] On that day Yahweh, God, made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,....”
THE SERMON
God of the Covenant
“On that day Yahweh, God, made a covenant with Abram,....” — Genesis 15:18.
Abram knew it was a dream. He was absolutely sure of it. Yet, he could not seem to wake up. His feet felt like they were suspended above the ground, floating, and he could not touch it. Something, he knew not what, was holding him in the air.
And then there were stars. He was surrounded by stars. They swirled around at a dizzying speed and lit the landscape below, that untouchable ground. He could see the moon more clearly than he ever imagined it could be seen. He reached out toward it with a hand and it skittered away, just out of reach.
And then there were torches. He was being carried along, floating through a pathway with torches on each side. Sparks sprayed out from each of them. He wondered if he would be burned by the cinders, but none seemed to come anywhere near the center of the path where he floated.
He could smell something. Was something burning? No. It was not that kind of smell. It did smell odd, though. He felt something. It felt like... hair. Was it Sari? Was it his wife?
He reached out to try to touch the hair. Yes. It was there. It was real. Suddenly he was wide awake. A fog lifted from his eyes. He realized he was lying on the ground next to Jamal, his camel.
He also realized the odd smell was nothing more than hair. It was Jamal, his camel. He also realized the hair was Jamal, his camel. The camel, his transportation for lo these last several years, was sitting on the ground, feet tucked in and he, Abram, was stretched out on the ground next to it. (Slight pause.) He spit, trying to get rid of a bad taste. Jamal snorted and then, as camels are wont to do, Jamal spit also. (Slight pause.)
Abram stood. The sun had just barely pushed its way over the Eastern horizon, so morning had, indeed, come. He reflected on what was still vivid about the dream while wondering what had happened to the night. Where had it gone? Why was there so much he did not remember? Why was there so much he did remember?
“Well, Jamal, where are we, anyway?” he asked the dromedary as he stood in front of it, staring into its eyes. “Where do you think we are? Where were we last night? Did we spend the whole night together? Did we spend the whole night right here? Do you remember what happened? I think I might remember. But I’m not sure I can quite explain it.”
Jamal said nothing, made no noise. And, yes, Abram knew Jamal was not going to be forthcoming about what had happened, whatever had transpired sometime in the middle of the night.
Abram also realized that what might be the most important fact to consider was he had spent the night in the desert and had not made it back to the camp where his family was. He knew his wife, Sari, would not be pleased.
Feeling, perhaps, old or at least a little worn, Abram climbed on the back of Jamal and touched the animal on its neck. The camel stood.
Tired, he leaned back and did not pay much attention to the trip, did not pay attention to where Jamal was going, confident the beast knew the way back to the camp. Toward mid-day Jamal started to make deep, guttural sounds. That’s when Abram knew they were getting close to home and slid off the animal, onto the ground.
He could hear the sounds of children. He could hear laughter. A baby was crying also. Abram came over a crest and could see Sari, tending a pot on a fire. He ran forward shouting, “Sari! Sari!” She ignored him.
He ran up and stood in front of her. “Sari! I’m here. I’m home!”
“Where were you? Were you partying again? You didn’t come home all night! I was worried sick.”
“I’m here now.”
“I have just about had it, you know,” was her reply. “You leave. You don’t tell me you are going. You don’t tell me where you are going. And I don’t like your friends. They drink too much wine. It’s not good.”
Defensively Abram said, “No. It was not them. I was not with them. I have not seen them in days, in weeks. They are just fair weather friends and I know that.”
“So who were you with?” she sneered. (Pause.) “No! It was not that one again, was it?” (Pause.)
Abram looked down at the ground. “You know, I really wish you would not call Yahweh, ‘that one.’”
“And what else should I call that one, this God you talk about? Have I every seen ‘that one?’”
Abram winced at the question. “No. But you have heard Yahweh,” he said.
“No. You hear Yahweh. I do not. I hear birds. I hear neighbors. I hear children. I hear the workers in our camp. I hear the wind. I hear the pots bang when they are lifted on and off the fire. I sometimes even hear laughter. But you! You! You hear voices. You hear this Yahweh.”
Having said the name Yahweh, she spit. It landed on a hot rock near the fire. It sizzled. (Slight pause.) “What,” she asked, “do you have to say for yourself?”
“Can I tell you what happened last night?”
He could feel her dark eyes looking right through him. “Do you think it will help?”
“No,” he answered. “But I need to say it.” (Pause.)
“So...?”
“Well, you are right. It was Yahweh.” (Slight pause.)
“And...?”
“And God said our reward would be great.” (Slight pause.)
“Right. Look, Abram, I love you. I went with you. I left the comforts of our great city, Ur. I left family and friends. I trekked with you across the plains. We became nomads together. Much to my surprise we have done well. But we remain childless.”
“Yes,” said Abram, “but Yahweh made a promise. My ‘own flesh and blood shall be’ my heir. And God had me look at the stars and said ‘...count the stars, if you can! As many as that— so shall your descendants be.’”
“And then... and then... Yahweh made a covenant with me. There was a sacrifice— a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtledove, a young pigeon. I simply prepared it. Yahweh, God, eternal— God alone— God ratified the covenant with flame. If birds of prey have not yet devoured the carcasses, I can take you to see the remains. I can take you to where the making of covenant happened right now.” (Slight pause.)
Sari laughed. She went on laughing for some time. (Slight pause.) When she finished laughing, she glowered at him. “And you believed.”
Abram was silent and once more looked at the ground. (Slight pause.) “No. It is more than belief. I trusted. I trust God. After all, a covenant is about trust. It’s about who you trust. You said it yourself. You said you went with me, left the comforts of our city, left family and friends, trekked with me across the plains. We became nomads together.”
Abram continued, “That all may have been, as you said, because of love. But it goes beyond love to the place called trust. Perhaps covenant is where love and trust become intertwined, inseparable, eternal. Perhaps that is what really makes a covenant: trust and love wrapped in one. These are eternal.” (Pause.)
Sari was silent and looked at the ground. (Slight pause.) “Well, yes. Trust and growth and peace and respect and longing and joy and wisdom and freedom and hope and knowledge and understanding and love— all these are eternal. All these make covenant.”
“All these are eternal. All these make covenant,” repeated Abram.
“And you trust Yahweh, God,” said Sari.
“Yes,” said Abram. “I trust Yahweh, God.” (Slight pause.)
“Well,” said Sari, holding out a hand, “let’s get out of the sun.”
And hand in hand they walked together past Jamal, who was resting under a tree, snorting and spitting. Abram and Sari waked together in covenant and in trust and in growth and in peace and in respect and with longing and in joy and in wisdom and in freedom and in hope and in knowledge and in understanding... and in love. They walked toward their tent, hand in hand, to get out of the noonday sun. Amen.
02/24/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Theologian Walter Brueggemann has said this: ‘Covenant (and, therefore, true spirituality), consists on learning the skills and sensitivities that include both the courage to assert self and the grace to abandon self to another.’ In short, covenant is not possible unless you recognize the needs of others.”
BENEDICTION: “Let our hearts take courage. Our God meets us where our needs rest. God is our shelter and shield. God’s blessings outnumber the stars. Let us go on our way with Christ as our companion. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.”
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
02/17/2013 ~ First Sunday in Lent ~ Deuteronomy 26:1-11; Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16; Romans 10:8b-13; Luke 4:1-13.
Distinctions
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek— all have the same Creator, rich in mercy towards those who call.” — Romans 10:12a.
If you hang around me long enough you will hear me say this— something I say all the time at Bible Study, occasionally from the pulpit and I once even said it at a Rotary meeting. “Church has a dirty little secret. Churches are, largely, sociologically gathered institutions, not theologically gathered institutions.”
A short way of saying this would be: like people worship with like people. And, as I also often say, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. rephrased the phenomena of like people worshiping with like people better than anyone else. King said: “The worship hour on a Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour in America.” I think it’s unlikely churches which are exclusively African American in their make up would be a part of the landscape unless sociology was a part of the picture.
All that is well and good, but what is the point of saying churches are sociologically gathered institutions? And why do I say it with some regularity? And what does making a statement which says churches are sociologically gathered say about the theology of church? (Pause.)
Actually, the point of saying churches are sociologically gathered is a theological stand in one very real and crucial sense. The point of saying it is to name it. If you cannot name it, you will never know it’s there. Hence, naming it is very good theology, since any good theology deals with reality. And this sociological fact is a reality.
Indeed, the reality of this sociological fact can get in the way of a relationship with God. But if we don’t know the sociology is there, if we cannot name it, see it, we can’t even begin to cope with the thought that this might be harmful in the context of the local community of faith. (Pause.)
Now that having been said, let me presume you did you notice the Roman Church was in the news this week. For the first time in 598 years a sitting Pope will abdicate. I took a poll among the Pastors who were at the Ash Wednesday ecumenical service. None of us wanted the job. (Slight pause.)
I take that back. The Rev. Ms. Nancy Hale did want to volunteer but also thought that possibility presented other and obvious complications. (Slight pause.)
In fact, I recently said to a friend that today, as it embarks on the election of a new Pope, the Roman Church may be at the same kind of crossroads it was at in the year 1516. 1516 is, of course, the year before Martin Luther tacked 95 Thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. In theory, this act was the beginning of the Protestant Revolution. In reality, the Protestant Revolution started the day after Pentecost, but that’s a whole different sermon. I won’t go there.
So, going along with the idea that Protestant Revolution did start in 1517, there is something Americans don’t understand about the Protestant Revolution. As one of my seminary professors said: “At least nominally, America is a Protestant country. So we do not understand that the Protestants lost the Protestant Revolution.”
To come to the conclusion that Protestants lost the Protestant Revolution, all you have to do is look at a map of Europe 50 years after Luther tacked those 95 Thesis to the door of that cathedral. What do you see? You see the Roman Church held sway over more land, had more people who maintained allegiance to Rome and those lands and those people possessed much greater wealth than the Protestant areas. They won. But in part because of the Reformation, a whole lot of different churches now dot the landscape.
So, occasionally, I will field a question which asks ‘why are there so many churches?’ Often my response comes back to the premise I initially stated this morning: like people worship with like people. The bottom line is we break out into tribes.
However, another but related answer as to why there are so many churches should not be that hard to figure out just based on the Biblical text. Go to the New Testament. What do you find? There is no unity of opinion and there certainly is nothing like “one church.” That never existed. That is a myth.
Let me illustrate this premise. These are the opening words of the Gospel we have come to know as Luke. (Quote:) “Many others have undertaken to compile a narrative, an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, exactly as those happenings were handed on to us by those who were original eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. I too, after investigating everything carefully from the beginning, decided to set down in writing an orderly account,... so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” [1]
Well, if we translate that into modern language, the modern vernacular, here is what it might sound like. “Hey! Listen!! A couple of other dudes— too many if you ask me— have written accounts of the life of Jesus. They got it all wrong.”
“So now, I’m going to write my version which is, of course, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And boy, not only is my version of the story right, but are those other guys who wrote different versions of this stupid, or what?!” (Slight pause.) Can you say: “like people worship with like people?” (Slight pause.) Can you say: “differences.” (Slight pause.)
And we find these words in the work known as Romans: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek— all have the same Creator, rich in mercy towards those who call.” (Slight pause.)
One of my commentaries on the assigned readings for today says this (quote:) “The season of Lent always brings the church back to the basics, to issues that are bedrock and essential. It is no time for marginal matters that linger about the periphery, but is for those topics and experiences that lie close to the heartbeat of the faith.”
“The texts of Lent force us to reflect on where we— as communities and as individuals— stand in relation to the center, and then they invite a process of self-examination, repentance, forgiveness and a new life.” [2] (Slight pause.)
I want to unpack two words in that commentary. First, the word ‘repentance,’ contrary to populist belief, ‘repentance’ does not mean feeling sorry. ‘Repentance’ means turning our lives toward God. Please note: ‘repentance’ does not means turning our lives over to the church, which is only an institution. ‘Repentance’ is about us and God.
Second, ‘forgiveness’— forgiveness is not primarily about forgiving someone else. Forgiveness is primarily about forgiving ourselves. Unless we know how to live with ourselves, we will never discover how to live with others. Unless we know how to live with ourselves, we will never discover how to live with others.
Having unpacked those words, that brings me back to the basics mentioned in the commentary. The basic question for us in Lent, the basic question Paul is posing for us in Romans is simple. Where do we, as communities and as individuals, stand in relation to the center? Where do we, as communities and as individuals, stand in relation to God? (Slight pause.)
If we stand as one people— in Paul’s words, if we stand as neither Jew nor Greek— then we stand in a relationship with God and one another. Are we all friends? Probably not. We are all very different with different tastes, different backgrounds and sometimes (dare I say it?) even different sociology.
But we all can and should stand as one people, equal before God. It is in that way, standing before God as one, that we can truly celebrate our differences and our unity.
I was reminded of that Wednesday night as we gathered for an Ash Wednesday Service. Pastors and members of the United Church of Christ, the First Baptist Church, Christ Lutheran Church, the Broad Street United Methodist Church and Emmanuel Episcopal Church stood as one before God in worship.
Did we, as we gathered, have differences? Yes. It is likely we would agree on everything? No. But did we stand as one before God? Yes. We worshiped God together, as one. (Slight pause.)
So, what is the season of Lent about? It is about who we are and identifying who we are. It is about recognizing who our neighbor really is and understanding we are not members of separate tribes.
It is about who God is— and when I think about it: God who is, and trying to wrestle with that— who God is and trying to wrestle with that. It is about standing as one before God and being humble enough to do that. It is, hence, about a process of self-examination, repentance, forgiveness and a new life. Amen.
02/17/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Our thought for meditation in the bulletin today was from Joan D. Chittister, a member of the Benedictine Sisters of Erie, Pennsylvania, an author and a speaker: ‘Lent is not a ‘penitential season.’ Lent is a ‘growing season.’ It is a reminder that we need to see this time of year but perhaps all year as a time when growing in our relationship with God and one another needs to be nurtured.”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. Let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] Luke 1:1-4, Inclusive Language Version, with the reference to Theophilus omitted.
[2] Texts for Preaching (the Electronic Version) on the commentary for this Sunday, the First Sunday in Lent, Year ‘C’.
Distinctions
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek— all have the same Creator, rich in mercy towards those who call.” — Romans 10:12a.
If you hang around me long enough you will hear me say this— something I say all the time at Bible Study, occasionally from the pulpit and I once even said it at a Rotary meeting. “Church has a dirty little secret. Churches are, largely, sociologically gathered institutions, not theologically gathered institutions.”
A short way of saying this would be: like people worship with like people. And, as I also often say, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. rephrased the phenomena of like people worshiping with like people better than anyone else. King said: “The worship hour on a Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour in America.” I think it’s unlikely churches which are exclusively African American in their make up would be a part of the landscape unless sociology was a part of the picture.
All that is well and good, but what is the point of saying churches are sociologically gathered institutions? And why do I say it with some regularity? And what does making a statement which says churches are sociologically gathered say about the theology of church? (Pause.)
Actually, the point of saying churches are sociologically gathered is a theological stand in one very real and crucial sense. The point of saying it is to name it. If you cannot name it, you will never know it’s there. Hence, naming it is very good theology, since any good theology deals with reality. And this sociological fact is a reality.
Indeed, the reality of this sociological fact can get in the way of a relationship with God. But if we don’t know the sociology is there, if we cannot name it, see it, we can’t even begin to cope with the thought that this might be harmful in the context of the local community of faith. (Pause.)
Now that having been said, let me presume you did you notice the Roman Church was in the news this week. For the first time in 598 years a sitting Pope will abdicate. I took a poll among the Pastors who were at the Ash Wednesday ecumenical service. None of us wanted the job. (Slight pause.)
I take that back. The Rev. Ms. Nancy Hale did want to volunteer but also thought that possibility presented other and obvious complications. (Slight pause.)
In fact, I recently said to a friend that today, as it embarks on the election of a new Pope, the Roman Church may be at the same kind of crossroads it was at in the year 1516. 1516 is, of course, the year before Martin Luther tacked 95 Thesis to the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. In theory, this act was the beginning of the Protestant Revolution. In reality, the Protestant Revolution started the day after Pentecost, but that’s a whole different sermon. I won’t go there.
So, going along with the idea that Protestant Revolution did start in 1517, there is something Americans don’t understand about the Protestant Revolution. As one of my seminary professors said: “At least nominally, America is a Protestant country. So we do not understand that the Protestants lost the Protestant Revolution.”
To come to the conclusion that Protestants lost the Protestant Revolution, all you have to do is look at a map of Europe 50 years after Luther tacked those 95 Thesis to the door of that cathedral. What do you see? You see the Roman Church held sway over more land, had more people who maintained allegiance to Rome and those lands and those people possessed much greater wealth than the Protestant areas. They won. But in part because of the Reformation, a whole lot of different churches now dot the landscape.
So, occasionally, I will field a question which asks ‘why are there so many churches?’ Often my response comes back to the premise I initially stated this morning: like people worship with like people. The bottom line is we break out into tribes.
However, another but related answer as to why there are so many churches should not be that hard to figure out just based on the Biblical text. Go to the New Testament. What do you find? There is no unity of opinion and there certainly is nothing like “one church.” That never existed. That is a myth.
Let me illustrate this premise. These are the opening words of the Gospel we have come to know as Luke. (Quote:) “Many others have undertaken to compile a narrative, an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, exactly as those happenings were handed on to us by those who were original eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. I too, after investigating everything carefully from the beginning, decided to set down in writing an orderly account,... so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.” [1]
Well, if we translate that into modern language, the modern vernacular, here is what it might sound like. “Hey! Listen!! A couple of other dudes— too many if you ask me— have written accounts of the life of Jesus. They got it all wrong.”
“So now, I’m going to write my version which is, of course, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And boy, not only is my version of the story right, but are those other guys who wrote different versions of this stupid, or what?!” (Slight pause.) Can you say: “like people worship with like people?” (Slight pause.) Can you say: “differences.” (Slight pause.)
And we find these words in the work known as Romans: “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek— all have the same Creator, rich in mercy towards those who call.” (Slight pause.)
One of my commentaries on the assigned readings for today says this (quote:) “The season of Lent always brings the church back to the basics, to issues that are bedrock and essential. It is no time for marginal matters that linger about the periphery, but is for those topics and experiences that lie close to the heartbeat of the faith.”
“The texts of Lent force us to reflect on where we— as communities and as individuals— stand in relation to the center, and then they invite a process of self-examination, repentance, forgiveness and a new life.” [2] (Slight pause.)
I want to unpack two words in that commentary. First, the word ‘repentance,’ contrary to populist belief, ‘repentance’ does not mean feeling sorry. ‘Repentance’ means turning our lives toward God. Please note: ‘repentance’ does not means turning our lives over to the church, which is only an institution. ‘Repentance’ is about us and God.
Second, ‘forgiveness’— forgiveness is not primarily about forgiving someone else. Forgiveness is primarily about forgiving ourselves. Unless we know how to live with ourselves, we will never discover how to live with others. Unless we know how to live with ourselves, we will never discover how to live with others.
Having unpacked those words, that brings me back to the basics mentioned in the commentary. The basic question for us in Lent, the basic question Paul is posing for us in Romans is simple. Where do we, as communities and as individuals, stand in relation to the center? Where do we, as communities and as individuals, stand in relation to God? (Slight pause.)
If we stand as one people— in Paul’s words, if we stand as neither Jew nor Greek— then we stand in a relationship with God and one another. Are we all friends? Probably not. We are all very different with different tastes, different backgrounds and sometimes (dare I say it?) even different sociology.
But we all can and should stand as one people, equal before God. It is in that way, standing before God as one, that we can truly celebrate our differences and our unity.
I was reminded of that Wednesday night as we gathered for an Ash Wednesday Service. Pastors and members of the United Church of Christ, the First Baptist Church, Christ Lutheran Church, the Broad Street United Methodist Church and Emmanuel Episcopal Church stood as one before God in worship.
Did we, as we gathered, have differences? Yes. It is likely we would agree on everything? No. But did we stand as one before God? Yes. We worshiped God together, as one. (Slight pause.)
So, what is the season of Lent about? It is about who we are and identifying who we are. It is about recognizing who our neighbor really is and understanding we are not members of separate tribes.
It is about who God is— and when I think about it: God who is, and trying to wrestle with that— who God is and trying to wrestle with that. It is about standing as one before God and being humble enough to do that. It is, hence, about a process of self-examination, repentance, forgiveness and a new life. Amen.
02/17/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Our thought for meditation in the bulletin today was from Joan D. Chittister, a member of the Benedictine Sisters of Erie, Pennsylvania, an author and a speaker: ‘Lent is not a ‘penitential season.’ Lent is a ‘growing season.’ It is a reminder that we need to see this time of year but perhaps all year as a time when growing in our relationship with God and one another needs to be nurtured.”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. Let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] Luke 1:1-4, Inclusive Language Version, with the reference to Theophilus omitted.
[2] Texts for Preaching (the Electronic Version) on the commentary for this Sunday, the First Sunday in Lent, Year ‘C’.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
SERMON ~ 02/10/2013 ~ Seeing But Silent
02/10/2013 ~ Last Sunday Before Lent ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Known in Some Traditions as Transfiguration Sunday ~ Exodus 34:29-35; Psalm 99; 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2; Luke 9:28-36, (37-43a).
Seeing But Silent
“Then from the cloud came a voice that said, ‘This is my Own, my Chosen; listen!’ When the voice had finished speaking, they saw no one but Jesus standing there. The disciples kept silent, telling nothing of what they had seen at that time to anyone.” — Luke 9:35-36.
Mary Oliver has won the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. The New York Times describes her as (quote): “far and away, America’s best-selling poet.” Given the snow event which obviously effected others more than us— to be clear, I have no interest in diminishing the trouble it caused for some— but given the snow event which obviously did not effect us as much as it effected others, I thought it appropriate to start my comments with a poem by Mary Oliver. It is called White Eyes. (Slight pause.)
In winter / all the singing is in / the tops of the trees / where the wind-bird // with its white eyes / shoves and pushes / among the branches. / Like any of us // he wants to go to sleep, / but he’s restless— / he has an idea, / and slowly it unfolds // from under his beating wings / as long as he stays awake / But his big, round music, after all, / is too breathy to last. // So, it’s over. / In the pine-crown / he makes his nest, / he’s done all he can. // I don’t know the name of this bird, / I only imagine his glittering beak / while the clouds— // which he has summoned / from the north— / which he has taught / to be mild, and silent— // thicken, and begin to fall / into the world below / like stars, or the feathers / of some unimaginable bird // that loves us, / that is asleep now, and silent— / that has turned itself / into snow. (Slight pause.)
That is certainly a different take on winter weather than snow-mageddon style predictions— some of which are accurate and some of which are not— it is different than the snow-mageddon predictions the media tends to give us these days. Indeed, what has always impressed me about snow is not the clamor nor the disruption it causes— and it can and sometimes does cause those.
What impresses me about snow is the silence. You see, I think one hears rain. But one feels snow.
I remember playing in the snow when I was a child. I remember building snow castles, snow forts on the streets of Brooklyn, fortified positions from which we threw snowballs at kids across the street or at unsuspecting adults who passed by. In some ways the point was to make noise.
But all that happened after it had stopped snowing, when the sun was out. It was the aftermath. I remember once looking out the window of my house for hours in the depth of night as better than a foot of snow fell gently, softly, silently.
Then, as the snow was not quite finished, I threw on a coat and rushed out the door into the dark of that night, into the middle of what had been just hours earlier a busy street filled with traffic. Now it was simply a deserted field of snow. I did a belly flop and pretended I could swim my way to the other side.
But again, I remember the silence of it all. That, I think— the silence— is what Oliver’s poem captures so well.
I also think we live in a society which likes noise. Therefore, we turn the silent snow, snow which is meant to be felt not heard, we turn snow into noise before it even happens. And so, we predict snow-mageddons. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Luke: “Then from the cloud came a voice that said, ‘This is my Own, my Chosen; listen!’ When the voice had finished speaking, they saw no one but Jesus standing there. The disciples kept silent, telling nothing of what they had seen at that time to anyone.” (Slight pause.)
As was mentioned when today’s readings were introduced, these are both stories of theophanies— theophany— an experience of the real presence of God. [1] It was also said the Christmas story is a theophany. Indeed, I think one point we miss as we read Scripture is it’s filled with theophanies— experiences of the real presence of God and descriptions of the experience are repeated over and over.
After all, what else is the Christmas story about but an announcement of the in-breaking of God into our world? That is a theophany by any definition.
And so, the church goes from the theophany of Christmas into the Season of Epiphany, a season which proclaims the revelation of God by its very name and then ends the season with the story— the specific story— of yet another theophany, the Transfiguration. It is a way to say this is a prime message found in Scripture. So Scripture is, indeed, constantly telling us and telling us and telling us yet again that the experience of God is real.
Scripture actually constantly tells us not just that the experience of God is real. Scripture tells us God is real. (Slight pause.)
The language we use to tell that story, to tell others about the presence of God, matters not. The content matters not. Telling the story with exactness or even artfully is not the point. The point is to tell the story.
And point of the story? God is real. God is present among us. God is working in our lives. God is a part of our lives.
Hence, in making the point that God is real, the Transfiguration is one of the more fascinating stories of a theophany in all Scripture. The way I see it, several things make it so, make it fascinating. First, the voice of God says: “listen!”
In the era the New Testament was first heard, any Jew would have recognized this word, “listen,” as an echo of the Shema, the great commandment. “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh, our God, is one.”
This explains an understanding of the early church concerning the person of Jesus. Jesus is one with God. Further, this one word— “listen”— underscores the meaning in this passage and declarers there should be no mistake when it comes to understating that meaning. The story is a theophany.
Second, we have this (quote): “The disciples kept silent, telling nothing of what they had seen at that time to anyone.” (Slight pause.) In a telling of the same story but as it is found in another Gospel, Jesus instructs the disciples to keep silent. In this version Jesus says nothing.
So, in this telling they keep silent on their own. Why? Were they overwhelmed? Did they not understand? We are not told in the text.
I, myself, like to think the event we call the Transfiguration is both silent and demands silence— there is no noise in the background— it is silent and demands silence— so we can listen. I also think the voices we hear about in the story are more felt than heard.
So, in that sense, I think this is also true of our own experiences of God. God is more felt than heard. We may eventually put words to that experience. But unless we feel God, we do not hear God and we cannot, then, put our own voice to that experience.
This is one reason our denomination, the United Church of Christ, is on such solid ground in saying “God Is Still Speaking.” Our claim is that God speaks not because we discern words but because we experience God. Our claim is that God is real. Our claim is God is present among us. God is working in our lives. God is a part of our lives. (Pause.)
Arguably the greatest play ever written was Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Just before Hamlet dies, he makes a request of his best friend, Horatio. “If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart / Absent thee from felicity awhile, / And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain, / To tell my story.” (Sight pause.)
Tell my story. It is the request of a dying friend to testify to his reality. And that is where we struggle. If God is real for us, if God is working in our lives, if God is a part of our lives, if we experience God, can we, do we, tell the story?
To be clear: for those of us reticent to voice what we think about God, how God feels to us, I am not confining telling about our experience of God to mere language. Actions often do speak louder than words. And there are many ways to speak. (Slight pause.)
So, what is a theophany about? It is about the experience of the real presence of God. (Slight pause.) Well, what is your experience of the real presence of God? And how are you willing to share it in whatever way you are called, in whatever way you can? Amen.
02/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “A pastor friend of mine recently posted on Facebook a cartoon of two people standing in an airport. One has a “tee shirt” on. The shirt is emblazoned with the words: ‘Let’s talk about Jesus.’ The caption has the one person saying to the other: ‘I figure this way no one will talk to me for the entire flight.’ But remember, telling the story is not and should not be confined to only to language. Language might prove to be inadequate.”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. So let us live in the light God offers. And, therefore, let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] The readings used were the ones assigned by the Lectionary from Exodus and Luke.
Seeing But Silent
“Then from the cloud came a voice that said, ‘This is my Own, my Chosen; listen!’ When the voice had finished speaking, they saw no one but Jesus standing there. The disciples kept silent, telling nothing of what they had seen at that time to anyone.” — Luke 9:35-36.
Mary Oliver has won the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. The New York Times describes her as (quote): “far and away, America’s best-selling poet.” Given the snow event which obviously effected others more than us— to be clear, I have no interest in diminishing the trouble it caused for some— but given the snow event which obviously did not effect us as much as it effected others, I thought it appropriate to start my comments with a poem by Mary Oliver. It is called White Eyes. (Slight pause.)
In winter / all the singing is in / the tops of the trees / where the wind-bird // with its white eyes / shoves and pushes / among the branches. / Like any of us // he wants to go to sleep, / but he’s restless— / he has an idea, / and slowly it unfolds // from under his beating wings / as long as he stays awake / But his big, round music, after all, / is too breathy to last. // So, it’s over. / In the pine-crown / he makes his nest, / he’s done all he can. // I don’t know the name of this bird, / I only imagine his glittering beak / while the clouds— // which he has summoned / from the north— / which he has taught / to be mild, and silent— // thicken, and begin to fall / into the world below / like stars, or the feathers / of some unimaginable bird // that loves us, / that is asleep now, and silent— / that has turned itself / into snow. (Slight pause.)
That is certainly a different take on winter weather than snow-mageddon style predictions— some of which are accurate and some of which are not— it is different than the snow-mageddon predictions the media tends to give us these days. Indeed, what has always impressed me about snow is not the clamor nor the disruption it causes— and it can and sometimes does cause those.
What impresses me about snow is the silence. You see, I think one hears rain. But one feels snow.
I remember playing in the snow when I was a child. I remember building snow castles, snow forts on the streets of Brooklyn, fortified positions from which we threw snowballs at kids across the street or at unsuspecting adults who passed by. In some ways the point was to make noise.
But all that happened after it had stopped snowing, when the sun was out. It was the aftermath. I remember once looking out the window of my house for hours in the depth of night as better than a foot of snow fell gently, softly, silently.
Then, as the snow was not quite finished, I threw on a coat and rushed out the door into the dark of that night, into the middle of what had been just hours earlier a busy street filled with traffic. Now it was simply a deserted field of snow. I did a belly flop and pretended I could swim my way to the other side.
But again, I remember the silence of it all. That, I think— the silence— is what Oliver’s poem captures so well.
I also think we live in a society which likes noise. Therefore, we turn the silent snow, snow which is meant to be felt not heard, we turn snow into noise before it even happens. And so, we predict snow-mageddons. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Luke: “Then from the cloud came a voice that said, ‘This is my Own, my Chosen; listen!’ When the voice had finished speaking, they saw no one but Jesus standing there. The disciples kept silent, telling nothing of what they had seen at that time to anyone.” (Slight pause.)
As was mentioned when today’s readings were introduced, these are both stories of theophanies— theophany— an experience of the real presence of God. [1] It was also said the Christmas story is a theophany. Indeed, I think one point we miss as we read Scripture is it’s filled with theophanies— experiences of the real presence of God and descriptions of the experience are repeated over and over.
After all, what else is the Christmas story about but an announcement of the in-breaking of God into our world? That is a theophany by any definition.
And so, the church goes from the theophany of Christmas into the Season of Epiphany, a season which proclaims the revelation of God by its very name and then ends the season with the story— the specific story— of yet another theophany, the Transfiguration. It is a way to say this is a prime message found in Scripture. So Scripture is, indeed, constantly telling us and telling us and telling us yet again that the experience of God is real.
Scripture actually constantly tells us not just that the experience of God is real. Scripture tells us God is real. (Slight pause.)
The language we use to tell that story, to tell others about the presence of God, matters not. The content matters not. Telling the story with exactness or even artfully is not the point. The point is to tell the story.
And point of the story? God is real. God is present among us. God is working in our lives. God is a part of our lives.
Hence, in making the point that God is real, the Transfiguration is one of the more fascinating stories of a theophany in all Scripture. The way I see it, several things make it so, make it fascinating. First, the voice of God says: “listen!”
In the era the New Testament was first heard, any Jew would have recognized this word, “listen,” as an echo of the Shema, the great commandment. “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh, our God, is one.”
This explains an understanding of the early church concerning the person of Jesus. Jesus is one with God. Further, this one word— “listen”— underscores the meaning in this passage and declarers there should be no mistake when it comes to understating that meaning. The story is a theophany.
Second, we have this (quote): “The disciples kept silent, telling nothing of what they had seen at that time to anyone.” (Slight pause.) In a telling of the same story but as it is found in another Gospel, Jesus instructs the disciples to keep silent. In this version Jesus says nothing.
So, in this telling they keep silent on their own. Why? Were they overwhelmed? Did they not understand? We are not told in the text.
I, myself, like to think the event we call the Transfiguration is both silent and demands silence— there is no noise in the background— it is silent and demands silence— so we can listen. I also think the voices we hear about in the story are more felt than heard.
So, in that sense, I think this is also true of our own experiences of God. God is more felt than heard. We may eventually put words to that experience. But unless we feel God, we do not hear God and we cannot, then, put our own voice to that experience.
This is one reason our denomination, the United Church of Christ, is on such solid ground in saying “God Is Still Speaking.” Our claim is that God speaks not because we discern words but because we experience God. Our claim is that God is real. Our claim is God is present among us. God is working in our lives. God is a part of our lives. (Pause.)
Arguably the greatest play ever written was Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Just before Hamlet dies, he makes a request of his best friend, Horatio. “If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart / Absent thee from felicity awhile, / And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain, / To tell my story.” (Sight pause.)
Tell my story. It is the request of a dying friend to testify to his reality. And that is where we struggle. If God is real for us, if God is working in our lives, if God is a part of our lives, if we experience God, can we, do we, tell the story?
To be clear: for those of us reticent to voice what we think about God, how God feels to us, I am not confining telling about our experience of God to mere language. Actions often do speak louder than words. And there are many ways to speak. (Slight pause.)
So, what is a theophany about? It is about the experience of the real presence of God. (Slight pause.) Well, what is your experience of the real presence of God? And how are you willing to share it in whatever way you are called, in whatever way you can? Amen.
02/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “A pastor friend of mine recently posted on Facebook a cartoon of two people standing in an airport. One has a “tee shirt” on. The shirt is emblazoned with the words: ‘Let’s talk about Jesus.’ The caption has the one person saying to the other: ‘I figure this way no one will talk to me for the entire flight.’ But remember, telling the story is not and should not be confined to only to language. Language might prove to be inadequate.”
BENEDICTION: God heals and restores. God grants to us the grace and the talent to witness to the love God has for us. So let us live in the light God offers. And, therefore, let us be ready as we go into the world, for we are baptized in the power of the Spirit. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] The readings used were the ones assigned by the Lectionary from Exodus and Luke.
Monday, February 4, 2013
SERMON ~ 02/03/2013 ~ Imperfect Knowledge
02/03/2013 ~ Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Jeremiah 1:4-10; Psalm 71:1-6; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; Luke 4:21-30 ~ COMMUNION SUNDAY.
Imperfect Knowledge
“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” — 1 Corinthians 13:7-8a.
I need to start today’s comments with a question. (Slight pause.) What does it meant to be a Christian? (Slight pause.)
Does being a Christian mean one assents to a set of beliefs or precepts? (Slight pause.) I’ll come back to that. (Slight pause.)
I have mentioned dozens of times that my late mother joined a convent— she was a nun— but dropped out of the order before taking her final vows. I’ve also mentioned my late father taught at a Jesuit High School for the vast majority of his working life.
While it might, therefore, seem like I went into the family business, I think a major effect of this was the friendships I made. You see, clergy— especially Jesuits— were my friends when I was growing up. Indeed, I remember when I was 18 or 19 a Jesuit friend invited me and a couple of my friends to dinner at a rectory in Greenwich Village to meet a friend of his.
That friend was the activist, Philip Berrigan. Philip and his more famous brother Dan got on the FBI 10 most wanted list for involvement with the peace movement.
They were both prosecuted for being among the so called Catonsville Nine and the so called Baltimore Four. One James Mengel, a U.C.C. pastor, was a part of the Baltimore Four. Perhaps my background is closer to home than it might seem on the surface. (Slight pause.)
So, what does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? (Slight pause.)
Recent polls say 20 percent of Americans make a claim to be “spiritual but not religious.” Reverend Lillian Daniel, pastor of the First Congregational Church in Glen Ellyn, a Chicago suburb, has published a book on the topic. This the title: When “Spiritual But Not Religious” Is Not Enough: Seeing God in Surprising Places, Even the Church.
People tell you they find God in sunsets, she says, but anyone can find God in a sunset. Finding God in the flawed human community and in a tradition bigger than you with people who may not reflect God back to you in your own image— that’s remarkable.
An equal opportunity critic, Daniel also levels criticism at church members, like those who say a quarterback has been blessed by God for scoring a winning touchdown. Surely Christians are praying just as hard on other football teams. Did God ignore them? Or did they just pray the wrong way?
There are also Christians who do disgusting things like burn copies of the Qur’an. These behaviors should be an embarrassment to people of faith, says Daniel. (Slight pause.)
What does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? (Slight pause.)
A colleague recently said when the Nicene Creed was issued— and in some ways the Nicene Creed is a list of beliefs— when the Nicene Creed was issued, that started the downfall Christianity. People assented to that list, said my friend, and it was the beginning of the end for Christianity.
I suggested that is not at all what happened at the Council of Nicaea. You see, thinking of the Creed as a list of beliefs did not happen until about thirteen centuries after it was written— around the time of the Enlightenment. So, what did the Creed mean when it was written if it is not a list of beliefs?
The Latin word we translate as ‘I believe,’ credo, does not mean a list of intellectual beliefs. Credo means something to which I give my heart. (Slight pause.)
Another colleague recently said he wished the age of dogma would give way to the age of dialogue, discussion. Discussion, after all, rests on mutual respect for diverse opinions and those who hold them. Discussion means reserving the right to be wrong.
However, we live in an era when opinions do not seem to allow for space or allow for respect. Positions taken are the end of discussion. And facts are ignored when they do not conform to opinion. There are some who even like this world of easy absolutes, a world which permits no nuance, no compromise, no differences, a world of dogma. (Slight pause.)
So, what does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? And are those beliefs narrow? (Slight pause.)
Now, there is a difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is either what you decide you will believe and that you will allow for nothing else and/or Dogma is what someone else decides will be believed and you buy into it, allowing for nothing else.
Doctrine, on the other hand, is an explanation of belief. Therefore, doctrine relates back to the Latin credo. Doctrine is something to which we might give our heart, something we can love, especially since it is our explanation.
And I think, for Paul, not belief but love is the prime issue. That is because, for Paul, what we believe is encompassed by and in a relationship with God. So, he talks about love. And love is not about a list of beliefs.
Indeed, how does Paul talk about love? By making the obvious argument: knowledge is imperfect. Or, in modern terms, why do we insult someone when we say they are a ‘Know It All?’ We inherently recognize, as did Paul, that knowledge is imperfect, incomplete.
But Paul’s position also states that, because knowledge is imperfect, incomplete, so too it is with love. Love is imperfect, incomplete, flawed.
But, having said that, Paul also insists love can be perfect, can be complete. How? Again, in today’s terms, what Paul says is that we humans are and need to see ourselves as beings of sacred worth— beings of sacred worth.
If we see ourselves beings of sacred worth, then love can be imperfect even as we seek the perfect. How? God, who is perfect, loves us. God sees us as beings of sacred worth, despite imperfection, despite our flaws. And God wants to be in covenant with us.
Indeed, this is how Paul restates the ancient covenant God has made with humanity (quote): “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” (Slight pause.)
So, what does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? No. It means one assents to love. Amen.
02/03/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “There is a story that goes around about a fairly local personality, Carl Sagan. He lived just over in Ithaca. The story may well be apocryphal, but it’s the story that goes around. He was a fairly well known agnostic and he and a colleague were in a discussion and he offered all kind of proof to his colleague that God did not exist. And then his colleague said, ‘So, Carol, does love exist?’ And he because a little flustered. His colleague said, ‘Can’t prove that, either, can you?’”
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 of narrowness. Let us seek the God of Joy whose wisdom is our God. Let us go in peace to love and serve God. Amen.
Imperfect Knowledge
“Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” — 1 Corinthians 13:7-8a.
I need to start today’s comments with a question. (Slight pause.) What does it meant to be a Christian? (Slight pause.)
Does being a Christian mean one assents to a set of beliefs or precepts? (Slight pause.) I’ll come back to that. (Slight pause.)
I have mentioned dozens of times that my late mother joined a convent— she was a nun— but dropped out of the order before taking her final vows. I’ve also mentioned my late father taught at a Jesuit High School for the vast majority of his working life.
While it might, therefore, seem like I went into the family business, I think a major effect of this was the friendships I made. You see, clergy— especially Jesuits— were my friends when I was growing up. Indeed, I remember when I was 18 or 19 a Jesuit friend invited me and a couple of my friends to dinner at a rectory in Greenwich Village to meet a friend of his.
That friend was the activist, Philip Berrigan. Philip and his more famous brother Dan got on the FBI 10 most wanted list for involvement with the peace movement.
They were both prosecuted for being among the so called Catonsville Nine and the so called Baltimore Four. One James Mengel, a U.C.C. pastor, was a part of the Baltimore Four. Perhaps my background is closer to home than it might seem on the surface. (Slight pause.)
So, what does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? (Slight pause.)
Recent polls say 20 percent of Americans make a claim to be “spiritual but not religious.” Reverend Lillian Daniel, pastor of the First Congregational Church in Glen Ellyn, a Chicago suburb, has published a book on the topic. This the title: When “Spiritual But Not Religious” Is Not Enough: Seeing God in Surprising Places, Even the Church.
People tell you they find God in sunsets, she says, but anyone can find God in a sunset. Finding God in the flawed human community and in a tradition bigger than you with people who may not reflect God back to you in your own image— that’s remarkable.
An equal opportunity critic, Daniel also levels criticism at church members, like those who say a quarterback has been blessed by God for scoring a winning touchdown. Surely Christians are praying just as hard on other football teams. Did God ignore them? Or did they just pray the wrong way?
There are also Christians who do disgusting things like burn copies of the Qur’an. These behaviors should be an embarrassment to people of faith, says Daniel. (Slight pause.)
What does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? (Slight pause.)
A colleague recently said when the Nicene Creed was issued— and in some ways the Nicene Creed is a list of beliefs— when the Nicene Creed was issued, that started the downfall Christianity. People assented to that list, said my friend, and it was the beginning of the end for Christianity.
I suggested that is not at all what happened at the Council of Nicaea. You see, thinking of the Creed as a list of beliefs did not happen until about thirteen centuries after it was written— around the time of the Enlightenment. So, what did the Creed mean when it was written if it is not a list of beliefs?
The Latin word we translate as ‘I believe,’ credo, does not mean a list of intellectual beliefs. Credo means something to which I give my heart. (Slight pause.)
Another colleague recently said he wished the age of dogma would give way to the age of dialogue, discussion. Discussion, after all, rests on mutual respect for diverse opinions and those who hold them. Discussion means reserving the right to be wrong.
However, we live in an era when opinions do not seem to allow for space or allow for respect. Positions taken are the end of discussion. And facts are ignored when they do not conform to opinion. There are some who even like this world of easy absolutes, a world which permits no nuance, no compromise, no differences, a world of dogma. (Slight pause.)
So, what does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? And are those beliefs narrow? (Slight pause.)
Now, there is a difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma is either what you decide you will believe and that you will allow for nothing else and/or Dogma is what someone else decides will be believed and you buy into it, allowing for nothing else.
Doctrine, on the other hand, is an explanation of belief. Therefore, doctrine relates back to the Latin credo. Doctrine is something to which we might give our heart, something we can love, especially since it is our explanation.
And I think, for Paul, not belief but love is the prime issue. That is because, for Paul, what we believe is encompassed by and in a relationship with God. So, he talks about love. And love is not about a list of beliefs.
Indeed, how does Paul talk about love? By making the obvious argument: knowledge is imperfect. Or, in modern terms, why do we insult someone when we say they are a ‘Know It All?’ We inherently recognize, as did Paul, that knowledge is imperfect, incomplete.
But Paul’s position also states that, because knowledge is imperfect, incomplete, so too it is with love. Love is imperfect, incomplete, flawed.
But, having said that, Paul also insists love can be perfect, can be complete. How? Again, in today’s terms, what Paul says is that we humans are and need to see ourselves as beings of sacred worth— beings of sacred worth.
If we see ourselves beings of sacred worth, then love can be imperfect even as we seek the perfect. How? God, who is perfect, loves us. God sees us as beings of sacred worth, despite imperfection, despite our flaws. And God wants to be in covenant with us.
Indeed, this is how Paul restates the ancient covenant God has made with humanity (quote): “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things and has the power to endure all things. Love never ends.” (Slight pause.)
So, what does it meant to be a Christian? Does it mean one assents to a set of beliefs? No. It means one assents to love. Amen.
02/03/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “There is a story that goes around about a fairly local personality, Carl Sagan. He lived just over in Ithaca. The story may well be apocryphal, but it’s the story that goes around. He was a fairly well known agnostic and he and a colleague were in a discussion and he offered all kind of proof to his colleague that God did not exist. And then his colleague said, ‘So, Carol, does love exist?’ And he because a little flustered. His colleague said, ‘Can’t prove that, either, can you?’”
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 of narrowness. Let us seek the God of Joy whose wisdom is our God. Let us go in peace to love and serve God. Amen.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
SERMON ~ 01/27/2013 ~ The Book
01/27/2013 ~ Third Sunday after the Epiphany ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Third Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Nehemiah 8:1-3, 5-6, 8-10; Psalm 19 ~ 1 Corinthians 12:12-31a; Luke 4:14-21 ~ Church Annual Budget Meeting.
The Book
“So they, the Levities, read from the book, from the Torah of God, with interpretation.” — Nehemiah 8:8a.
Last Monday President Barack Obama was Inaugurated for a second term. A strictly literary analysis of the Inaugural Address, therefore one which has nothing to do with politics, would, I think, run something like this.
Obama referenced some of our founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence which says we hold some truths self-evident, including being created equal, and these truths are given by the Creator. The President also referenced the Constitution which starts with the words “We the people.”
Obama pointed out these documents guided those who went before us through many trials from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall. All these places are about the struggle for civil rights. Seneca Falls was the first convention for women’s rights, held in 1848. [1] Selma was the march for voting rights for African Americans in 1965. Stonewall was a series of demonstrations in New York City for gay rights in 1969.
Therefore, in terms of literary analysis, Obama illustrated this: one can go from the founding documents which speak of freedom and make a transition over to the people about whom these documents of freedom speak, a transition over to the people for whom these documents of freedom have spoken and are speaking. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Nehemiah: “So they, the Levities, read from the book, from the Torah of God, with interpretation.” (Slight pause.)
In the bulletin there is a write up which explains how the Torah was compiled [2] and a second one with a reading from Genesis. That Genesis reading might help you understand what the compiled Torah looks like. [3] Please do read them both when you have time.
Now, many scholars say the reading we just heard from Nehemiah illustrates the first public reading of the newly created Torah which, about 450 years before the birth of Jesus, came together in a form we might recognize today. In short, this is the first public reading for some of our founding documents.
There are those who claim we Christians are a “people of the book.” My claim is not that we are a people of the book. My claim is slightly different: we are a people about whom the book speaks. We claim God created us and we have rights granted by God. As such, these rights are unalienable, immutable, fixed, changeless, invariable.
Put another way (dare I say this on a day when we discussed the budget?) we, the church, are not a people of the budget. Budgets are important but do not help us understand or be community. The book helps us understand and be community.
Indeed, I want to suggest we can find ourselves in the book. How? We can find ourselves there because this is the claim made by the book: God is in covenant with us. God loves us. God seeks to work with us. That’s about us, not about the document, not about the book. (Slight pause.)
To complete the literary analysis of the Inaugural Address, the President said the founding documents point us not toward the founding documents but toward the journey in front of us. Obama said (quote): “Preserving individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” And our founding document, the Bible, points us toward action together, collective action.
So, the book, our book, Scripture, is not there to point toward the past. We are not a people trapped by the book. We need to refute the idea of Scripture as an idol.
Scripture is not an idol but a touchstone. If we treat Scripture as a touchstone, we are a people not bound by the book. We are a people freed by the book. You see, the book points us toward our journey with God, the journey, the action which lies before us.
In short, we must understand ourselves as a people who seek to be on a journey— a journey of love, a journey of faith, a journey of commitment, a journey of sharing— a people who seeks to be community of faith. And that is why we read the book: it points us toward the future. It points us toward community. Amen.
01/27/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
Annual Budget Meeting
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “All rituals of hazing are based on one thing: keeping the victim or victims of the hazing ignorant about what is really happening to them. This, of course, sets up a hierarchy: those in control and those not in control. Congregationalism is an anti-hazing way to organize. Congregationalism is based on each individual knowing full well what is going on, what is happening. That is true if we’re talking about the budget. That is true if we are talking about the Book— Scripture. However and therefore, the most tragic thing which can happen to an individual in a Congregational system is when an individual imposes ignorance on themselves. And, as much as we need to know about the budget, we need to know more about the Book— Scripture. We cannot be and we cannot remain ignorant about it if we are to be true to our heritage.”
BENEDICTION: Through God’s grace and 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.
**********************************************************************
[1] Note: in the audio file you will hear the pastor mis-spoke and said 1814.
**********************************************************************
[2] THE GRAF-WELLHAUSEN THEORY
The documentary hypothesis (sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis, after Julius Wellhausen, though he did not invent it, sometimes called the Graf-Wellhausen Theory since Karl Heinrich Graf came to a conclusion about the order in which the sources were written), holds that the Pentateuch (the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors). The number of these is usually set at four distinct schools, but this is not an essential part of the hypothesis.
In an attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the biblical text and refusing to accept forced explanations to harmonize them, 18th and 19th century biblical scholars arrived at the theory that the Torah was composed of selections woven together from several, at times inconsistent, sources, each originally a complete and independent document. The hypothesis developed slowly over the course of the 19th century, by the end of which it was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors, R. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D’s contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P. Note: two names for God in Hebrew are Yahweh and Elohim. In the Y document God is referred to as Yahweh and in the E document God us referred to as Elohim.
The Wellhausen formulation looks like this:
* The Jahwist source ( J ): written c. 950 B.C.E. in the southern kingdom of Judah.
* The Elohist source ( E ): written c. 850 B.C.E. in the northern kingdom of Israel.
* The Deuteronomist ( D ): written c. 600 B.C.E. in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
* The Priestly source ( P ): written c. 500 B.C.E. by Aaronic priests in exile in Babylon.
* The Torah redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 B.C.E..
The hypothesis dominated biblical scholarship for much of the 20th century and, although increasingly challenged by other models in the last part of the 20th century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories on the origins of the Torah.
A Note to those reading this in the blog: to see a Diagram of the Documentary Hypothesis you will need to look at the PDF text file in the footnote of the sermon on the web site of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational of Norwich, NY. That web site is: http://www.uccnorwichny.org/
That web site sub division is:
http://www.uccnorwichny.org/PastorsMessage/SermonArchive/tabid/38500/Default.aspx
**********************************************************************
[3] A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 6:5-8:22
This is an example of how the Graf-Wellhausen Theory works out in a text from Scripture. You will note these verses make sense read sequentially. However, that is not how they were written. There is a way to differentiate what follows in the two documents in this passage. The “Regular” type/text is a part of the “J” Document, probably written sometime in or shortly after the reign of David, between 1000 and 900 Before the Common Era (B.C.E.). The “Italic” type/text is a part of the “P” Document, probably written in conjunction with the Babylonian Exile. Sometime between 605 B.C.E. and 538 B.C.E. The important point is different strands in the following text were written 400 years apart. These were then woven together after the Exile into a text which looks like what we have today. This melding was done by a Redactor likely to have lived in the early 400s B.C.E. Hence, in a real sense this represents 3 different documents, “J,” “P,” and “R.” Note: the translation used here is the Inclusive Language Version and the verses are laid out as individual lines.
Genesis 6:5-8:22
[5] Yahweh saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
[6] And Yahweh was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
[7] So Yahweh said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created— people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
[8] But Noah found favor in the sight of Yahweh.
[9] These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
[10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
[12] And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.
[13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.
[14] Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.
[15] This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
[16] Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.
[17] For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.
[18] But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.
[19] And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
[20] Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive.
[21] Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them.”
[22] Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.
[7:1] Then Yahweh said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation.
[2] Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;
[3] and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.
[4] For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”
[5] And Noah did all that Yahweh had commanded him.
[6] Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth.
[7] And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
[8] Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,
[9] two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.
[10] And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth.
[11] In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
[12] The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
[13] On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons entered the ark,
[14] they and every wild animal of every kind, and all domestic animals of every kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every bird of every kind— every bird, every winged creature.
[15] They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
[16] And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and Yahweh shut him in.
[17] The flood continued forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.
[18] The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
[19] The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
[20] the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
[21] And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings;
[22] everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.
[23] He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.
[24] And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.
[8:1] But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided;
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
[3] and the waters gradually receded from the earth. At the end of one hundred fifty days the waters had abated;
[4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
[5] The waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.
[6] At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made
[7] and sent out the raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.[8] Then he sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground;
[9] but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took it and brought it into the ark with him.
[10] He waited another seven days, and again he sent out the dove from the ark;
[11] and the dove came back to him in the evening, and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
[12] Then he waited another seven days, and sent out the dove; and it did not return to him any more.
[13] In the six hundred first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw that the face of the ground was drying.
[14] In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
[15] Then God said to Noah,
[16] “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you.
[17] Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh— birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth— so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”
[18] So Noah went out with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives.
[19] And every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.[20] Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
[21] And when Yahweh smelled the pleasing odor, Yahweh said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
[22] As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.”
The Book
“So they, the Levities, read from the book, from the Torah of God, with interpretation.” — Nehemiah 8:8a.
Last Monday President Barack Obama was Inaugurated for a second term. A strictly literary analysis of the Inaugural Address, therefore one which has nothing to do with politics, would, I think, run something like this.
Obama referenced some of our founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence which says we hold some truths self-evident, including being created equal, and these truths are given by the Creator. The President also referenced the Constitution which starts with the words “We the people.”
Obama pointed out these documents guided those who went before us through many trials from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall. All these places are about the struggle for civil rights. Seneca Falls was the first convention for women’s rights, held in 1848. [1] Selma was the march for voting rights for African Americans in 1965. Stonewall was a series of demonstrations in New York City for gay rights in 1969.
Therefore, in terms of literary analysis, Obama illustrated this: one can go from the founding documents which speak of freedom and make a transition over to the people about whom these documents of freedom speak, a transition over to the people for whom these documents of freedom have spoken and are speaking. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Nehemiah: “So they, the Levities, read from the book, from the Torah of God, with interpretation.” (Slight pause.)
In the bulletin there is a write up which explains how the Torah was compiled [2] and a second one with a reading from Genesis. That Genesis reading might help you understand what the compiled Torah looks like. [3] Please do read them both when you have time.
Now, many scholars say the reading we just heard from Nehemiah illustrates the first public reading of the newly created Torah which, about 450 years before the birth of Jesus, came together in a form we might recognize today. In short, this is the first public reading for some of our founding documents.
There are those who claim we Christians are a “people of the book.” My claim is not that we are a people of the book. My claim is slightly different: we are a people about whom the book speaks. We claim God created us and we have rights granted by God. As such, these rights are unalienable, immutable, fixed, changeless, invariable.
Put another way (dare I say this on a day when we discussed the budget?) we, the church, are not a people of the budget. Budgets are important but do not help us understand or be community. The book helps us understand and be community.
Indeed, I want to suggest we can find ourselves in the book. How? We can find ourselves there because this is the claim made by the book: God is in covenant with us. God loves us. God seeks to work with us. That’s about us, not about the document, not about the book. (Slight pause.)
To complete the literary analysis of the Inaugural Address, the President said the founding documents point us not toward the founding documents but toward the journey in front of us. Obama said (quote): “Preserving individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” And our founding document, the Bible, points us toward action together, collective action.
So, the book, our book, Scripture, is not there to point toward the past. We are not a people trapped by the book. We need to refute the idea of Scripture as an idol.
Scripture is not an idol but a touchstone. If we treat Scripture as a touchstone, we are a people not bound by the book. We are a people freed by the book. You see, the book points us toward our journey with God, the journey, the action which lies before us.
In short, we must understand ourselves as a people who seek to be on a journey— a journey of love, a journey of faith, a journey of commitment, a journey of sharing— a people who seeks to be community of faith. And that is why we read the book: it points us toward the future. It points us toward community. Amen.
01/27/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
Annual Budget Meeting
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “All rituals of hazing are based on one thing: keeping the victim or victims of the hazing ignorant about what is really happening to them. This, of course, sets up a hierarchy: those in control and those not in control. Congregationalism is an anti-hazing way to organize. Congregationalism is based on each individual knowing full well what is going on, what is happening. That is true if we’re talking about the budget. That is true if we are talking about the Book— Scripture. However and therefore, the most tragic thing which can happen to an individual in a Congregational system is when an individual imposes ignorance on themselves. And, as much as we need to know about the budget, we need to know more about the Book— Scripture. We cannot be and we cannot remain ignorant about it if we are to be true to our heritage.”
BENEDICTION: Through God’s grace and 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.
**********************************************************************
[1] Note: in the audio file you will hear the pastor mis-spoke and said 1814.
**********************************************************************
[2] THE GRAF-WELLHAUSEN THEORY
The documentary hypothesis (sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis, after Julius Wellhausen, though he did not invent it, sometimes called the Graf-Wellhausen Theory since Karl Heinrich Graf came to a conclusion about the order in which the sources were written), holds that the Pentateuch (the Torah, or the Five Books of Moses) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors). The number of these is usually set at four distinct schools, but this is not an essential part of the hypothesis.
In an attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the biblical text and refusing to accept forced explanations to harmonize them, 18th and 19th century biblical scholars arrived at the theory that the Torah was composed of selections woven together from several, at times inconsistent, sources, each originally a complete and independent document. The hypothesis developed slowly over the course of the 19th century, by the end of which it was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors, R. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D’s contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P. Note: two names for God in Hebrew are Yahweh and Elohim. In the Y document God is referred to as Yahweh and in the E document God us referred to as Elohim.
The Wellhausen formulation looks like this:
* The Jahwist source ( J ): written c. 950 B.C.E. in the southern kingdom of Judah.
* The Elohist source ( E ): written c. 850 B.C.E. in the northern kingdom of Israel.
* The Deuteronomist ( D ): written c. 600 B.C.E. in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
* The Priestly source ( P ): written c. 500 B.C.E. by Aaronic priests in exile in Babylon.
* The Torah redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 B.C.E..
The hypothesis dominated biblical scholarship for much of the 20th century and, although increasingly challenged by other models in the last part of the 20th century, its terminology and insights continue to provide the framework for modern theories on the origins of the Torah.
A Note to those reading this in the blog: to see a Diagram of the Documentary Hypothesis you will need to look at the PDF text file in the footnote of the sermon on the web site of the United Church of Christ, First Congregational of Norwich, NY. That web site is: http://www.uccnorwichny.org/
That web site sub division is:
http://www.uccnorwichny.org/PastorsMessage/SermonArchive/tabid/38500/Default.aspx
**********************************************************************
[3] A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 6:5-8:22
This is an example of how the Graf-Wellhausen Theory works out in a text from Scripture. You will note these verses make sense read sequentially. However, that is not how they were written. There is a way to differentiate what follows in the two documents in this passage. The “Regular” type/text is a part of the “J” Document, probably written sometime in or shortly after the reign of David, between 1000 and 900 Before the Common Era (B.C.E.). The “Italic” type/text is a part of the “P” Document, probably written in conjunction with the Babylonian Exile. Sometime between 605 B.C.E. and 538 B.C.E. The important point is different strands in the following text were written 400 years apart. These were then woven together after the Exile into a text which looks like what we have today. This melding was done by a Redactor likely to have lived in the early 400s B.C.E. Hence, in a real sense this represents 3 different documents, “J,” “P,” and “R.” Note: the translation used here is the Inclusive Language Version and the verses are laid out as individual lines.
Genesis 6:5-8:22
[5] Yahweh saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
[6] And Yahweh was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
[7] So Yahweh said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created— people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
[8] But Noah found favor in the sight of Yahweh.
[9] These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.
[10] And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
[11] Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.
[12] And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth.
[13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth.
[14] Make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.
[15] This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
[16] Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.
[17] For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.
[18] But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.
[19] And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
[20] Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive.
[21] Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them.”
[22] Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.
[7:1] Then Yahweh said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation.
[2] Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;
[3] and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.
[4] For in seven days I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.”
[5] And Noah did all that Yahweh had commanded him.
[6] Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth.
[7] And Noah with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives went into the ark to escape the waters of the flood.
[8] Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,
[9] two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.
[10] And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth.
[11] In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
[12] The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
[13] On the very same day Noah with his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons entered the ark,
[14] they and every wild animal of every kind, and all domestic animals of every kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every bird of every kind— every bird, every winged creature.
[15] They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.
[16] And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and Yahweh shut him in.
[17] The flood continued forty days on the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth.
[18] The waters swelled and increased greatly on the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters.
[19] The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered;
[20] the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
[21] And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings;
[22] everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.
[23] He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.
[24] And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.
[8:1] But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and all the domestic animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided;
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
[3] and the waters gradually receded from the earth. At the end of one hundred fifty days the waters had abated;
[4] and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
[5] The waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.
[6] At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made
[7] and sent out the raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.[8] Then he sent out the dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground;
[9] but the dove found no place to set its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took it and brought it into the ark with him.
[10] He waited another seven days, and again he sent out the dove from the ark;
[11] and the dove came back to him in the evening, and there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.
[12] Then he waited another seven days, and sent out the dove; and it did not return to him any more.
[13] In the six hundred first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and saw that the face of the ground was drying.
[14] In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
[15] Then God said to Noah,
[16] “Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you.
[17] Bring out with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh— birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth— so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”
[18] So Noah went out with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives.
[19] And every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out of the ark by families.[20] Then Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
[21] And when Yahweh smelled the pleasing odor, Yahweh said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
[22] As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.”
Friday, January 25, 2013
SERMON ~ 01/20/2013 ~ The Common Good
01/20/2013 ~ Second Sunday after the Epiphany ~ Known in Some Traditions as the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Isaiah 62:1-5; Psalm 36:5-10; 1 Corinthians 12:1-11; John 2:1-11 ~ The Weekend of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration on the Secular Calendar.
The Common Good
“To each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” — 1 Corinthians 12:7.
If you were at the service of worship here last Sunday, you know there was a guest preacher— the Rev. Mr. Kelly Shiflett. Thank you, Kelly. I was, obviously, not here. When Kelly got into the pulpit, I was on my way to Bangor, Maine— probably somewhere in East Central Massachusetts by that time.
And, yes— I go north to Bangor in January. However, I go north for a good reason— Convocation at Bangor Seminary— three days of lectures centered around a theme.
Having said Convocation centers around a theme, this year the theme was theology matters— theology matters. And, interestingly for me— writer of hymn and anthem lyrics that I am— several lectures focused on the topic of music and theology and how the theology we hear and assimilate with music, through music does matter.
One of these lectures was given by the Rev. Dr. Cheryl Townsend Gilkes, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor of African-American Studies and Sociology at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. Dr. Gilkes holds degrees in sociology from Northeastern University and specializes in tracing the history of Gospel music.
In tracing that history, one of her lectures brought to light the fact that 10% of African slaves brought to these shores were Moslem. Having made this point, she played a modern recording of a Moslem call to prayer.
We all listened as the chant hit notes running up and down a minor scale. She then played a modern recording of a nineteenth century arrangement of a Gospel song sung by a choir. And, lo and behold, there was the same sequence of notes and even the same tempos.
She then played a recording, probably from the 1930s, of the great contralto Marion Anderson. We listened to the same Gospel melody we heard the choir sing.
To be sure, in Anderson’s version you could hear the influence of European structure. And, to be blunt, in this rendition everything was much more staid, much more formal. On the other hand, if you listened carefully, you could still hear the basics of the melodies and rhythms found in the Moslem call to prayer.
Something else Dr. Gilkes pointed out in the course of her lectures was that at the root of all Spirituals you could find one common thread. What is that common thread? All Spirituals are about justice.
This premise, which insists Spirituals address justice is valid, in part, because Spirituals originate from an oppressed people. And Dr. Gilkes made one point clear about justice: justice, is not simply a theological position— a theological position being something like, oh, this is what I think. Justice, real justice, God’s justice, is never about what someone thinks.
Justice always needs to be an action. If justice is not something sought and acted out and acted on, it is simply an accouterment, an ornament, an accessory, a decoration. Put another way, if justice is an accouterment, an ornament, an accessory, a decoration it stops being a necessity as you strive to maintain a relationship with God
I have quoted my Hebrew Scriptures professor, Ann Johnston, here many times. Ann said for the Hebrews theology was not simply an intellectual position one takes. The Hebrews, she said, did not have a theology. The Hebrews did theology. Theology is an action done by a community— an action done by a community. (Slight pause.)
And these words are found in the work known as the First Letter to the Church in Corinth: “To each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (Slight pause.)
So, what is justice? If it is an action, how does justice play out? (Slight pause.) Two things need to be noted in defining the act of justice. First, justice cannot be thought of in the singular as in ‘my justice’ or even ‘your justice.’
Justice can only be defined in the plural and not just the plural but the collective plural. Hence, justice— God’s justice— cannot be defined as “our justice” if the word “our” refers to a specific group. With the justice sought by God “our” means everyone is included when using the word “our.” In short, the justice we might seek is not the justice sought by God, unless the justice being sought encompasses inclusion.
The next point about justice should be obvious. But as far as I can tell, it is not. You see, great emphasis is often placed on equality. And rightfully so. Equality is important.
However, equality and justice are not the same thing. Strangely enough, the game of golf provides a good example of what I mean. It is called the handicap system. If one golfer has a handicap of ten and another golfer has a handicap of five and they go out on the course together, over 18 holes the golfer with the handicap of five needs to beat the golfer with a handicap of 10 by six strokes to win.
Why? It has been established the golfer with the handicap of five normally plays 18 holes five strokes better than the golfer with a handicap of ten. So, to make the match fair, the golfer with the lower handicap has to give away five strokes. That’s fairness.
Now, I know the golf example may sound a little abstract to some of you, so I’ve got a visual to help out.
*********************************************************************
PLEASE NOTE: FOR THOSE READING THIS ON THE BLOG, IF YOU GO TO THE TEXT VERSION ON THE WEBSITE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, FIRST CONGREGATIONAL OF NORWICH, NY, YOU CAN SEE THE CARTOON REFERRED TO BELOW.
*********************************************************************
(The pastor leaves the pulpit and hands out a piece of paper to each person present with cartoon which has two panels. In one three people, a short person, a taller person and a person still taller are trying to look over a fence. They are all standing on a box of the same height. Therefore, only the 2 tallest people can see over the fence. The same three people appear in the second panel, but the tallest person stands on no box, a shorter person stands on one box and the shortest person stand on two boxes. Each of them can still see over the fence. The first panel, where the boxes are of equal size, is labeled “equality.” The second panel, where the boxes enable each person to see over the fence because the boxes are of unequal size, is labeled “justice.”)
It is, I hope, clear equality is not the same as justice. Fairness is what justice is about. If the point of justice, if the point of a just result, is that everyone should be able see over the fence, then the boxes on which they stand cannot be the same height. They need to be of different heights.
Justice, you see, is not decided by equality. It is determined by fairness of result— fairness of result, not a fairness of competition. Justice is not about competition.
Another way to say this is that justice is not even decided by asking ‘how do we give everyone an equal opportunity?’ Again, equality is good. But equality does not always mean fair. Justice is decided by asking a simple question: ‘how do we empower everyone?’
So, justice is about fairness, about the empowerment of everyone. Since everyone is different, the question becomes how do we empower each individual. And the answer for each individual is, by definition, different. We need to act accordingly.
And that— in a society— is the hard part: to treat each individual differently. That means a whole lot of work, a whole lot of effort and yes, maybe even a whole lot of money.
All that brings us back to the text from Corinthians. We are all different. There is no doubt about that. We are all given gifts, different gifts. There is no doubt about that.
But the gifts are not only for our individual betterment. The gifts are meant for the community. And who is the community? (Slight pause.) Well, who is our neighbor? (Slight pause.)
It seems to me we live in an age when self-interests have taken precedence over true justice, justice as God would see it. We seem to talk about rights as if they were something which can be distributed or as if they only belonged to certain groups. If that were the case, they would not be rights. They would be temporary privileges.
Part of the point Thomas Jefferson was making in saying that people (quote): “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...” is that rights are immutable, fixed, changeless, invariable. In addressing the fact that we all have gifts and those gifts are for the common good, I believe Paul is expressing an understanding about God.
That understanding makes the claim that God sees us as individuals and also sees is as one people. That is not an easy concept for we mere mortals to understand. (Slight pause.)
This weekend we celebrate the memory of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the work Letter from a Birmingham Jail Dr. King said this (quote): “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I want to suggest that not only was Dr. King right, but the struggle for justice, the struggle for fairness continues on many fronts.
I also want to suggest that, at the core of the Gospel, we find a singular message: unless we support one another in love, the justice of God will remain an illusive destination.
And so, our call is to love. Our call is to freedom. Our call is to justice for all. Our call is to try to understand and to work toward the just will of God. And the just will of God makes this claim (quote): “To each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” Amen.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: ‘Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.’ But Dr. King also said: ‘The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice.’ We need to understand the truth of both those statements.”
BENEDICTION: The love of God must be lived and shared. So, let us go forth with the praise of God on our lips for the steadfast love of God will light our paths as God keeps us open to new ways of doing and learning. And may the love of God guide us, the word of the Christ empower us and the gifts of the Spirit dwell in us, this day and forever more. Amen.
The Common Good
“To each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” — 1 Corinthians 12:7.
If you were at the service of worship here last Sunday, you know there was a guest preacher— the Rev. Mr. Kelly Shiflett. Thank you, Kelly. I was, obviously, not here. When Kelly got into the pulpit, I was on my way to Bangor, Maine— probably somewhere in East Central Massachusetts by that time.
And, yes— I go north to Bangor in January. However, I go north for a good reason— Convocation at Bangor Seminary— three days of lectures centered around a theme.
Having said Convocation centers around a theme, this year the theme was theology matters— theology matters. And, interestingly for me— writer of hymn and anthem lyrics that I am— several lectures focused on the topic of music and theology and how the theology we hear and assimilate with music, through music does matter.
One of these lectures was given by the Rev. Dr. Cheryl Townsend Gilkes, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor of African-American Studies and Sociology at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. Dr. Gilkes holds degrees in sociology from Northeastern University and specializes in tracing the history of Gospel music.
In tracing that history, one of her lectures brought to light the fact that 10% of African slaves brought to these shores were Moslem. Having made this point, she played a modern recording of a Moslem call to prayer.
We all listened as the chant hit notes running up and down a minor scale. She then played a modern recording of a nineteenth century arrangement of a Gospel song sung by a choir. And, lo and behold, there was the same sequence of notes and even the same tempos.
She then played a recording, probably from the 1930s, of the great contralto Marion Anderson. We listened to the same Gospel melody we heard the choir sing.
To be sure, in Anderson’s version you could hear the influence of European structure. And, to be blunt, in this rendition everything was much more staid, much more formal. On the other hand, if you listened carefully, you could still hear the basics of the melodies and rhythms found in the Moslem call to prayer.
Something else Dr. Gilkes pointed out in the course of her lectures was that at the root of all Spirituals you could find one common thread. What is that common thread? All Spirituals are about justice.
This premise, which insists Spirituals address justice is valid, in part, because Spirituals originate from an oppressed people. And Dr. Gilkes made one point clear about justice: justice, is not simply a theological position— a theological position being something like, oh, this is what I think. Justice, real justice, God’s justice, is never about what someone thinks.
Justice always needs to be an action. If justice is not something sought and acted out and acted on, it is simply an accouterment, an ornament, an accessory, a decoration. Put another way, if justice is an accouterment, an ornament, an accessory, a decoration it stops being a necessity as you strive to maintain a relationship with God
I have quoted my Hebrew Scriptures professor, Ann Johnston, here many times. Ann said for the Hebrews theology was not simply an intellectual position one takes. The Hebrews, she said, did not have a theology. The Hebrews did theology. Theology is an action done by a community— an action done by a community. (Slight pause.)
And these words are found in the work known as the First Letter to the Church in Corinth: “To each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (Slight pause.)
So, what is justice? If it is an action, how does justice play out? (Slight pause.) Two things need to be noted in defining the act of justice. First, justice cannot be thought of in the singular as in ‘my justice’ or even ‘your justice.’
Justice can only be defined in the plural and not just the plural but the collective plural. Hence, justice— God’s justice— cannot be defined as “our justice” if the word “our” refers to a specific group. With the justice sought by God “our” means everyone is included when using the word “our.” In short, the justice we might seek is not the justice sought by God, unless the justice being sought encompasses inclusion.
The next point about justice should be obvious. But as far as I can tell, it is not. You see, great emphasis is often placed on equality. And rightfully so. Equality is important.
However, equality and justice are not the same thing. Strangely enough, the game of golf provides a good example of what I mean. It is called the handicap system. If one golfer has a handicap of ten and another golfer has a handicap of five and they go out on the course together, over 18 holes the golfer with the handicap of five needs to beat the golfer with a handicap of 10 by six strokes to win.
Why? It has been established the golfer with the handicap of five normally plays 18 holes five strokes better than the golfer with a handicap of ten. So, to make the match fair, the golfer with the lower handicap has to give away five strokes. That’s fairness.
Now, I know the golf example may sound a little abstract to some of you, so I’ve got a visual to help out.
*********************************************************************
PLEASE NOTE: FOR THOSE READING THIS ON THE BLOG, IF YOU GO TO THE TEXT VERSION ON THE WEBSITE OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, FIRST CONGREGATIONAL OF NORWICH, NY, YOU CAN SEE THE CARTOON REFERRED TO BELOW.
*********************************************************************
(The pastor leaves the pulpit and hands out a piece of paper to each person present with cartoon which has two panels. In one three people, a short person, a taller person and a person still taller are trying to look over a fence. They are all standing on a box of the same height. Therefore, only the 2 tallest people can see over the fence. The same three people appear in the second panel, but the tallest person stands on no box, a shorter person stands on one box and the shortest person stand on two boxes. Each of them can still see over the fence. The first panel, where the boxes are of equal size, is labeled “equality.” The second panel, where the boxes enable each person to see over the fence because the boxes are of unequal size, is labeled “justice.”)
It is, I hope, clear equality is not the same as justice. Fairness is what justice is about. If the point of justice, if the point of a just result, is that everyone should be able see over the fence, then the boxes on which they stand cannot be the same height. They need to be of different heights.
Justice, you see, is not decided by equality. It is determined by fairness of result— fairness of result, not a fairness of competition. Justice is not about competition.
Another way to say this is that justice is not even decided by asking ‘how do we give everyone an equal opportunity?’ Again, equality is good. But equality does not always mean fair. Justice is decided by asking a simple question: ‘how do we empower everyone?’
So, justice is about fairness, about the empowerment of everyone. Since everyone is different, the question becomes how do we empower each individual. And the answer for each individual is, by definition, different. We need to act accordingly.
And that— in a society— is the hard part: to treat each individual differently. That means a whole lot of work, a whole lot of effort and yes, maybe even a whole lot of money.
All that brings us back to the text from Corinthians. We are all different. There is no doubt about that. We are all given gifts, different gifts. There is no doubt about that.
But the gifts are not only for our individual betterment. The gifts are meant for the community. And who is the community? (Slight pause.) Well, who is our neighbor? (Slight pause.)
It seems to me we live in an age when self-interests have taken precedence over true justice, justice as God would see it. We seem to talk about rights as if they were something which can be distributed or as if they only belonged to certain groups. If that were the case, they would not be rights. They would be temporary privileges.
Part of the point Thomas Jefferson was making in saying that people (quote): “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,...” is that rights are immutable, fixed, changeless, invariable. In addressing the fact that we all have gifts and those gifts are for the common good, I believe Paul is expressing an understanding about God.
That understanding makes the claim that God sees us as individuals and also sees is as one people. That is not an easy concept for we mere mortals to understand. (Slight pause.)
This weekend we celebrate the memory of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the work Letter from a Birmingham Jail Dr. King said this (quote): “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” I want to suggest that not only was Dr. King right, but the struggle for justice, the struggle for fairness continues on many fronts.
I also want to suggest that, at the core of the Gospel, we find a singular message: unless we support one another in love, the justice of God will remain an illusive destination.
And so, our call is to love. Our call is to freedom. Our call is to justice for all. Our call is to try to understand and to work toward the just will of God. And the just will of God makes this claim (quote): “To each person is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” Amen.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: ‘Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.’ But Dr. King also said: ‘The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice.’ We need to understand the truth of both those statements.”
BENEDICTION: The love of God must be lived and shared. So, let us go forth with the praise of God on our lips for the steadfast love of God will light our paths as God keeps us open to new ways of doing and learning. And may the love of God guide us, the word of the Christ empower us and the gifts of the Spirit dwell in us, this day and forever more. Amen.
Monday, January 7, 2013
01/06/2013 (Sunday) ~ The Feast of the Epiphany of the Christ ~ Isaiah 60:1-6; Psalm 72:1-7, 10-14; Ephesians 3:1-12; Matthew 2:1-12 ~ Communion Sunday.
Came the Magi
“After the birth of Jesus— whose birth happened in Bethlehem of Judea during the reign of Herod the Great— magi, astrologers, from the East arrived in Jerusalem, and asked, ‘Where is the newborn ruler of the Jewish people? We observed a star at its rising which says this one has been born and we have come to offer homage.’” — Matthew 2:1-2.
There is no question about this: the assumptions of the culture in which we live can alter reality, reality which is residing right in front of us. In short, assumptions made by the culture can alter reality to the point where we cannot see the truth of what is actually there.
I was reminded of this because of a Facebook post a pastor friend of mine made. I have seen the story she posted before, but it bears repeating.
This is the story: a while back, at the entrance of a gym, there was a picture of a beautiful but very thin woman. The caption on the poster said: “This summer, do you want to be a mermaid or a whale?”
The story then tells about a woman, apparently someone who frequented the gym and whose clothing size was unknown. This woman answered the sign by posting a letter next to it. “Dear people who own this facility, Did you know whales are always surrounded by friends— dolphins, seals, curious humans? They are active and raise their children with great tenderness.”
“They entertain like crazy— play with dolphins eat lots of prawns. They swim all day and travel to fantastic, wonderful places like Patagonia, the Barents Sea, the coral reefs of Polynesia.”
“They sing incredibly well, sometimes even get recorded on CDs. They are both impressive and dearly loved. Everyone defends and admires them.”
“Mermaids, on the other hand, do not exist. They are not real. They are a fantasy. But, if they did exist, they would need to line up to see a psychologist because of a split personality problem: woman or fish?”
“Yes, probably they would be lovely. But it’s also probable they would be lonely, maybe even sad. After all, who wants to hang out with someone who smells like fish? So, without a doubt, I would rather be a whale.”
“Any time,” the letter continued, “the media or anyone else tells us that only thin is beautiful, they are wrong. Personally, I prefer to eat ice cream with kids, have dinner with my spouse, eat and drink and have fun with friends.”
“I believe we women gain weight because we accumulate so much wisdom and knowledge there isn’t enough space in our heads. Therefore, it spreads all over our bodies.”
“Women of a certain size are not fat. We are greatly cultivated. In fact, every time I see my curves in the mirror, I say to myself: ‘How amazing am I?!’” (Slight pause.)
While weighing too much is not healthy, that is, I hope, an obvious illustration of how the cultural alters reality. The culture holds up not just impossible ideals. The culture often prevents reality from sinking in, prevents us from seeing what is right in front of us. (Slight pause.)
At our Bible Study last Wednesday— by the way anyone is welcome— Bible Study, most Wednesdays at 6:00 p.m. Choir rehearsal starts at 7:00, so you can join the Choir— they’re great— go from Bible Study to Choir. It’s a neat transition. At our Bible Study last Wednesday we took a close look at the Nativity Story from the Matthew reading and compared it with the Nativity Story from Luke heard on Christmas Eve.
(The pastor pulls out a sheet of newsprint and holds it up in front of the pulpit.) Comparisons— (the pastor points to the two columns on the paper) Luke-Matthew— and we wrote down bunches of things that A) aren’t really there and B) in one but not the other or the other but not the one. O.K.? There’s way more than this, this is what we came up with briefly.
Now, we have a cultural image about the Nativity. And that cultural image is displayed right here in the crèche. (The pastor walks to the table where the crèche rests and points to the items being addressed.) Typically, a Nativity Scene has figures representing the infant, Mary and Joseph.
Other characters— shepherds, Magi, angels, animals— they’re all displayed near a manger in a barn. Sometimes a star and/or an angel hovers near in these scenes. This cultural image, this crèche, is nearly 100% wrong.
In Luke, there is no star. There is no stable. A manger is mentioned but mangers— feeding troughs for animals— are everywhere in this society, not just in stables. Was the child actually placed in a manger located in a stable? Perhaps. But the text of Luke does not say that.
The stable is a figment of our imagination. Or rather, it was a figment of the imagination of St. Francis of Assisi, who dreamed up the iconic imagery of the crèche in the 13th Century1,300 years after the birth of Christ.
Now, not at the place of the birth but somewhere out in the fields around Bethlehem, one angel addressed some shepherds and then other angels also speak. But no angels ever sings. You can hunt all over Luke all over the Nativity passage, no angel ever squeaks out one note. Last, there are no Magi in Luke no matter what a crèche might suggest.
And that brings us to Matthew. Matthew is where we find Magi. The family clearly lives in a house in Bethlehem, so they have not traveled to Bethlehem and may have some means— they’re in a house. They might even be prosperous.
The three visitors probably come sometime after the birth. Many scholars think Jesus is a toddler by the time the Magi arrive.
Luke clearly stresses the fact that the birth of the Messiah should be seen as good news for the poor and the outcast. With Matthew there is palace intrigue and the family has some means and maybe even royal connections.
The Magi are searching for the one born to be ruler of the Jewish people. The gifts left by them are expensive, suitable for royalty. (Slight pause.) You see, when we read Scripture carefully, the cultural images we so fondly treasure become hard to sustain. When we take Scripture seriously— take Scripture seriously, the cultural images we so fondly treasure are hard to sustain.
(The pastor raises a hand.) Who here wants to take Scripture seriously? (Slight pause.) I’ve got two hands in the back— two more up here— O.K. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from Matthew: “After the birth of Jesus— whose birth happened in Bethlehem of Judea during the reign of Herod the Great— Magi, astrologers, from the East arrived in Jerusalem, and asked, ‘Where is the newborn ruler of the Jewish people? We observed a star at its rising which says this one has been born and have come to offer homage.’” (Slight pause.)
So, if our cultural images about the Nativity are fantasy, made up, what are we supposed to learn from these narratives, from what they really say? What are we to learn from the two stories? What are we to learn from the birth being announced to the poor and the outcast and from birth of the one born to be ruler of the Jewish people? (Slight pause.)
I believe, despite the differences in the stories, despite the reality of the stories, I believe the message is both unified and simple. Jesus needs to be seen as the climax of the Covenant God made with humanity— a Covenant of love, a Covenant of trust, a Covenant of forgiveness. Jesus is born as a reassurance that God is with us now and that God is with us always, for all eternity. Jesus is born to help us grapple with the reality of God. (Slight pause.)
In a recent discussion with a colleague I said a sound theology deals with reality. A less than sound theology insists on buying into cultural fantasy or insists on buying into an ideological fantasy or insists on buying into personal fantasy. The reason the Nativity Stories are there is not to create fantasies of any kind. The Nativity Stories are there to help us see the reality of God among us. (Slight pause.)
The culture constantly creates fantasies— fantasies which do not exist, which are not real— fantasies about everything from body image to the Nativity Stories. (Slight pause.) Now, I need to be clear about one thing: I like fantasy.
Sometimes people accuse me of being a story teller. Guilty. But the point of telling stories— the point of telling stories— is to uncover deeper truth. The point of telling stories is to uncover and illuminate reality.
Think about this, talking about illuminating reality: in the case of the Nativity Story in Matthew, the Magi are representatives of all gentiles, all non-Jews. The claim of Matthew is all people are invited to worship the Messiah.
In that sense the Magi pave the way for the invitation made by the Risen Christ— the Risen Christ at the end of Matthew’s Gospel: go— make disciples of all nations. Better said, or said in a way we can understand— “include the gentiles. They’re my people too!” So, the writer of Matthew does nothing more than come full circle by starting with the Magi— come, all people are my people. Now that’s a story that uncovers a deeper truth.
All of which is to say, the truth revealed by this story is not about three visitors or gold, frankincense, and myrrh. There is a real theological point with which we need to grapple. What is that theological reality?
To reiterate: Jesus needs to be seen as the climax of the Covenant God made with humanity— a Covenant of love, a Covenant of trust, a Covenant of forgiveness. Jesus is born as a reassurance that God is with us now and always, for all eternity. Jesus is born to help us grapple with the reality of God. Amen.
01/06/2012 - The Feast of the Epiphany
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “This is a poem by Howard Thurman. Its title is The Work of Christmas. ‘When the song of the angels is stilled, / When the star in the sky is gone, / When the kings and princes are home, / When the shepherds are back with their flock, / The work of Christmas begins: / To find the lost, / To heal the broken, / To feed the hungry, / To release the prisoner, / To rebuild the nations, / To bring peace among people, / To make music in the heart.’”
BENEDICTION: Because, O God, You have made Yourself manifest in Jesus, the Christ, begotten from the heart of Your love, Word of Truth, Light of Light, we give You thanks and praise. You are the light of the world. Let Your light so shine that all may see the good things You do. So, remember that God is with us now and always. Go in peace; go in love; go in Joy; go in hope. 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 nothing else and no one else. Amen.
Came the Magi
“After the birth of Jesus— whose birth happened in Bethlehem of Judea during the reign of Herod the Great— magi, astrologers, from the East arrived in Jerusalem, and asked, ‘Where is the newborn ruler of the Jewish people? We observed a star at its rising which says this one has been born and we have come to offer homage.’” — Matthew 2:1-2.
There is no question about this: the assumptions of the culture in which we live can alter reality, reality which is residing right in front of us. In short, assumptions made by the culture can alter reality to the point where we cannot see the truth of what is actually there.
I was reminded of this because of a Facebook post a pastor friend of mine made. I have seen the story she posted before, but it bears repeating.
This is the story: a while back, at the entrance of a gym, there was a picture of a beautiful but very thin woman. The caption on the poster said: “This summer, do you want to be a mermaid or a whale?”
The story then tells about a woman, apparently someone who frequented the gym and whose clothing size was unknown. This woman answered the sign by posting a letter next to it. “Dear people who own this facility, Did you know whales are always surrounded by friends— dolphins, seals, curious humans? They are active and raise their children with great tenderness.”
“They entertain like crazy— play with dolphins eat lots of prawns. They swim all day and travel to fantastic, wonderful places like Patagonia, the Barents Sea, the coral reefs of Polynesia.”
“They sing incredibly well, sometimes even get recorded on CDs. They are both impressive and dearly loved. Everyone defends and admires them.”
“Mermaids, on the other hand, do not exist. They are not real. They are a fantasy. But, if they did exist, they would need to line up to see a psychologist because of a split personality problem: woman or fish?”
“Yes, probably they would be lovely. But it’s also probable they would be lonely, maybe even sad. After all, who wants to hang out with someone who smells like fish? So, without a doubt, I would rather be a whale.”
“Any time,” the letter continued, “the media or anyone else tells us that only thin is beautiful, they are wrong. Personally, I prefer to eat ice cream with kids, have dinner with my spouse, eat and drink and have fun with friends.”
“I believe we women gain weight because we accumulate so much wisdom and knowledge there isn’t enough space in our heads. Therefore, it spreads all over our bodies.”
“Women of a certain size are not fat. We are greatly cultivated. In fact, every time I see my curves in the mirror, I say to myself: ‘How amazing am I?!’” (Slight pause.)
While weighing too much is not healthy, that is, I hope, an obvious illustration of how the cultural alters reality. The culture holds up not just impossible ideals. The culture often prevents reality from sinking in, prevents us from seeing what is right in front of us. (Slight pause.)
At our Bible Study last Wednesday— by the way anyone is welcome— Bible Study, most Wednesdays at 6:00 p.m. Choir rehearsal starts at 7:00, so you can join the Choir— they’re great— go from Bible Study to Choir. It’s a neat transition. At our Bible Study last Wednesday we took a close look at the Nativity Story from the Matthew reading and compared it with the Nativity Story from Luke heard on Christmas Eve.
(The pastor pulls out a sheet of newsprint and holds it up in front of the pulpit.) Comparisons— (the pastor points to the two columns on the paper) Luke-Matthew— and we wrote down bunches of things that A) aren’t really there and B) in one but not the other or the other but not the one. O.K.? There’s way more than this, this is what we came up with briefly.
Now, we have a cultural image about the Nativity. And that cultural image is displayed right here in the crèche. (The pastor walks to the table where the crèche rests and points to the items being addressed.) Typically, a Nativity Scene has figures representing the infant, Mary and Joseph.
Other characters— shepherds, Magi, angels, animals— they’re all displayed near a manger in a barn. Sometimes a star and/or an angel hovers near in these scenes. This cultural image, this crèche, is nearly 100% wrong.
In Luke, there is no star. There is no stable. A manger is mentioned but mangers— feeding troughs for animals— are everywhere in this society, not just in stables. Was the child actually placed in a manger located in a stable? Perhaps. But the text of Luke does not say that.
The stable is a figment of our imagination. Or rather, it was a figment of the imagination of St. Francis of Assisi, who dreamed up the iconic imagery of the crèche in the 13th Century1,300 years after the birth of Christ.
Now, not at the place of the birth but somewhere out in the fields around Bethlehem, one angel addressed some shepherds and then other angels also speak. But no angels ever sings. You can hunt all over Luke all over the Nativity passage, no angel ever squeaks out one note. Last, there are no Magi in Luke no matter what a crèche might suggest.
And that brings us to Matthew. Matthew is where we find Magi. The family clearly lives in a house in Bethlehem, so they have not traveled to Bethlehem and may have some means— they’re in a house. They might even be prosperous.
The three visitors probably come sometime after the birth. Many scholars think Jesus is a toddler by the time the Magi arrive.
Luke clearly stresses the fact that the birth of the Messiah should be seen as good news for the poor and the outcast. With Matthew there is palace intrigue and the family has some means and maybe even royal connections.
The Magi are searching for the one born to be ruler of the Jewish people. The gifts left by them are expensive, suitable for royalty. (Slight pause.) You see, when we read Scripture carefully, the cultural images we so fondly treasure become hard to sustain. When we take Scripture seriously— take Scripture seriously, the cultural images we so fondly treasure are hard to sustain.
(The pastor raises a hand.) Who here wants to take Scripture seriously? (Slight pause.) I’ve got two hands in the back— two more up here— O.K. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from Matthew: “After the birth of Jesus— whose birth happened in Bethlehem of Judea during the reign of Herod the Great— Magi, astrologers, from the East arrived in Jerusalem, and asked, ‘Where is the newborn ruler of the Jewish people? We observed a star at its rising which says this one has been born and have come to offer homage.’” (Slight pause.)
So, if our cultural images about the Nativity are fantasy, made up, what are we supposed to learn from these narratives, from what they really say? What are we to learn from the two stories? What are we to learn from the birth being announced to the poor and the outcast and from birth of the one born to be ruler of the Jewish people? (Slight pause.)
I believe, despite the differences in the stories, despite the reality of the stories, I believe the message is both unified and simple. Jesus needs to be seen as the climax of the Covenant God made with humanity— a Covenant of love, a Covenant of trust, a Covenant of forgiveness. Jesus is born as a reassurance that God is with us now and that God is with us always, for all eternity. Jesus is born to help us grapple with the reality of God. (Slight pause.)
In a recent discussion with a colleague I said a sound theology deals with reality. A less than sound theology insists on buying into cultural fantasy or insists on buying into an ideological fantasy or insists on buying into personal fantasy. The reason the Nativity Stories are there is not to create fantasies of any kind. The Nativity Stories are there to help us see the reality of God among us. (Slight pause.)
The culture constantly creates fantasies— fantasies which do not exist, which are not real— fantasies about everything from body image to the Nativity Stories. (Slight pause.) Now, I need to be clear about one thing: I like fantasy.
Sometimes people accuse me of being a story teller. Guilty. But the point of telling stories— the point of telling stories— is to uncover deeper truth. The point of telling stories is to uncover and illuminate reality.
Think about this, talking about illuminating reality: in the case of the Nativity Story in Matthew, the Magi are representatives of all gentiles, all non-Jews. The claim of Matthew is all people are invited to worship the Messiah.
In that sense the Magi pave the way for the invitation made by the Risen Christ— the Risen Christ at the end of Matthew’s Gospel: go— make disciples of all nations. Better said, or said in a way we can understand— “include the gentiles. They’re my people too!” So, the writer of Matthew does nothing more than come full circle by starting with the Magi— come, all people are my people. Now that’s a story that uncovers a deeper truth.
All of which is to say, the truth revealed by this story is not about three visitors or gold, frankincense, and myrrh. There is a real theological point with which we need to grapple. What is that theological reality?
To reiterate: Jesus needs to be seen as the climax of the Covenant God made with humanity— a Covenant of love, a Covenant of trust, a Covenant of forgiveness. Jesus is born as a reassurance that God is with us now and always, for all eternity. Jesus is born to help us grapple with the reality of God. Amen.
01/06/2012 - The Feast of the Epiphany
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “This is a poem by Howard Thurman. Its title is The Work of Christmas. ‘When the song of the angels is stilled, / When the star in the sky is gone, / When the kings and princes are home, / When the shepherds are back with their flock, / The work of Christmas begins: / To find the lost, / To heal the broken, / To feed the hungry, / To release the prisoner, / To rebuild the nations, / To bring peace among people, / To make music in the heart.’”
BENEDICTION: Because, O God, You have made Yourself manifest in Jesus, the Christ, begotten from the heart of Your love, Word of Truth, Light of Light, we give You thanks and praise. You are the light of the world. Let Your light so shine that all may see the good things You do. So, remember that God is with us now and always. Go in peace; go in love; go in Joy; go in hope. 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 nothing else and no one else. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)