11/24/2013 ~ The Feast of the Reign of Christ ~ Proper 29 ~ Thirty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost ~ Last Sunday After Pentecost ~ Jeremiah 23:1-6; Luke 1:68-79; Jeremiah 23:1-6; Psalm 46; Colossians 1:11-20; Luke 23:33-43 ~ Operation Christmas Child Commissioning.
The Messiah of God
“People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” — Luke 23:35.
Malcolm Gladwell writes non-fiction books that usually go right to the top of the Best Seller list when first published. His most recent work is David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants.
The author starts this book with an exegesis of the David and Goliath story from Scripture. Exegesis— that’s a $64 word which means looking at a text and doing a critical explanation and/or interpretation of it. Most often the word exegesis is used when speaking about religious texts.
However, exegesis can apply to any text. Our Norwich High School students who have had Mr. Bernstein’s Advanced Placement Literature and Composition classes, even though they many not know this, have practiced exegesis and probably practiced it really hard.
I am sure Mr. Bernstein has asked students to do this kind of analysis many times. And, as I suggested, you can exegete any text— from Shakespeare to Salinger to Shaw to Scripture. Textual analysis is a universal possibility.
Well, let me come back to the David and Goliath story and the exegesis Gladwell does with it. First, he describes the place, the valley where David and Goliath do battle.
The Israelite army and Philistine army— about equal in strength— wind up encamped on opposite edges of a ravine in a stand-off. Neither wants to descend to the valley only to have to fight their way up the other hill. I am sure you’ve heard the cliché attached with that one— uphill battle. Uphill battles are hard to win.
So Goliath, a giant— many scholars suggest this is simply an exceptionally tall man, maybe close to 7 feet tall— Goliath, a giant wearing armor, offers a challenge. Fight me. Your warrior wins, you win and we, the Philistines, become your slaves. I win, the opposite happens.
Then the short, young shepherd, clothed perhaps only in an animal skin, challenges that armor clad giant. Of course, the shepherd defies all odds and wins. This— David conquering Goliath— has become a metaphor in our language for someone who overcomes terrible odds and improbably winds up a victor.
But is that what happened? Or does the story say something else and we simply ignore it? (Slight pause.) In the analysis Gladwell offers, he insists we misread the story.
In the original text, Goliath says he can see David carrying two sticks. But the text also clearly tells us David carries a single staff. There is only one conclusion to be drawn: Goliath sees things blurry or double. In fact, if Goliath is as tall as some think, both that height and blurry or double vision might be caused by an overactive pituitary gland.
Further, he is led down the hill by a servant. He doesn’t come down by himself. So he is not just someone with bad eyesight. He is probably clumsy too. He cannot clamor down the hill alone.
And he wears all that armor. He can’t move quickly. Goliath probably wants to fight David in close quarters with a spear and a sword.
David, on the other hand, is mobile and agile. He can get close but can scamper away. David also carries a deadly weapon. The sling is not the children’s toy with which many of us are familiar.
It is made of a single piece of cloth and two lines. It was whirled overhead five to six times a second before release.
As to the stones used, we know the terrain in this area. We know the kind of stones found there. They are both small and heavy. So David picks up a small but dense stone to use in the sling.
Last, we know in ancient times people, like shepherds, were sharpshooters— so skilled they could kill a bird in flight with a stone hurled from a sling. And that stone came out of the sling at a speed similar to a modern bullet shot from a gun. (Slight pause.)
Was there a risk for the Israelites? Yes— it was huge. On the other hand, Saul probably overestimated the strengths of Goliath and underestimated the advantages of David. So the Israelites were worried and hesitant. But, says Gladwell, it was David who really had the upper hand, not Goliath. [1]
In short, most of us misread the story. And all you need to do is the exegetical work, the analysis, to realize there is something beyond the obvious in the story. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke. “People stood by, watching. The leaders, however, scoffed and jeered saying, ‘This one saved others; let him save himself— if he is the Messiah of God, the Chosen One!’” (Slight pause.)
I think we find ourselves in a similar place with this reading and we need to analyze it to help make any sense. The reading is, you see, not as straightforward as it seems. On the surface, it’s a story about the crucifixion.
But if that’s the case, why did the compilers of the lections place a crucifixion story on the last Sunday before Advent, the season which moves us toward Christmas, the season we celebrate the birth of the Messiah? And why did the Church, in its wisdom, declare the Feast of the Reign of Christ on this day? And where is there any good news here? After all, it’s about crucifixion. (Slight pause.)
Well, this is what I think is going on. In this short passage, this crucifixion scene, Jesus is referred to by three different titles: ‘King of the Jews,’ ‘the Chosen One’ and ‘ the Messiah.’ All these are messianic titles— titles of a Messiah. So over and over again in this reading we find a proclamation: Jesus is the Messiah of God.
When that is taken into consideration, we need to ask the obvious question. Should our focus be on the crucifixion or should our focus lie elsewhere?
And, indeed, in order to help with that focus, let’s take a step back from this specific story and see it in the context of an overview of the Gospel known as Luke. In the Second Chapter of this work— when do we read the Second Chapter of this work? Christmas Eve. In the Second Chapter of this work when the angels appear to the shepherds, what is said?
“...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” [2]
And here, in today’s passage from Luke, Jesus is being crucified. And what is it we hear? Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
We hear Messiah at the birth of Jesus. We hear Messiah when Jesus is murdered. (Slight pause.) So, is this passage about the crucifixion? Or is this passage about something else? (Slight pause.)
As I hope is obvious to you, the real topic of this passage is not crucifixion. The central concern is a proclamation which insists Jesus is the Messiah. (Slight pause.)
Even though it will take another three centuries for the church to form the doctrine we call Trinity, we can see its beginnings here. You see, at first, the Christian movement is made up of faithful Jews. So Jesus is seen as the Messiah of God.
And that brings us to why this is an appropriate reading for the last Sunday before the Season of Advent. Advent invites us to prepare for the Season of Christmas.
Rumor to the contrary, Christmas is not a secular holiday. Christmas is or should be a solemn occasion. Why? Christmas is a remembrance which celebrates the in-breaking of God into the life of the world and into our own lives. Personally, I cannot imagine a more solemn reason for celebration.
And after all, this is what the Second Chapter of Luke says: “...the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for you have nothing to fear; I have come to bring you good news, news of great joy for all people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah.’” 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: “Given what I said today, there are two more things I need to say about exegesis, this analysis of Scripture. It is not new. It was not invented in the last century. The Prophets practiced exegesis; Jesus practiced exegesis; Paul practiced exegesis; faithful Christians have practiced exegesis for 2,000 years. Second, exegesis is easy. It works using one simple rule: don’t ask what Scripture says; ask what it means. Or as I’ve often said, I don’t take Scripture literally; I take it seriously.”
BENEDICTION: Let us walk in the light God provides. Let us thank God for reaching out to us in love. Let us be daily recreated in the image of God who wants us to live with justice as our guide and freedom as our goal. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts and minds in the companionship of the Holy Spirit and the love of God this day and evermore. Amen.
[1] Malcolm Gladwell, David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants, Little, Brown and Company.
[2] Luke 2:10-11 [ILV]
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/17/2013 ~ “The Peaceable Kingdom?”
11/17/2013 ~ Proper 28 ~ Thirty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Sixth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Isaiah 65:17-25; Isaiah 12 **; Malachi 4:1-2a; Psalm 98; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13; Luke 21:5-19 ~ NOTE: Joe Does Children’s Time.
The Peaceable Kingdom?
“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” — Isaiah 65:25
Some of us were alive fifty years ago this coming Friday and some of us were not. And a little like that more recent tragedy— 9/11— one of the questions always posed to those who experienced that date fifty years ago— 11/22/1963— one of the questions posed is often the same as it is for 9/11.
Where were you when you heard the news? Of course, in the case of 1963 the question is: ‘where were you when you heard that the President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had been killed?’
As the years have passed, however, another and very different question about what happened back then has weighed on the American psyche. And the question is valid whether or not you were alive on that date. In short, this question even resonates with people who did not experience the event.
The question? Was there some kind of conspiracy afoot to brazenly and brutally assassinate the President? Put another way, was more than one person involved in this murder? Or was this killing simply the demented work of a single individual who was acting alone? (Slight pause.)
Movies have been made asking this question. Movies have even been made supplying answers to this question. Countless books have been written on the topic. One estimate I saw said there are 2,000 books rehashing various conspiracy theories as they ask over and over ‘was there more than one person was involved?’
According to a 2003 ABC News Poll, 70 percent of Americans believe Kennedy’s death was the result of a plot and not the act of a lone killer. Fifty-one percent believe that even if only one person did pull the trigger, there was some kind of support system for the perpetrator. 7 percent of those polled actually believe the person who the Warren Commission declared to be the sole actor in this crime was not even involved.
The same poll said there are five top assassination conspiracy theories. They are— in no particular order— first, the Soviets did it. After all, Khrushchev snubbed Kennedy when they first met and then Kennedy bested Khrushchev when the Soviet Premier was forced to back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Slight pause.)
Next— the Mafia did it. In fact, the CIA— the Central Intelligence Agency— had contacts with organized crime about assassinating Fidel Castro. The mob was heavily invested in casinos in Havana. And then Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion. That ended any hopes they had of returning to those casinos . Further, the mob did not like Kennedy’s crusading brother, Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. So, maybe the Mafia did do it. (Slight pause.)
No— the Cubans probably did it. U.S. agents did try to assassinate Castro, says this thesis and Castro decided to return the favor. In fact, in 1968 Lyndon Johnson told ABC News (and this is a quote— quote): “Kennedy was trying to get to Castro but Castro got to him first.” (Slight pause.)
I heard this next one a lot when I was young. Lyndon Johnson did it. Who had the most to gain? The one who became president. The gist of this conspiracy tale says Johnson received help from the CIA and from wealthy tycoons who believed they would have access to more profit under a Johnson administration.
There is actually a variation on this one which says that Johnson was aided by another man who would become president— George H. W. Bush. Bush was then a rising star in the CIA and also happened to be in Dallas on the day of the assassination.
That segues into the last theory in the top five. The CIA did it. They are, of course, an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one variation suggests the assassin, the one the Warren Commission says acted alone, was a CIA operative. (Slight pause.)
Well, despite all the theories about the assassination, there is one possibility for the very existence of the theories which I personally have never heard anyone else say. Therefore, I suppose you could label this as my conspiracy theory. And what is my conspiracy theory?
My conspiracy theory says that all these theories have nothing at all to do with what happened on November the 22nd, 1963. Indeed, my conspiracy theory says there is a simple reason all the rest of those conspiracy theories even exist.
My conspiracy theory says the only thing the very existence of conspiracy theories proves is... people do not trust the government. And, since the official government report says there was a single assassin and no conspiracy, that conclusion must be wrong, since it’s the official position of the government— a government which cannot be trusted. (Slight pause.)
CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a local reporter in Dallas in 1963. That day is still with him. In some ways his take is similar to mine. He recently described 11/22/1963 and the several days after the assassination on the program he now moderates, Face the Nation. He said (quote:) “It was the weekend America lost its innocence.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” (Slight pause.)
When the passage from Isaiah was introduced this was said (quote): “...the entire work known as Isaiah involves waiting. Waiting for God inevitably and invariably involves faith and trust.” (Slight pause.)
This passage describes a state of peace which seems quite unattainable— a wolf and the lamb together, a lion who eats straw. And then there is that promise of what we think of as a peace like existence: they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that we cannot get to a place where we experience the peace of God unless we trust God. But I think an initial question needs to be asked, a question which might allow us to get to that place of trust: what is the peace of God? (Slight pause.)
From a Biblical perspective, the peace of God is not the absence of violence. The peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God.
Hence, the peaceable kingdom we all claim to seek is not necessary one where violence is banished. We find peace— real peace— when we trust that the presence of God is with us and that the presence of God is real, no matter what the circumstance.
Trust in God is, you see, the key to being aware of the presence of God. And that being aware of the presence of God leads us to an inner peace. (Slight pause.)
There is a quote attributed to one Claude AnShin Thomas which has recently been floating around the internet. Postings of this quote say Thomas is War Veteran and Buddhist Monk. Is he? I don’t know. It does not matter. I think these words are relevant. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “Peace is not an idea. Peace is not a political movement, not a theory or a dogma. Peace is a way of life: living mindfully in the presence moment. It is not a question of politics but of actions. It is not a matter of improving a political system or taking care of homeless people.”
“These are valuable but will not, alone, end war and suffering. We must stop the endless wars which rage within. Imagine, if everyone stopped the war within themselves. There would be no seeds from which war could grow.” (Slight pause.)
In some ways that’s about our inner psychological states, is it not? That helps toward trust, does it not? You see, I believe that, when we begin to trust God, we will find inner wars less invasive. We will find that begets love and love begets peace.
And I think trusting God is the very thing Isaiah addresses in this passage. When we trust God we are empowered to love. When we are empowered to love, the peace of God— the real presence of God— becomes tangible. Amen.
11/17/2013
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: “Randy Glasbergen is a nationally syndicated Cartoonist who happens live in Sherburne, just a couple miles down the road. And he is very funny. Or at least he is someone who says things funny, rather than saying funny things. He just published a cartoon which says this: ‘What really happened to the Thanksgiving turkey’ And under that caption are a couple of turkeys in discussion about what really happened: ‘Some say the CIA killed the turkey... others think it was the mob... conspiracy theorists think there was more than one ax swung from multiple positions by people on the grassy knoll.’ Perhaps conspiracy is where you look for it. And perhaps we are unaware of the peace of God, the presence of God because we fail to seek to do the work of God and the will of God.”
BENEDICTION: A kind and just God sends us out into the world as bearers of truth which surpasses our understanding. God watches over those who respond in love. So, let us love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. Let us be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
The Peaceable Kingdom?
“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” — Isaiah 65:25
Some of us were alive fifty years ago this coming Friday and some of us were not. And a little like that more recent tragedy— 9/11— one of the questions always posed to those who experienced that date fifty years ago— 11/22/1963— one of the questions posed is often the same as it is for 9/11.
Where were you when you heard the news? Of course, in the case of 1963 the question is: ‘where were you when you heard that the President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had been killed?’
As the years have passed, however, another and very different question about what happened back then has weighed on the American psyche. And the question is valid whether or not you were alive on that date. In short, this question even resonates with people who did not experience the event.
The question? Was there some kind of conspiracy afoot to brazenly and brutally assassinate the President? Put another way, was more than one person involved in this murder? Or was this killing simply the demented work of a single individual who was acting alone? (Slight pause.)
Movies have been made asking this question. Movies have even been made supplying answers to this question. Countless books have been written on the topic. One estimate I saw said there are 2,000 books rehashing various conspiracy theories as they ask over and over ‘was there more than one person was involved?’
According to a 2003 ABC News Poll, 70 percent of Americans believe Kennedy’s death was the result of a plot and not the act of a lone killer. Fifty-one percent believe that even if only one person did pull the trigger, there was some kind of support system for the perpetrator. 7 percent of those polled actually believe the person who the Warren Commission declared to be the sole actor in this crime was not even involved.
The same poll said there are five top assassination conspiracy theories. They are— in no particular order— first, the Soviets did it. After all, Khrushchev snubbed Kennedy when they first met and then Kennedy bested Khrushchev when the Soviet Premier was forced to back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Slight pause.)
Next— the Mafia did it. In fact, the CIA— the Central Intelligence Agency— had contacts with organized crime about assassinating Fidel Castro. The mob was heavily invested in casinos in Havana. And then Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion. That ended any hopes they had of returning to those casinos . Further, the mob did not like Kennedy’s crusading brother, Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. So, maybe the Mafia did do it. (Slight pause.)
No— the Cubans probably did it. U.S. agents did try to assassinate Castro, says this thesis and Castro decided to return the favor. In fact, in 1968 Lyndon Johnson told ABC News (and this is a quote— quote): “Kennedy was trying to get to Castro but Castro got to him first.” (Slight pause.)
I heard this next one a lot when I was young. Lyndon Johnson did it. Who had the most to gain? The one who became president. The gist of this conspiracy tale says Johnson received help from the CIA and from wealthy tycoons who believed they would have access to more profit under a Johnson administration.
There is actually a variation on this one which says that Johnson was aided by another man who would become president— George H. W. Bush. Bush was then a rising star in the CIA and also happened to be in Dallas on the day of the assassination.
That segues into the last theory in the top five. The CIA did it. They are, of course, an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one variation suggests the assassin, the one the Warren Commission says acted alone, was a CIA operative. (Slight pause.)
Well, despite all the theories about the assassination, there is one possibility for the very existence of the theories which I personally have never heard anyone else say. Therefore, I suppose you could label this as my conspiracy theory. And what is my conspiracy theory?
My conspiracy theory says that all these theories have nothing at all to do with what happened on November the 22nd, 1963. Indeed, my conspiracy theory says there is a simple reason all the rest of those conspiracy theories even exist.
My conspiracy theory says the only thing the very existence of conspiracy theories proves is... people do not trust the government. And, since the official government report says there was a single assassin and no conspiracy, that conclusion must be wrong, since it’s the official position of the government— a government which cannot be trusted. (Slight pause.)
CBS anchor Bob Schieffer was a local reporter in Dallas in 1963. That day is still with him. In some ways his take is similar to mine. He recently described 11/22/1963 and the several days after the assassination on the program he now moderates, Face the Nation. He said (quote:) “It was the weekend America lost its innocence.” (Slight pause.)
These words are from the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, / the lion shall eat straw like the ox; / but the serpent— its food shall be dust! / They shall not hurt or destroy / on all my holy mountain,...” (Slight pause.)
When the passage from Isaiah was introduced this was said (quote): “...the entire work known as Isaiah involves waiting. Waiting for God inevitably and invariably involves faith and trust.” (Slight pause.)
This passage describes a state of peace which seems quite unattainable— a wolf and the lamb together, a lion who eats straw. And then there is that promise of what we think of as a peace like existence: they shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain. (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest that we cannot get to a place where we experience the peace of God unless we trust God. But I think an initial question needs to be asked, a question which might allow us to get to that place of trust: what is the peace of God? (Slight pause.)
From a Biblical perspective, the peace of God is not the absence of violence. The peace of God is the presence of the Spirit of God.
Hence, the peaceable kingdom we all claim to seek is not necessary one where violence is banished. We find peace— real peace— when we trust that the presence of God is with us and that the presence of God is real, no matter what the circumstance.
Trust in God is, you see, the key to being aware of the presence of God. And that being aware of the presence of God leads us to an inner peace. (Slight pause.)
There is a quote attributed to one Claude AnShin Thomas which has recently been floating around the internet. Postings of this quote say Thomas is War Veteran and Buddhist Monk. Is he? I don’t know. It does not matter. I think these words are relevant. (Slight pause.)
(Quote:) “Peace is not an idea. Peace is not a political movement, not a theory or a dogma. Peace is a way of life: living mindfully in the presence moment. It is not a question of politics but of actions. It is not a matter of improving a political system or taking care of homeless people.”
“These are valuable but will not, alone, end war and suffering. We must stop the endless wars which rage within. Imagine, if everyone stopped the war within themselves. There would be no seeds from which war could grow.” (Slight pause.)
In some ways that’s about our inner psychological states, is it not? That helps toward trust, does it not? You see, I believe that, when we begin to trust God, we will find inner wars less invasive. We will find that begets love and love begets peace.
And I think trusting God is the very thing Isaiah addresses in this passage. When we trust God we are empowered to love. When we are empowered to love, the peace of God— the real presence of God— becomes tangible. Amen.
11/17/2013
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: “Randy Glasbergen is a nationally syndicated Cartoonist who happens live in Sherburne, just a couple miles down the road. And he is very funny. Or at least he is someone who says things funny, rather than saying funny things. He just published a cartoon which says this: ‘What really happened to the Thanksgiving turkey’ And under that caption are a couple of turkeys in discussion about what really happened: ‘Some say the CIA killed the turkey... others think it was the mob... conspiracy theorists think there was more than one ax swung from multiple positions by people on the grassy knoll.’ Perhaps conspiracy is where you look for it. And perhaps we are unaware of the peace of God, the presence of God because we fail to seek to do the work of God and the will of God.”
BENEDICTION: A kind and just God sends us out into the world as bearers of truth which surpasses our understanding. God watches over those who respond in love. So, let us love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. Let us be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/10/2013 ~ “Different”
11/10/2013 ~ Proper 27 ~ Thirty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Haggai 1:15b-2:9; Psalm 145:1-5, 17-21 or Psalm 98 ; Job 19:23-27a; Psalm 17:1-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5, 13-17; Luke 20:27-38 ~ Possibly Stewardship Sunday ~ Stewardship Sunday # 495 also ~ Veteran’s Day Weekend.
Different
“Jesus said to them, said to the Sadducees, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” — Luke 20:34-36.
In a recent article theologian Marcus Borg asked a pertinent question. “What does it mean to be Christian?” Please note, Borg did not say “What does it mean to be a Christian?” but rather, “What does it mean to be Christian?”
Only then did Borg asked the next and obvious question. “What makes a person a Christian?” (Slight pause.)
Borg’s purpose in writing the article with these questions was not to provide criteria for deciding who is and who is not a Christian. It was not about separating sheep from goats, about deciding who is in or who is out. Rather, the article asked ‘what lies at the heart of being Christian?’
And being Christian, says this writer, is not very much about believing a set of statements which might be construed as the right things. However (and to look at it differently), the notion that Christianity is about believing a set of teachings or doctrines is a widespread phenomena in our age. That, says this theologian, is a relatively recent distortion of Christianity.
Seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs, he says, began with the Reformation of the 1500s and the Enlightenment of the 1600s. And, unfortunately, seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs continues today in many quarters.
In fact, historically, even currently, many Protestants distinguished themselves from Catholics by using comparisons between what they believe and what Catholics believe. And, of course, historically, even currently, many Protestants divide themselves into multiple churches and denominations, often with each church or denomination distinguishing themselves from other churches and denominations by using comparisons between what they believe and what other churches believe.
Not only do we tend to miss that the origins of this happened in the 1500s and 1600s, but we do not realize in drawing those lines dissecting beliefs churches and people were merely mirroring what was happening in the world of that era. And this changed emphasis in the nature of belief and how it happens. And it was a result largely of modern science and scientific ways of knowing things.
You see, the Reformation leads to the Enlightenment. Without the Reformation there is no Enlightenment, case closed. And, once the Enlightenment dawns, it calls into question many conventional Christian ideas as people begin to study specific phenomena, begin to study why things really happen.
And so, the earth was, perhaps, not at the center of the universe. Creation, perhaps, did not take six days. And maybe a world-wide flood did not kill every land creature.
So, having listed some of the ideas the Enlightenment questioned— this concept of an earth centered universe, the nature of how creation happened, etc.— all that baggage— the real question becomes this: were these things, were these ideas items never actually involved in a real understanding of Christianity— never involved in a real understanding of Christianity? (Slight pause.)
“Jesus said to them, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” (Slight pause.)
Later in the same article Borg says the language of “believing” has, in fact, been part of Christianity from the first century onward, by far predating the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But before the Reformation “believing” did not refer primarily to believing the right doctrines.
Rather, to believe meant something like the word out of an old form of English known as Middle English— the word “belove.” The meaning of belief was to ‘belove’— to love God so much as to commit one’s self to a relationship of attentiveness and faithfulness. Commitment to God and fidelity to God are the ancient and the real meanings of faith and of believing.
I think when you carefully read the conversation Jesus has with the Sadducees you realize there is neither a denial nor a confirmation of the rules about a brother needing to marry the widow of another brother. Nor is there a denial or a confirmation of the resurrection. The effect of what Jesus says is this: God lives.
And a God who lives is a God to be beloved. A living God is a God with whom we need to be in an attentive and faithful relationship. In short, Christianity is not about a set of rules or theological precepts to be believed. Christianity is about having a relationship with a living God who, in turn, calls us to be in a relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
Well, I suspect know what you might be asking yourself now. How does all this fit in with the idea that this is our “Enlistment Sunday,” a day on which we invite people to make a financial commitment to the church? What’s that segue? Well, let me try to unpack it. (Slight pause.)
I have told you many times what the financial state of this church is. Our endowment pays for all the upkeep, case closed. Anything people pledge or put in the plate, we give away.
Therefore, let me address the practical first. All of us make decisions about our own finances. Often finances are formed by down to earth judgments like “how much money do I have in my budget to do XYZ.”
Now, sometimes what we loosely refer to as our heart influences decisions about money. Here’s an example I bet a lot of us have faced. We go to buy a new car. And we see a car we really, really like. We like how it looks. We like how it feels. In fact, we love it.
But there is a car over on the other side of the lot. It’s a good car and it costs less. But we don’t really love it. Do we follow our heart? (Slight pause.)
So, here’s what I am suggesting: first, please, make a sound financial decision. Do not give more than you are able. That makes no sense— giving more than you are able.
Next, whatever you give, please give because you love God. Personally, I think giving because you love God is the only way giving to any church makes sense. And also on the practical side, give because you think we— we— as a church, strive to do the work of God, strive to do the work of justice God would have us pursue. (Slight pause.)
So, an Enlistment Sunday is not about rules, definitely not about resurrection, and, most assuredly, not even about money. An Enlistment Sunday is about love of God— God who invites us to love our neighbor.
An, yes— that old question: who is our neighbor? Look around you in the pews— neighbors. Go out the doors, on to the streets— neighbors. Get on a plane, go to Chicago— neighbors. Go to London— neighbors. Go to Frankfort— neighbors. Go to Tehran— neighbors. (Slight pause.) And, do we love God. Amen.
Amen.
11/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
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: “Borg asked ‘What does it mean to be Christian?’ and ‘What makes a person a Christian?’ Clearly, it is not definitions. It is loving God who invites us to love neighbor.”
BENEDICTION: We can find the presence of God in unexpected places. God’s light leads us to places we thought not possible just moments ago. God’s love abounds and will live with us throughout eternity. The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our needs. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. May the one triune God sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
Different
“Jesus said to them, said to the Sadducees, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” — Luke 20:34-36.
In a recent article theologian Marcus Borg asked a pertinent question. “What does it mean to be Christian?” Please note, Borg did not say “What does it mean to be a Christian?” but rather, “What does it mean to be Christian?”
Only then did Borg asked the next and obvious question. “What makes a person a Christian?” (Slight pause.)
Borg’s purpose in writing the article with these questions was not to provide criteria for deciding who is and who is not a Christian. It was not about separating sheep from goats, about deciding who is in or who is out. Rather, the article asked ‘what lies at the heart of being Christian?’
And being Christian, says this writer, is not very much about believing a set of statements which might be construed as the right things. However (and to look at it differently), the notion that Christianity is about believing a set of teachings or doctrines is a widespread phenomena in our age. That, says this theologian, is a relatively recent distortion of Christianity.
Seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs, he says, began with the Reformation of the 1500s and the Enlightenment of the 1600s. And, unfortunately, seeing Christianity simply as a set of beliefs continues today in many quarters.
In fact, historically, even currently, many Protestants distinguished themselves from Catholics by using comparisons between what they believe and what Catholics believe. And, of course, historically, even currently, many Protestants divide themselves into multiple churches and denominations, often with each church or denomination distinguishing themselves from other churches and denominations by using comparisons between what they believe and what other churches believe.
Not only do we tend to miss that the origins of this happened in the 1500s and 1600s, but we do not realize in drawing those lines dissecting beliefs churches and people were merely mirroring what was happening in the world of that era. And this changed emphasis in the nature of belief and how it happens. And it was a result largely of modern science and scientific ways of knowing things.
You see, the Reformation leads to the Enlightenment. Without the Reformation there is no Enlightenment, case closed. And, once the Enlightenment dawns, it calls into question many conventional Christian ideas as people begin to study specific phenomena, begin to study why things really happen.
And so, the earth was, perhaps, not at the center of the universe. Creation, perhaps, did not take six days. And maybe a world-wide flood did not kill every land creature.
So, having listed some of the ideas the Enlightenment questioned— this concept of an earth centered universe, the nature of how creation happened, etc.— all that baggage— the real question becomes this: were these things, were these ideas items never actually involved in a real understanding of Christianity— never involved in a real understanding of Christianity? (Slight pause.)
“Jesus said to them, ‘The children of this age marry each other but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age to come and in the resurrection from the dead do not take husbands or wives. Indeed, they can no longer die— like angels they are children of God, since they are children of the resurrection.’” (Slight pause.)
Later in the same article Borg says the language of “believing” has, in fact, been part of Christianity from the first century onward, by far predating the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But before the Reformation “believing” did not refer primarily to believing the right doctrines.
Rather, to believe meant something like the word out of an old form of English known as Middle English— the word “belove.” The meaning of belief was to ‘belove’— to love God so much as to commit one’s self to a relationship of attentiveness and faithfulness. Commitment to God and fidelity to God are the ancient and the real meanings of faith and of believing.
I think when you carefully read the conversation Jesus has with the Sadducees you realize there is neither a denial nor a confirmation of the rules about a brother needing to marry the widow of another brother. Nor is there a denial or a confirmation of the resurrection. The effect of what Jesus says is this: God lives.
And a God who lives is a God to be beloved. A living God is a God with whom we need to be in an attentive and faithful relationship. In short, Christianity is not about a set of rules or theological precepts to be believed. Christianity is about having a relationship with a living God who, in turn, calls us to be in a relationship with one another. (Slight pause.)
Well, I suspect know what you might be asking yourself now. How does all this fit in with the idea that this is our “Enlistment Sunday,” a day on which we invite people to make a financial commitment to the church? What’s that segue? Well, let me try to unpack it. (Slight pause.)
I have told you many times what the financial state of this church is. Our endowment pays for all the upkeep, case closed. Anything people pledge or put in the plate, we give away.
Therefore, let me address the practical first. All of us make decisions about our own finances. Often finances are formed by down to earth judgments like “how much money do I have in my budget to do XYZ.”
Now, sometimes what we loosely refer to as our heart influences decisions about money. Here’s an example I bet a lot of us have faced. We go to buy a new car. And we see a car we really, really like. We like how it looks. We like how it feels. In fact, we love it.
But there is a car over on the other side of the lot. It’s a good car and it costs less. But we don’t really love it. Do we follow our heart? (Slight pause.)
So, here’s what I am suggesting: first, please, make a sound financial decision. Do not give more than you are able. That makes no sense— giving more than you are able.
Next, whatever you give, please give because you love God. Personally, I think giving because you love God is the only way giving to any church makes sense. And also on the practical side, give because you think we— we— as a church, strive to do the work of God, strive to do the work of justice God would have us pursue. (Slight pause.)
So, an Enlistment Sunday is not about rules, definitely not about resurrection, and, most assuredly, not even about money. An Enlistment Sunday is about love of God— God who invites us to love our neighbor.
An, yes— that old question: who is our neighbor? Look around you in the pews— neighbors. Go out the doors, on to the streets— neighbors. Get on a plane, go to Chicago— neighbors. Go to London— neighbors. Go to Frankfort— neighbors. Go to Tehran— neighbors. (Slight pause.) And, do we love God. Amen.
Amen.
11/10/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
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: “Borg asked ‘What does it mean to be Christian?’ and ‘What makes a person a Christian?’ Clearly, it is not definitions. It is loving God who invites us to love neighbor.”
BENEDICTION: We can find the presence of God in unexpected places. God’s light leads us to places we thought not possible just moments ago. God’s love abounds and will live with us throughout eternity. The grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our needs. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. May the one triune God sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
SERMON ~ 11/03/2013 ~ “Systems 101”
11/03/2013 ~ Proper 26 ~ Thirty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost (If All Saints not observed on this day); Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4; Psalm 119:137-144; Isaiah 1:10-18; Psalm 32:1-7; 2 Thessalonians 1:1-4, 11-12; Luke 19:1-10 ~ Communion Sunday ~ Bells Play at This Service.
Systems 101
“Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” — Isaiah 1:16c-17.
I suspect all of us take note of milestones and celebrate them in some way or form. The events marking the milestones break out into two distinct groups: public events and private events.
Corporate, public milestones get celebrated in a universal way, observed by a whole community with public ceremonies. There may be very private aspects to these public observances but they are, none-the-less, communal.
There are other milestones we mark which can only be described as private and personal. These are most often observed only by an individual or by family members or by close friends.
Now, both of these kinds of milestones, the public and private, each also break into two categories. There are events we associate with joy and events we associate with sadness.
Among those private events we observe with joy are birthdays and wedding anniversaries. The private observances we mark with reserve and a sense of solemnity might include marking the anniversary date on which a close friend or a relative died.
And, as I’ve already indicated, the same is true on the public side of the spectrum. We joyfully mark some celebrations— national dates of note like the Fourth of July. We observe others with a sense of solemnity and sometimes sadness.
Indeed, in our history, in the history of this country, there have been many points of public distress. These range from the Battle of Bunker Hill to the burning of Washington in 1814 to the Battle of Gettysburg to the assassination of Lincoln to sinking of the Battleship Maine to the attack on Pearl Harbor to the assassination of John Kennedy to explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger to the tragedy of 9/11.
Needless to say, the further into the past we go, the less likely an event is to stir our emotions. The more recent the event, the more fixed it is in current memory, the more personal it becomes. Therefore, even though these events, especially the recent ones, are observed in a public way, the personal pain of these memories, the pain these memories bring is real.
Additionally, the most private person among us at some point participates in public moments, public markings both joyful and sad. And the most public person among us experiences private moments and private markings, joyful and sad. That there is a tension between public and private cannot be denied. (Slight pause.)
Tomorrow— Monday, November the Fourth, I will observe a hard personal anniversary. It is the thirtieth anniversary of my Mother’s death. As I have said here before, she died very young as those things go.
Further, she died of a form of cancer— cancer of the bladder— which, even thirty years ago, only took about ten percent of those who dealt with it. She was simply in the wrong group, not the ninety percent of the population who survive. She was among the ten percent who do not make it.
There is no denying this: the fact that she died young and the fact that the disease takes such a small segment of those who suffer from it does not feel fair. I’ve already outlived her time embodied in frail flesh by a number of years.
Not a day goes by when I fail to feel some personal pain about this. It leaves me asking the question ‘is there, was there any justice in that?’ (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” (Pause.)
So, what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice? What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice— personal justice or public justice— real, attainable? And what is the tension among these? (Pause.)
I’ll come back to those questions in a bit. (Slight pause.) I just want to take a little journey down the road, somewhere else. I give titles to all my sermons. Some pastors do; some do not. I called this sermon Systems 101. Why?
If you went to a typical undergraduate class in systems this is the first rule you would learn: there is no such thing as a perfect system. It does not exist.
Equally, if you did a Master’s Degree in theology or any of the associated areas, it’s likely a required course would be Systematic Theology. And, obviously, there is only one problem with giving a course the title of Systematic Theology. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Please note: I did not say ‘there is no such thing as a system.’ Systems exist, they are necessary, useful, helpful and they serve us quite well, thank you.
The job of anarchy and the job of an anarchist is to abolish and/or obstruct systems. The last time I looked neither anarchy nor anarchists— they don’t serve anyone except those who enjoy wallowing in chaos— no, thank you— not my cup of tea— anarchism.
Again and to reiterate, I did not say systems are bad things nor did I say systems fail to exist. What I said is there is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system ever invented has a flaw.
That brings me back to what I believe is the key issue this passage presents: that there is a tension between our private needs and our public needs. There is a tension between our private joy and our public joy. There is a tension between our private pain and our public pain.
We do have private needs. We do have private joy. We do have private pain. We do have public needs. We do have public joy. We do have public pain. And it seems to me all these— needs and joy and pain— are all inexorably intertwined.
So, if a perfect system cannot be constructed— and I do not think a perfect system can be constructed because of the joy and the needs and the pain tugging at one another— if a perfect system cannot be constructed what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice?
What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice real or attainable? Is justice personal, private? Is justice public, communal? (Slight pause.) Hard questions, these. (Slight pause.)
I think we make a basic mistake in our perception of justice. We perceive justice as an end. We understand justice as a result.
That’s where the words from this passage are instructive. For me the passage has a clear outline of what justice is about. Justice takes action. Justice moves. Justice is, therefore, for all people. Justice is a process, not an end. (Quote:) “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed....” (Slight pause.)
Which brings me back to my mother. When I was maybe six or seven, I saw a mugging take place outside the front window of the house. I was the only one there watching.
I ran and got my Mom. She rushed into the street. She was all of five foot two. But she shouted so loudly the attacker ran off. She brought the victim, a woman who was probably in her seventies, back into the house and called the police. (Slight pause.)
Action, you see, shifts our focus. Action takes the focus off us and places it on anyone who is denied justice. And action helps us realize that if any one person is denied justice, then we are all denied justice.
To be clear: action does not remove pain. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of pain. Action does not eliminate need. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of need.
To sum this up in the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have not lost faith. I am not in despair, because I know there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I would add that arc invites us toward action. Amen.
11/03/2013
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: “What is justice for all? These are the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (quote): ‘The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.’”
BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life. Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect. Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace which surpasses understanding, to live faithfully. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Systems 101
“Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” — Isaiah 1:16c-17.
I suspect all of us take note of milestones and celebrate them in some way or form. The events marking the milestones break out into two distinct groups: public events and private events.
Corporate, public milestones get celebrated in a universal way, observed by a whole community with public ceremonies. There may be very private aspects to these public observances but they are, none-the-less, communal.
There are other milestones we mark which can only be described as private and personal. These are most often observed only by an individual or by family members or by close friends.
Now, both of these kinds of milestones, the public and private, each also break into two categories. There are events we associate with joy and events we associate with sadness.
Among those private events we observe with joy are birthdays and wedding anniversaries. The private observances we mark with reserve and a sense of solemnity might include marking the anniversary date on which a close friend or a relative died.
And, as I’ve already indicated, the same is true on the public side of the spectrum. We joyfully mark some celebrations— national dates of note like the Fourth of July. We observe others with a sense of solemnity and sometimes sadness.
Indeed, in our history, in the history of this country, there have been many points of public distress. These range from the Battle of Bunker Hill to the burning of Washington in 1814 to the Battle of Gettysburg to the assassination of Lincoln to sinking of the Battleship Maine to the attack on Pearl Harbor to the assassination of John Kennedy to explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger to the tragedy of 9/11.
Needless to say, the further into the past we go, the less likely an event is to stir our emotions. The more recent the event, the more fixed it is in current memory, the more personal it becomes. Therefore, even though these events, especially the recent ones, are observed in a public way, the personal pain of these memories, the pain these memories bring is real.
Additionally, the most private person among us at some point participates in public moments, public markings both joyful and sad. And the most public person among us experiences private moments and private markings, joyful and sad. That there is a tension between public and private cannot be denied. (Slight pause.)
Tomorrow— Monday, November the Fourth, I will observe a hard personal anniversary. It is the thirtieth anniversary of my Mother’s death. As I have said here before, she died very young as those things go.
Further, she died of a form of cancer— cancer of the bladder— which, even thirty years ago, only took about ten percent of those who dealt with it. She was simply in the wrong group, not the ninety percent of the population who survive. She was among the ten percent who do not make it.
There is no denying this: the fact that she died young and the fact that the disease takes such a small segment of those who suffer from it does not feel fair. I’ve already outlived her time embodied in frail flesh by a number of years.
Not a day goes by when I fail to feel some personal pain about this. It leaves me asking the question ‘is there, was there any justice in that?’ (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed; / defend and protect those who are orphaned; / plead the case of those who are widowed.” (Pause.)
So, what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice? What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice— personal justice or public justice— real, attainable? And what is the tension among these? (Pause.)
I’ll come back to those questions in a bit. (Slight pause.) I just want to take a little journey down the road, somewhere else. I give titles to all my sermons. Some pastors do; some do not. I called this sermon Systems 101. Why?
If you went to a typical undergraduate class in systems this is the first rule you would learn: there is no such thing as a perfect system. It does not exist.
Equally, if you did a Master’s Degree in theology or any of the associated areas, it’s likely a required course would be Systematic Theology. And, obviously, there is only one problem with giving a course the title of Systematic Theology. There is no such thing as a perfect system.
Please note: I did not say ‘there is no such thing as a system.’ Systems exist, they are necessary, useful, helpful and they serve us quite well, thank you.
The job of anarchy and the job of an anarchist is to abolish and/or obstruct systems. The last time I looked neither anarchy nor anarchists— they don’t serve anyone except those who enjoy wallowing in chaos— no, thank you— not my cup of tea— anarchism.
Again and to reiterate, I did not say systems are bad things nor did I say systems fail to exist. What I said is there is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system ever invented has a flaw.
That brings me back to what I believe is the key issue this passage presents: that there is a tension between our private needs and our public needs. There is a tension between our private joy and our public joy. There is a tension between our private pain and our public pain.
We do have private needs. We do have private joy. We do have private pain. We do have public needs. We do have public joy. We do have public pain. And it seems to me all these— needs and joy and pain— are all inexorably intertwined.
So, if a perfect system cannot be constructed— and I do not think a perfect system can be constructed because of the joy and the needs and the pain tugging at one another— if a perfect system cannot be constructed what is justice? What does it mean to do justice? What does it mean to see justice?
What does it mean to experience justice? And is any kind of justice real or attainable? Is justice personal, private? Is justice public, communal? (Slight pause.) Hard questions, these. (Slight pause.)
I think we make a basic mistake in our perception of justice. We perceive justice as an end. We understand justice as a result.
That’s where the words from this passage are instructive. For me the passage has a clear outline of what justice is about. Justice takes action. Justice moves. Justice is, therefore, for all people. Justice is a process, not an end. (Quote:) “Cease to do evil, / learn to do good; / search for and seek justice, / rescue, help the oppressed....” (Slight pause.)
Which brings me back to my mother. When I was maybe six or seven, I saw a mugging take place outside the front window of the house. I was the only one there watching.
I ran and got my Mom. She rushed into the street. She was all of five foot two. But she shouted so loudly the attacker ran off. She brought the victim, a woman who was probably in her seventies, back into the house and called the police. (Slight pause.)
Action, you see, shifts our focus. Action takes the focus off us and places it on anyone who is denied justice. And action helps us realize that if any one person is denied justice, then we are all denied justice.
To be clear: action does not remove pain. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of pain. Action does not eliminate need. Action, if anything, makes us more aware of need.
To sum this up in the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “I have not lost faith. I am not in despair, because I know there is a moral order. I haven’t lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I would add that arc invites us toward action. Amen.
11/03/2013
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: “What is justice for all? These are the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (quote): ‘The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.’”
BENEDICTION: O God, you have bound us together in a common life. Help us, in the midst of our striving for justice and truth, to confront one another in love, and to work together with mutual patience, acceptance and respect. Send us out, sure in Your grace and Your peace which surpasses understanding, to live faithfully. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
SERMON ~ 10/27/2013 ~ “A Spirit of Humility”
10/27/2013 ~ Proper 25 ~ Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ Joel 2:23-32; Psalm 65; Sirach 35:12-17 or Jeremiah 14:7-10, 19-22; Psalm 84:1-7; 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18; Luke 18:9-14 ~ Annual Budget Information Meeting.
A Spirit of Humility
“But the other individual, the tax collector, stood far off, kept at a distance and would not even look to heaven. With real humility, all the tax collector said was: ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’” — Luke 18:13.
I have mentioned this here before: my Father was a teacher at a Parochial High School in New York City. It was Regis High School, named for Saint John Francis Regis, a Jesuit of the 17th Century, and the school is run by the Jesuits.
Because my Father taught at a Jesuit school, I sometimes say ‘when I was growing up Jesuits were my friends.’ Yes, they were my Father’s friends, but I became friendly with them too. And because of that, I do know a lot about them.
Here’s one item about Jesuits many people may not know: members of the order probably have as much education as any other group on the face of the planet. After acquiring a Bachelor’s degree, a Jesuit normally gets anywhere from 8 to 14 additional years of schooling and/or training before ordination.
That’s the equivalent of at least one PhD and some Jesuits have the equivalent of two before ordination. And when I say the equivalent, most of them actually have the class work and the sheepskin in hand to back it up. It doesn’t just say “S.J.” after the name. It says “PhD.” The point being, it is not just additional training within the order. They go through fully accredited academic work. [1]
Now, as you may be aware, the current and newly elected Pope is a Jesuit. And, as you may also be aware, it appears the Leader of the Roman Church has been shaking things up as of late. And who better than a cleric with that kind of extensive background and education to shake up things?
The Pontiff has already offended some and encouraged others by saying atheists can get through the pearly gates. When asked about people who are gay, Francis said, “Who am I to judge?”
Well, the Bishop of Rome was at it again last week. Francis warned against behaving as though (quote:) “the key to the Dominion of God is in their pocket and the door closed.”
Perhaps a pivotal question concerning what the Pope said is, “How did he get there? How did he come to a place where, in a sermon, he said (quote:) “...a Christian who becomes a disciple of ideology has lost the faith.” Quite a quote. (Slight pause.)
Well, let’s review what he said in context. He started the homily in which this was stated by reiterating a basic concept: without prayer, one abandons faith. By definition one, then, shifts into ideology. And ideological stands produce judgments which are, at best, moralistic but have little to do with faith and are merely judgments.
The fact of the matter is, Francis really tore into any and all ideologues in this sermon. What the Pope said was extensive, so what I am about to offer is a paraphrase. But it is certainly reflective of what was said. (Slight pause.)
In ideologies you do not find Jesus: the tenderness of Jesus, the love of Jesus, the meekness of Jesus, the strength of Jesus. Ideologies are rigid.
Ideologies do not beckon people. Ideologies do not address love. When a Christian becomes a disciple of ideology, that Christian is no longer a disciple of Jesus but is a disciple of attitude, not a disciple of Jesus but a disciple of a strain of thought. [2] Some powerful thoughts from the Pontiff. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Luke: “But the other individual, the tax collector, stood far off, kept at a distance and would not even look to heaven. With real humility, all the tax collector said was: ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’” (Slight pause.)
In our church tradition, in our denomination, when a pastor retires or leaves to go to another church, historically and traditionally, that church forms a Search Committee and thereby looks for another settled pastor. In the course of the process the church also fills out a profile, a document which runs between twenty and thirty pages and describes the attributes of the church.
In that profile everything about the church gets listed— everything from finances to demographics to a description of the community in which the church located. The profile then gets sent to pastors who are looking for a church.
The denomination and the Conference, in one sense, act like match makers and try to match churches and pastors. After all, a church does not just want a body in the pulpit. A church wants someone who might fit in, someone who can be a pastor at that particular time and place in the history of a community of faith.
One of the questions in that profile that a church fills out reads this way. “Choose the statement that most accurately describes the theological/faith stance of your church. You may check more than one.”
“We tend to be theologically conservative. We tend to be theologically moderate to conservative. We tend to be theologically moderate. We tend to be theologically moderate to liberal. We tend to be theologically liberal. We tend to be quite diverse in theology. Other.” The question also allows for additional comments.
I don’t mean to criticize the denomination, but that is the craziest question ever asked of any church. Good theology, sound theology has no ideological basis and no ideological bias. Sound theology cannot be defined as liberal or conservative or any variation in between.
The members of a church may be somewhere between sociologically conservative and/or sociologically liberal in their secular stands. And those secular stands may, in fact, drift over into many aspects of church life.
But, by definition, if a church claims to be theologically conservative or theologically liberal (and many do), it is not a church. It is a mutual benefit society of some kind. But it is not a church. (Slight pause.)
Clearly both the Publican and the Pharisee are engaged in prayer. And prayer is the place the Pope started when those remarks were made about ideologies. And prayer is clearly not a place for ideologies. And, if anything, the prayers we hear from these two characters— these prayers— are a contrast between a non-ideological stand and an ideological stand.
Further, this parable of the Publican and the Pharisee is not a lesson in how to pray. Nor is it a lesson about things for which we might pray.
It is, perhaps, a lesson in what our relationship to God is. It is, perhaps, a lesson about who we are and who God is. It is, perhaps, a lesson about our humanity. It is, perhaps, a lesson about an attitude of humility.
But what is humility? And is the promise of God really to pour out the Spirit? And if the promise of God is to pour out the Spirit, what does it mean to be humble in the context of the presence, the reality of the Spirit?
Could it possibly mean that being self-centered is inappropriate? If being self-centered is inappropriate, what does that mean in terms of community— the whole community? And why is humility necessary? (Slight pause.)
Jesus tells us, the Bible tells us to care for the poor and the outsider. Why? It is because we all need to stand in that position, stand in the shoes of the other, the outcast in society, for our own conversion to make sense to us. Perhaps we, each of us needs to stand in the mercy of God, the forgiveness of God, the grace of God.
And this needs to happen so we can start to strive to understand the very nature of reality of God. When we are too smug or too content, then it’s unlikely grace and mercy have no meaning. When we are too smug or too content then it’s unlikely the reality of God will have real meaning. [3] (Slight pause.)
So, how does that tie into ideology? (Slight pause.) Ideology is an offspring of tribalism— nothing more, nothing less. Ideology says one group of people is, by definition, outcast and unworthy.
Ideology, as it relates to faith, says one lacks the humility to stand before God. Ideology, as it relates to faith, says one lacks the humility to admit to imperfection. (Slight pause.)
I have said this here before. I will probably say it again. We are all part of one tribe: God’s tribe. Why would the Pope say, “...a Christian who becomes a disciple of ideology has lost the faith”? Because when it comes to faith, ideology has no place. By definition, ideology breaks us out into tribes. And we need to be humble enough to understand that.
I also need to note that when we humbly pray or even when we pray humbly something interesting can happen. Our self-created boundaries fall away from us. Suddenly it feels like we have nothing left to support us and it feels like we are free falling, falling in mid-air as if in a dream.
But, if truth be told, we are not in a free fall at all. You see, if we are truly humble, then we fall into the arms of God— God who is our solid basis of security.
Indeed, if I am to believe the Bible, there is one thing which sums up God’s very surprising agenda. God loves each of us and all of us so much that we are not members of any ideological group. Rather, we are all members of God’s tribe. [4] Amen.
10/27/2013
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: “From the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures, this is a theological given: the Hebrews did not ‘have’ a theology. The Hebrews ‘did’ theology. The same is actually true in the Christian Scriptures. Indeed, a quote attributed to Saint Francis Assisi says this: ‘Preach the Gospel. Use words only if you have to.’ There is no ideology in that. Just faith combined with action.”
BENEDICTION: God stands by us to grant us support and strength. All who trust in God are strengthened and blessed. So, let us go on our way, proclaiming the Good News: when we question and when we are open, when we struggle to know God’s will and walk in God’s way, God will be our refuge. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_formation
[2] http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-prayer-keeps-us-from-losing-faith
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--A-Central-Point-.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=nRFAROd8ri8
[4] Ibid.
A Spirit of Humility
“But the other individual, the tax collector, stood far off, kept at a distance and would not even look to heaven. With real humility, all the tax collector said was: ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’” — Luke 18:13.
I have mentioned this here before: my Father was a teacher at a Parochial High School in New York City. It was Regis High School, named for Saint John Francis Regis, a Jesuit of the 17th Century, and the school is run by the Jesuits.
Because my Father taught at a Jesuit school, I sometimes say ‘when I was growing up Jesuits were my friends.’ Yes, they were my Father’s friends, but I became friendly with them too. And because of that, I do know a lot about them.
Here’s one item about Jesuits many people may not know: members of the order probably have as much education as any other group on the face of the planet. After acquiring a Bachelor’s degree, a Jesuit normally gets anywhere from 8 to 14 additional years of schooling and/or training before ordination.
That’s the equivalent of at least one PhD and some Jesuits have the equivalent of two before ordination. And when I say the equivalent, most of them actually have the class work and the sheepskin in hand to back it up. It doesn’t just say “S.J.” after the name. It says “PhD.” The point being, it is not just additional training within the order. They go through fully accredited academic work. [1]
Now, as you may be aware, the current and newly elected Pope is a Jesuit. And, as you may also be aware, it appears the Leader of the Roman Church has been shaking things up as of late. And who better than a cleric with that kind of extensive background and education to shake up things?
The Pontiff has already offended some and encouraged others by saying atheists can get through the pearly gates. When asked about people who are gay, Francis said, “Who am I to judge?”
Well, the Bishop of Rome was at it again last week. Francis warned against behaving as though (quote:) “the key to the Dominion of God is in their pocket and the door closed.”
Perhaps a pivotal question concerning what the Pope said is, “How did he get there? How did he come to a place where, in a sermon, he said (quote:) “...a Christian who becomes a disciple of ideology has lost the faith.” Quite a quote. (Slight pause.)
Well, let’s review what he said in context. He started the homily in which this was stated by reiterating a basic concept: without prayer, one abandons faith. By definition one, then, shifts into ideology. And ideological stands produce judgments which are, at best, moralistic but have little to do with faith and are merely judgments.
The fact of the matter is, Francis really tore into any and all ideologues in this sermon. What the Pope said was extensive, so what I am about to offer is a paraphrase. But it is certainly reflective of what was said. (Slight pause.)
In ideologies you do not find Jesus: the tenderness of Jesus, the love of Jesus, the meekness of Jesus, the strength of Jesus. Ideologies are rigid.
Ideologies do not beckon people. Ideologies do not address love. When a Christian becomes a disciple of ideology, that Christian is no longer a disciple of Jesus but is a disciple of attitude, not a disciple of Jesus but a disciple of a strain of thought. [2] Some powerful thoughts from the Pontiff. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Luke: “But the other individual, the tax collector, stood far off, kept at a distance and would not even look to heaven. With real humility, all the tax collector said was: ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’” (Slight pause.)
In our church tradition, in our denomination, when a pastor retires or leaves to go to another church, historically and traditionally, that church forms a Search Committee and thereby looks for another settled pastor. In the course of the process the church also fills out a profile, a document which runs between twenty and thirty pages and describes the attributes of the church.
In that profile everything about the church gets listed— everything from finances to demographics to a description of the community in which the church located. The profile then gets sent to pastors who are looking for a church.
The denomination and the Conference, in one sense, act like match makers and try to match churches and pastors. After all, a church does not just want a body in the pulpit. A church wants someone who might fit in, someone who can be a pastor at that particular time and place in the history of a community of faith.
One of the questions in that profile that a church fills out reads this way. “Choose the statement that most accurately describes the theological/faith stance of your church. You may check more than one.”
“We tend to be theologically conservative. We tend to be theologically moderate to conservative. We tend to be theologically moderate. We tend to be theologically moderate to liberal. We tend to be theologically liberal. We tend to be quite diverse in theology. Other.” The question also allows for additional comments.
I don’t mean to criticize the denomination, but that is the craziest question ever asked of any church. Good theology, sound theology has no ideological basis and no ideological bias. Sound theology cannot be defined as liberal or conservative or any variation in between.
The members of a church may be somewhere between sociologically conservative and/or sociologically liberal in their secular stands. And those secular stands may, in fact, drift over into many aspects of church life.
But, by definition, if a church claims to be theologically conservative or theologically liberal (and many do), it is not a church. It is a mutual benefit society of some kind. But it is not a church. (Slight pause.)
Clearly both the Publican and the Pharisee are engaged in prayer. And prayer is the place the Pope started when those remarks were made about ideologies. And prayer is clearly not a place for ideologies. And, if anything, the prayers we hear from these two characters— these prayers— are a contrast between a non-ideological stand and an ideological stand.
Further, this parable of the Publican and the Pharisee is not a lesson in how to pray. Nor is it a lesson about things for which we might pray.
It is, perhaps, a lesson in what our relationship to God is. It is, perhaps, a lesson about who we are and who God is. It is, perhaps, a lesson about our humanity. It is, perhaps, a lesson about an attitude of humility.
But what is humility? And is the promise of God really to pour out the Spirit? And if the promise of God is to pour out the Spirit, what does it mean to be humble in the context of the presence, the reality of the Spirit?
Could it possibly mean that being self-centered is inappropriate? If being self-centered is inappropriate, what does that mean in terms of community— the whole community? And why is humility necessary? (Slight pause.)
Jesus tells us, the Bible tells us to care for the poor and the outsider. Why? It is because we all need to stand in that position, stand in the shoes of the other, the outcast in society, for our own conversion to make sense to us. Perhaps we, each of us needs to stand in the mercy of God, the forgiveness of God, the grace of God.
And this needs to happen so we can start to strive to understand the very nature of reality of God. When we are too smug or too content, then it’s unlikely grace and mercy have no meaning. When we are too smug or too content then it’s unlikely the reality of God will have real meaning. [3] (Slight pause.)
So, how does that tie into ideology? (Slight pause.) Ideology is an offspring of tribalism— nothing more, nothing less. Ideology says one group of people is, by definition, outcast and unworthy.
Ideology, as it relates to faith, says one lacks the humility to stand before God. Ideology, as it relates to faith, says one lacks the humility to admit to imperfection. (Slight pause.)
I have said this here before. I will probably say it again. We are all part of one tribe: God’s tribe. Why would the Pope say, “...a Christian who becomes a disciple of ideology has lost the faith”? Because when it comes to faith, ideology has no place. By definition, ideology breaks us out into tribes. And we need to be humble enough to understand that.
I also need to note that when we humbly pray or even when we pray humbly something interesting can happen. Our self-created boundaries fall away from us. Suddenly it feels like we have nothing left to support us and it feels like we are free falling, falling in mid-air as if in a dream.
But, if truth be told, we are not in a free fall at all. You see, if we are truly humble, then we fall into the arms of God— God who is our solid basis of security.
Indeed, if I am to believe the Bible, there is one thing which sums up God’s very surprising agenda. God loves each of us and all of us so much that we are not members of any ideological group. Rather, we are all members of God’s tribe. [4] Amen.
10/27/2013
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: “From the perspective of the Hebrew Scriptures, this is a theological given: the Hebrews did not ‘have’ a theology. The Hebrews ‘did’ theology. The same is actually true in the Christian Scriptures. Indeed, a quote attributed to Saint Francis Assisi says this: ‘Preach the Gospel. Use words only if you have to.’ There is no ideology in that. Just faith combined with action.”
BENEDICTION: God stands by us to grant us support and strength. All who trust in God are strengthened and blessed. So, let us go on our way, proclaiming the Good News: when we question and when we are open, when we struggle to know God’s will and walk in God’s way, God will be our refuge. And may the face of God shine upon us; may the peace of Christ rule among us; may the fire of the Spirit burn within us this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_formation
[2] http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-prayer-keeps-us-from-losing-faith
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--A-Central-Point-.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=nRFAROd8ri8
[4] Ibid.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
SERMON ~ 10/20/2013 ~ “A God of Justice”
10/20/2013 ~ Proper 24 ~ Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost; Jeremiah 31:27-34; Psalm 119:97-104; Genesis 32:22-31; Psalm 121; 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5; Luke 18:1-8.
A God of Justice
“Will not God, then, grant justice to the chosen who call out day and night? Will God delay long in helping them? I tell you, God will quickly grant justice to them.” — Luke 18:7-8.
Among the things my wife, Bonnie, and I have in common, is we are avid readers of newspapers. What has changed over time is Bonnie still favors the newsprint and ink versions. I favor their online siblings.
I suppose one other difference is I come away with less ink on my hands. But since my hands have to navigate and manipulate keyboard and mouse, I come away with more aches and pains in those digits.
Of course, it should not be a surprise Bonnies favors the paper and ink versions of the dailies. She was an award winning newspaper photographer, winning New England Press Association awards for her work.
Now, it may sound strange to you but one of the projects any pastor takes on in an examination of the news is not simply one by which we strive to be current— although I probably do know most of the pop culture names out there. Pastors strive to search out theology in what these outlets present. Why? To paraphrase the great 20th Century theologian Karl Barth, being a pastor demands having a newspaper in one hand and a Bible in the other.
But what theology is there in the news? Plenty— and you run into theology in places you don’t initially expect. And, indeed, I ran into some theology this week in an unexpected place as I scoured the web.
Theology was embedded in a piece about real estate— real estate— in the New York Times. To be clear, it was not obvious the story had anything to do with theology.
The article was about developers who are going to build two luxury apartment towers in Manhattan, in a section of the City sometimes referred to as Billionaires’ Row. Clearly this article was about neither Pope nor Pastor. So, on the surface it did not seem to have any evident theological bent. But it did.
The residential towers to be built will both be over 900 feet tall— better than 65 stories— and located on West 57th Street. The height of these structures is the attraction for high rollers— the crowd with enough money to afford living in these apartments— since, even though West 57th Street is 2 blocks South of Central Park, their height will provide views of the Park for those ensconced on the upper floors.
One real estate consultant was quoted as saying “There’s a premium for views. The higher you go, the higher the price you can get.”
How much will these apartments cost? The article did not say. But an apartment in a similar structure still under construction has already sold (are you sitting down?) for 95 million dollars. (Bonnie reads my sermons ahead of time and she thought that was a typo— nope— New York Times— 95 million dollars.
All this is not new. A century ago, locations near the 840 acre Central Park inspired another boom in ultra-luxury housing: Millionaires’ Row. The Astor, Vanderbilt, Frick, Whitney and Carnegie families all built mansions near the Park. Andrew Carnegie constructed 64-room home across from the Park at 91st Street. I think it was 1905.
Referring to the new wave of building, Thomas Bender— a cultural historian at NYU— said the towers represented a flouting of the social distribution of wealth— a flouting of the social distribution of wealth. (Quote:) “These are the kinds of buildings the robber barons of the 19th Century built, and it’s also what you see in rapidly developing societies where billionaires seek to distinguish themselves in the midst of poverty.” [1] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section called Luke: “Will not God, then, grant justice to the chosen who call out day and night? Will God delay long in helping them? I tell you, God will quickly grant justice to them.” (Slight pause.)
I need to ask this question: ‘What is prayer?’ Notice, I did not ask ‘what is the result of prayer’ or ‘what is the efficacy, the effectiveness of prayer.’ Rather, I asked ‘what is prayer?’ (Slight pause.)
In Bible study Wednesday evening we listed a number of words to describe prayer. Among them were: ‘praise,’ ‘adoration,’ ‘contemplation,’ ‘communion’ and ‘meditation.’ We did list ‘supplication,’ ‘petition.’ But we also noted prayer is not a transaction. God is not Santa Claus— as in ‘Dear God, please give me...’
And in this reading Jesus is not speaking about prayer as a transaction. Rather, Jesus describes how we should pray: constantly.
There is nothing transactional about constant prayer. And in that we are meant to pray constantly, prayer can be described with two other words we listed Wednesday: ‘covenant’ and ‘communication.’ Again, when it comes to prayer, this passage is not about the result of prayer. It is about how to pray: pray constantly.
On the other hand, when it comes to something we might perceive as a result, what does Jesus say? ‘God will grant justice.’ This, then, poses what I think the key and central questions raised by this passage are: ‘What is the justice of God?’ and ‘How is that attained?’ (Slight pause.)
It goes without saying that the kind of justice God might seek brings us back to the luxury housing near Central Park. First, as must be obvious, the era matters not. We can see two eras of upscale structures which illustrate excess within blocks of each other. As the social historian I quoted earlier said, these are places (quote:) “where billionaires seek to distinguish themselves in the midst of poverty.”
But I want to suggest the excess, of itself, is not the problem. You see, a great 20th and 21st Century theologian— one Bonnie Scott Connolly, she of photography fame— once explained this to me.
She posited that we humans are hunters. It’s what we do. The more we catch, the better we like it— case closed. Hence, the hunt, and its results— the hunt taking many forms including shopping for Christmas presents— the hunt and its results seems to be simply very human of us.
Millionaire’s Row and Billionaire’s Row may define winners and losers. Millionaire’s Row and Billionaire’s Row may define what having more is about. But Millionaire’s Row and Billionaire’s Row says nothing about justice.
Another way to put this is to say we humans, we hunters, are always seeking more. We set up more— more of anything— as our goal. But what if our goal was something else, something other than more? What if our goal was not more but better?
Better— better not just for some; better for all, for everyone. (Slight pause.) You can name any area of life you care to mention from the economy to housing to transportation to health care and we all seem to want more instead of better.
You see, what the justice of God is about is not more. Neither is the justice of God about the gains of an individual or the gains of a group. The justice of God is about better. Better not just for me, better not just for my group, but for everyone.
I also need to say the justice of God is about excellence. Some think excellence is about more. But unless each person, all people, are entitled to participate in an excellence which is more, then more is not true excellence. More is simply more.
In fact, have you noticed there is a commercial for a phone company running currently where an adult is interviewing kindergarten kids and the adult asks them if more is better. They all say ‘yes’ more is better.
No one questions it. Not even we adults who are watching the commercial question that approach.
But in real life, in a real life kindergarten situation, the end of that discussion would always be very simple for the teacher. The kindergarten teacher asks the kids: “Did you bring enough to share? No? Well, then we’ll put that away.” More is not better in a real kindergarten class unless it’s shared. Why would it be better anywhere else? And we don’t question it. We sit there going “Oh, yeah! More is better! Not!”
All of which is to say, when we pray we need to do what Jesus says we need to do: pray constantly, without ceasing. And we need to pray without expecting a result. If we expect a result, it becomes a transaction.
If we, as individuals, do pray expecting a result, we, as individuals, need to focus not on what we, as individuals, need or what we want. We need to focus on participating with the Spirit of God.
And, therefore, we need to focus on better— not better for some; better for all. And yes, even children in kindergarten realize sharing is important. Amen.
10/20/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I have two worthy quotes to share with you. The first is Socrates (quote): ‘He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the true wealth.’ The second is Pope Francis: (quote:) ‘If the investments in the banks fall slightly...it is a tragedy... what can be done? But if people die of hunger, if they have nothing to eat, if they have poor health, it does not matter? This is our crisis today!’ Which do you want— more or better?”
BENEDICTION: God has made us partners in covenant. Let us truly be God’s people. Let us be guided by prayer, by study, by love, by justice. Let us continually praise the God of the universe who loves us. May our trust grow as we are empowered to do God’s work in this, God’s dominion. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one and nothing else. Amen.
[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/nyregion/developers-end-fight-blocking-2-more-luxury-towers-in-midtown.html?hp
A God of Justice
“Will not God, then, grant justice to the chosen who call out day and night? Will God delay long in helping them? I tell you, God will quickly grant justice to them.” — Luke 18:7-8.
Among the things my wife, Bonnie, and I have in common, is we are avid readers of newspapers. What has changed over time is Bonnie still favors the newsprint and ink versions. I favor their online siblings.
I suppose one other difference is I come away with less ink on my hands. But since my hands have to navigate and manipulate keyboard and mouse, I come away with more aches and pains in those digits.
Of course, it should not be a surprise Bonnies favors the paper and ink versions of the dailies. She was an award winning newspaper photographer, winning New England Press Association awards for her work.
Now, it may sound strange to you but one of the projects any pastor takes on in an examination of the news is not simply one by which we strive to be current— although I probably do know most of the pop culture names out there. Pastors strive to search out theology in what these outlets present. Why? To paraphrase the great 20th Century theologian Karl Barth, being a pastor demands having a newspaper in one hand and a Bible in the other.
But what theology is there in the news? Plenty— and you run into theology in places you don’t initially expect. And, indeed, I ran into some theology this week in an unexpected place as I scoured the web.
Theology was embedded in a piece about real estate— real estate— in the New York Times. To be clear, it was not obvious the story had anything to do with theology.
The article was about developers who are going to build two luxury apartment towers in Manhattan, in a section of the City sometimes referred to as Billionaires’ Row. Clearly this article was about neither Pope nor Pastor. So, on the surface it did not seem to have any evident theological bent. But it did.
The residential towers to be built will both be over 900 feet tall— better than 65 stories— and located on West 57th Street. The height of these structures is the attraction for high rollers— the crowd with enough money to afford living in these apartments— since, even though West 57th Street is 2 blocks South of Central Park, their height will provide views of the Park for those ensconced on the upper floors.
One real estate consultant was quoted as saying “There’s a premium for views. The higher you go, the higher the price you can get.”
How much will these apartments cost? The article did not say. But an apartment in a similar structure still under construction has already sold (are you sitting down?) for 95 million dollars. (Bonnie reads my sermons ahead of time and she thought that was a typo— nope— New York Times— 95 million dollars.
All this is not new. A century ago, locations near the 840 acre Central Park inspired another boom in ultra-luxury housing: Millionaires’ Row. The Astor, Vanderbilt, Frick, Whitney and Carnegie families all built mansions near the Park. Andrew Carnegie constructed 64-room home across from the Park at 91st Street. I think it was 1905.
Referring to the new wave of building, Thomas Bender— a cultural historian at NYU— said the towers represented a flouting of the social distribution of wealth— a flouting of the social distribution of wealth. (Quote:) “These are the kinds of buildings the robber barons of the 19th Century built, and it’s also what you see in rapidly developing societies where billionaires seek to distinguish themselves in the midst of poverty.” [1] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section called Luke: “Will not God, then, grant justice to the chosen who call out day and night? Will God delay long in helping them? I tell you, God will quickly grant justice to them.” (Slight pause.)
I need to ask this question: ‘What is prayer?’ Notice, I did not ask ‘what is the result of prayer’ or ‘what is the efficacy, the effectiveness of prayer.’ Rather, I asked ‘what is prayer?’ (Slight pause.)
In Bible study Wednesday evening we listed a number of words to describe prayer. Among them were: ‘praise,’ ‘adoration,’ ‘contemplation,’ ‘communion’ and ‘meditation.’ We did list ‘supplication,’ ‘petition.’ But we also noted prayer is not a transaction. God is not Santa Claus— as in ‘Dear God, please give me...’
And in this reading Jesus is not speaking about prayer as a transaction. Rather, Jesus describes how we should pray: constantly.
There is nothing transactional about constant prayer. And in that we are meant to pray constantly, prayer can be described with two other words we listed Wednesday: ‘covenant’ and ‘communication.’ Again, when it comes to prayer, this passage is not about the result of prayer. It is about how to pray: pray constantly.
On the other hand, when it comes to something we might perceive as a result, what does Jesus say? ‘God will grant justice.’ This, then, poses what I think the key and central questions raised by this passage are: ‘What is the justice of God?’ and ‘How is that attained?’ (Slight pause.)
It goes without saying that the kind of justice God might seek brings us back to the luxury housing near Central Park. First, as must be obvious, the era matters not. We can see two eras of upscale structures which illustrate excess within blocks of each other. As the social historian I quoted earlier said, these are places (quote:) “where billionaires seek to distinguish themselves in the midst of poverty.”
But I want to suggest the excess, of itself, is not the problem. You see, a great 20th and 21st Century theologian— one Bonnie Scott Connolly, she of photography fame— once explained this to me.
She posited that we humans are hunters. It’s what we do. The more we catch, the better we like it— case closed. Hence, the hunt, and its results— the hunt taking many forms including shopping for Christmas presents— the hunt and its results seems to be simply very human of us.
Millionaire’s Row and Billionaire’s Row may define winners and losers. Millionaire’s Row and Billionaire’s Row may define what having more is about. But Millionaire’s Row and Billionaire’s Row says nothing about justice.
Another way to put this is to say we humans, we hunters, are always seeking more. We set up more— more of anything— as our goal. But what if our goal was something else, something other than more? What if our goal was not more but better?
Better— better not just for some; better for all, for everyone. (Slight pause.) You can name any area of life you care to mention from the economy to housing to transportation to health care and we all seem to want more instead of better.
You see, what the justice of God is about is not more. Neither is the justice of God about the gains of an individual or the gains of a group. The justice of God is about better. Better not just for me, better not just for my group, but for everyone.
I also need to say the justice of God is about excellence. Some think excellence is about more. But unless each person, all people, are entitled to participate in an excellence which is more, then more is not true excellence. More is simply more.
In fact, have you noticed there is a commercial for a phone company running currently where an adult is interviewing kindergarten kids and the adult asks them if more is better. They all say ‘yes’ more is better.
No one questions it. Not even we adults who are watching the commercial question that approach.
But in real life, in a real life kindergarten situation, the end of that discussion would always be very simple for the teacher. The kindergarten teacher asks the kids: “Did you bring enough to share? No? Well, then we’ll put that away.” More is not better in a real kindergarten class unless it’s shared. Why would it be better anywhere else? And we don’t question it. We sit there going “Oh, yeah! More is better! Not!”
All of which is to say, when we pray we need to do what Jesus says we need to do: pray constantly, without ceasing. And we need to pray without expecting a result. If we expect a result, it becomes a transaction.
If we, as individuals, do pray expecting a result, we, as individuals, need to focus not on what we, as individuals, need or what we want. We need to focus on participating with the Spirit of God.
And, therefore, we need to focus on better— not better for some; better for all. And yes, even children in kindergarten realize sharing is important. Amen.
10/20/2013
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE— It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Congregational Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I have two worthy quotes to share with you. The first is Socrates (quote): ‘He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the true wealth.’ The second is Pope Francis: (quote:) ‘If the investments in the banks fall slightly...it is a tragedy... what can be done? But if people die of hunger, if they have nothing to eat, if they have poor health, it does not matter? This is our crisis today!’ Which do you want— more or better?”
BENEDICTION: God has made us partners in covenant. Let us truly be God’s people. Let us be guided by prayer, by study, by love, by justice. Let us continually praise the God of the universe who loves us. May our trust grow as we are empowered to do God’s work in this, God’s dominion. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one and nothing else. Amen.
[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/nyregion/developers-end-fight-blocking-2-more-luxury-towers-in-midtown.html?hp
Sunday, October 6, 2013
SERMON ~ 10/06/2013 ~ “Doing and Believing”
10/06/2013 ~ Proper 22 ~ Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Lamentations 1:1-6; Lamentations 3:19-26 or Psalm 137; Habakkuk 1:1-4; 2:1-4; Psalm 37:1-9; 2 Timothy 1:1-14; Luke 17:5-10 ~ Communion Sunday ~ World Wide Communion Sunday ~ Neighbors in Need.
Doing and Believing
“The apostles said to Jesus, ‘Increase our faith!’” — Luke 17:5
Our denomination, the United Church of Christ, is the result of a merger among four denominations— Congregational Churches, Christian Churches, Evangelical Churches and Reformed Churches. At the Fall Meeting of the Susquehanna Association, last Saturday, we devoted time to sharing information on polity, the church governance, found in those roots.
Bonnie and I attended the meeting. I was invited (chosen?) to speak about Congregationalism. What follows is the essence of what I shared. (Slight pause.)
To start, I let everyone know I grew up Roman Catholic. Hence, I turned to the expert on Congregationalism in the family— Bonnie. While she readily admits she was Baptized in an Episcopal Church, her family lamented and wisely joined a Congregational Church by the time she was three.
From that point forward, she has always been a member of a Congregational Church. Given that history, I asked Bonnie what being a Congregationalist meant to her.
She laid it out simply. We have no Bishops to govern us, so each church is responsible for itself. No one else tells us what we have to believe. And we are in covenant with others in our own church and with other churches so each of us as individuals and each of our churches pledge to listen, to respect and to help each other.
Given Bonnie’s eloquent input, I probably should have just repeated what she said. But I’m a preacher. I repeated it and then I illustrated with story. (Slight pause.)
A classmate of mine at Bangor Theological Seminary wound up there because his pastor, David Ladry, had graduated from Bangor in the early 1960s. That was at the very beginning of the time when the United Church of Christ had come together as a body.
When a student at Bangor, David was asked to be a supply preacher at a small church in Aroostook County— very far north in the State of Maine. Upon arrival David was met by the Chair of the Deacons. Having shown this student the worship space, the Deacon said, “Of course, this is Communion Sunday.”
David, appropriately, demurred. “I’m not licensed by any Committee on Ministry to offer the Sacrament.”
The Deacon, all five foot four of him, got in the face of David who was nearly six feet tall wagging a finger. A thick Maine accent— David had not noticed it before— poured forth. “Are you the person Bangor Seminary sent here to preach today?”
A little put off, David replied, “Well of course I am. Who else would have come here from Bangor at this time of day?”
The Deacon seemed to relax. “Fine. This is Communion Sunday. Case closed.”
The real punch line here is David went on to become the licensed and later the settled, ordained pastor at that church, the first settled and ordained pastor that church ever had. But the point is within our Congregational polity we do have this streak of independence.
However, there is another side to our polity and Bonnie mentioned it. That is our mutual interdependence.
Let me illustrate it this way. Our Susquehanna Association is geographically large. It stretches from Walton to Corning, from Sherburne to Binghamton— about 120 miles West to East, 60 miles north to South. Put another way it’s shaped like a big sausage. And size is only one aspect. It also cuts across a bunch of hills and valleys.
Now, the famous writer Mark Twain spent a lot of time in Elmira. But he also spent a lot of time in Hartford, Connecticut.
To travel from Hartford to Elmira, Twain would get on an evening train in Hartford and go to bed in a sleeper car. The train would switch engines in Albany and head west. Twain would wake up in Elmira ready to face the day.
You see, between about 1870 or 1880 and 1940 transportation— and the Susquehanna Association existed then among Congregational Churches— between about 1870 or 1880 and 1940 transportation and, therefore, communication and, thereby, connectivity, across these hills and valleys was better than it is now— better than it is now. And one of the places where covenant among our churches needs to happen and one of the places we need to encourage it to happen, is in our communication, our connectivity today. Communication and connectivity: that is the life blood of any Association or Conference.
Having said communication and connectivity are vital, that small church in Northern Maine I mentioned earlier in Aroostook County— despite the aforementioned independent streak, it communicates and connects pretty well. It just hosted a Conference-wide meeting. And if you think the Susquehanna Association is hard to get around in, you’ve never been to Maine.
Well, all that addressed polity— government. So I finished with a word about what should empower church government— faith.
These are the words of the Puritan William Ames. This quote addresses not just the local church but the whole church in each of its settings.
Hence, the quote addresses the Covenant our churches have with one another. (Quote:) “...the profession of true faith is the most essential note of the Church.... that same profession doth make a Church visible, which by its inward and real nature doth make the mystical Church...”— [1] faith— visible and mystical. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the Gospel known as Luke: “The apostles said to Jesus, ‘Increase our faith!’” (Slight pause.)
I have found myself using the words of theologian Richard Rohr way too much on Sundays. So, let me apologize as I do so again.
“A common saying is this: ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ ...Scripture clearly says... God helps those who trust in God, not those who help themselves. We need to be told that very strongly because of our ‘do it yourself’ orientation.”
‘Trusting God takes applying the brakes, letting go of our own plans,... experiencing power from a Another Source to really move to different awareness. Otherwise, there is no real transformation, only increased willpower.’
‘The way our culture perceives things it’s as if the one with the most willpower wins! Willfulness is... different than willingness. They... yield very different fruit.’ [2]
‘Subtraction makes one holy, not addition. The stripping of illusions, the letting go of pretense,... breaking open the heart to understanding God and neighbor makes one holy— holy— that means set apart to do the work and the will of God.’
‘We tend to reflect the pride and arrogance of Western civilization.... Our operative religion is success. Success is holy!’
‘That version of Christianity makes the Gospel nothing more than spiritual consumerism. Ego is in charge so there is not much room left for God; one’s own private self-development becomes an end. Christianity, on the other hand, says it’s not just about me; we are all in this together.’ [3] — theologian Richard Rohr.
Personally, I ask this question: is freedom an imperative of the collective or the individual? I maintain if freedom fails to be collective then it ceases to be within the grasp of any one individual— if freedom fails to be collective then it ceases to be within the grasp of any one individual.
And I think that is where and why and how our Congregational polity is in line with the idea of freedom and call of the Gospel to freedom. The Gospel does invite us to accept responsibility for ourselves— independence. But it also invites us to reach out to one another, to support one another— interdependence. (Slight pause.)
Today we both accepted the Neighbors in Need Offering and we celebrated World Wide Communion Sunday. In so doing we recognized that first, we, ourselves, are in need.
In so doing we recognized our neighbor sitting in the pew next to us might be in need. In so doing we recognized our neighbor might be half way around the globe in France, in Afghanistan, in Japan and might be in need.
And in so doing we recognized we are all in this together. In so doing we recognized there is but one human tribe: God’s tribe and we are all members. Indeed, what is the motto found on the emblem of the United Church of Christ? “That they may all be one.”
And the one thing that can hold us together as one is the very thing Jesus said was necessary ingredient: faith. In short, trust God.
You see, the great commandment— love God; love neighbor— has only one linchpin. Trust God. And it is when we place our trust in God that loving God and loving neighbor becomes possible, that loving God and loving neighbor becomes real. Amen.
10/06/2013
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: “Coffee hour today will have an example of our connectivity with other churches. It will feature 2 pies from the Sherburne United Church of Christ pie sale, yesterday. And so we are connected on many ways. And yet again next week we shall have an opportunity to understand our interdependence as the Rev. Marian Shearer, Associate Conference Minister for Clergy and Authorized Ministry Concerns, will be with is to share the Word. And certainly part of that Word is this: we are one human tribe: God’s tribe.”
BENEDICTION: We are called by God to serve faithfully, trusting in God’s grace. May the gifts of God be rekindled within and among us. May our trust grow as we are empowered to do God’s work in this, God’s dominion. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and companionship of God’s Spirit this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] Pp. 74. Visible Saints: The History of the Puritan Idea, by Edmund S. Morgan. Cornell University Press. Ithaca and London. 1963.
[2]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--Willfulness-Versus-Willingness.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=3Rg1bZSVjLk
Note: some of this is edited for the sermon. If I have mangled Rohr’s meaning, the fault lies with me and not with Rohr.
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--The-Gospel-of-Prosperity.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=2ytU6UUC8ZQ
Note: some of this is edited for the sermon. If I have mangled Rohr’s meaning, the fault lies with me and not with Rohr.
Doing and Believing
“The apostles said to Jesus, ‘Increase our faith!’” — Luke 17:5
Our denomination, the United Church of Christ, is the result of a merger among four denominations— Congregational Churches, Christian Churches, Evangelical Churches and Reformed Churches. At the Fall Meeting of the Susquehanna Association, last Saturday, we devoted time to sharing information on polity, the church governance, found in those roots.
Bonnie and I attended the meeting. I was invited (chosen?) to speak about Congregationalism. What follows is the essence of what I shared. (Slight pause.)
To start, I let everyone know I grew up Roman Catholic. Hence, I turned to the expert on Congregationalism in the family— Bonnie. While she readily admits she was Baptized in an Episcopal Church, her family lamented and wisely joined a Congregational Church by the time she was three.
From that point forward, she has always been a member of a Congregational Church. Given that history, I asked Bonnie what being a Congregationalist meant to her.
She laid it out simply. We have no Bishops to govern us, so each church is responsible for itself. No one else tells us what we have to believe. And we are in covenant with others in our own church and with other churches so each of us as individuals and each of our churches pledge to listen, to respect and to help each other.
Given Bonnie’s eloquent input, I probably should have just repeated what she said. But I’m a preacher. I repeated it and then I illustrated with story. (Slight pause.)
A classmate of mine at Bangor Theological Seminary wound up there because his pastor, David Ladry, had graduated from Bangor in the early 1960s. That was at the very beginning of the time when the United Church of Christ had come together as a body.
When a student at Bangor, David was asked to be a supply preacher at a small church in Aroostook County— very far north in the State of Maine. Upon arrival David was met by the Chair of the Deacons. Having shown this student the worship space, the Deacon said, “Of course, this is Communion Sunday.”
David, appropriately, demurred. “I’m not licensed by any Committee on Ministry to offer the Sacrament.”
The Deacon, all five foot four of him, got in the face of David who was nearly six feet tall wagging a finger. A thick Maine accent— David had not noticed it before— poured forth. “Are you the person Bangor Seminary sent here to preach today?”
A little put off, David replied, “Well of course I am. Who else would have come here from Bangor at this time of day?”
The Deacon seemed to relax. “Fine. This is Communion Sunday. Case closed.”
The real punch line here is David went on to become the licensed and later the settled, ordained pastor at that church, the first settled and ordained pastor that church ever had. But the point is within our Congregational polity we do have this streak of independence.
However, there is another side to our polity and Bonnie mentioned it. That is our mutual interdependence.
Let me illustrate it this way. Our Susquehanna Association is geographically large. It stretches from Walton to Corning, from Sherburne to Binghamton— about 120 miles West to East, 60 miles north to South. Put another way it’s shaped like a big sausage. And size is only one aspect. It also cuts across a bunch of hills and valleys.
Now, the famous writer Mark Twain spent a lot of time in Elmira. But he also spent a lot of time in Hartford, Connecticut.
To travel from Hartford to Elmira, Twain would get on an evening train in Hartford and go to bed in a sleeper car. The train would switch engines in Albany and head west. Twain would wake up in Elmira ready to face the day.
You see, between about 1870 or 1880 and 1940 transportation— and the Susquehanna Association existed then among Congregational Churches— between about 1870 or 1880 and 1940 transportation and, therefore, communication and, thereby, connectivity, across these hills and valleys was better than it is now— better than it is now. And one of the places where covenant among our churches needs to happen and one of the places we need to encourage it to happen, is in our communication, our connectivity today. Communication and connectivity: that is the life blood of any Association or Conference.
Having said communication and connectivity are vital, that small church in Northern Maine I mentioned earlier in Aroostook County— despite the aforementioned independent streak, it communicates and connects pretty well. It just hosted a Conference-wide meeting. And if you think the Susquehanna Association is hard to get around in, you’ve never been to Maine.
Well, all that addressed polity— government. So I finished with a word about what should empower church government— faith.
These are the words of the Puritan William Ames. This quote addresses not just the local church but the whole church in each of its settings.
Hence, the quote addresses the Covenant our churches have with one another. (Quote:) “...the profession of true faith is the most essential note of the Church.... that same profession doth make a Church visible, which by its inward and real nature doth make the mystical Church...”— [1] faith— visible and mystical. (Slight pause.)
And these words are from the Gospel known as Luke: “The apostles said to Jesus, ‘Increase our faith!’” (Slight pause.)
I have found myself using the words of theologian Richard Rohr way too much on Sundays. So, let me apologize as I do so again.
“A common saying is this: ‘God helps those who help themselves.’ ...Scripture clearly says... God helps those who trust in God, not those who help themselves. We need to be told that very strongly because of our ‘do it yourself’ orientation.”
‘Trusting God takes applying the brakes, letting go of our own plans,... experiencing power from a Another Source to really move to different awareness. Otherwise, there is no real transformation, only increased willpower.’
‘The way our culture perceives things it’s as if the one with the most willpower wins! Willfulness is... different than willingness. They... yield very different fruit.’ [2]
‘Subtraction makes one holy, not addition. The stripping of illusions, the letting go of pretense,... breaking open the heart to understanding God and neighbor makes one holy— holy— that means set apart to do the work and the will of God.’
‘We tend to reflect the pride and arrogance of Western civilization.... Our operative religion is success. Success is holy!’
‘That version of Christianity makes the Gospel nothing more than spiritual consumerism. Ego is in charge so there is not much room left for God; one’s own private self-development becomes an end. Christianity, on the other hand, says it’s not just about me; we are all in this together.’ [3] — theologian Richard Rohr.
Personally, I ask this question: is freedom an imperative of the collective or the individual? I maintain if freedom fails to be collective then it ceases to be within the grasp of any one individual— if freedom fails to be collective then it ceases to be within the grasp of any one individual.
And I think that is where and why and how our Congregational polity is in line with the idea of freedom and call of the Gospel to freedom. The Gospel does invite us to accept responsibility for ourselves— independence. But it also invites us to reach out to one another, to support one another— interdependence. (Slight pause.)
Today we both accepted the Neighbors in Need Offering and we celebrated World Wide Communion Sunday. In so doing we recognized that first, we, ourselves, are in need.
In so doing we recognized our neighbor sitting in the pew next to us might be in need. In so doing we recognized our neighbor might be half way around the globe in France, in Afghanistan, in Japan and might be in need.
And in so doing we recognized we are all in this together. In so doing we recognized there is but one human tribe: God’s tribe and we are all members. Indeed, what is the motto found on the emblem of the United Church of Christ? “That they may all be one.”
And the one thing that can hold us together as one is the very thing Jesus said was necessary ingredient: faith. In short, trust God.
You see, the great commandment— love God; love neighbor— has only one linchpin. Trust God. And it is when we place our trust in God that loving God and loving neighbor becomes possible, that loving God and loving neighbor becomes real. Amen.
10/06/2013
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: “Coffee hour today will have an example of our connectivity with other churches. It will feature 2 pies from the Sherburne United Church of Christ pie sale, yesterday. And so we are connected on many ways. And yet again next week we shall have an opportunity to understand our interdependence as the Rev. Marian Shearer, Associate Conference Minister for Clergy and Authorized Ministry Concerns, will be with is to share the Word. And certainly part of that Word is this: we are one human tribe: God’s tribe.”
BENEDICTION: We are called by God to serve faithfully, trusting in God’s grace. May the gifts of God be rekindled within and among us. May our trust grow as we are empowered to do God’s work in this, God’s dominion. And may the peace of Christ which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge and companionship of God’s Spirit this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] Pp. 74. Visible Saints: The History of the Puritan Idea, by Edmund S. Morgan. Cornell University Press. Ithaca and London. 1963.
[2]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--Willfulness-Versus-Willingness.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=3Rg1bZSVjLk
Note: some of this is edited for the sermon. If I have mangled Rohr’s meaning, the fault lies with me and not with Rohr.
[3]
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation--The-Gospel-of-Prosperity.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=2ytU6UUC8ZQ
Note: some of this is edited for the sermon. If I have mangled Rohr’s meaning, the fault lies with me and not with Rohr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)