READINGS: October 18, 2015 ~ Proper 24 ~ 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost ~ Job 38:1-7, (34-41); Psalm 104:1-9, 24, 35c; Isaiah 53:4-12; Psalm 91:9-16; Hebrews 5:1-10; Mark 10:35-45.
First Things First: Service
“...it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” — Mark 10: 43-44.
The 1970s, a couple of us remember then— the 1970s— it was an odd time in America. We finished the process of extracting ourselves from Vietnam. The whole experience of the war and its aftermath left raw wounds then and left scars we still feel today. Of course, also in the 70s a President resigned in disgrace. Another president described the national mood as one of malaise, a mood of discomfort. And it was, indeed, an era of upset.
Cities had been, at one point, considered a crown jewel of American civilization, examples to the world. In the 70s many people fled from the cities to the suburbs and beyond as urban decay became rampant.
Yet another President told New York City, which was tittering on the edge of bankruptcy in the mid-seventies to (quote:), “drop dead.” And as you may remember me saying on other occasions, in the mid-70s I lived in New York City, the epicenter of that urban decay.
Now, I don’t remember exactly what the year the story I’m about to tell was, perhaps 1976 or 1977, but it involved a human response by the Episcopal Church I was attending to the urban decay around us. One of the parishioners went to the Rector and asked about trying an experiment.
The suggestion: let’s start a Sunday afternoon meal in the church hall as soon as possible after the Sunday service. The idea was to help the many homeless who at that point were populating the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the neighborhood where the church was located. The Rector’s response: give it a shot, see what happens.
The first week we served less than ten. The third week that number climbed past fifty. By the eight week there were better than 200 being fed.
It was a pretty straightforward operation: the people came through a chow line with plates, got food, found a table. There was one thing we did which I think helped remind everyone we were a church: a parishioner was assigned to sit at each table.
Nothing special was asked of that volunteer. Be friendly; answer any questions you can; engage in conversation only when people are willing to do so.
One day a parishioner trying to make small talk said to a client, “Well, I hope you like the food.”
“Not really,” was the response. (And yes, I cleaned that response up a little.) “Not really,” was the response, “the food is awful. But just to sit among people for a meal is great. And you church people are so friendly it makes me feel like a human being again. It kinda feels like home.” (Slight pause.)
These words are found in the work known as Mark: “...it cannot be like that with you. Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” (Slight pause.)
The 1970s— the first time the term ‘War on Drugs’ was used was in the early 1970s. And there is certainly no doubt that drug abuse and addiction were and are real. As I am sure you know, abuse and addiction remain a rampant problem, despite over 40 years of the so called ‘War on Drugs,’ over 40 years of rehabilitation programs, over 40 years of stringent enforcement efforts.
One of the pivotal issues raised by addiction is this question: ‘what, exactly, can help effect an abatement to addiction?’ Interestingly, there are several studies out there which say addiction can be reduced through social interaction. To be clear, these studies are very controversial but they are out there and at least some of them seem to have a modicum of validity.
That having been said, this is a simple explanation of how the studies work and what they discovered. A researcher builds a short tunnel. Rats are sent down the passage one by one. At the end of the tunnel, an animal can drink fluid from one of two dispensers. Both are available. One contains a morphine mixture, another tap water.
One group of rats used in this experiment lived in isolated cages, apart from any contact with members of its own species or human contact. One group was housed in a veritable Rat Park, a playground for rats which had games the rodents seemed to like and also contained other rats with whom they could interact.
On being exposed to the dispensers a number of times, the rats who lived in isolation took the morphine tap insistently. Among the rats who had experienced recreation and socialization, some also still headed to the morphine each time they were sent down the tunnel. But, largely, the rats in this group went only for the water. [1]
To be clear and once again, these studies have caused much uproar and criticism concerning their validity. Still, the idea that addiction might be reduced simply because of social interaction and a pleasing environment is a fascinating possibility.
Needless to say especially since these studies are controversial, my point here is neither to defend nor to criticize the studies. My point has to do with the thought that simply providing a socialized, pleasing environment is, in fact, a way to truly help. That is a lesson we certainly learned at my church in New York City.
To follow up on the church story with another piece of what happened, a couple years after that Sunday afternoon meal was established, in cooperation with a program at the Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, this church, the church that ran the meal every week, started to shelter homeless people just one night a week. And yes, just like food, housing is an imperative, a necessity, especially on cold Winter nights.
Again, we found that when those we housed understood we would socialize with them— interact, play games, watch a movie, when the clients knew they could relax, they let their hair down. And hence, we at the church shelter, did not experience the violence which so often happened in shelters run by the city.
The point I’m making here, of course, is when those seeking shelter felt they could be at ease is the point at which the housing of the homeless stopped being simply a service. Providing shelter stopped being something which was merely given away by us. That is when this housing of the homeless became a ministry. (Slight pause.)
I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘what can we do’ rather than ‘how should we do it?’ I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘what can we give away’ rather than ‘how should we give?’
I think we, the church, too often think in terms of ‘service’ instead of ‘serving.’ In short, ministry is not about giving alms. Ministry is about giving arms.
You see, we need to remember arms can hug people. Hugging is pivotal. (Slight pause.)
One of the quotes on our church Facebook page this week was a saying attributed to Helen Keller. “The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched— they must be felt within the heart.”
Indeed, ministry is about giving from the heart. Ministry is about providing an environment where the positive is empowered. Ministry is not about what we give. Ministry is about how we give. Church is not about what we give. Church is about how we give.
And, to be clear, yes— it is a great good to help those in need. We, the church, need to do more of that. Hence, it is or should be clear that to provide an environment where needs can be and are met is the real mission of the church.
Jesus told us, “Anyone among you who wishes to aspire to greatness must serve the rest; whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all.” But serving the needs of all is not about playing god by making a decision when it comes to who gets what. Resources are limited. On the other hand, making any claim that we need to play god because resources are limited is a red herring. Resources are, by definition, always limited.
We are called to be the church. We are called to serve everyone. And serving the needs of all is not about resources. Serving the needs of all is about providing an environment— an environment where ministry is empowered because the real resource is people.
Is that a tall order, providing an environment where ministry is empowered? Well, you tell me. Amen.
10/18/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said [The pastor referred to the closing hymn]: “Christians Rise and Act Your Creed— no one ever said that was easy. And I think I said something like this a couple weeks ago: we who stand on the Protestant side of the ledger often forget that justification by faith often forget we need to act also. And we should not forget that.”
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Sunday, October 11, 2015
SERMON ~ October 11, 2015 ~ “Seek Good”
READINGS: October 11, 2015 ~ Proper 23 ~ 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Job 23:1-9, 16-17; Psalm 22:1-15; Amos 5:6-7, 10-15; Psalm 90:12-17; Hebrews 4:12-16; Mark 10:17-31 ~ “Columbus Day” Weekend or “Indigenous Peoples” Day Weekend on the Secular Calendar.
Seek Good
“Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” — Amos 5:14.
I was in the Adirondacks when Pope Francis came to this country— the Adirondacks, a place some call ‘the land of no television signal.’ Even though I was without television, it probably will not surprise you that I followed the visit both in the printed press and online.
From all outward signs it appears this Pope confounds a lot of people. Francis does so by raising two obvious, very secular but polar opposite questions: Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) liberal? And some answer ‘yes.’ Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) conservative? And some answer ‘yes.’
One New York Times column said the answer is neither. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, author of The Conservative Heart, labeled the message of the Pope as ‘subversive’ while seeing that in a positive light.
The media, said the article, portrays Francis as someone with a loving charisma, a gentle demeanor, unthreatening but still cheerfully sanding down the sharp edges of the church. Hence, many thereby picture this pope as a kindly, secular, philosophical figure.
Within that misconception, the article insists, lies the true subversive genius of Francis. That’s because what looks to some like a smiley-face sticker is actually an invitation to total change.
And what kind of subversiveness, what kind of change might be afoot? The article argues the central theme of the visit by the Pope was a call for unity. The Bishop of Rome frequently urged people (quote:) “to dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...” With respect to the church, itself, Francis exhorted priests to be “shepherds living with the smell of sheep.”
The unity being espoused here goes quite deep, Brooks insists, deeper than most people are willing to go. The Pope challenged people to not just acknowledge and love the other but to embrace the other.
Two examples of subversiveness: in Cuba, Francis exposed a central error of Communism. It conflates a unity with shallow sameness. “Unity is often confused with uniformity,” said Francis. “This is not unity; this is conformity.”
In the United States a warning was presented to not let material prosperity divide people by economic class. While some might see a hidden message leaning left in this sentiment, no American should find it objectionable, said Brooks.
After all, unlike what happens in much of the rest of the world, in America there should be no shame in starting poor. Neither should pride emerge from being born rich. Neither should origins— familial or cultural or religious origins— be a constraining trap. The secret to any American unity, says Brooks, is not giving alms to the poor. The secret to American unity is remembering and knowing we are the poor.
Echoing the 11th Century theologian Anselm, Francis also says, with unity faith and reason are inseparable since faith is reason seeking meaning. Hence, faith does not suffocate or diminish human reason but reinforces it— this the writing of Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute on the ability of the Pope to confound the entrenched polar opposites we so often find of our world. [1] (Slight pause.)
These words are in the Tanakh in the section known as the Prophets in the portion known as the Scroll of the Twelve in the work called Amos: “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” (Slight pause.)
Unity— now that does seem hard to come by. Nearly daily we hear about both sides in politics and in religion entrenched in opposite stands. Why? (Slight pause.)
I’d be the first to admit I may not be right, but I want to suggest fear— raw, naked fear— plays a large part in why entrenched opposition is a way of life today. And therefore, fear produces these polar opposites.
Now, instead of trying to dissuade anyone out of any entrenched position with facts— since facts are amazingly useless tools in the face of fear— I want to ask instead ‘why might fear be playing such an important role?’ Put another way, instead of reason ruling the day, what makes fear so potent, what makes fear an effective weapon? Indeed, could there be a theological reason fear currently overcomes the opportunities for love presented in the kind of unity the Pope addressed? (Slight pause.)
In the course of the first sermon I offered from this pulpit over 19 years ago, I suggested everyone has a theology, an idea about Who God is. I want to suggest we also all have an idea about where God is, where God is located and how that location relates to the world. The fancy term naming where God is, the location of God, is cosmology. So, we— each of us, all of us— do not just have a theology. We all have a cosmology, a location for God.
Now, elevator cosmology— some kind of top-down concept— is quite popular. It suggests there are really only three locations in the universe: heaven, earth and “h-e double hockey sticks.”
This cosmology explains the location of God, the location of life and the possibilities of afterlife. Many people are very comfortable with this cosmology, especially if we claim our personal elevator only goes (pardon the expression) up.
In her most recent writing, the book Grounded, Diana Butler Bass says this three tiered cosmology may be part of the problem. It may be why so many people are entrenched and fear is so prevalent.
You see, that cosmology may be beginning to disappear. After all, we have sent spacecraft past the bounds of the solar system, landed them on other planets and humans have landed on the moon. We have gone to the depths of the oceans. Having done all that, it becomes hard to have a heaven, an earth and the classic “h-e double hockey sticks”— that elevator kind of cosmology anymore.
Indeed, ask yourself ‘where is heaven located?’ Where is God? I think most of us would say, “God is everywhere.” But everywhere includes all time and space, what we believe to be at least a 13.7 billion light year universe, an idea was inconceivable just 100 years ago. And, given that, a three tiered cosmology becomes seriously problematic.
Further, if God is everywhere in a 13.7 billion light year universe, who does God love? Everyone? (Slight pause.) So, if God is everywhere and loves everyone, what happens to an elevator cosmology, a cosmology which selects out winners and losers. (Slight pause.)
There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in churches, all churches— mainline, left, right and center, it makes no difference— much wailing and gnashing of teeth about loss of members and lack of young members. Butler Bass suggests one reason this is happening is people no longer buy into elevator cosmology.
Why? An elevator cosmology does not allow for an understanding of God who is both universal and personal, a God who is both transcendent and close.
The experience of people, she says, is that God is both everywhere and close. The experience of people, she says, is God is known by people as a spiritual experience, a spiritual presence. And therefore she says, God is not experienced in a top-down way. And many churches, even if they are not top-down, still preach an elevator universe.
Top-down, you see, does not allow for an embrace of the other, an embrace of all people, since some people in a top-down system are clearly singled out as losers. Top-down, you see, often means uniformity and conformity.
Top-down does not allow for dialogue but allows only for commands and dogma. And that is no longer the way people understand theology, understand cosmology, understand... God. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to our polarized society, a fearful society. I think when ones understanding of how the world works, when ones theological concept of how the world works is challenged, threatened, a natural response is a combination of denial, belligerence and intransigence. Since an elevator theology, an elevator cosmology is no longer particularly operative people who hold on to that cosmology feel threatened.
And that threat to how God is understood spills over from theology into everyday life. People dig in therefore and will not move, will not listen, insist everyone is against them, insist they don’t want to be associated with losers... and they become fearful. (Slight pause.)
I am loathe to say this next thing but I must. There is no cure for polarization. There is no cure until and unless, as the Pope suggested, we (quote:) “...dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...”
How can that happen? How can we dialogue when intransigence is a common strategy? Perhaps Amos got it right all the way back in the Eight Century Before the Common Era. (Quote:) “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live;...” (Slight pause.)
I think a key to seeking good is to seek unity. And unity means understanding God is with us all, not just with some. Unity means winners and losers are meaningless categories. Unity means true dialogue is when we both listen and speak. Unity means seeking good for all. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
10/11/2015
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Is the Pope liberal or conservative? The pope is pastoral. Conservatives tend to like sharply drawn lines— liberals, not so much. Hence, the challenge to conservatives is pastoral makes lines fuzzy. The challenge to liberals is pastoral means lines have not been eradicated but the question as to where they will be drawn becomes a difficult one which needs to be addressed and not blithely ignored.”
[1] Note: the thoughts of Brooks are here paraphrased but I think the meaning survives intact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/opinion/the-popes-subversive-message.html?_r=0
Seek Good
“Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” — Amos 5:14.
I was in the Adirondacks when Pope Francis came to this country— the Adirondacks, a place some call ‘the land of no television signal.’ Even though I was without television, it probably will not surprise you that I followed the visit both in the printed press and online.
From all outward signs it appears this Pope confounds a lot of people. Francis does so by raising two obvious, very secular but polar opposite questions: Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) liberal? And some answer ‘yes.’ Is the Pontiff (pardon the expression) conservative? And some answer ‘yes.’
One New York Times column said the answer is neither. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, author of The Conservative Heart, labeled the message of the Pope as ‘subversive’ while seeing that in a positive light.
The media, said the article, portrays Francis as someone with a loving charisma, a gentle demeanor, unthreatening but still cheerfully sanding down the sharp edges of the church. Hence, many thereby picture this pope as a kindly, secular, philosophical figure.
Within that misconception, the article insists, lies the true subversive genius of Francis. That’s because what looks to some like a smiley-face sticker is actually an invitation to total change.
And what kind of subversiveness, what kind of change might be afoot? The article argues the central theme of the visit by the Pope was a call for unity. The Bishop of Rome frequently urged people (quote:) “to dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...” With respect to the church, itself, Francis exhorted priests to be “shepherds living with the smell of sheep.”
The unity being espoused here goes quite deep, Brooks insists, deeper than most people are willing to go. The Pope challenged people to not just acknowledge and love the other but to embrace the other.
Two examples of subversiveness: in Cuba, Francis exposed a central error of Communism. It conflates a unity with shallow sameness. “Unity is often confused with uniformity,” said Francis. “This is not unity; this is conformity.”
In the United States a warning was presented to not let material prosperity divide people by economic class. While some might see a hidden message leaning left in this sentiment, no American should find it objectionable, said Brooks.
After all, unlike what happens in much of the rest of the world, in America there should be no shame in starting poor. Neither should pride emerge from being born rich. Neither should origins— familial or cultural or religious origins— be a constraining trap. The secret to any American unity, says Brooks, is not giving alms to the poor. The secret to American unity is remembering and knowing we are the poor.
Echoing the 11th Century theologian Anselm, Francis also says, with unity faith and reason are inseparable since faith is reason seeking meaning. Hence, faith does not suffocate or diminish human reason but reinforces it— this the writing of Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute on the ability of the Pope to confound the entrenched polar opposites we so often find of our world. [1] (Slight pause.)
These words are in the Tanakh in the section known as the Prophets in the portion known as the Scroll of the Twelve in the work called Amos: “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live; / so Yahweh, God, / the God of hosts, / God the omnipotent, / may be with you, / just as you have said, / just as you have been claiming.” (Slight pause.)
Unity— now that does seem hard to come by. Nearly daily we hear about both sides in politics and in religion entrenched in opposite stands. Why? (Slight pause.)
I’d be the first to admit I may not be right, but I want to suggest fear— raw, naked fear— plays a large part in why entrenched opposition is a way of life today. And therefore, fear produces these polar opposites.
Now, instead of trying to dissuade anyone out of any entrenched position with facts— since facts are amazingly useless tools in the face of fear— I want to ask instead ‘why might fear be playing such an important role?’ Put another way, instead of reason ruling the day, what makes fear so potent, what makes fear an effective weapon? Indeed, could there be a theological reason fear currently overcomes the opportunities for love presented in the kind of unity the Pope addressed? (Slight pause.)
In the course of the first sermon I offered from this pulpit over 19 years ago, I suggested everyone has a theology, an idea about Who God is. I want to suggest we also all have an idea about where God is, where God is located and how that location relates to the world. The fancy term naming where God is, the location of God, is cosmology. So, we— each of us, all of us— do not just have a theology. We all have a cosmology, a location for God.
Now, elevator cosmology— some kind of top-down concept— is quite popular. It suggests there are really only three locations in the universe: heaven, earth and “h-e double hockey sticks.”
This cosmology explains the location of God, the location of life and the possibilities of afterlife. Many people are very comfortable with this cosmology, especially if we claim our personal elevator only goes (pardon the expression) up.
In her most recent writing, the book Grounded, Diana Butler Bass says this three tiered cosmology may be part of the problem. It may be why so many people are entrenched and fear is so prevalent.
You see, that cosmology may be beginning to disappear. After all, we have sent spacecraft past the bounds of the solar system, landed them on other planets and humans have landed on the moon. We have gone to the depths of the oceans. Having done all that, it becomes hard to have a heaven, an earth and the classic “h-e double hockey sticks”— that elevator kind of cosmology anymore.
Indeed, ask yourself ‘where is heaven located?’ Where is God? I think most of us would say, “God is everywhere.” But everywhere includes all time and space, what we believe to be at least a 13.7 billion light year universe, an idea was inconceivable just 100 years ago. And, given that, a three tiered cosmology becomes seriously problematic.
Further, if God is everywhere in a 13.7 billion light year universe, who does God love? Everyone? (Slight pause.) So, if God is everywhere and loves everyone, what happens to an elevator cosmology, a cosmology which selects out winners and losers. (Slight pause.)
There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in churches, all churches— mainline, left, right and center, it makes no difference— much wailing and gnashing of teeth about loss of members and lack of young members. Butler Bass suggests one reason this is happening is people no longer buy into elevator cosmology.
Why? An elevator cosmology does not allow for an understanding of God who is both universal and personal, a God who is both transcendent and close.
The experience of people, she says, is that God is both everywhere and close. The experience of people, she says, is God is known by people as a spiritual experience, a spiritual presence. And therefore she says, God is not experienced in a top-down way. And many churches, even if they are not top-down, still preach an elevator universe.
Top-down, you see, does not allow for an embrace of the other, an embrace of all people, since some people in a top-down system are clearly singled out as losers. Top-down, you see, often means uniformity and conformity.
Top-down does not allow for dialogue but allows only for commands and dogma. And that is no longer the way people understand theology, understand cosmology, understand... God. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to our polarized society, a fearful society. I think when ones understanding of how the world works, when ones theological concept of how the world works is challenged, threatened, a natural response is a combination of denial, belligerence and intransigence. Since an elevator theology, an elevator cosmology is no longer particularly operative people who hold on to that cosmology feel threatened.
And that threat to how God is understood spills over from theology into everyday life. People dig in therefore and will not move, will not listen, insist everyone is against them, insist they don’t want to be associated with losers... and they become fearful. (Slight pause.)
I am loathe to say this next thing but I must. There is no cure for polarization. There is no cure until and unless, as the Pope suggested, we (quote:) “...dialogue together, to shorten the distance between us, to strengthen our bonds...”
How can that happen? How can we dialogue when intransigence is a common strategy? Perhaps Amos got it right all the way back in the Eight Century Before the Common Era. (Quote:) “Seek good and not evil, / that you may live;...” (Slight pause.)
I think a key to seeking good is to seek unity. And unity means understanding God is with us all, not just with some. Unity means winners and losers are meaningless categories. Unity means true dialogue is when we both listen and speak. Unity means seeking good for all. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
10/11/2015
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Is the Pope liberal or conservative? The pope is pastoral. Conservatives tend to like sharply drawn lines— liberals, not so much. Hence, the challenge to conservatives is pastoral makes lines fuzzy. The challenge to liberals is pastoral means lines have not been eradicated but the question as to where they will be drawn becomes a difficult one which needs to be addressed and not blithely ignored.”
[1] Note: the thoughts of Brooks are here paraphrased but I think the meaning survives intact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/opinion/the-popes-subversive-message.html?_r=0
Sunday, October 4, 2015
SERMON ~ 10/04/2014 ~ “Made Out of the Adamah”
October 4, 2015 ~ Proper 22 ~ 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Job 1:1, 2:1-10; Psalm 26; Genesis 2:18-24; Psalm 8; Hebrews 1:1-4, 2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16 ~ World Wide Communion Sunday.
Made Out of the Adamah
A READING FROM THE TANAKH IN THE SECTION KNOWN AS THE TORAH — Genesis 2:18-23 [ILV]
Because we do not read the passages from Scripture in their original languages this places us at a severe disadvantage when it come to understanding what many words mean. In the passage I am about to read what we take to be simply names are actually words with meanings hidden from us because of this. The translation we use today attempts to address what the passage means since it is translated in a way which helps us hear some of the meanings behind the words which we often take merely as names. Needless to say, the meaning behind the words indicate something richer is happening here than mere naming.
[18] ...Yahweh, God, said, “It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.” [19] So also out of the ground, from the soil, out of the adamah, Yahweh, God, formed all the animals, every wild beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the earth creature, the adam, so these could be named. Whatever the earth creature, the adam, called every living one, that became its name. [20] The earth creature gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field, all the wild animals.
But none of them proved to be a fitting companion, a partner for the adam, the earth creature. [21] So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side. [22] Yahweh then fashioned the two halves into male and female and presented them to one another.
[23] The male realized what had happened and said,
“This time this is the one!
Bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
Now this one will be called ish” —
ish a word which means source of life
“and I shall be called adam”—
adam— a word which means from the ground
“for out of me was this one taken.”
***************************************************
“So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” — Genesis 2:21.
Since I arrived in Norwich over nineteen years ago, like clockwork, once a month, I lead a Sunday afternoon service of worship at Chenango Valley Home. One of our musicians also attends so we can have a couple of hymns.
On June 14th, before Bonnie and I left on our trip, as a part of my sermon, I decided to tell the residents something about our upcoming travels. In part I wanted to explain why I would not be back until October. So this is how I started my comments at Chenango Valley Home on that day. (Slight pause.)
“Many of you know when Bonnie I got hitched she was a resident of the great State of Maine. I was a resident of New York City. And not just a resident but a native.”
“Many natives of the Big Apple, myself included, never learn to drive. So when I moved to Maine to marry Bonnie I needed to learn. Therefore, at first Bonnie did all the driving. That was O.K. Bonnie would drive. I would navigate. (She will tell you navigation is not her forté.)”
“There is one more thing to add. If we were going somewhere that took more than an hour, before Bonnie stepped on the gas we would look at each other and in unison say, ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ And off we’d go: another adventure.”
“Well,” I said back in June, “we have not done that recently. However, I suspect on June 27th, Bonnie and I will get into the car, look at each other and say those words once again: ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ That’s because we are about to go on the biggest adventure we’ve ever tried.”
“We will be gone from June 27th through the October 1st. Together we will be driving across the country and back.” That’s what I said at Chenango Valley Home. (Slight pause.)
I am here to report, that is exactly what happened, exactly what we did. On the morning of June 27th we got in the car and intoned the words “Adventures with Bonnie and Joe” in unison as we were about to leave. Then we cried, perhaps a little overwhelmed by the enormity of what we were about to do.
Bonnie says we cried because we were leaving the cats. But I’m of a different opinion. That would not be the last time we cried on this trip.
We cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone which we saw both headed West and East. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower.
To be clear, we had moments of deep emotion when we spent a week at the Chautauqua Institution in Western New York. And we were moved when we saw the Norton Simon Museum, the Huntington, the Dead Sea Scrolls at the California Science Center, the John Steinbeck Center, the Art Institute of Chicago. We were moved when we visited Mount Rushmore, the Hover Dam. But, for this moment, for these remarks I want to address what God hath wrought rather than what the children of God hath wrought.
We both felt just to see these amazing places left us in awe of God and of the universe God created. Indeed, Bonnie kept saying over and over, “I can take all kinds of pictures but I can’t seem to convey how amazing and wonderful these things are.”
Personally, I think Bonnie did a great job of conveying the magnitude of what we saw. But a part of me says ‘she is right.’ These are places of overwhelming beauty, hard to capture.
Do note: probably sometime in November on a date still to be specified we will have a pot luck and show some pictures. When that happens you can be the judge of how well Bonnie captured what we saw. And I hope everybody can come. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Tanakh in the section known as the Torah from the portion of that work known as Genesis: “So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” (Slight pause.)
Well, let’s try a little experiment which has to do with a certain animal we saw in Yellowstone Park. I am going to intone the first five words of a very well known song which refers to this beast. When I stop, I ask that you sing the next four words and only the next four words. Ready? O.K.
“Oh, give me a home.... (the pastor holds out his hands and the congregation responded) ...where the buffalo roam....”
That’s it! “Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam.” There is only one problem with those words. There are no buffalo on the North American Continent. There never have been buffalo on the North American Continent.
Several kinds of buffalo inhabit Asia, Africa, Europe. But there are none here. What this song and popular culture refers to as buffalo are not buffalo. They are bison.
Bison are distant relatives of buffalo but they are... not... buffalo. To be clear, popular culture often refers to bison as buffalo. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong. (Slight pause.)
Popular culture is often wrong, especially when it comes to Scripture. Why? Because popular culture makes no effort to see Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered.
In fact, the creation stories in the Bible are not particularly original or unique. There were many creation stories in ancient times and the Hebrews simply adapted some stories which already existed. Why did the Hebrews want to use and adapt these stories?
The answer has to do with the Hebrew understanding of God. In ancient times most people thought there were a multitude of gods each of whom took care of their own little job: planting, harvesting, weather, etc., etc., etc. The Hebrews understood God to be a God of all things, not just some things.
The Hebrews understood God to be a God of the universe. In that era, in that context, the concept that God might be a God who touched all things, the concept that God was a God of the universe was a new idea, a radical idea. (Slight pause.)
Now, I hope the translation of the Genesis reading I used today made something clear: the word ‘Adam’ is not a name. The word ‘Adam’ does not refer to gender.
Adam means earth, ground, dust. So the point being made has nothing to do with mere humanness and certainly not gender. That misreading of Scripture is a product of popular culture. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong.
The point being made by Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered is that God creates humans, our incredible and finite species, out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. God creates humans from the same stuff out of which God creates everything. The story tells us that.
So, the point being made here is not even about how or why creation exists, again a popular misunderstanding. The point being made is that the Hebrews give us a new and radical claim: God is a God of all things, a God of the universe.
Therefore, in this story God molds many incredible and finite things out of out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. How do I know God molded many things out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust?
Perhaps I don’t know God created many things of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. Because the creation stories do not inform us in any way about the how or the why of creation. The creation stories tell us about the Who of creation, a God of all things.
So, I really don’t know how and why God created. On the other hand I do know this about our reaction, the reaction Bonnie and I had, to the God who created all things: we cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower— these places of overwhelming beauty.
And so this is what I do know because Scripture is clear about it: God is a God of all things. And that is an overwhelmingly beautiful idea. Amen.
10/04/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: [The pastor holds up a large piece of sandstone] “This is piece of sandstone from the area around the Colorado River, the river that formed the Grand Canyon, the river that’s bottled up by the Hover Dam. Its atoms are in a slightly different form than the atoms in us but it is made of atoms, just as we are. Science tells us there are as many atoms in the universe today as there were at the time of the Big Bang— think about that. But the atom and science is not the point here. The point is God is God of all. And that idea should engage not our intellect but our emotions. Hence, when I grapple with the reality of God— a God Who touches us all, I get emotional— but you may have noticed that.” [1]
[1] It should be noted that the pastor did cry a number of times during the course of this sermon, in part, because the journey being spoken about was not just a journey across the country but a journey which engaged emotional life.
Made Out of the Adamah
A READING FROM THE TANAKH IN THE SECTION KNOWN AS THE TORAH — Genesis 2:18-23 [ILV]
Because we do not read the passages from Scripture in their original languages this places us at a severe disadvantage when it come to understanding what many words mean. In the passage I am about to read what we take to be simply names are actually words with meanings hidden from us because of this. The translation we use today attempts to address what the passage means since it is translated in a way which helps us hear some of the meanings behind the words which we often take merely as names. Needless to say, the meaning behind the words indicate something richer is happening here than mere naming.
[18] ...Yahweh, God, said, “It is not good for this creature of the earth, this one I have made out of the adamah, made out of the earth, to be alone; I will make a fitting companion, a partner for it.” [19] So also out of the ground, from the soil, out of the adamah, Yahweh, God, formed all the animals, every wild beast of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the earth creature, the adam, so these could be named. Whatever the earth creature, the adam, called every living one, that became its name. [20] The earth creature gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field, all the wild animals.
But none of them proved to be a fitting companion, a partner for the adam, the earth creature. [21] So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side. [22] Yahweh then fashioned the two halves into male and female and presented them to one another.
[23] The male realized what had happened and said,
“This time this is the one!
Bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
Now this one will be called ish” —
ish a word which means source of life
“and I shall be called adam”—
adam— a word which means from the ground
“for out of me was this one taken.”
***************************************************
“So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” — Genesis 2:21.
Since I arrived in Norwich over nineteen years ago, like clockwork, once a month, I lead a Sunday afternoon service of worship at Chenango Valley Home. One of our musicians also attends so we can have a couple of hymns.
On June 14th, before Bonnie and I left on our trip, as a part of my sermon, I decided to tell the residents something about our upcoming travels. In part I wanted to explain why I would not be back until October. So this is how I started my comments at Chenango Valley Home on that day. (Slight pause.)
“Many of you know when Bonnie I got hitched she was a resident of the great State of Maine. I was a resident of New York City. And not just a resident but a native.”
“Many natives of the Big Apple, myself included, never learn to drive. So when I moved to Maine to marry Bonnie I needed to learn. Therefore, at first Bonnie did all the driving. That was O.K. Bonnie would drive. I would navigate. (She will tell you navigation is not her forté.)”
“There is one more thing to add. If we were going somewhere that took more than an hour, before Bonnie stepped on the gas we would look at each other and in unison say, ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ And off we’d go: another adventure.”
“Well,” I said back in June, “we have not done that recently. However, I suspect on June 27th, Bonnie and I will get into the car, look at each other and say those words once again: ‘Adventures with Bonnie and Joe.’ That’s because we are about to go on the biggest adventure we’ve ever tried.”
“We will be gone from June 27th through the October 1st. Together we will be driving across the country and back.” That’s what I said at Chenango Valley Home. (Slight pause.)
I am here to report, that is exactly what happened, exactly what we did. On the morning of June 27th we got in the car and intoned the words “Adventures with Bonnie and Joe” in unison as we were about to leave. Then we cried, perhaps a little overwhelmed by the enormity of what we were about to do.
Bonnie says we cried because we were leaving the cats. But I’m of a different opinion. That would not be the last time we cried on this trip.
We cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone which we saw both headed West and East. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower.
To be clear, we had moments of deep emotion when we spent a week at the Chautauqua Institution in Western New York. And we were moved when we saw the Norton Simon Museum, the Huntington, the Dead Sea Scrolls at the California Science Center, the John Steinbeck Center, the Art Institute of Chicago. We were moved when we visited Mount Rushmore, the Hover Dam. But, for this moment, for these remarks I want to address what God hath wrought rather than what the children of God hath wrought.
We both felt just to see these amazing places left us in awe of God and of the universe God created. Indeed, Bonnie kept saying over and over, “I can take all kinds of pictures but I can’t seem to convey how amazing and wonderful these things are.”
Personally, I think Bonnie did a great job of conveying the magnitude of what we saw. But a part of me says ‘she is right.’ These are places of overwhelming beauty, hard to capture.
Do note: probably sometime in November on a date still to be specified we will have a pot luck and show some pictures. When that happens you can be the judge of how well Bonnie captured what we saw. And I hope everybody can come. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in Tanakh in the section known as the Torah from the portion of that work known as Genesis: “So Yahweh, God, caused a deep sleep to fall on the earth creature. While it slept God divided the earth creature in two and then closed up the flesh from its side.” (Slight pause.)
Well, let’s try a little experiment which has to do with a certain animal we saw in Yellowstone Park. I am going to intone the first five words of a very well known song which refers to this beast. When I stop, I ask that you sing the next four words and only the next four words. Ready? O.K.
“Oh, give me a home.... (the pastor holds out his hands and the congregation responded) ...where the buffalo roam....”
That’s it! “Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam.” There is only one problem with those words. There are no buffalo on the North American Continent. There never have been buffalo on the North American Continent.
Several kinds of buffalo inhabit Asia, Africa, Europe. But there are none here. What this song and popular culture refers to as buffalo are not buffalo. They are bison.
Bison are distant relatives of buffalo but they are... not... buffalo. To be clear, popular culture often refers to bison as buffalo. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong. (Slight pause.)
Popular culture is often wrong, especially when it comes to Scripture. Why? Because popular culture makes no effort to see Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered.
In fact, the creation stories in the Bible are not particularly original or unique. There were many creation stories in ancient times and the Hebrews simply adapted some stories which already existed. Why did the Hebrews want to use and adapt these stories?
The answer has to do with the Hebrew understanding of God. In ancient times most people thought there were a multitude of gods each of whom took care of their own little job: planting, harvesting, weather, etc., etc., etc. The Hebrews understood God to be a God of all things, not just some things.
The Hebrews understood God to be a God of the universe. In that era, in that context, the concept that God might be a God who touched all things, the concept that God was a God of the universe was a new idea, a radical idea. (Slight pause.)
Now, I hope the translation of the Genesis reading I used today made something clear: the word ‘Adam’ is not a name. The word ‘Adam’ does not refer to gender.
Adam means earth, ground, dust. So the point being made has nothing to do with mere humanness and certainly not gender. That misreading of Scripture is a product of popular culture. And popular culture is... wrong... just dead wrong.
The point being made by Scripture in light of the original context and the original language in which it was offered is that God creates humans, our incredible and finite species, out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. God creates humans from the same stuff out of which God creates everything. The story tells us that.
So, the point being made here is not even about how or why creation exists, again a popular misunderstanding. The point being made is that the Hebrews give us a new and radical claim: God is a God of all things, a God of the universe.
Therefore, in this story God molds many incredible and finite things out of out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. How do I know God molded many things out of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust?
Perhaps I don’t know God created many things of the earth, out of the ground, out of the dust. Because the creation stories do not inform us in any way about the how or the why of creation. The creation stories tell us about the Who of creation, a God of all things.
So, I really don’t know how and why God created. On the other hand I do know this about our reaction, the reaction Bonnie and I had, to the God who created all things: we cried when we saw the Badlands. We cried when we saw Yellowstone. We cried when we saw Yosemite. We cried when we saw the Grand Canyon. We cried when we saw Zion Canyon. We cried when we saw Devils Tower— these places of overwhelming beauty.
And so this is what I do know because Scripture is clear about it: God is a God of all things. And that is an overwhelmingly beautiful idea. Amen.
10/04/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: [The pastor holds up a large piece of sandstone] “This is piece of sandstone from the area around the Colorado River, the river that formed the Grand Canyon, the river that’s bottled up by the Hover Dam. Its atoms are in a slightly different form than the atoms in us but it is made of atoms, just as we are. Science tells us there are as many atoms in the universe today as there were at the time of the Big Bang— think about that. But the atom and science is not the point here. The point is God is God of all. And that idea should engage not our intellect but our emotions. Hence, when I grapple with the reality of God— a God Who touches us all, I get emotional— but you may have noticed that.” [1]
[1] It should be noted that the pastor did cry a number of times during the course of this sermon, in part, because the journey being spoken about was not just a journey across the country but a journey which engaged emotional life.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
SERMON ~ 06/21/2015 ~ “Acceptable Times”
06/21/2015 ~ Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ Known in Some Traditions as the 12th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Proper 7 ~ 1 Samuel 17:(1a, 4-11, 19-23), 32-49; Psalm 9:9-20 or 1 Samuel 17:57-18:5, 18:10-16; Psalm 133; Job 38:1-11; Psalm 107:1-3, 23-32 ~ 2 Corinthians 6:1-13; Mark 4:35-41 ~ Annual Meeting ~ Covenant Share Sunday ~ A Ceremony Honoring Members in Long Standing.
Acceptable Times [1]
“For God says, [and here Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah] / ‘At an acceptable time I heard you, / and on a day of salvation I helped you’ (unquote). / See, now is the acceptable time! See, now is the day of salvation!” — 2 Corinthians 5:2.
The election I’m about to reference is, by many scholars, considered to be one of the most pivotal in American history. One candidate for President claimed to be the candidate of the people. Certainly that candidate’s speeches sounded anti-establishment, placing a high degree of emphasis on democracy, on symbolism, on personal popularity. But this candidate was attacked as having a vicious temper, unfit for office.
The family of the other candidate many would call American royalty. But this candidate was called aristocratic, aloof, overeducated, intellectual and, therefore, downright un-American.
A totally different picture presents itself when policy stands are considered rather than mud-slinging— mud-slinging something seldom done in American politics, right? The populist, democratic rhetoric espoused by one side did not show itself in practice.
You see, the populist was elected. But once in place the administration exercised unilateral, previously unheard of Presidential power, taking away some prerogatives from Congress. The losing party wanted to invest in infrastructure, boost the economy and bring, if not prosperity, a living wage to those mired in poverty— true populism. [2]
I am, of course, referring to the election of 1828— 1828. John Quincy Adams, the son of a president, was defeated by populist, Andrew Jackson. Historians say this election was the first in which political machines overcame reality with false claims and false advertising. It certainly sounds like some things have not changed, have they. (Slight pause.)
In 1908 the Federal Council of Churches, predecessor of the National Council of Churches, published a Social Creed. The language sounds dated but the meanings are familiar. (Slight pause.)
The Churches must stand for equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life. Churches must stand for the right of workers to some protection against the hardships which results from swift crises of industrial change.
Churches must stand for a living wage as a minimum in every industry and for the highest wage each industry can afford. Churches must stand for the abatement of poverty. It certainly sounds like some things have not changed. [3] (Slight pause.)
These words are from the work known as Second Corinthians: “For God says, [and here Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah] / ‘At an acceptable time I heard you, / and on a day of salvation I helped you’ (unquote). / See, now is the acceptable time! See, now is the day of salvation!” (Slight pause.)
Last Wednesday we had a Bible Study in this church. Last Wednesday there was a Bible Study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. You know what happened in Charleston. Let me tell you about some thoughts from the Bible Study here, because I think it might help us reflect on what happened in Charleston. (Slight pause.)
There is no question about this: Paul’s message, in line with the message of Jesus, says the world is broken. Hence, when Paul says (quote:) “We conduct ourselves with innocence, knowledge, patience, kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine, sincere love, with the message of truth and the power of God; wielding the weapons of justice with both the right hand and the left hand;...” we need to understand these words in the context of the First Century of the Common Era.
The weapons used by the Roman Empire are weapons of death and destruction, not the plowshare but the sword. The weapons Paul addresses are called justice, here directly named, and peace and freedom and equity and love. The Roman Empire nor any empire before or since has tried to operate on the basis of justice, peace, freedom, equity, love. But justice, peace, freedom, equity, love are the empowering instruments of God’s realm.
Peace through victory— meaning attain peace through the use force— is the motto of all empires. But force is not now and has never been an instrument of peace. Peace has never been attained through victory, through force. The only thing attained through victory is a lull in violence. Victory will not quell violence.
Paul also insists (quote:) “...now is the acceptable time!” Paul’s proclamation has the same sense of the urgency of now insisted on by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Friends, this is my assessment: in our broken world the empowering instruments of God’s realm— justice, peace, freedom, equity, love have never been fully tried. But an obvious question might be: ‘why?’ Why have they not been tried? (Slight pause.)
Later in the service, when a Gospel reading is offered, you will hear the oft repeated words of Jesus (quote:) “I give you a new commandment: that you love one another.” [4]
We make a basic mistake when we hear these words. The mistake we make is that love is easy. Question: if love is easy, why do we see so much violence? Why do we believe peace through victory, peace through violence, is achievable? Paul didn’t believe that. Jesus didn’t believe that.
Indeed, if the urgency of now is real, if the acceptable time is now, we have a choice. We can stand idly by amidst injustice and inequity. We can ignore we live in a world which seems to rest on injustice and inequity. Or we can try to change that. This is our call.
I want to suggest two things to you. First, the empowering instruments of God’s realm— justice, peace, freedom, equity, love— are disciplines. And we live in an undisciplined world.
Second, the church needs to be not just a place to gather with friends and not just a place to worship but a place where these disciplines are taught and learned. And unless we gather to study the disciplines known as justice, peace, freedom, equity and love— gather to study the instruments of God’s realm, gather to study with the urgency of now, peace cannot and will not flourish. Violence will flourish.
You see among many things, Charleston tells us we live in a broken world. The only way to try to mend the world is to be disciplined enough to accomplish the task of learning, be disciplined enough to follow the teachings of Jesus, disciplined enough to bring the message of justice, peace, freedom, equity, love to those around us and to the broken world in which we live. Amen.
06/21/2015 (Week of the Annual Organizational Meeting)
United Church of Christ, First Congregational.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “For a moment I want to come back to the reality of today through the reality of yesterday. In 1965— 1965— the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said this about the shooting of one Jimmy Lee Jackson, a civil rights worker (quote): ‘He was murdered by the brutality of every sheriff who practices lawlessness in the name of law. He was murdered by the irresponsibility of every politician, from governors on down, who has fed his constituents the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. He was murdered by the timidity of a federal government that can spend millions of dollars a day to keep troops in South Vietnam and cannot protect the rights of its own citizens seeking the right to vote. He was murdered by the indifference of every minister of the gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows.’ [5] — The Rev, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1965. Some things have not changed. But now is the acceptable time for change.”
[1] This sermon is a little shorter than a usual sermon because of several things going on in the service today. Among the extra events were an Annual Organizational Meeting; Covenant Share Sunday for which here was a time addressing mission; a Ceremony Honoring Members in Long Standing
[2] What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848; Oxford History of the United States; Oxford University Press, September 23, 2009.
[3] Note: some of the wording is slightly altered to fit this context. The meaning is not changed. Only several parts of the proclamation were read. The Social Creed of the Churches, Adopted by the Federal Council of Churches on December 4, 1908.
[4] This reading was used in a ceremony honoring Members in Long Standing at the service: John 13:33-35 [ILV].
[5] http://nuweb9.neu.edu/civilrights/jimmie-lee-jackson/
Acceptable Times [1]
“For God says, [and here Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah] / ‘At an acceptable time I heard you, / and on a day of salvation I helped you’ (unquote). / See, now is the acceptable time! See, now is the day of salvation!” — 2 Corinthians 5:2.
The election I’m about to reference is, by many scholars, considered to be one of the most pivotal in American history. One candidate for President claimed to be the candidate of the people. Certainly that candidate’s speeches sounded anti-establishment, placing a high degree of emphasis on democracy, on symbolism, on personal popularity. But this candidate was attacked as having a vicious temper, unfit for office.
The family of the other candidate many would call American royalty. But this candidate was called aristocratic, aloof, overeducated, intellectual and, therefore, downright un-American.
A totally different picture presents itself when policy stands are considered rather than mud-slinging— mud-slinging something seldom done in American politics, right? The populist, democratic rhetoric espoused by one side did not show itself in practice.
You see, the populist was elected. But once in place the administration exercised unilateral, previously unheard of Presidential power, taking away some prerogatives from Congress. The losing party wanted to invest in infrastructure, boost the economy and bring, if not prosperity, a living wage to those mired in poverty— true populism. [2]
I am, of course, referring to the election of 1828— 1828. John Quincy Adams, the son of a president, was defeated by populist, Andrew Jackson. Historians say this election was the first in which political machines overcame reality with false claims and false advertising. It certainly sounds like some things have not changed, have they. (Slight pause.)
In 1908 the Federal Council of Churches, predecessor of the National Council of Churches, published a Social Creed. The language sounds dated but the meanings are familiar. (Slight pause.)
The Churches must stand for equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life. Churches must stand for the right of workers to some protection against the hardships which results from swift crises of industrial change.
Churches must stand for a living wage as a minimum in every industry and for the highest wage each industry can afford. Churches must stand for the abatement of poverty. It certainly sounds like some things have not changed. [3] (Slight pause.)
These words are from the work known as Second Corinthians: “For God says, [and here Paul quotes the prophet Isaiah] / ‘At an acceptable time I heard you, / and on a day of salvation I helped you’ (unquote). / See, now is the acceptable time! See, now is the day of salvation!” (Slight pause.)
Last Wednesday we had a Bible Study in this church. Last Wednesday there was a Bible Study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. You know what happened in Charleston. Let me tell you about some thoughts from the Bible Study here, because I think it might help us reflect on what happened in Charleston. (Slight pause.)
There is no question about this: Paul’s message, in line with the message of Jesus, says the world is broken. Hence, when Paul says (quote:) “We conduct ourselves with innocence, knowledge, patience, kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine, sincere love, with the message of truth and the power of God; wielding the weapons of justice with both the right hand and the left hand;...” we need to understand these words in the context of the First Century of the Common Era.
The weapons used by the Roman Empire are weapons of death and destruction, not the plowshare but the sword. The weapons Paul addresses are called justice, here directly named, and peace and freedom and equity and love. The Roman Empire nor any empire before or since has tried to operate on the basis of justice, peace, freedom, equity, love. But justice, peace, freedom, equity, love are the empowering instruments of God’s realm.
Peace through victory— meaning attain peace through the use force— is the motto of all empires. But force is not now and has never been an instrument of peace. Peace has never been attained through victory, through force. The only thing attained through victory is a lull in violence. Victory will not quell violence.
Paul also insists (quote:) “...now is the acceptable time!” Paul’s proclamation has the same sense of the urgency of now insisted on by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Friends, this is my assessment: in our broken world the empowering instruments of God’s realm— justice, peace, freedom, equity, love have never been fully tried. But an obvious question might be: ‘why?’ Why have they not been tried? (Slight pause.)
Later in the service, when a Gospel reading is offered, you will hear the oft repeated words of Jesus (quote:) “I give you a new commandment: that you love one another.” [4]
We make a basic mistake when we hear these words. The mistake we make is that love is easy. Question: if love is easy, why do we see so much violence? Why do we believe peace through victory, peace through violence, is achievable? Paul didn’t believe that. Jesus didn’t believe that.
Indeed, if the urgency of now is real, if the acceptable time is now, we have a choice. We can stand idly by amidst injustice and inequity. We can ignore we live in a world which seems to rest on injustice and inequity. Or we can try to change that. This is our call.
I want to suggest two things to you. First, the empowering instruments of God’s realm— justice, peace, freedom, equity, love— are disciplines. And we live in an undisciplined world.
Second, the church needs to be not just a place to gather with friends and not just a place to worship but a place where these disciplines are taught and learned. And unless we gather to study the disciplines known as justice, peace, freedom, equity and love— gather to study the instruments of God’s realm, gather to study with the urgency of now, peace cannot and will not flourish. Violence will flourish.
You see among many things, Charleston tells us we live in a broken world. The only way to try to mend the world is to be disciplined enough to accomplish the task of learning, be disciplined enough to follow the teachings of Jesus, disciplined enough to bring the message of justice, peace, freedom, equity, love to those around us and to the broken world in which we live. Amen.
06/21/2015 (Week of the Annual Organizational Meeting)
United Church of Christ, First Congregational.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “For a moment I want to come back to the reality of today through the reality of yesterday. In 1965— 1965— the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said this about the shooting of one Jimmy Lee Jackson, a civil rights worker (quote): ‘He was murdered by the brutality of every sheriff who practices lawlessness in the name of law. He was murdered by the irresponsibility of every politician, from governors on down, who has fed his constituents the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. He was murdered by the timidity of a federal government that can spend millions of dollars a day to keep troops in South Vietnam and cannot protect the rights of its own citizens seeking the right to vote. He was murdered by the indifference of every minister of the gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows.’ [5] — The Rev, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1965. Some things have not changed. But now is the acceptable time for change.”
[1] This sermon is a little shorter than a usual sermon because of several things going on in the service today. Among the extra events were an Annual Organizational Meeting; Covenant Share Sunday for which here was a time addressing mission; a Ceremony Honoring Members in Long Standing
[2] What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848; Oxford History of the United States; Oxford University Press, September 23, 2009.
[3] Note: some of the wording is slightly altered to fit this context. The meaning is not changed. Only several parts of the proclamation were read. The Social Creed of the Churches, Adopted by the Federal Council of Churches on December 4, 1908.
[4] This reading was used in a ceremony honoring Members in Long Standing at the service: John 13:33-35 [ILV].
[5] http://nuweb9.neu.edu/civilrights/jimmie-lee-jackson/
Monday, June 8, 2015
SERMON ~ 06/07/2015 ~ “Norwich, June 7th, 1863”
06/07/2015 ~ Second Sunday after Pentecost ~ Known in Some Traditions as the 10th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Proper 5 ~ 1 Samuel 8:4-11, (12-15), 16-20, (11:14-15); Psalm 138; Genesis 3:8-15; Psalm 130; 2 Corinthians 4:13-5:1; Mark 3:20-35 ~ Used Exodus 14:13-22 as a reading. This was a Union Service in the Park with the First Baptist Church and the United Church of Christ, First Congregational or Norwich, NY at 10:30 a.m. followed by a Sharing a Meal.
Norwich, June 7th, 1863
BOB OEHME
These words are from the work known as Exodus in the 14th Chapter: “And you, Moses, lift up your staff; stretch out your hand over the sea and split the sea in two, that the Israelites may pass through it on dry land.” — Exodus 14:16.
I need to ask you to use your imagination and paint a picture in your mind of what I am about to describe. You are here in Norwich, right where you find yourself now, except for one thing. The year is not 2015. The year is 1863. The date is the same as it is today. It is June the 7th. As it happens June the 7th, 1863 was also a Sunday. And because you should be thinking that you are here in 1863, not 2015, I ask that you put any modern sounds you might be hearing, like cars or horns or ringing cell phones out of you head. This is 1863. There are no cars or cell phones.
In 1863 the Chenango County Courthouse is already 26 years old. In 1863 the building in which the members of the First Baptist Church worship today, this building right here, is 18 years old. From this time in 1863 right to the present day the building in which they worship will be and is across the way from the building in which the Congregationalists worship. The worship space of the Congregational Meeting House is the brick building you see today, located on the same footprint as the current worship space. But the building is smaller than the current structure. The structure at that time consisted only of what today is the worship space. The rest of the building will not be added until 1874. Originally, the structure in which the Congregationalists meet from 1819 to 1860 was a building made of wood with the same footprint as the brick church. It burned down in 1860 and was replaced the following year by the structure in which their current worship space now resides.
Now, let me also review some American history. It is, after all, June 7th, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. But the proclamation did nothing to offer citizenship to the people who had been enslaved.
The Fourteenth Amendment which granted citizenship will not be passed until 1868. The Citizenship Clause of that Amendment states (quote:) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This wording reverses by means of Amendment the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, a decision which declared African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy the privileges of citizenship. And, indeed, that court decision necessitated the Amendment.
More history: it being June of 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg is still three weeks in the future. Gettysburg is often described as the turning point in the war. In fact, the day after the Battle at Gettysburg ends, the Vicksburg garrison surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant.
Before these several events had come to pass, things had not been going particularly well for the Union. When these two incidents are considered the eventual outcome of the War becomes much clearer. But again, at the beginning of June 1863 these events are still a month in the future.
That’s probably what you need to know to paint a picture in your mind of what is about to take place. And what is it which is about to take place? The pastor of the First Baptist Church in 1863, the Rev. Mr. Amos Benedict, who will be played by Rev. Mr. David Spiegel and the Pastor of the First Congregational Church in 1863, the Rev. Mr. Samuel Scoville, who will be played by Rev. Mr. Joseph Connolly, are about to meet here, between the two churches. They sit on a bench and have a little Bible Study between them.
There has been a significant amount of cooperation between the two. In 1861 they had cooperated in a blessing which sent the Norwich contingent of the 114th Regiment of New York State Volunteers off to the conflict. (SLIGHT PAUSE.)
There is one more thing to note: we did not have a big enough budget to buy elaborate costumes, so you need to imagine these two pastors in period clothes. And now, a talk about Scripture between these two pastors.
JOE
Mr. Benedict! Mr. Benedict! My, but it is good to see you. Have you looked at the passage we wanted to discuss?
DAVID
Why, yes, Mr. Scoville— the 14th Chapter of Exodus. And I am happy to engage about it. But I think it was you who chose this passage.
JOE
And why not? I think this passage is at the heart of the current national conflict.
DAVID
Is it?
JOE
Well, of course it is! These words may be ancient. They may be from Scripture. But we need to see these sacred words with modern eyes.
DAVID
You won’t get an argument from me on that account. We do need to see these sacred words with modern eyes. But are they really at the heart of the current conflict? Let me tell you what I don’t see in these words. What I don’t see is the pain we’ve endured over the last two years. We have lost a lot of fine young men. Indeed, there are times when the struggle has seemed lost.
JOE
Well, Mr. Benedict, you won’t get an argument from me on that, either. There are times when the bloodshed, the lives lost, lead me to ask the question why: why must we endure all this? Have we been somehow faithless? Have we somehow offended God?
DAVID
I don’t know. I do know just last month the Union army had a 2 to 1 advantage over the Confederate troops. But still Stonewall Jackson halted the Union advance against General Lee near Charlottesville. Our General Hooker lost 17,000 troops. 17,000 soldiers! 17,000 souls! I can’t begin to imagine. And that also means there are 17,000 families somewhere, all across this nation, who mourn. And it was not just our side who paid a steep price. General Jackson and General Lee lost 13,000. That’s a total of 30,000 souls! 30,000 lives lost over the course of just a couple of days.
JOE
(SLOWLY.) Yes, I... I... don’t know what to say about this. The toll of this rebellion has been horrific, unbelievable.
DAVID
Well, for me this brings up a serious question: ‘what hath God wrought?
JOE
Yes. I think that’s an important question. However, I want to suggest God hath not wrought the devastation and bloodshed we have already seen. This is not the will of God. God does not want to see people die by acts of violence.
DAVID
(Slight pause.) Is God not in control?
JOE
Is God in control? Of course God is in control. That’s not the issue. That’s not why there has been so much violence. The bloodshed is a result of the fact that we humans always believe we are in control. We do what we can to wrest control from God. And that, my friend, is the issue. We humans, we who think we are in control— we are the real cause of this appalling, horrendous, shameful violence.
DAVID
(SLIGHT PAUSE.) So, when will we learn to forge plowshares out of swords?
JOE
Yes, that is exactly why I wanted to look at this passage from Exodus 14 with you. I don’t think this passage is about war at all and I’d like to discuss it with you to see if you might think the same.
DAVID
What do you mean it’s not about war? Quote: “Then I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will come after you; and so I will glorify myself at the expense of Pharaoh and all the army of Egypt, the chariots, the chariot drivers. The Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh, when I glorify myself over Pharaoh, the chariots, and the chariot drivers.” If that is not about God and about war, even about God sanctioning war what is it about?
JOE
I think it can be taken that way. And, indeed, I think there are many people who say this is about war and perhaps there are many people who think this passage condones war. And I think there are many people who would even say this passage claims God condones war. But does it? You see, what I find interesting is that our enslaved brothers and sisters take great solace in this passage. If they find solace in this passage do they think it points to a different place, a place which is not about war?
DAVID
Actually, I am well aware our brothers and sisters who suffer the bonds of slavery do take solace in this passage. And I have oftentimes wondered the same thing. I’ve wondered why that’s the case. Why would an enslaved people take solace in a passage like this? It’s so.... so.... violent.
JOE
Well, let’s try to see these words from their point of view. I think this is how they might see it: just like the Israelites in Egypt, the people who are enslaved have come here from another land. And just like the Israelites in Egypt, the people who are enslaved here, on this side of the Atlantic, yearn to be free. Hence, I think the way these words are speaking to them and the deeper the meaning they find in these words embodies the promises made by God.
DAVID
Huh. (VERY LONG PAUSE. THEN IN AN EXCITED VOICE:) Oh, yes! Oh, yes! I see! I see! Yes! Yes! Yes! And what are the real promises of God? The real promises of God have little to do with war and bloodshed. The real promises of God have to do with deliverance. The real promises of God have to do with rescue. The real promises of God have to do with salvation— the saving grace of God. Therefore, real promises of God have to do with freedom.
JOE
And that is exactly what those trapped in slavery can see in this passage: deliverance, rescue, salvation, freedom.
DAVID
(SLIGHT PAUSE AND A SIGH.) So, is the human condition so hopeless that we are to be forever trapped in struggle? Does the human condition mean some will be denied the deliverance, the rescue, the salivation, the freedom that is clearly the will of God for all people?
JOE
I think this passage tells us otherwise. Quote: “Do not be afraid, stand firm, stand your ground and you will see the deliverance,...”
DAVID
Yes, but it also says this: “Tell the Israelites to go forward, march on.” I think that tells us we need to participate in the work of God, in the will of God. We need to participate in bringing the realm of God into our own time, work toward realizing the realm of God can be something which happens now. And the realm of God will be reached when all people enjoy freedom. So we need to participate in the work of equality and the work of justice. We are the hands of God. We are the voice of God.
JOE
Mr. Amos, I could not agree with you more.
DAVID
Perhaps... participation is the struggle.
JOE
Yes, perhaps participation is the struggle.
DAVID
I think there is another truth to be found here that I need to state. And this must be obvious: in the struggle we humans too often resort to violence.
JOE
I agree. On the other hand, how can peace be a possibility, how can peace be a reality, unless we see a way to victory for our cause. And our cause is freedom. Freedom is a just cause, is it not?
DAVID
I agree. Freedom is a just cause. But sometimes I wonder why we humans think violence is a means through which the peace of the Realm of God can be reached. How many times have you heard this slogan used? “Peace through victory.” I suspect the only thing victory brings is a lull in the violence. Victory does not bring any kind of peace. Only justice, only the justice of God, will bring true and lasting peace.
JOE
(LONG PAUSE.) Peace through justice.
DAVID
Indeed, not peace through violence. Peace through justice. And it is justice— the justice God seeks— which will ensure freedom for all people.
JOE
(SLIGHT PAUSE.) There are no easy answers, are there?
DAVID
It is not the job of theology to provide easy answers. Indeed, the claim of theology is this: as we become slowly aware of God we also become aware that God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
JOE
(LONG PAUSE.) God as the cause of wonder. (SHORTER PAUSE.) My friend, I am glad we have had this conversation. You’ve helped me learn something. You’ve helped me learn the hand of God must been seen at all times and in all ways because God is the cause of wonder. You’ve helped me learn the love of God must be spread throughout the land. You’ve helped me learn victory is not a way to ensure peace.
DAVID
(SHORTER PAUSE.) Well, my friend, I am also glad we have had this conversation. You’ve helped me learn something. You’ve helped me learn the hand of God is sometimes seen in the struggle. You’ve helped me learn the freedom God offers to each one of us is precious. And you have also helped me learn the love of God must be spread throughout the land.
JOE
Mr. Amos, our talk gives me hope for the future. Indeed, I wonder if the pastors of our two churches will talk from time to time over the years about justice and freedom and peace.
DAVID
Mr. Scoville, my guess is our predecessors used to talk about these things. Perhaps they met right here, between these buildings to talk. Indeed, my guess is those pastors who follow us will continue to talk about these things, engaging one another right here between these buildings. In fact, my guess is the people of our churches will be working together on issues of justice and peace and love and freedom more than 150 years from now. (Slight pause.) Mr. Scoville— may I call you Samuel?
JOE
Why, of course.
DAVID
Samuel, I am always glad when I see you. We have such stimulating chats.
JOE
Mr. Benedict— may I call you Amos?
DAVID
Why, of course.
JOE
Amos, I am always glad to see you, since I know we are working toward the same goal: we work for the good of the people in this fair place called Norwich and we work toward our mutual goal— that the realm of God is present in this place and in this time and that the realm of God means all people will know the freedom God offers each of us.
DAVID
(SLIGHT PAUSE.) So, do you think that will be true in the future— that the pastors here will work for the good of the people of Norwich and that the real goal to work toward the Realm of God and that the reality of the Realm of God means all people will know the freedom God offers each of us? And you are, in that sense saying that in— I don’t know— pick a date, pick a year— let’s say in the year 2015— in 2015 will all this still be true?
JOE
Of course it will be true. It will be true if we remain friends in Christ, one in Christ. If we are friends in Christ, one in Christ, then all things are possible.
DAVID
Amen.
JOE
And again, amen.
06/07/2015
A Union Service of Worship in West Park with First Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational Followed by a Sharing a Meal.
[1] Often a sound file gets posted on the web for the sermons of the Rev. Mr. Connolly. That is not the case with this one. This being an outdoor service there was no recording facility available.
Norwich, June 7th, 1863
BOB OEHME
These words are from the work known as Exodus in the 14th Chapter: “And you, Moses, lift up your staff; stretch out your hand over the sea and split the sea in two, that the Israelites may pass through it on dry land.” — Exodus 14:16.
I need to ask you to use your imagination and paint a picture in your mind of what I am about to describe. You are here in Norwich, right where you find yourself now, except for one thing. The year is not 2015. The year is 1863. The date is the same as it is today. It is June the 7th. As it happens June the 7th, 1863 was also a Sunday. And because you should be thinking that you are here in 1863, not 2015, I ask that you put any modern sounds you might be hearing, like cars or horns or ringing cell phones out of you head. This is 1863. There are no cars or cell phones.
In 1863 the Chenango County Courthouse is already 26 years old. In 1863 the building in which the members of the First Baptist Church worship today, this building right here, is 18 years old. From this time in 1863 right to the present day the building in which they worship will be and is across the way from the building in which the Congregationalists worship. The worship space of the Congregational Meeting House is the brick building you see today, located on the same footprint as the current worship space. But the building is smaller than the current structure. The structure at that time consisted only of what today is the worship space. The rest of the building will not be added until 1874. Originally, the structure in which the Congregationalists meet from 1819 to 1860 was a building made of wood with the same footprint as the brick church. It burned down in 1860 and was replaced the following year by the structure in which their current worship space now resides.
Now, let me also review some American history. It is, after all, June 7th, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued by President Lincoln on January 1, 1863. But the proclamation did nothing to offer citizenship to the people who had been enslaved.
The Fourteenth Amendment which granted citizenship will not be passed until 1868. The Citizenship Clause of that Amendment states (quote:) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This wording reverses by means of Amendment the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, a decision which declared African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy the privileges of citizenship. And, indeed, that court decision necessitated the Amendment.
More history: it being June of 1863, the Battle of Gettysburg is still three weeks in the future. Gettysburg is often described as the turning point in the war. In fact, the day after the Battle at Gettysburg ends, the Vicksburg garrison surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant.
Before these several events had come to pass, things had not been going particularly well for the Union. When these two incidents are considered the eventual outcome of the War becomes much clearer. But again, at the beginning of June 1863 these events are still a month in the future.
That’s probably what you need to know to paint a picture in your mind of what is about to take place. And what is it which is about to take place? The pastor of the First Baptist Church in 1863, the Rev. Mr. Amos Benedict, who will be played by Rev. Mr. David Spiegel and the Pastor of the First Congregational Church in 1863, the Rev. Mr. Samuel Scoville, who will be played by Rev. Mr. Joseph Connolly, are about to meet here, between the two churches. They sit on a bench and have a little Bible Study between them.
There has been a significant amount of cooperation between the two. In 1861 they had cooperated in a blessing which sent the Norwich contingent of the 114th Regiment of New York State Volunteers off to the conflict. (SLIGHT PAUSE.)
There is one more thing to note: we did not have a big enough budget to buy elaborate costumes, so you need to imagine these two pastors in period clothes. And now, a talk about Scripture between these two pastors.
JOE
Mr. Benedict! Mr. Benedict! My, but it is good to see you. Have you looked at the passage we wanted to discuss?
DAVID
Why, yes, Mr. Scoville— the 14th Chapter of Exodus. And I am happy to engage about it. But I think it was you who chose this passage.
JOE
And why not? I think this passage is at the heart of the current national conflict.
DAVID
Is it?
JOE
Well, of course it is! These words may be ancient. They may be from Scripture. But we need to see these sacred words with modern eyes.
DAVID
You won’t get an argument from me on that account. We do need to see these sacred words with modern eyes. But are they really at the heart of the current conflict? Let me tell you what I don’t see in these words. What I don’t see is the pain we’ve endured over the last two years. We have lost a lot of fine young men. Indeed, there are times when the struggle has seemed lost.
JOE
Well, Mr. Benedict, you won’t get an argument from me on that, either. There are times when the bloodshed, the lives lost, lead me to ask the question why: why must we endure all this? Have we been somehow faithless? Have we somehow offended God?
DAVID
I don’t know. I do know just last month the Union army had a 2 to 1 advantage over the Confederate troops. But still Stonewall Jackson halted the Union advance against General Lee near Charlottesville. Our General Hooker lost 17,000 troops. 17,000 soldiers! 17,000 souls! I can’t begin to imagine. And that also means there are 17,000 families somewhere, all across this nation, who mourn. And it was not just our side who paid a steep price. General Jackson and General Lee lost 13,000. That’s a total of 30,000 souls! 30,000 lives lost over the course of just a couple of days.
JOE
(SLOWLY.) Yes, I... I... don’t know what to say about this. The toll of this rebellion has been horrific, unbelievable.
DAVID
Well, for me this brings up a serious question: ‘what hath God wrought?
JOE
Yes. I think that’s an important question. However, I want to suggest God hath not wrought the devastation and bloodshed we have already seen. This is not the will of God. God does not want to see people die by acts of violence.
DAVID
(Slight pause.) Is God not in control?
JOE
Is God in control? Of course God is in control. That’s not the issue. That’s not why there has been so much violence. The bloodshed is a result of the fact that we humans always believe we are in control. We do what we can to wrest control from God. And that, my friend, is the issue. We humans, we who think we are in control— we are the real cause of this appalling, horrendous, shameful violence.
DAVID
(SLIGHT PAUSE.) So, when will we learn to forge plowshares out of swords?
JOE
Yes, that is exactly why I wanted to look at this passage from Exodus 14 with you. I don’t think this passage is about war at all and I’d like to discuss it with you to see if you might think the same.
DAVID
What do you mean it’s not about war? Quote: “Then I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will come after you; and so I will glorify myself at the expense of Pharaoh and all the army of Egypt, the chariots, the chariot drivers. The Egyptians shall know that I am Yahweh, when I glorify myself over Pharaoh, the chariots, and the chariot drivers.” If that is not about God and about war, even about God sanctioning war what is it about?
JOE
I think it can be taken that way. And, indeed, I think there are many people who say this is about war and perhaps there are many people who think this passage condones war. And I think there are many people who would even say this passage claims God condones war. But does it? You see, what I find interesting is that our enslaved brothers and sisters take great solace in this passage. If they find solace in this passage do they think it points to a different place, a place which is not about war?
DAVID
Actually, I am well aware our brothers and sisters who suffer the bonds of slavery do take solace in this passage. And I have oftentimes wondered the same thing. I’ve wondered why that’s the case. Why would an enslaved people take solace in a passage like this? It’s so.... so.... violent.
JOE
Well, let’s try to see these words from their point of view. I think this is how they might see it: just like the Israelites in Egypt, the people who are enslaved have come here from another land. And just like the Israelites in Egypt, the people who are enslaved here, on this side of the Atlantic, yearn to be free. Hence, I think the way these words are speaking to them and the deeper the meaning they find in these words embodies the promises made by God.
DAVID
Huh. (VERY LONG PAUSE. THEN IN AN EXCITED VOICE:) Oh, yes! Oh, yes! I see! I see! Yes! Yes! Yes! And what are the real promises of God? The real promises of God have little to do with war and bloodshed. The real promises of God have to do with deliverance. The real promises of God have to do with rescue. The real promises of God have to do with salvation— the saving grace of God. Therefore, real promises of God have to do with freedom.
JOE
And that is exactly what those trapped in slavery can see in this passage: deliverance, rescue, salvation, freedom.
DAVID
(SLIGHT PAUSE AND A SIGH.) So, is the human condition so hopeless that we are to be forever trapped in struggle? Does the human condition mean some will be denied the deliverance, the rescue, the salivation, the freedom that is clearly the will of God for all people?
JOE
I think this passage tells us otherwise. Quote: “Do not be afraid, stand firm, stand your ground and you will see the deliverance,...”
DAVID
Yes, but it also says this: “Tell the Israelites to go forward, march on.” I think that tells us we need to participate in the work of God, in the will of God. We need to participate in bringing the realm of God into our own time, work toward realizing the realm of God can be something which happens now. And the realm of God will be reached when all people enjoy freedom. So we need to participate in the work of equality and the work of justice. We are the hands of God. We are the voice of God.
JOE
Mr. Amos, I could not agree with you more.
DAVID
Perhaps... participation is the struggle.
JOE
Yes, perhaps participation is the struggle.
DAVID
I think there is another truth to be found here that I need to state. And this must be obvious: in the struggle we humans too often resort to violence.
JOE
I agree. On the other hand, how can peace be a possibility, how can peace be a reality, unless we see a way to victory for our cause. And our cause is freedom. Freedom is a just cause, is it not?
DAVID
I agree. Freedom is a just cause. But sometimes I wonder why we humans think violence is a means through which the peace of the Realm of God can be reached. How many times have you heard this slogan used? “Peace through victory.” I suspect the only thing victory brings is a lull in the violence. Victory does not bring any kind of peace. Only justice, only the justice of God, will bring true and lasting peace.
JOE
(LONG PAUSE.) Peace through justice.
DAVID
Indeed, not peace through violence. Peace through justice. And it is justice— the justice God seeks— which will ensure freedom for all people.
JOE
(SLIGHT PAUSE.) There are no easy answers, are there?
DAVID
It is not the job of theology to provide easy answers. Indeed, the claim of theology is this: as we become slowly aware of God we also become aware that God is not so much the object of our knowledge as the cause of our wonder.
JOE
(LONG PAUSE.) God as the cause of wonder. (SHORTER PAUSE.) My friend, I am glad we have had this conversation. You’ve helped me learn something. You’ve helped me learn the hand of God must been seen at all times and in all ways because God is the cause of wonder. You’ve helped me learn the love of God must be spread throughout the land. You’ve helped me learn victory is not a way to ensure peace.
DAVID
(SHORTER PAUSE.) Well, my friend, I am also glad we have had this conversation. You’ve helped me learn something. You’ve helped me learn the hand of God is sometimes seen in the struggle. You’ve helped me learn the freedom God offers to each one of us is precious. And you have also helped me learn the love of God must be spread throughout the land.
JOE
Mr. Amos, our talk gives me hope for the future. Indeed, I wonder if the pastors of our two churches will talk from time to time over the years about justice and freedom and peace.
DAVID
Mr. Scoville, my guess is our predecessors used to talk about these things. Perhaps they met right here, between these buildings to talk. Indeed, my guess is those pastors who follow us will continue to talk about these things, engaging one another right here between these buildings. In fact, my guess is the people of our churches will be working together on issues of justice and peace and love and freedom more than 150 years from now. (Slight pause.) Mr. Scoville— may I call you Samuel?
JOE
Why, of course.
DAVID
Samuel, I am always glad when I see you. We have such stimulating chats.
JOE
Mr. Benedict— may I call you Amos?
DAVID
Why, of course.
JOE
Amos, I am always glad to see you, since I know we are working toward the same goal: we work for the good of the people in this fair place called Norwich and we work toward our mutual goal— that the realm of God is present in this place and in this time and that the realm of God means all people will know the freedom God offers each of us.
DAVID
(SLIGHT PAUSE.) So, do you think that will be true in the future— that the pastors here will work for the good of the people of Norwich and that the real goal to work toward the Realm of God and that the reality of the Realm of God means all people will know the freedom God offers each of us? And you are, in that sense saying that in— I don’t know— pick a date, pick a year— let’s say in the year 2015— in 2015 will all this still be true?
JOE
Of course it will be true. It will be true if we remain friends in Christ, one in Christ. If we are friends in Christ, one in Christ, then all things are possible.
DAVID
Amen.
JOE
And again, amen.
06/07/2015
A Union Service of Worship in West Park with First Baptist Church, the United Church of Christ, First Congregational Followed by a Sharing a Meal.
[1] Often a sound file gets posted on the web for the sermons of the Rev. Mr. Connolly. That is not the case with this one. This being an outdoor service there was no recording facility available.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
SERMON ~ 05/31/2015 ~ “The Whole Earth”
05/31/2015 ~ Trinity Sunday ~ Known in Some Traditions as the First Sunday after Pentecost ~ Known in Some Traditions as the 9th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Isaiah 6:1-8; Psalm 29; Romans 8:12-17; John 3:1-17 ~ Also the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth ~ 1 Samuel 2:1-10 ~ Psalm 113 ~ Romans 12:9-16b ~ Luke 1:39-57 ~ Inter-generational Sunday/Graduate Sunday.
The Whole Earth [1]
“They {Seraphs, celestial beings with three pairs of wings} cried out to one another and said: / ‘Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh, God, the omnipotent; / the whole earth is full with the glory of God.’” — Isaiah 6:3.
Recently New York Times columnist David Brooks asked readers to send in essays describing their purpose in life and how they found it. Brooks expected most contributors would follow the commencement-speech clichés of our high-achieving culture: dream big; set ambitious goals; try to change the world. However and in fact, a surprising number of people found their purpose by going the other way: pursuing what Brooks labeled as the small, happy life.
One person responded this way. “Perhaps, the mission in life is not a mission at all.... Everywhere there are tiny, seemingly inconsequential circumstances that, if explored, provide meaning and chances to be generous and kind. Spiritual and emotional growth happens in microscopic increments.”
Another wrote purpose in life became instantly clearer once one recognizes the reality of the “decision trap.” This trap is the phenomena whereby so called ‘big decisions’ turn out to have much less impact on life as a whole than a myriad of small, seemingly insignificant decisions one needs to make on a daily basis.
Yet another wrote, “At age 85 the question of meaning in my life is urgent. But the question of the purpose of my life is another matter. World War II and life in general have taught me outcomes from our actions or inactions are often totally unpredictable and even random.”
The old soldier added, “I am thankful to be alive. I have a responsibility to myself and to those around me to give meaning to my life from day to day. I enjoy my family (not all of them) and a shrinking number of old friends.” [2] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “They {Seraphs, celestial beings with three pairs of wings} cried out to one another and said: / ‘Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh, God, the omnipotent; / the whole earth is full with the glory of God.’” (Slight pause.)
Something I have brought up time and time again is a question both simple and theological. “Do we happen to life or does life happen to us.” The answer is or should be obvious. Life— the big stuff: war, the death of a loved one, a recession— the big stuff happens to us.
That question, “Do we happen to life or does life happen to us,” is theological because the answer— that life happens to us, that we are not in control— understands the depth and the breath of random. And therefore, that question also challenges our understanding of God since it asks, in its own tacit way, is God an ogre Whose cudgel is the random?
That God is somehow some kind of disagreeable monster willing to inflict evil is, in fact, a position one often hears in our society. But time and time again Scripture insists the opposite. Scripture insists God is good. God is holy and (quote:) “the whole earth is full with the glory of God.”
Indeed, a segment of this passage not heard today says God blots out, removes any imperfections we might have. God is good. The community, this community is, hence, empowered to understand we are an avenue for the expression of the presence of the Holy One in the reality called life. And God is good.
Which leaves the obvious question: how can we be the avenue for the expression of the presence of God in human life? Perhaps one prime avenue we need to pursue is the aforementioned small, happy life.
Yes, larger quests, missions are out there. But they will come to us or they won’t. It’s not something we control. Dare I say it? The larger quests are more random than we are willing to admit. Further, the goodness of God is always with us. And the goodness of God will have us ready for those larger quests should they come our way.
Which is to say we need to see there are a myriad of opportunities to walk in God’s way and follow the will of God Who is good. Put another way, we need to trust God in nearly everything we do each and every day.
And God, Who is good, will prepare fertile ground on which we can walk and on which we will walk. God, Who is good, will prepare fertile ground in which we can plant and in which we will plant.
These opportunities for doing the will of God and doing the work of God range from— the small opportunities— range from visiting friends and neighbors, to folding a newsletter at a local non-profit, to helping out with church school, to dropping a card to someone you have not seen in a bit which simply says ‘thinking of you,’ to offering to do child care so a Mom and Dad can have a night out together, alone.
Is it possible these kinds of things are all we need to do to really change the world? Why yes, it is. These things can really change the world because they change how we interact.
And after all, doing these kinds of things affirm a basic and simple belief: God is good. And, if God is good, we can be and are the instruments through whom the goodness of God is seen and recognized. Amen.
05/31/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I ran across a prayer written by Jesuit James Martin this week called A New Serenity Prayer. ‘God, grant me the serenity to accept the people I cannot change, which is pretty much everyone, since I’m clearly not you, God. At least not the last time I checked. And while you’re at it, God, please give me the courage to change what I need to change about myself, which is frankly a lot, since, once again, I’m not you, which means I’m not perfect. It’s better for me to focus on changing myself than to worry about changing other people, who, as you’ll no doubt remember me saying, I can’t change anyway. Finally, give me the wisdom to just shut up whenever I think that I’m clearly smarter than everyone else in the room, that no one knows what they’re talking about except me, or that I alone have all the answers. Basically, God, grant me the wisdom to remember that I’m not you. Amen.’”
BENEDICTION — A UNISON PRAYER: O Jesus, please be the canoe that holds me up in the sea of life. Please be the rudder that keeps me on straight paths. Be the outrigger that supports me in times of stress. Let Your Spirit be the sail that carries me though each day. Keep me safe, so that I can paddle on steady in the voyage called life. God of all, bless us so we may have calm seas, a warm sun and clear nights filled with stars. Amen.
[1] Please note: these comments are shorter than is normal for a Meditation at the main service on a Sunday since this was Inter-generational which featured many of the church school participants (both adults and children). And indeed, if you listen to the sound file posted on the web there is some background noise at the beginning of the sermon. These are the church school children settling down after their participation in the service. The observation made by pastor these words was, “That’s a tough act to follow.”
[2] Some minor edits were made in the wording because of being placed in the context of the sermon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/david-brooks-the-small-happy-life.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
The Whole Earth [1]
“They {Seraphs, celestial beings with three pairs of wings} cried out to one another and said: / ‘Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh, God, the omnipotent; / the whole earth is full with the glory of God.’” — Isaiah 6:3.
Recently New York Times columnist David Brooks asked readers to send in essays describing their purpose in life and how they found it. Brooks expected most contributors would follow the commencement-speech clichés of our high-achieving culture: dream big; set ambitious goals; try to change the world. However and in fact, a surprising number of people found their purpose by going the other way: pursuing what Brooks labeled as the small, happy life.
One person responded this way. “Perhaps, the mission in life is not a mission at all.... Everywhere there are tiny, seemingly inconsequential circumstances that, if explored, provide meaning and chances to be generous and kind. Spiritual and emotional growth happens in microscopic increments.”
Another wrote purpose in life became instantly clearer once one recognizes the reality of the “decision trap.” This trap is the phenomena whereby so called ‘big decisions’ turn out to have much less impact on life as a whole than a myriad of small, seemingly insignificant decisions one needs to make on a daily basis.
Yet another wrote, “At age 85 the question of meaning in my life is urgent. But the question of the purpose of my life is another matter. World War II and life in general have taught me outcomes from our actions or inactions are often totally unpredictable and even random.”
The old soldier added, “I am thankful to be alive. I have a responsibility to myself and to those around me to give meaning to my life from day to day. I enjoy my family (not all of them) and a shrinking number of old friends.” [2] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Scroll of the Prophet Isaiah: “They {Seraphs, celestial beings with three pairs of wings} cried out to one another and said: / ‘Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh, God, the omnipotent; / the whole earth is full with the glory of God.’” (Slight pause.)
Something I have brought up time and time again is a question both simple and theological. “Do we happen to life or does life happen to us.” The answer is or should be obvious. Life— the big stuff: war, the death of a loved one, a recession— the big stuff happens to us.
That question, “Do we happen to life or does life happen to us,” is theological because the answer— that life happens to us, that we are not in control— understands the depth and the breath of random. And therefore, that question also challenges our understanding of God since it asks, in its own tacit way, is God an ogre Whose cudgel is the random?
That God is somehow some kind of disagreeable monster willing to inflict evil is, in fact, a position one often hears in our society. But time and time again Scripture insists the opposite. Scripture insists God is good. God is holy and (quote:) “the whole earth is full with the glory of God.”
Indeed, a segment of this passage not heard today says God blots out, removes any imperfections we might have. God is good. The community, this community is, hence, empowered to understand we are an avenue for the expression of the presence of the Holy One in the reality called life. And God is good.
Which leaves the obvious question: how can we be the avenue for the expression of the presence of God in human life? Perhaps one prime avenue we need to pursue is the aforementioned small, happy life.
Yes, larger quests, missions are out there. But they will come to us or they won’t. It’s not something we control. Dare I say it? The larger quests are more random than we are willing to admit. Further, the goodness of God is always with us. And the goodness of God will have us ready for those larger quests should they come our way.
Which is to say we need to see there are a myriad of opportunities to walk in God’s way and follow the will of God Who is good. Put another way, we need to trust God in nearly everything we do each and every day.
And God, Who is good, will prepare fertile ground on which we can walk and on which we will walk. God, Who is good, will prepare fertile ground in which we can plant and in which we will plant.
These opportunities for doing the will of God and doing the work of God range from— the small opportunities— range from visiting friends and neighbors, to folding a newsletter at a local non-profit, to helping out with church school, to dropping a card to someone you have not seen in a bit which simply says ‘thinking of you,’ to offering to do child care so a Mom and Dad can have a night out together, alone.
Is it possible these kinds of things are all we need to do to really change the world? Why yes, it is. These things can really change the world because they change how we interact.
And after all, doing these kinds of things affirm a basic and simple belief: God is good. And, if God is good, we can be and are the instruments through whom the goodness of God is seen and recognized. Amen.
05/31/2015
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I ran across a prayer written by Jesuit James Martin this week called A New Serenity Prayer. ‘God, grant me the serenity to accept the people I cannot change, which is pretty much everyone, since I’m clearly not you, God. At least not the last time I checked. And while you’re at it, God, please give me the courage to change what I need to change about myself, which is frankly a lot, since, once again, I’m not you, which means I’m not perfect. It’s better for me to focus on changing myself than to worry about changing other people, who, as you’ll no doubt remember me saying, I can’t change anyway. Finally, give me the wisdom to just shut up whenever I think that I’m clearly smarter than everyone else in the room, that no one knows what they’re talking about except me, or that I alone have all the answers. Basically, God, grant me the wisdom to remember that I’m not you. Amen.’”
BENEDICTION — A UNISON PRAYER: O Jesus, please be the canoe that holds me up in the sea of life. Please be the rudder that keeps me on straight paths. Be the outrigger that supports me in times of stress. Let Your Spirit be the sail that carries me though each day. Keep me safe, so that I can paddle on steady in the voyage called life. God of all, bless us so we may have calm seas, a warm sun and clear nights filled with stars. Amen.
[1] Please note: these comments are shorter than is normal for a Meditation at the main service on a Sunday since this was Inter-generational which featured many of the church school participants (both adults and children). And indeed, if you listen to the sound file posted on the web there is some background noise at the beginning of the sermon. These are the church school children settling down after their participation in the service. The observation made by pastor these words was, “That’s a tough act to follow.”
[2] Some minor edits were made in the wording because of being placed in the context of the sermon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/david-brooks-the-small-happy-life.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Monday, May 25, 2015
SERMON ~ 05/24/2015 ~ “What Does This Mean?”
05/24/2015 ~ Day of Pentecost ~ Known in Some Traditions as the 8th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ *Acts 2:1-21 or Ezekiel 37:1-14; Psalm 104:24-34, 35b; Romans 8:22-27 or Acts 2:1-21; John 15:26-27; 16:4b-15 ~ Memorial Day Weekend on the Secular Calendar.
What Does This Mean?
“Many were amazed and perplexed, and asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’ But others mockingly said, ‘They have consumed too much new wine.’” — Acts 2:12-13.
The Pew Research Center in Washington D.C. works on a broad range of topics from religion to politics. Some would say these topics— religion and politics— are the same, but I won’t get too deeply into that today. Or I hope not.
In its interaction with these and other areas, the Pew Center tries to focus on and provide information about social issues as they interact with public opinion and demographic trends. Their operating thesis says once trends are identified, you can more accurately see and assess the current shape of the world around us.
In short, the Center tries to lay out just facts, not opinion. I, briefly and in passing, last week mentioned a new report from the Pew Research Center about statistics related to religion, related to denominations, the institutional church.
And as a whole, organized religion— denominations across the board, right, left and in between, it does not matter— organized religion is in decline says the report. Further, the share of Americans who do not identify with any organized religion is growing. These changes effect all regions of the country and all demographic groups. [1]
As church historian and theologian Diana Butler Bass has pointed out, given its breadth this shift is obviously not about faith. This is clearly a social movement. Of equal interest is in the 1950s the opposite social movement happened. But we don’t often refer to it that way, we don’t see it that way— a social movement— even though it was.
To reflect on that history: in the 1950s it felt like everyone was going to the institution called churches. But that movement into the institution was not necessarily about faith, just as the movement today in the opposite direction is not necessarily about faith.
In fact, with great surety there is one thing which can be said concerning the numbers who added to the institutions called churches during 1950s. In terms of American history, this phenomena was a total anomaly, completely abnormal.
Numbers like those had never been seen in the American churches before. If you think a greater percentage of the population were in the institutions called churches in America in the 1790s, for instance, as opposed to the 1950s, you would be wrong. In the 1820s? Nope. In the 1860s? Uah, uah. In the 1920s? Not even close.
The 1950s into the 1960s were just different. Never before or since has anything like that happened.
So in that sense, to think the 1950s numbers were normal, or to even think these numbers had to do with institutionalized religion, given the aforementioned evidence, one would have to suspend disbelief, ignore the facts. Here is a quick and simple way of thinking about this: institutions in no way make belief. Let me say that again: institutions in no way make belief. I would suggest the purpose of the institution is to help you and those around you reflect belief. But institutions do not make belief.
There is one more point I need to state. I am not, nor is anyone else especially the researchers I mentioned who collect this data, questioning the faith of those inside the institutions called churches or the faith of those outside the institutions called churches. What is being noted is the location of people of faith— inside, outside— doesn’t mean any of them lacked faith or had faith. (Slight pause.)
These words are from Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Acts: “Many were amazed and perplexed, and asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’ But others mockingly said, ‘They have consumed too much new wine.’” (Slight pause.)
Another fairly well known statistic is that, on average, the percentage of people who attend church in America on a fairly regular basis runs in the mid-thirty percentage range. On the other hand, in Europe the percentage of attendance is less than ten percent of the population.
Well, given that lack of attendance across the pond, there is a fascinating thing happening in jolly old England. Recently, the Catholic Church there said the number of women becoming nuns has reached a 25-year high. Many are aged 30 or under. To paraphrase Acts, ‘What does this mean?’
One reason may be a concerted effort in England by the Catholic Church to demystify what nuns do and to explain life in the orders. Christopher Jamison, the Catholic Church’s national vocations director in England says this: “Increasingly, young people find Christian faith filling a meaning gap,... because it leads them to the heart of human life today: to the heart of working for the poor; this helps them lead a balanced life with a great conviction that there is more to life.” [2] (Slight pause.)
In a recent article the Rev. Erik Parker, a Lutheran cleric whom I have quoted before and who blogs under the name Millennial Pastor, cautions that we are wrong about church decline. With an interesting take he says the real decline we are seeing is the end of the state church. He insists that’s not what people who are serious about practicing faith want, and insofar as the church remains a voice for the state, it drives people away.
Christendom, he says, is no longer and can no longer be the church of the empire it was and has often been since Roman times. That’s the church, claims Parker, that’s the institution which is dying.
The state, he says, always supports the status quo, a staid, static way of doing things. That’s not church. In the same writing Parker also admonishes the reader to remember the church did O.K. in its first 300 years, those years before it became so entangled with Rome and its descendants. [3] (Slight pause.)
So, what is going on in Acts 2, the earliest point in those 300 years before the church became a part of the state? Or as the writing, itself, poses the question: “What does it mean?” (Slight pause.)
That question— “What does it mean?”— that question may be the most important question asked in all Scripture. It is the basic question Scripture, itself, asks. Scripture, itself, never asks, what does this say or what are the details of a story? Scripture always asks, “What does this mean?”
Hence, for all the happenings in the reading we heard, and there are plenty of happenings— from tongues of fire to speaking in tongues. For all the happenings in this reading the question one should never ask is: ‘what happened?’ So, what does it mean? (Slight pause.)
As I said earlier, Pentecost— the feast we celebrate today— is arguably the second most important feast on the Christian calendar, the first being Easter. [4] Indeed, most theologians would say Trinity Sunday and the Epiphany would rank as third and fourth.
But what makes Pentecost important? Pentecost is sometimes referred to as the birthday of the church. And I am just enough of a defender of institutions and institutional life to say the institution has some important.
And [the pastor starts pointing to people] when you and you and you and you and you come together as a community, form community, belief happens. Sometimes belief happens even when we are unaware it’s happening. And, coming back to the reading and all those details, from tongues of fire to speaking in tongues, the meaning of what happens in that reading has to do with belief. It is a belief in the presence. It is a belief in the reality of God.
Now when it come to second meaning in this passage, in a real sense I gave away my hand earlier: the purpose of the institution known as church is to help you and those around you reflect belief. The purpose of the institution known as church is not to make belief. It is you— and you and you and you who make belief happen. (Slight pause.)
I have proof of that we, as individuals, make belief and the proof is in yesterday’s news. I mean that literally— yesterday. Pope Francis announced the beatification of murdered Salvadoran archbishop Óscar Romero. This leaves the late cleric one step from sainthood. And what does that mean?
It means the first Pope from the developing world, Francis, has placed the poor at the center of this papacy. In doing so, the Pope is directly engaging a theological movement that was distrusted by this Pope’s predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
As a young Jesuit leader in Argentina, even Francis had qualms with the movement. But now, in a very personal move, Francis speaks of creating a poor church for the poor and is seeking to position Catholicism closer to the masses. It is the personal belief of this Pontiff that the church needs to be a church for the poor, a church devoted to outreach and helping others. [5]
So to reiterate, the purpose of the institution known as church is not to make belief. It’s much more personal than that. And no, I’d be the first to admit it: I am not the Pope, you are not the Pope, we are not the Pope. But we are Congregationalists, are we not. So it is you— [the pastor starts pointing to people again] and you and you and you and you who make belief.
So, here’s the question: can we Congregationalists be as forthright as the Pope about the mission of the church? I think so. And if we do, I’ve got good news. The church will not go away or be in decline. I’ve got even better news. The Spirit will be alive among us for we will show the fruits of the Spirit. Amen.
05/24/2015, Pentecost Sunday
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I suggested Pentecost is important because it’s about each of us. I say Pentecost is about each of us because I believe the Spirit of God is with each of us. The Spirit of God blesses each of us. I believe the Spirit of God showers many gifts on each of us. Further, I believe the Spirit of God lives with each of us and all of us now, right now. I believe the Spirit of God lives with us throughout eternity.”
BENEDICTION: Let us acknowledge our many gifts. Let us seek to use them for the common good. Let us commit ourselves as people of action. God, the creator, is at work in our midst. The Holy Spirit is present to us. Jesus, the Christ, lives among us. Let us go from this worship to continue our worship with work and witness. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts, minds and spirits centered on God, this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-32777639
[3] http://millennialpastor.net/author/revcowboy/
[4] This was stated at the start of the service.
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/popes-focus-on-poor-revives-scorned-theology.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150523&nlid=11820119&tntemail0=y
What Does This Mean?
“Many were amazed and perplexed, and asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’ But others mockingly said, ‘They have consumed too much new wine.’” — Acts 2:12-13.
The Pew Research Center in Washington D.C. works on a broad range of topics from religion to politics. Some would say these topics— religion and politics— are the same, but I won’t get too deeply into that today. Or I hope not.
In its interaction with these and other areas, the Pew Center tries to focus on and provide information about social issues as they interact with public opinion and demographic trends. Their operating thesis says once trends are identified, you can more accurately see and assess the current shape of the world around us.
In short, the Center tries to lay out just facts, not opinion. I, briefly and in passing, last week mentioned a new report from the Pew Research Center about statistics related to religion, related to denominations, the institutional church.
And as a whole, organized religion— denominations across the board, right, left and in between, it does not matter— organized religion is in decline says the report. Further, the share of Americans who do not identify with any organized religion is growing. These changes effect all regions of the country and all demographic groups. [1]
As church historian and theologian Diana Butler Bass has pointed out, given its breadth this shift is obviously not about faith. This is clearly a social movement. Of equal interest is in the 1950s the opposite social movement happened. But we don’t often refer to it that way, we don’t see it that way— a social movement— even though it was.
To reflect on that history: in the 1950s it felt like everyone was going to the institution called churches. But that movement into the institution was not necessarily about faith, just as the movement today in the opposite direction is not necessarily about faith.
In fact, with great surety there is one thing which can be said concerning the numbers who added to the institutions called churches during 1950s. In terms of American history, this phenomena was a total anomaly, completely abnormal.
Numbers like those had never been seen in the American churches before. If you think a greater percentage of the population were in the institutions called churches in America in the 1790s, for instance, as opposed to the 1950s, you would be wrong. In the 1820s? Nope. In the 1860s? Uah, uah. In the 1920s? Not even close.
The 1950s into the 1960s were just different. Never before or since has anything like that happened.
So in that sense, to think the 1950s numbers were normal, or to even think these numbers had to do with institutionalized religion, given the aforementioned evidence, one would have to suspend disbelief, ignore the facts. Here is a quick and simple way of thinking about this: institutions in no way make belief. Let me say that again: institutions in no way make belief. I would suggest the purpose of the institution is to help you and those around you reflect belief. But institutions do not make belief.
There is one more point I need to state. I am not, nor is anyone else especially the researchers I mentioned who collect this data, questioning the faith of those inside the institutions called churches or the faith of those outside the institutions called churches. What is being noted is the location of people of faith— inside, outside— doesn’t mean any of them lacked faith or had faith. (Slight pause.)
These words are from Luke/Acts in the section commonly called Acts: “Many were amazed and perplexed, and asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’ But others mockingly said, ‘They have consumed too much new wine.’” (Slight pause.)
Another fairly well known statistic is that, on average, the percentage of people who attend church in America on a fairly regular basis runs in the mid-thirty percentage range. On the other hand, in Europe the percentage of attendance is less than ten percent of the population.
Well, given that lack of attendance across the pond, there is a fascinating thing happening in jolly old England. Recently, the Catholic Church there said the number of women becoming nuns has reached a 25-year high. Many are aged 30 or under. To paraphrase Acts, ‘What does this mean?’
One reason may be a concerted effort in England by the Catholic Church to demystify what nuns do and to explain life in the orders. Christopher Jamison, the Catholic Church’s national vocations director in England says this: “Increasingly, young people find Christian faith filling a meaning gap,... because it leads them to the heart of human life today: to the heart of working for the poor; this helps them lead a balanced life with a great conviction that there is more to life.” [2] (Slight pause.)
In a recent article the Rev. Erik Parker, a Lutheran cleric whom I have quoted before and who blogs under the name Millennial Pastor, cautions that we are wrong about church decline. With an interesting take he says the real decline we are seeing is the end of the state church. He insists that’s not what people who are serious about practicing faith want, and insofar as the church remains a voice for the state, it drives people away.
Christendom, he says, is no longer and can no longer be the church of the empire it was and has often been since Roman times. That’s the church, claims Parker, that’s the institution which is dying.
The state, he says, always supports the status quo, a staid, static way of doing things. That’s not church. In the same writing Parker also admonishes the reader to remember the church did O.K. in its first 300 years, those years before it became so entangled with Rome and its descendants. [3] (Slight pause.)
So, what is going on in Acts 2, the earliest point in those 300 years before the church became a part of the state? Or as the writing, itself, poses the question: “What does it mean?” (Slight pause.)
That question— “What does it mean?”— that question may be the most important question asked in all Scripture. It is the basic question Scripture, itself, asks. Scripture, itself, never asks, what does this say or what are the details of a story? Scripture always asks, “What does this mean?”
Hence, for all the happenings in the reading we heard, and there are plenty of happenings— from tongues of fire to speaking in tongues. For all the happenings in this reading the question one should never ask is: ‘what happened?’ So, what does it mean? (Slight pause.)
As I said earlier, Pentecost— the feast we celebrate today— is arguably the second most important feast on the Christian calendar, the first being Easter. [4] Indeed, most theologians would say Trinity Sunday and the Epiphany would rank as third and fourth.
But what makes Pentecost important? Pentecost is sometimes referred to as the birthday of the church. And I am just enough of a defender of institutions and institutional life to say the institution has some important.
And [the pastor starts pointing to people] when you and you and you and you and you come together as a community, form community, belief happens. Sometimes belief happens even when we are unaware it’s happening. And, coming back to the reading and all those details, from tongues of fire to speaking in tongues, the meaning of what happens in that reading has to do with belief. It is a belief in the presence. It is a belief in the reality of God.
Now when it come to second meaning in this passage, in a real sense I gave away my hand earlier: the purpose of the institution known as church is to help you and those around you reflect belief. The purpose of the institution known as church is not to make belief. It is you— and you and you and you who make belief happen. (Slight pause.)
I have proof of that we, as individuals, make belief and the proof is in yesterday’s news. I mean that literally— yesterday. Pope Francis announced the beatification of murdered Salvadoran archbishop Óscar Romero. This leaves the late cleric one step from sainthood. And what does that mean?
It means the first Pope from the developing world, Francis, has placed the poor at the center of this papacy. In doing so, the Pope is directly engaging a theological movement that was distrusted by this Pope’s predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
As a young Jesuit leader in Argentina, even Francis had qualms with the movement. But now, in a very personal move, Francis speaks of creating a poor church for the poor and is seeking to position Catholicism closer to the masses. It is the personal belief of this Pontiff that the church needs to be a church for the poor, a church devoted to outreach and helping others. [5]
So to reiterate, the purpose of the institution known as church is not to make belief. It’s much more personal than that. And no, I’d be the first to admit it: I am not the Pope, you are not the Pope, we are not the Pope. But we are Congregationalists, are we not. So it is you— [the pastor starts pointing to people again] and you and you and you and you who make belief.
So, here’s the question: can we Congregationalists be as forthright as the Pope about the mission of the church? I think so. And if we do, I’ve got good news. The church will not go away or be in decline. I’ve got even better news. The Spirit will be alive among us for we will show the fruits of the Spirit. Amen.
05/24/2015, Pentecost Sunday
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I suggested Pentecost is important because it’s about each of us. I say Pentecost is about each of us because I believe the Spirit of God is with each of us. The Spirit of God blesses each of us. I believe the Spirit of God showers many gifts on each of us. Further, I believe the Spirit of God lives with each of us and all of us now, right now. I believe the Spirit of God lives with us throughout eternity.”
BENEDICTION: Let us acknowledge our many gifts. Let us seek to use them for the common good. Let us commit ourselves as people of action. God, the creator, is at work in our midst. The Holy Spirit is present to us. Jesus, the Christ, lives among us. Let us go from this worship to continue our worship with work and witness. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses our understanding keep our hearts, minds and spirits centered on God, this day and forevermore. Amen.
[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-32777639
[3] http://millennialpastor.net/author/revcowboy/
[4] This was stated at the start of the service.
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/popes-focus-on-poor-revives-scorned-theology.html?emc=edit_tnt_20150523&nlid=11820119&tntemail0=y
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)