June 25, 2017 ~ Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 7 (12) ~ Genesis 21:8-21; Psalm 86:1-10, 16-17; Jeremiah 20:7-13; Psalm 69:7-10, (11-15), 16-18; Romans 6:1b-11; Matthew 10:24-39 ~ Annual Organizational Meeting of the Church in Our 213th Year; A Ceremony of Recognition as We Honor Members in Long Standing; the Sixtieth Anniversary of the, Church at the National Level, the United Church of Christ.
The Unexamined Life
“You who have found your own life will lose it; you who lose your own life for my sake will find it.” — Matthew 10:39.
Many of you know in my younger years I was a church member in the Roman Catholic tradition. In that context, as a member in a Roman Catholic Church, one is expected to go to confession.
When I was in grade school the nuns always taught us that, in order to prepare for the Sacrament of Confession— and do note in the Roman tradition Confession is a Sacrament— in order to prepare for the Sacrament of Confession a person had to do what was called an examination of conscience. Or so the nuns said. But what is meant by an examination of conscience? (Slight pause.)
Perhaps the informative question to ask here is the obvious one: ‘what is sin?’ In our Western culture we have somehow decided sin can be defined as specific acts committed by individuals.
Therefore, if little Tommy in Sister Mary Patrick’s 4th Grade class happens to accidentally lift a chocolate bar from the supermarket shelf and, unobserved, slip it in a pocket while shopping with Mom— well, that should be confessed. Hence, in the course of the aforementioned examination of conscience, little Tommy needs to count this as a sin.
In fact, Little Tommy needs to calculate what sins have been committed since the last time he went to confession and be ready to confess each of these. And this tends to be the practice to which many adhere from the 4th Grade forward until death. Assessing sin becomes a game of numbers. What was done? How often did you do it?
“Are you sorry for it” might not even be a part of the picture. Indeed, if one sees some act as sin but keeps doing it over and over, it becomes hard to envision a state of actual confession, handing one’s self over to God about one’s own behavior.
Well, why does little Tommy often account for sin this way when an examination of conscience is employed? Believe me, my 4th grade teacher, Sister Mary Patrick, used that little Tommy example of the lifted chocolate bar to explain an examination of conscience. Hence, for many an accounting mode becomes a reality. How many times, how often?
Of course, lifting a chocolate bar from the supermarket shelf does seem to fall under the heading of ‘Thou shalt not steal’ and all that rot. Therefore, this action and act is a sin, something you, individually, and you as an individual, can and might do.
But is that sin? (Slight pause.) Since I have made this point many times here before, I hope it will not surprise you if I say that, from the Biblical perspective, lifting a chocolate bar from the local supermarket shelf is, at best, a minor offense and probably not worthy of the name sin.
There are two things that need to be said about sin, from the Biblical perspective. First, sin is a corporate offense, something done by the community or in the community, not necessarily done by the individual. Second and therefore, what kind of act should be defined as sin? The definition of sin from that Biblical perspective is quite simple. Sin is missing the mark. What mark?
The mark is that in some way our covenant relationship with God has been broken and our covenant relationship with one another has been broken. In fact and from the Biblical perspective, sin is always considered to be so corporate, so communal, that the Biblical concept of sin says if any one of us offends God or one another, if any one individual breaks covenant, we have all offended God and one another, we have all broken covenant.
To reiterate, sin is not individual. I know that sounds un-American. It’s theologically quite sound. Sin is not individual. To make the claim that sin is only individual is a very secular way to look at it. Sin is corporate. And, I might add, sin is not a game of numbers: ‘how many times did I do what?’
All that brings us back to covenant. When we break covenant with God and one another, we miss the mark. It’s that simple. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Matthew. “You who have found your own life will lose it; you who lose your own life for my sake will find it.” (Slight pause.)
Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived from approximately 470 to 399 Before the Common Era and is one of the founders of Western philosophy. This is among many things Socrates is famous for saying: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
The examined life— to be clear, not the unexamined life but the examined life— is what philosophy is about. Why do I say that? Well, what does the word philosophy mean? Philosophy is a combination of two Greek words— philo and sophia.
I am sure you know Philadelphia is the city of brotherly love. Well, philo means love. Sophia is a common name for women. But sophia is also the Greek word for wisdom or virtue. Hence, philosophy is the love of or the pursuit of wisdom or the love of or the pursuit of virtue.
Hence, when we examine our lives what are we really doing? When we examine our lives we are not trying to decide if we are guilty of lifting a candy bar off a shelf. When we examine our lives— or as the Nuns would have had it, when we examine our conscience— we are trying to see if we have fully pursued wisdom, virtue. If we have not fully pursued wisdom, virtue, or put another way if we have not adhered to a covenant with God and one another, we have missed the mark. (Slight pause.)
And that turns me toward another modern Western concept, the thought that we are constantly and always good, without fault. We hit on this earlier in the Prayers of the People.
In that litany of Confession, which we often use in the seasons of Lent and Advent, first one person says “I confess to God and in the company of the people of God that my life and the life of the all the world is not whole.”
Then everyone responds, “May God forgive you, Christ renew you and the Spirit enable you to grow in love.” Once that happened then this was said: “We confess to God and in the company of the people of God that each of our lives and the life of all the world is not whole.” That was then followed by an expression of forgiveness.
This, my friends, illustrates the examined life. And it also brings us directly back to the words attributed to Jesus (quote:) “You who have found your own life will lose it; you who lose your own life for my sake will find it.”
You see the love of or the pursuit of wisdom, the love of or the pursuit of virtue is not about us. The love and the pursuit of covenant is not about us. Nor is it about goals or numbers. The love of or the pursuit of wisdom, the love of or the pursuit of virtue, the pursuit of covenant, the love of covenant is about a purity of heart and about doing for others.
An examination of life is about being in covenant with one another. And we need to come to that place— being in covenant with one another— because God is in covenant with us.
Or as it says in another section of the reading from Matthew (quote:) “...not a single sparrow will fall to the ground without the knowledge of Abba, God.” These words about sparrows are really, you see, about what happens when we are in covenant.
Why would I say these words about sparrows is about what happens when we are in covenant? Because, as the lyric in the hymn we used earlier says, “God’s eye is on the sparrow, and I know God watches me.”
So, God’s eye is on the sparrow. And yes, God is in covenant with us. And God, who is in covenant with us, invites us to be in covenant with one another. Why? We are all children of God. Or, if you like, we are all sparrows.
And, as children of God, as God’s sparrows, we need to see to each other’s well being, to each other’s welfare, to each other’s well-ness, to each other’s wholeness. And perhaps most importantly, we need to see to each other’s holiness. We need to see each other as holy. Seeing each other as holy: that is what I call the pursuit of virtue, the pursuit of wisdom, the pursuit of... covenant. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, NY
06/25/2017 - Sunday of the Annual Meeting
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: “Robert Green Ingersoll, born in Dobbs Ferry, was an American lawyer, a Civil War veteran and political leader. He said, ‘In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences.’ And, indeed, we tend to divide things up into rewards or punishments, hence we divide things up into winners and losers. But in God’s economy there are no winners or losers. There are sparrows.”
BENEDICTION: May we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Sunday, June 18, 2017
SERMON ~ 06/18/2017 ~ “The Journey Called Salvation”
06/18/2017 ~ Second Sunday after Pentecost ~ Proper 6 ~ 11th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Genesis 18:1-15, (21:1-7); Psalm 116:1-2, 12-19; Exodus 19:2-8a; Psalm 100; Romans 5:1-8; Matthew 9:35-10:8, (9-23) ~ Father’s Day.
The Journey Called Salvation
“Then Moses went up to God; and Yahweh— God— called out from the mountain and said, “This is what you shall say to the house of Jacob, what you are to tell the Israelites: ‘You saw for yourselves that which I did to Egypt, and how I bore you, carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.’” — Exodus 19:3-4.
In case you have not heard, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the space opera Star Wars. And yes, it is a film beloved by many.
And yes, Star Wars earned more money that year than any other movie. How much more? In 1977, the year it was released, Star Wars earned more than twice as much money as its closest competitor which, by the way, was Smokey and the Bandit.
Now movie studios are corporations seeking profit. Because of the earnings potential in the Star Wars model of movie making, studios recognized a lucrative cash stream was available. This changed the way the film industry operated. These blockbuster style movies have become the cultural norm, especially in the Summer.
However, I think many, many, many years hence, or perhaps even “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...,” when historians look at Star Wars, how much money the film earned and how it changed the movie industry will be a minor topic. I think the more likely topic will be “how did this film enter into, feed into and even meld with the psyche of America.”
And here’s an obvious question on that count. ‘What is it about the psyche of this nation which enabled, empowered this film to enthrall us?’ (Slight pause.)
Well, what is Star Wars about... really? Is the film simply about Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Organa and Han Solo and the Wookiee Chewbacca and the Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi, as they traverse across galaxies? Is that what it’s about? Or is it about something else, perhaps something more engaging, more central than mere action? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest Star Wars taps into our psyche— and by labeling Star Wars as tapping into the American psyche I was not giving the film the credit it is due. Star Wars does not just tap into the American psyche. Star Wars taps into our human psyche. In any case, I want to suggest Star Wars taps into our psyche because it is about three very basic human experiences.
Star Wars is about the journey— the journey called life. Star Wars is about freedom— human freedom. Additionally, in the story there is a sense of some kind of spirit reality, a reality beyond human understanding, which seems to be a constant presence. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Exodus: “Then Moses went up to God; and Yahweh— God— called out from the mountain and said, “This is what you shall say to the house of Jacob, what you are to tell the Israelites: ‘You saw for yourselves that which I did to Egypt, and how I bore you, carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.’” (Slight pause.)
We Christians— especially Western Christians— often seem to be comfortable with what the early church and even the church historic would label as a heresy. That heresy says the salvation offered by God started with Jesus. I won’t go as far as to call this a heresy, but I would certainly label the idea that salvation started with Jesus as a misunderstanding of or an inaccurate reading of the message in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Even a cursory reading of the Exodus should clearly tell anyone God offers salvation. (Quote:) “You saw for yourselves that which I did to Egypt, and how I bore you, carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.” These words describe the action of God and action— especially that action— constitutes salvation. That action is salvation.
Now, my guess is, especially Western Christians, don’t count the action of God in our lives as having anything to do with salvation. Why? Besides the idea that salvation started with Jesus, Western Christians seemed to have grasped onto the notion that salvation is somehow postponed to an afterlife.
And that, indeed, points out a second way we misunderstand, don’t understand, fail to understand the message in Scripture. We equate afterlife with salvation.
Now given that, I find it interesting that often oppressed communities clearly and obviously understand the salvation God offers can be seen as the present action of God. Oppressed communities understand salvation as something tangible, real, something which can happen and even is happening now.
The best proof I can offer about how oppressed communities see salvation as a possibility in the present tense are two hymns based in the experience of African-American community. These two hymns are Go Down Moses and In Egypt under Pharaoh, a hymn we used today. These hymns reference the experience of God as something which can happen now and, therefore, something which should be equated with salvation.
So, why do oppressed communities equate the experience of God right now, in our time, in our midst, with salvation? (Slight pause.) Let’s, for a moment, go back to Star Wars and, once again, explore how that film taps into the human psyche.
I made three claims about that story. Star Wars is about the journey called life. It’s about freedom— human freedom. And in the story there is a sense of some kind of spirit reality beyond human understanding which seems to be a constant presence. (Slight pause.)
You see, Star Wars is not about Luke and Leia and Han and Chewbacca and Obi-Wan as they travel across galaxies. That is merely the story.
So too it is with the Exodus story. Indeed, when this passage was introduced it was said the Sinai episode is at the center of Exodus. It is central to Exodus. And what should draw our attention about that story?
The Exodus story has some basic ideas which tap into the human psyche. The Exodus story tells us life is a journey. The Exodus story tells us that the journey moves us toward freedom. The Exodus story tells us there is some sense of a spirit reality beyond human understanding which seems to be a constant presence.
Star Wars fans call that spirit reality the force. Readers of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures call that spirit reality God. (Slight pause.)
All this should lead us to ask yet another obvious question. If that is a valid reading of the Hebrew Scriptures and accurately assesses how the Hebrew Scriptures address salvation, how should we be reading New Testament on the topic of salvation? (Slight pause.)
Street corner evangelists sometimes ask the question: “Are you saved?” The implication is somewhere, somehow there is a goal to be achieved. But is that the message of Jesus about salvation? (Slight pause.)
In the reading from Matthew we heard these words (quote): “...go make this proclamation: ‘The reign of heaven has drawn near.’” Biblical scholars agree on this. The message of Jesus in the Gospels is clear: God is near. God is with us on the journey. On that journey God walks with us toward the freedom God offers. (Slight pause.)
You see, the prime message of Scripture— the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures— is this basic: life is a journey. The journey moves us toward freedom because of the presence of God. And, by the way, there is a sense of some kind of spirit reality beyond human understanding which seems to be a constant presence. And we call that presence God. Amen.
06/18/2017
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I’ve said this here before. It bears repeating. The late poet Maya Angelou said she was always surprised when someone told her they were a Christian. She was under the impression that took a lifetime to accomplish. Life is a journey. The journey moves us toward freedom. God walks with us.”
BENEDICTION: Let God’s love be our first awareness each day. Let God’s love flow through our every activity. Let us rejoice that God frees us to be witnesses for God. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith because the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
The Journey Called Salvation
“Then Moses went up to God; and Yahweh— God— called out from the mountain and said, “This is what you shall say to the house of Jacob, what you are to tell the Israelites: ‘You saw for yourselves that which I did to Egypt, and how I bore you, carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.’” — Exodus 19:3-4.
In case you have not heard, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the space opera Star Wars. And yes, it is a film beloved by many.
And yes, Star Wars earned more money that year than any other movie. How much more? In 1977, the year it was released, Star Wars earned more than twice as much money as its closest competitor which, by the way, was Smokey and the Bandit.
Now movie studios are corporations seeking profit. Because of the earnings potential in the Star Wars model of movie making, studios recognized a lucrative cash stream was available. This changed the way the film industry operated. These blockbuster style movies have become the cultural norm, especially in the Summer.
However, I think many, many, many years hence, or perhaps even “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...,” when historians look at Star Wars, how much money the film earned and how it changed the movie industry will be a minor topic. I think the more likely topic will be “how did this film enter into, feed into and even meld with the psyche of America.”
And here’s an obvious question on that count. ‘What is it about the psyche of this nation which enabled, empowered this film to enthrall us?’ (Slight pause.)
Well, what is Star Wars about... really? Is the film simply about Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Organa and Han Solo and the Wookiee Chewbacca and the Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi, as they traverse across galaxies? Is that what it’s about? Or is it about something else, perhaps something more engaging, more central than mere action? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest Star Wars taps into our psyche— and by labeling Star Wars as tapping into the American psyche I was not giving the film the credit it is due. Star Wars does not just tap into the American psyche. Star Wars taps into our human psyche. In any case, I want to suggest Star Wars taps into our psyche because it is about three very basic human experiences.
Star Wars is about the journey— the journey called life. Star Wars is about freedom— human freedom. Additionally, in the story there is a sense of some kind of spirit reality, a reality beyond human understanding, which seems to be a constant presence. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Exodus: “Then Moses went up to God; and Yahweh— God— called out from the mountain and said, “This is what you shall say to the house of Jacob, what you are to tell the Israelites: ‘You saw for yourselves that which I did to Egypt, and how I bore you, carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.’” (Slight pause.)
We Christians— especially Western Christians— often seem to be comfortable with what the early church and even the church historic would label as a heresy. That heresy says the salvation offered by God started with Jesus. I won’t go as far as to call this a heresy, but I would certainly label the idea that salvation started with Jesus as a misunderstanding of or an inaccurate reading of the message in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Even a cursory reading of the Exodus should clearly tell anyone God offers salvation. (Quote:) “You saw for yourselves that which I did to Egypt, and how I bore you, carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.” These words describe the action of God and action— especially that action— constitutes salvation. That action is salvation.
Now, my guess is, especially Western Christians, don’t count the action of God in our lives as having anything to do with salvation. Why? Besides the idea that salvation started with Jesus, Western Christians seemed to have grasped onto the notion that salvation is somehow postponed to an afterlife.
And that, indeed, points out a second way we misunderstand, don’t understand, fail to understand the message in Scripture. We equate afterlife with salvation.
Now given that, I find it interesting that often oppressed communities clearly and obviously understand the salvation God offers can be seen as the present action of God. Oppressed communities understand salvation as something tangible, real, something which can happen and even is happening now.
The best proof I can offer about how oppressed communities see salvation as a possibility in the present tense are two hymns based in the experience of African-American community. These two hymns are Go Down Moses and In Egypt under Pharaoh, a hymn we used today. These hymns reference the experience of God as something which can happen now and, therefore, something which should be equated with salvation.
So, why do oppressed communities equate the experience of God right now, in our time, in our midst, with salvation? (Slight pause.) Let’s, for a moment, go back to Star Wars and, once again, explore how that film taps into the human psyche.
I made three claims about that story. Star Wars is about the journey called life. It’s about freedom— human freedom. And in the story there is a sense of some kind of spirit reality beyond human understanding which seems to be a constant presence. (Slight pause.)
You see, Star Wars is not about Luke and Leia and Han and Chewbacca and Obi-Wan as they travel across galaxies. That is merely the story.
So too it is with the Exodus story. Indeed, when this passage was introduced it was said the Sinai episode is at the center of Exodus. It is central to Exodus. And what should draw our attention about that story?
The Exodus story has some basic ideas which tap into the human psyche. The Exodus story tells us life is a journey. The Exodus story tells us that the journey moves us toward freedom. The Exodus story tells us there is some sense of a spirit reality beyond human understanding which seems to be a constant presence.
Star Wars fans call that spirit reality the force. Readers of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures call that spirit reality God. (Slight pause.)
All this should lead us to ask yet another obvious question. If that is a valid reading of the Hebrew Scriptures and accurately assesses how the Hebrew Scriptures address salvation, how should we be reading New Testament on the topic of salvation? (Slight pause.)
Street corner evangelists sometimes ask the question: “Are you saved?” The implication is somewhere, somehow there is a goal to be achieved. But is that the message of Jesus about salvation? (Slight pause.)
In the reading from Matthew we heard these words (quote): “...go make this proclamation: ‘The reign of heaven has drawn near.’” Biblical scholars agree on this. The message of Jesus in the Gospels is clear: God is near. God is with us on the journey. On that journey God walks with us toward the freedom God offers. (Slight pause.)
You see, the prime message of Scripture— the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures— is this basic: life is a journey. The journey moves us toward freedom because of the presence of God. And, by the way, there is a sense of some kind of spirit reality beyond human understanding which seems to be a constant presence. And we call that presence God. Amen.
06/18/2017
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “I’ve said this here before. It bears repeating. The late poet Maya Angelou said she was always surprised when someone told her they were a Christian. She was under the impression that took a lifetime to accomplish. Life is a journey. The journey moves us toward freedom. God walks with us.”
BENEDICTION: Let God’s love be our first awareness each day. Let God’s love flow through our every activity. Let us rejoice that God frees us to be witnesses for God. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith because the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
SERMON ~ 05/28/2017 ~ “It’s Complicated”
05/28/2017 ~ Seventh Sunday of Easter (If Ascension not observed here) ~ *Acts 1:6-14; Psalm 68:1-10, 32-35; 1 Peter 4:12-14; 5:6-11; John 17:1-11 ~ Note: Ascension Readings: *Acts 1:1-11; Psalm 47 or Psalm 93; Ephesians 1:15-23; Luke 24:44-53 ~ Memorial Day Weekend on the Secular Calendar.
It’s Complicated
“All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as the sisters and brothers of Jesus.” — Acts 1:14.
I want to start with an obvious question: what is family? Notice, I did not ask ‘who are your blood relatives?’ I asked ‘what is family?’ (Slight pause.)
A couple of weeks ago Bonnie and I drove to Connecticut— five hours each way— to go to a memorial service. The service and the reception after it lasted at best three hours. Was this service for a blood relative? No. Not even close.
Was this person a significant part of our lives? Yes. Therefore, no matter what blood lines might say, was she family? Yes she was— family however you want to put that— family, extended family, whatever. As a common saying goes these days— especially when it comes to relationships— it’s complicated. (Slight pause.)
I have on occasion mentioned my late cousin Roseanna Genevieve McCool. Rose, as I just indicated, was true family, a blood relative— a cousin. Rose was the daughter of my paternal grandfather’s sister.
Roses’s mother died young and for many years Rose and her father lived in an apartment in the same house where my paternal grandfather and his wife lived. It was, in fact, a house my grandparents owned. Rose and her father rented the upstairs apartment.
When I was very young both Rose’s father and my grandfather’s wife died. One consequence of that was, instead of being simply a cousin, Rose became much more of a grandmother figure in my family life, in the structure of my family, for me.
Was Rose a grandmother, my grandmother? No. Was she a grandmother figure? Yes. So, even within the context of blood relations, things can be... complicated. (Slight pause.)
One more family story: Bonnie and I have a niece, Heather, who lives in Dallas. In early July she and her five year old son, Henry, will be visiting her Dad, Bonnie’s brother Jack, in Deer Isle, Maine. Since we have not seen Heather and Henry in two years and Maine is a lot closer than Dallas, Bonnie and I will be traveling to Maine to join in on the visit. (Slight pause.)
Except everything I just said about how Heather and Henry are related to us is wrong. Well, it is, in one sense, not wrong. But it is certainly... inaccurate.
How so? Heather is the daughter of Jack’s first wife, Susan. But she is not Jack’s daughter. They, we, are not related by blood. Even though Heather is not related to Jack, after Susan and Jack got a divorce, Jack had custody of Heather.
Heather calls Jack “Dad.” And she addresses her biological father not with any term of endearment like Dad. Heather addresses her biological father by his first name. (Slight pause.)
So, what is family— really? It is complicated, is it not? (Slight pause.) And even though it is complicated, we experience it, we live with the reality of it, we know the complexity of it, do we not? As I said— family— it’s... complicated. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly referred to as Acts: “All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as the sisters and brothers of Jesus.” (Slight pause.)
Over time it has become evident to me people are often not comfortable with what Scripture really says, its reality, its complexity. Scripture... it’s complicated.
I think in part because of that complexity we tend to make up things about Scripture. And the things we make up often simplify what Scripture actually says.
For instance— as I have said many times— there are two Nativity stories, stories of the birth of Jesus, in the four Gospels— one in Luke with angels and shepherds and one in Matthew with a star and Magi. These are two stories written at two different times, by at least two different authors, addressed to two different audiences.
These stories exist not to report on the birth of Jesus but to make theological points about the Messiah. And what do we do with them? We mesh them together as if they were one. We simplify their complexity. After all, how many Christmas pageants have you seen with these stories told as if they were one?
But they are not in any way unified. Clearly one of many theological points Luke tries to make is the birth of the Messiah should be announced, proclaimed to the poor, the outcast.
Clearly one of many theological points Matthew tries to make is to tie the story of the Messiah to Jewish heritage, the Exodus. And in simplifying these two stories, in meshing them together, we miss the theological points. We flatten out the theological points they make. We make it theologically bland. We also make the stories culturally acceptable while blithely ignoring their theological thrust.
And, as I am sure you know, there are only two nativity stories in the four Gospels. Hence, two Gospels totally ignore the birth of the Messiah.
Why would two Gospels dismiss the nativity of the Messiah so completely, especially when our culture makes those stories so central? I would suggest those two Gospels discount the birth stories for two reasons.
First, those two Gospels have their own theological points to make and can make those points without considering the birth of the Messiah. Second, the nativity stories we do have are not at all about the actual birth of the Messiah, except from the theological perspective.
Indeed, the nativity stories are there to make specific theological points. But those points have nothing to do with angels or shepherds or stars or Magi. Like I said— it’s complicated. (Slight pause.)
So, did you notice in the story from Acts Jesus has sisters and brothers? And that’s not just one sister and one brother. That’s sisters and brothers— plural. And have you noticed our culture pretty much obliterates that little detail? Indeed, from other passages in Scripture it’s clear the Apostle James is plainly and unambiguously labeled a brother, meaning a blood relative, of Jesus.
So, Jesus had sisters and brothers. Or at least that’s what it says. To reiterate, from what I’ve heard I am fairly certain— folk religion, populist religion, popular culture, is in large denial about Jesus having had any brothers, any sisters. (Slight pause.)
Now, here’s yet a different question: ‘given what I said earlier, are these people labeled as sisters and brothers actually sisters and brothers? Or are they some kind of extended family? (Slight pause.)
Not long after I came to Norwich to be the pastor at this church a parishioner asked me why I was so passionate about Scripture. This is the answer I gave. As I read what Scripture has to say, the people are real for me, alive for me. The situations are real, alive for me.
The way I see it, the people and the situations we find in Scripture are complicated. Therefore, the people and the situations seem real to me.
And then, there is the theology. What are these people, real people, these situations, real situations, trying to tell me, trying to tell us about the reality of God. (Slight pause.) I would suggest the reality of God— theological reality or any other kind of reality— the reality of God is just like our own every day reality, just like all reality. It’s complicated. (Slight pause.)
Or is it? My own perception is we make the reality of God more complicated than it actually is. How? We overlay the reality of God with cultural trappings, imposed culturally acceptable falsehoods, which have little or nothing to do with God’s truth. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to the question: ‘what is family— really?’ Family— family is who you share your life with, who you share your love with.
And what is God’s truth? God’s truth is we are all part of God’s family. And that is not complicated. As I have said here many times over, God loves us and wants to covenant with us. That’s God’s truth.
So, God’s truth is we are all children of God. We are all a part of the family of God. And that, my friends, is as complicated or as simple as you make it out to be. So, is the love of God, as that loves is reflected in each of us, complicated? Your call. Amen.
05/28/2017
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The great American composer/lyricist Stephen Sondheim wrote this lyric: ‘Anyone can whistle, / That’s what they say— / Easy. / Anyone can whistle / Any old day— Easy. / It’s all so simple: / Relax, let go, let fly. / So someone tell me why / Can’t I? / I can dance a tango, / I can read Greek— / Easy. / I can slay a dragon / Any old week— Easy. / What’s hard is simple. / What’s natural comes hard. / Maybe you could show me / How to let go, / Lower my guard, / Learn to be... free. / Maybe if you whistle, / Whistle for me.’ Sometimes, especially when it comes to covenant love, we need to Relax, let go, let fly.”
BENEDICTION: God promises to empower our witness. 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.
It’s Complicated
“All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as the sisters and brothers of Jesus.” — Acts 1:14.
I want to start with an obvious question: what is family? Notice, I did not ask ‘who are your blood relatives?’ I asked ‘what is family?’ (Slight pause.)
A couple of weeks ago Bonnie and I drove to Connecticut— five hours each way— to go to a memorial service. The service and the reception after it lasted at best three hours. Was this service for a blood relative? No. Not even close.
Was this person a significant part of our lives? Yes. Therefore, no matter what blood lines might say, was she family? Yes she was— family however you want to put that— family, extended family, whatever. As a common saying goes these days— especially when it comes to relationships— it’s complicated. (Slight pause.)
I have on occasion mentioned my late cousin Roseanna Genevieve McCool. Rose, as I just indicated, was true family, a blood relative— a cousin. Rose was the daughter of my paternal grandfather’s sister.
Roses’s mother died young and for many years Rose and her father lived in an apartment in the same house where my paternal grandfather and his wife lived. It was, in fact, a house my grandparents owned. Rose and her father rented the upstairs apartment.
When I was very young both Rose’s father and my grandfather’s wife died. One consequence of that was, instead of being simply a cousin, Rose became much more of a grandmother figure in my family life, in the structure of my family, for me.
Was Rose a grandmother, my grandmother? No. Was she a grandmother figure? Yes. So, even within the context of blood relations, things can be... complicated. (Slight pause.)
One more family story: Bonnie and I have a niece, Heather, who lives in Dallas. In early July she and her five year old son, Henry, will be visiting her Dad, Bonnie’s brother Jack, in Deer Isle, Maine. Since we have not seen Heather and Henry in two years and Maine is a lot closer than Dallas, Bonnie and I will be traveling to Maine to join in on the visit. (Slight pause.)
Except everything I just said about how Heather and Henry are related to us is wrong. Well, it is, in one sense, not wrong. But it is certainly... inaccurate.
How so? Heather is the daughter of Jack’s first wife, Susan. But she is not Jack’s daughter. They, we, are not related by blood. Even though Heather is not related to Jack, after Susan and Jack got a divorce, Jack had custody of Heather.
Heather calls Jack “Dad.” And she addresses her biological father not with any term of endearment like Dad. Heather addresses her biological father by his first name. (Slight pause.)
So, what is family— really? It is complicated, is it not? (Slight pause.) And even though it is complicated, we experience it, we live with the reality of it, we know the complexity of it, do we not? As I said— family— it’s... complicated. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke/Acts in the section commonly referred to as Acts: “All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as the sisters and brothers of Jesus.” (Slight pause.)
Over time it has become evident to me people are often not comfortable with what Scripture really says, its reality, its complexity. Scripture... it’s complicated.
I think in part because of that complexity we tend to make up things about Scripture. And the things we make up often simplify what Scripture actually says.
For instance— as I have said many times— there are two Nativity stories, stories of the birth of Jesus, in the four Gospels— one in Luke with angels and shepherds and one in Matthew with a star and Magi. These are two stories written at two different times, by at least two different authors, addressed to two different audiences.
These stories exist not to report on the birth of Jesus but to make theological points about the Messiah. And what do we do with them? We mesh them together as if they were one. We simplify their complexity. After all, how many Christmas pageants have you seen with these stories told as if they were one?
But they are not in any way unified. Clearly one of many theological points Luke tries to make is the birth of the Messiah should be announced, proclaimed to the poor, the outcast.
Clearly one of many theological points Matthew tries to make is to tie the story of the Messiah to Jewish heritage, the Exodus. And in simplifying these two stories, in meshing them together, we miss the theological points. We flatten out the theological points they make. We make it theologically bland. We also make the stories culturally acceptable while blithely ignoring their theological thrust.
And, as I am sure you know, there are only two nativity stories in the four Gospels. Hence, two Gospels totally ignore the birth of the Messiah.
Why would two Gospels dismiss the nativity of the Messiah so completely, especially when our culture makes those stories so central? I would suggest those two Gospels discount the birth stories for two reasons.
First, those two Gospels have their own theological points to make and can make those points without considering the birth of the Messiah. Second, the nativity stories we do have are not at all about the actual birth of the Messiah, except from the theological perspective.
Indeed, the nativity stories are there to make specific theological points. But those points have nothing to do with angels or shepherds or stars or Magi. Like I said— it’s complicated. (Slight pause.)
So, did you notice in the story from Acts Jesus has sisters and brothers? And that’s not just one sister and one brother. That’s sisters and brothers— plural. And have you noticed our culture pretty much obliterates that little detail? Indeed, from other passages in Scripture it’s clear the Apostle James is plainly and unambiguously labeled a brother, meaning a blood relative, of Jesus.
So, Jesus had sisters and brothers. Or at least that’s what it says. To reiterate, from what I’ve heard I am fairly certain— folk religion, populist religion, popular culture, is in large denial about Jesus having had any brothers, any sisters. (Slight pause.)
Now, here’s yet a different question: ‘given what I said earlier, are these people labeled as sisters and brothers actually sisters and brothers? Or are they some kind of extended family? (Slight pause.)
Not long after I came to Norwich to be the pastor at this church a parishioner asked me why I was so passionate about Scripture. This is the answer I gave. As I read what Scripture has to say, the people are real for me, alive for me. The situations are real, alive for me.
The way I see it, the people and the situations we find in Scripture are complicated. Therefore, the people and the situations seem real to me.
And then, there is the theology. What are these people, real people, these situations, real situations, trying to tell me, trying to tell us about the reality of God. (Slight pause.) I would suggest the reality of God— theological reality or any other kind of reality— the reality of God is just like our own every day reality, just like all reality. It’s complicated. (Slight pause.)
Or is it? My own perception is we make the reality of God more complicated than it actually is. How? We overlay the reality of God with cultural trappings, imposed culturally acceptable falsehoods, which have little or nothing to do with God’s truth. (Slight pause.)
That brings me back to the question: ‘what is family— really?’ Family— family is who you share your life with, who you share your love with.
And what is God’s truth? God’s truth is we are all part of God’s family. And that is not complicated. As I have said here many times over, God loves us and wants to covenant with us. That’s God’s truth.
So, God’s truth is we are all children of God. We are all a part of the family of God. And that, my friends, is as complicated or as simple as you make it out to be. So, is the love of God, as that loves is reflected in each of us, complicated? Your call. Amen.
05/28/2017
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “The great American composer/lyricist Stephen Sondheim wrote this lyric: ‘Anyone can whistle, / That’s what they say— / Easy. / Anyone can whistle / Any old day— Easy. / It’s all so simple: / Relax, let go, let fly. / So someone tell me why / Can’t I? / I can dance a tango, / I can read Greek— / Easy. / I can slay a dragon / Any old week— Easy. / What’s hard is simple. / What’s natural comes hard. / Maybe you could show me / How to let go, / Lower my guard, / Learn to be... free. / Maybe if you whistle, / Whistle for me.’ Sometimes, especially when it comes to covenant love, we need to Relax, let go, let fly.”
BENEDICTION: God promises to empower our witness. 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.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
SERMON ~ 05/14/2017 ~ “God Among Us Now”
05/14/2017 ~ Fifth Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 7:55-60; Psalm 31:1-5, 15-16; 1 Peter 2:2-10; John 14:1-14 ~ Mother’s Day on the Secular Calendar or the Festival of the Christian Home on the Church Calendar ~ The Sacrament of Baptism; the Rite of Confirmation.
God Among Us Now
As you know, earlier we had a celebration of Baptism. Baptism is a sacrament, a sacrament being an outward and visible sign of the grace of God. But there are a number of ways to look at Baptism. Let me elaborate.
For instance, it can be said in and with and by Baptism we welcome someone into a community of faith, a local church. It can said in and with and by Baptism we welcome someone into not just the local community of faith but the greater Christian community. It can be said in and with and by Baptism we welcome someone as a child of God.
But equally, it can be said Baptism is simply an acknowledgment on our part the newly Baptized is already a member of the local community of faith, already a member of the greater community, already a child of God. Put differently, nothing we do— no act of ours— makes a person a member of the local or greater community of faith or a child of God. Nothing we do imposes, dispenses, administers or inflicts some kind magic on an individual which in some way alters them.
To be clear, this claim is not to say the very ritual, the very act, the very actions we take, the celebration of the sacrament of Baptism— in and of itself— fails to be significant. It is significant. Our actions are the very thing the definition claims: an outward sign.
What I am trying to say about this ritual, this act, this sacrament— Baptism— is we should not read into the ritual, the act, the sacrament our cultural misconceptions or our desires, our wants, our emotions, our dreams about what Baptism is or is not. The nature of this sacrament, the nature of the two sacraments of the Protestant tradition— Baptism and Communion— is that they are not about us. (Slight pause.)
So, if the sacraments are not about us, what are they about? (Slight pause.) The sacraments are about God and the grace of God and the presence of God. (Slight pause.) Sacraments are about God and the grace of God and the presence of God. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work know as the Gospel according to the School of John: “Philip said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, show us God, and we will be satisfied.’ Jesus replied, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen Abba God. How can you say, ‘Show us God’?” (Slight pause.)
I want to try a little thirty or forty second experiment. What I am going to ask is that each of us find another person, just one, perhaps someone whom you are sitting near and I was going to say this person should not really be a relative but we have so many folks who are relatives today, maybe we can get away with that. But if possible not a relative, O.K.? The idea was to take relationship of relative out of the equation but it will be tougher today. [1]
So, if you’re not sitting near someone, please move toward them. And this means someone needs to go with Bob Oehme— Bob— he came down from the loft he’s in back— I warned him, so this is good— he’s not up at the organ. O.K. Everyone get a partner. If there are is an odd number of people here today there will be one group of three. (Pause while people rearrange themselves.)
O.K. Looks like everyone’s paired up. Now, please do what I ask when I say ‘go’ everyone look into the eyes of your partner. This will last about thirty or forty seconds and I’ll time it.
Don’t say anything. There is no need to touch one another. Just look into the eyes of your partner. And I will let you know when time is up. O.K. Go! (Pause for the duration.) Amen. O.K.! If you moved too far you can go back to where you were if you want to— not a problem. Go ahead. (Pause for people to reassemble.)
O.K. I am not going to offer answers about this time together, but the obvious questions are: ‘How did that feel?’ Awkward. ‘What did you see?’ I am sure each of you has your own answer. Equally, I am sure for some people it was deeply moving. Others may have been asking, “What is Joe trying to get me into now?” (Slight pause.)
Now that we’ve had this exercise, let’s go back to the sacraments. I suggested the sacraments are not about us. The sacraments are about God and the grace of God and the presence of God.
Hence, for me, the Sacraments beg the question, “Where is God?” Indeed, let’s take what Philip says (quote:) “Rabbi, show us God and we will be satisfied.” I think the underlying question being asked by Philip really is, “Where... is... God?” (Slight pause.)
Given that question— “Where is God?” let’s turn to the rite we will be celebrating in a few moments, the Rite of Confirmation. In the Protestant tradition— as opposed to the Roman Catholic tradition— we do not call Confirmation a sacrament. We call it a rite of the church.
And, just like Baptism, it is a ritual performed in community. Just like Baptism, I would argue one of the things Conformation is about is community. Last I would argue, just like Baptism, the grace of God makes God’s own self available to us in the Rite of Confirmation.
However, I would also argue that, unlike Baptism, with Confirmation both the individual and we in the community of faith need to be proactive in participating in the grace offered by God with the rite. Indeed, while the grace of God is present, the reality of that grace is it needs our active participation to come to a state of full fruition, to come to a place of full enhancement.
In fact, over the years I’ve said Confirmation is not a rite of passage for teens. The Rite of Conformation is often looked at that way but to see Confirmation as a rite of passage is a very, very, very secular way of looking at it.
What I have said is all adults should go through the process of Confirmation every fifteen or twenty years. Why? The point of Confirmation is that it can be a process of renewal, refreshment and revitalization for us on our faith journey. Our active participation is a key part of the rite because continues once the ritual is finished.
The culture has unfortunately attached baggage to the rite. The first piece of baggage is the aforementioned idea that Confirmation is a right of passage. It is not.
Another is many think Confirmation is something which happens to them rather than the person being confirmed striving to participate in and with the grace God offers. The short version of my point is simple. Our active participation with God is vital not just or only in the process called Confirmation but in the journey called life. (Slight pause.)
All this circles back to asking you to look into the eyes of your neighbor. And all this circles back to what I think Philip is really asking: “Where is God?” (Slight pause.)
You see, the claim of Christianity is simple. Christ lives. But Christ lives where— in time, in space, in a place? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest Christ is here, among us. Christ lives with us. Christ is reflected in each of us and in all of us, reflected in the community. Indeed, we call it the community of Christ.
I also want to suggest two things are necessary to constitute the community of Christ. First, the grace of God as found in the sacraments is necessary. God acts; we experience the grace of God.
Second, our participation in the grace God offers as found in the rites of the church such as Confirmation and our participation in the life of the church is vital. Together these rituals are a reminder to us that God is with us, Christ lives, and that the community which surrounds us is the dwelling place of God. God lives among us; Christ is with us.
Further, given the grace God offers through this community of Christ, we can find forgiveness, equity, peace, joy, hope, freedom and the love of God in each of us as we support one another on the journey called life. So, as we experience this journey called life, let’s keep looking in each others eyes. Why? God lives among us; Christ is with us. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
05/14/2017
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: “It has been argued we Americans have a religious culture. I would suggest, rather, that we are not a religious culture. We are culturally religious. That’s a big difference. And I think being culturally religious— a religiosity which derives from the culture— is not what God seeks. Rather God encourages us to participate with God in this world in a religious culture which embodies forgiveness, equity, peace, joy, hope, freedom and the love of God in each other as we support each other on the journey called life. Culturally religious populations only pretend to embodied forgiveness, equity, peace, joy, hope, freedom and love. Pretending doesn’t work with God.”
BENEDICTION: Jesus assures us we will be empowered to do great works. We are, in fact, representatives of Christ, as we share the gifts God has granted us. And may the love of God the creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and the companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge of God and in the care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] As the Sacrament of Baptism and the Rite of Confirmation were both celebrated this day and the Bell Choir played two anthems, there were a lot of visitors and relatives present.
God Among Us Now
As you know, earlier we had a celebration of Baptism. Baptism is a sacrament, a sacrament being an outward and visible sign of the grace of God. But there are a number of ways to look at Baptism. Let me elaborate.
For instance, it can be said in and with and by Baptism we welcome someone into a community of faith, a local church. It can said in and with and by Baptism we welcome someone into not just the local community of faith but the greater Christian community. It can be said in and with and by Baptism we welcome someone as a child of God.
But equally, it can be said Baptism is simply an acknowledgment on our part the newly Baptized is already a member of the local community of faith, already a member of the greater community, already a child of God. Put differently, nothing we do— no act of ours— makes a person a member of the local or greater community of faith or a child of God. Nothing we do imposes, dispenses, administers or inflicts some kind magic on an individual which in some way alters them.
To be clear, this claim is not to say the very ritual, the very act, the very actions we take, the celebration of the sacrament of Baptism— in and of itself— fails to be significant. It is significant. Our actions are the very thing the definition claims: an outward sign.
What I am trying to say about this ritual, this act, this sacrament— Baptism— is we should not read into the ritual, the act, the sacrament our cultural misconceptions or our desires, our wants, our emotions, our dreams about what Baptism is or is not. The nature of this sacrament, the nature of the two sacraments of the Protestant tradition— Baptism and Communion— is that they are not about us. (Slight pause.)
So, if the sacraments are not about us, what are they about? (Slight pause.) The sacraments are about God and the grace of God and the presence of God. (Slight pause.) Sacraments are about God and the grace of God and the presence of God. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work know as the Gospel according to the School of John: “Philip said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, show us God, and we will be satisfied.’ Jesus replied, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen Abba God. How can you say, ‘Show us God’?” (Slight pause.)
I want to try a little thirty or forty second experiment. What I am going to ask is that each of us find another person, just one, perhaps someone whom you are sitting near and I was going to say this person should not really be a relative but we have so many folks who are relatives today, maybe we can get away with that. But if possible not a relative, O.K.? The idea was to take relationship of relative out of the equation but it will be tougher today. [1]
So, if you’re not sitting near someone, please move toward them. And this means someone needs to go with Bob Oehme— Bob— he came down from the loft he’s in back— I warned him, so this is good— he’s not up at the organ. O.K. Everyone get a partner. If there are is an odd number of people here today there will be one group of three. (Pause while people rearrange themselves.)
O.K. Looks like everyone’s paired up. Now, please do what I ask when I say ‘go’ everyone look into the eyes of your partner. This will last about thirty or forty seconds and I’ll time it.
Don’t say anything. There is no need to touch one another. Just look into the eyes of your partner. And I will let you know when time is up. O.K. Go! (Pause for the duration.) Amen. O.K.! If you moved too far you can go back to where you were if you want to— not a problem. Go ahead. (Pause for people to reassemble.)
O.K. I am not going to offer answers about this time together, but the obvious questions are: ‘How did that feel?’ Awkward. ‘What did you see?’ I am sure each of you has your own answer. Equally, I am sure for some people it was deeply moving. Others may have been asking, “What is Joe trying to get me into now?” (Slight pause.)
Now that we’ve had this exercise, let’s go back to the sacraments. I suggested the sacraments are not about us. The sacraments are about God and the grace of God and the presence of God.
Hence, for me, the Sacraments beg the question, “Where is God?” Indeed, let’s take what Philip says (quote:) “Rabbi, show us God and we will be satisfied.” I think the underlying question being asked by Philip really is, “Where... is... God?” (Slight pause.)
Given that question— “Where is God?” let’s turn to the rite we will be celebrating in a few moments, the Rite of Confirmation. In the Protestant tradition— as opposed to the Roman Catholic tradition— we do not call Confirmation a sacrament. We call it a rite of the church.
And, just like Baptism, it is a ritual performed in community. Just like Baptism, I would argue one of the things Conformation is about is community. Last I would argue, just like Baptism, the grace of God makes God’s own self available to us in the Rite of Confirmation.
However, I would also argue that, unlike Baptism, with Confirmation both the individual and we in the community of faith need to be proactive in participating in the grace offered by God with the rite. Indeed, while the grace of God is present, the reality of that grace is it needs our active participation to come to a state of full fruition, to come to a place of full enhancement.
In fact, over the years I’ve said Confirmation is not a rite of passage for teens. The Rite of Conformation is often looked at that way but to see Confirmation as a rite of passage is a very, very, very secular way of looking at it.
What I have said is all adults should go through the process of Confirmation every fifteen or twenty years. Why? The point of Confirmation is that it can be a process of renewal, refreshment and revitalization for us on our faith journey. Our active participation is a key part of the rite because continues once the ritual is finished.
The culture has unfortunately attached baggage to the rite. The first piece of baggage is the aforementioned idea that Confirmation is a right of passage. It is not.
Another is many think Confirmation is something which happens to them rather than the person being confirmed striving to participate in and with the grace God offers. The short version of my point is simple. Our active participation with God is vital not just or only in the process called Confirmation but in the journey called life. (Slight pause.)
All this circles back to asking you to look into the eyes of your neighbor. And all this circles back to what I think Philip is really asking: “Where is God?” (Slight pause.)
You see, the claim of Christianity is simple. Christ lives. But Christ lives where— in time, in space, in a place? (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest Christ is here, among us. Christ lives with us. Christ is reflected in each of us and in all of us, reflected in the community. Indeed, we call it the community of Christ.
I also want to suggest two things are necessary to constitute the community of Christ. First, the grace of God as found in the sacraments is necessary. God acts; we experience the grace of God.
Second, our participation in the grace God offers as found in the rites of the church such as Confirmation and our participation in the life of the church is vital. Together these rituals are a reminder to us that God is with us, Christ lives, and that the community which surrounds us is the dwelling place of God. God lives among us; Christ is with us.
Further, given the grace God offers through this community of Christ, we can find forgiveness, equity, peace, joy, hope, freedom and the love of God in each of us as we support one another on the journey called life. So, as we experience this journey called life, let’s keep looking in each others eyes. Why? God lives among us; Christ is with us. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York
05/14/2017
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: “It has been argued we Americans have a religious culture. I would suggest, rather, that we are not a religious culture. We are culturally religious. That’s a big difference. And I think being culturally religious— a religiosity which derives from the culture— is not what God seeks. Rather God encourages us to participate with God in this world in a religious culture which embodies forgiveness, equity, peace, joy, hope, freedom and the love of God in each other as we support each other on the journey called life. Culturally religious populations only pretend to embodied forgiveness, equity, peace, joy, hope, freedom and love. Pretending doesn’t work with God.”
BENEDICTION: Jesus assures us we will be empowered to do great works. We are, in fact, representatives of Christ, as we share the gifts God has granted us. And may the love of God the creator which is real, the Peace of Christ which surpasses all understanding and the companionship of the Holy Spirit which is ever present, keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge of God and in the care of God this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] As the Sacrament of Baptism and the Rite of Confirmation were both celebrated this day and the Bell Choir played two anthems, there were a lot of visitors and relatives present.
Sunday, May 7, 2017
SERMON ~ 05/07/2017 ~ “They Did Not Understand”
05/07/2017 ~ Fourth Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 2:42-47; Psalm 23; 1 Peter 2:19-25; John 10:1-10 ~ Communion Sunday.
They Did Not Understand
“Jesus used this figure of speech, this metaphor with the disciples. But they did not grasp, they did not understand what Jesus was trying to say to them.” — John 10:6.
As you may know, we have Christian Education sessions on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. On Sundays our young folks go upstairs to the Christian Education area and are under the tutelage of Linda Oehme.
Those a little longer in tooth have to endure a session with me. The braver souls among them also visit with me for a different session on Wednesday evenings.
Last year on Sunday mornings those of us of that certain age watched a series of undergraduate lectures in the Hebrew Scriptures given by Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University. These lectures are out there on the internet and they are free. Anyone can watch.
These lectures are a 101, basic level, college course. I suspect many first year students take the course thinking passing it is a piece of cake. They are wrong.
Now, since it is a given this class will have people with many views about the Bible, in the first lecture Professor Hayes lays out the purpose of the course, which is not to change the beliefs people have. Rather, the purpose is to invite students to analyze what is to be found in Scripture and to think deeply about what is found. While that kind of work has the potential to change thinking, it is not the object of the class.
Well, during the first lecture Hayes states she has two daughters one is a teen and one is verging on her teen years. Professor Hayes— a Biblical Scholar— then says she does not let these two young ladies read the Bible.
What is in the Bible, she says, the text, is clearly adult reading. Among other issues, it contains violence of all kinds— economic violence, physical violence, misconduct, abuse. This is not appropriate reading for children. (Slight pause.)
That brings up this concept of Sola Scriptura— Scripture alone. One could say this a tenet of the Protestant Reformation. Sola Scriptura holds Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice, one of the main theological points raised by Martin Luther.
Indeed, Luther translated the Bible into the vernacular. For Luther the vernacular was German. This helped Scripture be more accessible for many, at least for those who read German.
However, one of the things we do not realize about the era in which the Protestant Reformation happened is literacy rates were low. Among adult males the rate in the 1500s ran about 20%. Among women it was lower. Hence, even in a vernacular translation, those who read Scripture were among the few and were fairly well educated.
In fact, when Scripture was read from the pulpit in the church served by Calvin in Geneva— and Calvin was in the next generation of reformers after Luther— when was read from the pulpit in the church served by Calvin in Geneva it would be read in the original languages— Hebrew and Greek. A translation would not be read.
An assumption was being made that all those in the pews listening understood those original languages. These were highly educated people. (Slight pause.)
When I talk to people about how to read Scripture I always say you should never read Scripture without a commentary right next to you. I never read Scripture without a commentary right next to me.
Do I know more about Scripture than the average bear? Probably. Even though I have a Master of Divinity Degree, I do not presume I know what a passage means simply by reading it. At best, that would be ego-centric. So I consult commentaries.
To be clear, I am not saying you should avoid reading Scripture. You should read Scripture; we all should read Scripture. Reading Scripture should be a part of our daily prayer and practice. I am simply saying to read it without bringing some understanding beyond one’s own grasp of what’s there is simply unwise.
You see, the last time I looked the Bible is not Aladdin’s lamp. And God is not some kind of genie who grants wishes based on what you think the words say, especially since the words we read are a translation from ancient languages.
To treat Scripture and the reading thereof as if it is a simply a straightforward process is akin to treating God as a genie and Scripture as the lamp you rub. And that is a very, very, very secular way of looking at Scripture. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel according to the School of John: “Jesus used this figure of speech, this metaphor with the disciples. But they did not grasp, they did not understand what Jesus was trying to say to them.” (Slight pause.)
The Hebrew Scriptures— which by the way, that’s the only Bible Jesus knew— the Hebrew Scriptures have many images of God as a shepherd. Hence, the question which immediately comes to mind for me is why do those who listen have a hard time grasping the shepherd metaphor. Indeed, the next sentence after today’s assigned reading says (quote): “I am the good shepherd.” (Slight pause.)
Let’s explore this a little. We find a number of “I am” statements in John. The “I am” statements are found only in John, one of the things which sets this Gospel apart from the Synoptic Gospels. But the question still remains: ‘why are those who listen confused?’ (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest one reason those who listen to Jesus might be confused has to do with the object of all the “I am” statements. And for the record, these statements are I am ‘the gate,’ ‘the bread of life,’ ‘the light of the world,’ ‘the door,’ ‘the good shepherd,’ ‘the resurrection,’ ‘the life,’ ‘the way,’ ‘the truth’ and ‘the vine.’ In each of these the object of the statements are not the point being made by this Gospel.
The important part of these statements is “I am.” “I am,” as you probably know, is, effectively, the name of God. I want to suggest those who listened to Jesus both understood this but did not want to understand this.
You see, for a good Jew in New Testament times the issue was not that Jesus might be the Messiah. Any Jew could have processed that. For a good Jew in New Testament times the issue was how was one to connect God and the Messiah?
And that’s where the “I am” statements become difficult in this era, in this place. As to why any Jew would have trouble with the “I am” statements, Jews maintained that there is one God and that God is one.
And even if you argue the “I am” statements did not clearly equate God and Jesus, the “I am” statements imply an equivalency. For a good Jew in New Testament times to draw an equivalency between God and anyone was heresy.
Indeed, in the Gospel we commonly call John, Jesus is consistently pictured as being divine. And even if you argue this was not a heresy for a good Jew in New Testament times— if you make that argument— it certainly came right up to the line that would make folks really nervous. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to the thought that we might need a commentary near us when we read Scripture. Why. Why? We have our own modern heresy.
We tend to treat Scripture, we treat what is commonly referred to as the Word of God, this collection of canonized books... like it is God. The Bible is... not... God. (Slight pause.)
Now, my bet is some of you are thinking the argument I’m presenting is an argument that effectively says Scripture needs to be studied and, therefore, Scripture is only accessible to academics or people who are in some way elite. And how can that be? After all, we are not all academics and God does not favor the elite! (Slight pause.)
I need to make a distinction. Scripture is not faith, itself. And more to the point, just as Scripture is not God, Scripture is not faith in God. We should not treat Scripture like it is God or treat Scripture like it is faith in God. That is when and where we get lost— when we treat Scripture like it’s God or treat Scripture like it’s faith in God. (Slight pause.)
Now, this poses yet another interesting question: what is the practice of faith about? Is the practice of faith simply about what we find in Scripture? Or is the practice of faith about us living in our time, knowing and believing in God, Who is in our world and relating to our world? (Slight pause.)
A famous Biblical scholar of the 20th Century, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, said this: “God is hiding in the world. Our task is to let the divine emerge from our deeds.”
And indeed, our task is to seek the will of God in our world and to act on the will of God. And that is what real faith is about and that is what faith is really about.
Can we learn about God from Scripture? Yes. But I think we can learn a lot about God by being faithful and striving to do the will of God in this, God’s world.
Or as I said at the end of my comments last week, the God of Covenant is a God of forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love. If we are faithful and have faith in the God of Covenant, we can come to a real understanding of what Scripture actually says rather than what we think it might say.
Why? How can we come to that understanding? Forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love are not just central to Who God is. Forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love should jump out at us from every page of Scripture when we do understand Who God is. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
05/07/2017
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: “A quote that has been attributed to many people says we need to have the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. It does not matter who said it. The point is when we deal with the world around us, the real world, we need to reflect the forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love of God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us rejoice for Christ is risen. This service of worship is over but our service in the name of God continues outside these doors. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
They Did Not Understand
“Jesus used this figure of speech, this metaphor with the disciples. But they did not grasp, they did not understand what Jesus was trying to say to them.” — John 10:6.
As you may know, we have Christian Education sessions on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. On Sundays our young folks go upstairs to the Christian Education area and are under the tutelage of Linda Oehme.
Those a little longer in tooth have to endure a session with me. The braver souls among them also visit with me for a different session on Wednesday evenings.
Last year on Sunday mornings those of us of that certain age watched a series of undergraduate lectures in the Hebrew Scriptures given by Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University. These lectures are out there on the internet and they are free. Anyone can watch.
These lectures are a 101, basic level, college course. I suspect many first year students take the course thinking passing it is a piece of cake. They are wrong.
Now, since it is a given this class will have people with many views about the Bible, in the first lecture Professor Hayes lays out the purpose of the course, which is not to change the beliefs people have. Rather, the purpose is to invite students to analyze what is to be found in Scripture and to think deeply about what is found. While that kind of work has the potential to change thinking, it is not the object of the class.
Well, during the first lecture Hayes states she has two daughters one is a teen and one is verging on her teen years. Professor Hayes— a Biblical Scholar— then says she does not let these two young ladies read the Bible.
What is in the Bible, she says, the text, is clearly adult reading. Among other issues, it contains violence of all kinds— economic violence, physical violence, misconduct, abuse. This is not appropriate reading for children. (Slight pause.)
That brings up this concept of Sola Scriptura— Scripture alone. One could say this a tenet of the Protestant Reformation. Sola Scriptura holds Scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice, one of the main theological points raised by Martin Luther.
Indeed, Luther translated the Bible into the vernacular. For Luther the vernacular was German. This helped Scripture be more accessible for many, at least for those who read German.
However, one of the things we do not realize about the era in which the Protestant Reformation happened is literacy rates were low. Among adult males the rate in the 1500s ran about 20%. Among women it was lower. Hence, even in a vernacular translation, those who read Scripture were among the few and were fairly well educated.
In fact, when Scripture was read from the pulpit in the church served by Calvin in Geneva— and Calvin was in the next generation of reformers after Luther— when was read from the pulpit in the church served by Calvin in Geneva it would be read in the original languages— Hebrew and Greek. A translation would not be read.
An assumption was being made that all those in the pews listening understood those original languages. These were highly educated people. (Slight pause.)
When I talk to people about how to read Scripture I always say you should never read Scripture without a commentary right next to you. I never read Scripture without a commentary right next to me.
Do I know more about Scripture than the average bear? Probably. Even though I have a Master of Divinity Degree, I do not presume I know what a passage means simply by reading it. At best, that would be ego-centric. So I consult commentaries.
To be clear, I am not saying you should avoid reading Scripture. You should read Scripture; we all should read Scripture. Reading Scripture should be a part of our daily prayer and practice. I am simply saying to read it without bringing some understanding beyond one’s own grasp of what’s there is simply unwise.
You see, the last time I looked the Bible is not Aladdin’s lamp. And God is not some kind of genie who grants wishes based on what you think the words say, especially since the words we read are a translation from ancient languages.
To treat Scripture and the reading thereof as if it is a simply a straightforward process is akin to treating God as a genie and Scripture as the lamp you rub. And that is a very, very, very secular way of looking at Scripture. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the Gospel according to the School of John: “Jesus used this figure of speech, this metaphor with the disciples. But they did not grasp, they did not understand what Jesus was trying to say to them.” (Slight pause.)
The Hebrew Scriptures— which by the way, that’s the only Bible Jesus knew— the Hebrew Scriptures have many images of God as a shepherd. Hence, the question which immediately comes to mind for me is why do those who listen have a hard time grasping the shepherd metaphor. Indeed, the next sentence after today’s assigned reading says (quote): “I am the good shepherd.” (Slight pause.)
Let’s explore this a little. We find a number of “I am” statements in John. The “I am” statements are found only in John, one of the things which sets this Gospel apart from the Synoptic Gospels. But the question still remains: ‘why are those who listen confused?’ (Slight pause.)
I want to suggest one reason those who listen to Jesus might be confused has to do with the object of all the “I am” statements. And for the record, these statements are I am ‘the gate,’ ‘the bread of life,’ ‘the light of the world,’ ‘the door,’ ‘the good shepherd,’ ‘the resurrection,’ ‘the life,’ ‘the way,’ ‘the truth’ and ‘the vine.’ In each of these the object of the statements are not the point being made by this Gospel.
The important part of these statements is “I am.” “I am,” as you probably know, is, effectively, the name of God. I want to suggest those who listened to Jesus both understood this but did not want to understand this.
You see, for a good Jew in New Testament times the issue was not that Jesus might be the Messiah. Any Jew could have processed that. For a good Jew in New Testament times the issue was how was one to connect God and the Messiah?
And that’s where the “I am” statements become difficult in this era, in this place. As to why any Jew would have trouble with the “I am” statements, Jews maintained that there is one God and that God is one.
And even if you argue the “I am” statements did not clearly equate God and Jesus, the “I am” statements imply an equivalency. For a good Jew in New Testament times to draw an equivalency between God and anyone was heresy.
Indeed, in the Gospel we commonly call John, Jesus is consistently pictured as being divine. And even if you argue this was not a heresy for a good Jew in New Testament times— if you make that argument— it certainly came right up to the line that would make folks really nervous. (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to the thought that we might need a commentary near us when we read Scripture. Why. Why? We have our own modern heresy.
We tend to treat Scripture, we treat what is commonly referred to as the Word of God, this collection of canonized books... like it is God. The Bible is... not... God. (Slight pause.)
Now, my bet is some of you are thinking the argument I’m presenting is an argument that effectively says Scripture needs to be studied and, therefore, Scripture is only accessible to academics or people who are in some way elite. And how can that be? After all, we are not all academics and God does not favor the elite! (Slight pause.)
I need to make a distinction. Scripture is not faith, itself. And more to the point, just as Scripture is not God, Scripture is not faith in God. We should not treat Scripture like it is God or treat Scripture like it is faith in God. That is when and where we get lost— when we treat Scripture like it’s God or treat Scripture like it’s faith in God. (Slight pause.)
Now, this poses yet another interesting question: what is the practice of faith about? Is the practice of faith simply about what we find in Scripture? Or is the practice of faith about us living in our time, knowing and believing in God, Who is in our world and relating to our world? (Slight pause.)
A famous Biblical scholar of the 20th Century, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, said this: “God is hiding in the world. Our task is to let the divine emerge from our deeds.”
And indeed, our task is to seek the will of God in our world and to act on the will of God. And that is what real faith is about and that is what faith is really about.
Can we learn about God from Scripture? Yes. But I think we can learn a lot about God by being faithful and striving to do the will of God in this, God’s world.
Or as I said at the end of my comments last week, the God of Covenant is a God of forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love. If we are faithful and have faith in the God of Covenant, we can come to a real understanding of what Scripture actually says rather than what we think it might say.
Why? How can we come to that understanding? Forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love are not just central to Who God is. Forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love should jump out at us from every page of Scripture when we do understand Who God is. Amen.
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
05/07/2017
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: “A quote that has been attributed to many people says we need to have the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. It does not matter who said it. The point is when we deal with the world around us, the real world, we need to reflect the forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love of God.”
BENEDICTION: Let us rejoice for Christ is risen. This service of worship is over but our service in the name of God continues outside these doors. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
SERMON ~ 04/30/2017 ~ “Explaining Scripture”
04/30/2017 ~ Third Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 2:14a, 36-41; Psalm 116:1-4, 12-19; 1 Peter 1:17-23; Luke 24:13-35.
Explaining Scripture
“They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while Jesus was talking to us on the road, explaining the Scripture to us?’” — Luke 24:32.
In my first year as pastor here I was asked this question: “When we recite a creed in the service, I’ve noticed you always use the Nicene Creed. Why don’t you use the Apostles’ Creed?”
“Well,” I explained, “as far as anyone can tell, no Apostle had any hand in or even heard of the Apostles’ Creed. It was written a long, long time after the Apostles were alive and actually a long, long time after the Nicene Creed was composed.” (Slight pause.)
Let me unpack that a little. The earliest trace of anything called the Apostles’ Creed happened nearly 700 years after the Resurrection, sometime around the year 710 of the Common Era. Further, the first written trace of the Apostles’ Creed is found in what we today call France.
Now as to why the Apostles’ Creed spread and became popular, the Emperor Charlemagne had a significant impact on that. Charlemagne ruled the Holy Roman Empire, as it was called, from the year 800 to 814 of the Common Era. Despite the fact that it was only about 100 years old at that point— perhaps Charlemagne didn’t know that— the Emperor insisted the Apostles’ Creed be used throughout the Empire.
Thereby, the Apostles’ Creed became widely used in the West. That’s not a surprise since the Apostles’ Creed is a product of Europe, a product of the West. But it has never been used in liturgical practice in Eastern Orthodox Churches. And that’s not a surprise either since Eastern Orthodox Churches were largely outside of Charlemagne’s influence.
Now, as to why one might use the Nicene Creed rather than the Apostles’ Creed, the answer is simple given the history I just recited. And, to elaborate on the Nicene Creed a little, it was composed by a church council which met in the city of Nicaea in what is modern day Turkey.
This happened in the year 325 of the Common Era. It was the first unified Church Council ever and this creed is used in both the church in the East and the church in the West. Further, the Nicene Creed is the only Creed ever sanctioned by any council of the church. (Slight pause.)
So, why bring up all this about church creeds? Well, toward the end of today’s Gospel reading we hear a very interesting statement. The two travelers who have encountered Jesus return to where the disciples are gathered and hear these words: “Christ has risen! It is true! Jesus has appeared to Simon!” These words from Luke reflect what Paul writes about thirty years before Luke is composed.
And what Paul records is what some call the earliest Creed of the church because these words probably pre-date even Paul’s writings. Paul says Christ was (quote:) “...buried and..., on the third day, Christ was raised in accordance with the Scriptures and... was seen by Cephas— Peter...”— part of an early record in the writings of Paul and exactly what we hear in Luke. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke: “They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while Jesus was talking to us on the road, explaining the Scripture to us?’” (Slight pause.)
I need to make an obvious statement. We live in the year 2017 of the Common Era. Sometimes that gets in our way when we try to understand stories which were written 2,000 years ago.
You see, when we hear the question, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there...?” our brains can play a little bit of a trick on us. One reaction might be ‘did this person not buy the newspaper and read the headlines that morning?’ As I am sure you realize, there were no newspapers.
Further, estimates of the population in Jerusalem run anywhere from a low of 20,000 to a high of more than 1,000,000. The most credible of these estimates run in the range of 100,000.
But this was also the Passover season, so it’s likely many, many pilgrims were in town because of that. So for sake of argument, let’s put the estimated population of Jerusalem this time at about 150,000.
My point is, especially with a population that large, news did not travel with any speed at all in ancient times. So, one might start to wonder why that question about ‘did you not hear what happened’ is even in this story.
That would not have spread. Why ask that question? You see, that someone might have heard this among a population this large in Biblical times just stretches credulity. And, therefore, one might, I certainly do, start to ask, “what is really going on here with this story?” or “What is this story getting at?”
I need follow all that up with yet another statement, but this one is less than obvious. The manuscript from which these words are taken depicts the village of Emmaus as being some seven miles from Jerusalem. Other ancient manuscripts say Emmaus is twenty miles out from Jerusalem.
However, Biblical historians have never been able to find any ancient town with the name Emmaus. Further, there does not even seem to be any hidden meaning it the name. Its likely meaning is “warm spring.” So the name is completely innocuous.
I think all this information again prompts me to ask questions like, “where is this story trying to lead us?” “What is it trying to tell us?”
Well, that’s when I turn to the phrase that says Jesus explained Scripture to these travelers. More specifically, what does it mean that Jesus explained Scripture (quote:) “...beginning with Moses and all the prophets,...”? (Slight pause.)
I need to make one more obvious statement. The only Scripture Jesus knew is what we call the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament.
And for those who first heard or read this story, the words used here— ‘Moses and all the prophets’— would have had a very specific meaning. When the word Moses was used referring to Scripture in ancient times people took it to mean the Torah, the Pentateuch— the Book of Moses. Add the Prophets to that and what do you have? The only Scripture Jesus knew.
And what does the Torah and the Prophets— the Hebrew Scripture— the only Scripture Jesus knew, say? The Hebrew Scripture insists God loves us and God wants to be in covenant with us. (Slight pause.)
Now I suppose you have noticed over time that I often speak about the covenant of God. Why would I concentrate on covenant so much? Well here’s one thing. Scholars tell us there are at least 12 signs of the covenant in the Hebrew Scripture— signs of the covenant with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, with David, with the Priests.
And again, what does that covenant in Hebrew Scripture say? It says God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us. That is what the Hebrew Scripture— the only Bible Jesus knew— is about. That’s it; that’s all; case closed— covenant. (Slight pause.)
Now, I can hear the skeptical among you say what Jesus explained had to do with the Messiah. And that is not about covenant. My take on this is simple. The resurrected Jesus is yet another a sign of the covenant.
Why do I say the resurrected Jesus is a sign of the covenant? Here’s one reason right from this reading. (Quote:) “Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it and gave it to them.”
When we celebrate Communion still today the words we use insist the meal is a sign of the covenant. (Quote:) “This cup is the new covenant— the new covenant.” (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to statements of faith, what we commonly called creeds. I maintain statements of faith are not a list of what we believe, although many people take them that way. Rather, I say statements of faith are a description of God, which is not a list of what we believe. It is a description of God.
Now, if you ask me what I believe, this is what I say: God loves us and wants to covenant with us. And I believe the resurrected Jesus is a glorious sign of that covenant. (Slight pause.)
There is one more layer here. One needs to ask the question, ‘What does covenant mean?’ Covenant means God loves us unconditionally.
And what does unconditional love mean? Unconditional love encompasses forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity.
So, I want to suggest covenant—this forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love— in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testament— are central to Who God is. Therefore, I praise God from Whom all the blessings of covenant— these blessings of forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love— flow. Indeed, praise God. Amen.
04/30/2017
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: “There is, unquestionably, a difference between Eastern thought and Western thought. Western thought gets into explaining things, delving into detail. Eastern thought tends to look at the an experience as opposed to explaining it. It could also be said Christianity is an Eastern religion which we Westerners try to explain using Western philosophy. Perhaps we would be wise to concentrate on the experience of God’s forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love.”
BENEDICTION: Let us serve the world in the name of Christ. Let the love of Christ find expression in us. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Explaining Scripture
“They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while Jesus was talking to us on the road, explaining the Scripture to us?’” — Luke 24:32.
In my first year as pastor here I was asked this question: “When we recite a creed in the service, I’ve noticed you always use the Nicene Creed. Why don’t you use the Apostles’ Creed?”
“Well,” I explained, “as far as anyone can tell, no Apostle had any hand in or even heard of the Apostles’ Creed. It was written a long, long time after the Apostles were alive and actually a long, long time after the Nicene Creed was composed.” (Slight pause.)
Let me unpack that a little. The earliest trace of anything called the Apostles’ Creed happened nearly 700 years after the Resurrection, sometime around the year 710 of the Common Era. Further, the first written trace of the Apostles’ Creed is found in what we today call France.
Now as to why the Apostles’ Creed spread and became popular, the Emperor Charlemagne had a significant impact on that. Charlemagne ruled the Holy Roman Empire, as it was called, from the year 800 to 814 of the Common Era. Despite the fact that it was only about 100 years old at that point— perhaps Charlemagne didn’t know that— the Emperor insisted the Apostles’ Creed be used throughout the Empire.
Thereby, the Apostles’ Creed became widely used in the West. That’s not a surprise since the Apostles’ Creed is a product of Europe, a product of the West. But it has never been used in liturgical practice in Eastern Orthodox Churches. And that’s not a surprise either since Eastern Orthodox Churches were largely outside of Charlemagne’s influence.
Now, as to why one might use the Nicene Creed rather than the Apostles’ Creed, the answer is simple given the history I just recited. And, to elaborate on the Nicene Creed a little, it was composed by a church council which met in the city of Nicaea in what is modern day Turkey.
This happened in the year 325 of the Common Era. It was the first unified Church Council ever and this creed is used in both the church in the East and the church in the West. Further, the Nicene Creed is the only Creed ever sanctioned by any council of the church. (Slight pause.)
So, why bring up all this about church creeds? Well, toward the end of today’s Gospel reading we hear a very interesting statement. The two travelers who have encountered Jesus return to where the disciples are gathered and hear these words: “Christ has risen! It is true! Jesus has appeared to Simon!” These words from Luke reflect what Paul writes about thirty years before Luke is composed.
And what Paul records is what some call the earliest Creed of the church because these words probably pre-date even Paul’s writings. Paul says Christ was (quote:) “...buried and..., on the third day, Christ was raised in accordance with the Scriptures and... was seen by Cephas— Peter...”— part of an early record in the writings of Paul and exactly what we hear in Luke. (Slight pause.)
We find these words in the work known as Luke: “They said to each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while Jesus was talking to us on the road, explaining the Scripture to us?’” (Slight pause.)
I need to make an obvious statement. We live in the year 2017 of the Common Era. Sometimes that gets in our way when we try to understand stories which were written 2,000 years ago.
You see, when we hear the question, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there...?” our brains can play a little bit of a trick on us. One reaction might be ‘did this person not buy the newspaper and read the headlines that morning?’ As I am sure you realize, there were no newspapers.
Further, estimates of the population in Jerusalem run anywhere from a low of 20,000 to a high of more than 1,000,000. The most credible of these estimates run in the range of 100,000.
But this was also the Passover season, so it’s likely many, many pilgrims were in town because of that. So for sake of argument, let’s put the estimated population of Jerusalem this time at about 150,000.
My point is, especially with a population that large, news did not travel with any speed at all in ancient times. So, one might start to wonder why that question about ‘did you not hear what happened’ is even in this story.
That would not have spread. Why ask that question? You see, that someone might have heard this among a population this large in Biblical times just stretches credulity. And, therefore, one might, I certainly do, start to ask, “what is really going on here with this story?” or “What is this story getting at?”
I need follow all that up with yet another statement, but this one is less than obvious. The manuscript from which these words are taken depicts the village of Emmaus as being some seven miles from Jerusalem. Other ancient manuscripts say Emmaus is twenty miles out from Jerusalem.
However, Biblical historians have never been able to find any ancient town with the name Emmaus. Further, there does not even seem to be any hidden meaning it the name. Its likely meaning is “warm spring.” So the name is completely innocuous.
I think all this information again prompts me to ask questions like, “where is this story trying to lead us?” “What is it trying to tell us?”
Well, that’s when I turn to the phrase that says Jesus explained Scripture to these travelers. More specifically, what does it mean that Jesus explained Scripture (quote:) “...beginning with Moses and all the prophets,...”? (Slight pause.)
I need to make one more obvious statement. The only Scripture Jesus knew is what we call the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament.
And for those who first heard or read this story, the words used here— ‘Moses and all the prophets’— would have had a very specific meaning. When the word Moses was used referring to Scripture in ancient times people took it to mean the Torah, the Pentateuch— the Book of Moses. Add the Prophets to that and what do you have? The only Scripture Jesus knew.
And what does the Torah and the Prophets— the Hebrew Scripture— the only Scripture Jesus knew, say? The Hebrew Scripture insists God loves us and God wants to be in covenant with us. (Slight pause.)
Now I suppose you have noticed over time that I often speak about the covenant of God. Why would I concentrate on covenant so much? Well here’s one thing. Scholars tell us there are at least 12 signs of the covenant in the Hebrew Scripture— signs of the covenant with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, with David, with the Priests.
And again, what does that covenant in Hebrew Scripture say? It says God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us. That is what the Hebrew Scripture— the only Bible Jesus knew— is about. That’s it; that’s all; case closed— covenant. (Slight pause.)
Now, I can hear the skeptical among you say what Jesus explained had to do with the Messiah. And that is not about covenant. My take on this is simple. The resurrected Jesus is yet another a sign of the covenant.
Why do I say the resurrected Jesus is a sign of the covenant? Here’s one reason right from this reading. (Quote:) “Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it and gave it to them.”
When we celebrate Communion still today the words we use insist the meal is a sign of the covenant. (Quote:) “This cup is the new covenant— the new covenant.” (Slight pause.)
All that brings me back to statements of faith, what we commonly called creeds. I maintain statements of faith are not a list of what we believe, although many people take them that way. Rather, I say statements of faith are a description of God, which is not a list of what we believe. It is a description of God.
Now, if you ask me what I believe, this is what I say: God loves us and wants to covenant with us. And I believe the resurrected Jesus is a glorious sign of that covenant. (Slight pause.)
There is one more layer here. One needs to ask the question, ‘What does covenant mean?’ Covenant means God loves us unconditionally.
And what does unconditional love mean? Unconditional love encompasses forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity.
So, I want to suggest covenant—this forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love— in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the New Testament— are central to Who God is. Therefore, I praise God from Whom all the blessings of covenant— these blessings of forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love— flow. Indeed, praise God. Amen.
04/30/2017
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: “There is, unquestionably, a difference between Eastern thought and Western thought. Western thought gets into explaining things, delving into detail. Eastern thought tends to look at the an experience as opposed to explaining it. It could also be said Christianity is an Eastern religion which we Westerners try to explain using Western philosophy. Perhaps we would be wise to concentrate on the experience of God’s forgiveness, joy, peace, hope, freedom, equity and love.”
BENEDICTION: Let us serve the world in the name of Christ. Let the love of Christ find expression in us. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
SERMON ~ 04/23/2017 ~ “Abba, God”
04/23/2017 ~ Second Sunday of Easter ~ *Acts 2:14a, 22-32; Psalm 16; 1 Peter 1:3-9; John 20:19-31 ~ Blessing/Dedication of the Quilts.
Abba, God
“Blessed be Abba, God of our Savior, Jesus, the Christ, who with great mercy gave us a new birth: a birth into a living hope which draws its life from the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, from the dead;...” — 1 Peter 1:3.
On April 13, 1970, the Apollo 13 mission, on its way to the moon, was rocked by an onboard explosion. The command module went dark. Astronaut Jim Lovell radioed mission control: “Houston, we have a problem.”
And so, “Houston, we have a problem” became a cultural touchstone. Books, movies, sportscasters, politicians, plays, novels, use these words as shorthand for saying something has gone terribly awry.
Except... the astronaut Jim Lovell did not say that. Indeed, no astronaut on Apollo 13 said, “Houston, we have a problem.” So, that’s not just one of the all-time great misquotes. It is a cultural myth.
First and to be accurate— astronaut Russ Swigert, not Jim Lovell did say something. But what was actually said was a little more prosaic, less poetic. “Okay, Houston, we’ve had a problem here.”
Now, I’d be the first to say that’s not a big difference. But it is different. As I said— more prosaic. It’s slower. And it’s in a different tense. So where did the idea that Jim Lovell said “Houston, we have a problem” come from, anyway? (Slight pause.)
If you guessed from the movies you would be both right and wrong. Soon after the movie Apollo 13— a movie in which Lovell was played by Tom Hanks, so they wouldn’t let the other astronaut do it because Tom Hanks was playing that part— in which Lovell was played by Tom Hanks and is given that line— soon after the movie Apollo 13 was released, the world became infected with these words, easily one of the most used catchphrases ever.
But it makes sense that the phrase was rewritten for the movies. As its screen writer William Broyles has insisted, you can’t say something has happened. Because if you say something has happened it’s over. It’s done. That may be what was really said. But it’s not dramatic. And this was a suspense movie. Suspense needs to be present, to be continual.
On the other hand, the movie was only partially to blame for this myth. In 1983 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, used “Houston, we have a problem” as the title of its weekly radio program about... space history. [1] (Slight pause.)
There are all kinds of cultural myths, things into which the culture buys, that are simply not true. And indeed, the culture imposes all kinds of myths on Christianity.
Here’s an example. The iconic image of the cross widely used by and in the culture has a central vertical beam transected by a horizontal beam about a third of the way down— like that one. (The pastor points to the chancel cross.)
But the actual crosses Romans used to kill people was different. The cross on which Jesus was executed was probably T-shaped— a vertical element with a horizontal beam on top, like a ‘T.’ That allowed executioners to tie the victim to bean then raise the person being murdered to the top.
Here’s another myth along the same lines. Rumor to the contrary, the cross was not a symbol used by early Christians.
The symbol of a cross was extremely rare before the mid-4th Century of the Common Era. And depictions of Jesus on a cross did not occur with regularity until the 6th century. And when these first appeared, the image of Christ was that of a monarch dressed in royal garb levitating off the cross. They tried to make it look like Jesus was not nailed to the cross.
So Christianity is 300 years old before the image of a cross becomes common and 600 years old before the crucifix— a cross with a body— becomes common. It’s at least another century before a partially naked body on the cross, the image often seen today, becomes common. But myths— myths meaning falsehoods in this case— imposed by a cultural eons after the New Testament times insist these images should be paramount when they have no real relation to when things happened and how things were looked at. [2] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in First Peter: “Blessed be Abba, God of our Savior, Jesus, the Christ, who with great mercy gave us a new birth: a birth into a living hope which draws its life from the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, from the dead;...”
First Peter is one of the so called ‘general epistles,’ not attributed to Paul, not addressed to a particular church. Here it speaks to the condition of churches across lines of time and place.
One commentary says this letter is written for churches alienated from the surrounding society. Put differently, the early church is a counter-cultural church. The early church does not buy into the dominant culture, does not buy into imposed cultural myths. [3]
Now, a more traditional translation for this passage would have said (quote:) “Blessed be the God and Father of Jesus Christ.” But if the churches to which this letter was sent did not buy into the dominant culture, did not acquiesce to imposed cultural myths, they would never have referred to God as Father.
Why? Only those associated with the dominant culture of the era— the Romans— would have referred to God as Father, common in the Roman culture. Further, and as I have often said here, you can search all of Scripture and you will not find God referred to as “Father” in the original languages. It’s not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, not found in the New Testament. To call God Father is simply an imposition of the Roman culture on Christianity.
Jesus does, however, call God Abba, which means “Daddy.” This is and is meant to be a term of intimacy, a relational term.
All that brings me to what I think are the key questions raised by this reading. Who is Abba, God? What does Abba, God have to do with resurrection? (Slight pause.)
Well, having said God is relational, let’s take that a step further. In the Congregational tradition we often use the term covenant. In fact, covenant is meant to have familial, relational understandings, familial, relational meanings. Since God is a God of covenant the claim made in Scripture and by our forebears— God adopts us as God’s own— relational. (Slight pause.)
I tried to unpack all that because I want to illustrate that this epistle is, in its own way, quite counter-cultural. Let’s start with the words Savior and salvation.
At the beginning of this reading the word Savior is applied to Jesus. But we need to realize Savior is not an exclusively Christian term. Savior is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures constantly. Hence, the relationship of Jesus and God is here intertwined in an intimate way.
Now, the word salvation has a very specific meaning in the context of Scripture. And this passage says (quote:) “...you are receiving the outcome of your faith— salvation.” In the context of Scripture salvation means freedom.
I believe this passage, therefore, offers a very specific, very direct message. The resurrected Jesus is a sign from God and a sign of God that the promises of God are real.
(Quote:) “Christ, who with great mercy gave us a new birth: a birth into a living hope....” The resurrected Jesus is a sign from God that freedom— the freedom God offers— is real, a sign from God that God not only wants to be but is in intimate relationship with us.
Further, all this is not a transaction, something paid for, something bought. Relationships are not bought or sold, not something bargained for. That a relationship with God can be relegated to a transaction is, I believe, a cultural imposition placed on Christianity.
After all, the culture thinks there is a cost for everything, everything can be bought or sold. But this passage tells us God willingly, freely and graciously wants to be in relationship with us now and forever. In short, this passage is counter-cultural. (Slight pause.)
In a couple of minutes we, as a Congregation, will be doing something very counter-cultural. We will dedicate some quilts. One could argue these quilts are worth quite a bit of money. But that would imply a transaction— something cultural.
But no money will be taken or accepted for these quilts. They will, rather, be given away to those who need them. And doing that is counter cultural. And, like it or not, we Christians are just that: counter cultural.
How do I know we Christians are counter cultural? Well, the last time I looked we believe God— no one else— offers freedom. We believe peace is possible. We believe hope is real. We believe joy abounds. We believe love lasts forever. And we believe God gives all this to us freely. No transaction is involved.
Indeed, the last time I looked that kind of trust— trust in the realities of freedom, peace, hope, joy and love are in short supply in the culture around us. Therefore, by definition, I’d say we Christians are counter cultural, especially because we trust that the freedom, hope, peace, joy, love of God is with us now and forever— no strings attached. Amen.
04/23/2017
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Earlier I said the Romans referred to God as Father. So how did that term creep into Christianity? There are a myriad of ways but there is no doubt that this is one way and it has to do with language, linguistics: by 315 of the Common Era Christianity is the official religion of the Empire. And the Latin words Deus Pater— which mean God the Father— sound very much like the Roman god Jupiter— Deus Pater— Jupiter. And, again, that’s bring historians studying language— no theology there at all; it’s about language. In short, about 1,700 years ago the church probably adopted those words and simply used what was common in the culture and in so doing acquiesced to the culture because it’s certainly not a Scriptural term.”
BENEDICTION: Go out in the strength and love God provides. Praise the deeds of God by the way you live, by the way you love. And may the steadfast love of God and the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] See this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/04/13/houston-we-have-a-problem-the-amazing-history-of-the-iconic-apollo-13-misquote/?utm_term=.fdfa6c3520e8
[2] See this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-cross/2017/04/14/dae63c1a-1fa8-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html
[3] This information is from The Interpreter’s Bible, the electronic edition in the section which covers an introduction to 1 Peter.
Abba, God
“Blessed be Abba, God of our Savior, Jesus, the Christ, who with great mercy gave us a new birth: a birth into a living hope which draws its life from the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, from the dead;...” — 1 Peter 1:3.
On April 13, 1970, the Apollo 13 mission, on its way to the moon, was rocked by an onboard explosion. The command module went dark. Astronaut Jim Lovell radioed mission control: “Houston, we have a problem.”
And so, “Houston, we have a problem” became a cultural touchstone. Books, movies, sportscasters, politicians, plays, novels, use these words as shorthand for saying something has gone terribly awry.
Except... the astronaut Jim Lovell did not say that. Indeed, no astronaut on Apollo 13 said, “Houston, we have a problem.” So, that’s not just one of the all-time great misquotes. It is a cultural myth.
First and to be accurate— astronaut Russ Swigert, not Jim Lovell did say something. But what was actually said was a little more prosaic, less poetic. “Okay, Houston, we’ve had a problem here.”
Now, I’d be the first to say that’s not a big difference. But it is different. As I said— more prosaic. It’s slower. And it’s in a different tense. So where did the idea that Jim Lovell said “Houston, we have a problem” come from, anyway? (Slight pause.)
If you guessed from the movies you would be both right and wrong. Soon after the movie Apollo 13— a movie in which Lovell was played by Tom Hanks, so they wouldn’t let the other astronaut do it because Tom Hanks was playing that part— in which Lovell was played by Tom Hanks and is given that line— soon after the movie Apollo 13 was released, the world became infected with these words, easily one of the most used catchphrases ever.
But it makes sense that the phrase was rewritten for the movies. As its screen writer William Broyles has insisted, you can’t say something has happened. Because if you say something has happened it’s over. It’s done. That may be what was really said. But it’s not dramatic. And this was a suspense movie. Suspense needs to be present, to be continual.
On the other hand, the movie was only partially to blame for this myth. In 1983 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, used “Houston, we have a problem” as the title of its weekly radio program about... space history. [1] (Slight pause.)
There are all kinds of cultural myths, things into which the culture buys, that are simply not true. And indeed, the culture imposes all kinds of myths on Christianity.
Here’s an example. The iconic image of the cross widely used by and in the culture has a central vertical beam transected by a horizontal beam about a third of the way down— like that one. (The pastor points to the chancel cross.)
But the actual crosses Romans used to kill people was different. The cross on which Jesus was executed was probably T-shaped— a vertical element with a horizontal beam on top, like a ‘T.’ That allowed executioners to tie the victim to bean then raise the person being murdered to the top.
Here’s another myth along the same lines. Rumor to the contrary, the cross was not a symbol used by early Christians.
The symbol of a cross was extremely rare before the mid-4th Century of the Common Era. And depictions of Jesus on a cross did not occur with regularity until the 6th century. And when these first appeared, the image of Christ was that of a monarch dressed in royal garb levitating off the cross. They tried to make it look like Jesus was not nailed to the cross.
So Christianity is 300 years old before the image of a cross becomes common and 600 years old before the crucifix— a cross with a body— becomes common. It’s at least another century before a partially naked body on the cross, the image often seen today, becomes common. But myths— myths meaning falsehoods in this case— imposed by a cultural eons after the New Testament times insist these images should be paramount when they have no real relation to when things happened and how things were looked at. [2] (Slight pause.)
We find these words in First Peter: “Blessed be Abba, God of our Savior, Jesus, the Christ, who with great mercy gave us a new birth: a birth into a living hope which draws its life from the resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, from the dead;...”
First Peter is one of the so called ‘general epistles,’ not attributed to Paul, not addressed to a particular church. Here it speaks to the condition of churches across lines of time and place.
One commentary says this letter is written for churches alienated from the surrounding society. Put differently, the early church is a counter-cultural church. The early church does not buy into the dominant culture, does not buy into imposed cultural myths. [3]
Now, a more traditional translation for this passage would have said (quote:) “Blessed be the God and Father of Jesus Christ.” But if the churches to which this letter was sent did not buy into the dominant culture, did not acquiesce to imposed cultural myths, they would never have referred to God as Father.
Why? Only those associated with the dominant culture of the era— the Romans— would have referred to God as Father, common in the Roman culture. Further, and as I have often said here, you can search all of Scripture and you will not find God referred to as “Father” in the original languages. It’s not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, not found in the New Testament. To call God Father is simply an imposition of the Roman culture on Christianity.
Jesus does, however, call God Abba, which means “Daddy.” This is and is meant to be a term of intimacy, a relational term.
All that brings me to what I think are the key questions raised by this reading. Who is Abba, God? What does Abba, God have to do with resurrection? (Slight pause.)
Well, having said God is relational, let’s take that a step further. In the Congregational tradition we often use the term covenant. In fact, covenant is meant to have familial, relational understandings, familial, relational meanings. Since God is a God of covenant the claim made in Scripture and by our forebears— God adopts us as God’s own— relational. (Slight pause.)
I tried to unpack all that because I want to illustrate that this epistle is, in its own way, quite counter-cultural. Let’s start with the words Savior and salvation.
At the beginning of this reading the word Savior is applied to Jesus. But we need to realize Savior is not an exclusively Christian term. Savior is applied to God in the Hebrew Scriptures constantly. Hence, the relationship of Jesus and God is here intertwined in an intimate way.
Now, the word salvation has a very specific meaning in the context of Scripture. And this passage says (quote:) “...you are receiving the outcome of your faith— salvation.” In the context of Scripture salvation means freedom.
I believe this passage, therefore, offers a very specific, very direct message. The resurrected Jesus is a sign from God and a sign of God that the promises of God are real.
(Quote:) “Christ, who with great mercy gave us a new birth: a birth into a living hope....” The resurrected Jesus is a sign from God that freedom— the freedom God offers— is real, a sign from God that God not only wants to be but is in intimate relationship with us.
Further, all this is not a transaction, something paid for, something bought. Relationships are not bought or sold, not something bargained for. That a relationship with God can be relegated to a transaction is, I believe, a cultural imposition placed on Christianity.
After all, the culture thinks there is a cost for everything, everything can be bought or sold. But this passage tells us God willingly, freely and graciously wants to be in relationship with us now and forever. In short, this passage is counter-cultural. (Slight pause.)
In a couple of minutes we, as a Congregation, will be doing something very counter-cultural. We will dedicate some quilts. One could argue these quilts are worth quite a bit of money. But that would imply a transaction— something cultural.
But no money will be taken or accepted for these quilts. They will, rather, be given away to those who need them. And doing that is counter cultural. And, like it or not, we Christians are just that: counter cultural.
How do I know we Christians are counter cultural? Well, the last time I looked we believe God— no one else— offers freedom. We believe peace is possible. We believe hope is real. We believe joy abounds. We believe love lasts forever. And we believe God gives all this to us freely. No transaction is involved.
Indeed, the last time I looked that kind of trust— trust in the realities of freedom, peace, hope, joy and love are in short supply in the culture around us. Therefore, by definition, I’d say we Christians are counter cultural, especially because we trust that the freedom, hope, peace, joy, love of God is with us now and forever— no strings attached. Amen.
04/23/2017
United Church of Christ, First Congregational, Norwich, New York.
ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Earlier I said the Romans referred to God as Father. So how did that term creep into Christianity? There are a myriad of ways but there is no doubt that this is one way and it has to do with language, linguistics: by 315 of the Common Era Christianity is the official religion of the Empire. And the Latin words Deus Pater— which mean God the Father— sound very much like the Roman god Jupiter— Deus Pater— Jupiter. And, again, that’s bring historians studying language— no theology there at all; it’s about language. In short, about 1,700 years ago the church probably adopted those words and simply used what was common in the culture and in so doing acquiesced to the culture because it’s certainly not a Scriptural term.”
BENEDICTION: Go out in the strength and love God provides. Praise the deeds of God by the way you live, by the way you love. And may the steadfast love of God and the peace of Christ, which surpasses understanding, keep our minds and hearts in the companionship and will of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.
[1] See this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/04/13/houston-we-have-a-problem-the-amazing-history-of-the-iconic-apollo-13-misquote/?utm_term=.fdfa6c3520e8
[2] See this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-cross/2017/04/14/dae63c1a-1fa8-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html
[3] This information is from The Interpreter’s Bible, the electronic edition in the section which covers an introduction to 1 Peter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)