When they came to the other side, Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me what I can do for you before I am taken away.” Elisha replied, “Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit and become your successor.”
“You have asked a difficult thing,” said Elijah. “If you see me when I am taken from you, then you will get your request. But if not, then you won’t.” As they were walking along and talking, suddenly a chariot of fire appeared, drawn by horses of fire. It drove between the two men, separating them, and Elijah was carried by a whirlwind into heaven. Elisha saw it and cried out, “My father! My father! I see the chariots and charioteers of Israel!” As they disappeared from sight, Elisha tore his clothes in distress. Elisha picked up Elijah’s cloak, which had fallen when he was taken up. Then he returned to the Jordan River, struck the water with Elijah’s cloak and cried out, “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” Then the river divided, and Elisha went across.
*************************************************************************
As they were walking along, someone said to Jesus, “I will follow you wherever you go.”
Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens to live in, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place even to lay his head.” He said to another person, “Come, follow me.” The man agreed, but he said, “Lord, first let me return home and bury my father.” But Jesus told him, “Let the spiritually dead bury their own dead! Your duty is to go and preach about the Kingdom of God.” Another said, “Yes, Lord, I will follow you, but first let me say good-bye to my family.” Jesus told him, “Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”
*************************************************************************
While I was working on this sermon yesterday afternoon, I got thinking about some of the Star Trek movies; The Wrath of Khan, and The Search for Spock. In the Wrath of Khan, Captain Spock has given up his life for the rest of the crew of the Enterprise, but before he died, he put his living spirit into safekeeping with the ship’s doctor, Leonard McCoy. The Search for Spock reveals Spock’s life essence inside the doctor, but it needs to be reunited with Spock’s body. The the crew hijacks the old ship and go searching. The physical and spiritual parts of Spock can be reunited, but not without significant physical and psychological danger to the one who holds the essence, and the body which is without. Having explained the purpose and the risks, the Vulcan High Priestess says to McCoy “The danger to thyself is grave, but thee must make the choice.” McCoy responds “I choose the danger.”, and then mutters in an undertone, “Helluva time to ask!”.
Spock’s father Sarek and Captain Kirk discuss Kirk’s choice to risk everything. Sarek says to him “But at what cost? Your ship, even your son!” Kirk responds “If I hadn’t done it, the cost would have been my soul.”
Many of us would likely say we are Christian by heritage; but most of us are really Christian by birth. At some point there is a choice we have to make. We have to make the choice to be disciples, not just worshippers. Discipleship costs: it isn’t just about tithing, or givings - it’s about being committed to the message of Jesus, to go out, to be active in the world - we have a word for that, too. It’s called ‘outreach’. It isn’t called “bring them in so we can be nice to them”, it’s called “go out and meet them where they are and never mind if they come or not.”
In the Hebrew Scripture this morning we follow two people who are as good an example as we can get. Elijah the Prophet, and Elisha his protégé, who is being groomed for his own prophetic career. Their direction is clearly laid out - Gilgal - Bethel - Jericho - Jordan.
Elijah’s prophetic leadership is ending, but he has prepared for this very moment, for years. Decades earlier Elijah picked his replacement - a kid, out plowing the field, minding his own business and probably thinking about little more than finishing so he can slip into the village and flirt with the cute girls. Elijah approaches the kid, suddenly throws his cloak across the kid’s shoulders, and then walks away! I’d be willing to bet that Elisha stood there for a good long while, looking stunned - until the penny drops, and he realises he’s maybe been tapped on the shoulder. Elisha-the-kid kisses his parents goodbye, and follows this strange person to God only knows where - and he never looks back.
...and there’s a link here to a story from Exodus, where Moses parts the Sea of Reeds so the people can go ahead, following where God leads them in the person of Moses. When Elijah is taken up, his cloak has been left behind. Elisha picks up the cloak, rolls it and strikes the water - and the river is parted, for Elisha to cross. It’s a clear picture - pick up the mantle which has been passed on from one to the other.
The passage from Luke brings another one of those “hard sayings of Jesus.” While Jesus was travelling, a man asked if he could go along. "I’ll go with you, wherever you go." he said. Jesus was pretty sharp-tongued to this would-be disciple: "Are you read to rough it? We don’t even know where we are sleeping from day to day.”
He said to another "Follow me." That one said, "Sure, but first I have to make arrangements for my father’s funeral." Jesus’ response was a little cryptic - “Let the spiritually dead do the burying. Your business is life, not death. The message is critical - Announce God’s kingdom!"
Another one said, "I’m ready to follow you, Master, but first let me get things settled at home, and then I can come with you."
Jesus replied, "Anyone who looks back has already lost. Seize the day. Go forward, regardless of risk” Let me repeat that, because it’s a critical piece for congregations. Anyone who looks back has already lost. Go forward, regardless of the risk.”
In 1977 Oscar Romero was the Bishop of El Salvador. At the time sharecroppers had no rights and rich landowners and the military kept each other in business. Priests who stood with the sharecroppers and fought back were considered "subversive."
It wasn’t long before he became Archbishop Romero. He was torn between sharecroppers and subversive priests who promoted violence, and the landowners, military, and President-elect who crushed the people. Then, a close friend, a priest, was murdered; he went to the village of the murdered piest, where the militia, at the direction of the President-elect, had turned the church into a barracks. Romero said he was there to take the Eucharist; the soldier opened fire on the cross and the altar. Romero left, but came back later, put on his clerical robes, and resolutely set his face toward the church; two priests joined him, then the village people. Romero and the people walked into the church, and Romero cried out, "I have come to retake possession of the church, to strengthen those who the enemies have trampled."
Romero had not realised what being a disciple might mean. He knew intellectually about Jesus, but the man who took back the church knew personally the human cost of discipleship, and in the end it led to his assassination. He is most remembered for saying “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint; when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
Well, there isn’t one of us here who is Jesus, or Romero. Most days we just do our jobs, and then go home and have a life with family. But Jesus, Elisha, Romero, and the fictional characters of Spock, Kirk and McCoy know that the decisions are not easy and often go against accepted logic. Dramatic changes happen and they have to carry on. It may mean going against our culture, giving up a good job as captain of a starship; it might mean doing something totally contrary to what our families might ask or expect. It is a choice between the good and the best.
Royal Caribbean International, the cruise line, a while ago took as its motto “The Nation of Why Not?” All the advertising included “Why not??”, where imagination and innovation were the keystones. Back in May, at the preaching festival in Nashville, Michael Curry, Bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina, talked about the “Why not?” attitude. I like to imagine Elisha, standing there in the field, with the plow in his hand - and instead of saying “Why?”, just dropping the plow and saying “Why not?” Or those who just, apparently, followed Jesus - As we read the Gospels, it appears not one of them said “Why?” but rather “Why not?” And I will forever have a picture in my head of Michael Curry roaring to the congregation “Why not???” “Why not???” “WHY NOT???”
“Look at that, bunches of littleUnited Church people up on their feet, waving their little hands reverently, and shouting “Why not??”
Nowadays, most churches don’t talk a lot about discipleship. We are suspicious of those religious groups which do. But the reality is that it’s not possible to be a Christian without being a disciple. Just saying we are Christian, and showing up at church - is only the first step. Discipleship - following Jesus wherever that might lead - is a difficult choice - but it is a choice between the good, and the best. Jesus calls us to sleep in the hard places, to stick our necks out in the difficult times, to take risks. Jesus calls us as individuals, and as a collective congregation, to pick up the mantle and do it ourselves.....but we’re like the man who asked if he could go home first and put things in order. - and what we end up with is a tiny group of people who do everything.
Canadian sociologist Reginald Bibby commented, almost 20 years ago in 1995 - that it’s time to stop making helpful suggestions from the sidelines, and get into the game. Humber is in a position, here in Corner Brook, to be in the game. But it won’t work if you don’t do it. You can screen all the people you want, check out references and qualifications - but if YOU don’t want anything to happen, it won’t. The choice is yours - to really follow Jesus, or to talk about it. Elijah called Elisha into commitment, For Romero, being called to the priesthood was a call to commitment. Jesus called the disciples into commitment, at all times, even when it’s not convenient.
Is there any good news here? Of course - the good news is that if we take up the mantle left behind, God goes with us no matter what the risk. Jesus left his mantle behind; it is our role to choose to pick up the mantle and follow - wherever that leads.
Sources:
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
2. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
3. "An Easy Choice?" based on Luke 9:51-62 by Rev. Thomas Hall
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Romero
5. "Coachable Moments" a sermon based on 2 Kings 2:1-14 by Rev. Thomas Hall
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Saturday, June 22, 2013
“That All May Be One” Aboriginal Sunday June 23, 2013 John 17:20-21 Humber United Church, Corner Brook
Today is Aboriginal Sunday, and the 27th anniversary of the United Church’s apology to our indigenous peoples. Yes, I know - you’re thinking "The wrongs were done a long time ago. What does it have to do with us now. This isn’t part of Newfoundland’s history.”
Twenty-seven years ago the United Church became acutely aware that its Aboriginal brothers and sisters had something against it. Alberta Billy stood up and expressed the need in her heart for an apology from the United Church for what the church had done to Aboriginal people.
Twenty-seven years ago at the 31st General Council, then-Moderator Robert Smith offered that apology, acknowledging the church's own legacy of attitudes of cultural and spiritual superiority, our own blindness to the values and gifts of native people and their spirituality, our own complicity in the destruction of Aboriginal culture.
Rev. James Scott is the national staff for Aboriginal issues - he writes that in 1988, two years later , Edith Memnook responded to the apology on behalf of the Native community. In the wisdom of the Elders, the apology was received and acknowledged but it would not be accepted until it was lived out in action. The church was being challenged to "walk the talk," to move from acknowledgment to the work of reconciling. A stone cairn was erected on the site of the apology but left unfinished to symbolize that more work on "reconciling" remained to be done.
With each step in our church’s attempt to "walk the talk," we are beginning to understand the length of the road to reconciliation, and how profound a change it must be. I know that Newfoundland was not part of Canada when many of these things occurred, yet as a church, collectively, we are all responsible to further the process of apology.
The first people to come into the mainland of Canada were the traders. They relied heavily on indigenous peoples not only for the fur trade, but for their survival as well. Traders often married aboriginal women, and many of the people became wealthier because of the association. It was a relationship of mutual respect.
However, following the traders were the European settlers, who treated indigenous peoples as either a threat or a nuisance, and the aim was to remove them from the good farmland and settle them on less desirable lands. Together with the settlers were the missionaries, who first came to provide spiritual support for the settlers, but soon decided that conversion would speed the process of assimilation. The attitude was that European ways were far more civilised, and that the best thing which could happen was to convert, teach English, and make indigeous peoples into white people. The fourth group was government. For a time, into the 19th century, colonial and aboriginal interests actually coincided. The British signed valuable treaties for land, and the aboriginal peoples received finances are were able to further their own education and devlopment. As settlers pushed further into the north and west, and it became clear that the aboriginal people were indeed becoming more educated and learning to function as the white men did, attitudes began to shift. So there were then two pieces of legislation - first the Gradual Civilisation Act of 1857, and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. Both acts “assumed the inherent superiority of British ways, and the need for Indians to become English-speakers, Christians and farmers.” The Gradual Civilisation Act would award 50 acres of land to any indigenous male “deemed sufficiently advanced” in elementary education - and would automatically enfranchise him, thus removing all tribal affiliation or treaty rights. This was the beginning of a deliberate policy of extinguishment.
The Davin Report of 1879 stated “the industrial school is the principal feature of the policy know as that of ‘aggressive civilisation’....Indian culture is a contradiction in terms...they are uncivilised - the aim of education is to destroy the Indian.”
Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932 said “I want to get rid of the Indian problem..our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question and no Indian department.”
Our history as a United Church, is one of hand-in-hand support of repressive and racist government policies - we saw it as a way of converting and expanding. We did know, because there were those who told us, that immense harm was being done. Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia all had residential schools operated by the United Church. The one school in Ontario, on the Six Nations lands in Brantford - was in fact a boarding school where children received an education but went home to their families in between, and hence grew up learning their language and culture. The schools in the other provinces were far worse. Children went from a diet of vegetables, meat and fruit - to one of bread and porridge. They were beaten and starved, and many were sexually abused. It is estimated that 150,000 children were forcibly removed from their homes and not allowed to return; of those, 50,000 were presumed dead. Many committed suicide, many tried to run away. The numbers cannot be confirmed. The damage done to many generations - not just those children but their families as well - cannot be removed with words of an apology.
What have we done since 1986? We have created the All Native Circle Conference and the All Tribes Presbytery, established Native theological schools, and staff positions at the national level.
We have heard the voices of survivors of the residential schools, we are learning how deeply this public policy tool of assimilation damaged individuals, families, and communities. We have produced educational resources so that congregations can learn about the impact of colonialism and the legacy of residential schools. Yet few congregations use these materials, or see any relevance today. We have worked to develop good working relationships with national Aboriginal organizations added our voices to theirs in calling for justice. We have learned about Native spirituality and sacred ceremony. Yet even in some Aboriginal congregations, Native spirituality finds no place.
We have been a party to negotiation of a comprehensive Settlement Agreement for survivors. Yet we know that money alone will not heal emotional and psychological damage, nor by itself will it bring about reconciliation.
Here are words from the 1986 Apology. "Long before my people journeyed to this land your people were here, and you received from your Elders an understanding of creation and of the Mystery that surrounds us all that was deep, and rich, and to be treasured."
What still completely boggles my mind is that the indigenous peoples of this land had a complete view of themselves within Creation. - no one owned land or the things in it - they were placed there by the Creator, for all to share. Isn’t it shaming that the theology of creation we now call ours, was here all along, had we listened instead of assuming superiority?
Many years ago, in conversation with Rev. Alf Dumont, an Ojibway and United Church minister - I asked what was needed to work towards reconciliation. He said “Words are not enough. You need to walk with us together, but it may be a long time.”
The inclusion of the four directions and colours in our crest, and the words “All My Relations” are another step along the way of walking the talk. Akwe Nia’tetewa:neren. We give thanks for this learning on the way. Megwetch.
Sources:
1. The Sermon: The Gift in Apology June 2006 Rev. James Scott, The United Church of Canada's General Council Officer for Residential Schools www.united-church.ca
2. Church, Power and Knowledge: Indian Residential Schools in Canada. Author: Rev. Fran Ota, Power and Knowledge Conference, University of Tampere, Finland, September 2010.
Twenty-seven years ago the United Church became acutely aware that its Aboriginal brothers and sisters had something against it. Alberta Billy stood up and expressed the need in her heart for an apology from the United Church for what the church had done to Aboriginal people.
Twenty-seven years ago at the 31st General Council, then-Moderator Robert Smith offered that apology, acknowledging the church's own legacy of attitudes of cultural and spiritual superiority, our own blindness to the values and gifts of native people and their spirituality, our own complicity in the destruction of Aboriginal culture.
Rev. James Scott is the national staff for Aboriginal issues - he writes that in 1988, two years later , Edith Memnook responded to the apology on behalf of the Native community. In the wisdom of the Elders, the apology was received and acknowledged but it would not be accepted until it was lived out in action. The church was being challenged to "walk the talk," to move from acknowledgment to the work of reconciling. A stone cairn was erected on the site of the apology but left unfinished to symbolize that more work on "reconciling" remained to be done.
With each step in our church’s attempt to "walk the talk," we are beginning to understand the length of the road to reconciliation, and how profound a change it must be. I know that Newfoundland was not part of Canada when many of these things occurred, yet as a church, collectively, we are all responsible to further the process of apology.
The first people to come into the mainland of Canada were the traders. They relied heavily on indigenous peoples not only for the fur trade, but for their survival as well. Traders often married aboriginal women, and many of the people became wealthier because of the association. It was a relationship of mutual respect.
However, following the traders were the European settlers, who treated indigenous peoples as either a threat or a nuisance, and the aim was to remove them from the good farmland and settle them on less desirable lands. Together with the settlers were the missionaries, who first came to provide spiritual support for the settlers, but soon decided that conversion would speed the process of assimilation. The attitude was that European ways were far more civilised, and that the best thing which could happen was to convert, teach English, and make indigeous peoples into white people. The fourth group was government. For a time, into the 19th century, colonial and aboriginal interests actually coincided. The British signed valuable treaties for land, and the aboriginal peoples received finances are were able to further their own education and devlopment. As settlers pushed further into the north and west, and it became clear that the aboriginal people were indeed becoming more educated and learning to function as the white men did, attitudes began to shift. So there were then two pieces of legislation - first the Gradual Civilisation Act of 1857, and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. Both acts “assumed the inherent superiority of British ways, and the need for Indians to become English-speakers, Christians and farmers.” The Gradual Civilisation Act would award 50 acres of land to any indigenous male “deemed sufficiently advanced” in elementary education - and would automatically enfranchise him, thus removing all tribal affiliation or treaty rights. This was the beginning of a deliberate policy of extinguishment.
The Davin Report of 1879 stated “the industrial school is the principal feature of the policy know as that of ‘aggressive civilisation’....Indian culture is a contradiction in terms...they are uncivilised - the aim of education is to destroy the Indian.”
Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932 said “I want to get rid of the Indian problem..our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question and no Indian department.”
Our history as a United Church, is one of hand-in-hand support of repressive and racist government policies - we saw it as a way of converting and expanding. We did know, because there were those who told us, that immense harm was being done. Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia all had residential schools operated by the United Church. The one school in Ontario, on the Six Nations lands in Brantford - was in fact a boarding school where children received an education but went home to their families in between, and hence grew up learning their language and culture. The schools in the other provinces were far worse. Children went from a diet of vegetables, meat and fruit - to one of bread and porridge. They were beaten and starved, and many were sexually abused. It is estimated that 150,000 children were forcibly removed from their homes and not allowed to return; of those, 50,000 were presumed dead. Many committed suicide, many tried to run away. The numbers cannot be confirmed. The damage done to many generations - not just those children but their families as well - cannot be removed with words of an apology.
What have we done since 1986? We have created the All Native Circle Conference and the All Tribes Presbytery, established Native theological schools, and staff positions at the national level.
We have heard the voices of survivors of the residential schools, we are learning how deeply this public policy tool of assimilation damaged individuals, families, and communities. We have produced educational resources so that congregations can learn about the impact of colonialism and the legacy of residential schools. Yet few congregations use these materials, or see any relevance today. We have worked to develop good working relationships with national Aboriginal organizations added our voices to theirs in calling for justice. We have learned about Native spirituality and sacred ceremony. Yet even in some Aboriginal congregations, Native spirituality finds no place.
We have been a party to negotiation of a comprehensive Settlement Agreement for survivors. Yet we know that money alone will not heal emotional and psychological damage, nor by itself will it bring about reconciliation.
Here are words from the 1986 Apology. "Long before my people journeyed to this land your people were here, and you received from your Elders an understanding of creation and of the Mystery that surrounds us all that was deep, and rich, and to be treasured."
What still completely boggles my mind is that the indigenous peoples of this land had a complete view of themselves within Creation. - no one owned land or the things in it - they were placed there by the Creator, for all to share. Isn’t it shaming that the theology of creation we now call ours, was here all along, had we listened instead of assuming superiority?
Many years ago, in conversation with Rev. Alf Dumont, an Ojibway and United Church minister - I asked what was needed to work towards reconciliation. He said “Words are not enough. You need to walk with us together, but it may be a long time.”
The inclusion of the four directions and colours in our crest, and the words “All My Relations” are another step along the way of walking the talk. Akwe Nia’tetewa:neren. We give thanks for this learning on the way. Megwetch.
Sources:
1. The Sermon: The Gift in Apology June 2006 Rev. James Scott, The United Church of Canada's General Council Officer for Residential Schools www.united-church.ca
2. Church, Power and Knowledge: Indian Residential Schools in Canada. Author: Rev. Fran Ota, Power and Knowledge Conference, University of Tampere, Finland, September 2010.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Praying Twice a sermon based on Psalm 100 June 16, 2013 Humber United Church, Corner Brook, NL
On your feet now—applaud God! Bring a gift of laughter, sing yourselves into his presence. Know this: God is God, and God made us, we didn’t make God. We’re God’s people, well-tended sheep. Enter with the password: “Thank you!” Make yourselves at home, singing praise. Thank and worship God. For God is sheer beauty, all-generous in love, loyal always and ever.
***************************************************************************
Praise the Source beyond our seeing, architect of time and space,
weaving every thread of being, author of the human race,
sin forgiving, captives freeing, well of justice, truth, and grace.
Praise the Word within our hearing: Christ the way, the door, the key,
teaching, healing, persevering, tortured, killed by Rome’s decree,
new creation pioneering, paradigm of what will be.
Praise the Breath that powers our praises: Living Spirit, Wind and Fire,
sowing gifts whose wealth amazes, quick to comfort and inspire,
soaring high above earth’s rages, Dove of Peace, our heart’s desire.
These are the first three verses of the hymn “Praise the Source Beyond our Seeing”, by the great contemporary hymnwriter Brian Wren. Not only is he a hymnwriter, but the author of the book “Praying Twice: The Music and Words of Congregational Song”.
So, I thought it would be good to start with talking a little about prayer. Prayer is defined as an invocation or act that seeks rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication. Prayer can be a form of religious practice, may be either individual or communal, and can take place in public or in private. It may involve the use of words or song. When language is used, prayer may take the form of a hymn, incantation, formal creed, or a spontaneous utterance in the praying person. There are different forms of prayer such as petitions, supplications, thanksgivings, and worship/praise. Prayer may be directed towards a deity, spirit, deceased person, or lofty idea, for the purpose of worshipping, requesting guidance, requesting assistance, confessing sins or to express one's thoughts and emotions. Thus, people pray for many reasons such as personal benefit or for the sake of others. Meditation is considered a form of prayer, but without words or music.
Well, that’s pretty dry on the whole, and doesn’t really convey the ethos of prayer, or of congregational singing for that matter. I wonder, though, if we do ever consider than when we sing hymns as a congregation, we are actually praying both in words and in music.
What’s important about congregational singing?
Brian Wren says“I believe that congregational song is an indispensable part of Christian public worship. . . . By “indispensable” I mean two steps down from “essential” but three floors higher than “optional.” Non-hearing congregations can worship without song, and hearers can worship together without singing together, as Quakers do mostly, and others do occasionally. But though we don’t have to sing in order to worship, it helps immeasurably if we do.” (47-48)
St. Augustine of Hippo (+430) is often quoted as having said "He who sings, prays twice." The Latin cited for this is "Qui bene cantat bis orat" or "He who sings well prays twice".
Actually, this does not appear in anything of St. Augustine that has come down to us. He did write, "Singing belongs to one who loves".
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote his thesis on Augustine, and decided to check what Augustine really said:
“For he who sings praise, does not only praise, but also praises joyfully; he who sings praise, not only sings, but also loves Him whom he is singing about/to/for. There is a praise-filled public proclamation (praedicatio) in the praise of someone who is confessing/acknowledging (God), in the song of the lover (there is) love.
Augustine is saying that when the praise is of God, then something happens to the song of the praiser/love that makes it more than just any kind of song. The object of the song/love in a way becomes the subject. Something happens so that the song itself becomes Love, in its manifestation the one who truly is Love itself.
Back to Brian Wren who says that congregational song is in trouble: two of the reasons he cites are that “Individualism and the quest for privacy make us less inclined to join a group and sing along with it.” and that the current high quality of recorded sound convinces us that our own voice has no worth.
Wren speaks of sentimentality in church music, defining sentimentality as “feeling for feeling’s sake, as it were,” “superficial emotion, emotion not based on full reality, association without communication”. He quotes Don Hustad, who has been a recognized leader in evangelical church music for six decades, and as well as being a musician, composer, and teacher, he is most well known for his informed criticism of evangelical church music and his well-developed philosophy of worship. He notes overuse of favorite music regardless of its liturgical significance; choosing music which bears little or no relationship to the rest of the service; failing to sing up to the full theology and experience of the congregation; resistance to new musical selections and new forms of music.
For me this is the crunch: resistance to new or different music, (we’ve never sung that before), or insistence on “the good old hymns” (why can’t we sing the hymns we know), to me says we want to box ourselves into the most simple definition of prayer, and ensuring we cannot stretch our theology, but remain always in the same place. Singing God’s song in this generation, praying twice, functions as a catalyst to move us forward. Hymns are not just nice music, or things which make us nostalgic, or make us feel good. Hymns are supposed to change us, to change our attitudes and our thinking, to reveal yet more of God to us as we worship together.
There’s that word “together”. I know that when I try to get people to move up, or move together on one side of the sanctuary, there is a great resistance. No matter how often it’s said - people would rather sing feebly and without any energy, and remain sitting in the same place every week. When you sit in isolation from the rest of the congregation, what does that say on so many levels? Is worship supposed to be private? Or community? If it’s supposed to be in a community, why would we want to sit apart, and then sing down into our necks, or not sing at all? It begs the question, why even come to church? If the service is public worship, then worshipping together as a community is the most important thing - and if we are all going to sit in our little silo-spaces, we are NOT worshipping as a community together - we are worshipping as individuals sitting in the same place.
Our voices, however they are, come from God, don’t they? Music comes from God, doesn’t it? The words we sing come from God. Why would we want to limit ourselves in how we approach God and pray to God? As a church, as a denomination, our congregational song - our prayers within prayers - should make us into something which furthers the revelation of God’s realm on earth, for THIS time and for THIS generation.
In our hymnbook, there is a page which includes John Wesley’s directions for good congregational song : “Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing God more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this, attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually.”
The last verse of Brian Wren’s hymn:
Holy God, your three dimensions, each with music clear and strong,
interweave, resolving tensions, sounding one unfolding song.
You have made us, loved and saved us. May our praises be life-long!
1. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf - blog. Information not available.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer
3. Praying Twice: The Music and Words of Congregational Song. Wren, Brian. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville. 2000.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Hustad
***************************************************************************
Praise the Source beyond our seeing, architect of time and space,
weaving every thread of being, author of the human race,
sin forgiving, captives freeing, well of justice, truth, and grace.
Praise the Word within our hearing: Christ the way, the door, the key,
teaching, healing, persevering, tortured, killed by Rome’s decree,
new creation pioneering, paradigm of what will be.
Praise the Breath that powers our praises: Living Spirit, Wind and Fire,
sowing gifts whose wealth amazes, quick to comfort and inspire,
soaring high above earth’s rages, Dove of Peace, our heart’s desire.
These are the first three verses of the hymn “Praise the Source Beyond our Seeing”, by the great contemporary hymnwriter Brian Wren. Not only is he a hymnwriter, but the author of the book “Praying Twice: The Music and Words of Congregational Song”.
So, I thought it would be good to start with talking a little about prayer. Prayer is defined as an invocation or act that seeks rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication. Prayer can be a form of religious practice, may be either individual or communal, and can take place in public or in private. It may involve the use of words or song. When language is used, prayer may take the form of a hymn, incantation, formal creed, or a spontaneous utterance in the praying person. There are different forms of prayer such as petitions, supplications, thanksgivings, and worship/praise. Prayer may be directed towards a deity, spirit, deceased person, or lofty idea, for the purpose of worshipping, requesting guidance, requesting assistance, confessing sins or to express one's thoughts and emotions. Thus, people pray for many reasons such as personal benefit or for the sake of others. Meditation is considered a form of prayer, but without words or music.
Well, that’s pretty dry on the whole, and doesn’t really convey the ethos of prayer, or of congregational singing for that matter. I wonder, though, if we do ever consider than when we sing hymns as a congregation, we are actually praying both in words and in music.
What’s important about congregational singing?
Brian Wren says“I believe that congregational song is an indispensable part of Christian public worship. . . . By “indispensable” I mean two steps down from “essential” but three floors higher than “optional.” Non-hearing congregations can worship without song, and hearers can worship together without singing together, as Quakers do mostly, and others do occasionally. But though we don’t have to sing in order to worship, it helps immeasurably if we do.” (47-48)
St. Augustine of Hippo (+430) is often quoted as having said "He who sings, prays twice." The Latin cited for this is "Qui bene cantat bis orat" or "He who sings well prays twice".
Actually, this does not appear in anything of St. Augustine that has come down to us. He did write, "Singing belongs to one who loves".
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote his thesis on Augustine, and decided to check what Augustine really said:
“For he who sings praise, does not only praise, but also praises joyfully; he who sings praise, not only sings, but also loves Him whom he is singing about/to/for. There is a praise-filled public proclamation (praedicatio) in the praise of someone who is confessing/acknowledging (God), in the song of the lover (there is) love.
Augustine is saying that when the praise is of God, then something happens to the song of the praiser/love that makes it more than just any kind of song. The object of the song/love in a way becomes the subject. Something happens so that the song itself becomes Love, in its manifestation the one who truly is Love itself.
Back to Brian Wren who says that congregational song is in trouble: two of the reasons he cites are that “Individualism and the quest for privacy make us less inclined to join a group and sing along with it.” and that the current high quality of recorded sound convinces us that our own voice has no worth.
Wren speaks of sentimentality in church music, defining sentimentality as “feeling for feeling’s sake, as it were,” “superficial emotion, emotion not based on full reality, association without communication”. He quotes Don Hustad, who has been a recognized leader in evangelical church music for six decades, and as well as being a musician, composer, and teacher, he is most well known for his informed criticism of evangelical church music and his well-developed philosophy of worship. He notes overuse of favorite music regardless of its liturgical significance; choosing music which bears little or no relationship to the rest of the service; failing to sing up to the full theology and experience of the congregation; resistance to new musical selections and new forms of music.
For me this is the crunch: resistance to new or different music, (we’ve never sung that before), or insistence on “the good old hymns” (why can’t we sing the hymns we know), to me says we want to box ourselves into the most simple definition of prayer, and ensuring we cannot stretch our theology, but remain always in the same place. Singing God’s song in this generation, praying twice, functions as a catalyst to move us forward. Hymns are not just nice music, or things which make us nostalgic, or make us feel good. Hymns are supposed to change us, to change our attitudes and our thinking, to reveal yet more of God to us as we worship together.
There’s that word “together”. I know that when I try to get people to move up, or move together on one side of the sanctuary, there is a great resistance. No matter how often it’s said - people would rather sing feebly and without any energy, and remain sitting in the same place every week. When you sit in isolation from the rest of the congregation, what does that say on so many levels? Is worship supposed to be private? Or community? If it’s supposed to be in a community, why would we want to sit apart, and then sing down into our necks, or not sing at all? It begs the question, why even come to church? If the service is public worship, then worshipping together as a community is the most important thing - and if we are all going to sit in our little silo-spaces, we are NOT worshipping as a community together - we are worshipping as individuals sitting in the same place.
Our voices, however they are, come from God, don’t they? Music comes from God, doesn’t it? The words we sing come from God. Why would we want to limit ourselves in how we approach God and pray to God? As a church, as a denomination, our congregational song - our prayers within prayers - should make us into something which furthers the revelation of God’s realm on earth, for THIS time and for THIS generation.
In our hymnbook, there is a page which includes John Wesley’s directions for good congregational song : “Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing God more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this, attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually.”
The last verse of Brian Wren’s hymn:
Holy God, your three dimensions, each with music clear and strong,
interweave, resolving tensions, sounding one unfolding song.
You have made us, loved and saved us. May our praises be life-long!
1. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf - blog. Information not available.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer
3. Praying Twice: The Music and Words of Congregational Song. Wren, Brian. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville. 2000.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Hustad
Saturday, June 8, 2013
“Eat What is Offered You” a sermon based upon 1 Kings 17:8-16, Luke 10:1-11. June 9, 2013 Humber United Church, Corner Brook, NL
God’s word came to Elijah: get up and go to Zarephath near Sidon and stay there. I have arranged for widow there to take care of you. Elijah went to Zarephath, and as he came to the town gate, he saw a widow collecting sticks. He called out to her, “Please get a little water for me in this cup so I can drink.” She went to get some water. He then said to her, “Please get me a piece of bread. As surely as the Lord your God lives,” she replied, “I don’t have any food; only a handful of flour in a jar and a bit of oil in a bottle. Look at me. I’m collecting two sticks so that I can make some food for myself and my son. We’ll eat the last of the food and then die.” Elijah said to her, “Don’t be afraid! Go and do what you said. Only make a little loaf of bread for me first. Then bring it to me. You can make something for yourself and your son after that. This is what Israel’s God says: The jar of flour won’t decrease and the bottle of oil won’t run out until the day the Lord sends rain on the earth.” The widow went and did what Elijah said. So the widow, Elijah, and the widow’s household ate for many days. The jar of flour didn’t decrease nor did the bottle of oil run out, just as the Lord spoke through Elijah.
Luke 10:1-11
After this Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them ahead of him, in pairs, to every town and place where he intended to go. He said, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. So ask the God of harvest to send out workers into the harvest field. Go! I am sending you like lambs among wolves. Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house. When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you. Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The realm of God has come near to you.’ When you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The realm of God has come near.’
************************************************************************
You probably know that one of my favourite movies is “Sister Act” - because there are so many parts of it which can be mined as messages for the church.
There are two scenes I want to note today - the first is the Monsignor and Mother Superior discussing bringing this “poor woman” into the convent to hide her, and Mother Superior is only too happy to offer hospitality - until Mother Superior actually sees Deloris Van Cartier, the Vegas lounge singer. When the Monsignor reminds her she has made a vow of hospitality to everyone, regardless of who they are, Mother Superior responds “I lied.”
A little later, we see Deloris, now Sister Mary Clarence sitting down to eat, and finding the food not to her liking - she’s used to much fancier fare. In fact, she’s downright rude about what’s put in front of her.
The word hospitality comes from the Latin ‘hospes’, which is formed from ‘hostis’, which meant to have power. The meaning of "host" can be literally read as "lord of strangers." But ‘hostire’, from which we get the word ‘host’, means to equalise or compensate.
In the Homeric age, hospitality was under the protection of Zeus, who also had the title 'Xenios Zeus' ('xenos' means stranger). It’s where we get the word “xenophobia” - fear of strangers. Xenios Zeus emphasised the fact that hospitality was of the utmost importance. A stranger passing outside a Greek house would be invited inside by the family. The host would wash the stranger's feet, offer food and wine, and only after the guest was comfortable, could the host ask for a name. Hospitality was about making a stranger equal to the host, making the stranger feel protected and cared for, and when the stranger’s time with them was done, guiding them to the next destination.
Did you know that hospitality, a welcome of strangers, was considered most important not only to Greeks, but to both Jews and Christians. Nothing was more important than showing hospitality - offering strangers a generous and cordial welcome by providing a sustaining environment. People believed that in the next life God would serve them as Host, and would show them the same kind of hospitality, the same kind of welcome as they had shown to strangers during their time on earth.
Elijah speaks to a widow who says she has so little food that she and her son will at one last meal, and then die. Elijah responds that if she makes him a small loaf of bread, the food will not run out, but will be enough for all of them for more than one meal. I also note that this woman is not of the Hebrew faith. Zarephath was a city in Zidon - about where Lebanon is. She would not have been one of the covenant children of Israel; she and her son are dying of starvation and when Elijah found her they had nothing left to eat but "a handful of meal in a barrel and a little oil.” Yet though she and Elijah were different ethnic backgrounds and different faiths, she shared from her tiny hoard - and the flour and oil didn’t run out, and all of her household was fed, throughout the famine, including Elijah who remained with them.
Jesus’ instructions the disciples were to go to one place and stay there until the time was up. Don’t go from house to house. Eat what you are offered, because the people there have worked hard to prepare what they have, and just as they share with you, so you have an obligation to share as well.
I know that I have told this story before, but it bears re-telling. Many years ago, when Norio was working on his PhD at Michigan State, we lived in student housing. Over 30 different ethnic groups lived in tiny one and two bedroom apartments, and virtually all had little money - and often ran out of something before the end of the month. Yet there was always enough in our supplies to help someone else with something - if I ran out of flour, someone else had some; if they ran out of oil, someone else had some. In good weather we had community meals - everyone bringing something and everyone going away fed well. For me, it was a clear case of a community in action and a living out of the word.
Hospitality, in the Christian church, is demonstrated first at the table, with the most common elements of everyday life - the word of God on our table. So when we come to table we are eating the word, and in doing so we live out the eating of what is offered. We ingest the word of God.
In the book of Ezekiel, chapter 3 verses 1-3, God tells Ezekiel to eat the scroll with the words on it, and it will taste like honey. In order to be able to preach the word, Ezekiel had to eat the word, he had to ingest the word into his own body.
In the words of Jesus “eat what is offered to you”, I hear an echo of the same thing. Jesus was repeatedly criticised by religious leaders for being willing to eat with everyone, even outcasts, sinners, the poor, those of other faiths or no faith. For Christians, sitting down at a table with strangers in an unfamiliar place is the same as sitting at the table with Jesus - or it should be - and eating the word. God’s word comes to us in the food placed on the table before us. We cannot be Christians, we cannot tell our stories, until we have first eaten the word. What that means is that God’s word comes to us in the sharing of a meal - regardless of who it is with - and that is how understanding begins to take place, how common ground is established. So Jesus is also sending the disciples out to learn first, and to preach second. He sends them out to find a common ground. He sends them to preach the word of God but he also sends them to hear and eat the word of God. He says “If they are not willing, shake the dust from you sandals and move on.”, but I think - honestly - that he knows that once people sleep under the same roof together and eat at the same table together, the rest will take care of itself.
Just for a moment, jump back to Sister Act. Mother Superior admits that she is far less adept at giving hospitality than she would like to think. The arrival of Deloris, as Sister Mary Clarence, brings the very being of the Holy Spirit into the convent. She is chaos, the wind of God, the making of something new. She upsets every apple cart, knocks down every single barrier Mother Superior has so carefully constructed. The other sisters have been *thinking* it, but Sister Mary Clarence *does* it. Fences come down, doors open, people find the church relevant - and the church becomes a part of the neighbourhood, instead of a bastion keeping people out and the sisters in. Mother Superior notes how dangerous it is outside, and forgets those people who have to live with the danger *all the time*. Mary Clarence gives the whole convent new confidence, and a new understanding of what hospitality really means. And in one telling line, Sister Mary Patrick notes “after all, that’s why we became nuns in the first place.” They became nuns in order to offer God’s great hospitality, and to receive it from the community around them.
The table is that one of our traditions which is completely central to our identity as Christians. It represents the vast generosity of God offered without judgment. The table represents God’s unconditional love and hospitality. We come to the table to eat the word of God, to take it into ourselves so that it becomes a part of us. May it be so.
Sources:
1. Jesus and Hospitality, a sermon by Rev. Thomas Hall.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospitality
3. Rev. Dr. Barbara Brown Taylor sermon “Eat This Book”, Festival of Homiletics May 2009.
4. Movie “Sister Act” - Maggie Smith, Whoopi Goldberg
5. http
Saturday, June 1, 2013
“Singing on Our Way”, a sermon based on Psalm 96 June 2, 2013 Second Sunday of Pentecost Humber United Church
Sing to God a new song; sing to God, all the earth. Sing to God and give praise to God’s name;
proclaim salvation day after day. Declare God’s glory among the nations, God’s wonderful deeds among all peoples. For God is great, most worthy of praise, and to be held in awe above all gods. All the gods of the nations are idols; God made the heavens. Splendor and majesty, strength and glory are in God’s sanctuary.
Ascribe to God glory and strength, all you families of nations. Bring offerings and come to God’s presence. Worship God in the splendor of holiness; all the earth. Say among the nations, “God reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; and God will judge the peoples with equity.
Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and everything in the sea. Let the fields and everything in them sing for joy; let all the trees of the forest sing for joy. Let all creation rejoice before God, who comes to judge the earth, and who will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in faithfulness.
************************************************************************
Sing. Sing a song. Sing out loud, sing out strong.
Sing of good things, not bad. Sing of happy, not sad.
Sing. Sing a song. Make it simple to last your whole life long.
Don´t worry that it´s not good enough for anyone else to hear.
Just sing. Sing a song.
*************************************************************************
Grumpy Cat. You really have to laugh at Grumpy Cat. That face.
But look at what he says. “Sing a new song? I never had an old one.”
I find myself wondering if that isn’t part of our problem with our faith. We don’t want to sing a new song, we want to keep singing the same old one. But the Psalmist - good heavens that’s how many thousand years ago - four or five, that this was written - the Psalmist says “Sing a NEW song.”
I want to ask you, though - as you read through the Psalm - is the song restricted to Christians? The first part of the psalm might suggest that. “Sing to God a new song; sing to God, all the earth.” We are clearly called to offer praise, and worship; but then it goes on - to ‘sing all the nations’; the physical creation, not just the people, will sing. The heavens, the earth, the sea and everything in it, the fields and the trees, will sing and shout for joy!
Melissa Florer-Bixler is a theological student at Princeton University, and is a member of the Mennonite Church of the USA . She says worship that stops with “God and me” doesn’t take into account how big God really is. The Psalm starts out as a sort of “God and me”, but then goes on to remind us that we sing to the God of Creation, the God of the Universe. She says “Over and over again we read that the whole earth is supposed to hear, in song, about God’s good work. And we know from the newer testament that this is actually happening”. When God sent Jesus, that declaration to the nations we read about in the psalm went into overdrive. In Acts we learn how this happened, how those who followed Jesus took up his command to be his witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the very ends of the world. It was time for the whole world to get in on the relationship with God that before was reserved for the Jews.
This means that our worship and our evangelism are always intertwined. Rev. William Willimon, a United Methodist bishop now teaching at Duke Divinity School, shares a story about how important it is that our praise be witness to the fullness of life in God. It was the end of the day when Willimon decided to visit a member of his congregation, a lawyer. He dropped by his office and everyone had gone home but this lawyer who was working late. Starting off the conversation Willimon asked, “What sort of day have you had?” The lawyer replied: “A typical day…full of misery. In the morning I assisted a couple to evict their aging father from his house so they could take everything while he was in a nursing home. All legal, not particularly moral, but legal. By lunchtime I was helping a client evade his worker’s comp insurance payment. It’s legal. This afternoon I have been enabling a woman to ruin her husband’s life forever with the sweetest divorce you ever saw. That’s my day.”
Willimon thought, “What could I say?” The lawyer continued, “Which helps explain why I’m in your church on a Sunday morning.” Willimon replied, “I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed thinking what on earth I have to say in a sermon which might help you for a Sunday.”
The lawyer said, “It’s not the sermon I come for, preacher. It’s the music. I go a whole week with nothing beautiful, little good, until Sunday. Sometimes when the choir sings, it is for me the difference between death and life.”
Christian theologian Marva Dawn explains that, “It is a major flaw in present-day churches that we don’t realize that our primary evangelistic tool is the corporate life of the believing community. Our neighbors need to see the Christian way of life that gives warrant for belief.” The strength and conviction of our singing vertically is going to reverberate horizontally, into the world.
I noticed a line in this Psalm which threw everything into perspective - the Psalm talks about the idols of the world, the “other gods”. It occurred to me that this isn’t talking about people of other faiths, who don’t worship the name we worship. It’s talking about the things we think are so important. How about the things that make us complain if the service goes over an hour? Stuff that we think is so important that even God’s song is put on a timer? When did that happen? Family is important, yes; recreation is important, yes: saving for the future has some importance; work is important, yes;- but not if it takes over so much of our lives of faith that we forget how to sing God’s song, or maybe hide behind the excuse that our voice isn’t so good, or we don’t have any talent. What “other gods” are there in our lives?
In the same way, if we sing to God as if God is just one of the idols of this world, if we sing like singing is something our own little insular group does when it’s not too busy doing real work, then no one will want to be a part of what we do here. People are busy! People have things to do. We’ve all got our idols to worship, whether that’s money, prestige, relationships, sex or politics. Psalm 96 reminds us that our singing says something about those other idols:
Singing like this, singing to the God Who Rules Everything, might actually blow the doors right off the church. If even the trees of the fields will clap their hands, clearly our songs will sometimes find themselves breaking out into the world in unexpected ways. Most of us remember the song “We Shall Overcome” which became such an integral part of the Civil Rights movement. This gospel song can be heard as a longing for the time when pain and trials will cease. It can be heard as a song about strength for our earthly journey as we face the perils of daily life. When churches were burned to the ground, black girls kidnapped and raped, young black men strung up and tortured - when people dressed in white robes and pointy hats, this song of Rev. Dr. Charles Tindley became an anthem of longing for justice on this earth that reflected God’s song. It began simply as a gospel song called “I’ll Overcome Someday” but was re-written and literally became a *new* song which gave commitment and energy to the Civil Rights movement.
And in this song we can see that our singing taps into something bigger than all of us can imagine. Songs like “We Shall Overcome” are a strong reminder that God’s love is embedded in good worship. Sometimes we just have to be willing to let it run wild in the world - run with the Spirit, and we have to run with it. We might even have to sing in dangerous places. Protests have begun in Turkey, in Taksim Square, the central square in Istanbul. The Gezi Park is to be demolished, in order to make way for a huge shopping mall. People have been beaten, shot and water-cannoned, even though the protests have been shown to be peaceful. Oh that’s how it began, but it’s now a statement about repressive police and government, in a so-called secular democracy. Most of those Turks are Muslim, not Christian - but they are singing God’s song - in the expression of their concern for a world gone awry. And now there are more people, walking across the bridge over the Bosporus, from northern Africa, to support the ordinary Turkish people. Around the world there are countless other songs like this one - being sung all the time. All people who stand up for justice and right relations sing God’s song - and that’s what this Psalm says to us, I believe.
That’s where worship should take us - to demonstrations, to jails, to lost jobs and sometimes even to death. It will be called rebellious, rabble-rouser and agitator. It will sing the words of wholeness where the spirit and the body are at peace. When Martin Luther King said “We Shall Overcome” it wasn’t just that we would live in a world which recognised all people as equal, he also meant that we overcome even death.
Singing takes our faith in every direction imaginable. Our praises go up to God, but they also go out to our neighbours, into places we might never ever think they could or would go. So let us all sing a new song. Let all the nations of the world sing God’s song. Let the trees of the forest sing for joy. Let our praise be an announcement of the risks taken by those who work to build up the realm of God in the world. Don’t worry that it’s not good enough for anyone else to hear, just sing. Sing God’s song. Amen.
Sources:
1. “Why We Sing,” A Sermon on Psalm 96 Melissa Florer-Bixler March 2013
2. “Sing a Song” - by R&B/funk band, “Earth, Wind & Fire”, written by Maurice White and Al McKay, 1975
proclaim salvation day after day. Declare God’s glory among the nations, God’s wonderful deeds among all peoples. For God is great, most worthy of praise, and to be held in awe above all gods. All the gods of the nations are idols; God made the heavens. Splendor and majesty, strength and glory are in God’s sanctuary.
Ascribe to God glory and strength, all you families of nations. Bring offerings and come to God’s presence. Worship God in the splendor of holiness; all the earth. Say among the nations, “God reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; and God will judge the peoples with equity.
Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let the sea resound, and everything in the sea. Let the fields and everything in them sing for joy; let all the trees of the forest sing for joy. Let all creation rejoice before God, who comes to judge the earth, and who will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples in faithfulness.
************************************************************************
Sing. Sing a song. Sing out loud, sing out strong.
Sing of good things, not bad. Sing of happy, not sad.
Sing. Sing a song. Make it simple to last your whole life long.
Don´t worry that it´s not good enough for anyone else to hear.
Just sing. Sing a song.
*************************************************************************
But look at what he says. “Sing a new song? I never had an old one.”
I find myself wondering if that isn’t part of our problem with our faith. We don’t want to sing a new song, we want to keep singing the same old one. But the Psalmist - good heavens that’s how many thousand years ago - four or five, that this was written - the Psalmist says “Sing a NEW song.”
I want to ask you, though - as you read through the Psalm - is the song restricted to Christians? The first part of the psalm might suggest that. “Sing to God a new song; sing to God, all the earth.” We are clearly called to offer praise, and worship; but then it goes on - to ‘sing all the nations’; the physical creation, not just the people, will sing. The heavens, the earth, the sea and everything in it, the fields and the trees, will sing and shout for joy!
Melissa Florer-Bixler is a theological student at Princeton University, and is a member of the Mennonite Church of the USA . She says worship that stops with “God and me” doesn’t take into account how big God really is. The Psalm starts out as a sort of “God and me”, but then goes on to remind us that we sing to the God of Creation, the God of the Universe. She says “Over and over again we read that the whole earth is supposed to hear, in song, about God’s good work. And we know from the newer testament that this is actually happening”. When God sent Jesus, that declaration to the nations we read about in the psalm went into overdrive. In Acts we learn how this happened, how those who followed Jesus took up his command to be his witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria and to the very ends of the world. It was time for the whole world to get in on the relationship with God that before was reserved for the Jews.
This means that our worship and our evangelism are always intertwined. Rev. William Willimon, a United Methodist bishop now teaching at Duke Divinity School, shares a story about how important it is that our praise be witness to the fullness of life in God. It was the end of the day when Willimon decided to visit a member of his congregation, a lawyer. He dropped by his office and everyone had gone home but this lawyer who was working late. Starting off the conversation Willimon asked, “What sort of day have you had?” The lawyer replied: “A typical day…full of misery. In the morning I assisted a couple to evict their aging father from his house so they could take everything while he was in a nursing home. All legal, not particularly moral, but legal. By lunchtime I was helping a client evade his worker’s comp insurance payment. It’s legal. This afternoon I have been enabling a woman to ruin her husband’s life forever with the sweetest divorce you ever saw. That’s my day.”
Willimon thought, “What could I say?” The lawyer continued, “Which helps explain why I’m in your church on a Sunday morning.” Willimon replied, “I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed thinking what on earth I have to say in a sermon which might help you for a Sunday.”
The lawyer said, “It’s not the sermon I come for, preacher. It’s the music. I go a whole week with nothing beautiful, little good, until Sunday. Sometimes when the choir sings, it is for me the difference between death and life.”
Christian theologian Marva Dawn explains that, “It is a major flaw in present-day churches that we don’t realize that our primary evangelistic tool is the corporate life of the believing community. Our neighbors need to see the Christian way of life that gives warrant for belief.” The strength and conviction of our singing vertically is going to reverberate horizontally, into the world.
I noticed a line in this Psalm which threw everything into perspective - the Psalm talks about the idols of the world, the “other gods”. It occurred to me that this isn’t talking about people of other faiths, who don’t worship the name we worship. It’s talking about the things we think are so important. How about the things that make us complain if the service goes over an hour? Stuff that we think is so important that even God’s song is put on a timer? When did that happen? Family is important, yes; recreation is important, yes: saving for the future has some importance; work is important, yes;- but not if it takes over so much of our lives of faith that we forget how to sing God’s song, or maybe hide behind the excuse that our voice isn’t so good, or we don’t have any talent. What “other gods” are there in our lives?
In the same way, if we sing to God as if God is just one of the idols of this world, if we sing like singing is something our own little insular group does when it’s not too busy doing real work, then no one will want to be a part of what we do here. People are busy! People have things to do. We’ve all got our idols to worship, whether that’s money, prestige, relationships, sex or politics. Psalm 96 reminds us that our singing says something about those other idols:
Singing like this, singing to the God Who Rules Everything, might actually blow the doors right off the church. If even the trees of the fields will clap their hands, clearly our songs will sometimes find themselves breaking out into the world in unexpected ways. Most of us remember the song “We Shall Overcome” which became such an integral part of the Civil Rights movement. This gospel song can be heard as a longing for the time when pain and trials will cease. It can be heard as a song about strength for our earthly journey as we face the perils of daily life. When churches were burned to the ground, black girls kidnapped and raped, young black men strung up and tortured - when people dressed in white robes and pointy hats, this song of Rev. Dr. Charles Tindley became an anthem of longing for justice on this earth that reflected God’s song. It began simply as a gospel song called “I’ll Overcome Someday” but was re-written and literally became a *new* song which gave commitment and energy to the Civil Rights movement.
And in this song we can see that our singing taps into something bigger than all of us can imagine. Songs like “We Shall Overcome” are a strong reminder that God’s love is embedded in good worship. Sometimes we just have to be willing to let it run wild in the world - run with the Spirit, and we have to run with it. We might even have to sing in dangerous places. Protests have begun in Turkey, in Taksim Square, the central square in Istanbul. The Gezi Park is to be demolished, in order to make way for a huge shopping mall. People have been beaten, shot and water-cannoned, even though the protests have been shown to be peaceful. Oh that’s how it began, but it’s now a statement about repressive police and government, in a so-called secular democracy. Most of those Turks are Muslim, not Christian - but they are singing God’s song - in the expression of their concern for a world gone awry. And now there are more people, walking across the bridge over the Bosporus, from northern Africa, to support the ordinary Turkish people. Around the world there are countless other songs like this one - being sung all the time. All people who stand up for justice and right relations sing God’s song - and that’s what this Psalm says to us, I believe.
That’s where worship should take us - to demonstrations, to jails, to lost jobs and sometimes even to death. It will be called rebellious, rabble-rouser and agitator. It will sing the words of wholeness where the spirit and the body are at peace. When Martin Luther King said “We Shall Overcome” it wasn’t just that we would live in a world which recognised all people as equal, he also meant that we overcome even death.
Singing takes our faith in every direction imaginable. Our praises go up to God, but they also go out to our neighbours, into places we might never ever think they could or would go. So let us all sing a new song. Let all the nations of the world sing God’s song. Let the trees of the forest sing for joy. Let our praise be an announcement of the risks taken by those who work to build up the realm of God in the world. Don’t worry that it’s not good enough for anyone else to hear, just sing. Sing God’s song. Amen.
Sources:
1. “Why We Sing,” A Sermon on Psalm 96 Melissa Florer-Bixler March 2013
2. “Sing a Song” - by R&B/funk band, “Earth, Wind & Fire”, written by Maurice White and Al McKay, 1975
Saturday, May 11, 2013
“Places Where God is Found” John 17:20-26 and 1 John 4:7-8 Sixth Sunday of Easter 2013 Humber United Church
John 17:20-26 NIV-UK
‘My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, God, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. ‘Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you[a] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.’
1 John 4:7-8
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
************************************************************************
A few years ago I was having a conversation with my youngest son about God, faith, religion and - in his mind - the damage religion does when it is not carefully thought out. He was relating that a colleague of his at work had become involved in a church, and it was beginning to consume his life. The colleague repeats whatever he is told without thinking. So this colleague pronounced that if people don’t love God, they are not capable of loving others either. My son pointed out that even in that very statement, the colleague had stated he himself was then not capable of love, because it had conditions and restrictions, and that in his opinion, God wasn’t limited.
It was interesting that we were having this particular conversation, because I had decided to preach on the text of John - whoever loves comes from God. This is precisely the opposite of what my son’s colleague was saying. We don’t have to love God first, and then find the capability to love others. It is the other way around - humans are born to love, that love comes from God, and the love we are capable of having for others connects us to God.
So it raises for me lots of questions: where are the places God is found? Only where we say it is? There are so many definitions, from different groups who say they are Christian, about where God is found.
What constitutes “right belief”. Is it a so-called orthodox belief that only Christians can have a relationship with God. Is God so limited? What, and who, defines our relationship to God? Too often, unfortunately, we who call ourselves Christian want to label our relationship to God, and the way we do it, as the only right way. When we do that, though, we leave God out of the equation altogether. And in fact, God cannot be defined or confined by us our by our beliefs.
Is baptism evidence of “right belief”? We bring children for baptism, make promises on their behalf. Does that mean they have “right belief” just because of that action? We confirm our children when they are teens, and they are considered members of the church. Is that all ‘right belief’ takes? Or do those young people then continue to learn and discover what love in faith means? Do we help the young people learn and discern? Or do we want them in church, but ensure they believe the way we think they should? And then we ask ourselves why they aren’t here.
Is prayer “right belief”? What kind of prayer? Is prayer alone the most important thing? Does God ignore us if we don’t pray a certain way? Does God do what we ask because we claim to be Christian, and turn others down because they are not? Or does God know and hear the prayers of every single human being?
What about social justice and outreach? Is that “right belief”? Shelters, warm meals, Habitat for Humanity builds, compassion. Are those the only evidence of “right belief”? John’s Gospel talks about Jesus being the vine, and us the branches. Jesus was love, Jesus is love. So if that is the case, then we also are born to love - and out of that love surely comes a mission. A church with no sense of mission has cut itself off from the Vine. Without connection to the Vine, mission in the church is just mission by any other social agency.
What about the ‘born again’ experience? Is that the earmark of “right belief”? We know that deeply moving experiences can change lives. I am sure there are many of us in this place who have had deeply moving spiritual experiences, but not necessarily in a church, and certainly not at a time of our choosing. But is that all? One moving experience which connects us to God, and suddenly we have “right belief”? What does it mean to be “born again”? Who defines what “born again” is? Us? Or God? Do we continue to find God in the most unlikely places, and have spiritual experiences which give us insight into a broader version of being than we can conceive?
So the places where God is found are the places where love is - no matter who, or where, or how - simply that wherever love is, God is there. Wherever love is, God’s unconditional love is also there.
To have love - agape - is to have God living within us; everyone who loves has God within them.
This one simple statement takes us well beyond the Christian context, and into a world-wide context with no boundaries. “Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God; if we love one another, God lives in us.” It means that God lives within human beings regardless of whether or not they are baptised, or whether or not they pray, or even whether or not they claim they are Christian. God is love. God cannot be contained by one faith, or one way of looking at faith. God lives wherever there is love.
Is love present here, in this place? Do we, in this place, love enough to consider our neighbours as important as we consider ourselves? Or do we seek to undermine each other, gossip and spread stories, strike up conversations on doorsteps, designed to spread discord rather than truth?
Agape, or love within a community, is the one single and most important criterion which gives meaning to everything else we say or do. We might be able to recite the creeds, and the Lord’s Prayer, but if we are just going through the motions, reciting without thinking, we are “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”. We may have experiences that take us into God’s holy presence, but without love it does us no good. Though we feed the hungry and rescue those who are perishing but have no love, we are nothing. We might think baptism and then confirmation is all it takes - but unless a child learns to love all throughout life - it is a meaningless ritual.
On this day, as we celebrate new windows and God’s light in this place, and celebrate the love of Jesus through the service of the table, may our prayers be that we are transformed by insight, and by the example of Jesus, to make this a place where God is found, for all who are seeking.
‘My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, God, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one – I in them and you in me – so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. ‘Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you[a] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.’
1 John 4:7-8
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
************************************************************************
A few years ago I was having a conversation with my youngest son about God, faith, religion and - in his mind - the damage religion does when it is not carefully thought out. He was relating that a colleague of his at work had become involved in a church, and it was beginning to consume his life. The colleague repeats whatever he is told without thinking. So this colleague pronounced that if people don’t love God, they are not capable of loving others either. My son pointed out that even in that very statement, the colleague had stated he himself was then not capable of love, because it had conditions and restrictions, and that in his opinion, God wasn’t limited.
It was interesting that we were having this particular conversation, because I had decided to preach on the text of John - whoever loves comes from God. This is precisely the opposite of what my son’s colleague was saying. We don’t have to love God first, and then find the capability to love others. It is the other way around - humans are born to love, that love comes from God, and the love we are capable of having for others connects us to God.
So it raises for me lots of questions: where are the places God is found? Only where we say it is? There are so many definitions, from different groups who say they are Christian, about where God is found.
What constitutes “right belief”. Is it a so-called orthodox belief that only Christians can have a relationship with God. Is God so limited? What, and who, defines our relationship to God? Too often, unfortunately, we who call ourselves Christian want to label our relationship to God, and the way we do it, as the only right way. When we do that, though, we leave God out of the equation altogether. And in fact, God cannot be defined or confined by us our by our beliefs.
Is baptism evidence of “right belief”? We bring children for baptism, make promises on their behalf. Does that mean they have “right belief” just because of that action? We confirm our children when they are teens, and they are considered members of the church. Is that all ‘right belief’ takes? Or do those young people then continue to learn and discover what love in faith means? Do we help the young people learn and discern? Or do we want them in church, but ensure they believe the way we think they should? And then we ask ourselves why they aren’t here.
Is prayer “right belief”? What kind of prayer? Is prayer alone the most important thing? Does God ignore us if we don’t pray a certain way? Does God do what we ask because we claim to be Christian, and turn others down because they are not? Or does God know and hear the prayers of every single human being?
What about social justice and outreach? Is that “right belief”? Shelters, warm meals, Habitat for Humanity builds, compassion. Are those the only evidence of “right belief”? John’s Gospel talks about Jesus being the vine, and us the branches. Jesus was love, Jesus is love. So if that is the case, then we also are born to love - and out of that love surely comes a mission. A church with no sense of mission has cut itself off from the Vine. Without connection to the Vine, mission in the church is just mission by any other social agency.
What about the ‘born again’ experience? Is that the earmark of “right belief”? We know that deeply moving experiences can change lives. I am sure there are many of us in this place who have had deeply moving spiritual experiences, but not necessarily in a church, and certainly not at a time of our choosing. But is that all? One moving experience which connects us to God, and suddenly we have “right belief”? What does it mean to be “born again”? Who defines what “born again” is? Us? Or God? Do we continue to find God in the most unlikely places, and have spiritual experiences which give us insight into a broader version of being than we can conceive?
So the places where God is found are the places where love is - no matter who, or where, or how - simply that wherever love is, God is there. Wherever love is, God’s unconditional love is also there.
To have love - agape - is to have God living within us; everyone who loves has God within them.
This one simple statement takes us well beyond the Christian context, and into a world-wide context with no boundaries. “Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God; if we love one another, God lives in us.” It means that God lives within human beings regardless of whether or not they are baptised, or whether or not they pray, or even whether or not they claim they are Christian. God is love. God cannot be contained by one faith, or one way of looking at faith. God lives wherever there is love.
Is love present here, in this place? Do we, in this place, love enough to consider our neighbours as important as we consider ourselves? Or do we seek to undermine each other, gossip and spread stories, strike up conversations on doorsteps, designed to spread discord rather than truth?
Agape, or love within a community, is the one single and most important criterion which gives meaning to everything else we say or do. We might be able to recite the creeds, and the Lord’s Prayer, but if we are just going through the motions, reciting without thinking, we are “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal”. We may have experiences that take us into God’s holy presence, but without love it does us no good. Though we feed the hungry and rescue those who are perishing but have no love, we are nothing. We might think baptism and then confirmation is all it takes - but unless a child learns to love all throughout life - it is a meaningless ritual.
On this day, as we celebrate new windows and God’s light in this place, and celebrate the love of Jesus through the service of the table, may our prayers be that we are transformed by insight, and by the example of Jesus, to make this a place where God is found, for all who are seeking.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
“Surprised!!!” a sermon based on Acts 9:1-6 John 21:1-9 Third Sunday of Easter Humber United Church
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
**********************************************************************
Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias. Peter, Thomas, Nathanael from Cana, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. “I’m going out to fish,” Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not recognise him.He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?” “No,” they answered. He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.When they landed, they saw a fire burning there with fish on it, and some bread.
Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to Peter “Follow me!”
*********************************************************************
For most of his life the late Malcolm Muggeridge professed to be agnostic. In 1969 he became a Christian, publishing “Jesus Rediscovered”, then “Jesus: The Man Who Lives” in 1976, a more substantial work describing the gospel in his own words. He also produced several important BBC documentaries with a religious theme, including In the Footsteps of St. Paul. In 1982, Muggeridge converted to Roman Catholicism. He was 79. His last book “Conversion”, published in 1988 and recently republished, describes his life as a 20th century pilgrimage - a spiritual journey.
In today’s reading from Acts, there is a word which never shows up, and yet its presence almost screams out of the story. Rev. Tom Hall calls it “a disruptive word--a word that intrudes into our life, a word that rocks our boat, threatens us with priority shifts.”
We need to be clear that the story of Saul on the road to Damascus is not a story about a conversion to the Christian faith. Saul was a Jewish rabbi and a citizen of Rome, and he remained a Jew even after his experience. It is not a story about a change in religious belief, but rather a story about a conversion of nature or character. Unfortunately, the Damascus Road incident has become kind of the yardstick by which everyone measures “conversion”. I suggest that this story is one of a huge epiphany for Saul in his own life as a Jewish rabbi, and the true meaning of the Scriptures he has lived with and the God about whom he taught.
A little background. Saul seemed to arrive just when he was needed most. The religious leaders and the sanhedrin thought new the movement could not be stopped even after the death of Jesus. Saul volunteered to take on the job of getting rid of the Jesus movement. He was young, intelligent, well educated as a rabbi and absolutely committed to the traditions of the faith. He was a real zealot in his rooting out and removal of those followers of “The Way”. There were reports of followers in Damascus, and he took off, determined to stomp them out. Instead he finds himself flat on his keester in the road, blinded by an incredible light. He has to be led into Damascus, and wait in the city for instructions. He sits for three days in an inn - hungry and unable to function. A human comes into the room, he feels hands on him and then hears "Brother Saul; Jesus, who appeared to you on the road has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." The lights come back on, and suddenly he sees more clearly than ever. He really sees, for the first time in his entire life. His perspective changes. His commitment changes. His relationships change. Even his name changes.
Saul, now Paul, was still the same man as before in the sense that he was still a practicing Jew. He hadn’t changed his faith, but he had changed his perceptions and understandings of how that faith was to be lived out. His understanding of God changed. Paul had a conversion experience - no question of that - but his experience was one of conversion to a new life in ministry within the faith he had professed all his life. He understood his scriptures and his faith differently, and the new insight propelled him into ministry with precisely the small group he had tried to eliminate. Sometimes epiphanies - conversions - are dramatic affairs, much like Paul's. Often they are not.
One of the most well-known conversion experiences is that of Kagawa Toyohiko. He had been an orphan from an early age, and became a Christian while learning English from western missionaries. His extended family disowned him. He studied at the Tokyo Presbyterian College, in the United States. The real conversion, I believe, came when he attended Kobe Theological Seminary, and found himself distressed by the pickiness of the seminarians around technicalities of doctrine. He believed that Christianity in action was the real truth of those doctrines.
In 1909 he moved into a Kobe slum as a social worker, and sociologist. He recorded many aspects of slum society previously unknown to middle-class Japanese - illicit prostitution (i.e. outside of Japan's legal prostitution regime), informal marriages (which often overlapped with the previous), and the practice of accepting money to care for children and then killing them.
Kagawa was arrested in Japan in 1921 and again in 1922 for his part in labour activism during strikes. After his release, he helped organize relief work in Tokyo following the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, and assisted in bringing about universal voting rights for men in 1925. He organized the Japanese Federation of Labour, as well as the National Anti-War League in 1928, and continued to speak on behalf of Japan's poor; he pushed for the vote for women, and a peaceful foreign policy.
His conversion began through a simple prayer: "O God, make me like Christ." That was it. That was the blinding light and heavenly voices that accompanied his conversion. He was an orphan, half blind, always sick, yet he walked into the slums of Tokyo and became the greatest slum
reformer.
As we read the story in John, it seems to me this is another kind of a conversation experience. The disciples had been used to having Jesus around as their teacher, and had relied on him to tell them what to do. They forget that the characteristics of a good teacher are to teach for a time, and then pass responsibility to the group. Jesus was with them for three years, and when he was taken from them, they weren’t sure what to do - and instead of picking up where Jesus left off, they went back to their old occupation - fishing.
Peter had come to believe in the resurrection; and yet here he is, returning to what had been familiar. Had Jesus made no impact on him? Did the resurrection mean nothing? Peter seems to return to 'life as usual.' Three years with Jesus had made no apparent difference in his life. He goes back to fishing, the very thing he had been doing when Jesus called him to follow him the first time (Mt. 4:18-19).
Then Jesus is among them again, and pointing out that there are things for them to do, even if he is not physically there. He feeds them - bread and fish - and then he says “If you love me, feed my lambs.” Where Saul got thrown on his keester to get the message, the disciples are basically told by Jesus to get moving and get back to work. Bread and fish - food for a hungry world. A message of peace of life, spiritual food for a hungry and oppressed world. Essentially Jesus demonstrated to them that being followers of The Way meant participating in the creation of the New Realm.
The event of Easter, the resurrection, is a changing point in history. It is a shift of paradigms, a change in the way we understand the world. It changes the way we see everything. It is the beginning of the Kingdom of God, the ultimate revelation of God, the start of an entirely new framework for life. Peter sees the truth of this new paradigm when Jesus calls him to 'feed his sheep.' Peter is no longer a fisherman; he is a shepherd. He has a new task in life, a new purpose in life, a new reason for living. The whole focus of his life has changed. He has to leave the past behind and follow Jesus in a whole new way.
Conversion is not a word we associate very often with our own lives. We rarely have those wild surprises where we see with absolute clarity, even for just an instant, and are blinded by the insight. Sometimes it’s something very small, which we might easily overlook - like some bread and fish on a fire. Yet other times the mighty persistent God breaks in to disrupt our lives completely. Saul’s experience on the Damascus road challenges us to be open to conversion. The Good News of Easter, and for us, is that God brings a profound change in nature or character. As Christians, we have to be open to conversion of ourselves in the practice of our faith. That means seeing our selves, our lives, our congregation, our church - differently - and making a commitment to being a part of The Way, however we can.
Sources:
1: “Conversion”, a sermon by Rev. Tom Hall
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyohiko_Kagawa
4. “Sheep Don’t Eat Fish” a sermon by Rev. Randy Quinn
“Who are you?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
**********************************************************************
Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias. Peter, Thomas, Nathanael from Cana, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. “I’m going out to fish,” Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not recognise him.He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?” “No,” they answered. He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.When they landed, they saw a fire burning there with fish on it, and some bread.
Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to Peter “Follow me!”
*********************************************************************
For most of his life the late Malcolm Muggeridge professed to be agnostic. In 1969 he became a Christian, publishing “Jesus Rediscovered”, then “Jesus: The Man Who Lives” in 1976, a more substantial work describing the gospel in his own words. He also produced several important BBC documentaries with a religious theme, including In the Footsteps of St. Paul. In 1982, Muggeridge converted to Roman Catholicism. He was 79. His last book “Conversion”, published in 1988 and recently republished, describes his life as a 20th century pilgrimage - a spiritual journey.
In today’s reading from Acts, there is a word which never shows up, and yet its presence almost screams out of the story. Rev. Tom Hall calls it “a disruptive word--a word that intrudes into our life, a word that rocks our boat, threatens us with priority shifts.”
We need to be clear that the story of Saul on the road to Damascus is not a story about a conversion to the Christian faith. Saul was a Jewish rabbi and a citizen of Rome, and he remained a Jew even after his experience. It is not a story about a change in religious belief, but rather a story about a conversion of nature or character. Unfortunately, the Damascus Road incident has become kind of the yardstick by which everyone measures “conversion”. I suggest that this story is one of a huge epiphany for Saul in his own life as a Jewish rabbi, and the true meaning of the Scriptures he has lived with and the God about whom he taught.
A little background. Saul seemed to arrive just when he was needed most. The religious leaders and the sanhedrin thought new the movement could not be stopped even after the death of Jesus. Saul volunteered to take on the job of getting rid of the Jesus movement. He was young, intelligent, well educated as a rabbi and absolutely committed to the traditions of the faith. He was a real zealot in his rooting out and removal of those followers of “The Way”. There were reports of followers in Damascus, and he took off, determined to stomp them out. Instead he finds himself flat on his keester in the road, blinded by an incredible light. He has to be led into Damascus, and wait in the city for instructions. He sits for three days in an inn - hungry and unable to function. A human comes into the room, he feels hands on him and then hears "Brother Saul; Jesus, who appeared to you on the road has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." The lights come back on, and suddenly he sees more clearly than ever. He really sees, for the first time in his entire life. His perspective changes. His commitment changes. His relationships change. Even his name changes.
Saul, now Paul, was still the same man as before in the sense that he was still a practicing Jew. He hadn’t changed his faith, but he had changed his perceptions and understandings of how that faith was to be lived out. His understanding of God changed. Paul had a conversion experience - no question of that - but his experience was one of conversion to a new life in ministry within the faith he had professed all his life. He understood his scriptures and his faith differently, and the new insight propelled him into ministry with precisely the small group he had tried to eliminate. Sometimes epiphanies - conversions - are dramatic affairs, much like Paul's. Often they are not.
One of the most well-known conversion experiences is that of Kagawa Toyohiko. He had been an orphan from an early age, and became a Christian while learning English from western missionaries. His extended family disowned him. He studied at the Tokyo Presbyterian College, in the United States. The real conversion, I believe, came when he attended Kobe Theological Seminary, and found himself distressed by the pickiness of the seminarians around technicalities of doctrine. He believed that Christianity in action was the real truth of those doctrines.
In 1909 he moved into a Kobe slum as a social worker, and sociologist. He recorded many aspects of slum society previously unknown to middle-class Japanese - illicit prostitution (i.e. outside of Japan's legal prostitution regime), informal marriages (which often overlapped with the previous), and the practice of accepting money to care for children and then killing them.
Kagawa was arrested in Japan in 1921 and again in 1922 for his part in labour activism during strikes. After his release, he helped organize relief work in Tokyo following the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, and assisted in bringing about universal voting rights for men in 1925. He organized the Japanese Federation of Labour, as well as the National Anti-War League in 1928, and continued to speak on behalf of Japan's poor; he pushed for the vote for women, and a peaceful foreign policy.
His conversion began through a simple prayer: "O God, make me like Christ." That was it. That was the blinding light and heavenly voices that accompanied his conversion. He was an orphan, half blind, always sick, yet he walked into the slums of Tokyo and became the greatest slum
reformer.
As we read the story in John, it seems to me this is another kind of a conversation experience. The disciples had been used to having Jesus around as their teacher, and had relied on him to tell them what to do. They forget that the characteristics of a good teacher are to teach for a time, and then pass responsibility to the group. Jesus was with them for three years, and when he was taken from them, they weren’t sure what to do - and instead of picking up where Jesus left off, they went back to their old occupation - fishing.
Peter had come to believe in the resurrection; and yet here he is, returning to what had been familiar. Had Jesus made no impact on him? Did the resurrection mean nothing? Peter seems to return to 'life as usual.' Three years with Jesus had made no apparent difference in his life. He goes back to fishing, the very thing he had been doing when Jesus called him to follow him the first time (Mt. 4:18-19).
Then Jesus is among them again, and pointing out that there are things for them to do, even if he is not physically there. He feeds them - bread and fish - and then he says “If you love me, feed my lambs.” Where Saul got thrown on his keester to get the message, the disciples are basically told by Jesus to get moving and get back to work. Bread and fish - food for a hungry world. A message of peace of life, spiritual food for a hungry and oppressed world. Essentially Jesus demonstrated to them that being followers of The Way meant participating in the creation of the New Realm.
The event of Easter, the resurrection, is a changing point in history. It is a shift of paradigms, a change in the way we understand the world. It changes the way we see everything. It is the beginning of the Kingdom of God, the ultimate revelation of God, the start of an entirely new framework for life. Peter sees the truth of this new paradigm when Jesus calls him to 'feed his sheep.' Peter is no longer a fisherman; he is a shepherd. He has a new task in life, a new purpose in life, a new reason for living. The whole focus of his life has changed. He has to leave the past behind and follow Jesus in a whole new way.
Conversion is not a word we associate very often with our own lives. We rarely have those wild surprises where we see with absolute clarity, even for just an instant, and are blinded by the insight. Sometimes it’s something very small, which we might easily overlook - like some bread and fish on a fire. Yet other times the mighty persistent God breaks in to disrupt our lives completely. Saul’s experience on the Damascus road challenges us to be open to conversion. The Good News of Easter, and for us, is that God brings a profound change in nature or character. As Christians, we have to be open to conversion of ourselves in the practice of our faith. That means seeing our selves, our lives, our congregation, our church - differently - and making a commitment to being a part of The Way, however we can.
Sources:
1: “Conversion”, a sermon by Rev. Tom Hall
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyohiko_Kagawa
4. “Sheep Don’t Eat Fish” a sermon by Rev. Randy Quinn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)