Sermon, "Why: Is Jesus the Only Way?" John 14:1-14

Sermon 2/11/18

John 14:1-14

Why: Is Jesus the Only Way?

            Today we’re coming to the end of our series on Why: Asking Tough Questions of Faith. We wrap up with a question that isn’t really a “why” question, but it is one that I’ve heard often enough in ministry that I thought it deserved a place in our series nonetheless. Maybe you’ve heard it too. “Is Jesus the Only Way?” The fuller version of this question, including the unexpressed parts of it is something more like, “Is believing in Jesus the only way to get into heaven? Is being a Christian the only way to be right with God?” And related to it are the questions that naturally follow: “What about people who are part of other religious traditions? Are they ok? Can they get to heaven? Are they just wrong? Are there consequences for choosing a path other than believing in Jesus and being part of the church?”

            For contemporary Christians, this question – is Jesus the Only Way – has only become more important, more pressing to us. Many earlier generations of American Christians might have spent most of their lives with their only meaningful exposure to people of other faith traditions being interaction between Protestants and Catholics, or Episcopalians and Baptists; we have different traditions and ways of doing things, but all part of the Body of Christ. But our world has changed. Not only is the United States increasingly a place of diverse cultures, faiths, and practices, but we also have much more exposure to people outside of the United States. Chances are, through work, through school, through social media, through your interests and tastes, through your hobbies, you have connections with people from outside of the US too. Probably, you have friendships with or at least are acquaintances with people who are not Christian, but instead are Jewish, or Hindu, or Sikh, or Muslim. And in light of these relationships, our question for today becomes all the more urgent. We want to know: what about our friends who practice a different faith, who don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who aren’t Christian? What happens to them? Where do they fit in our understanding of our faith?

            Not only has our level of knowledge and interaction with people of other faiths changed, but our culture has also changed when it comes to talking about right and wrong, fact and fiction, truth and falsehood. We’ve become wary of people who speak in absolutes, who claim that their way is the right way and no variation is acceptable. We put a great deal of weight on personal experience, which is subjective. In a time where we hear a constant refrain of “Fake News,” truth seems fluid. People from other faith traditions seem as passionately sure of their faith as we are of ours. Who are we to tell them they are wrong and we are right?

            We have other questions, too, when it comes to wondering about Jesus and whether or not his way is the only way. There are people who have literally never heard the gospel. It’s hard to imagine, but there are still cultures that are untouched by the outside world. How can folks who have never heard of Jesus be held accountable to believing in an “only way” of which they’ve never heard? Or how do we handle the fact that sometimes messengers of the gospel do a bad job in sharing the good news? If the gospel is shared in ways that are harmful and hurtful, how can we blame people for not accepting Jesus, when it is hard to separate message from messenger? And what about folks who aren’t Christian, but they seem to be walking in the path of Jesus more deeply than those of us who claim the title “Christian”? Our question is “Is Jesus the Only Way?” But it is really a question containing many questions. Who is in and who is out? How are we “saved”? What about my friends who aren’t Christian? What does it take for us to claim Jesus’ offered gift of life eternal? I’m not sure we can “answer” all of those questions, but today we’ll try to begin to answer.

            When people talk about Jesus being “the only way,” they are drawing on words from scripture, and in particular looking at the passage that we shared today from the gospel of John. Today’s text comes from the setting of what we call the Last Supper, even though we don’t see that in the passage we read. Just before the section we read today, Jesus has shared a meal with the disciples, washed their feet, sent Judas off to do the work of betrayal, and shared with the disciples a new commandment, that they would love one another just as Jesus has loved them. But laced through Jesus’ words are references to the fact that Jesus will be leaving the disciples soon. Near the end of chapter thirteen he says, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now; but you will follow afterword.” Jesus’ ambiguous, symbolic languages confuses the disciples. Peter asks “Lord, where are you going? Why can I not follow you now?” This is what leads us into our text for today.

            If today’s passage sounds familiar to you, it is likely because we often share in this text at funerals. These are words of comfort we speak to each other in the painful times of grief and loss, when we’re looking for reassurance of our place in God’s heart. Jesus says to the disciples, “Do not let your hearts be troubled.” He tells them that in God’s house there are “many dwelling places,” lots of room, and that Jesus is preparing a place for them there. Jesus promises that he will take them to God’s house, so that where Jesus is, we might be too. And, Jesus insists, “you know the way to the place where I am going.”

            At this, Thomas speaks up. He and the others are hearing Jesus in a very literal way, and all they can conclude is that they don’t know where Jesus is going or the way to get there. They don’t have a map. They don’t have directions. They’re feeling lost, afraid, and confused about all this talk of Jesus leaving them. “How can we know the way?” Thomas asks. Jesus responds, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. You get to God by way of me! If you know me, you know God! If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen him.” Jesus is trying to tell the disciples that they don’t have to worry that they won’t be able to find a way to God – Jesus is the way to God, and they already know Jesus. He’s speaking to comfort their anxiety, to quell their fears.

            Jesus continues saying that he is in God the father, the parent, and God is in Jesus. You can’t have one without the other. And so if you know Jesus, you know God. If you know the way of Jesus, you know the way to God. And what is the way of Jesus, the path of Jesus? People who are following the way of Jesus are those who do the works that Jesus does. Just after the passage for today ends, Jesus says that loving him means keeping his commandments. Understanding Jesus as the way means living as Jesus calls us to live. As I said, Jesus speaks these words to comfort the disciples and to remind them that they do in fact know where he’s going because they know him. They already know God because they know him. And they know how to claim this way of Jesus because he’s been teaching them just what that means all along.

            What does it mean to live in the way of Jesus? Does it mean to claim a certain set of beliefs? Does it mean to live our lives a certain way? I’m reminded of a passage from C. S. Lewis’s The Chronicle of Narnia. In the last book in the series, The Last Battle some corrupt leaders have been teaching that Aslan, the great Lion, the Christ-figure in the books is the same as Tash, an angry, frightening god worshiped by the people of Calormen, a neighboring nation. People are confused and afraid. The culmination of the conflict takes place outside an animal stable. The villains claim that anyone who enters the stable will be able to meet “Tashlan,” the name they’ve given to this so-called combined Tash and Aslan god-figure. But instead, they’ve placed soldiers inside, ready to kill whoever comes through the door. Unexpectedly, a young man named Emeth volunteers to go in, to the dismay of the scheming villains who like Emeth, and are trying to catch others in their trap, not him. But Emeth has been a devoted follower of Tash his whole life, and he insists on going in to see Tash for himself.

It is a long time in the story before we learn what happens to him. The stable door turns out to be an entry way into heaven, and eventually some other characters find Emeth sitting under a tree, who tells them that he met Aslan, the lion, face-to-face. He recounts, “I fell at [Aslan’s] feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him … But the [Aslan] bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me … Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, though knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”[1]

            I’ve always found this metaphor compelling. I believe that God knows our hearts, and knows when we are seeking to draw close to God. I believe that in Jesus we have been shown the way, the truth, and the life. And I believe that sometimes people are following the way of Jesus even when they don’t claim the title of Christian, and that sometimes people who claim the title Christian aren’t walking in Jesus’ way. Thankfully, I also believe that it isn’t my job to sort out who is on the path, the way, and who isn’t. God never asks us to take on that role. Instead, Jesus just reminds us that we know what the way is and invites us to follow it, speaking to us words of peace and love all the while.

            So what, then, do we take from our wrestling with this difficult question? First, if we believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, if we believe that in Jesus was can draw closer to God than we’ve ever imagined, if we believe that in Jesus we can experience the joy of God’s reign on earth, and if we believe that there is something unique about the way folks can get to know God through a relationship with Jesus, then we have a responsibility to share the message of Jesus with others. I don’t mean that you have to go door to door, and I don’t mean that you should beat people over the head with a Bible, pressure them, twist their arm, or belittle them for choosing a different path than yours. Remember, the news of Jesus, grace, and God’s reign is good news! But, if we believe life with Jesus is life-changing, life-saving, then we have to share the message. We share it through building relationships, through loving one another deeply, and through demonstrating with our own lives how transformative a relationship with Jesus can be. Our own changed lives are the most compelling message we can share.

            That’s our second task, in fact. If we believe that Jesus is the way, the path, then we need to seek, day by day, to live on that path, to live in the way of Jesus. I sometimes worry that we lost the power of the question “What would Jesus do?” when the phrase turned into a marketing phenomenon. But it is a good question. We are called to be imitators of Jesus, to shape our hearts and minds and lives to resemble Jesus as much as possible. Jesus looked with love and compassion on people. He sought to include the excluded. He sought to challenge those who wielded power over others in hurtful ways. He longed to help people draw closer to God, and he was willing to give endlessly of himself for that purpose. We have a responsibility to live in the way of Jesus if we call him the way.

            I think part of the way of Jesus includes nurturing our relationships with all kinds of people, including people from all kinds of faith traditions. Jesus was a boundary-crosser. He didn’t let any differences keep him from forming relationships with others. God our creator made each of us in God’s very image. Each and every one. Each and every one of us has sacred worth. I think, in fact, that we can be better followers of the way of Jesus when we take time to learn from others about how they draw close to God, even as we share how transformative Jesus is to us.

            Today, we’re celebrating the sacrament of baptism. Bryn may be young, but she’s already ready to choose the path of faith she wants to walk. She’s choosing the way, truth, and life of Jesus. As she chooses this path, as her parents promise to nurture her along the way, we, too, are called to support Bryn, by walking with her in the way of Jesus. Together, let’s go in Jesus’ way, and claim the abundant life he offers. Amen.  

---

[1] Lewis, C.S., The Last Battle, 164-165.

Sermon, "Why: Why Did Jesus Have to Die?" Romans 3:19-21, Romans 6:1-11

Sermon 2/4/18

Romans 3:19-21, 6:1-11

Why: Why Did Jesus Have to Die?

Presbyterian pastor and professor of theology Cynthia Rigby wrote that she started asking the question, “Why did Jesus have to die?” when she was just a child. She writes, “The idea that the Son had to die so the Father would be able to forgive us has never made much sense to me. If God loves us no matter what, why can’t God just go ahead and forgive us?

“I remember asking this question even as a child, pointing out to my parents that they seemed to forgive my brother and me for things all the time, and rarely felt the need to punish [us]. If they did give us some kind of penalty, it was not because they needed it in order to be able to forgive us. It was so we would learn, better, how properly to behave. So why couldn’t God just forgive [us], if my parents could? How could Jesus’ dying really help anything, anyway? And how could something as terrible as the cross be something God wanted or needed?

“My mom and dad and Sunday school teachers in our little Presbyterian church … tried very hard to answer my questions. But the answers they delivered were spoken so concisely, and with so much certainty, I figured you had to be a grown-up to understand. “Jesus died to pay the penalty for your sins,” they told me. And so I tried to imagine what I — a really well-behaved, zealously Christian 8-year-old — could possibly have done so wrong that it necessitated the God who created the universe come down here and die. “A price had to be paid,” another grown-up explained — we sinned, and the penalty for sin is death. So God gave his only Son to die in our place. Jesus died for us because he loves us.” Is there any truth to these statements said to us over and over again?” Rigby wonders.[1]

Rigby’s question is ours for the day: Why did Jesus have to die? If God loves us so much, did God really need for Jesus to die in order to be able to love and forgive us? Does God require punishment? How can we find meaning in Jesus’ crucifixion and death? What exactly is accomplished in the act of Jesus dying? Like Rigby, most of us who have been part of the Christian tradition for any length of time have been taught that “Jesus died for our sins.” What do we mean when we say that?

These are questions about atonement. Last week our fancy church word was theodicy, and today it is atonement. Atonement, though, is probably already a familiar concept to you. When we do something wrong, when we hurt someone else, we might say that we need to atone for our wrongdoing. We need to do something to make amends, to repair the damage to our relationship. The act of bringing a broken relationship back to rights is atonement. We expect criminals to atone for their crimes – sometimes through a prison sentence, or through community service, or through paying fines. We might have expectations about atonement in our relationships. If someone hurts you, how do you expect them to make it up to you? An apology? Flowers? Perhaps children get grounded, or have to do some extra chores. All of these actions of rebuilding brokenness are ways that we seek to atone for our wrongs.

In matters of faith, then, atonement is about how we restore our broken relationship with God when we have done wrong, when we’ve sinned. We read a lot about the practices of atonement in the Hebrew scriptures, what we call the Old Testament of the Bible. When someone sinned, against God or others, the law outlined what a person must do to atone for their sin. Atoning actions might include confessing, making restitution or repayment, receiving a legal punishment, or making a sacrifice, usually an animal sacrifice that would be offered as a gift to God. That last part seems pretty strange to us, but it was a tangible way people could demonstrate their desire to heal their relationship with God, offering some of the best of what they had to God. The most sacred day in Judaism remains Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, a day when the whole people gathers to repent and set right their relationship with God.

In Christianity, theologies of atonement work to explain how it is that Jesus reconciles us to God. Last week I mentioned that there are many different theodicies, theories about God and suffering. So too there are many understandings of atonement, many ways people think about how we humans, caught up in sin, can be permanently reconciled with God. The view that Cynthia Rigby says she learned as a child is called “penal substitution,” the idea that Jesus gets punished on our behalf, for our sins. Another view is called the “ransom view,” where death must be satisfied with some life given, and Christ exchanges his life for ours. A view called “moral influence” teaches that Jesus’ death was meant to bring about true moral change in humanity that would reconcile us to God. The “Christus Victor” view of atonement teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection defeats the power of death, and death’s dominion over humanity. You don’t need to learn all these views, and I don’t mean to overwhelm you with them. But I do want to give you a sense, an understanding that within Christian tradition, while there is a great deal of agreement that in Jesus, we are reconciled with God, there are many understandings of how exactly that works. That’s ok with me, because I think anything as meaningful as what brings us into right relationship with God is something worth mulling over and searching and studying, and thinking about deeply.    

Of course, we have our own sources to check out when it comes to atonement: we look to the scriptures for understanding. We’ve talked before about a concept related to atonement: justification. As you can tell, it’s related to the word justice, and we’ve talked about how justice is God’s vision of right relationships: our right relationship with God, and our right relationships with one another. Justification, then, is the process of our getting into right relationship with God. In our Wesleyan tradition, we talk about justifying grace. Grace is God’s gift of unconditional love, freely offered to us, and we believe that it is only by relying on the gift of God’s grace that we are justified with God. In other words, it is because of God’s work that we can get into right relationship with God, not because of our work. Our work is to accept God’s gift of grace and let it transform us.

The apostle Paul writes a lot about justification in his letter to the Romans. In today’s texts, Paul starts by talking about “the law,” and when he’s talking about the law he means the Law of Moses, the laws of Judaism that held together the people of faith and shaped their way of life and being in the world. In much of his writing, Paul argues not to belittle the law, so important to Jewish identity, but to show instead how in Jesus, Jew and Gentile (that is, non-Jewish people) Jew and Gentile alike find freedom in Christ and no longer have to be perfect upholders of the law in order to have a relationship with God. People understood that adherence to the law was what justified them, set them right with God, but Paul argues that because of Jesus, now we are set right not through adherence to the law, a task at which we’re likely to fail miserably, but instead justified through Jesus’ sacrificial gift of life to us, once and for all. Paul says that “for all who believe” in Jesus, we can be justified, reconciled to God, Jews, Gentiles, everybody. After all, Paul says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” so we all, likewise, have equal access – and need of – restoring our relationship with God. Paul writes, “[we] are now justified by [God’s] grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.”

Paul concludes that since we all sin and fall short of God’s glory, and since we all are brought into right relationship with God not by our own deeds, but by the redeeming action of Jesus, the gift of grace, then none of us can boast. None of us has the right to say that we are “better,” showing off with how good we are at following the laws of God. That doesn’t mean we ignore God’s law! But it is God’s grace through the gift of Jesus, not our ability to be more perfect than our neighbors, that sets us right with God. God’s actions, not ours.

In our second reading from Romans, Paul confirms that Jesus’s death not just about God demanding punishment. Rather, in fact, Jesus’ death is a necessity of new life. You can’t have new life without experiencing death. And we are invited, called, to join in the death of Jesus so that we can also join in the resurrected lives Jesus promises. Paul doesn’t mean that we all literally must experience a death like Jesus’, although Paul and many other early Christians were certainly willing to and did put their lives on the line because of their faith. Rather, Paul says, we put to death “our old self.” We put to death our enslavement to sin. And when our old self dies, our new life in Christ beings. In his death and resurrection, Jesus demonstrates that death has no power over him – it is God who has power over death. Likewise, Paul says, “if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.” (Emphasis mine.) Paul wraps up, “So, you must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

Reflecting on Paul’s words, I don’t believe that Jesus had to die if what we mean by that is that Jesus had to die to satisfy an angry God who must have punishment to be satisfied. So what do we mean? Why did Jesus die on the cross? First, I think it is important to remind ourselves that Jesus chooses. There is no action that Jesus takes in his life and in his dying that he’s forced into, even as he wishes, prays, longs for a different path. Just as God doesn’t take our free will from us, neither did God take away Jesus’ human ability on earth to walk away. Jesus reminds us more than once in the gospels that he has the power and ability to call on God if needed. Jesus chooses his death, in as much as anyone chooses to face the consequences of a corrupt and unjust system of oppression. Jesus died because he chose his path. He believed it to be the path that would demonstrate everything he had been telling the disciples and crowds about God and our life with God. He believed that his death and resurrection would be the fulfillment of the good news he’d been teaching and preaching for years. And so Jesus followed the path he meant to follow, choosing to be faithful to his purpose, knowing what he would endure.

But the meaning of Jesus’ crucifixion doesn’t come from thinking that his suffering was unique or the worst suffering ever endured, or the most violent death. Unfortunately, humans have shown an incredible capacity for cruelty over the millennia. Jesus’ crucifixion was a government-sponsored execution, and it was the same style of execution that many suffered. It isn’t the uniqueness of Jesus’ death that is important. In fact it is that Jesus suffers with us, like us, by our side, facing the same things others face that is so powerful. In his suffering and death, Jesus puts himself on the side of all who suffer, all who have been at the mercy of powerful systems of oppression. In his death, in God acting through Jesus’ death, we see that real power does not come through violence or force or domination. Might does not equal right, no matter how many times people or leaders or governments try to prove otherwise. True strength, true power is demonstrated in being vulnerable, in giving sacrificially, in placing others before self, giving away everything, even life, to be faithful to the message of God. Jesus repeats these words again and again in his ministry: “If you want to save your life, you have to lose it.” It’s what Paul means when he says that if we want to live with Christ, we have to die to self first.    

            God comes to the world in Jesus. Jesus is born, lives, dies, and is resurrected. And from one end to the other, from his coming into the world, through his death, to the wonder of resurrection, we see in all of it that God longs not to punish us, but to be reconciled with us. Everything about Jesus is a testament to God’s desire to draw us closer to God. Jesus’ death means many things: It means we’re called to be very careful about how obsessed we get with accumulating power, because power over others is not God’s way. It means we are called to give and live sacrificially, like Jesus, giving ourselves for others. It means we are called to speak the truth and hold on to and speak up for what is right no matter the cost. It means that we can stop working to earn God’s favor. We have God’s favor. God loves us already, immeasurably. Instead, we can focus on putting to death with Jesus our old selves, everything that keeps us from drawing closer to God. We must die with Christ to live with Christ, if we don’t want death to have a hold on us anymore. Let us choose the path of Jesus, so “we too might walk in newness of life.” Amen.

---

[1] Rigby, Cynthia, “Prodigal Cross,” Presbyterian Outlook. April 9 2014. http://pres-outlook.org/2014/04/prodigal-cross/ Accessed on February 2 2018. 

from Dan Dick: "Cranky Christians"

It's been forever since I've blogged - in the meantime I've moved from Franklin Lakes, NJ to Fayetteville, NY, to serve a church in East Syracuse, NY. I will hopefully write about my transition soon! But meanwhile, here's another great Dan Dick post, called "Cranky Christians."

Excerpt:

How the worship bulletin is designed, where the baptismal font is placed, who gets to choose the hymns — these are only important issues to those who have no real understanding of the gospel. Those who reduce our faith to such insignificant issues are those who have no real desire to be the body of Christ — laity or clergy. How to make a difference in the world, how to save a person’s self respect and dignity, making sure a person has a safe place to sleep or a warm meal — these are the things our faith tells us God is interested in...

The reason this came to mind is a short email I received last week that asked me the question, “Why are you so dedicated to helping people who don’t live good lives, when there are so many good Christians that need comfort and care?” I don’t know how to answer this questions. Those who are Christian have got it all. The people who need us are the whole reason we exist! I can’t waste time dealing with coddled malcontents. My ministry is to the lost, the damaged, the sick, and the oppressed. I thought that was what it was all about…

Cranky Christians? I’m trying to love. The world? I wish I loved it better. My goal? To make those who know Jesus care more about those who don’t.

Children and Communion

**Update: I had to postpone the class until next month, so feel free to keep adding your thoughts!**

Tomorrow, I'm teaching a class to children about communion.

What would you want children to know about communion? What would you share with them?

I don't ever remember *not* taking communion. My grandmother made the communion bread, and I loved receiving communion just to have a piece of that bread! My little brother, at about age 4, when having some of her bread at a non-communion time, remarked happily, "These are the bones of Jesus!" Young eucharistic theology.

Part of our United Methodist theology of communion is calling it a Mystery. Like many parts of our theology, whether it makes us comfortable or not, we've decided it is best to admit we don't know exactly, don't have exact answers. What happens in communion is a holy mystery. Maybe children are more comfortable with mystery than adults are sometimes!

Easter Thoughts

I've been finishing up my Easter sermon today, and thinking about the trouble with Easter.

The trouble with Easter, I think, is not that believing in Jesus' resurrection is so hard. We've believed in stranger things happening. It's in believing that we can have new life. That's the hard part. God is powerful, but powerful enough to actually change me? Change the world? Ha!

But if new life isn't actually possible for us, Easter doesn't mean anything.

My brother has a post just up that seems very Easter-y to me, along these lines. Check it out.

You're So Transparent

I've been following the primaries for the Presidency with great interest, like many of us in the US and around the world that have been caught up in this most interesting of election years, when the presidency has been really up for grabs more than in elections for many years past. I've just spent a few minutes reading up on the latest skirmishes between the candidates: who will be the best president at 3am, how race and sex are impacting the vote, who Mexicans are rooting for (since statistics show almost half or perhaps more than half of Mexicans have a relative living in the states,) and, most recently, this back and forth between Clinton and Obama on NAFTA and conversations with Canadian officials.

What are people looking for in a president? I suspect what many of us would like most is the one thing I think is hardest to find in any of the candidates: transparency. What-you-see-is-what-you-get. What-I-say-is-actually-what-I-mean. I would love to be sure that the candidate I vote for would actually do what he/she says they will do once in office. Remember in January when Hillary Clinton got a bit weepy at a question about how she was holding up? Soon after, Clinton had some of her biggest primary victories today. Were people responding to what they saw as transparency, finally, in a usually very controlled candidate?

I wish people seemed more interested in telling the truth, owning up to the facts. Back in December, when I reviewed The Ethics of What We Eat, I wrote that Mason and Singer, the authors, focus on the lack of transparency in the food industry. No one wants us to know what's really going on when it comes to how our food is prepared. Why? Well, if we knew, probably less of us would eat meat and other animal products. Otherwise, there'd be no need for all the secrecy, right?

In January, Greg Hazelrig wrote about a Barna Group book unchristian, a book I keep meaning to get to. The book takes a look at what non-Christians think of Christians. The dominant response: Christians are hypocritical. I know that's not quite the same as lacking transparency, but I think there is some overlap there. Again, it's about a gap between what we say and what we do.

As I think about the approaching General Conference for the UMC, one of the things I wish we would see more of is transparency in our actions. Cozying up to certain delegates in order to win their votes? Just say so. Offering a breakfast or lunch or dinner because you want to push a certain agenda? Please be clear about it. Attending mostly because you'll later be running for the episcopacy? Out with it! In the end, are you going to vote based on what's best for you personally, even if it conflicts with your stated ideals and theology? Just say so.

Why is it so hard for us to be transparent? Authentic? Honest? As people of faith, I think we're called to examine the reasons behind what we do. Why do we want more people to attend our churches? Is it because we have this good news we want to share, or because with more people our bills are easier to pay? Do we want young people in our churches because we value who they are and want them to experience God's unconditional love, or are we looking to our own survival? Why do we do what we do?

Of course, sometimes, we aren't even really transparent with ourselves. Recently I've been making some tough decisions for myself, and was getting really far down the road on deciding one way when I realized I just wasn't being transparent, even with myself, about the reasons behind my decisions. Power and status and position were playing into my decision-making in ways I was not ready to admit even to myself.

Maybe we're afraid to be transparent because we're afraid of what will happen when people can see right through us, or right into us. Maybe we're afraid of looking at what actually motivates us and moves us into action, or what keeps us from acting when we should. But personally, I'm aiming for some more transparency. After all, we are created in God's image. Hopefully, the more transparent we become, the more apparent God within us will become to those around us. And then maybe we people of faith won't seem like such a hypocritical bunch after all...

General Conference: Can We Stay Together?

Saturday, I had another delegation meeting for the NCNY delegation to General Conference. The UM Reporter blog has a good set of interesting articles out right now about General Conference. John over at Locusts & Honey has a conversation going about this pastoral letter from Foundry UMC. And I've got General Conference and our future as a denomination on my mind and in my heart.

At our delegation meeting, we talked about the Pre-General Conference Briefing that delegation heads attended last month. They reported back about church leaders really hoping that we can focus on ministry concerns at General Conference, specifically "four areas of focus: developing principled Christian leaders for the church and the world; creating "new places for new generations" by starting new churches and renewing existing ones; engaging in ministry with the poor; and fighting the killer diseases of poverty such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS." I would love if General Conference and our work focused on these issues, with other matters as small aside issues. But, having been to General Conference before, I'm skeptical.

Can we stay together? Work together? Move forward from this place? That's what's on my mind. Our deep disagreements over human sexuality issues, and, at core, theological understandings, scripture authority, biblical interpretation - these divisions are killing us as a denomination. Sometimes, I think both 'sides' wish the other sides would just leave the denomination. Sometimes both 'sides' say just that. Sometimes, 'liberals' (I know, labels, labels, but for lack of better words) wish 'conservatives' would just realize that eventually our position on issues of same-sex relationships will have to change. Sometimes, conservatives wish liberals would just realize it's never going to change. Any way you look at it, I feel like we're all losers in this situation.

Is there a way beyond our division? I'm no fan of confrontational arguments on my blog as you might know, so I'm not really looking for whether you think ordination/holy unions/etc. for gay and lesbian persons is OK or not. We've all done our "drawing lines in the sand." We've all heard the arguments for and against. What I'm wondering about it: do you see any possible way we could move forward from where we seem stuck as a denomination? I guess if we could answer that question, we'd not be stuck here anymore. But I'm looking for a little inspiration. Or do you think things are just too far gone?

The United Methodist Church is such a theologically diverse denomination. That diversity is so frustrating sometimes. I can't deny I've occasionally wished for a denomination where everybody thought mostly like me! Seriously, if we had more common ground, I feel like we could spend our energy for God in such more constructive ways. But I've also been richly blessed by our theological diversity, even in my frustration. I'm not willing to give that up so easily. What do you think?

Reflections: Bishop's Convocation - Part II

Okay, here’s the second part of my reflections on the Bishop’s Convocation. Our second keynote was Leonard Sweet. Sweet is a professor of Evangelism at Drew (among, of course, other things), and so I had him for class in seminary, and had his books as part of my coursework in various other classes at Drew, and, and… I say this to be up front and say I wasn’t exactly looking forward to this session because I felt that I’d already heard what he had to say. I certainly think he has some good ideas, creative ideas, and he has a way of presenting his ideas that is unique, but beyond that, I wasn’t always sure in my classroom experience that we were coming from the same place. I guess that’s ok too. Anyway, here are some of my notes, with highlights of ideas that I found more compelling.

EPIC – this is a concept Sweet’s been talking about for a long time. Worship, church life that is Experiential, Participatory, Image Rich, Connective.

We’re trained: Rational, Logical/Linear, Representational, Currency of Words instead of image. What’s your image statement? All about the individual. This culture: more hunger for facebook equals more hunger for face to face and in your face. Relationship. We have the right word: Connectional. But we connect to structure not to people.

Karaoke Culture – Performance based.

Now everybody wants to participate.

EPIC is itself value-neutral. IE, people can use EPIC for bad things.

Power-point is a Gutenberg use of image, etc.

Creator creates so the most creative place in the world should be the church.

Made less in God’s image than in God’s imagination.

Crisis of imagination.

Imagination of more as better or more as different. Better, or different?

Bigger/More as better: Spiritual gifts inventories. More as better can be good, but…

More as different. Spiritual weakness inventories. Google. Apple.

McKibbon – book, No More More, Deep Economy. More and better roosted on the same branch, you can throw one stone and hit both. Now, they are farther apart. You have to choose one – more or better.

Sweet – We should keep more, but start using the imagination of different.

IE: wii (more is different) vs. xbox (more is better)

Climbing the ladder – worst image of success invented. Climb ladder to what? Leap into unknown. Don’t climb the ladder. Just start at the top and risk from very beginning.

“Anglicans are Pentecostals in drag.” (figure that one out!)

Don’t do anything half-way.

Work is a result from being expelled from the garden. Tend – Conserve. We’re created to be gardeners. Not preserve, but continue creativity. Conceive.

“You treasure what you measure.”

Inability to confront a consumer model with a biblical model of success that’s alternative. “I consume therefore I am.” “You conceive.” Conservation is conservative and conception is liberal.

Attendance Buildings and Cash. ABCs churches are built on.

The language of the new priesthood: Everyone wants to learn doctor-language. MRI.

MRI: Missional, Relational, Incarnational

We are mostly APC: (All-Purpose-Cure for Aches-Pains-Complaints, Aspiring, Phenacitin(?), Caffeine) Attractional, Propositional, Colonial, Attendance, Physical Plant, Cash. May work short term, but it will kill you.

When missional and relational come together, incarnational is formed.

JW accused of being an enthusiast. When is the last time you were so accused?

“Every age is equidistant from eternity”

The problem is not that we don’t have the freedom to do it, the problem is that we aren’t taking it, taking risks. Sacrament of failure: “shake the dust of your feet.”

Sweet talked about not attacking the dreams of rich because doing so is attacking dreams of the poor. I know where he was going with this, but I wonder if we aren’t instead called to shape the dreams people have in a different way?

I found this particularly interesting: 75% of churches are dying or declining. 25% are growing – but 24% are growing from the alumni association of the 75%! Walmartization of American Christianity. 1% of churches, 3,300, maybe less than 2,000 even that are really growing. The 1% church. Are you reaching or recycling?

Blue Christmas

For the past several years, I've been leading Blue Christmas services in my congregation, and this year, it's a first for Franklin Lakes UMC. A Blue Christmas or Longest Night service is a service to give a space for those who are grieving or mourning at Christmas, or for people who are just feeling overwhelmed and uncelebratory in general. There can be many reasons why we don't feel all the joy of the season we want to feel or think we should feel, and sometimes we need a place to come and put those feelings out in the open, at least a little bit.

It's easy to feel a little blue at Christmas, and this is particularly challenging if you are a church leader. (Or, as my friend's brother (a youth pastor) recently called it, "The Holiday Provider.") One of my pastor-friends writes about just wishing Christmas was over, and knowing she has to act differently.

For me, the hardest part my family celebration is dealing with changing traditions. I remind myself all the time that as much as I push for and encourage change in church settings, I really hate change when it comes to my own life! I guess we all do, and I'm exaggerating too of course. But the point is, even when we know change is good, change is hard. We have some treasured family traditions - we still read the Luke 2 gospel text on Christmas Day or at our family gathering the day after. But it's a changed tradition too - for ever and ever it was my grandfather who read this passage, and I can still hear his voice when we read it aloud, saying (to my hearing), from the King James, "And they were soar afraid." We have new traditions, like getting pajamas on Christmas Eve. We don't all want to get up at the crack of dawn to open presents anymore, and I thank God for that! We (usually) don't fight anymore over who gets to put up the last ornament on our Advent calendar.

But I think the change I like the least is that we grow up and spread out and it's harder and harder to get us all together in the same place at the same time now. My brother is married and has a child now, and somehow he thinks this makes it a good idea for him to stay home with his family on Christmas morning! Most of my extended family lives in Central New York - we're luckier than many families in that we get to see each other fairly regularly. But even so, we're having two family get-togethers this week to accommodate all the work schedules (and the stray cousin lost somewhere in Connecticut now.) I'll be meeting cousins' babies that I've never even seen before!

Still, I hope (and expect, even) to have a wonderful Christmas celebration. There is hope, thank God, in Christmas. But I think it helps for us to name, at least to ourselves, at least in our prayers, in some place, the sadness, or loss, or mourning we bring with us into the season. If we make a space for it, maybe we can make a space too for the Christ-child.

Review: Reinventing Sunday by Brad Berglund

I recently finished reading Reinventing Sunday: Breakthrough Ideas for Transforming Worship, a short book by Brad Berglund. I picked it up while I was still in Oneida, particularly with our then-running second evening service, looking for different ideas/directions for worship.

Berglaund's book has a simple structure - he goes section by section through a standard order of worship, spends a few pages reflecting theologically on the meaning/nature of that part of the service, and then gives several practical suggestions for this part of the worship service.

I didn't find this book very compelling, although it is a brief read with some good ideas and might work better simply as a resource book than a book you'd read cover to cover.


Some highlights:
St. Francis of Assisi's lesser known prayer, "Lord, who are you and who am I?"

"Jesus is simply turning the Sabbath from law into gift . . . The message of [ancient Israel] is clear - stop working or die. It is also the opposite of modern's society's messages, which is 'stop working and die.' Just as clear is Jesus' message. He asks us to choose the gift of grace." (15)

"The word humble comes from the Latin 'humus' meaning fertile soil . . . a humble person is a nutrient-rich, porous garden of potential." (78)

"Tolerance is a beginning, but it is incomplete. Jesus did not say, "the world will know you are my disciples if you tolerate each other." As Jesus' disciples, love is the virtue we seek." (92)

Most of the suggestions were something that would work in the context of a pretty typical/traditional worship service. As a said, an interesting source book, but otherwise not particularly unique as a worship resource.

Things I Keep Meaning to Do

Franklin Lakes, the community where I serve, is a small and affluent city in Northern New Jersey. In 2005, the average income in Franklin Lakes was just above $144,000, and houses on average valued at $1.1 million.

About 7 miles from Franklin Lakes is the city of Paterson. Average income: under $35,000. Percentage of residents living in poverty: 24.1

Over half of Franklin Lakes residents have at least a Bachelor's Degree. 8% of Paterson residents have one.

90% of FL residents are white. 50% of Paterson residents are Latino, followed by 30% black.

Today, I traveled to Paterson for the first time to visit CUMAC-ECHO (Center of United Methodist Aid to the Community Ecumenically Concerned Helping Others). FLUMC is a frequent supporter of this social justice agency in Paterson. As a congregation, we collect food year-round for CUMAC's food pantry, and particularly we do so at Thanksgiving. We put together backpacks for school children over the summer for CUMAC. We just finished our Christmas toy campaign and delivered many items for presents for children in Paterson.

However, I hadn't yet been to Paterson, been to CUMAC, talked to the leadership there, etc. It's one of those things I keep meaning to do but putting off. I mentioned recently being inspired to reflect on how little time of my ministry is actually spent with people outside of my congregation. Very little time in my ministry is spent outside of my comfort zone. I like to challenge myself as I study the scripture and prepare my sermons. I like to challenge my congregation to see texts in a new way, to hear Christ's good news as something other than "believe in me and you'll get to heaven." I like to preach about the kingdom of God as something of which we can work for and be part of now.

Following through on the challenges I put out there? Doing what in my heart I know God is calling us to do? Somehow that usually ends up on The List of Things I Keep Meaning to Do.

I don't have to go very far to start responding to God's call. 7 miles away is a community that is in such stark contrast to the one I serve. Why is that? How can it be that there is such great disparity? How can we rest comfortably knowing that people are hungry in a 10-minute drive from our homes? How can a response to such need end up on a list of things we keep meaning to do but will never really do?

Review: Reclaiming the Church by John B. Cobb, Jr.

I recently finished reading John Cobb's Reclaiming the Church: Where the Mainline Church Went Wrong and What to Do about It. John Cobb is my favorite theologian - I was introduced to his work in Systematic Theology in seminary, and I felt like I'd finally found something who was writing about the theological thoughts of my own mind. (My personal favorite is his Grace and Responsibility), a process-oriented look at the theology of John Wesley, perfect for this United Methodist-nerd.) Reclaiming the Church is a short little book - it took me forever to read though since I kept getting distracted from it.

Cobb starts out in his introduction by talking about the state of the mainline/oldline church: it has become lukewarm. He says, "As a group and on the whole we are lukewarm. We do good things. We serve the needs of real people. But we inspire no passion. We no longer even call for primary commitment to the gospel that we purport to serve. We are quite content if, among the priorities of our members, Christian faith comes in third of fourth, after family and employer and nation perhaps. We accept still lower rankings from many of our members with little complaint, glad for the small favor of occasional attendance and financial contributions." (4)

In the first chapter, Cobb writes that the church has "a lack of a shared sense of the primary importance of that to which the church witnesses." (8) He argues strongly that "the professionalization of theology" is key to the lukewarmness of the church today: "The problem lies in the gap now existing between theology and church life, a gap that did not exist to any comparable extent a century ago. The pastors who initiated the fundamental theological changes involved in the social gospel were able to do so because they understood themselves to be responsible for articulating the meaning of the gospel to their people . . . Today, the situation is different . . . lay people and pastors do not understand themselves as responsible to think as Christians." (23) Do you agree?

Cobb goes on to talk about "responding to the loss of cultural props," highlighting endings and beginnings that have deeply impacted the church. Endings (not ended, but ending): Eurocentrism, Nationalism (particularly referring to Western Europe) and Economism, Enlightenment Rationalism, the Sexual Revolution, and Patriarchy. He says there are two serious proposals for reforming the church: renewal and transformation. Renewal, which focuses on the inner life of the church, "concentrat[ing] on our own commitments without seeking to impose them on others," or transformation, which lives always out of its past but "in such a way that it learns from and is changed by its cultural environment, while also taking responsibility to Christianize that environment." (43-44)

Cobb urges transformation, but recognizes that renewal and transformation sometimes work hand in hand as "two moments in a single process." He highlights moments in church history where groups sought renewal but in the end achieved transformation. "When the problem is that the distinctive biblical thems are clouded by the dominance of cultural patterns, renewal is needed. Transformation is needed when our historic teaching limits us to the themes dominant in our own tradition, preventing us from hearing the voices of those who have suffered." (55) According to Cobb's analysis, are we in need of renewal, transformation, neither, both? Again, Cobb prioritizes transformation. Transformation, he says, "is what happens when God is effectively present in an event . . . God's effective embodiment in the world can be named Christ. Thus Christ is causally present wherever transformation occurs." (60)

Cobb argues that we should boldly proclaim a purpose of the salvation of the world. He doesn't see this as an exclusively Christian purpose, but says, "What is important is not that we have a purpose shared by no one else, but that we genuinely understand our purpose to be Christian." (69) The way he frames and articulates this distinction is one of his strongest points, I think.

Cobb moves to talking about unity, a topic of high interest in today's very polarized church. "when contradictory positions are felt so strongly, we do not have lukewarmness! The problem for the church is that the intense convictions are not about Jesus Christ." (77) Emphasis mine. Exactly. He says that our goal of unity is "to find a way to do justice to the deepest convictions of both the traditionalists and the reformists, not to find compromises that will avoid institutional splits . . . the possibility of achieving authentic reconciliation lies in the existing unity. This unity is in Christ" (78) So simple and yet so complicated, right? "Most Christians can recognize authentic faith in another, even when the locus of emphasis differs." (79) I wonder here if we have moved beyond even this point though. Do we recognize authentic faith in one another despite our deep theological differences? Sometimes, yes. But sometimes we begin to question the faith of our theological foes, I think. In our scathing rhetoric against those we disagree with, rarely will you find a comment acknowledging that faith is still at the core of each person. What do you think?

Cobb also goes on to talk about how we can have a common effort with people from many faith traditions in working for the coming of the basileia of God. He argues that though he understand Jesus to be the only 'savior,' that indeed others can "contribute to salvation," and contribute to enriching the Christian faith (ie: Buddhist meditation practices used in Catholic monasteries). (89-90) He urges us to accept whatever helps us in our task as "coworkers for the Basileia." (91) I found this section particularly helpful, even if I'm not relating it very clearly, for understanding how I can claim the centrality of Christ and Christ's identity as way and savior without disregarding other faith traditions.

Cobb is a such an intelligent writer - even a short 100 page book like this one is full of content that makes me read and reread. But the effort is worth it - Cobb has insightful wisdom about the church and how we might move from lukewarmness, and I recommend you check out this (or any) of Cobb's work.

My Work Week

I've written a bit about pastors and work-week schedules before, though not in much detail. But I just finished reading Coffeepastor's post about his schedule, and like Cheesehead, who responded with her own post, I thought I'd do the same. (By the way, Cheesehead mentions 'sleeping in' until 7:30 in her post, and I feel I need to have a serious talk with her about the meaning of sleeping in.)

My schedule has changed a bit since moving to a new appointment in New Jersey, although not drastically. And my schedule has never been very particularly structured. But here it is:

1) Days off: This is something I struggle with a lot. I try very hard to take Fridays off, and if Friday doesn't work, I take Wednesday off. The truth is, I almost never take an entire day off. Inevitably, I find myself doing some ministry-related work, reading, emailing, sermon preparation, etc. I think this is in part because as a single pastor, I have a great deal of control over my time. When I decide to work (or not) usually doesn't impact anyone but me. And I don't feel like I'm overworking (at least not most of the time) because I feel like it all balances out in the end. So there that is. I'm trying to be better about keeping a day completely off. But it's a struggle.

2) I don't have set office hours. I tried to keep hours in Oneida, and no one would ever stop in during those hours intentionally, or I would end up missing my scheduled hours all the time anyway, so it seemed pointless. My predecessor here didn't keep office hours, so I was happy to continue in his footsteps on that. I'm a night owl, and I sleep in until about 9am unless something else comes up. I usually do a bit of work at home - responding to emails, etc., and then head into the office around 11am.

3) At the office, I start working on my weekly responsibilities. At the beginning of the week, I work mostly on my sermon, my sermon blog/Sunday School lesson, long term worship planning, etc. Towards the end of the week I'm thinking about bulletins, powerpoint presentations, and children's sermons. I've actually been trying really hard this Advent to get my sermons at least started well in advance. So far, I've got at least part of all my Advent sermons completed.

4) Visiting isn't something I do on a specific day. I try to do this when I have a good window of uninterrupted time, or as needed. Some weeks I don't make any visits at all, and some weeks I make several.

5) Evenings - Like visiting, some weeks I have no meetings at all, and some weeks I have them Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday nights. Thursday nights are for bell choir and choir, both of which I am in.

6) Weekends - I'm the conference youth coordinator for NCNY, and also a General Conference delegate, and these commitments, as well as some special church events, keep my weekends pretty full. Often this is why my Friday day-off plan doesn't work. But these weekend events are also some of things I love doing the most.

***
I got to the end of writing all that and almost didn't post it after all. I was thinking, who wants to read a detailed description of my work week? But then I started thinking about what my work week means for my ministry and what conclusions I can draw.

- I notice how rarely my schedule brings me into contact with people outside the church world, or outside United Methodism even. John at Locusts and Honey recently posted something along this line.

- My church schedule also rarely brings me into contact with people who are not white, not middle/upper class, and not fairly well-educated. This is especially true in my current location. I preach about the gospel message of God's love of the poor and oppressed, but I don't actually spend very much time with the very ones I have said the gospel is good news for.

- My weeks are pretty full and busy, but most of the things I work on are week-to-week needs. Writing a sermon, responding to pastoral care needs, taking part in committee meetings. Just doing the regular 'work' of the church takes up so much of my time. I feel strongly that we need to be thinking more long-term, need to be talking about vision, need to be looking past just maintaining things, but I find it hard to find the space to do that without leaving other responsibilities undone. How do you make space to think big? Is there room in the way we do church for discipleship? Real ministry?

from jockeystreet: inch by inch

My brother, as I mentioned, has started blogging again, and I really like his most recent post, here. He lifts a quote from a book (that I got him, by the way...) that says: "Tiny, hesitant improvements are a terrific way of perpetuating a broken system . . ."

In the book Jim references, the excerpt refers mostly to ecological/sustainability issues, but it struck me as an apt metaphor for a life of discipleship in general. How often do we try to do the very least we think God might be asking of us, to avoid the real call from Jesus - "Take up your cross and follow me." I think we're hoping that doing a million little things somehow equals the commitment Jesus asks for in taking up the cross.

My brother goes on to talk about Destiny, the new massive mall/complex eventually opening in Syracuse, NY. Jim writes, "A green mall is more of the same. A perpetuation of the real problems, covered up with green technology. Instead of driving toward that 1000 foot drop-off at 55 mph, we're driving toward it at 35. And since we're going all nice and slow and careful, we can ignore those worriers who tell us we need to turn and go in another direction."

My favorite word I learned in Greek is the word we translate as repentance - metanoia, which means more literally in the Greek, changing the direction of one's mind. (I became stuck on it because the Greek New Testament says that Judas repented. English translations often choose to use a different word to describe Judas' actions.) To repent means to go in a different direction than you've been going. But instead of repenting, maybe we're hoping it's enough if we just go more slowly in the wrong direction we've already been going, perhaps hoping we're at least walking away from God a little less quickly.

Reflections: Tipple-Vosburgh Lectures - God and Mammon, Part 3

Here's my last set of reflections/notes from the Drew Tipple-Vosburgh Lectures:

Dr. Jouette Bassler was on again, this time as Bible Study leader, and she focused on Luke's Parable of the Shrewd Manager. I really wished I had attended this talk before preaching on this tough text a few weeks ago!!

Introduction:
- what are presuppositions we bring to text? Ie, we bring "different Jesuses" to the text

- Jesus’ intent when he spoke. – may have modified this in multiple tellings, probably not only time he spoke this parable. (My thoughts: This had never occurred to me before - how likely it is that Jesus shared parables more than once, in different places. Don't we do this with our stories and tales and illustrations and arguments? We focus what we say over time and tellings. Never even crossed my mind, but it makes sense, doesn't it?)

- Luke’s intent in writing it/including it.

C.H. Dodd – “At its simplest the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from native or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought."

Parables are not allegory – rich man does not equal God, not necessarily or not at all. Poor = God? No.

A manager is one who is in charge of the household/estate – a slave or freeman, but there is a power differential. Jesus’ audience identifies with the manager probably. Person you identified with is being charged with a crime.

(Book Recommendation: Scott – Hear Then the Parable – a Commentary on the Parables of Jesus, more recently retitled as Reimagine the Word)

Someone else must have brought charges against the man.

“Bring charges” – diaballein – diabolical, the devil – the slanderer. “discredit, misrepresent, slander, deceive by false accounts.”

“squander” – diaskorpizein – “squander” – also “scatter” like seeds.

Manager has no opportunity to give his account.

People would think – What’s wrong with digging and begging (asking)?
Other commentaries – like he was eliminating his commission. If this is true, that was really a lot of interest. And the text doesn’t point us in that direction.

Huge debts forgiven – who do you identify with? The forgiven ones! Or Jesus who is disrupting the whole economic system.

***

James Hudnut-Beumler – Dean of the Divinty School

“The failure of pilgrims to progress. God and Mammon now.” John Bunyon’s Pilgrims Progress. Vanity Fair. We’re in Vanity Fair more of the time these days.

What’s so interesting about money?
Never goes away. In contemporary culture – Dale Bunker, when someone says “it isn’t about money,” it’s about money.

Breaking a modern taboo
Money and material things are necessary, powerful, and most of us give too much power relative to other values in life. Most dangerous practice of church is making discussion of money a taboo. Not to discuss it. If one central value, people guard it carefully and surround it with mystery, lest it be taken away. Therefore, it is an idol. An idol can hurt us if we displease it. Money is an outward sign of an inward state (our state.) Our checkbooks and bank statements say things about us that we can scarcely confess. How does our money situation relate to love of God and love of neighbor? The difficulty of acting out around money by clergy. We can never have enough money, love, health. But death is certainty. Makes us insecure.

Is the church supposed to be a bartender, or a therapist to its members? To contemporary churchgoers want to be just heard, or healed? Healed with or without being asked for repentance?

Charity is what you give out of love and pity. Justice is what you would want if you were in that situation. Charity holds back for a rainy day. Justice flows down like an ever-flowing stream.

Car salesman knows more about our finances than pastor. One place we can be known for who we are instead of how fast we can pay and how much we have.

Typical American church projects a veneer of niceness. Exception: personal health and health of loved ones. We won’t share with others when moral blame is attached to struggles we face. Our tendency – moral superiority to those who prosper.

Abundance by the grace of God
Do we dare minister in the midst of Mammon?
Our tradition says yes and no to material life. Isn’t life more than these things?
Knowing the price of everything and value of nothing.
Not even God stands a chance if people prefer Mammon.

Survey: Should religion affect daily life? Yes. Make be nicer? Yes. Affect sexuality? Yes Politics? Under half. Jobs? Small minority.

God, whose transcendence has been domesticated. So useful that God is no use at all.
At best, people of God know something others don’t – our worth comes from God and not money.

***
Closing worship followed the last lecture. I sang in the seminary alumni choir, which I always enjoy, and got to help serve communion. Dean Beach preached on Jubilee. She encouraged us not to wait for Jubilee, to instead work for that kind of world-change right now, however we can.

Reflections: Tipple-Vosburgh Lectures - God and Mammon, Part 2

Day Two at the Tipple-Vosburgh lectures opened with Worship – Rev. Tanya Linn Bennett, Associate Chaplain, preaching: "Signing In." Tanya talked about the first class of students who signed in at Drew, and invited students who hadn't signed the matriculation book to do so (the book was lost for a number of years until the 1970s.) It was fun to watch the older alumni sign the book and be part of a Drew tradition.

For my morning workshop I went to Dr. Traci West's “Christian Ethical Policy for Rich and Poor: The Magnificat and Welfare Reform.” I've mentioned before that Dr. West was one of my favorite professors at Drew, so it is always nice to get a chance to learn a bit more from her.

Notes on her workshop:

How to keep someone from doing critical thinking:
1) Shaming us. About what we look like, who we are. Makes feel inadequate, go inward.
2) Help us think of selves as superior.

Scripture is our theory as Christians. God looks with favor on Mary’s lowliness.

How do we think about poor women receiving public assistance? Clinton – “I am going to end welfare” – end entitlement. No longer have a national policy for helping those who are poor. State by state block grants. Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. After certain number of years, cut off completely.

“Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act.” Punishments. “Personal Responsibility Agreement Plan.” Law with moral language. Pregnancy, reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancy, two-parent families.

Question: What feels good and what feels comforting to us about this kind of welfare policy? People who are wasting tax-payers money are being held accountable. It’s at my expense that some woman is having a life of comfort. Building character from weakness. Morally opposed to sexual ‘looseness’. Sexually reproducing children in a responsible way. DeLay: “Welfare is #1 enabler of illegitimacy.” Giving people an opportunity that they didn’t have before to work, get out of poverty (theoretically).

Poor, unwed Jewish teenager. Center of our gospel. Is there an idea of controlling women in Luke? Zachariah named as prophet by Luke, but Mary is not. Anna and Simeon – Simeon, more words, Anna, not anointed by Holy Spirit.

Vs. 52-53. Is this reversal? Or is it equality? What is God calling us to in this scripture?

Welfare reform: Marriage promotion. Preamble to legislation: Marriage is the foundation of society. Health and Human Services Website – Healthy Marriage Initiative. Should the government promote marriage? (And specifically to poor women?) Father-headed households. Af-Am, Hispanic, Native American initiatives. Poor whites are not the problem. Idea that whites can’t be lumped together in one group like that. Page (under Af-Am) about church attendance because they are more likely to be married.

Policy. Details of policy and how very, very poor get treated. How can I think through my criticism – what is bad about the policy? What are ministries that are addressing issues for both wealthy and poor? What is a matching ministry to those who are wealthy? Train people to acknowledge ways they are dependent. (Ie – people with children benefit from taxpayer dollars. Driving on road. Hospital dollars. OR getting something for almost nothing. I am dependent on somebody’s slave labor.

***

Afternoon plenary: Jouette Bassler, Professor of New Testament Emerita, Perkins School of Theology

Parable of the Shrewd Manager – not just to commend decisive action. Destabilizes the either/or of God and Mammon. Luke is hinting that there is a middle ground. Ambivalence, or a more nuanced view than in Matthew. Luke – “unrighteous” not just “impermanent” like in Matthew.

Related to Zacchaeus, Cornelius, Theophilus, wealthy patrons, etc., who are using their wealth and commended.

The apostles sharing possession conveys a message of the power and authority of the apostles. Acts 4:34b-35a – “laid it at the apostles’ feet.” Sign of submission to authority of apostles. Ananias and Sapphira. Peter declares the line between God and Mammon to be absolute. And yet, continues to be an important signifier.

Paul and Mammon. Mammon functioning as a tool of hierarchy. Mammon tamed into an ally of the gospel of grace. Or Mammon threatening the gospel of grace. Paul’s right to receive the same material support as the other apostles receive. An obstacle, certainly, but also what the other apostles are doing. Jousting over authority? Paul announcing Mammon so publicly as a power play to establish authority – “We don’t take money – they do.” Has a right to it, but better served by renouncing it. Wants it both ways – right to have it (authority like other apostles,) responsibility to renounce it. (True to gospel, sets him apart from others.) Refusing to take money from Corinthians eventually is a snub to them. (Think Myanmar monks refusing with bowls to take money from political leaders.) Mammon defines authority/flows to authority. Accepting refutes message of cross. Acceptance or rejection of Mammon defines who one serves. Mammon won.

Mammon and Revelation: Fornication – biblical language for intercourse of all kinds with surrounding culture. You cannot serve God and Mammon Empire. Mammon defines those who are in and those who are out. Mammon has no authority in New Jerusalem. Ambiguity.

Only in Eschatological or Apocalyptic messages do we find opposition of God and Mammon faithfully maintained. Elsewhere, conflicting signals, distorted lines, and inevitably corrupts. Urgent importance of distinguishing throne of God from throne of Mammon.

My reflections: I really like how Bassler showed the full scope of Mammon's role in the New Testament, especially her focus on the apostles and Paul, and the ambiguity. She shows how even the disciples struggled in their ministry to remain faithful to the clear choices Jesus talked about: God or Mammon.

Reflections: Tipple-Vosburgh Lectures - God and Mammon

I just spent the last three days at Drew Theological School's annual Tipple-Vosburgh lectures. This year the theme was God and Mammon, which sounded particularly interesting to me. I was also eager to attend this year and reconnect with friends and faculty now that I am back in the New Jersey area. These first two months in my new appointment have been so chaotic I haven't really taken the time to get in touch with my friends in the area yet.

Here are my (mostly unedited) notes from day one of the lectures:

John McCullough, Executive Director and CEO of Church World Service
Theology of Mission: International Development in an Increasingly Complex World

Myanmar/Burma – rejection of 1990 elections, placing of leader under house arrest, 1989-present. 100,000 refugees in Thailand, although Thailand doesn’t recognize their status. Only can enter to flee active fighting. Camps close to border. Restricting role of UN on refugees. Etc. 450,000 internally displaced persons. One of 50 poorest countries in the world.

Aim of Church World Service is Empowerment. To help people gain capacity to improve their lives and livelihood.

Chronic – conditions leading to poverty
Crises – responses to disaster/human conflict
Partnership – especially with most vulnerable

The church has an obligation to respond to situations of human crisis around the world. Matthew 25. CWS mission focus. What does God expect of us, and what is our response? Micah 6:8 Words alone do not suffice.

"We are our own response, not God’s." (My comments: Huh? I didn't understand what he meant by this - he said that people say our response is God's response, but he thinks God has God's own response to people in need, and that we are our own response. I don't get it, and don't think I agree with him.)

Reality: Rising food costs – 21% more at wholesale level than 2005 (some grains more than 30%) – harder for aid organizations to finance. Stretched thin. Quality and quantity of food at risk. 30,000 children die quietly each day from poverty. Invisible in death. ½ the world lives on less than $2/day. Children are largest group living in extreme poverty. The facts don’t lie, and we shouldn’t waste time questioning the validity of them. Shouldn’t we take responsibility?

Eradicate conditions that demoralize human development.
Long and healthy life.
Knowledge.
Decent standard of living.
Entitlements for which we must be advocates.

How?
Sustainability. Staying in relationship for the long term.
Meeting basic needs. Housing. Food. Education. Health. Fair-trade.
Resolving Uprootedness. Finding locations for displaced persons. More than 80% displaced never return home again.
Protecting the most vulnerable.

Q&A - Dean Maxine Beach raised a question about the Prosperity Gospel being exported from the US to other countries.

***

David Jensen, Associate Professor of Constructive Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Responsive Labor, a theology of work.

In ordinary is holy in Christian life. Body, bath, meal, labor. Central to faith. Our daily work matters as a response to God. God at work for the world, before we work. We work as a form of thanksgiving, because God is at work. God’s work proceeds from abundance. God works so that all might have abundant life. Always enough work and always enough fruit of labor to go around.

Problematic Assumptions of Work in US economy:

Scarcity. Never enough to go around. I must work all I can to hang on to what I’ve got and accumulate more. Something we hoard to ourselves. Not enough time, money, things.

Consequences. Crisis of work.

Joblessness is something to be expected. Some unemployment means a healthy economy. Drives economic engine. Unemployment around 5%. ‘Natural rate’. Times are ‘good’. Unacceptable numbers underneath: Af-Am unemployment rates are double, youngest Af-Ams are quadruple. Numbers only include actively seeking. Otherwise, off the radar. Don’t even count. We assume it is ok for some who want work to be denied it.

If you are working, you will earn enough to make ends meet. But those who work the hardest often work below the poverty line. Near 31% live at or near poverty levels. Women Head of Household are 2x likely to be working poor. Purchasing power of min. wage has declined. Average CEO earns 300x much as min wage worker. Never have enough. Working poor work multiple jobs. Middle class work more just because we want more. Productivity has doubled since middle of 20^th century. We could work ½ the amount for same standard of living as 1950s…We need bigger homes, 2 cars, gadgetry. Out paces all but 2 nations in time on the job. South Korea and Czech Republic are only two higher.

Time-starved. Little time to rest. We sleep less. Mothers working outside home talk about sleep like starving people talk about food. “Merely showing up for a paycheck."

What do we bring as a Eucharistic People – Time, Things, and Gift:

1) Reorienting our Time. Not as an escape from work week, but as our work begins. Always enough time. Rids us of illusion that time is something we can control. Words of institution – we remember a distant time and our time. Time is not a demand on us, but given as a gift – is God’s time. (My note: Irony – woman answering cell phone during lecture) Does my work encourage me to see others as constraints on my time?

2) Our things. Eucharistic is materialistic – reminds us that God blesses the material work of our hands. Countless hours in bread and wine. Represent a life lived gently on the land. Our offering becomes God’s gift to us. Unimagined abundance when work is shared. Food of Eucharist is public. Without giving and sharing – meal devolves into gluttony (early church example.) People die because of hoarded work and bread. We go away full and we go away hungry. But from the Lord’s Table, we hunger for righteousness and justice. Mix of hunger and satisfaction. Hunger for God’s reign to come, satisfied because it is already here.

3) Gift. We don’t expect gifts, can’t receive them. Good life comes only to those who deserve it by working hard enough. Giving doesn’t happen. Hard work should reap own rewards. In scarcity, we have idea that we must repay the giver to stay out of their debt. Is just like barter, exchange, etc. But Eucharistic economy, gifts are gifts! Evokes our response. Ceaseless giving, not just an exchange of economies. Christ is the offering and the offerer. Divine giving subverts tit-for-tat assumptions. We give not to be out of debt to giver, but in response to God’s fullness, giving what we have already been given. Coming to table hungry, we leave hungry for the poor.

Scripture as a narrative of desire – God’s desire to establish relationship with us. God restlessly desiring us, to establish justice and peace among us.

Book suggestion: Dorothy Bass – Receiving the Day

***
Fred Curtis, professor of economics, Drew University

Mainstream/orthodox approaches. Bad economics – to question the desire for economic growth – heresy. “To think like an economist” is to think like a mainstream economist. Divestment. Global warming. Globalization. Consumerism.

People seen as maximizing individual happiness. Greed important to function of economy. Not always maximum financial returns. Economic analysis does not in itself determine best choices.

Global-warming reduction as investment. We should spend little now, grow economy, and spend later in a bigger way. Economics: future benefits are worth less today than other benefits. Presumes that we who live today are separate from those who live in the future. Independence from them.

More you study economics, less likely to give to charities.

Globalization. Not free or fair trade, but negotiated trade, negotiated by the rich nations. Whoever has the most gold makes the rules. Trade barriers – nations not allowed to ban imports because of human rights violations, like child labor, slave labor, etc. When things grow, they get bigger. Growing the economy shrinks the ecosystem. Growth undermines the resources necessary for further growth. Growth + environment does not = sustainability. To a point, more is better. But eventually, more isn’t better. It’s just more.

Unwilling to differentiate between needs and wants. Advertising to create dissatisfaction. Consumer pleasure with products is meant to be transient. Impermanent. “When basic needs are met, human development is more about being than having.”

Energy inflation à water/food price inflation. Now, 11% on food. Way we produce food uses huge amounts of energy. What should we do?

How to go back, since we’re used to all these things? Use more things in common. Vision/will. “can’t break up with my boyfriend because I have too much invested.” We have to break away.

Impulse to bigness. Things are (globalization) so far away that we can’t care about them.

My reflections: Of all the lectures on this day, I actually enjoyed the one with the economist the most. He gave an interesting perspective, and he talked about how outside the norm it is among economists to have this non-orthodox view - to be an environmental economist, an economist emphasizing sustainability.