Sunday 30 September 2012

September 30, 2012 sermon - Renovations


Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple. (1 Corinthians 3:1-17)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     We renovated our upstairs bathroom a few months ago. It was a big job, but the decision was that it had to be done. We were tired of the never ending pink tiles on the floor and on the walls; they reminded me a bit of what you might call refugees from the 60’s who’ve never escaped the flower child phase, but that’s a whole other story! The renovations took several days and they were rather messy. The hallway outside the bathroom got cluttered, we had no bathtub for a bit, the dragging of work equipment in and out of the bathroom left some scratches on our hallway floor. It wasn’t convenient, but it was done because the time had come to do it - it was necessary. The end result was a new look bathroom that in many ways looked very much like the old look bathroom. The sink and vanity and bathtub and toilet (can you say “toilet” in church?) are all in the same places, but it looks different - different tiles, different sink, different vanity, different bathtub, different toilet - but all in the context of the same basic bathroom. If you’re interested, there are before and after pictures posted on my Facebook page.

     Here’s the truth - if you live in a home that needs some changes, you can do one of two things: you can renovate it, or you can tear it down completely and start from scratch. There are advantages to doing the latter. If you just tear everything down, then when you rebuild it you can make your home exactly what you want it to be. Had we torn down our entire house and rebuilt it then nothing would have looked the same and we could have had every corner of every room exactly the way we wanted it, but that would have been a silly and unnecessary thing to do. We were already happy with the house, we just wanted a new look bathroom - which is the other option. If you take the renovation route, you work with what you already have.

     We live in uncertain times, and in the uncertainties of the 21st century, as we sometimes reel while the world and society around us change at astonishing and head-spinning speeds, the church faces very similar choices. There are a lot of people out there who want to tear everything down and start over - they want everything on the table; everything open to debate. That way, we can create the Christianity we're comfortable with. More music, less music; more preaching, less preaching; contemporary worship, traditional worship; sometimes even more Jesus, less Jesus - all in the hope that in some way we’re going to find some magical balance that’s suddenly going to fill both the pews and the collection plates and thereby solve all our problems. It's a tempting thought. Surely if we just tear it all down and start over with no foundation and no absolutes then we’ll be free to just give people what they want - but the problem is that it's not faithful. That type of work is all based on our preferences and wishes and desires; it’s based on the idea that we need to create something new; it’s based on the belief that what the church already has to offer in abundance isn’t good enough. I’m all in favour of contextual Christianity - a Christianity that has to speak to our culture, but I’m also realistic enough to understand that we can't simply tear down Christianity and start from scratch. We renovate and we don’t rebuild that which God has already built - and so we renovate always on the basis of Jesus Christ - divine love and divine grace revealed to us.

     We do that because when we focus too much on the “worldly” all we end up doing is dividing ourselves into likes and dislikes - the group who believes this and the group who believes that; the group that wants this and the group that wants that; the group that thinks this way and the group that thinks that way. Of course, all the different groups think they’re right and everyone else is wrong. It’s what was happening in Corinth. They had issues way beyond the “I follow Paul”, “I follow Apollos” issue. If you read 1 Corinthians you find out that they had questions about marriage and incest and whether they should be suing each other over grievances and various social customs like eating food sacrificed to idols and the proper place of women in the church and all sorts of other things. And Paul talks briefly about each of those issues - but then just as suddenly he comes right back to his central point - Christ crucified; divine love; divine grace. I find these words of Paul interesting - “I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly.” After years of wondering what Paul meant (was he criticizing the Corinthians for spiritual immaturity) the Holy Spirit gave me some insight - perhaps we’re no different in that respect from the Corinthians, because perhaps we’re no more ready for the “solid food” than they were. I’ve come to the conclusion that Paul didn’t mean that judgmentally (as in, you’re really a bunch of immature people) and neither do I mean it judgmentally. I’m more and more convinced that perhaps what we actually need is the milk - the stuff that nourishes us best - and that is Jesus, divine love, divine grace; the  “foundation ... already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” Jesus tells us to become like little children. Think about it - we keep little children out of harm’s way. We teach them the basics. We don’t get complicated with them. We comfort them. We tell them not to be afraid because we love them. Isn’t that what God does. That’s what the church has to be about.

     Over the centuries, I fear that we've gone off track; that the church has lost its sense of purpose and call. Today, the church is often seen as either an arbiter of public ethics, a judge of personal morality, or a commentator on social issues and policy. The problem is that all of those seem far removed from what Jesus wanted. It’s interesting, just to mention one example, that Jesus never commented on or offered a solution to the problem of poverty. He simply fed and loved the poor. Maybe there’s a lesson there. When we lose sight of what we’re called to do and wade knee deep into things we’re really not equipped or called to be into we end up being a source of division rather than a force for unity. If we lean in one direction we end up being dismissed (as some have dismissed the United Church) as “the NDP at prayer,” and if we lean in the other direction we become the Tea Party movement that’s so active in Republican politics in the United States. Neither are faithful positions for the church to adopt. We can talk about “issues” until we’re blue in the face and we can judge and criticize those who we feel don’t live up to the standards and all we do when we do that is sow the seeds of division and further marginalize the church. So what are we called to? We recognize that “no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” And then we do what Jesus did - we celebrate, proclaim, live out and encourage each other with the love and grace of God. It’s pretty simple stuff. It’s just really hard to do.

Friday 28 September 2012

I've Been Thinking About Giving

My newspaper column, published September 28, 2012 in the In Port News.


I suspect that there are a lot of people who wonder whether they're of any importance in the world; whether they can make any difference. I suppose we all feel that way sometimes. After all, the universe is a pretty big place, and, in the grand scheme of things, we're pretty small. When we start to think of ourselves in relationship to God, perhaps that can seem even more overwhelming. After all, if (on the surface) we seem to be of little significance compared to the vastness of the universe, how important can we possibly be when compared to the one who created the universe? Do we make a difference? Can we make a difference? Yes. It doesn't take a lot to make a difference. It just takes a willingness to give what we can.

The Bible tells us the following story: "As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 'Truly I tell you,' he said, 'this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.'”

The poor widow could perhaps have been excused if she had decided to give nothing. After all, in the grand scheme of things - and especially compared to what the rich had given - she hadn't really given very much. It would have been understandable if she had decided that her gift was of no importance and she had just walked away. But what Jesus was concerned about wasn't how much the poor widow gave - it was whether she gave abundantly out of what she had. "Two very small copper coins" were a very big gift for a woman who had very little.

This isn't really about money. Jesus is reminding us that, as insignificant as we may sometimes feel, we are of tremendous value - if we're willing to do what we can with what we have to make the world (or at least our very small part of it) just a little bit better. And it really doesn't take a great sacrifice to do something of value.

Last week, my daughter got her hair cut. Now, that may not seem like too big a thing. I get my hair cut about every six weeks or so. But for her, it was a big thing. A very big thing. She's been growing her hair since she was a baby. She had never really had it cut. She's 8 now, and a while ago she came up with her own idea. She wanted to have it cut off, and she wanted to donate it to an organization that made wigs for children with cancer and other diseases that cause them to lose their hair. We told her that since she's 8, she was old enough to make her own decision about her own hair, and this was her decision. She held to it steadfastly. Indeed, once the appointment was made, she became more and more excited about it, and now - it's done. When I saw her the next morning, I barely recognized her. (OK. I recognized her. I just pretended not to.) Our hairdresser measured her hair as 23 inches from root to tip, and when all was said and done, she managed to get 12 inches of hair to donate. That's amazing. And it's just hair. It didn't cost anything of great value in a material sense, but it's going to help make a child's life better.

Really. It doesn't take much to be of huge importance to others and to be a faithful servant of God.

Tuesday 25 September 2012

A Thought For The Week of September 24

"What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.'” (Matthew 15:11) Food and eating habits were a big part of life in Jesus' day - they are in ours too! In this verse, Jesus is replying to the Pharisees who had criticized his disciples for not washing their hands before they ate - a tradition of their elders. (And a pretty good one, too!) After pointing out that the Pharisees could come up with ingenious ways of violating God's law, but insisted on adherence to every word of their own traditions, Jesus offered the words above. In The Message, Euguene Peterson translates the words as "It’s not what you swallow that pollutes your life, but what you vomit up.” Here's one of the few times I think Peterson isn't helpful. The way he translates the words makes it seem like the issue is eating and food and sanitary habits. The words go far beyond eating habits. I think what Jesus was saying was that what comes out of our mouths (our words, our attitudes, our anger and hatred and judgment) are a reflection of what's already inside us. When we give these things free reign, so that our daily life is punctuated by such negative things, we're showing that we're not honouring God with how we live, even if at the same time we manage to spout pious and very religious sounding words. If what comes out of our mouths makes us unclean, then surely our goal should be to speak and express ourselves in ways that honour God and build up those around us, rather than making a mockery of our faith in God and tearing others down. Let's make that our goal. Have a great week!

Sunday 23 September 2012

September 23, 2012 sermon: The Simplest Message Of All


When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     Rob Bell has been a bit of a controversial figure the last couple of years, especially among more conservative, self-professed “evangelical” Christians, who used to proudly claim him as one of their own. The controversy about him reached new heights after the publication of his book “Love Wins” at the beginning of this year. That may not sound like a particularly controversial title for a Christian community supposedly devoted to the concept of agape love, but it turned out to be. The controversy was the subject of a Time Magazine cover story and a featured article in the New York Times. In his book, Bell says the following: “It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief” (the belief he’s talking about here is belief in hell as a conscious and eternal state of torture) “is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.” Bell went on to offer a variety of views from within the Christian community about hell, including what he called  universal reconciliation (which is also known as Christian universalism) - the idea that eventually all people will be reconciled to God because of God’s overwhelming love. He doesn’t say that he’s a universalist, but he says that “whatever objections a person may have of [universalism], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it.”

     I have to admit that I’m not a big fan of Rob Bell. On a couple of occasions we’ve used some of his videos here at Central to help illustrate points, but in the normal course of things and for whatever reason Rob Bell just doesn’t turn my theological crank, you might say. And then I came across what he said in “Love Wins” - and, all of a sudden, I had to say - I agree with him. The problem of Christianity for far too long is that it’s had a tendency to emphasize punishment over love, judgment over grace and threat over promise. In the same way, the cross has come to be used as a weapon that strikes fear into people rather than offering them hope. For some people it serves as a barrier to God, because as much as the cross gets emphasized, it gets emphasized without the context of agape love far too often. We need to correct that tendency. I want to correct that tendency.

     When Paul wrote, “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” he was not thinking of the cross in terms of threat, punishment or even atoning sacrifice. He was thinking of the cross in the context of love. He was thinking of the cross in terms of divine solidarity with the human condition. The cross reminds us that nothing we’ve suffered is beyond the experience of God. The cross reminds us that as a community, and whatever our differences of doctrine and theology and worship style preference might be, we are held together by a bond of divine love that makes us all simply God’s children.

     Rob Bell also said that “our tendency in the midst of suffering is to turn on God. To get angry and bitter and shake our fist at the sky and say, ‘God, you don't know what it's like! You don't understand! You have no idea what I'm going through. You don't have a clue how much this hurts.’ The cross is God's way of taking away all of our accusations, excuses, and arguments. The cross is God taking on flesh and blood and saying, ‘Me too.’”

     That’s what binds us together. If we can believe that God truly is one of us and knows us and stands with us in even the hardest of times - how can we not do that for one another. How that would change the world!

     Sometimes we let the simplest things become so complicated. The gospel is one such example. Really - what's complicated about it? God loves us, and so God, through Jesus, saves us from all that saps us of life and joy and eternity. And we respond with thanksgiving and praise. That's why Paul resolved to "know nothing ... except Jesus Christ and him crucified." The cross, as far as Paul was concerned, was the sign of divine love; the place where God's love showed itself most powerfully. If our calling as Christians is to offer good news to the world, maybe more of God's love and less of God's judgment is the way to start.

Tuesday 18 September 2012

Are We A Church In Exile?


Yesterday, the Moderator of the United Church (the Rt. Rev. Gary Paterson) issued what is essentially a pastoral letter to the United Church flock. He entitled the letter "Learning to Live in Babylon."

Obviously, Gary draws here on the familiar imagery of Israel in exile in Babylon, yearning for a return to their homeland. Although I basically liked the tone of Gary's message, there are a few things about "exile" language that don't really work for me. In the case of Israel, of course, the "exile" was a political one. Israel (& Judah of course) had been a nation state conquered by the Babylonian Empire. Their nation-hood taken away, many Jews, indeed, were carried away into exile in that far away empire. From that vantage point, their culture and their religion changed, while they yearned for a return to their homeland. I do wonder if that imagery really captures the reality of the church today, though. One question I would have is where - or what - are we in exile from? Christians don't constitute a "nation-state." We are, in New Testament terms, a "holy nation" - a nation beyond geographic limits and political status. We are a community of people called to love and serve God and neighbour by following the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. That can be done anywhere and at any time. So, given that we still have the opportunity to do what we're called by God to do, I still wonder how this is an exile. Have we been "exiled" - which implies by the action of some other power - or have we simply allowed ourselves to get off track, and have we been off track for so long, that this path we've been walking seems as though it's the right one? And what concerns me when I hear the "exile" language being used is that it seems to yearn for the return of the glory days of the church, when our power was immense, our pews were filled, our Sunday schools were bulging and our opinions were of importance in shaping the fate of the nation and the world. None of those things are the case anymore, so goes the thinking. Therefore, we are in exile, and we yearn to return to "the way things were." Usually meaning, within the memory of those who use the phrase, the glory days of the 1950's. 

I don't believe that's really what Gary meant in his message, but it does explain what I don't like about "exile" language: it's too easy to be understood as believing that it was normal for the church to possess the power and wealth and influence that it did, and then it's too easy to fall into the trap of simply yearning to return to those days. But is the 1950's (or the last 1500 years of christendom) really what we're in exile from, or has the church simply become so accustomed to having power that it's finding it difficult to let go of power? 

Perhaps the "exile" (the separation from what Jesus hoped for from his followers) has been going on for many centuries. Perhaps we've been exiled to the land of false gods, where we believed that our money and our property and our numbers and our power were what really counted, and sometimes God, Christ and gospel got shunted aside as an inconvenience. After all, we don't really want to be told to sell all our possessions and give them to the poor when it's us who have a lot of possessions. If anything is going to happen in the long run, perhaps it's a return to a pre-Constantinian church, where the church holds no secular power and little wealth and has no illusions that it ever will or even that it should. Perhaps the exile began the moment the church started to wield power over the Roman Empire, which to me seems to contradict what Jesus expected his church would be about. If we could learn to willingly let go of our "stuff" - all the baggage that's been accumulated over the centuries that serves only to draw our gaze away from the gospel and toward the "stuff" - that might free us to truly serve as Jesus hoped his followers would do without counting the cost of serving - because how much of a cost can there be when you have nothing to start with? And, when you have nothing, you can't simply serve by supporting worthy causes, you have to get down and dirty and with the people who are desperate for help - that's a hands-on mission as opposed to a wallet-out mission, just as Jesus served by being with desperate and outcast people. That's a relational gospel that makes connections with people. As it is, while we're in the exile, we still worry about how to keep buildings open and how to pay staff and how to be "influential" in the world. We're terrified of losing those things, we can't imagine how to be the church without those things, and too often our life as a church is dictated not by the will of God, but by the demands of the "stuff" that holds us in bondage, and by the fear created when we gaze into a future that we know won't include all the "stuff" that we're terrified of letting go of. Right now, the church is a bit like a person clinging to a railing by their fingers. They're not willing to let go and fall into the abyss, but they're gradually slipping, and as they do, the fear and panic (as ungodly a thing as that is and as contrary to the gospel as that is) slowly rises - because we know we can't avoid our ultimate fate; we can just put it off for as long as possible.

Earlier today, I came across someone else's reply to the Moderator's letter, in which he suggested that instead of the exile of the Jews to Babylon, the working scriptural image for the church today might be the call of Abram to an unknown land. That perhaps is a better analogy. Abram didn't know what he would find when he gave up all the familiar things that were around him and that had guided his life up to that point; he knew only that he had to give them up to truly follow God to whatever destiny God had appointed for him. Abram didn't have an easy time, according to the story in Genesis. There were a lot of hardships as he wandered and sought out God's will. Undoubtedly the church is going to face a lot of hardships as we go forward into the next few years - and this isn't just about the United Church. Challenges are everywhere, churches are suffering everywhere, and the tall tale (or even heresy) of evangelical triumphalism (the mistaken belief that the "evangelical churches" are doing just fine and that it's just we "mainliners" who are having trouble) is more and more being exposed as little more than a tall tale (because the decline has begun for them too according to the statistics) or a heresy (in that it places primacy on the denomination or doctrine ahead of God in Jesus Christ.)

To go back to "exile" imagery, the uncomfortable reality is that the church probably won't be truly "free" from its captivity until it's lost everything. That should frighten me as much or more than anyone, since I'm rather dependent on the church for my livelihood, being trained basically to be a pastor and getting to the point where my age works against me being trained for much else. But it doesn't. I'm no spiritual giant, but I have learned over the years to trust that somehow God works things out if we're faithful. As a church we may lose everything; but as Christians we'll never be abandoned. I hold on to that hope, and so I'm able to face the challenges of the coming years with a sense not of detachment (because I'll be deeply and personally affected by what's happening, as will my family) but with a sense of calmness and assurance, even as I watch churches all around me near and far scramble to hold on to the "stuff" they have for just a little while longer. 

Where the Old Testament analogy of "exile" works for me is that the Jews were ordered by Cyrus, King of Persia, to go back to their land (a devastated land) and, using both their sacred stories and what they had learned during their exile, re-invent something worthwhile and godly. Maybe, in a similar way, our  long "exile" (dating back 1500 years or so) is coming to an end, and we'll be forced to re-invent the church to look more like the church when it was at its most creative and dynamic, which was the first 2 or 3 centuries of its existence - when the church really had nothing much of material importance, but it had the word of God and it trusted the word of God. That will be a hard adjustment, but we better prepare for it, because I believe it's inevitable. Eventually we have to leave this long "exile" and start to rebuild virtually from nothing rather than simply try to hang on to as much as we can for as long as we can.

Monday 17 September 2012

A Thought For The Week Of September 17

"Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!" (Philippians 4:4) What a great reminder Paul offers us in this verse. It's generally believed that Paul wrote this letter as a kind of farewell to the church at Philippi, and that he wrote it near the end of his life, as he was facing execution at the hands of the Roman authorities. The church at Philippi seems to have had a special place in Paul's heart. Their relationship seems to have been close. Now, as he faces death, he tells the Philippians not to mourn for him, but to rejoice with him. Regardless of our circumstances, the message seems to be, we are to be a people of joy - a people who don't fall into despair, because we have Christ, who overcomes all things - who overcomes even the world itself. Nothing should cause us to fall into fear or hopelessness. I wonder, then, why joy so often seems to be lacking in our lives. Not all the time, of course, but sometimes. And by "joy" I don't just mean happiness, I mean a spirit of contentment, a constant attitude of thanksgiving, a never-ending delight in the things God has created and in the people God has put into our lives. Friends, "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!" God has given us so many reasons to do so! Have a great week!

Sunday 16 September 2012

September 16, 2012 sermon - An Undivided Christ


I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:10-13)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

     The Portuguese Man o’ War is one of the most fascinating creatures out there in the world. The duck-billed platypus may be strange, but the Portuguese Man O’ War is fascinating. Most people think that the Portuguese Man O’ War is a big, very dangerous and very poisonous jellyfish. Except that it’s not a jellyfish. You know the old saying: “if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck then it’s probably a duck.” Well, the Portuguese Man O’ War looks like a jellyfish and does a lot of the things a jellyfish does - but it’s not a jellyfish. In scientific terms, it’s called a siphonophore. A siphonophore is different from a jellyfish because it’s not a single creature. It’s actually a colony of thousands of tiny creatures called “zooids.” The interesting thing about them is that they can all be identified as individual and separate creatures but they can’t exist independently. They all depend on all the other members of the colony. They aren’t parasites. They don’t latch on to the Man O’ War and gradually eat away at it. They’re connected to each other and by being connected they become a Man O’ War. The Portuguese Man O’ War is usually thought of as living in warmer, tropical parts of the ocean. Actually, they can be found pretty much all over the world, except in the extreme north and south. Portuguese Men O’ War have been found in the Bay of Fundy and off the coast of Ireland. They’ve been found in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, and in the Mediterranean and Carribean Seas. They’re everywhere. The Portuguese Man O’ War has a very powerful and very painful sting - and, interestingly enough, it can sting for several hours after it dies! 

     Now, I am not here today to offer you a lesson in either biology or zoology - although I do find this creature (or these creatures) fascinating! I mention the Portuguese Man O’ War because - frankly - it’s a lot like the church. Think about it. A single church is made up of all sorts of different people who nevertheless to be the church have to be in relationship with each other. You can’t separate yourself from the church and still be part of the church. The church is found everywhere - all over the world. The church is very resilient - it’s hard to kill a church. They may die eventually, but killing one is tough work. And the church can sting - as I was saying last week, we can sting when we forget to act out of grace and in agape love (the love that gives without seeking anything in return; the love that willingly pays a price to love the beloved) and instead chooses to act in judgment and very human hatred. I want to think about those (in cosmic terms) tiny little organisms that make up the. That would be us, folks.

     Paul’s desire for the church in Corinth was “that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” Paul essentially wants us to be a Portuguese Man O’ W - both independent of each other and dependent on each other at the same time. But we’re not. It may work as an analogy, but it doesn’t work in reality, because we’re not as united or as undivided as that. We’re not “perfectly united in mind and thought.” I don’t think we should be. I think differences of opinion are healthy. The different opinions we hear from people are the things that challenge us to go deeper and deeper into our own faith and our own relationship with God. If everyone in the church thought exactly the same things about every subject, not only would church and faith be boring - they’d be lifeless. But that can go too far. That’s what Paul is talking about as he begins 1 Corinthians.

     This is going to be the first of several messages I’m going to preach from 1 Corinthians. To me, this is one of the most important books of the Bible, because Paul is responding to people who have written to him, expressing uncertainty about the Christian life, sharing some of the struggles their congregation is having and wanting direction on certain ethical and moral issues. In other words, the same questions so many Christians have today. But in Corinth, the problem wasn’t that people had questions or were unsure about certain things. The problem was how they were handling the issues. Rather than treating one another as people of faith who acted in good conscience, they were falling into judgment of one another. In modern language, the folks who thought that they were the “true Christians” (ever heard that language?) seemed to think that all those outside their group were “fake Christians” or at least that they weren’t “good Christians.” In the 21st century Christian community, we deal with that all the time. Paul basically says that the people in Corinth (and I think he’d say the same to modern Christians dealing with the same problems) have their priorities mixed up. They’re focussing on the issues that divide them; Paul wants them to focus on the Christ Who unites them. 

     Paul doesn’t condemn or criticize the Corinthians for having differences of opinion over issues large or small. It’s to be expected that there would be differences. Paul’s concern is that those differences are causing the community to fall apart, to take sides, to draw lines in the sand. They had divided up into factions on the basis of which teacher they followed: “One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”” For Paul, even “I follow Christ” had become a problem in Corinth , because it was being used to sow divisions rather than to create unity. It was the equivalent of “I’m a true Christian and you’re not” that we sometimes hear today. To put what Paul said into modern terms, it’s the equivalent of a church dividing on the lines of “I follow Calvin” or “I follow Luther” or “I follow Wesley” or “I follow the Pope” with each of those options being seen by those who hold them as the only real way of being a Christian; it’s the equivalent of  “I’m United Church” or “I’m Catholic” or “I’m Baptist” or “I’m Pentecostal” with anyone not part of your group being considered unChristian. Imagine what Central United Church would look like if people divided up into competing groups based on their favourite ministers: “I follow Steven” or “I follow Roger” or “I follow Orville” or “I follow Elliston” as if no one else can be a capable pastor and no other pastor is acceptable.

     A man once said, “I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, ‘Stop! Don't do it!’ ‘Why shouldn't I?’ he said. I said, ‘Well, there's so much to live for!’ He said, ‘Like what?’ I said, ‘Well, are you religious or atheist?’ He said, ‘Religious.’ I said, ‘Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?’ He said, ‘Christian.’ I said, ‘Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?’ He said, ‘Protestant.’ I said, ‘Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?’ He said, ‘Baptist!’ I said, ‘Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?’ He said, ‘Baptist Church of God!’ I said, ‘Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?’ He said, ‘Reformed Baptist Church of God!’ I said, ‘Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?’ He said, ‘Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!’ I said, ‘Die, heretic scum!’ and pushed him off [the bridge].” Yes. It’s a joke. The sad thing is it sounds almost believable!

     We have a problem in the church when our focus becomes the things that cause dissension rather than that which brings unity - and too often there’s a problem in the church. I was talking to someone just the other day and he dismissed the church by simply saying “there’s no consensus among Christians on anything.” In a way he’s right. But I’m not sure we should expect consensus; I’m not even sure consensus should be a goal. Reading between the lines of 1 Corinthians, you get the impression that Paul didn’t even bother preaching about contentious issues when he was in Corinth. They were afterthoughts. They had to write to him to say, basically, “you didn’t mention any of these things that are now causing us trouble - so help!” And 1 Corinthians was the response Paul made to them. And whle he’ll offer guidance on these things, his priority remains the same. In our passage today, to those tearing themselves apart over which teachers they preferred, he says “Was Paul crucified for you?” It’s obviously a rhetorical question. Christ was crucified for them, and Paul preached Christ crucified. In Chapter 2 he writes, “...I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” We’re going to talk a little more about that next week. Today I want to point out that it is Christ crucified who is our source of unity. Christ resurrected may be more important, more significant, more noteworthy - and 1 Corinthians, as we’ll see over the next few weeks, all leads up to Paul’s great teaching on the resurrection - but it’s Christ crucified that’s most important. That’s what Paul knew and taught and preached while he was in Corinth. He didn’t wade into controversial issues of morality or ethics or lifestyle. He preached Christ crucified, because Christ crucified is the ultimate sign of agape love - the love that sacrifices for the sake of the beloved; the love that pays any price; the love that expects nothing in return. The love that just loves. This is the cross - the divine act of self-sacrifice that asks, in return, for nothing. Through Christ, God gave simply to give. And that should be the source of unity within the Christian community - the giving of self for others while expecting nothing in return. There can be disagreements in that environment, but they don’t pit us against each other, because the issues we’re disagreeing about are always less important than the person we’re disagreeing with.

     It isn’t easy to live that out. Agape love is hard because it asks a lot out of us and it offers us no guarantee of a reward. But anything other than agape love is counter to the love and life and example of Christ - the crucified Christ whom Paul knew and taught about and preached about. Long ago, the famous biblical scholar Matthew Henry wrote, “So liable are the best things to be corrupted, and the gospel and its institutions made engines of discord and contention. Satan has always endeavoured to stir up strife among Christians, as one of his chief devices against the gospel.” When our honest and honourable disagreements become the excuse for passing judgment on the legitimacy of the faith our brothers and sisters, we are not focussed on God and we are not serving God. We are, instead, focussed on and serving that which is opposed to God. Christians have been known to attack and exclude and even persecute all kinds of people and groups - and it’s all done “in Jesus’ name.” The real tragedy is that some Christians will willingly attack and exclude and even persecute other Christians - and they do it all “in Jesus’ name.”

     Paul’s message would be “focus only on Christ” - not as an excuse to divide ourselves up into the good Christians vs the bad Christians, but to remind ourselves that honest differences don’t make those we disagree with any less Christian. Then, with Christ as the sole focus and priority, set everything else aside for the sake of the mission of the gospel. Christians should stop working against one another through competitiveness or quarreling and simply work together to do the mission and ministry of Jesus as we in good conscience understand it. Dwight Peterson wrote that “most of us who have been around churches for any amount of time know that Christians can get on one another's nerves.” That’s sadly true. Perhaps it’s to be expected since we’re only human, but it’s still sadly true, and when we allow that to get out of hand, we sap the life and love and energy out of what Christ asks of us and we put it into endless and meaningless arguments and disagreements. 

     The good news is that ultimately Christ cannot be divided, and we see Christ in all his glory when we see unity - not coerced and artificial common belief, but rather the understanding that in spite of our differences we are one in His name. And we see unity when we see love - not romantic, emotional, sentimental love, but love expressed in giving for others while expecting nothing back. When we can live by that kind of love, then we truly have within our own fellowship “an undivided Christ.”

Tuesday 11 September 2012

Atheism Gone Mad!

Take a look at this picture:

The cross at Ground Zero - two beams which happened to fuse together and landed upright as the World Trade Center collapsed - seen in October 2001.


Eleven years ago today, on September 11, 2001, these two beams from the World Trade Centre fell to earth. Somehow, I guess as a result of the heat from the fires that were raging inside the buildings, the beams had fused together in the shape of a cross, and they landed upright, becoming a symbol of the event to many people. Afterward, it seems that the beams were acquired by a local church, polished and buffed up and had the word "Jesus" inscribed. It was kept in the church for five years. It was then donated to the non-profit group that was set up to establish the WTC memorial to be displayed at the memorial, because to many it became an iconic image of that day.

Now, there's a lawsuit. A group called "American Atheists" is suing to prevent the displays of the beams/cross because they claim that it's an attempt to Christianize 9/11, to make it all about Christians when many of the victims of the attacks weren't Christians at all. They also claim that it's a violation of the constitutional provisions against the establishment of religion.

David Silverman is AA's president. He said that the beams are, "a working Christian shrine in the memorial and then they had the gall to say it's not religious in nature, that it represents everybody. That's not true. It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists, and they all had deaths on 9/11." He went on to say that "We're talking about public lands, we're talking about public funds, we're talking about congressionally ordered public funds. We're talking about an 18-foot memorial, this is grossly inappropriate. We feel very strongly that this is an attempt to Christianize 9/11, to make it about Christians, even though it's not about Christians at all." In response, the Memorial and Museum has said that they're simply displaying the beams as a relic of the 9/11 attack and that simply because it has a religious significance to some people doesn't mean that it's being displayed as a religious artifact.

Here's my general response: this is atheism gone mad!

I'm not really big on the intertwining of the relationship between church and state. In fact, I think it's harmful to Christianity because it makes us increasingly dependent on the state and it causes us to lose our focus on the gospel. I don't care about things like prayer in schools or things like that. When the church comes to the conclusion that it needs the active support of the state to promote its own faith, then the church is acknowledging its weakness and its inability to do just that. But does that mean that something that's of historic significance should be ignored simply because it looks like a cross and was used by some as a religious symbol? That's ridiculous! It is, indeed, atheism gone mad!

I'm not an American. But the most complete list I've come across says that the victims of 9/11 were from 59 different nations - including 24 from Canada. So it seems to me that the discussion of what is and isn't important in a 9/11 memorial should be open to the world. I say that the "cross-beams" should stay.  I see no reason for them to go. Mr. Silverman says that the crossbeams don't "represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists, and they all had deaths on 9/11." I wonder if he's speaking on behalf of any of the Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or atheist families? In the reports about this lawsuit that I've read I've seen nothing from any of the victims' families of any religion (or no religion) who have objected to this. Just a group that really seems to be using this primarily to get some publicity for their cause. At least that's my take on it anyway, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It looks like a cross. It's been in a church. But it's more than a cross, as well. It's an icon of a terrible day; a symbol of hope to a lot of people as they remember a horrible event. It should stay - and "American Atheists" really need to butt out on this one.

Just my opinion.



Monday 10 September 2012

A Thought For The Week Of September 10

"Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians 5:26) Why would we envy each other? The question is a good one. It's true that sometimes we look around and lament that others seem to have things that we don't: they have more money, or a bigger house or a nicer car. Even among pastors, there can sometimes be envy over who has the bigger and more outwardly successful church. Envy is a strange thing. We want what someone else has, even though we really don't need it. Understand that. When a person who's starving wishes they had more food, they're not being envious; they're desperate, and those of us with enough food should help them out. But when we just want more and more of the things we already have enough of or that we don't really need, then do we really have our priorities straight? The problem with envy (one problem anyway) is that it makes us focus so much on our wants that we can easily miss out on the needs of others. But Jesus wants us to focus on the needs of others, and to try to satisfy those needs, not to worry about what someone else has that we don't really need. I think that's one reason Paul wrote those words. When either conceit or envy become a characteristic of our lives, we've abandoned the gospel, and we're no longer living either by the Spirit or for Christ. To live by the Spirit is to live for Christ, which is to live for others. If enough people could do that, the world would be a better place. Have a great week!

Sunday 9 September 2012

September 9, 2012 sermon: A Call To Right Relationship


And God spoke all these words: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20:1-17)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    I suspect that most of you would have recognized the reading even if I hadn’t identified it. We call these “The Ten Commandments.” They’re the heart of the Law of Moses, and most people would agree that they’re the basis of our Western understanding of right and wrong; the basis of much of our secular law. They’re important. And, assuming that you’re a Christian, it’s hard to disagree with any of them - although we do struggle with the concept of Sabbath! But for us as Christians there’s an underlying tension, even a paradox in play when we hear these words. We believe in Christ. We believe Christ was the grace of God. We are people who live by grace and not by Law. And that identity and understanding makes it difficult in some ways for us to relate to the Ten Commandments - or the rest of Exodus from this point on, or most of Leviticus. The question (the dilemma) is a simple one: as people who are not under the law, of what relevance is the Law to us? The question isn’t only a simple one - it’s a very valid one; a worthwhile one to pursue and explore. While we may proclaim grace, there are far too many Christians who continue to use the Law as an absolute, who want to live by the Law (or, even more commonly, who want to insist that others live by the Law.) Except that it’s never an absolute. Christians take that stand generally when it suits them to do so - insisting on adherence to parts of the Law they agree with (such as Leviticus 18:22 which forbids homosexuality) but ignoring the parts of the Law they either don’t agree with or don’t care about (such as Leviticus 11:12, which forbids eating shellfish, or Leviticus 19:28, which forbids getting a tattoo.) Selective obedience to the Law (which means agreeing with what we like and ignoring what we don’t) isn’t a faithful way of approaching the Law, or any part of the Scriptures for that matter. And that’s a problem for a lot of Christians. Many of us don’t struggle with the question of how those who are not under the Law should understand the Law or use the Law. It’s still relevant to us; it’s in our Scriptures. But we’re under grace. The three options most people choose from among are generally: ignore the whole thing; insist on the whole thing; or pick and choose from among the whole thing. We like those options because they’re the simplest ones. They don’t require much work or much thought from us. But the issue is more complex, and really gets to the heart of what we’re about as a people who love God, who follow Christ, who are saved by grace, and who want to build a society that reflects God’s concerns and God’s desires. I want to turn for a moment to Paul and to Jesus, because they struggled with how to apply these things to a context that didn’t have 2000 years of debate and argument clouding the issue.

    Paul writes in Galatians 3:25 that “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” But he also writes in Romans 2:12 that “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law.” So Paul is certainly not giving licence to Christians to simply live however we choose and to simply do whatever we want whenever we want to. But if we are not under the law and yet we can still sin apart from the law, then what are the standards? What does God expect of us? What does God require of us? All the learned, scholarly debate and all the cultural baggage aside, Jesus interpreted the Law and its purpose very simply. In fact He summed it up in a mere two basic principles: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And ... love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” That’s what Jesus said.

    With the help of both Paul and Jesus I think we’re starting to get to the heart of the matter. Even for Jesus, Who was speaking to someone who was under the Law in that context and Who was living in a society that took the Law very, very (VERY) seriously, it wasn’t the letter of the law that was most important. It wasn’t simply doing all the things (little and big) that the Law demanded. No, it wasn’t the letter of the Law - it was the spirit of the Law. For Jesus, what mattered was the response the Law called forth from us - a response not of mere obedience but of faithfulness, and even more than faithfulness, a response of love. For Jesus, the value of the Law was not its ability to get people to obey every jot and tittle, it was the ability of the Law (if properly understood and properly interpreted) to bring forth a response of agape love. The Law, for Jesus, asks us not to obey - but to give and to sacrifice for the sake of others: God and neighbour alike. Love your God and love your neighbour was the message of Jesus - so let go of things like hatred and judgment. We weren’t made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for us was the message of Jesus, so don’t use the requirements of the Law to find an excuse for not loving. Don’t even get angry and don’t even lust was the message of Jesus - so don’t be self-satisfied because you haven’t killed or committed adultery. The Law, for Jesus, was so much more than just what was written on the page. The Law leads us to relationship with those around us; to right relationship; to the relationship God desires that we have with all we meet.

+ + + + + + + + + +

(Task for the congregation (take 30 seconds): Look around at all the people in the church and ask yourself deeply, understanding that these are our neighbours for the moment at least and with that understanding of agape love that Jesus spoke of - “Do I love these people? Would I sacrifice for these people?” This is the point of the Law - moving people to love and to right relationship with each other  So look around. See the people. Ask yourself - Is there agape love in this place? Is there agape love in my heart? Take the next 30 seconds and do that.)

+ + + + + + + + + +

    Friends, Paul says in Romans 2:15 that “the requirements of the law are written on [our] hearts, [our] consciences also bearing witness …” The point is that what God asks for isn’t strict obedience to a written code under threat of punishment - it’s loving God; it’s doing what’s right (which we should know by our conscience); it’s living in right relationship with others; it’s doing justice for the oppressed and marginalized. It’s showing agape to all our neighbours. It’s doing the things that Jesus did. I believe that if our motives are right, and if we are sincerely seeking to apply the teachings of Jesus to whatever we do and (in particular) if we are sincerely and passionately trying to live with his insistence on agape love as our prime motivation, then our consciences are clear.

    Even in the days before Jesus, the written law of Moses (the Commandments) was really about right relationship rather than strict obedience. Paul didn’t coin the idea of the law written on our hearts. That came from the prophet Jeremiah, who explained God’s ultimate desire for Israel in this way: “‘This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.’” The people of God were always expected to be guided by their consciences, and not just practice obedience to a written code.

    A few weeks ago in Ottawa, the United Church General Council struggled with a matter of conscience. I’m talking about an issue that’s been in the papers, that’s been widely discussed, that has made us the targets of some people, that I hear through the grapevine has been discussed here at Central among some of you in my absence. I’m talking about the resolution on Israel & Palestine that encourages us to boycott goods produced in the Israeli settlements. I want to say right off the top that (although I wasn’t a commissioner to General Council) I was against this resolution. I think it was a mistake. I think it was the wrong way to go. I don’t think it’s going to accomplish anything productive, and I think it’s damaged a lot of our relationships (with Jews and with some other Christians) here in Canada. But I also want to give the General Council credit. You see, I don’t have to agree with everything that the General Council does. I have the right to dissent respectfully. And on this issue I dissent - respectfully! But if I disagree with the decision, and even if I have no intention of being encouraged in the direction that the General Council is encouraging me - I nevertheless honour the General Council for its faithful effort at discernment and for its willingness to stand with marginalized and oppressed people. I think they made the wrong decision. Others think they made the wrong decision. I’ve heard from various colleagues that some have quit the United Church because of the decision. And that’s too bad. Because - agree or not - I think the General Council treated this sincerely and seriously as a matter of conscience (that law written on our hearts) and made the decision that their collective conscience led them to. I believe they acted out of agape love for a people they felt were oppressed. And as a denomination we have paid a price for it (being criticized in the media and by other peoples of faith) - but such is the result of agape love. It always comes with a cost. Otherwise it isn’t agape love. And because of that, I believe God’s grace is more than enough to cover whatever mistakes were made, because what I’ve heard from those who were there and who participated in the decision (some supporting it; others opposing it) is that they were motivated by their struggle with the agape love that’s at the heart of  both the Law  and the gospel and that we’re called to try to put into practice.

     The point is that we’re called to live in love. This is the basis of the Commandments we read and of the entire Law of Moses. Their foundation is in love - love for God and love for others. 1 John 4:16 says “we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.” May the grace of God cover us if we get it wrong, but may the love of God dwell richly in us as we seek to live in love with all of creation, to create a society of justice and peace, and to offer dignity to all of God’s children, whatever their lot in life.

Monday 3 September 2012

A Thought For The Week Of September 3

"What does the worker gain from his toil?" (Ecclesiastes 3:9) On Labour Day, perhaps we should consider the value of work. Too often, we get caught up in issues of labour-management disagreements, but surely there's something to be said for getting away from that ongoing battle every now and then and simply recognizing the value of work (or "toil" as Ecclesiastes calls it) recognizing that all "toil" - when you get down to it - is godly. I'm not big on the so-called "Protestant work ethic," because I think that tends to hold up "work" as an end in itself, and too easily leads to a works-righteousness. The work we do (the toil in which we engage) isn't an end, nor on its own does it make us righteous, but it is yet another way of glorifying God, which should always be our goal in whatever we do. All of us (whether a CEO or lawyer, whether we're the one who washes the buses or sweeps the floor, whether teachers or - dare I say it - pastors) are playing a part in society, and this part we play gives us the chance to honour and witness to God. As Christians, we should be respecting one another's toil, and understanding that whatever parts we find ourselves playing at any given time, we're equal in God's sight and we're all valuable and loved parts of God's creation - and we should treat each other accordingly. Too often, perhaps, we set ourselves up in competition with each other rather than seeing ourselves in partnership. Perhaps we think of one person as more important than another because their job has more prestige or a bigger salary. Perhaps we've lost the understanding of "work" itself as a calling (as something we're called by God to do the best we can at for as long as we're doing it) rather than just a job that we resent or that we use merely for our own ends. Ecclesiastes tells us to "... eat and drink, and find satisfaction in [our] toil - [for] this is the gift of God." This implies that we should all have enough to "eat and drink," and to find satisfaction in what we're doing now and to do the best we can at it (even if it isn't our "dream job") is to understand that we all belong to God. Have a great week!