Ponderings on a Faith Journey

Gifted and Called -- A Sermon for a Service of Affirmation of Ordination

2013-05-20T05:00:00.000-04:00

Ephesians 4:7-16

Why would anyone want to be a pastor? After all, there’s nothing glamorous about pastoral ministry.

There are, according to Frederick Buechner, three popular views of clergy.

Some believe that clergy are "nice people" who try to make sure you know that they’re just like everybody else, just nicer!
Then there are those who think pastors "have their heads in the clouds" and don't get too involved in the real world. People feel embarrassed when they use bad language around them. They also have "a lovely sense of humor” and get a kick out of it when you ask if they could do something about the rainy weather. For them, clergy know that their business is religion and leave more important matters to those who know better.
Finally, pastors are seen as "anachronistic as alchemists and chimney sweeps. Like Tiffany Glass or the Queen of England, their function is primarily decorative." They do the marrying and the burying, but not much else. [Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking, (San Francisco: Harper-Collins, 1992), 73.]

That doesn’t sound all that enticing, does it? After all, the pay isn’t great, the hours can be bad, and you really don’t get any respect. It’s not surprising that many parents prefer that their children pursue more rewarding careers.

Despite the bad press, some hear the call and respond with the words: “Here I am, send me.” Rick is one of those persons who has heard the call and said yes. We gather here today to affirm that call.

The letter to the Ephesians speaks of call and giftedness. According to this letter, God has given each of us gifts designed to build up the body of Christ. Ministry isn’t something that paid professionals do, it’s the task of the whole church. Since the church exists as a body of ministers, then we’re all responsible for the proper use of our gifts of ministry, whether ordained or not.

God may call all Christians to ministry, but according to Ephesians 4, God also calls certain individuals to ministries of teaching and leadership. And one of the ways the church has affirmed this calling is to lay hands on them (1 Timothy 4) and offer a prayer of blessing. Those persons who are designated in this fashion take up what Donald Messer calls a representative ministry.

Those of us who are ordained are set apart by the church to the representative ministry--not because we are less sinful or more holy, but in order to serve different functions within the life and mission of the church in the world. Those persons called by God to this ministry, and recognized by the church, often receive salaries and benefits, but they’re not employees of the church, strictly speaking. They are first and foremost called to be servants of God, and as servants of God they make themselves available to the ministry of the church. [Donald Messer, Images of Christian Ministry, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 64.]

These women and men are gifted and called by God to lead and to equip the people of God so that they can fulfill their own ministries. God has set aside some to be Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. These are God's gifts to the church, who are called on to "equip the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13).

Ordination doesn’t make Rick smarter, brighter, or more clever. It doesn’t make him holier or more saintly. It doesn’t even make him a minister – that calling comes with baptism. But through ordination the church recognizes God’s prior call. Now, we’re not ordaining Rick today. We’re recognizing and affirming a previous ordination by a different part of the body of Christ. We’ve come to celebrate the fact that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in Michigan has chosen to recognize his ordination and grant him standing as a member of the ordained ministry in the Disciples.

So today, as the church, in its Disciples form, and in its ecumenical form, let us receive his ministry among us. We are recognizing that he has been called by God to this representative form of ministry, which includes the responsibility of preaching, teaching, leadership, and pastoral care. Although we’re not Presbyterian, I think it’s fitting to affirm Rick’s call to what the Presbyterians call the “Ministry of Word and Sacrament.”

In this act of affirmation, we’re telling the broader church that Rick has the requisite gifts of ministry and has been called to serve the church at large as pastor and teacher. We come today to support this call with our prayers and our witness. We recognize that he has been called to share in the ministry of leadership, helping to equip the body so that we can become spiritually mature adults who aren’t tossed around by deceit and trickery.

So, Rick, as you go forth from this place today, remember the hands that are being laid on you. Remember your calling. Remember that you’re not "the" minister, but you are one of God’s ministers who has been called to lead, teach, and nurture your fellow ministers so that they can grow into spiritual maturity. Remember the gift that has been given you by God, a gift recognized and affirmed today. And regularly rekindle this gift through prayer, worship, and study. And remember who it is you represent – Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

May God bless you as go forth into the world, as an ambassador of Christ. May we who gather here today, especially those who are members of Central Woodward Christian Church and who are representatives of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), continue to pray for and support Rick in his ministry, wherever it takes him!

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, Pastor
Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, MI
Service of Recognition and Affirmation of an Ordination
May 19, 2013

We Are Children of God! -- A Sermon for Pentecost Sunday

2013-05-19T10:30:00.000-04:00

Romans 8:14-17

“This little light of mine, I’m going to let it shine.”

With this simple song, our children invited us to celebrate Pentecost Sunday by letting the light of God’s Spirit shine through us. When the Spirit of God descended on the people of God, like a mighty wind, that Pentecost Sunday, flames danced above each head. This flame symbolizes the light of God that shines through us, lighting our pathways as we journey with God into the world. Bearing this light, we fulfill our calling to be a blessing to our neighbors – whether close by or far away.

Not only does the song remind us that God has filled us with the light of the Spirit, but it also reminds us, that even if we’re adults, we’re still children of the living God. As Paul puts it: “All who are led by God’s Spirit are God’s sons and daughters” (Rom. 8:14 CEB).

Of course, none of us are God’s natural born children. No, we’ve been adopted into God’s family through the Spirit. And, as God’s adopted sons and daughters, we’ve become heirs of God through Christ, our elder brother (Heb. 2:11-13).

So, what does it mean to be a child of God? Above all else, it helps define our identity. We all ask this question: Who am I? Don’t you want to know who you are and why you are the way you are? Science tells us that genetics plays a role, but so does the world in which we live – our parents, our friends, our church. It’s not a question of nature versus nurture. Both are involved! And as God’s children, surely God plays a role. In Jeremiah 1, the Lord says to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you, . . .”

As we come here today to celebrate Pentecost, what does this declaration that we’re all children of God have to do with our identity? What difference does it make?

You might answer in terms of behavior, but surely there’s more to this than simply following divine law. After all, the message of Romans is that in Christ, grace supersedes law.

Perhaps the answer lies in Paul’s next statement: “You didn’t receive a spirit of slavery to lead you back again into fear.” Because we’ve been made children of God in Christ, there’s no need to fear.

This is an appropriate word for our times, because there’s a lot of fear in our midst. If you don’t believe me, just check out all the conspiracy theories that get passed around through e-mails and social media. It’s bad out there!! Or, so I’ve been told!

Now, just because we’re free from bondage to fear doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be prudent about security. Just the other evening, at the stewardship meeting, we talked about this very subject. Having participated in a presentation on church security offered by the Troy Police Department to the Troy Interfaith Group, our stewardship chair decided we should talk about protecting our building and the people who come to it. Even if we sit here in one of Michigan’s safest cities, doors need to be locked when no one is here. We need to be vigilant about who is coming and going. And since we have a growing number of children, we need to make sure they’re protected. Yes, there are reasons for being careful and vigilant, but that doesn’t mean we have to live in fear.

After all, the God whom we serve is defined by love, and as the Scriptures say – “perfect love casts out all fear” (1 Jn 4:18). Besides, as Paul writes later on in Romans 8: “If God is for us, who can be against us.” Yes:

35 Who will separate us from Christ’s love? Will we be separated by trouble, or distress, or harassment, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 As it is written, We are being put to death all day long for your sake.
We are treated like sheep for slaughter.
37 But in all these things we win a sweeping victory through the one who loved us. 38 I’m convinced that nothing can separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus our Lord: not death or life, not angels or rulers, not present things or future things, not powers 39 or height or depth, or any other thing that is created.

If we can accept this as a word from God; if we Believe that God will be true to this promise; if we will let the Spirit reign in our lives; then, as children of God, we’ll be ready to head out on the adventure that lies ahead of us.

I enjoy watching our little ones run around without any sense of fear exploring their environment. They seem to know that it’s okay to check things out, that their parents and grandparents and other recognizable faces are there to protect them. This childlike curiosity is a key to the Spirit-filled life. Walking in the Spirit is a spiritual adventure.

Now, this childlike curiosity is the result of trust. Our children know that their parents are nearby. It’s the kind of trust that allows us, as God’s children, to address God as “Abba! Father!”

So off we go into the world, filled with the Spirit of God, who is our parent. We go out into the world, knowing that since we’re God’s children we’re also heirs of all the promises that go with that status. Every promise God made to the children of Israel has now been passed on to us as well. We don’t replace the Jewish people, but in Christ we are now joint heirs with them of the promises made to Abraham, including that covenant calling to be a blessing to the nations.

So, as God’s children in Christ, we receive this Pentecost power that empowers us to bear witness to the good news that Jesus is risen from the dead. Death has met its match, and as a result we can now embrace the life that God has set before us. Yes, we’ve been commissioned by Jesus to go into the world and be his witnesses. And as his witnesses, we go forth with the promise that Jesus makes to his disciples on the eve of his death. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says to his disciples.

Trust me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or at least believe on account of the works themselves. I assure you that whoever believes in me will do the works I do. They will do even greater works than these because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father can be glorified in the Son. (John 14:11-13 CEB).

This may seem like a tall order, but as the children of God, we’ve been gifted for this work, and we’ve been given a Companion, the Spirit, who will be with us forever.

So are you ready to head out as children of God on this next adventure in the Spirit?

Now, being children of God doesn’t mean that there won’t be challenges ahead. Even as Jesus faced suffering, we may face it as well. Theologian Karl Barth puts it this way:

In the Spirit, we are enabled to know the meaning of our life, as it is manifested in suffering. In the Spirit, suffering, endured and apprehended can become our advance to the glory of God. This revelation of the secret, this apprehension of God in suffering, is God’s action in us. (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 301).

As we discussed the meaning of the cross of Jesus at the Wednesday Bible Study, we talked also suffering. Although we might not know why people suffer, and though God doesn’t always come to our rescue, that doesn’t mean that God has abandoned us. God is still there with us, because we are children of God, and God is always present with God’s children!

So, as children of the living God, and as heirs of all the promises of God, may the light of Pentecost shine through you as you venture out into the world! Be not afraid – God is with you through the Spirit, whom Jesus has sent to us.

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, Pastor
Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, MI
Pentecost Sunday
May 19, 2013

William Barclay-- Insights: Love (Review)

2013-05-18T05:00:00.000-04:00

INSIGHTS: Love: What the Bible Tells Us about Christian Love. By William Barclay. Foreword by John Miller. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 2012, xii +60 pages.

When I was in college, more than three decades back, studying Bible and Ministry, William Barclay's Daily Bible Study commentary series (now available as New Daily Study Bible: Complete Set, 17 vol. set) was the go-to resource. The equivalent today might be N.T. Wright's New Testament For Everyone Set, 18 Volumes.

One of my Bible Profs used them as a text book, so I got to know them well. Besides providing valuable exegetical help, they offered spiritual and theological insights that held value for us as individuals and as budding preachers.

Barclay (1907-1978) was a well-regarded biblical scholar from Scotland who had a knack for speaking with clarity and grace to the general reader. These commentaries were designed for the popular audience, but they were rooted in Barclay's critical scholarship. He was Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University, and was considered liberal by some. I would learn some years later, after reading his autobiography, that he considered himself a universalist. He was willing to raise deep questions about the text, and yet I never found him off putting, despite the fact that at the time I was relatively conservative in my beliefs. Perhaps I didn't pay that much attention to where he might diverge from my perceived orthodoxy.

Barclay has long since departed from this world, and has has been replaced by other scholars, like Wright and Marcus Borg who have found a way of speaking to a broader audience. Although Barclay isn't as well known today as yesterday, I think he has a few words of wisdom to share with us.

And that's what he does in this little book of insights on love. This small book is part of a series of books published by Saint Andrew Press and distributed in the United States by Westminster John Knox Press that pick up specific topics -- in this case love -- and provide readings from Barclay's commentaries on the topic. In this particular book there are fourteen reflections.

To give a sense of his style and perspective, consider this paragraph from his reflection on Matthew 5:43-48. It's the closing paragraph:

It is the whole teaching of the Bible that we attain our humanity only by becoming Godlike. The one thing which makes us like God is the love which never ceases to care for others, no matter what they do to it. We fulfill our humanity, we enter upon Christian perfection, when we learn to forgive as God forgives, and to love as God loves. (p. 20)

Or consider this reflection on John 12:1-18, where we read of Mary's anointing of Jesus:

We see love's extravagance Mary took the most precious thing she possessed and spent it all on Jesus. Love is not love if it nicely calculates the cost. It gives its all, and its only regret is that it has not still more to give. (p. 28).

If you're looking for brief, readable, insightful reflections on these issues and seek a word from Scripture that is interpreted with critical care and spiritual devotion, I think this set of books will be worth your examination. Although the publisher sent me copies of each of the above mentioned topics, I've only read the book on Love. But that was sufficient to remind me of Barclay's wisdom and grace.

Sam Harris: Moral Clarity or Islamophobia? -- Sightings (Daniel J. Schultz)

2013-05-17T09:34:00.000-04:00

Several years ago I reviewed Sam Harris' A Letter to a Christian Nation for Disciples World.. Unfortunately that journal no longer exists, and thus the review is not extant online. In any case, my concern with Harris and other New Atheists is that in their zeal to protect rationalism, they venture far into arrogance. In the case of Christianity they presume to decide who is the real Christian (fundamentalists) so that they can create a straw man to attack. More recently Harris has taken aim at Islam, which he perceives to be barbaric and irrational, and thus worthy of contempt. In this Sighting's piece Daniel J. Schultz suggests that Harris's views are colored by a Western neo-colonialist attitude. I'm inclined to agree with the assessment, but want to invite your thoughts.

*****************************

Sightings

Sightings

Sam Harris: Moral Clarity or Islamophobia?

by Daniel J. Schultz
Thursday | May 16 2013

Last month a contentious exchange broke out between Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald and one of the torchbearers of the so-called New Atheist movement—Sam Harris. The quarrel began when Greenwald tweeted a link to an Al Jazeera article by Murtaza Hussain. The article argued that some of the New Atheists (Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens) endorse, under the guise of rational scientific discourse, forms (often venomous) of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Particularly problematic for Greenwald was Harris’ assertion—cited by Hussain—that “[the] people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.”

Harris then wrote to Greenwald, protesting Hussain’s “quote-mining,” criticizing the Al Jazeera article as “defamatory garbage,” and expressing frustration with Greenwald for promoting the piece.

However, reading Harris’ quote in context does little to call into question the conclusion reached by Hussain. Indeed, Harris confirmed Hussain’s conclusion when he explained to Greenwald that it was his (Harris) intention to “bemoan the loss of liberal moral clarity in the war on terror.”

It is a curious line of reasoning that allows Harris to espouse positive views about fascist speech and about the “moral clarity” of the Christian Right (a group included in the context provided by Harris) without assuming any of the liabilities of these positions. He endorses the “sensibleness” of their speech, neither as fascist speech nor as the speech of the Christian Right, but rather as the displaced speech of an authentic liberalism. Harris thus identifies his position with fascists and religious fundamentalists through his presumed ability to sanction their views without himself being identified with their practices.

This is the reason Harris takes such offense at the accusation that he is a racist or an Islamophobe. He is, as he states, “not making common cause with fascists,” but rather recovering the reasoned liberal position of defending “civil society” – a task, he claims, that in recent years has “been outsourced to extremists.”

Thus for Harris, the inability or unwillingness of secular, multicultural liberalism to press a vigorous critique of Islam is a symptom of its failure. With respect to Islam, liberals, according to Harris, ought to be ones “pointing the way beyond this iron-age madness,” but they have failed by virtue of their multicultural tolerance.

One of the critiques, advanced by Hussain against New Atheists like Harris, concerns the way in which their rational thinking is not as free from history as it presumes; on the contrary, it often exhibits the tendency to rehearse oppressive (at times racialized) features of colonial thought. Harris’ phrase “this iron age madness” functions as a clear example of the way in which he codes ‘non-Western’ as traditional, backward, and repressive, allowing the West to represent itself as modern, forward thinking, and free.

This form of reasoning confuses its descriptions with its presuppositions, using the former to covertly ground the latter.

In a notable example of such confused reasoning, Harris asserted, in a Huffington Postpiece quoted by Hussain, that “the outrage that Muslims feel over US and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns.”

Here we see Harris’ assumptions: 1) theological concerns cannot provide a basis for reasonable claims; 2) theological concerns are symptoms of a mistaken (traditional, backward, culturally determined) understandings of oneself and the world; 3) non-theological (atheistic) concerns as the only kinds of concerns capable of grounding an accurate view of oneself and the world.

Harris’ assumptions mask the vast differences internal to modes of religious thought (an oxymoron for Harris) and religious life. It also obscures the fact that there might, in fact, be non-theological reasons for Muslims to feel outraged over US and British foreign policy.

Harris’ new form of atheism sounds very much like an old form of colonialism.

This is seen most clearly at those moments when Harris shows us the ethical character of his thinking. He writes, in the e-mail response to Greenwald, “one of my main concerns is for all the suffering women, homosexuals, freethinkers, and intellectuals in indigenous Muslim societies.”

Appealing to the discourse of Western moral superiority, Harris invokes their plight as a way to justify belligerent attitudes against Islam. His reasoning predicates the West as the source of salvation and precludes the possibility of thinking meaningful social transformation outside the framework of an atheistic liberalism.

References:

Greenwald, Glenn. “Sam Harris, the New-Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus.” The Guardian. April 3, 2013.

Greenwald, Glenn. “E-mail with Sam Harris.” Accessed April 3, 2013.

Harris, Sam. “Response to Controversy.” Samharris.org. April 7, 2013.

Harris, Sam. “Bombing Our Illusions,” The Huffington Post. October 10, 2005. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

Hussain, Mutaza. “Scientific Racism, militarism, and the new-atheists,” Al Jazeera. April 2, 2013.

Lean, Nathan. “Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia.”Salon. March 30, 2013.

Author, Daniel J. Schultz, is a Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy of Religions at the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is currently writing a dissertation on Foucault’s concept of pastoral power in relation to the visual transmission of theological discourse in Franciscan iconography.

Editor, Myriam Renaud, is a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS?
Email DivSightings@gmail.com

Faith in the Public Square -- An Interview

2013-05-16T05:00:00.000-04:00

My book Faith in the Public Square (Energion Publications, 2012) has now been out for a little more than a year. In it I set out to start a conversation about the relationship between Faith and Public Life. The book is comprised of fifty plus essays that originally appeared as Sunday Op-Ed pieces in the Lompoc Record.

Earlier this year John Shuck, a Presbyterian Pastor from Elizabethton, Tennessee, interviewed me for a radio show he hosts for the local NPR station called Religion for Life. The interview is now available as a podcast. I would like to share it with you. Hopefully John's questions and my answers will encourage an important conversation around these two important parts of human life.-- and perhaps even entice you to buy a copy of the book!

I think you'll enjoy the conversation (about 29 minutes). So, let's talk!

Welcome to the Family -- A Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost Sunday

2013-05-15T09:15:00.001-04:00

Acts 2:1-21

Romans 8:14-17

John 14:8-17

Welcome to the Family

It’s Pentecost Sunday, which in many ways is a “get to work” day. Having been told on the day of Ascension, that they should wait until the coming of the Spirit before venturing out into the world, filled with the Holy Spirit, and bear witness to the person and message of Jesus (Acts 1:8), with Pentecost that day has come. The commission has been given, the Spirit provided, so it’s time to get to work.

When we gather to worship on Pentecost Sunday it’s important to remember that Pentecost wasn’t a one-time affair, which we commemorate each year with special songs and clothing with some shade of red to it. As David Lose helpfully reminds us at the Working Preacher, the Book of Acts recounts multiple Pentecosts. Consider just the stories the Samaritan mission and the visit to Cornelius. But these are only a few of the expressions of the outpouring of the Spirit upon the church. It is a reminder that the church is more than an institution or a building. Rather, the church is a Spirit-empowered missional community that welcomes the stranger into the family of God. What begins that day continues on through history, for the Spirit remains hard at work in our midst.

The Pentecostal blessing carries with it the message of inclusion. Families can be exclusive/tribal in nature, but the family born on Pentecost is welcoming and inclusive. In large part that’s due to the fact that we’re all adopted sons and daughters. Jesus alone among the children of God is not adopted. But, as the true heir of the father, he shares the blessings of God with us as our elder brother in the family of God. Thus, our identity is formed by our status as our relationship to Christ, with whom we are joint heirs. And as Acts 2 reminds us, this family into which we’ve been adopted is quite diverse in ethnicity and language, gender and age. If we embrace this adoption, then we receive as our companion and guide the Spirit of God, who is sent by Jesus to travel with us on the journey of faith.

Being Pentecostal in background (one of my many religious expressions), I have great appreciation for the Acts 2 story. A community that is still hiding behind closed doors is born anew of the Spirit, which falls on the community as the city of Jerusalem celebrates the feast of Pentecost. It’s a festival that celebrates the harvest that the Spirit takes in that day as the community is empowered to speak the message of Jesus in ways that transcend differences and invites whoever would come to join with the community through baptism. It’s been observed by many that Pentecost seems to overturn Babel. The separation of peoples according to language and dialect disempowers, but in the Spirit, through the gift of languages, the separation of people ends and the diversity of the human community is drawn together by God. In baptism, this diverse non-monochromatic, non-monolinguistic community is drawn together as the family of God. Many are surprised then and now that the family of God could be so diverse. How can this be? Peter answers by pointing to the promise of the Spirit, which is poured out upon young and old, male and female, so that they might see visions and dream dreams. Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved – and of course that word has its own nuances that need to be unpacked.

Acts 2 doesn’t speak directly to the idea of family, but in Romans 8 Paul makes explicit the notion of a familial relationship into which we’ve been invited. Everyone who is led by the Spirit of God is a son or daughter of God. This is an important statement for Paul, because he wants to contrast our identity as a child of God with our former status as slaves. “You didn’t receive a spirit of slavery to leads you back again to fear,” Paul writes. This is an important world for our day because so many people, even in Middle America, live in fear. We buy guns, huddle behind walls, seek passage of laws that will exclude the stranger – whether the immigrant, the person with disabilities, or persons with mental illness.

Are you in bondage to fear? Such was our former state, according to Paul. But there is another possibility. We have received a different Spirit, a Spirit that enables our adoption as God’s children. And as God’s children we can cry out to God: “Abba, Father.” When we do this, God’s Spirit is bearing witness to our spirit that we are now God’s children, and as children of God we are also heirs of God – together with Jesus, our elder brother. As Amos Yong puts it,

“the Spirit who is the love of the Father for the Son is now the Spirit that is the love of the Father for all who are in the Son. Put another way, the Father who loves the Son in the Spirit now also loves all those who are in the Son by the same Spirit. Thus are the gift of Christ and the gift of the Spirit two sides of the one coin of divine love, the former reflecting and the latter expressing God’s salvific passion for the world” [Yong, Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace, p. 126].

We need not fear, for we are children of God. And as children we receive the blessings of God’s love; for even as a parent loves a child, so God loves the children of God.

Even though we go through suffering, we do so with Jesus. What he experiences, we experience. So, even as we suffer with Jesus, and he with us, so we share with him the glory he receives from God. Our own experiences of suffering and pain are expressions of our finiteness. But, as Karl Barth puts it:

“In the Spirit, we are enabled to know the meaning of our life, as it is manifested in suffering. In the Spirit, suffering, endured and apprehended, can become our advance to the glory of God. This revelation of the secret, this apprehension of God in suffering, is God’s action in us. Such comprehension is the witness of the Spirit by which the truth is permitted to be the Truth, and is also the guarantee that we are children of God, and, as such, heirs of His glory” [Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 301].

We may not have all the answers to why there is suffering in the world, but surely God is not the cause. Therefore, as we go through suffering, we can draw close to the one who has adopted us as children, and find both freedom and courage to go forward in life.

The third witness to the action of the Spirit in our midst comes from the Gospel of John. Philip wants to see the Father. Jesus responds by telling him that because they have seen him, they have seen the father. Jesus is, according to John’s testimony, the revelation of God. While we don’t have an explicit word about being welcomed into the family here, Jesus reveals the presence of the Father – and promises a companion who will be present within them and go with them -- surely this makes one part of God’s family. One of the messages of Pentecost is that the people of God are empowered by the Spirit to do the words of God. We don’t “do” to impress God. We “do” because God is present with us. The focus isn’t on works, but on letting the Spirit be free to work through us in the world. And the promise here is that those who are indwelt by the Spirit will do greater works than those done by Jesus. What these are and how they should be experienced isn’t revealed. It’s just a promise, but do we not trust the promise of the one who sends the Companion, the Paraclete, who is the Spirit of Truth, who lives within us and is with us. There is much work to be done in the world. There is that spirit of fear that is loose in our world. Injustice is rampant. Violence, assault, exclusion – the Spirit is ready to guide us into the world to address these great needs. Love can be the antidote to the fear that seeks to reign. The promise is there of the Companion, but there is also a request – to pray. I struggle with my own prayers, but Jesus reminds us that the power of the Spirit comes to us through the ministry of intercession: “When you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it” (vs. 14 CEB). John McClure writes that “the community’s ‘greater works’ of love begin in intercession – in becoming a community of people who go between the world and God through prayer.” He continues: “We are intercessory people – a community of go-betweens, fellow-advocates with the Holy Spirit, bringing the suffering of the world to God, and bringing God’s healing balm to the world” [Preaching God's Transforming Justice: A Lectionary Commentary, Year C, p. 252].

Welcome to the family of God, filled with and empowered by the Spirit, we are adopted children of God, filled with the love of God, and therefore sent out into the world doing the works of God, serving as intercessors, go-betweens, with God and world, bringing to the world the saving grace of God.

Spotlight on the Religious Left -- Sightings (Martin E. Marty)

2013-05-14T05:00:00.000-04:00

We often hear about the Religious Right in the media. There are a number of reasons for this, but what about the Religious Left? Do they exist? What are they up to? They (we) do exist, but why don't we make the headlines? These are some of the questions raised and pondered by Martin Marty in this week's Sightings column. Perhaps, as Professor Marty suggests, social justice and equality just isn't as sexy as sex (abortion and gay marriage). Take a read, offer your thoughts.

**********************************

Sightings

Spotlight on the Religious Left

by Martin E. Marty
Monday | May 13 2013

Almost always Sightings takes off from the sighting of a particular recent news event. This week, for fun and games, we’ll make an exception and address a generic theme: the religious left.

Several weeks ago we commented on Jim Wallis, the leader of Sojourners (a progressive, Christian social justice organization), who is often cited as being a long-time advocate of causes marked “Left.” He sees himself as a bridge-builder across religious camps separated by the divides and poles that disrupt discourse and creative action in “secular” and “sacred” America. Among responses to that Sojourners column, some asked whySightings did not more frequently treat the Left, the subject of so much criticism by the easily-identified Right.

Some internet word-checking suggests that through the years we have pointed to and analyzed the Right four times for every three notices of the Left. In the public media, the Right, the Religious Right, and the Christian Right draw far more attention than does the Left. Why?

First, because the Religious Right is more noticeable than the Religious Left. The Westboro Baptist Church, that independent Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, whose tiny but noisy membership disrupts military funerals, knows how to snag media coverage, as more liberal or moderate causes and movements do not.

A second reason given by noticers of these things is that the Religious Right is far more extravagantly funded, and has the means to generate publicity.

Third, the Right's membership is more mobilizable than its counterparts in moderate and liberal camps. And so on, and so on.

The sounds of advocacy for many causes by the Left have been drowned out because “sex” has grabbed attention. Gay marriage these years, atop old arguments over homosexuality is—shall we say?—a sexier topic than debates over justice, equality, care of others, and the like. We trust you’ve noticed that.

What do people tabbed as being on the Religious Left talk about? For a change I’ve attached a couple of references. I could also have pointed to Tikkun, a leftist-progressive Jewish magazine, and to other Jewish approaches to justice, or to the rich library of Roman Catholic documents promoting “social justice”—the term the Right despises—while only Catholic teaching on sex-and-“life” issues gets public attention.

Protestants for the Common Good, “People of faith advancing justice in public life,” is a well-established organization that reveals that not all Protestant/Evangelical concern is on the Right.

Larry Greenfield, old colleague and friend, regularly posts a “thinking theologically” column on Protestants for the Common Good’s website, for which readers can sign up to stay informed on all this. In his May 8, 2013, post, appended in Sightings today, Greenfield opens with a sardonic “Whoopee!” after the news, “Dow Breaks 15,000.” Good for his personal retirement account, he says, but he still reminds his readers of urgent issues, even as he holds up the mirror to “us Christians.” He asks, are we yet “a part of that cadre of advocates demanding that the nation recover its devotion not just to freedom but also to equality as an essential part of our national unity?”

“We,” with retirement accounts, can celebrate this week, Greenfield writes. But what about others? The 100,000 homeless people who are being removed from emergency shelters because of “sequestration?” The elderly who won’t get hot meals any more? The children in poverty who will experience the loss of $2.7 billion in programs like Head Start? He points to many other victims of bad policies in our prosperous land.

Read Greenfield and his kind. If I say more, I may get typed as being on the Religious Left: A polarized polarizer.

References:

Antoniades, Andri. “Liberals in our Midst: How the Religious Left Is Changing America’s Future.” TakePart.com. December 10, 2012. http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/12/10/lefties-our-midst-how-religious-left-are-changing-our-futures.

FitzGerald, Garrett. “Language of the Left: Liberal, Progressive, and Radical.”TheReligiousLeft.org. March 11, 2013. http://www.thereligiousleft.org/2013/03/language-of-left-liberal-progressive.html.

Greenfield, Larry. “Subjunctive Unity.” TheCommonGood.org. May 8, 2013. http://ww.thecommongood.org/blogs/author/lgreenfield/.

Author, Martin E. Marty, is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.

Editor, Myriam Renaud, is a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS?
Email DivSightings@gmail.com

http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/

Straining at the Oars -- Review

2013-05-13T05:00:00.000-04:00

STRAINING AT THE OARS: Case Studies in Pastoral Leadership. By H. Dana Fearon III with Gordon S. Mikoski. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013. Xx +118 pages.

It is a regular complaint heard among clergy – “I didn’t learn how to do this (or that) in seminary.” The transition from seminary to ministry can be overwhelming for many. Internships and CPE are designed to help ease the transition, but even they don’t always prepare you for the realities of parish ministry. One wonders whether the complaints are justified. Is seminary purely vocational training, or is it designed to provide the necessary theological and biblical foundations that one needs to serve effectively? Perhaps one must make the transition into ministry before one is ready to wrestle with the big questions posed by pastoral ministry. That is, like other professions, there will remain a strong need for ongoing continuing education that can help one develop skills needed for the long term.

One way to do this work is to gather regularly with colleagues and discuss case studies. The case study method has been used in a variety of professions to assist in continuing education. You take a particular story or scenario, read it, think about it, and then discuss it with peers, seeking a solution to a problem. The Academy of Parish Clergy, an organization born at the end of the 1960s, at a time when pastoral ministry was seeking greater professional respectability, has long utilized this method for their colleague groups.

H. Dana Fearon III, a retired Presbyterian pastor who guest lectured at Princeton Theological Seminary during his long tenure as pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville, New Jersey, recognized this need and together with Gordon S. Mikoski, Associate Professor of Christian Education at Princeton, he offers us this collection of case studies drawn from his own ministry. The title of the book, Straining at the Oars serves as a useful metaphor for the work done by clergy in parish ministry. He writes that “like the disciples as they rowed through the storm, we encounter obstacles for which we are unprepared, sometimes leading us to a sense of despair. Time and again, however, Jesus makes his presence known, joins us in the struggle, challenges the wind and waves, renews our courage, and helps us reach the far shore” (p. xv).

The book lays out twenty-one cases or scenarios ranging from decision-making in the congregation to engagement in the public square. In each chapter the authors lay out a dilemma or challenge and then provide reflections that assist the reader/discussion group to grapple with the situation and come up with a solution. Fearon offers his own resolutions to the issue – that is – “pastoral actions” – but they’re meant to be suggestive not prescriptive. There is, for instance, a strong Presbyterian orientation to the actions suggested – the authors are, after all, Presbyterian. Therefore, one may need to translate this for one’s own situation.

To give but one example – one of the chapters deals with the value of wearing the collar. In many traditions, especially Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, and Lutheran, the clerical collar is standard dress. For others, including my own tradition, which has an anti-clerical dimension, collars are uncommon. I’ve noticed an increasing number of colleagues wearing them, especially when engaged in ecumenical and public events, but for most of us this is rather foreign (I’ve never worn one), so I might need to think about other ways of being present in public as clergy. Another example would relate to the question of whether one baptizes a baby in duress for persons who aren’t church members. As I'm part of a tradition that practices believer’s baptism this normally wouldn’t come up, but then again it does come up.

On the other hand, the majority of chapters deal with questions every pastor or clergyperson faces – from prayer to taking congregations on a pathway of change to the question of having friends in the congregation. This latter question was recently raised in the Christian Century, providing for a rather fierce debate. Fearon suggests one must distinguish between friends and cronies. One is likely to develop friendships with members – it’s only natural – but one must beware of allowing members to become cronies – that is people who gain power by their relationship to the pastor, or who provide power to the pastor. The key here is recognizing where the necessary boundaries lie and respecting confidences. One should be friendly to all, but recognize that one will likely draw closer to some members. One of the suggested solutions is that one should recognize that “friends know there are challenges in being a pastor, and they do not ask for inside information since they want to support a friend and not make life more difficult” (p. 36).

Each chapter ends with three questions for reflection and discussion. These questions are designed to push the reader to more fully engage with the question. They are the beginning of the conversation, not its ending. But those of us who are clergy, whether just entering the field or having been in the field for some time (I’ve been ordained nearly thirty years and have served as a parish pastor for the past fifteen), these case studies should provide a valuable resource. If nothing else, this book is a reminder to those of us in ministry that we must continually upgrade our knowledge and skills – in large part because seminary isn’t designed to provide everything we need for effective ministry.

The book is short in length, with chapters that are equally brief. They’re not intended to be exhaustive, but rather suggestive of challenges and solutions. Seminary professors in the area of practical ministry will find this useful, as will those who are leading internship practicums. I think that this is a good resource for clergy just entering ministry to gather with other colleagues in a similar situation to discuss the challenges they’re about to face. And as I said, those of us who have been on the road for the while will benefit from our conversations instigated by these authors. Since I’m mentioning this need, I can offer a plug for the Academy of Parish Clergy, which encourages clergy to gather for such conversations. My sense is that this book will be of greatest benefit if it’s read and discussed in such a group of colleagues, that we might learn from each other. Besides, if we're going to get to the other side in the company of Jesus we need to row together!

Let them be One -- As We are One (Reflection for Seventh Sunday of Easter)

2013-05-12T05:30:00.000-04:00

²⁰“I’m not praying only for them but also for those who believe in me because of their word. ²¹I pray they will be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. I pray that they also will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. ²²I’ve given them the glory that you gave me so that they can be one just as we are one. ²³I’m in them and you are in me so that they will be made perfectly one. Then the world will know that you sent me and that you have loved them just as you loved me.

²⁴“Father, I want those you gave me to be with me where I am. Then they can see my glory, which you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

²⁵“Righteous Father, even the world didn’t know you, but I’ve known you, and these believers know that you sent me. ²⁶I’ve made your name known to them and will continue to make it known so that your love for me will be in them, and I myself will be in them.” (John 17:20-26 Common English Bible)

I'm not preaching today (I'm on vacation), but I do want to share a passage of scripture for the day. It's Mother's Day, which isn't a religious event, but mothers are worthy of honor -- we've all had one. But it's also the Seventh Sunday of Easter (and for many it's Ascension Sunday). The gospel reading for today comes from the Gospel of John. Jesus has finished supper with the disciples. He's washed their feet. He's given them final instructions. Now he prays (John 17:1 reads: "When Jesus finished saying these things, he looked up to heaven and said, 'Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son can glorify you'.").

In the text for the day, Jesus prays that those who are his disciples and those who believe as a result of their testimony would be one -- just as Jesus and the Father are one." For those of us who have a passion for unity among Christians this has been a key passage of Scripture. In this prayer Jesus speaks of unity being the foundation of the witness of the disciples -- let them be one so that the world might believe.

The Christian community has always struggled with this prayer -- not that we don't agree with it, we just struggle with its implementation. We know from our readings of the Johannine literature that writer of this gospel was concerned about the threat of disunity. Paul shares his concerns. One writer after another down through the ages has complained of our lack of unity. But how do we attain to this unity that Jesus prayed for? Constantine and Theodosius sought to give state backing to efforts to reign in disunity (for political reasons). The Roman Church has always held up the Pope as the symbol of the unity that Jesus prayed for. Agreement with the Pope, who represents Christ on earth, is supposed to unify the church (though the extent to which this is true you be the judge). After the Reformation in England Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity, first in 1549 and then again in 1552 (Edward VI), again in 1559 at at the behest of Queen Elizabeth I , and then once more in 1662 at the Restoration of the Stuart rule. These Parliamentary Acts decreed that all licit worship should be guided by the Book of Common Prayer (in its various forms). None of these efforts, despite the threat of coercion, have led to unity.

If this unity that Jesus prays for is to be secured, and I for one pray for it, it won't come with coercion. It won't be expressed through uniformity. Instead, it will come as we learn to love one another, recognizing in each other of the presence of this same Christ who offers the prayer. That which binds us is the love of God in Christ.

Let us be one in Christ that we might be one with the Father, so that we might make this witness known.

Women of the Wall Prevail -- Sightings (Sara Hirschhorn)

2013-05-10T11:42:00.000-04:00

For Americans the state of Israel is something of an enigma. We often hear that it is our most important democratic ally in the Middle East. Sometimes we even speak of it in terms that equate Israeli democracy and practice with American processes. One of the questions that I've long wrestled with concerns whether a nation can be a true democracy and be a religiously defined state. That is, even if you provide for a modicum of religious freedom, it would seem that if religion or ethnicity defines the nature of a state, someone or some group will end up being a second class citizen. Such is the case in Israel. Ironically, even Jews face discrimination in Israel, because religious affairs have been placed in the hands of the ultra-orthodox (even though a majority of Israelis are secularists). So, in this article by Sarah Hirschhorn we see how that divide affects women who desire to pray at the Western Wall, and have been prevented by religious officials, even though women had this right prior to the founding of the state of Israel. (see picture) Take a read, offer your thoughts.

******************************

Sightings

Women of the Wall Prevail

by Sara Hirschhorn
Thursday | May 9 2013

Nashot Ha-Kotel (Women of the Wall) in Jerusalem, led by the Israeli-firebrand social activist, Anat Hoffman, are back in the headlines this week following a major legal victory. The court ruling marks a turning point in a more than two decades-long struggle between the Israeli government, various religious authorities, and the increasingly prominent activist group. Since its founding in 1988 at the First International Jewish Feminist Conference, this women’s organization — of multiple Jewish denominations and nationalities — has worked to secure in their words, “the social and legal recognition of our right, as women, to wear prayer shawls, pray, and read from the Torah collectively and out loud at the Western Wall.”

For years, Nashot Ha-Kotel has experienced incremental victories and (sometimes) violent challenges to its agenda, culminating in a landmark legal decision in late April, 2013, by the Jerusalem District Court, that the group was not in violation of “local custom” — an obscure loophole exploited by detractors to delegitimize their ritual and prayer at the Wall (Kotel) — thus placing Nashot Ha-Kotel on firmer legal footing for the future.

Though the Court has issued a ruling (which may yet be challenged in higher courts according to breaking news), the activities of Women of the Wall continue to be adjudicated in the public sphere, especially in light of the multiple religious and ethnic interests vested in this issue. While alternately condoned and condemned as radical feminist trailblazers, the activism of Nashot Ha-Kotel can be read as conservative in that its campaign would allow women’s status at the Western Wall to revert to patterns of the pre-state era (and earlier). While perhaps not commonly known, in earlier periods women and men prayed in mixed company and the Wall was a major site of female devotional life, in contrast to the strictures imposed by the (ultra) Orthodox supervisors of the Kotel today.

Pre-state traditions notwithstanding, Women of the Wall has self-consciously sought to mobilize various historical tropes of liberation in the Israeli context, linking feminist notions of freedom with Zionist narrative of the capture of Jerusalem and the Western Wall in the 1967 war.

This bridging of the personal and the political (and embedding their activities within the national-religious framework of Israel) runs over troubled waters, however. Hoffman’s recent keynote address at the Markowicz lecture at Brandeis University (kicking off a one-day conference, "Gendered Rites/Gendered Rights: Sex Segregation, Religious Practice, and Public Life," at the Hadassah-Brandeis Institute) illustrated the complexity of balancing gender rights against other competing interests such as rights for the disabled, other denominations of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, class, and race. (Most poignantly and problematically, these competing interests seem to include national security: Hoffman was recently labeled a “strategic threat” to the State of Israel for antagonizing conservative Diaspora donors.) Her nuanced presentation at Brandeis underscored both the tensions and unlikely alliances that have emerged in her unique struggle to achieve gender equality in Israel.

Recent legal gains aside, all is not water under the bridge. A new compromise has taken shape: the creation of an egalitarian prayer area at Robinson’s Arch, a Second Temple era masterpiece in the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. Dubbed the “Sharansky Plan” after Natan Sharansky, the Soviet Jewish activist cum Israeli powerbroker — who knows a thing or two about religious and political repression — the proposal effectively moves the question physically and ideologically out of the realm of ultra-Orthodox control. Though the Women of the Wall expressed tentative support for the proposal, especially since Nashot Ha-Kotel has held services in this area in years past, Hoffman issued a stone-faced rejection following the recent legal victory. The consensus on the measure has subsequently crumbled.

While many question the significance of devoting so much political capital to reaching a compromise with Women of the Wall given the deteriorating dynamics of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, Nashot Ha-Kotel has emerged as a kind of canary in the coal mine for pluralism in the holy land. While the future of the organization and its goals are part of a history that remains to be written, Nashot Ha-Kotel has helped break down barriers at the Western Wall and beyond.

References:

Women of the Wall. Accessed May 9, 2013. http://womenofthewall.org.il/.

State of Israel v. Ras et al., Jerusalem, Israel. Filed April 24, 2013. Translated by Rina Ne’eman Hebrew Language Services.

Horowitz, Elliott. “The Women’s Wall.” Tablet: A New Read on Jewish Life, April 30, 2013.

“Reclaim and Liberate the Kotel.” Women of the Wall. Accessed May 9, 2013.

“Women in Israel: From the Back of the Bus to the Top of the Agenda, 5th Annual Diane (Dina) Markowicz Lecture on Gender and Human Rights, presented by Anat Hoffman.”HBI Hadassah-Brandeis Institute. Accessed May 9, 2013.

Sales, Ben. “Foundations Falter for Sharansky’s Western Wall Plan.” The Times of Israel, May 1, 2013.

Author, Sara Yael Hirschhorn, earned an M.A. in Middle East Studies and a Ph.D. in History (Middle East) from the University of Chicago. She is now a post-doctoral fellow at the Schusterman Center for Israel Studies at Brandeis University where her research focuses on the Israeli settler movement, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the relationship between the U.S./American-Jewry and Israel.

Editor, Myriam Renaud, is a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS?
Email DivSightings@gmail.com

http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/

Head over all things -- An Ascension Day Meditation (Ephesians 1)

2013-05-09T10:32:00.001-04:00

¹⁵Since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people, this is the reason that ¹⁶I don’t stop giving thanks to God for you when I remember you in my prayers. ¹⁷I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, will give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation that makes God known to you. ¹⁸I pray that the eyes of your heart will have enough light to see what is the hope of God’s call, what is the richness of God’s glorious inheritance among believers, ¹⁹and what is the overwhelming greatness of God’s power that is working among us believers. This power is conferred by the energy of God’s powerful strength. ²⁰God’s power was at work in Christ when God raised him from the dead and sat him at God’s right side in the heavens, ²¹far above every ruler and authority and power and angelic power, any power that might be named not only now but in the future.²²God put everything under Christ’s feet and made him head of everything in the church, ²³which is his body. His body, the church, is the fullness of Christ, who fills everything in every way.

MADE HIM HEAD OVER ALL THINGS FOR THE CHURCH

The second half of the first chapter of Ephesians (1 :1 5-23) continues the vision of worship with which the chapter begins. The focus here is upon Christ, in whom God has chosen to bring all things together in wholeness. As it moves toward a climax, the author revels in the power of the resurrection, by which God raised Christ into the heavenly places, where he would stand far above all rulers and authorities, not only in this age, but in the age to come. While the incarnation may have brought limitation upon Christ, in the resurrection those bonds have been broken. The doxology moves forward to a powerful scene in which Christ, sitting at the right hand of God, receives the tribute due one who is head over all things. In this new station, Christ is made head over all things “for the church.” And the church is defined here as being the body of Christ, which is “the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

What is powerfully laid out here is a vision of the church itself, reflecting and even embodying the glory that now belongs to the risen Christ. This vision of the church as the body of Christ, with Christ as its head, will appear again in the Ephesian letter (see Ephesians 5:21 ff). This vision of the church, embodying the fullness that is Christ, serves as a call to missional action — returning to the idea that begins the chapter, that the church has been blessed with every spiritual blessing, so that it might in turn be a blessing.

Excerpted from my book: Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide, (Energion, 2010), p. 17.

Why Vote in Local Elections?

2013-05-08T09:31:00.000-04:00

13 Every person should place themselves under the authority of the government. There isn’t any authority unless it comes from God, and the authorities that are there have been put in place by God. (Romans 13:1 Common English Bible)

Americans like to complain about the quality of their elected leaders. "They're all crooks!" "They're all bought and paid for by special interests." I could go on and on, but you know the story. The problems with our assessment is that "we the people" are the ones who elect these women and men to be our representatives. We get the people we vote for -- or don't vote for, if we don't vote.

I began this posting with Romans 13:1. It's a famous passage of Scripture, wherein Paul tells the Roman church that they should obey the authorities, because God has ordained them for this purpose. Now the Roman authorities weren't elected to office, but Paul insists that God ordains order and government provides it. So, if government is ordained, then shouldn't we participate -- after all, "we the people" are the government.

Americans come out in large numbers during Presidential years, but sit home on off years elections, like 2010. But there are consequences, especially in a year like 2010 when census' determine redistricting across the country. Republicans came out and voted, Democrats sat home. Now, for the next 7 years or so, Republicans likely will have advantages in legislative races. We get what ask for when we don't vote.

Yesterday the city of Troy, which is where I make my home, had a special election for mayor. We really didn't need the special election, but it was deemed necessary by the state, so we had an election. With one item to decide, about 15% of the voters came out -- absentee voters accounted for almost half. I voted absentee for the first time because I wasn't in town to vote. I'm relieved that Dane Slater, the current acting mayor was elected to fill the term of the recalled mayor. So, while I'm glad that the person I supported won, I'm disappointed that so few people chose to come out and vote.

I believe in the necessity of government -- a balance between oversight and freedom. I believe in democracy. But for a democracy to function, the voter -- the foundation of government in a democracy -- must be informed and willing to expend the time and effort to vote, not just every 4 years, but every election.

You may not think that a local election is important, but local elections have important consequences. So, if you believe in the words of Paul, become informed, and vote your conscience!

Faith, Grace, and the Arts -- Sightings (Martin Marty)

2013-05-07T09:06:00.000-04:00

I must admit that unlike Martin Marty I'm not an aficionado of either opera or poetry, but the relationship of faith and the arts is an important one to take note of. I'm going to leave to you to consider and converse with Professor Marty -- on the issue of how the media perceives the relationship of faith and the arts.

************************

Sightings

Faith, Grace, and the Arts

by Martin E. Marty
Monday | May 6 2013

Devoted to "public religion" or "religion-in-public," Sightings surveys public arenas that are not confined to the political world. Education, commerce, entertainment and the arts represent spheres where publics encounter religion.

The arts, which deserve more attention than Sightings gives them, have an important place in the Marty household. A favorite topic at home at the moment is Francis Poulenc’s Dialogues des Carmelites. Wife, Harriet, prepped for a recent broadcast of the Metropolitan Opera's performance of the Dialogues by spending months studying George Bernanos’ French-language text (which Poulenc set to music).

The April issue of Opera News was much devoted to this religion-themed opera. When Harriet and I read this issue, we were struck there by “Coda: Grace Notes” a surprisingly personal column written by Brian Kellow. He tells the story of his almost life-long atheism or religious indifference and his lack of preparation for the profound “Grace” themes in Poulenc’ work.

Unexpectedly, in the penultimate paragraph of his Opera News column, Kellow writes: “When I turned fifty, I became a Catholic, something that stunned several friends and family members.” More: “Perhaps because I do not find getting older a place of refuge or peace, I still view the promise of grace…as an immensely powerful idea.” This month Kellow will attend a performance of Carmelites for the first time as a Catholic and wonders: “Will this make any difference in how I respond?”

Equally unexpected is the more deliberative attention that the media has given to religious poetry, especially its recent focus on the work and life of a Christian poet named Christian Wiman. I have read his poetry in magazines and books and have known of him as editor of Poetry, a post from which he is currently resigning. Any time a poet gets long and generally favorable attention in The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune and other very public outlets, as well in The American Scholar and other notable journals, this is cause to sit up and pay attention.

More typical of the media are the cynical prose lines that exemplify so much of our popular culture. For example, in the May 6, 2013, New Yorker profile by Emily Nussbaum of Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the lead actor in television’s “Veep,” Nussbaum quotes an “acrid zinger” which “could come in handy in real-life Washington: “I’m about to enter a national ass-kicking context. With no legs. And a massive ass.”

And yet, eight pages past Nussbaum’s profile with its “zinger,” we find an unexpected and generous review by Adam Kirsch, Faith Healing: A Poet Confronts Illness and God. Kirsch comments on the work of Christian Wiman. What interests him is the explicitness of Wimans’ theological or confessional expressions.

Because of lack of space and so as not to over-compress quotes of Wiman’s, I won’t begin to quote. Today’s is the longest list of sources and references Sightings has ever provided. I hope it will inspire readers to range among them.

Wiman left the church of his childhood but came back, during or, some will say, because of great changes in his life. He retired from Poetry and will now be in residence at Yale’s Institute of Sacred Music. He married, and that changes everything. And—critics may now leap—he is living with the diagnosis of incurable cancer.

So? More poetry than not has been about love and death. Here are two samples from opera and poetry. We could cite others, but these samples, exceptions in our profane culture, for a moment, bid for equal time for love and grace and life.

References:

“Metropolitan Opera Broadcast: Dialogues des Carmelites.” Opera News 77:10 (2013).
.
Kellow, Brian. “Coda: Grace Notes.” Opera News 77:10 (2013).

Kirsch, Adam. “Faith Healing: A Poet Confronts Illness and God.” Review of Poetic Faithby Christian Wiman. The New Yorker, May 6, 2013.

Moyers & Company. “Biography of Christian Wiman.” Accessed May 5, 2013.

“Christian Wiman: Two Poems.” Moyers & Company, February 24, 2012.

“Christian Wiman on Living with Cancer and Finding Faith.” Moyers & Company, February 23, 2012. .

Muyumba, Walton. “A Poet Grapples With Faith And Death In The ‘Abyss’.” NPR Books, April 11, 2013. .

Nussbaum, Emily. “Crass Roots: ‘Veep’ grows up.” The New Yorker, May 6, 2013.

Sitman, Matthew. “On Christian Wiman’s ‘My Bright Abyss’.” The Dish Blog, April 7, 2013.
.
Stevens, Heidi. “Christian Wiman, editor of Poetry, changes his meter.” Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2013.

Author Martin E. Marty is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity atthe Divinity School. His biography, publications, and contact information can be found at biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.

Editor Myriam Renaud is a PhD Candidate in Theology at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS?
Email DivSightings@gmail.com

A Philippian Prison Experience -- Meditation on Luke 16:16-34

2013-05-06T05:30:00.000-04:00

The lectionary reading for the 6th Sunday of Easter takes us to Philippi, where Paul and his companions meet a Gentile God-worshiper named Lydia. The Spirit enables her to receive Paul's message and she accepts baptism. But, Lydia isn’t the only woman in Philippi whose life is impacted by Paul’s ministry.

Luke’s narrative takes Paul and Silas down the streets of Philippi to the place of prayer, and on the way they encounter

a slave girl with a spirit of divination. This girl was, we’re told, possessed by the spirit of the python or pythian spirit, which was related to the Delphic oracles under the control of the god Apollo. Such a spirit, which exhibited itself in ecstatic utterances, was highly regarded in Greek society. Charlatans, including this woman's masters, often took advantage of this gift for profit. We’re told that this woman's "gift" brought her masters a great deal of money.

As they walked by, the spirit in the woman recognized them and cried out that they were "slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation." Like the demon possessed people who cried out and revealed Jesus’ identity (Luke 4:40-41), it is the demon possessed who proclaim the gospel in this setting, declaring that Paul and Silas bring with them the way of salvation. These outbursts occurred over a period of several days, and finally Paul, having grown annoyed at her “heckling” turned to the spirit that controlled her and commanded it to leave the woman, which it did (vs. 18). In doing so, they demonstrated the power of their God, over that of the spirit and its sponsor.

As one might expect, the woman's masters did not take kindly to Paul's act of exorcizing the woman’s spirit. Although the woman was free from its possession, her owners lost a valuable commodity, one that had made them rich. Seeing that the woman could no longer prophesy for them, the owners sought to have Paul and Silas punished. This story demonstrates that the spiritual and the economic often intersect. This wasn’t just a spiritual battle, it was an economic one, which the owners didn’t appreciate.

The owners had the two missionaries dragged into the agora or marketplace, and placed them before the magistrates (Roman praetors) charging them with being Jews who taught customs unlawful to Romans. The men got the crowd riled up, and incited them to violence. The magistrates gave permission for the crowd to beat Paul and Silas with rods, something they did eagerly. After the beatings the magistrates threw the two men into a cell. All this occurred without a trial. It would appear that this scene resulted from a combination of things – religious differences, economics, and an anti-Jewish sentiment that seemed to lay just under the surface of Gentile society.

The magistrates charged the jailer with keeping the men securely locked in the jail. Following his orders closely, the jailer put Paul and Silas, bleeding from their wounds, in the innermost cell and put their legs in stocks. Despite the ruthless nature of this beating, we find Paul and Silas, locked in a cell, bleeding from a severe beating, singing and praising God in their cell at midnight. Their calm and their worshipful purpose represent a scene for Luke of cosmic battle. Robert Wall and Tony Robinson write:

In Acts prisons symbolize the location where a cosmic battle between God and evil (or Zeus) is waged. What Paul and Silas are doing there, as God’s agents, exemplifies God’s triumphant response to evil: they are “praying and singing hymns to God” (v. 25). Their acts of devotion are resurrection practices. The other prisoners listen to their witness, and what those prisoners hear interprets the earthquake as God’s answer. [Robert W. Wall and Anthony B. Robinson, Called to be Church, (Eerdmans, 2006), p. 197.]

While they were singing and praising God, an earthquake struck, and with it the cells were opened and the shackles fell off. Everyone in the jail was free to leave, but as we see, they didn’t. The jailer, awakened by the quake and expecting to find the jail empty of its contents, drew his sword to kill himself. Why, we’re not sure. Most likely he knew he would be held responsible for the escape, and thus the honorable thing to do was kill himself. It would lend some dignity to his death.

Paul and Silas, realizing what the man was about to do, told him to stop since they were still there. They never left, even though they could have easily escaped. The jailer, shocked by the decision not to escape, fell down before them, and asked what he had to do to be saved. This request parallels earlier requests – at Pentecost, in Samaria, the eunuch. The person is confronted by something powerful and knows that they must respond. What they mean by being saved may differ from person to person. What is important to note that in this case the person is not Jewish nor is he a God-fearer. He would not have had the same kind of background understanding that Lydia or Cornelius might have. But, he knew something powerful had happened and he sought solace in it.

Having heard the message of Christ explained to him, the jailer took the two prisoners to his own house, where he tended to their wounds. After washing the wounds of the two men, the jailer and his household submitted to baptism, as Luke says, "without delay." The great fifth century preacher, John Chrysostom commented on this situation:

He washed and was washed; he washed them from their stripes, and he himself was washed from his sins. [John Chrysostom, Homily 36:2 quoted in F.F. Bruce, Acts, NICNT, (Eerdmans)338.]

Note that it was the entire household that was baptized. The decision of the head of the household would have been sufficient for all who dwelt in it. Although in infant baptism traditions, parents still make hat decision, for those of us in a more baptistic tradition, we would leave it to the individual to make the decision. But, it would be good for us to consider the implications of such a movement.

As we consider the stories of Paul's ministry in Philippi, especially his ministry with the family of the Philippian jailer, we have confirmation of the words of Peter at the Jerusalem Council concerning the Gentile mission:

¹²The entire assembly fell quiet as they listened to Barnabas and Paul describe all the signs and wonders God did among the Gentiles through their activity. ¹³When Barnabas and Paul also fell silent, James responded, “Fellow believers, listen to me. ¹⁴Simon reported how, in his kindness, God came to the Gentiles in the first place, to raise up from them a people of God. ¹⁵The prophets’ words agree with this; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and I will rebuild David’s fallen tent; I will rebuild what has been torn down. I will restore it even all the Gentiles who belong to me. The Lord says this, the one who does these things^[a]¹⁸

known from earliest times.

¹⁹“Therefore, I conclude that we shouldn’t create problems for Gentiles who turn to God. ²⁰Instead, we should write a letter, telling them to avoid the pollution associated with idols, sexual immorality, eating meat from strangled animals, and consuming blood. ²¹After all, Moses has been proclaimed in every city for a long time, and is read aloud every Sabbath in every synagogue.” (Acts 15:12-21).

Here is the evidence, that the message of Jesus had found its home among the Gentiles.

Adventuring with God -- Sermon for Easter 6C

2013-05-05T10:30:00.000-04:00

Acts 16:9-15

Who doesn’t want to go on an adventure? The way you answer the question might depend on the nature of the adventure. My little adventure on the way home from the Regional Assembly yesterday isn’t one I’d choose. You see, I hit something that tore up my tire. I made it home safe, but my journey took much longer than I anticipated!

Now, as for the grand adventure Bilbo Baggins takes in The Hobbit, together with Gandolf and his band of Dwarfs, that’s a different situation. Bilbo initially didn’t want to go with Gandolf on the wizard’s grand adventure, but after thinking about it for a while, he decided that going was better than staying. That’s the choice – despite possible challenges and dangers, will you go or will you stay?

There’s a reason why we enjoy adventure stories like The Hobbit, Homer’s Odyssey, or Star Trek. Adventure stories allow us to vicariously experience the exploits of the participants in these adventures. Whether we read them or watch them on the big screen or small screen, if we’re willing to free up our imaginations, for a moment at least, these stories transport us into a different realm.

In many ways the Book of Acts is an adventure story. It’s full of challenges and dangers. For instance, Paul faces shipwrecks, gets bitten by snakes, and ends up in jail several times – just to name a few exploits. But he also sees the world, crossing boundaries along the way. He could’ve stayed home, but he didn’t.

Instead of Gandolf, Odysseus, or Captain Kirk being our guide, in the Book of Acts it’s the Holy Spirit who serves as the guide for these adventures. But not only does the Holy Spirit free up our imagination so we can have vicarious spiritual experiences, the Spirit also leads us on our own spiritual adventures.

Our Adventure began on Easter Sunday with the discovery that the Tomb was empty. But not only was the Tomb empty, the Risen Christ appeared to his disciples, beginning with Mary. In these resurrection appearances, Jesus reveals to us that death has met its match; life reigns victoriously. What begins on Easter Sunday continues on until today. In the Book of Acts the Holy Spirit reveals the presence of Jesus, calling and empowering the people of God to join together on a new adventure in the Spirit. Because of these encounters, lives are transformed.

For the past several weeks we’ve been hearing the stories of these transformative encounters with the Risen Christ. This morning we once again meet up with Paul. When we last visited with him, he was out preaching in the synagogues of Damascus, not so long after the Risen Christ had appeared to him on the road!

Between that event and the moment described in this morning’s text, Paul has finished his first missionary journey, returned to Jerusalem for a Council to deal with the challenges of integrating Gentiles into what was a predominantly Jewish sect, and then he’d headed out once again on a new adventure with God. This time he’s accompanied by Silas rather than Barnabas, and they’re trying to reach out to new areas of Asia Minor. For some reason the Spirit is impeding their progress. We’re not told how this happens, but something’s up.

In my imagination, I can see Paul and his companions, praying for guidance. I can see them, perhaps a bit frustrated, wondering where they should go. Every time they attempt to go one place or another, doors close. Then, in the night, as Paul is sleeping, he has a vision. In this vision he gets a new set of directions. A man from Macedonia appears and pleads with Paul to come to Macedonia and preach the gospel. When Paul wakes up, he tells his companions about the dream, and together they decide to follow what must be the Spirit’s lead, heading across the Aegean Sea into Macedonia. With this crossing of the sea, the gospel moves into Europe. A new barrier is crossed and a new adventure begins.

This adventure with God, which Paul and his companions undertake, begins back on the day of his Ascension. On that day, Jesus commissions the disciples to head out on a journey that would take them from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. But, the Risen Christ also tells them to wait until the Spirit had come upon them to give the power and the direction they’d need to fulfill their calling to be a missional people.

That commission and the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit remain in force to this day. That adventure, which begins in Acts continues on with us. And even as they crossed boundaries, so do we.

There are seas and there are mountains to cross, and at each stop along the way we get to share the blessings of God with those we meet – just as Paul and his companions got to do back in the earliest days of the church. They could’ve stayed home, but they didn’t. We can stay home, but will we?

As the story continues, Paul and his companions reach Philippi, a Roman colony in the region of Macedonia. Since it’s the Sabbath, they go down to the river to pray. Maybe they expected to find a group of Jews praying down by the river, and what they found was a group of women at this place of prayer. One of them was named Lydia. She was, a Gentile God-worshiper and a merchant of sorts. A conversation begins, and the Spirit enables Lydia to embrace Paul’s message.

There and then, she’s baptized. No questions asked, no long sessions; just a new beginning in the waters of baptism. Some commentators point out that Paul disappears from the story, which is a good reminder that it’s the Spirit who enables us to follow Jesus. That’s good news for us, because it means we’re not responsible for the success of our witness. Of course, even if we leave it to the Spirit, that’s no excuse to be obnoxious. That could be an impediment. But if we trust the message to the hands of God, then blessings will flow.

Of course this isn’t the end of the story. Lydia steps out in faith and invites this group of travelers to stay at her home. This is her way of giving thanks for the gift of grace. She responds to the Spirit’s blessing with a gift of hospitality.

When we go out on our adventures with the Spirit, we may have opportunity to receive hospitality. Yes, it’s not only good to offer hospitality, but it’s also good to graciously receive it. That is part of the ancient world’s understanding of life. We give and receive blessings, and in the course of welcoming the stranger and being welcomed as a stranger, new relationships get built.

Hospitality is – as Lonni Collins Pratt and Fr. Daniel Homan put it – “born in us when we are well loved by God and by others. Hospitality is the overflowing of a heart that has to share what it has received” (Radical Hospitality) That’s what happened with Lydia. It’s what can happen to us when we let our selves be blessed by the hospitality of others. Then our hearts can overflow towards the stranger. When we go on these adventures with the Spirit in the lead, we needn’t fear the stranger. Instead, we can embrace them so that the love of God revealed in the Risen Christ might be experienced by the world. And in a world of increasing hostility, this healing act of hospitality is needed now more than ever.

In our adventures with the Spirit, we too will meet our own Lydias. And when we let mutual love flow from us, lives will be transformed.

And just a warning – you never know in whom the Spirit will meet you. Remember the story of Abraham and Sarah’s three visitors? When they welcome these strangers into their tent, they’re given the promise of a child in fulfillment of God’s covenant promises. That’s why the author of Hebrews writes:

Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for in doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it (Heb. 13:1-2).

And The Rule of St. Benedict states:

All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say: “I as a stranger and you welcomed me.” (53:1)

Friday evening, I attended a lecture by Richard Kearney, a professor of Philosophy at Boston College, who writes about the transforming power of hospitality. He pointed to the relationship of hostility and hospitality – what the Spirit is doing is transforming hostility into hospitality.

As we continue our adventure with God, where there is hostility, God can create hospitality. So, what grand adventure in the Spirit awaits? Who will we meet? And how will we be transformed, as we meet the Risen Christ in the stranger?

Preached by:
Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, Pastor
Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Troy, MI
May 5, 2013
6th Sunday of Easter

Swinging Wide the Doors of Hospitality

2013-05-04T05:30:00.000-04:00

I want to thank Gloria for inviting me to share a few words with you this afternoon. The topic of your May Friendship Day is an important one. It’s also a very biblical idea. In the book of Hebrews, the author writes:

Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. (Heb. 13:1-2).

Then there’s that word from the Gospel of Matthew, in which the Son of Man says to the ones welcomed into the realm of God:

Come you that are blessed by my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me” (Mt. 25:34b-36).

These words from Scripture serve as an invitation to “swing wide open the doors of hospitality.” When asked when they had shared such hospitality with the Son of Man, he replied – “when you did it to the least of these.”

When we talk about true and radical hospitality, it involves opening our hearts to the other. It means becoming vulnerable to the other. It’s not about presentation or show. No, it’s a matter of investing our lives in the other, even if they can’t reciprocate. To be hospitable is to love our neighbor as we love our selves. This means more than being nice to one another. Or, as Lonni Collins Pratt and Fr. Daniel Holman put it in their book Radical Hospitality: Benedict's Way of Love: Benedict's Way of Love, 2nd Edition, (Paraclete, 2011).

Radical hospitality is not about being what one monk called “Minnesota nice” (referring to how really polite Minnesotans are); it is about transforming our hearts and our communities. It is about justice for every soul.

The kind of hospitality Jesus envisioned is seen in the story of Zacchaeus. Because he’s a tax collector, his neighbors despise him. Even though he might be wealthy, his only friends would have been other tax collectors, all of whom are seen as sinners.

I don’t know why Zacchaeus went to see Jesus that day, but he made every effort to see him. And Jesus saw him as well. Perhaps knowing the heart of Zacchaeus, Jesus invites himself to dinner. That might not seem like an act of hospitality, but in doing this Jesus gave Zacchaeus something he lacked – acceptance. And by welcoming Zacchaeus into his own circle, Jesus freed him to become a new person. Because Jesus extended a word of hospitality Zacchaeus’ life was changed forever. It’s unfortunate that the religious people in the crowd didn’t understand. It’s unfortunate that they didn’t understand God’s vision of hospitality, which involves swinging wide open the doors!

So, to whom should we sing wide the doors of hospitality? I appreciate the cover of your bulletin. There’s a person with some form of disability. There’s a young person. And there are three women standing together. One appears to be Jewish, one is African-American, and the third is Muslim. And we could continuing adding to this picture – Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Latino, Asian, and on and on. The door is open to all.

Yes, I do appreciate this vision of inclusion. It’s a vision that I’ve embraced as I’ve become more deeply involved in interfaith work. It’s a spirit that continues with me from last night, when I got to help lead the Troy-area Interfaith Group’s National Day of Prayer Observance. This was the ninth year that we’ve gathered to share prayers for our community, our nation, and our world. You may not know the story of the Troy-area Interfaith Group, but the impetus for it came when the planners of the local National Day of Prayer observance chose to exclude a Hindu participant. The event planners told the City Council that this was a Judeo-Christian event, and there was no room for a Hindu prayer. Fortunately a group of religious leaders joined together to offer an alternative observance, one that we continue to this day, as a sign of true hospitality.

So, how do we go about being hospitable? Lonni Collins Pratt and Fr. Dan Holman, offer this word of advice:

One of the peculiarities about really hospitable people is that they don’t go out looking for ways to be hospitable; they simply give it when there’s a chance to do so. It isn’t about results; it’s about changing the universe by becoming available to one person in one sliver of time.”

In your bulletin you’ll find a series of questions that invite us to consider what it means to be hospitable – as church, as Church Women United, and as individuals. As you consider these questions, consider also these words from the Rule of St. Benedict:

All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say: “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Rule 53:1).

Note:
Presentation given for the Church Women United May Friendship Day Service, hosted by the women of Central Woodward Christian Church, May 3, 2013.

The Fiction of Evangelical Friction -- Sightings (Noah Toly)

2013-05-03T12:41:00.001-04:00

Immigration reform is again on the table. While resistance and opposition remains, a growing coalition of groups, including religious groups, is moving toward support of a reform package that would include a pathway to citizenship for the millions of persons living in the United States without proper documents. Why is this? There are a number of reasons, but for Evangelicals there are two pieces that converge. One is that the Scriptures speak strongly about welcoming the stranger. The other has to do with relationships. With growing numbers of Latino Evangelicals, they are beginning to rub shoulders with each other. Building relationships does change attitudes. Noah Toly, who teaches at Evangelical bastion Wheaton College debunks the idea suggested by some that the Evangelical elite may back this, but not the majority of the people in the pews. Surveys suggest otherwise. I invite your to read and weigh in on this issue!

***********************

Sightings

The Fiction of Evangelical Friction

by Noah Toly
Thursday | May 2 2013

An April 13, 2013, New York Times article by Julia Preston reports a shift of opinions on immigration policy among evangelical Protestants in the United States. In her article, Preston suggests that there is a division between “Evangelical leaders” and the majority of evangelicals, or “the faithful.” According to Preston, “Evangelical leaders” have “broadly united” behind immigration reform, including the reform commonly called a “path to citizenship” for immigrants who are here illegally. These leaders are expanding their political influence “beyond abortion and same-sex marriage” through organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals and coalitions such as the Evangelical Immigration Table. In contrast, Preston writes, “the faithful” are less inclined to support immigration policy reform. Preston is not the only commentator to suggest such a gap. In a recent post to First Things, Mark D. Tooley, President of a conservative Christian think tank, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, suggests that the evangelical masses are being misrepresented and led astray by elites who have “pivoted into a larger menu of political issues” with specious biblical and theological warrant.

Such assertions do not match the data, however. Drawing upon recent survey research by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and the Brookings Institution, Preston notes “white evangelical Protestants were the least likely of the religious groups surveyed to support a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally, with only 56% of them favoring that approach.” In other words, while white evangelical Protestants are by no means a monolithic group, a majority of white evangelical Protestants do favor immigration reform, including a “path to citizenship” allowing “immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements.” Hence, it is not clear what liberties “Evangelical leaders,” or so-called elites, might be taking with the views of the “faithful.” Simply put, an opinion gap between “Evangelical leaders” and “the faithful” (Preston) or an opinion gap between “Evangelical elites” and the masses (Tooley) does not exist.

Nor is the evangelical Protestant majority being led astray by bad shepherds. Not that the efforts of evangelical leaders in favor of immigration reform have been in vain, but the data give the lie to oversimplified elitist theories of change. Rather than support the claim that the favorable shift among the evangelical majority can be ascribed to a few leaders, the PRRI/Brookings report suggests other possible causes of change such as generational differences, social class, educational attainment, and party affiliations. With regard to political commitments, a pragmatic recognition of the Republican Party’s vulnerability vis-à-vis growing numbers of Latino voters is leading to an about-face on the part of some voters, including perhaps some evangelical Protestants. The overall softening of evangelicals on immigration is due, at least in part, to these factors.

None of this excludes the possibility that evangelical Protestants are indeed thinking through the policy issues from a biblical and theological point of view. But given that two of the top five relevant “values” identified by the PRRI/Brookings research—the importance of the family, and human dignity—are staples of evangelical political discourse, this may not signal biblical or theological innovation. Instead, it might signal that evangelical Protestants are making connections between their core commitments and the plight of many immigrants. As Martin Marty writes, evangelicals “’believe their own eyes’ when they look, are dumbfounded, and are then motivated to change attitudes about the plight and agony of ‘illegal aliens’ and so many others. And they also believe their own eyes when they look at their scriptures, which put the need of the strangers, exiles, aliens, and newcomers first as bidders for consideration and change.” Typical evangelical Protestant convictions are being expressed in new or unexpected ways.

Why would this be? Preston suggests that familiarity with the stories of immigrant families may play a major role. She recounts changes of heart by a pastor and two parishioners whose positions on immigration reform shifted because of friendships and “personal encounters with immigrants in church.” As significant as is the impact of polls, podiums, and pulpits, shifts in the debates on immigration policy reform among evangelical Protestants may depend on the frequency and quality of concrete relationships between those sitting in the pews. How neighborly.

References:

Julia Preston, “For Evangelicals, a Shift in Views on Immigration,” New York Times April 13, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/us/evangelical-christians-increasingly-favor-pathway-to-legal-status-for-immigrants.html?pagewanted=all

Mark D. Tooley, “Evangelical Elites Immigration Agenda,” First Things (a blog published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life), April 17, 2013. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/author/mark-tooley/

Robert P. Jones, Daniel Cox, Juham Navarro-Rivera, E. J. Dionne, and William A. Galston, “Citizenship, Values, and Cultural Concerns: What Americans Want from Immigration Reform” (Washington, D.C.: Public Religion Research Institute, 2013). http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/03/2013-religion-values-immigration-survey/

Martin Marty, “Evangelicals Change and Make Changes,” Sightings, April 15, 2013.
http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/archive_2013/0415.shtml

Author Noah Toly is Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, and Director of Urban Studies at Wheaton College. He is a 2012-13 Senior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center where he is working on the project: The Macondoization of the World: Reckoning with Scarcity, Tragedy, and Risk.

Editor Myriam Renaud is a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS?
Email DivSightings@gmail.com

Gathering at the Waters -- A Lectionary Reflection for Easter 6C

2013-05-02T09:34:00.002-04:00

Acts 16:9-15

Revelation 21:10; 21:22-22:5

John 5:1-9

Gathering at the Waters

Whether we go to an ocean beach, walk along a lake shore or traverse a river, there is something powerfully refreshing and renewing about water. Water figures often in the biblical story. Seas and rivers must be divided so peoples can cross to the other side, so a new age can begin. Baptism serves a similar function. We go into the waters as one person, and come out the other side a new person. Waters have healing properties, or at least it appears that God uses water to provide healing. Such is the case with two of the lectionary texts for the week. As we hear these texts, what is the message to be found in the waters?

The previous lectionary reading from Acts 11 signaled a sea-change in the ministry of the church. Having spread from Jerusalem out into Judea and Samaria, after the baptism of Cornelius’ household the focus moves to the Gentile mission. The Gospel will move out toward the ends of the earth. We jump with Paul straight into this Gentile Mission. The first Council is now in the past. Some agreements have been made to legitimize in the eyes of the Jerusalem church Paul’s ministry. He has a new ministry partner – Silas – and they’re trying to explore new territories in Asia Minor, but for some reason the Spirit of God is impeding their progress (Acts 16:6-8). You get the sense that Paul and his companions are frustrated. They don’t know where to go, but then Paul has a vision. A man from Macedonia appears and invites Paul to come to Macedonia, to cross the Aegean, and take up a new ministry in Europe. Another boundary, a geographic one, must be crossed. So they immediately set out by ship, landing at Neapolis, and from there head toward Philippi, a leading city and a Roman colony. Mention of its status may signal Paul’s ultimate destination – the imperial capital.

Water figures again in the biblical story when Paul and his companions arrive at Philippi. Paul and his companions go to the river, seeking a place to pray. The Greek word proseuchē can mean both a place of prayer and synagogue. What Paul is looking for isn’t clear, but when he goes to the river he finds a group of women gathered for prayer. Among them is Lydia, who is described as a Gentile God-worshiper. She’s also a merchant who deals in purple cloth. Whether that means she’s wealthy or not is a matter of speculation. But, in this moment, gathered at the river, she hears the Gospel and the “Lord enabled her to embrace Paul’s message.” Having received the word, Lydia prevails upon Paul and has companions to receive her hospitality and stay at her home. Paul graciously receives this offer of hospitality. This brief story reveals few details, but it is a reminder that God is directing the mission. God has a vision, and the actors in this drama are moving along as God is opening and closing the doors.

I will move on to the reading from John’s Gospel. Jesus is in Jerusalem for a festival, and as he enters the city he comes to a pool of water, the pool of Bethsaida. It is a pool of water known for its healing properties. Those needing healing would gather there, hoping to enter the waters and receive healing. As Jesus passes by he notices a man who according to John had been there at the pool side for thirty-eight years. Such a long time waiting, but nothing to show for it.

Jesus asks the man – “Do you want to be healed?” What a silly question. That’s would been hoping for these thirty-eight years. Of course, Jesus was asking for him to express his desire. The man says, sure, but I don’t have anyone here to put me in the water when it’s stirred. Apparently the healing waters are only available occasionally – when God stirs them – and only for one person at a time. There is, it would seem, competition for these healing properties. Jesus tells the man – well just pick up your mat and get up and walk. And “immediately the man was well.” What is interesting about this passage is the Jesus doesn’t wait for the man to have faith. The healing is pronounced ahead of any sense of faith. This is an act of divine grace. And it occurs on a Sabbath, which raises the question – what is the purpose of Sabbath, if not restoration of body and soul.

Finally we come to the word from Revelation. John enters a “Spirit-inspired trance.” He views the city of Jerusalem coming down from heavens. And as he looks at this city – the New Jerusalem – he notices that there isn’t a Temple. That’s because God and the Lamb of God is the Temple. There isn’t a sun or moon, because the glory of God shines on the city. The nations gather in this city, and peace is present. The gates are never closed. Nothing unclean is present. I wonder, is it because the unclean have been excluded, or is it because God has declared all things to be clean? The reason for separation is past. All peoples find their hope in the One whose glory and light fills the city.

And then there is the river of life – the waters at which we shall gather. This river flows from the throne of God and the Lamb, down through the middle of the city. The Tree of Life sits on both sides of the river, providing crops each month to feed the city – so no hunger – and its leaves bringing healing to the nations. And when we gather at the river we’ll sing:

“Shall we gather at the river, where bright angel feet have trod, with its crystal tide forever flowing by the throne of God? Yes, we’ll gather at the river, the beautiful, the beautiful river; gather with the saints at the river that flows by the throne of God.” (Robert Lowry).

The Sacredness of Human Life --Review

2013-05-01T09:20:00.000-04:00

THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE: Why an Ancient Biblical Vision Is Key to the World's Future. By David P. Gushee. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013. Xvi + 461 pp.

What does it mean to call human life sacred? Is it just a word or does it have implications? If you turn on the news, it would appear that life is anything but sacred. Every day people are assaulted, killed, raped, maimed, and degraded. Humans are enslaved and trafficked. They’re forced to work and live in horrid conditions. So, is human life really sacred?

If we were to take seriously the message delivered by David Gushee in his new book The Sacredness of Life, then things would be different. The message is pretty simple – because God has pronounced life to be sacred, then we should treat each other with a respect and a love that is fitting someone or something that is consecrated by God.

I read a lot of books, most of them good, many being excellent. Some books, however, have a profundity that transforms ones vision of things. In my estimation The Sacredness of Human Life is one of those books. Not only is it an excellent book, it’s a prophetic book. Even where I might not agree with the positions taken by the author, I’m pushed to consider carefully my own beliefs and understandings. This is a book on ethics that is deeply rooted in the Christian tradition, but most especially in the biblical biblical tradition. Being that David Gushee is Evangelical of a Baptist sort, I can say as one who has shared this Evangelical ethos, this is Evangelicalism at its very best.

With a title like this, one might presume that the book deals with abortion. That assumption would be correct, but Gushee deals with much more than abortion. He is pro-life, but his pro-life vision isn’t focused on just one issue. To use Catholic terms, he embraces a seamless garment vision that takes into consideration all manner of life-related issues, from capital punishment to women’s rights. He definitely holds human life to be sacred, believing that human life, indeed all life, has a God-given dignity that needs to be recognized.

The author distinguishes the concept of sacredness from words that are often taken as synonyms: sanctity and dignity. They’re related, but whereas sanctity and dignity can be understood without reference to God, the same isn’t true of sacredness. Why use the word sacred? It’s because, Gushee believes, our ability to honor and respect life in its fullness requires a voice from beyond our own selves.

What then does it mean to call human life sacred? Gushee writes:

To speak in religious terms of the sacredness of each and every human life, then, is basically to claim that all human beings are something like cathedrals that have been consecrated by God and must not be violated. God has sacre-ed, has consecrated, the human being, each human being, who is now sacred, and must be treated accordingly. (p. 25).

Since human life has been declared sacred then one must “protect human life from wanton destruction, desecration, or the violation of human rights. A full embrace of sacredness of human life leads to a full-hearted commitment to foster human flourishing” (p. 33).

Gushee takes his definition of sacredness and essentially tests it out be taking the reader on a trip that begins in the Old Testament and continues on through the New Testament and on through Early Christianity. He explores ideas of creation and incarnation. He looks to the way in which early Christians looked at life and addressed issues of justice and peace. He notes that a moral vision developed over time and was passed on through history. This tradition that honored life, met a challenge in the fourth century CE, when Christendom emerged with the embrace of Christianity by Constantine. Things changed when this small minority religious community gained political power. Constantine saw Christianity as a force that could unify his empire, but that meant unifying Christianity. That would involve coercion, and what Constantine set in motion, Theodosius made explicit. With Theodosius Christianity became the state religion, and “orthodoxy” was to be enforced. Thus, a religion that grew under duress turned the same powers of the state against those who didn’t agree with the official dogma. In doing this the ethic of sacredness was diminished. There would be advances in the way Roman society understood the sacredness of life – gladiatorial contests, crucifixion, and infanticide were done away with, but it also blessed state repression of those it deemed heretical or schismatic.

As the story moves forward, we see that the Christian faith is divided on issues of life. He offers three case studies – Francis’ outreach to Muslims during the Crusades, Bartolomé De Las Casas’s defense of Native Americans, and John Overton’s defense of Jews – of efforts to advance the ethic of sacredness of life. Then he moves on to the Enlightenment, where Natural Rights, Rule of Law, and Human Dignity begin to displace earlier religious arguments for life’s dignity and sacredness. For the most part these efforts are rooted in earlier religious understandings, but attempts are made to sever the chord as much as possible.

Then we come to Nietzsche, who rejects this morality that had been passed down, and does so in an interesting fashion. He insists that if the Christian goes, so does its morality, with its sacredness of life ethic. Gushee goes into some depth of discussion of Nietzsche, and since Nietzsche is gaining a certain popularity in postmodern circles, this discussion is especially pertinent. Gushee seeks to be fair, and lets the famed philosopher speak for himself. He doesn’t blame him for practices that were beyond his control, but he looks to him as an example of the direction that the conversation was moving. In this vision, ideas of justice and equality are jetissoned. Pity is useless and even damaging. Indeed, cruelty isn’t necessarily evil, it is instead an expression of the primal desire for pleasure and self-preservation. With regard to the sacredness of life, Gushee notes that Nietzsche believed that the “only possible thing about humanity that gives worth to the species as a whole is the greatness of a few, and even that is overwhelmed by the mediocrity and pointlessness of the many” (p. 300). Thus, human life has no particular value. The earlier Enlightenment project of Locke and Kant is discarded, along with its Christian roots.

This leads us to the Twentieth Century, where we saw some of the most egregious desecrations of life occur. The most explicit example being the Nazi program of Adolph Hitler, to which Gushee devotes an entire chapter. Now, you might think he’s going to blame Hitler’s views on Nietzsche, but he doesn’t. It’s true that Nietzsche sets the stage, but Hitler’s views are variegated. They emerge in part from his own life experience, a sense of personal failure combined with a sense of worth derived from his military service in World War I. To those who seek to distance Hitler from Christianity, Gushee notes that Hitler saw himself as an expression of God’s will. He rarely spoke of Jesus, but he saw himself as part of the church. Of course, he embraced a theology that de-Judaized the faith, and he changed it in ways that removed an ethic of sacredness of life. Power became the important goal. He saw himself as a messiah, and his bastardized version of Christianity turned the message of Jesus on its head, placing violence at the center. It was a message of purity of race and nation, and anyone, anything that tainted this purity must be annihilated. Thus, Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill, the disabled, and homosexuals were deemed subhuman and worthy of destruction.

So if the Twentieth Century saw such brazen examples of desecration, how do we honor human life and the creation itself in the twenty-first century? It is here that Gushee deals with a wide range of issues from abortion, which he opposes, but with a good dose of realism; bioethics, for which he has concerns; the death penalty, which he opposes on a biblical basis; human rights; nuclear weapons [he notes that “according to the Bible, we are the sole species to whom responsibility for the fate of the earth and its inhabitants has been entrusted. There are between 5 million and 100 million species on the planet; 1.7 million have been identified and named. There is just one species that is responsible not just for its own well-being but also for the wellbeing of all others” p. 378) And that species is us!]; and women’s rights.

One of the issues that Gushee wants us to consider is our relationship to the rest of creation. He notes in the beginning that for some, the idea of human sacredness must come at the expense of other creatures. He’s not of that opinion. In fact, he believes that if we truly are concerned about humanity, if we’re truly desiring to fulfill the command to love our neighbor, then we will be concerned about the welfare of the earth, and all its inhabitants. After all, we share DNA, and thus we’re kin. For evangelicals who are wrestling with these issues, and thinking that they don’t matter to God, they should read this chapter. It is a powerful defense of ecology, and the principle that God does care about all of creation. And just to makes this clear, he makes his case on the basis of Scripture.

Gushee, as noted earlier, is an Evangelical and a Baptist. He opposes abortion, but he also opposes the death penalty. He may oppose abortion, but he is a strong advocate for women’s rights. In fact, he makes it clear that Evangelicals who assume that the defense of women’s rights makes one pro-abortion is simply wrong-headed and damaging to the cause. Whether you agree on all issues, and I'm ambivalent about abortion, and I’m more sanguine about the benefits that biotech offers us than is he, you will benefit from reading this book. Indeed, it’s my opinion that this is a must read book, especially for preachers. It is a profound exploration of a biblically rooted ethic of life, one that insists that all human life is equally sacred in the eyes of God.

I don’t do this often, but I will encourage you to click on the icon above and order your copy from Amazon. Read it closely and ponder its message. You won’t be disappointed. In fact, I guarantee that your vision of life will be at minimum enhanced, and more likely revolutionized!

The Infidel and the Indifferent -- Sightings (Martin Marty)

2013-04-30T05:30:00.000-04:00

To quote Richard Dawson: "Survey Says . . ." (I know Steve Harvey is the current host of the long running game show, I just like Newkirk!). Surveys tell us that a growing number of Americans, especially younger Americans, are "religiously unaffiliated." Martin Marty, who wrote a book long ago entitled The Infidel: Free Thought and American Religion, seeks to better understand what all of this means. When we dig deeper we find that this category has some complexity to it. But, at least as I read the posting, is there not another category we need to be looking at -- those who are "Indifferent." It's a good question. I expect there might be many folks populating pews that are "indifferent" when it comes to matters theological and religious. In any case, I invite you to read and offer your response.

********************************

Sightings

The Infidel and the Indifferent

by Martin E. Marty
Monday | April 29 2013

Fifty-two years ago—can it be?—I published The Infidel: Freethought and American Religion, and have been tracking “the infidel” ever since. Whether he or she was dubbed “free-thinker,” “agnostic,’ “atheist,” “secularist” or many things more, the infidel thrived on the reaction of the “religious” majority. By publishing date in 1961, the infidel had gone off center stage, and scholarly colleagues and I had to ponder what “the religiofication” (as scholar Eric Hoffer called it) of American culture would mean. Infidels not only “went,” from time to time, they “came.” Again.

In recent years opinion surveys, pop culture, and scholarly literature have discovered the unmistakable presence of the current round of “infidels.” The term of choice currently is “the religiously unaffiliated,” a very relaxed term which suggests that “religion”=”affiliation.” Unsatisfied with that big-tent designation, opinion surveyors have helpfully studied and redefined sub-groups in the category. One of the most popular sources finds and names three sub-categories. The American Values Survey (see source at end of this column) looked at the 19% of the population which was “unaffiliated” and found that almost one-fourth of these were “unattached believers,” over one-third were “self-identified atheists and agnostics,” and almost forty percent were simply (well, sometimes maybe complexly) “unaffiliated secular Americans,” not “secularists.”

Columnists like authors of Sightings mine these surveys and use their findings to assess spiritual life in today’s America, often as a step in comparing these to other situations around the globe, especially in the southern world—Africa, Latin America, and the Asian sub-continent—where religious affiliation grows. The most recent mining was by Daniel Cox in the Huffington Post (April 24, see source). Cox and others turned the question into one of class, and dozens of posts were written by people who took it from there.

Needless to say, connecting “class” with affiliation or religious involvement/non-involvement is difficult, as Cox himself recognizes. He and other surveyors and commentators have to make guesses or pursue correlations to other surveys to do some identifying, especially of the “atheist and agnostic” minority. Many private post-ers, as is often the case on the internet, are not given to nuance or dialogue. They blast. Some are sure that the number of agnostics and atheists has grown because the population of the higher-educated camp has grown, and—doesn’t everyone know?—higher education purges ignorance. Thus the ranks of the unbelievers grow. Cox and the authors of the American Values Survey do share the understanding that higher education, as now pursued, does cut into the ranks of believers. But they and others do not find simple and consistent correlations, and they adduce other evidences for- and against- religious belief and practice in a complex culture. In our current cultural episode, debates will increase.

Were I an opinion surveyor, I’d try to assess the degree to which something as simple as “indifference” to theological, religious, philosophical, and communal claims and commitments prevails. Thoughtful religious leaders have to work to promote affiliation and commitment as they seek and sometimes find company among the non-religious who would stir interest in the deeper things of life. This is a mission for them in a time of when gloss is favored in many sub-cultures.

References:

2012 American Values Survey. “’Nones’ on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation,” http://www.pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx, (accessed 27 April 2013).

Cox, Daniel. “Is Atheism Only for the Upper Class? Socioeconomic Differences Among the Religiously Unaffiliated." Huffington Post, April 24, 2013.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-cox/is-atheism-only-for-the-upper-class-socioeconomic-differences-among-the-religiously-unaffiliated_b_3146894.html?utm_hp_ref=religion.

Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide, 2^nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Author Martin E. Marty is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity at the Divinity School. His biography, publications, and contact information can be found at biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.

Editor Myriam Renaud is a PhD Candidate in Theology at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS?
Email DivSightings@gmail.com

The Rule of Taize -- A Review

2013-04-29T09:39:00.000-04:00

THE RULE OF TAIZE: Bilingual Edition: English and French. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2013. Xii + 131 pages.

Down through the ages monastic movements, from the Benedictines to the Jesuits, have drafted or adopted monastic rules. These rules guide community life, from worship to work, and they’re essential to the harmony of community life. As I understand it, looking from outside, to live in community can be a blessing, but it can also be a challenge. To live in community requires one to relinquish a great deal of individuality for the common good of the community. This is often expressed in commitments to share one’s goods with the community, and live in obedience to the prior or prioress.

Monastic rules provide guidance to a community, but they also help inquirers know what is expected of them before entering the community. Since most monastic communities involve vows of chastity (celibacy) and poverty (community of goods), such rules resolve many possible rifts before they ever occur.

The Taizé Community of France has its own rule, drawn up by its founding prior, Brother Roger Schutz. This community is similar too, but different from traditional monastic orders, in that it is ecumenical in nature. That is, its brothers are drawn from both Catholic and Protestant Confessions. There is, therefore, no denominational oversight, making it an independent venture in spirituality. Perhaps that is why it has been so influential since its founding in 1940, just as World War II began. From 1940 until he was shot to death in 2005 at the age of 90, the community had only one leader, its founder. Brother Roger was the son of a Lutheran pastor who studied theology at the University of Lausanne, during which time he became interested in Catholic spiritual writings, and decided that the cause of Christian unity needed a monastic center to bear witness to the task. He chose to move to France rather than enjoy safety of Switzerland, and there he found a house, and over time gathered together a community. Today there are some 100 brothers living in community at Taizé, together with the thousands that visit every year to share in the life of this community.

The task of bringing reconciliation to the Christian community has been expressed in a variety of ways. Consider that most modern hymnals have Taizé songs, which are usually contemplative in nature. Many churches, Protestant and Catholic, have regular Taizé services utilizing the music and styles of worship present at the community. And, many people, especially clergy, make pilgrimage to this site to enhance their own spirituality. The fact that youth and young adults began to make their own pilgrimages to the community in the 1960s also contributes to this cause.

In this brief book, The Rule of Taizé, we have in both French and English the monastic rule written by Brother Roger to be used by this community. This rule was written for the community in the winter of 1952-1953. It was republished, with minor modifications that Brother Roger had wanted to make, after his death in 2005. The preface to this edition is in English, but the remainder of the book is comprised of the rule printed with French and English versions on facing pages. Since I don’t read French, I stayed with the English version.

In the introduction, after admonishing those who might think that a rule such is this might be burdensome, we’re told:

This rule contains the minimum necessary for a community to grow up on Christ and devote itself to a common service of God. The resolve to set down only the essentials involves a risk: your freedom could become a pretext for living according to your own impulses. (p. 5).

As one might expect the rule gives directives for times of prayer, meals, celibacy, community of goods, and obedience to the prior. It speaks to aspects of spiritual life including joy, simplicity, and mercy. It offers guidance as to how one should receive a visitor. It focuses on the essential items, leaving much room for variance and experimentation.

As a nonmonastic person, this rule doesn’t appear to be overbearing. Words of wisdom are offered in the conclusion, reminding the reader that the rule is not an end in itself, but simply a means to an end. To so see it as such, would lead to a dispensing with the search “to discover more of God’s plan, the love of Christ, the light of the Holy Spirit,” making the rule a useless burden, so that “it would be better never to have written it” (pp. 107-109).

The question that can be and should be raised concerns the role of the Prior. I’m not overly familiar with this community, but Brother Roger did develop quite a reputation as a spiritual leader. He was its only prior for nearly seven decades. As I read somewhere a cult of personality developed around him. Because this was an independent venture, there was even less oversight from outside. I expect that some concerns were mitigated, but as we think about how the community formed itself, we should at least ask the question of accountability. With regard to the prior, the Rule states:

Without unity, there is no hope for a bold and total service of Jesus Christ. Individualism disintegrates the community and brings it to a halt.

The prior fosters unity within the community.

In matters of practical detail he points the way, but in all questions of importance he listens to the brothers before making a decision. (pp. 85-87).

The prior is the unifying factor, though the community is consulted before major decisions are made.

The value of this little book depends on the interests of the reader. For some, reading this book will give insight into the ministry of the Taizé Community. What is it like? What is its agenda? For others, this book could provide guidance for creating a close knit spiritual community – with appropriate modification (if couples join in community, as is common practice, then the rule of celibacy needs to be looked at but modified in an appropriate way). It could also serve as a guide to spiritual life, lifting up that which is important and helping alleviate areas that detract from the life of faith. Since it is written ecumenically it can have a broader use within the Christian community at large. And it is a brief and very fast read.

Barriers Breached -- A Sermon for Easter 5C

2013-04-28T10:30:00.000-04:00

Acts 11:1-18

Remember the night the Berlin Wall fell? What a night of joy it was for the people of Berlin and Germany. Or what about the wall of segregation breached by the Civil Rights Movement? That too was a moment of joy, and yet dividing walls continue to exist. Eleven o’clock on Sunday morning remains the most segregated hour of the week.

Not many of you remember 1920 when the 19th Amendment to the Constitution granted women the right to vote, but it was a great victory for women and for American democracy. Unfortunately many Christian communities still refuse to ordain women and America has yet to elect a woman President.

As we continue this sermon series focusing on transforming encounters with the Risen Christ, we’ve reached the climactic moment in the first half of the Book of Acts. With Peter’s vision and his report to the Jerusalem Church, the focus of the story shifts to the Gentile mission. What we see here is that change can be difficult, and barriers difficult to breach. But, with God all things are possible!

The story begins in Acts 10 with Peter up on the roof top praying. As he prays, he has a vision. He sees a sheet descending from the heavens containing a variety of animals that he’s forbidden to eat. When a voice from heaven calls out “Kill and Eat,” he resists the command. But as he’s doing this, emissaries from the Roman Centurion Cornelius appear at the door. They ask him to go with them to Caesarea and share the message of Jesus with the Centurion’s household.

Peter may have gone with them reluctantly, but he got to watch in amazement as the Spirit fell on them as on the Day of Pentecost. He concluded that if God blessed them with the gift of the Spirit, he couldn’t refuse them baptism.

When Peter returns to Jerusalem, he discovers that not everyone is happy with his visit to a Gentile home. After all he’d eaten with the uncircumcized. So, as we’ve heard in the reading from Acts 11, Peter tells them about his vision and how that it led him to go to preach at the house of Cornelius. He shares with them how the Spirit gifted these Gentiles in the same way the Spirit gifted the believers on the day of Pentecost. If the Spirit embraced them, then how could he refuse to give them baptism? After all, whatever God declares clean must be clean! So who was he to stand in the way of God?

Peter learned something important about God that day. He learned that God doesn’t make distinctions between people. It’s not that God is indifferent. It’s just that God is concerned about all of humanity. After all, God is “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36).

In our Disciple tradition we don’t have creeds. That’s because our founders believed that even though creeds can be useful, they can also become barriers to fellowship and service. Still, what we believe about God, Jesus, the world, is important. Our beliefs can become barriers to the work of God in the world.

The good news is that the Holy Spirit is very adept at breaching even the highest and strongest barriers. In telling his story about his visit to Cornelius, Peter reminds us that God decides what’s essential, what’s clean, and what’s unclean. So, if God declares something or someone to be clean, then who are we to stand in the way?

One of the important threads running through the Book of Acts is the breaching of barriers. It starts with Jesus’ commissioning of the disciples on the day of his ascension. He tells them that they will “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NRSV). When we come to Acts 10 and 11, we find that the last barrier to fulfilling this calling – the barrier of ethnicity – has been breached.

But if there are other barriers needing to be breached, are we ready to let the Spirit breach them?

Peter knew what the Scriptures and Tradition said about Gentiles. While there were provisions for conversion, dispensing with circumcision wasn’t part of the deal. But here it seems that God is about to do a new thing. It took time and a push from the Spirit to get Peter across the line. But, cross the line – he did!

Although I believe that Scripture and Tradition are essential to our faith journey, I’m in agreement with Russell Pregeant who writes that “when considering issues of inclusiveness the church needs to look beyond Scripture and Tradition to human experience for signs of the Spirit’s guidance.” It takes a great deal of spiritual discernment if we’re going to do this. It also takes a lot of trust in God.

I know that most of us like things done decently and in order. That’s why the church has a constitution and a personnel handbook. We need these human documents to help us discern wise courses of action. Scripture and Tradition help us with this process, but sometimes we need a Pentecost moment to help us move forward in a new direction. And that’s what Peter and Cornelius’ household experienced. In the moment that the Spirit gifted this household with the power of Pentecost things changed! Barriers were breached. And barriers continue to be breached!

As I’ve come to learn, it wasn’t that long ago that this church selected Mary Lou as our first woman Elder. And that didn’t happen until after we moved to Troy. I was there, the day that the General Assembly elected Sharon Watkins as the first woman to lead a Mainline denomination. Women still struggle to find places of ministry in our churches – but the barrier has been breached.

So what’s next? Could it be the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church? Could this be a Cornelius moment? If so, then what does that mean for us as a congregation?

Some of us have been studying Martin Thielen’s book What’s the Least I Can Believe and Still Be a Christian? In bringing up this topic he points out that the church at large isn’t of one opinion when it comes to the issue of sexual orientation. He outlines three basic positions present in the church today. The first group neither welcomes nor affirms gays and lesbians. Instead, they build walls and post no trespassing signs on them. I don’t think that’s who we are.

The two other positions include: “Welcoming but not Affirming” and “Welcoming and Affirming.” Like many denominations and congregations, I believe that both positions are present in this congregation. Although I believe we are moving toward a Welcoming and Affirming position, we’re not there yet. The question is – is this change simply a matter of letting our culture determine our beliefs and practices, or is this a movement of the Holy Spirit? Personally, I believe that it’s the latter. I believe that God has poured out the Spirit on gay and lesbian Christians, welcoming them into the fold. By doing this, the Spirit is breaching another barrier.

Now, what does it mean to be “Welcoming and Affirming,” or to use Disciples language, “Open and Affirming?” I like the way John McCauslin put it in our first study session: “‘Affirming’ means that we accept you as one of us, just as you are.”

Even as we wrestle with this question as a congregation, so is our denomination. We’ll be voting on a resolution at the General Assembly calling on us to be a welcoming and hospitable community. This resolution directly addresses the question of sexual orientation. If passed, and I believe it will, the General Assembly will call on the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) to:

affirm the faith, baptism and spiritual gifts of all Christians regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and that neither is grounds for exclusion from fellowship or service within the church, but we celebrate that all are part of God’s good creation.

This resolution calls on the church to be a people of grace and welcome, offering hospitality to all. So how will we offer welcome and hospitality to persons no matter what their sexual orientation or gender identity is?

As I’ve shared before, my views are influenced by the lives and the stories of gay and lesbian Christians, including my brother. I’ve learned from them about the difficulties they’ve faced in finding their place in the church. Not only do many feel excluded, but many gays and lesbians have been brutalized – sometimes physically and often verbally – by the church at large. As I’ve listened to their stories, I’ve discovered that not only does our society force people to live in closets, but too often not even the church is a safe haven. But, I believe that things are changing. The Spirit is breaching another barrier. So, as followers of the Risen Christ, are we ready for another Cornelius moment? Are we ready to love one another, as Christ has loved us – so that the world might know that we are his disciples?

Preached by:

Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, Pastor

Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Troy, Michigan

April 28, 2013

5th Sunday of Easter

Faith and Creeds by Alister McGrath (Review)

2013-04-27T05:30:00.000-04:00

FAITH AND CREEDS: A Guide for Study and Devotion (The Heart of Christian Faith). By Alister E. McGrath. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013. X +115 pages.

What is faith? Is it assent to doctrine or is it putting your trust in God? Diana Butler Bass has suggested that the Latin word credo, which we usually translate as “I believe”, should be understood as “I set my heart upon” or “I give my loyalty to” (Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening, p. 117). It has less to do with doctrinal formulations and more to do with relationships. I’m attracted to this idea. At the same time, this embrace of another is not ephemeral. There is substance – not perhaps an abstract scholastic version, but substance nonetheless. Peter Rollins in a recent book speaks of “the idolatry of God," and raises questions about seeking certainty or satisfaction in our conception of God. Although Rollins and Bass come from different angles, both speak from a more postmodern perspective. Alister McGrath, on the other hand, offers a more traditional evangelical take on matters of faith. Affirmation of substantive doctrines is important. Creeds offer definitive, if incomplete, statements about the object of faith.

McGrath is a rather well known evangelical academic and author. He might agree that faith is trust, but it must be an informed trust. His patron saint in this might be Anselm, who spoke of “faith seeking understanding.” Creeds aren’t mere checklists of beliefs; they are sketch maps of the theological terrain or skeletons that “support the life giving organs of faith” (p. 62). Although I hail from a non-creedal tradition (the Disciples, in good Enlightenment, have entrusted to the believer the task of discerning what to believe from their reading of and engagement with Scripture), I find McGrath’s idea attractive. Creeds needn’t be tests of fellowship to provide a starting point for conversation about what it means to follow Jesus.

In this brief book, written with the lay person in mind, McGrath the professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education and head of the Centre for Theology, Religion, and Culture, at King’s College, University of London, sets the parameters for having an intelligent theological conversation. This is the first of five volumes that are designed to address core principles of the Christian faith. His concern is with helping Christians develop an intelligent world view by which they can look at the world and life. His conversation partners in this effort are all lay persons – C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and Dorothy Sayers – who dug deeply into the wells of the theology and sought to offer a helpful perspective for living the Christian life in a world that was and is less and less defined by the Christian religion. It should be noted that all three were British. None were prototypical evangelicals, though each has embraced by evangelicalism.

In many ways, McGrath, who is much better educated in theology than any of the other three, seeks to write in their vein, to do for the contemporary reader, what they did for an earlier generation. Why is this important? For McGrath, behavior follows belief, not the reverse. What he seeks to offer then is that set of lenses by which one can view the world and see God’s place in it. He writes:

Christianity is about bringing things into focus. For many people, life seems to have no meaning. It appears to be random, meaningless and chaotic, without any underlying order or significance. We are born, we die. And what lies in between in nothing but a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” But perhaps there are other ways of reflecting on things. Perhaps they seem meaningless because they are out of focus? (p. 32).

Instead of seeing the human person as the meaning maker, McGrath believes that God is the meaning maker and that God has provided meaningful and authoritative guidance for viewing life, to give it meaning. In other words, Rollins and McGrath view the issues of the day from very different perspectives. You could say that McGrath is more traditional. But perhaps he offers another way of looking at things that even we who are attracted to postmodern ideas need engage with.

One of the reasons why McGrath believes we need to attend to these questions is that there is a significant movement that is challenging Christian ideas and beliefs. He has been an outspoken respondent to the New Atheists. He has sought to take them on directly, challenging their efforts to belittle the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith. His is, therefore, a prime mover in the field of apologetics. His is a response different from that of a Rollins or a Borg, but his concerns need to be taken seriously.

If we assume that the upcoming volumes form a similar pattern, then we will have an updated version of "mere Christianity." But while there’s similarity between their projects, perhaps the person we might better compare him to is William Barclay. Barclay largely focused on the biblical text, and one might suggest that Barclay lay to the left of where McGrath finds himself, but like Barclay, McGrath has found a way to write intellectually credible books that are also understandable to the general reader. I expect that these books will be ideal for group study and personal devotion, but if you’re left of center remember – he’s an evangelical, though of a British sort (and they tend to be less narrow than many of their American counterparts – especially on matters of faith and science).

The Pope and the Poor -- Sightings (Joshua Connor)

2013-04-26T08:31:00.000-04:00

Many of us have been fascinated by the demeanor and attitude of the new Pope. Pope Francis has been a breath of fresh air with his humility and openness. He's not a liberal (he supports the crackdown on the American nuns), but he exudes hope. He has made the poor a focus of his attention, but not all are convinced. He has critics, especially in South America, where some see him as unwilling to take the more radical systemic steps necessary to change the way things work. In other words, he is not a liberationist. That is true. But then it's unlikely that one would be a Cardinal in the contemporary church if one were of that mind. The more liberal Cardinals like Dom Helder Camara are either retired or have passed on. He won't be encouraging radical political experiments, but personally, as one who has studied Liberation Theology, I take it as a good sign that Leonardo Boff hailed his election. In this posting from Sightings Joshua Connor takes a look at the conversation/controversy. I invite you to check in yourselves. What do you think?

******************

Sightings

The Pope and the Poor

by Joshua Connor
Thursday | April 25 2013

In an article that appeared in The Guardian a few days after the March 13, 2013, election of Francis, the first Pope from South America, the British environmental activist, George Monbiot, railed against depictions of the new Pope as a defender of the poor. Monbiot testified to his personal experience of working with Catholic priests in Brazil in the 1980s. Inspired by liberation theology, the priests resisted the oligarchs’ efforts to drive the poor off their land. Eventually, however, the priests were forced to stand down by the oligarchs' hired guns and by their own Church hierarchy. According to Monbiot, Pope Francis, the then-Cardinal Bergoglio, supported the Church's reprimand of liberation theology, placing him on the wrong side of a “great fissure” between defenders of the poor and the Vatican.

By contrast, much of the news coverage following the Argentinian Pope’s election consisted of stories about his work in the slums of Buenos Aires and about his personal lifestyle: washing and kissing the feet of AIDS patients, turning down the Bishop’s palace for a modest apartment, nearly giving the operator of a Buenos Aires kiosk a heart attack by placing a personal call after his election to cancel his newspaper subscription (“Seriously, it’s Jorge Bergoglio.”).

With his usual disarming candor, the Pope spoke freely with the press about his unprecedented choice of Francis as his Papal name; as the votes were tallied during the papal conclave and it became clear that he was headed for the Room of Tears, the Pope’s old friend, Cardinal Hummes, clasped him and admonished him not to forget the poor. It was then, he said, that his thoughts turned toward Francis of Assisi, that “man of poverty,” and toward a desire for a Church that is “poor and that is for the poor.”

Somewhere between these dueling snapshots lies the complicated history of liberation theology in Latin America, and what the new Pope means “by and for the poor.”

The “preferential option for the poor” – the principle, broadly defined, that Christians must demonstrate a special concern for the welfare of the poor, the marginal and the weak – is a core commitment of both liberation theology and official Catholic social teaching.

The 1968 Latin American Bishops' Conference held in Medellín, Columbia, a founding moment for liberation theology, first referred to a “preference for the poorest and most needy,” framing this preference in light of the “deafening cry that pours from the throats of millions” afflicted by institutionalized violence and structural inequities. The Bishops also explored merging traditional hierarchical models of the church with so-called “ecclesial base communities,” grassroots Christian communities that had sprung up among the poor and were suspected of Marxist associations. It was, however, the Peruvian theologian, Gustavo Gutiérrez’s landmark, A Theology of Liberation (1971), that minted the preferential option and offered a new theology from the standpoint of the oppressed, one that demanded revolutionary and prophetic protest against social structures that perpetuate deadening forms of material and spiritual poverty.

The row between the Vatican and liberation theology crested in the mid-1980’s, with rounds of inquiries into the work of Gutiérrez and others, and the official silencing of figures like the Brazilian liberation theologian, Leonardo Boff. The 1984 “Instruction on certain aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’” issued by the Vatican condemned what it saw as dangerous deviations in liberation theology, most notably, the reduction of the Gospel’s message of liberation from personal sin through Christ’s death into a Marxist message of earthly liberation from poverty through class struggle.

Still, if the 1984 "Instruction" seemed to condemn liberation theology en bloc, and far too readily, the preferential option for the poor was, from the start, embraced by Pope John Paul II. Articulating the preferential option in the language of human dignity and universal rights, John Paul II's opening address to the 1979 Latin American Bishops' Conference in Puebla, Mexico, decried “mechanisms that...produce on the international level rich people ever more rich at the expense of poor people ever more poor" while also insisting that only moral and spiritual liberation could truly relieve material poverty.

Monbiot’s Manicheanism oversimplifies the fissure between the poor and the Vatican, though his protest is an important reminder that the work of solidarity with the poor and of social justice demands real risk. It remains to be seen how Pope Francis will live out the name of a man who washed lepers and slept on the hard earth.

References:

George Monbiot, "In the war on the poor, Francis is on the wrong side," The Guardian, March 18, 2013.

John Paul II. Address to the Third General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate. January 28, 1979.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instruction of Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation ". August 6, 1984.

Hennelly, Alfred T., S.J., ed. Liberation Theology: A Documentary History. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990.

Author Joshua Connor is a Ph.D. Candidate in Religious Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School. He is currently at work on a dissertation on neuroscience and the concept of the soul.
Editor Myriam Renaud is a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School. She is a 2012-13 Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center.

QUESTIONS or COMMENTS?
Email DivSightings@gmail.com

http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/

Love's New Day -- A Lectionary Reflection for Easter 5C

2013-04-25T05:30:00.000-04:00

Acts 11:1-18

Revelation 21:1-6

John 13:31-35

Love’s New Day

A bombing at the Boston Marathon, letters laced with ricin, news of torture and death from around the globe, news like this leaves us wanting a new day that’s free of such things. We seek news of a day when life will be different and love shall prevail. Such a vision seems far from realistic. We may fall into despair when contemplating such a vision, but for people of the Christian faith this is part of vision of God. It may be an eschatological vision, but there is no reason why the blessings of the eschaton cannot be felt now in this time and place. It is as Jurgen Moltmann puts it – “In the community of Christ we experience foretastes and anticipations of God’s coming kingdom” ( In the End-The Beginning: The Life of Hope, p. 91).

The realities of this life often complicate our ability to see the fullness of God’s promise, but if we we’re open then we can begin to see signs of hope streaming into our lives. Dreams of a new day, however, are complicated by the fact that we continue to live behind fences, separating ourselves out from those who are different in belief, in politics, in gender, in sexual orientation, in economic standing, and in ethnicity. Even in the “developed” West, forms of tribalism continue to define relationships. But, if we live in hope, then there is room for the message of inclusion.

In the vision outlined in Revelation 21, we hear of a new heaven and a new earth where the promise of peace is fulfilled. But are we ready to receive this vision for today? Or do we feel the need to relegate it to some other realm, where it has no impact on our current realities? If we’re willing to allow God to build such a realm in our midst, then are we willing to join with God in this activity? Are we ready to embrace a message that is defined by love, not just for those closest to us, but for all persons? Indeed, are we ready to allow God to break down the barriers that we’ve so carefully built, but which continue to separate us from one another?

The question of barriers is raised in Acts 10-11. The lectionary reading comes from Acts 11, but it’s a continuation of a story that begins a chapter earlier. The story begins with Peter receiving a vision that leads him to enter the household of a Gentile and preach the gospel. The vision prepares Peter to see Cornelius and his household in a different way – as ones whom God loves and embraces. Whereas Peter once viewed Gentiles as being unclean and unfit for fellowship, now he’s ready to share with them the message of Jesus. But it’ll take another step on the part of God, before he truly understands that God is doing a new thing. He must still receive confirmation from God that he’s on the right path, before he shares baptism with this household. In the end the Spirit falls and Cornelius’ household receives the same giftedness as the first community did on the day of Pentecost.

In the reading from Acts 11, we find Peter having returned to Jerusalem. Upon return he faces criticism from the community. They’re enthralled by news that he’d eaten with the uncircumcised. Note that it’s eating patterns that come into play as the gospel moves forward into new communities. It’s clear from this that the early church continued its kosher eating practices, so by eating with Cornelius, Peter is assumed to have broken that rule. Ultimately, the issue will be circumcision rather than food, but food is the current issue at hand. Now, it’s not as if Judaism didn’t provide for conversion or even honored ones we call God-fearers, but barriers were still erected that protected the tribe. In this moment in time, those barriers are torn down.

The message that Peter brings to his community in Jerusalem is that God is impartial. It’s not that God is indifferent or doesn’t care; it’s just that God’s vision is broader than we may be prepared for. Beverly Gaventa writes that “God’s concern specifically meant that Israel could not neglect the widow and orphan in the midst of the people. Here, however, the claim emerges in a way that encompasses not Israel alone but all humanity” (Abingdon New Testament Commentary - Acts, p. 174). Going back to Acts 10:36, the word is this – “He is Lord of all.” God chooses to make this message known to the community through Peter, so that they can understand God’s decision to bring down the walls of division. The closing verses of the passage demonstrate that they get the message, though it appears that not all of them did so with joy. They “calmed down” (CEB) and they gave praise to God, but did they fully understand? Do we fully understand the implications? Right now the U.S. Senate is deliberating on a bipartisan immigration bill. Not everyone is happy. Not everyone wants to open the doors. There remains this “us vs. them” mentality in our own country, which means it’s there in our churches. So maybe we haven’t gotten it yet. After all, 11 AM on Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour of the week.

The word revealed in Revelation 21 offers us a promise of a new heaven and a new earth. In this new reality suffering and grief are no more. This is an eschatological vision in which God dwells with humankind, bringing to us a new vision of life. This eschatological vision is intended to draw us forward, to allow God to do this new thing in our world. It’s a now/not yet vision. Therefore, we can expect that the realities of the eschaton will make themselves felt in our own world – now.

To understand this vision we need to understand the Johannine vision of the realm of God. As Lee Hanson points out, in Revelation there is no promise that God will take us all to heaven, but rather that God will come to earth and dwell among us (John's Gospel; The Way It Happened, p. 304). The promise in John 14 of the Paraclete is a reminder that this promise is already in place. God is already dwelling in our midst. It’s a promise made at the beginning of the Gospel of John, that the Word has become flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Although the realm of God isn’t fully present among us, or at least it hasn’t taken full effect, God is not absent. So, as we contemplate the stories of bombings in Boston, wars in the Congo and Syria, and divisions present in our own communities, perhaps we can see them as expressions of this now/not yet reality. While we still see signs of resistance to the realm of God, if we’re willing to broaden our vision, then we’ll see signs that the realm of God is present among us – that the New Jerusalem has descended in Christ. The process of transformation is underway. Without giving in to the idea that molded Enlightenment/Modernist visions of human progress, it’s possible to find signs of God’s presence molding a new form of life. God is offering us living water, so that we might drink from it. Until the day in which the fullness of God’s realm is revealed, we are agents of hope.

The Gospel reading takes us back to the final meal Jesus shares with his disciples. Judas has departed, and Jesus prepares them for what will transpire. The Son of Man or the Human One “has been glorified.” What appears to us as defeat, Jesus envisions as triumph. He will go away, and they can’t follow, but he doesn’t leave them without instructions. He offers them a new commandment – to love one another. This command is similar to, but different from the two great commands. It even appears as if it is a rather exclusive command – love one another, not your neighbor, not your enemy, just one another. Is this a limiting factor, or is it the foundation for a larger call to love? The key is found in the statement that we are to love as Jesus loves us. This is a good reminder that we can’t do this outside divine help. Simone Sunghae Kim gets this right, writing:

Our inability to love one another as Jesus mandates should drive us to humbly and thoroughly rely on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Any act or employment of Jesus’ love we perform is empowered by the Holy Spirit, and thus the Lord alone must be given the credit and be glorified. (Preaching God's Transforming Justice: A Lectionary Commentary, Year C,p. 226.)

Given the presence of the Holy Spirit, who is for us the seal of the eschatological promise of the New Jerusalem, we can live out of this love that is God and the world will know, as a result, that we are Jesus’ disciples by the love we show each other. After all, if we can’t love each other, then how can we hope to love those outside the community of faith?