More than a garden walk

In working on my sermon for this past Sunday, I read some in the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (sermon preparation often leads me to -- and through -- Bonhoeffer). One of the things that ended up on the cutting room floor, that is, stuff that I worked on but did not end up using, was Bonhoeffer's ongoing debate against "liberal theology." Bonhoeffer never fully abandoned some of that system's tenets, but he found the emphasis on personal experience to be unscriptural.

At a couple of levels, what more can one say? How can one put oneself up against Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for goodness' sake? And also, Pastor Bonhoeffer is once again right on target. I have had so much personal and pastoral experience with folks who believed that the be all and end all of the Christian Faith is summed up not in The Nicene Creed or The Sermon on the Mount, but in the lyric line of "In the Garden," and particularly in the the opening line of the refrain:

And he walks with me
and he talks with me
and tells me I am his own...1

Now, I am not placing myself over against the evangelical arm of our faith that puts great weight on the acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal savior. Where I do depart from these sentiments is in that so many people see this personal relationship as the goal and not the beginning of faith. They desire a personal experience of Christ as an end rather than as an empowering to make disciples of all nations.

I remember a Bible study conversation in which we were looking at the Piety Triad in Matthew 6. The subject turned to fasting. I pointed out that Jesus does not say, "and if you get around to thinking about considring entertaining the notion of looking at the possibility of fasting." Jesus says, "and when you fast." He takes it for granted that his disciples will make fasting a part of their piety. I pointed out that the commitment to fasting was part of our General Rules as United Methodists. One participant finally spoke out in frustration: "Why haven't we heard this before?" My honest answer was, "I don't know. I -- and all United Methodist elders -- promised as part of our ordination vows2 to 'recommend fasting and abstinence by precept and example.' I would assume that any and all preachers in this church would have discussed the matter at some point in time."

The response was twofold: "Is this necessary for my salvation?" and "I don't think this makes ny difference in how I feel." I was stupefied. If Jesus says, "Do this," is the question of necessity even worth pursuing? And, if right religion is all about feeling, I suspect fasting would be pretty close to the bottom of the list, because a few hours without food doesn't make most of us very good. It takes a long time before the feeling ceases to be one of deprivation and begins to be one of obedience and devotion.

So, Bonhoeffer's observations ring true. People may strive for individual experience and uphold that as faith. But, "When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die."3 Discipleship is about cross-bearing.

1Words and Music by Charles Austin Miles, 1913

2 The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, par 304
3 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
The photograph is from Wikipedia, and is in the public domain.

Who do you say you are?

If you turn in your Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church to our Historical Documents, you come to our Articles of Religion. Article XIII reads:

The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men (sic) in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

So, what we say about who we are is that we are a worshiping people. Some will argue, "Well, no, who we are is caught up in our Mission Statement:

The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

Even as the General Conference has tacked on the phrase "for the transformation of the world," we must remember that the Mission Statement describes what we do. The Article of Religion states who we are. And, who we are is worshiping people. We come together as faithful people in order to hear the pure Word of God preached and to receive Holy Communion as Baptized members of the Body of Christ.

Worship is an act of Word and Table. Even though Baptism is not repeated, it colors these worship acts. It is difficult to conceive of the Word and Table having significance to an individual if that individual is outside the community of the Baptized.

In that observation of Word and Table, there are certain things that of necessity are requisite to the preaching of the pure word of God and the due administration of the Sacraments. There is, I am sure, a wide variety of opinion concerning what these requisites are. I think that, at the very least, there is an implied order. I mean, it is not ever referred to as Table and Word, always Word and Table. The Eucharist is the high point of our worship whenever it is celebrated.

There is also an implication that due administration of the Sacraments means standing firmly in the tradition of the historic church and of the Methodist Tradition. We have a liturgy that has been refined over the ages and that biblically rehearses the salvific work of God and rehearses the institution of the Sacrament of the Table. Imagine coming to the Table without any preparation or communal preparation. One might receive a pleasant little bread and juice snack, but merely consuming the elements is not Communion.

In like manner, our liturgy of Baptism recollects some of the various references to water found in Scripture, and then focuses on the initiatory nature of this Sacrament. One could, I suppose, slosh a little water on people and hand them a pledge card, declaring them church members. But, the Water and the Word constitute Baptism.

While not a sacrament in my tradition, let me appeal to one more worship act. Suppose two people stood before the congregation with no words spoken or signed. They exchange rings, kiss, and go eat cake. Is that a wedding? Is that the Rite of Matrimony? Or, suppose a priest/preacher/officiant stands before the congregation, reads all the way through the Wedding Ceremony, but is not accompanied by a bride or groom. They are sitting at the back, or already headed for the Poconos, but are not present for the service. Is that a Wedding? Doesn't that covenant ceremony consist of word, vow and token?

We are worshiping people. If that is who we say we are, doesn't it behoove us to try to do a good job of it?

The Cross and Flame is a registered trademark and the use is supervised by
the General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church.

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

It is Advent. I love this time of year. The four weeks prior to Christmas. That's how we identify this season. It is an appropriate way to reckon time. But, that designation -- the four Sundays before Christmas -- makes the time span seem more dependent on that which follows than is strictly necessary. Another way to say that is that Advent can be perceived as a pot that can stand on its own bottom, and doesn't need to lean on Christmas for its identity or significance.

I remember when I made the subtle but significant decision to buy a blue stole for wear during Advent. It was a departure from the purple that I had worn for so long. But, the purple was identified primarily with Lent, and Advent was viewed by many as a reflection of Lent. Again, we run into that stand-on-its-own-bottom thing. We see this reflection concept most prominently in the scheme that some churches use for their Advent Wreath. Those groups use three violet candles and one rose-colored candle on the outer ring of their wreathes. The rose candle is lit on the third Sunday of Advent.

Now, this gets a little complicated.

The Bishop of Rome used to give his favorites a golden rose on the middle (fourth) Sunday of Lent. Because Advent was thought to be to Christmas as Lent was to Easter, a rose-colored candle was lit on the Third (sort of middle) Sunday of Advent. The intertwining of Advent and Lent was both confusing and a poor piece of theology. Lent is a time of pentitence, self-denial and self-examination. These things are good and right. They are never inappropriate for a member of the community of faith.

But, we are speaking of Advent. Advent is not a purple season. It is not a pale reflection of Lent, nor a kindred time to that observance. Advent is a Blue Season. It is the blue season, in point of fact. Blue represents hope in Christian iconography. It is a color associated with Mary, the mother of Jesus in Christian art. It speaks of the hope brought to a creation that dwells in darkness by the Babe of Bethlehem. But these days speak just as clearly of our hope in the realization of the Reign of God in all its fullness when Jesus the Son of Man arrives in glory. We regularly read during this season the text from Isaiah 9:6:

For a child has been born for us,
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
and he is named
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Those are not words that confine One to a manger; those are words that lift up the cosmic significance of the coming of Christ in the world.

I am looking forward to Christmas. But I am revelling in Advent.

The above image is from Wikipedia.

We are gathered here

I've been thinking a bit about weddings. I am particularly considering the wedding service. Arising out of those conversations is the question about that service, "What is it?" That is, are we attending a ceremony? A ritual? A sacrament? A service of worship? A rite? Well, depending on the context, it is each of these things? Or all?

But, in the United Methodist Church (UMC), the event is a worship service. The UMC has two services, a more familiar, traditional service -- the one you see in the movies -- and a more modern format that came into being with the adoption of the 1988 Hymnal and the 1992 Book of Worship. The first service(1) begins:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God and in the presence of these witnesses to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony...

the latter service(2) gets underway with these words:

Friends, we are gathered together in the sight of God to witness and bless the joining together of Name and Name in Christian marriage.

In each of these instances, sight of God is the church's way of saying "we are at worship." If you look at the accouterments, there is scripture, music etc., and it looks "like church." Some communions see such a day as a ceremony or observance that has no direct relationship to the worship life of the church. I know of one sect that doesn't use instrumental music in its worship, but they don't give a second thought to wheeling a keyboard or piano into their gathering space for weddings.

I am of the mind that, if we would accent the worship nature of the day more, that the event might unfold with more dignity, and it just might be that the bride and groom would take the entire proceedings more seriously. Undoubtedly marriage is a rite of passage. And, we expect the church to have a big part in all other such occurrences. Infant baptism, confirmation, marriage, baptizing of one's own children, the funeral -- the church has its hand in all the great events of our lives. The wedding is a major step in the life of any individual. It is also one of the abovementioned rites of passage that is entered into voluntarily.

I don't really see how anyone can make the argument that such a day is merely a pageant. Now, unchurched people have to find a way to get hitched if they are concerned with that sort of thing. Secular weddings are performed all the time by judges, magistrates, justices of the peace, and captains of ships at sea. But, anything that is even remotely theistic, or at least that includes the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in its language, has a default setting of worship.

I have no need to defend the worship nature of the wedding service. I do, as I said initially, have some reflections. If worship is "to ascribe worth," and if Christian worship involves praise and thanks rendered to God, then the service of marriage may be the perfect paradigm of corporate worship. For, in the work that we do that day, God creates something new. God creates a household, a family, and a covenant relationship. The God of "behold, I am doing a new thing" (3) does such a thing in that particular worship time. We remember that the Roman Church considers marriage itself a sacrament. Where would God perform a sacrament except in worship?

Maybe the bird seed, the unity candle, and the flash pictures would crawl off into the corner and disappear if we took a more worshipful approach to the day. And maybe, just maybe, divorce, separation, pre-nuptial agreements, broken homes and broken lives would diminish as well

(1)The United Methodist Hymnal: Book of United Methodist Worship ,
copyright 1988 by The United Methodist Publishing House.
(2) The United Methodist Book of Worship,
copyright 1992 by The United Methodist Publishing House.

The image is from Wikipedia.

Of gifts and giving

The subject of giving to the church inevitably comes up when Christian people gather. This is so, in part, because just about all church folk are singing the blues these days. With greying congregations, $4.00-a-gallon gas, diminishing church rolls and increasing program & maintenance costs, there is not a lot of extra in most church budgets.

Across the board, United Methodists give between 2.3 and 2.8 percent of their income per capita. This is among the higher percentages among Christian groups. If that seems low, remember that a significant number of people in any local congregation are giving more, even considerably more. That means, of course, that others are giving less. Significantly less. Or nothing at all.

This brings up the subject of The Tithe. That term appears only seven times in the New Testament of the King James Version. It is not present at all as the New International Version reads. At that, the KJV references are either verses where Jesus condemns the rigidity of the Pharisees or they are verses from Hebrews where the writer is making reference to the tithes as the old or former way of doing things.

Now, don't hear me saying that a target giving level of 10% of one's resources is a bad thing. But, when you look at the world of the Bible, much of what is labeled "tithe" has to do with crops and first-fruits and flocks. Jesus speaks of those who even "tithe their dill and cumin." (Matthew 23:23) This begins to focus us on the problem of legalism. If one has an herb garden and is counting sprigs growing out of the ground so that they can set aside ten percent, they probably don't fall under the category of "joyful giver."

Jesus has more words about money, wealth and giving than about faith, hope, love, and prayer combined. That indicates that Jesus believes the use of wealth to be important. What Jesus does say is that His disciples should give sacrificially. The sacrifice is also a good Old Testament term. The Law of Moses carries instruction for all types of sacrifices. These take the form of thank offerings, sin offerings, purification offerings and any number of other types. But, in a variety of settings for a multitude of causes, scripture calls for a sacrifice.

One of the things we need to realize about animal sacrifice is that the giver of the offering didn't go to the flock and pick out the oldest or the sickest or the most lame or the most useless of the herd. The animals offered are to be "without spot or blemish," and they are young and strong and vital. Now, when a giver offers such an animal, that person is not only surrendering the life of that animal, but also all of the animals that the original beast might produce for ever. Remember, the animal presence of the world was repopulated from a single pair that was preserved on the Ark of Noah. So, the surrendering of one animal releases the potential of a multitude of progeny over time. A person sacrifices not only their now but also their future.

Now, we are not usually called upon to slit an animal's throat, place it on a pile of kindling, and set it on fire. But, the principle applies. Our gift sacrifices not only a bit of our checking account, but also all of its investment and earning power in the future.

Sacrificial giving is not reckoned on a legalistic percentage. Ten percent might be a drop in the bucket for one individual. It could be a totally unrealistic -- and discouraging -- total for another. Now, what you give is between you and God. But, the reality is that we are called to sacrificial giving, and some people give all they can give at a minuscule portion of their resources. For others, a tithes is so insignificant as to be unnoticed. Sacrificial giving in those instances may reflect a significantly higher segment of their total holdings.

That we give is understood. What we give is still a concept in quest of an understanding.

The above image of Abraham Sacrificing Isaac by Laurent de La Hire,
1650 (Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Orléans) is from Wikipedia.

Yet she on Earth hath union with God the Three in One

Today is Whitsunday, or Trinity Sunday, the one day in the Christian Liturgical Year that centers on a particular doctrinal point. The day itself has a bit of a ragged history. Perhaps inconsistent would be a better word, as the articles here and here demonstrate. But, this is not the only feast that has had its location moved around the calendar for various reasons. The Transfiguration of the Lord would be another example.

But, the when is not as important as the what. The belief in a Triune God, of God the Three-in-One, is a defining belief for Christians. From the United Methodist perspective, John Wesley labeled affirmation of the Holy Trinity one of the essential beliefs of a Christian.



On this day in which we celebrate this fragment of the revelation of God's nature, I lament that we often make the concept of The Holy Trinity a stumbling block rather than receiving it as a gift. Today's epistle lesson from the Revised Common Lectionary concludes with 2 Corinthians 13:14,

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

In this text, Paul gives us one of the earliest presentations of well thought-out trinitarian theology. Remember, most commentators date the writing of First Corinthians around 52 A.D. The earliest gospel was penned at least a decade later. Paul develops trinitarian thought throughout the course of his writing.

But, Paul's purpose is to help us see God. We are not called to dissect or deconstruct, but to be faithful.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;
as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be;
world without end. Amen

The above image, Holy Trinity, fresco by Luca Rossetti da Orta, 1738-9 (St. Gaudenzio Church at Ivrea, is from Wikipedia.

Come to The Table

A friend and colleague addressed some folks who are training to be United Methodist pastors recently. The topic was Sacramental Theology and Practice. In the portion of his presentation that dealt with Eucharist, he made frequent reference to the United Methodist foundation document on the subject. The work is This Holy Mystery, and is the result of a study commissioned by the General Conference of The United Methodist Church and was adopted in 2004 as the official position of the church on this subject.

This is such a rich work that it is hard to center on one portion or one idea in all the 43 pages above all the rest. But, I was intrigued by some comments regarding that old bugaboo 1 Corinthians 11:27-32:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

I have witnessed and have observed more conflict and misunderstanding over this text than just about any other short text in scripture. First, how can anybody ever be worthy? Jesus himself said that it is not the well who need a physician, but the sick.

But, beyond that, when the passage speaks of recognizing (some translations say discerning) the body of the Lord, how is it that Paul uses that phrase -- the body of the Lord, the body of Christ -- in just about every other context? It is a metaphor for the church. When a person sees the Sacrament of the Table as anything other than a community act rehearsing the grace of Jesus Christ, that is the judgment. The great misdirection of our time is the understanding of our faith as being solely an individual act. Again, in scripture, when Paul says, "you," he is almost always using the plural. In modern English translations, the singular and plural of "you" are distinguishable only by context. One of the places where the King James Bible does us a big favor is that, in the plural, "you" is rendered as "ye." Now, I live in the South, and in my region, we speak of "y'all." "Ye" is KJV for "y'all." So "ye" must discern the church and its gift of Table, otherwise you bring the judgment of God upon yourselves. The Eucharist is God's great gift to the church. It is not a present to an individual.

And it's a mystery.