Notes on Transfiguration Sunday

Here is a compilation of my sermons/messages/posts for Transfiguration Sunday, as well as some thoughts for what I would have said this Sunday.

February 14, 1999 – Year A – Neon (KY) UMC – “A Scout is Reverent” – (This was also Boy Scout Sunday – see Boy Scout Sunday)

March 4, 2000 – Year B – Walker Valley (NY) UMC – not on file

March 25, 2001 – Year C – Walker Valley (NY) UMC – “The Mountain Top”

February 25, 2002 – Year A – Walker Valley (NY) UMC – not on file

March 2, 2003 – Year B – Tompkins Corners (NY) UMC – “That Moment in Time”

February 22, 2004 – Year C – Tompkins Corners (NY) UMC – “Mornings in Whitesburg”

February 6, 2005 – Year A – Tompkins Corners (NY) UMC – “The Mountaintop Experience” – (This was also Boy Scout Sunday – see Boy Scout Sunday)

February 26, 2006 – Year B – “Let Us Tell The Story”

February 18, 2007 – Year C – Dover Plains (NY) UMC – “Encountering God” (sermon)

February 3, 2008 – Year A – “Transformation Sunday”

February 22, 2009 – Year B – “The View From The Mountaintop”

February 14, 2010 – Year C – “That Transforming Moment”– (This was also Boy Scout Sunday – see Boy Scout Sunday and Evolution Weekend – see Evolution Weekend)

March 6, 2011 – Year A – United Methodist Church of the Highlands (NY) – “Seeing Through The Clouds“

February 19, 2012 – Year B

As I was preparing this list, I got a note that I might be needed at a local church. It was one of those situations where the call would come at the last minute. This has happened twice in my career; once when I was just beginning (see “What Do You Do?”); then a few years ago (see “Hearing God’s Call”). As it turned out, I wasn’t needed this Sunday so I didn’t finish what I was writing.

But had I presented the message, it would have been entitled “A Lasting Monument”. I thought about how Peter wanted to build a stone monument to the moment of Jesus being transfigured and how we have turned so many of churches into empty stone monuments celebrating the past accomplishments of individuals who are long gone and perhaps forgotten. Do you have any knowledge of why your church has the name it does?

I thought about what Paul wrote and how translated into the actions and deeds of today’s churches. And I thought about what we are being asked to do in the United Methodist Church today. What needs to be our response to the “Call to Action”? In part, I think we need to find ways to answer that call and I wanted the “Missional Manifest for the United Methodist Church” that John Meunier and Jay Voorhees created – my link to their efforts is at https://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/missional-manifesto-for-the-umc/

And finally I thought about the transition from Elijah to Elisha and how that applies to each one of us in today’s church. It is reflected in the dialogue between Sir Thomas More and Richard Rich in the play, “A Man For All Seasons.”

Sir Thomas More: Why not be a teacher? You’d be a fine teacher; perhaps a great one.

Richard Rich: If I was, who would know it?

Sir Thomas More: You; your pupils; your friends; God. Not a bad public, that.

We do not need monuments of stone that stand in quiet remembrance of something that happened a long, long time ago. Nor do we need monuments that are in memory of someone no one knows or who did something that no one can recall. What we need people who will continue to do God’s work and spread the message that Christ gave to us. That will be the best and most lasting monument.

Missional Manifesto for the UMC

I have found that the easiest way to keep abreast of what is going on in the Methoblogosphere is to subscribe to the blogs of a few people. Among those whom I subscribe to is John Meunier. Last week he posted a note about something Jay Voorhees had done (with John’s help) entitled “Missional Manifesto for the People called United Methodists”. Then I received a note from Jay that in response to his original posting he had placed it on a site of its own – http://missionalmethodist.org/

I encourage you to go there and become a part of this movement. It is not a counter response to the Bishop’s Call to Action but rather a means by which the call can be answered.

What Do You Do?

This was the message that I gave on 24 October 1993 at Grace UMC in St. Cloud, MN as part of Laity Sunday. While this was the 20^th Sunday after Pentecost, it was still early in my lay speaking career and I was still “picking and choosing” my Scripture readings instead of following the lectionary as I do today.

I wasn’t supposed to give the message this year. Though it was only October, I knew that I would be moving to Kansas after the current school year was completed and I wanted to begin a transition from “leader” to “observer”. I had organized the previous two Laity Sunday services and felt that others should begin getting involved. But on the Saturday afternoon before this Sunday, the person scheduled to give the message called and told me he was unable to be in church on Sunday and I would need to fill in. As this was early in my career, I wasn’t quite ready to do so but when you are a lay speaker you have said that you would answer the call when it is made and that is what I did. Because of the time frame of preparation, I liberally borrowed from messages I had given elsewhere figuring that no one present at Grace had been present at the places in Missouri and Tennessee where I had preached earlier. Unfortunately I forgot that one of those messages had been videotaped and I had shared that tape with some of the congregation. J

I based my thoughts for this message on 2 Corinthians 4: 1 – 6 and Matthew 15: 24 – 25.

One of the churches where I have been a member is large enough to have a senior pastor and an associate pastor. During the Sunday worship, the associate pastor takes care of the lectionary readings, the prayers of the congregation, and the offering. There is also a youth minister to take care of the “Children’s Moment”. This leaves the senior pastor to concentrate on the sermon. At this church it is the custom for the children, following the “Children’s Moment”, to go to another area of the church where they have a Children’s service. One Sunday, as one young girl walked by the pulpit, she looked at the senior pastor and asked “What do you do?” For you see, every Sunday this child saw the associate pastor lead the congregation in prayer and other activities. She would go up to the altar to be with the Youth Minister for the “Children’s Moment”. But all she saw the other man do was sit in his chair because she, along with the other children, left before he preached. In answer to her question, the senior pastor did the “Children’s Moment” the next week.

“What do you do” has been a question for the church for a number of years. As we look at the world around us today, we have to ask ourselves “What do we do to change the direction of the world from its path of sin and desolation?” What do we do when society around us is intolerant of poverty and shows no concern for its less fortunate members? These questions are not unique to our generation; they have been with us since Jesus began His ministry.

John Wesley struggled with these questions for many years. He could not sit idly by and watch his church ignore the plight and conditions of the lower classes. In an exchange with Joseph Butler, the Bishop of Bristol, Wesley made it clear what he felt he must do.

Bishop Butler — “You have no business here. You are not commissioned to preach in this diocese. Therefore I advise you to go hence.”

John Wesley — “My lord, my business on earth is to do what good I can. Wherever therefore I think I can do most good, there must I stay so long as I think so. At present I think I can do the most good here. Therefore here I stay.” (Frank Baker, “John Wesley and Bishop Butler: A Fragment of John Wesley’s Manuscript Journal”, 16^th to 24^th August, 1739.)

John Wesley understood that a church and a nation which ignores members of its society can never expect worldly success, let alone success in Heaven. Having accepted Christ as one’s personal Savior, you could not sit back and wait for the Glory of the Lord to come to you. You had to take the message of the Gospel out into the world, both in thought, word and deed. To the elders of the Church of England, this call for action was unconscionable. How dare a pastor call for such radical action. This was a time when more and more people were getting wealthy every day so it was permissible to ignore those few who were not quite so fortunate. Remember poverty in Wesley’s time was thought to be a reflection of one’s sinful life. If you were rich, it was because you had lead a good life. If you were poor, it was because you were not living the right kind of life. It wasn’t the church’s fault that people were homeless and hungry; that medical care for the lower classes was almost non-existent; that only the rich could afford to go to school. Wesley would have felt right at home in the United States these last few years when concern for one’s own well-being was more important than a concern for members of society.

John Wesley understood that the church must present a message people understand. But the message must also be accompanied by actions. To Wesley, preaching the Gospel was more than a Sunday experience; it was a daily occurrence. Preaching the Gospel alone is not enough when people are hungry, homeless, or suppressed by an indifferent society; you must help people overcome such barriers. If people are hungry, they must be feed; if people are sick, they must be healed; if the people seek to improve their lives through education, there need to be schools. If the church is to be a vital and living part of the community today, it must offer the hope and promise of the Gospel message to all who seek it.

Yet, instead of supporting the work of Wesley and his followers, people in the Church of England barred them from preaching in the churches. Yet this did not stop the Methodist Revival. Wesley and the other early Methodist ministers simply began to preach wherever they could find the space. If that meant preaching in fields, then they preached in the fields.

When conditions cry for revolution, there will be a revolution. Many historians have looked at the conditions in England, both economic and social, and wondered why England did not undergo a violent revolution like that of France at much the same time. The difference between the revolution in England and the revolution in France can be attributed to the nature of the Methodist revival. Wesley and the early members of the Methodist Revival, by working to bring the Gospel to the people of England and changing the conditions of society, removed the threat of a violent revolution.

It was the same for Jesus. There was a need for a revolution in his country. Not the political revolution many people sought but a spiritual revolution. For people no longer heard a message of a Loving Father who cared for His children. Many people at that time probably did not even know that their God cared for them. The rules and regulations of the church made it impossible for them to do so. It wasn’t that they had left their religion but that their religion had left them. The message they did hear held no promise or hope. As Paul wrote in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians,

“He (speaking of Jesus) is the one who has helped us tell others about his new agreement to save them. We do not tell them that they must obey every law of God or die; but we tell them there is life for them for the Holy Spirit. The old way, trying to be saved by keeping the Ten Commandments, ends in death; in the new way, the Holy Spirit gives them life. (2 Corinthians 3: 6)

In his message and in his actions, Jesus sought to bring people back to God; to show them that their Father in Heaven did care for them and did truly love them.

The same thing is true today. The world is crying for a spiritual revolution. People are leaving the church today because they see a church which no longer cares about them and is indifferent to the needs of society. Today churches are seeking ways to bring back that generation we call the “baby boomers”. And, whatever actions are taken, they must be taken quickly because we could lose the next two generations, the “baby busters” and the children of the baby boomers. The church’s actions must reflect its mission. Such actions must also reflect the genuine compassion that Jesus felt for those who sought Him. Elton Trueblood offers the following thought:

“Because we cannot reasonably expect to erect a constantly expanding structure of social activism upon a constantly diminishing foundation of faith, attention to the cultivation of the inner life is our first order of business, even in a period of rapid social change. The Church, if it is to affect the world, must become a center from which new spiritual power emanates. While the Church must be secular in the sense that it operates in the world, if it is only secular it will not have the desired effect upon the secular order which it is called upon to penetrate. With no diminution of concern for people, we can and must give new attention to the production of a trustworthy religious experience.” (From The New Man for Our Time by Elton Trueblood)

When Jesus began to preach the Gospel, the message He gave was for everyone, not just a select few. Jesus never turned away anyone who sought His ministry. His ministry was open to all who sought Him. Jesus took his ministry to the people so that the people could come to Him.

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” And he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Sending her away, for she is crying after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me”. And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”. She said, “Yes, Lord: yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” An her daughter was healed instantly. And Jesus went on from there and passed along the Sea of Galilee. and he went up on the mountain, and sat down there. And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the maimed, the blind, the dumb, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, so that the throng wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel.” (Matthew 15: 21 – 31)

The salvation we gain by accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior is not a two-way path. There is no way for us to gain salvation without going to Jesus Christ. But, if people are to come to Jesus, there must be a path available. Consider the desire of people who truly want to come to Jesus. In Mark 2 we read

“And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and when they had made an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic lay.” (Mark 2: 1 – 4)

This man and his friends did what it took to get to Jesus. But not all people have such capability. If the path to Jesus is blocked, the people will turn away.

Every time we look around today, we see more reasons why the Church should be a part of society. Today, numerous studies tell churches how to revitalize their congregations, how to bring life back into dying congregations. Every time, the same answer comes through back. It is the members of the congregation which must do the work. That is what today is about. Laity Sunday honors the work of all those who do the work of the church. It also points out the role the laity has in bringing the Gospel message to the world.

Today Jesus is calling you. He is asking you to be a part of His community; to do His work. What will you do? Samuel heard God calling him and answered “Here I am Lord.” The disciples dropped what they were doing when asked by Jesus to follow Him. Paul did not want to become the missionary to the world; he wanted to put a stop to the mission of Jesus. As Saul, he saw Jesus and his followers as a threat to a way of life. Yet, after encountering the Holy Spirit on the road to Damascus, Paul understood what a life in Jesus Christ meant.

“Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of god. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is only veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world (meaning Satan) has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of god. For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ”. (2 Corinthians 4: 1 – 6)

Today, Jesus asks us the same question the little girl asked the senior pastor, “What do you do?” How will you answer him?

Another One

This was the message that I gave at Good Shepherd United Methodist Church in Bartlett, TN, on 29 August 1993. This was the 12^th Sunday after Pentecost but I used Mark 8: 27 – 37 as my Scripture reading and the basis for my message. This was the 7^th message I gave in my career and I was still exploring how I was going to do things. I would begin following the common lectionary two years later when I served the churches of the Chattaqua Parish in Kansas (see “Hide and Seek”) and begin using the revised common lectionary when I moved onto Memphis in 1996.

Also, this was still early in the adaptation of technology to preaching, so you will find references to scripture readings instead of the reading itself. The pulpit was very crowded that Sunday as I had my printed notes and my Bible marked with pages to turn to when I needed to read the passage.

Good Shepherd was my mother’s church (hence the references within) and it would become my church when I moved from Kansas to Memphis.

When you read the text upon which this sermon is based, Mark 8: 27 – 28, you begin to wonder how the disciples phrased their answer. I don’t think that the disciples were surprised when people said that Jesus was another of the prophets. Now people are often surprised when they find out that I am Jenny LeBouef’s oldest son.

Now they know of her son Terry, who often plays guitar here at Good Shepherd, and possibly of Tim, a fireman here in Memphis and they know of Tracey, her daughter. But when they find out that she has an third, older son, their response is often “You mean there’s another one!”

I don’t think that the people used the term “another one” in disgust either. The story is often told about an early Methodist circuit rider named Nolley who

“. . . approached a settler unloading his wagon at a new homestead in Mississippi. When Nolley told the settler who he was, the settler exclaimed, ‘Another Methodist preacher! I left Virginia for Georgia to get clear of them. There they got my wife and daughter and I came here and here’s one before I got my wagon unloaded.’

Nolley replied, ‘My friend, if you get to Heaven, you will find Methodist preachers there, and if you go to Hell, I am afraid you will find some there; and you see how it is on earth, so you had better make terms with us and be at peace.'” (E. G. Watts, We Are United Methodists, Graded Press, 1987, page 31)

No, I don’t think it was with disgust either. On the whole, I think that, if you were to have asked people of that time who Jesus was, they probably would have answered “Oh, he’s just another prophet; we’ve heard them before.”

But Jesus wasn’t another prophet. The message he gave was far different from anything the prophets might have said or done. It was also a message never given in the synagogue and it was accompanied by actions which showed there was a power behind the words. Instead of gloom, it was a message of hope and joy and a vision for the future.

That this was an entirely different message is shown by the size of the crowds who came to hear Jesus, as we can read in Matthew 4:23 to 5:1. That this was a different message is also shown by the fact that people broke down age old differences and prejudices to seek out Jesus.

The Canaanite women        –    Matthew 15: 21 – 28

The women in the crowd        –    Mark 5: 25 – 34

Zaccaheus, the tax collector    –    Luke 19: 1 – 5

Today, our church faces a similar challenge. It must find ways to take the Gospel message outside the church walls; it must help those who have turned away to come back to Jesus.

I am speaking primarily of that generation we call the “baby boomers”, adults who during the 60’s turned away from the church and who are now seeking to return. I am also speaking of the children of this generation, known as the “baby busters”, who are now just making their own spiritual decisions. And close behind is another generation, the “baby boomlets”, whose spiritual well-being the church must concern itself with.

We hear and read that, in order to bring these groups into the church fold, the church must change. But too often churches change the message when it is the approach which must change.

The message Jesus gave us is still valid today but it cannot be presented in a language no one understands. The actions supporting the message must also reflect the message. “Boomers” left the church in the early 60’s in larger numbers than any other generation before in part because they no longer trusted the church. The message given by the church offered no hope or peace at a time when the country was torn apart.

The “boomers” went looking for a spiritual home but found a church whose message was as slick and superficial as the society they lived in. If we are not careful, the church today will lose the “busters” and the “boomlets” for the same reasons.

John Wesley understood the need for the church to present a message the people understood. A church blind to the needs of its members or its community cannot do its work. You cannot preach of the power of the Saving Grace of Jesus Christ when people are hungry, homeless, or suppressed by an indifferent society. John Wesley also understood that an individual, having accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior, had the responsibility to show that he had done so. This meant helping the community

Now, English law prevented Wesley and the other early Methodist preachers from preaching in established churches and the law also made it difficult for their followers to build their own churches. This forced the Methodist Revival into the countryside. While this may have been intended to hold the movement down, it had the opposite effect because it took the Gospel message to the people. In taking the Gospel to the people, it became possible to put the Gospel into action.

A church which seeks to grow today, a church which feels the need to do more than exist from Sunday to Sunday must do two things. First, it must offer to all who seek it a chance to enter into that loving relationship with Jesus. Second, it must take its activities beyond the church walls.

Jesus never turned away anyone who sought His ministry. His disciples might have wished that he had ignored the Canaanite women but Jesus told her to come to Him. The scribes and Pharisees surely spoke ill of this man who would dare to eat with Zaccaheus, the tax collector and sinner. But Jesus’ ministry was not limited to a select few; it was open to all.

The Church of England in John Wesley’s time may have turned its back on the poor and lower classes but John Wesley knew that he could not do so.

Those who seek a spiritual home, those who are making that most important spiritual decision are all looking for that loving relationship that the church can provide. Will they find it?

The answer lies not with the pastor but with the people. The same studies that tell the church it must change if it is to grow also tell us that an individual returns to a church a second time if someone other than the pastor greeted them the first time they visited them.

We tell each other that Jesus loves us but do we show that love to others? Do we allow the Grace of Jesus Christ that is in our hearts, that warming of our souls, to be felt by others?

Today Jesus asks us the same questions he asked the disciples on the road to Caesarea Philippi: “But who do YOU say that I am?”
(Mark 8: 29)

Are we prepared to follow Christ as He asked in verses 34 – 38 of Mark 8?

When John the Baptist was in jail, he became concerned over the stories his followers told of this man from Galilee. – a reading from Matthew 11: 2 – 6

Could we respond the same way today?

She Did It Again!

The “she” in the title is my Congresswoman, Nan Hayworth. And she actually didn’t do again; she has kept on doing it. The “it” was a phone call inviting my wife and I to participate in a telephone town hall conversation. The only problem was that our caller id identified the caller as “unidentified” and the phone number as “unavailable.”

I first reported this last year with “A Letter to my Congresswoman.” As I noted then, I sent a copy of that post to her office in anticipation of an answer but I never received one. Of course, I did say in that earlier note not to send me a canned reply so that may be why I didn’t receive a response. (I am very leery of sending notes to my Representative or Senator; many times the content of their response bears no relationship to what I submitted.)

I suppose that Congresswoman Hayworth can take pride in her efforts to reach out to her constituents. I am sure that there is some sort of statistical software that allows her to say that she has contacted by phone every constituent in the district. But such software isn’t necessarily going to say that everyone responded or ignored the phone call. One of the reasons that caller id was created was so that you would know who called and allow you to screen the calls. Calls that come into our house that have no identity are not answered.

Congresswoman Hayworth, it is one thing to say that you are reaching out to contact every individual in your district. It is another thing to say that you are in touch and talking with them. You are fulfilling the first but failing in the second. There were reports that your staffers were removing unkind comments from your web page and Facebook page. Again, having a web page and a Facebook page indicate a willingness to be in touch with your constituents but only having positive comments suggests that you are not willing to listen.

You may feel that you are representing this district but I believe that you are only representing the top 1% and that you are not willing to listen to anyone else. You may say that you are technology innovative but I believe that you use that technology to keep from being innovative. When was the last time that you meet with the people on a street corner in one of the towns in your district? Oh that’s right, you called and left me a message to say you would be somewhere but I didn’t get the call in time because I didn’t know that you were calling.

If I have not said or written it before, let me say it now. I do not plan on voting for you in the coming election; you do not represent me nor do I believe that you represent the majority of individuals who live in your district. You do a wonderful job of representing those who are greedy and selfish, those who would deny the basic tenets of life, liberty and happiness because they neither have the wealth or the ability to gain wealth. You are true conservative, to be sure. You want to keep the status quo so that what you and those with wealth who support you may keep all that you have.

You look to the past and wonder why things aren’t like they used to be but you are blind to the present and cannot see the future. You do a wonderful job of representing the Republican Party and all that it stands for; it is just that what this represents is the past and not the future for this country. For that I cannot and will not support you.

It may seem like a little thing but having your identity and phone number blocked on a call tells me what you think of my views. Now, you know mine and so do others.

In peace,

Dr. Tony Mitchell

To Leave the World a Better Place

This is a day of double significance for me. First, as it is Boy Scout Sunday, it marks day that I was confirmed in the church. It is, if you will, my Christian Birthday, and it sounds a lot better to say that I am 47 than 61.

Second, this is also the anniversary weekend of Charles Darwin’s birth. As such, there are a number of pastors and lay speakers participating in Evolution Weekend events. I happen to be one of those participating. This is an outgrowth of the Clergy Letter Project which is an endeavor that demonstrates that science and religion are compatible and is designed to elevate the quality of debate on this topic.

To quote from “The Clergy Letter Project” web page,

Evolution Weekend is an opportunity for serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science. One important goal is to elevate the quality of the discussion on this critical topic – to move beyond sound bites. A second critical goal is to demonstrate that religious people from many faiths and locations understand that evolution is sound science and poses no problems for their faith. Finally, as with The Clergy Letters themselves, which have now been signed by more than 13,000 members of the clergy in the United States, Evolution Weekend makes it clear that those claiming that people must choose between religion and science are creating a false dichotomy.

As it happens, I come from a chemistry background, and as I have said on a number of occasions, I could easily avoid the debate. My areas of interest and research are in the nature of introductory and freshman chemistry and far from the realm of biology. But my doctorate is in science education and I am concerned, both from a professional standpoint and as a parent and a grandparent, that our science education process is threatened when we purposefully dictate the nature of science instruction in this country.

I am not alone in this thought. Many years ago, when I was teaching chemistry in a high school in Missouri, the Missouri state legislature was thinking of passing a bill mandating the teaching of intelligent design in the biology classroom (legislation similar to what was recently passed by the Indiana state legislature). Now, as a chemistry teacher, I was not affected directly by this proposed legislation. But it was legislation that was designed to circumvent restrictions in place that prevented the introduction of religious topics into the science classroom under the disguise of scientific theory. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory though its proponents would have you think that it is.

Early on in my education and my professional career I had to make a decision. Shall I accept the physical evidence about the world in which I live or shall I accept the notion that the earth was created in seven days? Did God not create me in His image and does that not mean that I look at the world around me with open eyes? I have come to the conclusion that God is demanding that I seek an explanation that matches the evidence that is laid out before me.

Now, to underscore all of this, let me state without hesitation and very clearly, that I do believe that God did create this universe. But the evidence concerning the age of the universe tells me that He did it some 14 billion years ago. What does it say when others say that God made it seem like the world is very old. Is the God that cares for me a liar and a trickster?

I wrote back in 2010,

As Dr. Watke pointed out, if we deny the reality of the physical world, we are denying the truth of God in this world and that ultimately means that we deny truth and we deny God.

If you believe as I do, you can see the Hand of God in the fossil records and the cosmology of the universe. The complexity of such geological history and the wonder of the stars demands an explanation, an explanation that goes beyond an equation where two protons are forced together under intense pressure and extremely high temperatures to form a helium atom and release an extremely large amount of energy. It is more than simply an explanation of the physical processes; it is an explanation of why we are here as well. What I see is a world in which God has challenged us to find Him and understand what He has done and is doing.

It seems to me that those who oppose the teaching of evolution do so out of fear. They fear that open thinking will lead to a loss of control, of being able to dictate what people can think and say. We have been created in God’s image; yet, it strikes me that those who seek to continue to control what is taught have made God in their image.

If we are to understand God and how we fit within the scheme of things, we must explore this world and this universe. We must ask questions, even if we are afraid of the answers. If we do not use our abilities to their fullest, as God would have us do, then we fail ourselves and God. (The World “Out There”

In April, 1997, Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb noted that

. . . when fundamentalist creationists claim that fossils were placed on earth by God to test man’s faith, they are denying a major principle of science, the principle of causality. And they do so without a shred of evidence to substantiate their claim.

If humans cannot trust the evidence provided by the universe, then all science becomes futile; the search for objective knowledge becomes futile; and no scientific knowledge gathered to date can be true.

This religious stance that certain natural phenomena are distorted to give false clues to test human faith is the ultimate denial of science. As Einstein once said, “God does not play dice with the universe.”

Thus, (a) belief system in which a God behaves according to whim and caprice means that we humans can only live in a world of perpetual ignorance. Fundamentalist religion, especially its derivative, creationism, is anti-intellectual, and it prefers that humans live in perpetual ignorance. (adapted from http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/gottlieb.html)

If we were, as it is written later in Genesis, created in God’s image then we have the ability to look at the world around us and ask questions about that world. I believe that those questions that lead to the writing of Genesis in the first place. If we are not asking questions about this world and our place in this world, then I truly believe that we are not living up to the standards that God has placed before us. (And when I read and hear some of the stuff in politics and just in general, I am convinced that we are not even close.)

Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)

You’ve all been to the stadium and seen the athletes race. Everyone runs; one wins. Run to win. All good athletes train hard. They do it for a gold medal that tarnishes and fades. You’re after one that’s gold eternally.

I don’t know about you, but I’m running hard for the finish line. I’m giving it everything I’ve got. No sloppy living for me! I’m staying alert and in top condition. I’m not going to get caught napping, telling everyone else all about it and then missing out myself.

To me, Paul is saying that you have to give your best all the time. And while I may no longer be associated with the Boy Scouts, I still live by the oath that I took when I was a scout over forty years ago.

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Everything in that oath echoes the sentiment that Paul expressed in his words to the Corinthians. To me, it means that I must go, if you will, beyond the walls of our present existence; we must think outside the box that we live in. We do not need to be scientists in the same way that I pursued a degree in chemistry but we do need to have an open and inquiring mind.

And that is what science is about, the pursuit of knowledge, to find answers to questions asked and unasked. It is about going into new territory, both physically and mentally. Yes, it can be frightening; yes, we may not like the answers that we gain in our search. But is our life better if we refuse to find the answers that we do not like?

In the Old Testament reading for today (2 Kings 5:1-14) we read of Naaman being diagnosed with leprosy. His response was, at first, probably anger because this disease can and is one of the most disfiguring diseases one could think of. And unless he could be cured, he was doomed to a life outside society, a society that feared the person as much as the disease.

And though he was told that there was a possible cure, his approach was one of intimidation and fear as if he could force the cure. He had no appreciation for God’s power or what might happen if he opened his mind to other possibilities.

We live in a world dominated by fear and ignorance. It is ignorance not only of the world around us but of our mind and what we can and cannot do.

We seem to think that we can achieve better results through intimidation. Our solution for so many problems today is the same solution that Naaman proposed. And, just like Naaman, we are often unwilling and unable to accept alternative solutions. We are quite willing to accept the actions of charlatans and false prophets as the truth because they cloak their actions in the name of God and often times what they say and do fit into what we think is the truth.

What was it that Jesus once said, “seek the truth and the truth will set you free”? When you are willing to live within the constraints of what society dictates; when you are willing to accept the pronouncements of others as the truth willingly and blindly, you are not free but enslaved. It is when you begin to question, when you begin to explore that one becomes free. Some may say that science is the enemy of religion; sometime it is when religion is based on falsehoods or demands for total obedience to an individual and not to God. But I also know or believe that you must have both science and religion together in order for the truth to set you free.

What made the leper come to Jesus that day described in today’s Gospel reading? Was it in desperation or was in full knowledge that there was hope? I would think he came because he knew what Jesus had done. Either he had heard or seen the results so he knew that his hope was in Jesus. Yes, it was his faith that brought him to Jesus and it was his faith that was the catalysis for his healing. But Jesus also required that he have the healing confirmed (which too many of today’s “faith healers” do not do). Science will not accept a discovery until it has been confirmed.

And while Jesus may not have wanted the healing announced to the world, what was the leper to do? His friends were sure to ask him how it was that he had been cured and he would have had to tell them. And the freedom that he felt and enjoyed would only make him want to tell others, just as the woman at the well told others what Jesus had done for her.

When I would go camping as Boy Scout, the leaders would always remind us to leave the campsite and the area a better place than what it was when we came. When we come to Christ, be it as a child or an adult, we find a new freedom. And like the leper in Mark, this new freedom cannot be hidden; it has to be told.

We have been a great opportunity this day, to use the skills and powers that God gave us, to tell the Good News of Jesus Christ, to leave this world a better place. It is a great challenge and a great opportunity. How will you respond this day?

Following the Rules

This is the message that I gave at Tompkins Corners UMC for the 6^th Sunday after the Epiphany (Year C), 15 February 2004. The Scriptures for this Sunday were Jeremiah 17: 5 – 10, 1 Corinthians 15: 12 -20, and Luke 6: 17 – 26.

I believe in my heart and with all my soul that Jesus was a radical and revolutionary. Unfortunately, this view has gotten me into a lot of trouble, especially in my own family.

Some years ago, in one of my very first sermons, I suggested this very idea. That particular Sunday, one of my cousins was visiting. Paul is the patriarch of the Schüessler family, the oldest son of the oldest son of my maternal great-great grandfather. He, along with his father and two brothers, is a Lutheran minister, one of many that dominate the heritage of our family. After the service that Sunday, he commented that I really should not have portrayed Jesus in such a manner. Yet, a year later, in a sermon preached to the entire Schüessler clan, he raised the image of Jesus as a revolutionary. He did acknowledge that this view of our Lord and Savior came in part from what I had said the year before.

One of the reasons that I see Christ in these terms is that He challenged the status quo, He challenged the notions that people had about their relationship with God. The problem then and even now is that much of our understanding comes from what others have said or written. We willingly let others define what Christ should be for us when it should be up to us to make that definition.

When you get home, carefully reread the words of Jeremiah. He is warning us about relying on the thoughts of others to determine what our own thoughts should be. He starts by quoting the beginning of Psalm 1. But the Psalmist was emphasizing that a good life, the keys to blessing came from avoiding the wicked and studying the Torah. Jeremiah emphasized that the keys to a good life and well-being were found through trust in the Lord.

The “tree of life” that Jeremiah speaks of is the symbol of wisdom. Wisdom is meant to be the ability to perceive the order of God in creation, the intelligence to act in accordance with God’s order, and the moral behavior that leads to well being. Wisdom was not necessarily found in the hearts of mankind.

Jeremiah felt that you could not trust in both God and man. If you turned to one, you would turn away from the other. If we were to turn where our heart would lead us, than we are apt to turn away from where God is leading us or where God would have us go.

That might have been the rationale or reason for Paul writing about the resurrection in his letter to the Corinthians. There were those in Corinth who argued against the actual occurrence of the resurrection. Among the arguments presented was that it was not a physical resurrection but rather a spiritual one that we all go through.

But, and this is the central point to Paul’s rebuttal, if there is no resurrection, if Christ was not raised from the dead, then there is no hope in our faith, there is no promise in what we do. Even today, there are those in the Christian community who would argue that the basic tenets of our faith are no longer valid. They argue that science and the progress of civilization have made many of our statements of faith meaningless and mute. How can there be a loving God if there is war, violence, and repression in the world? If God so loved this world that He would send His only Son, how is it that we have sickness and death?

But wars are the consequences of mankind’s behavior, not God’s. God gave us the wisdom and the ability to act. If there are wars or violence, if there is hatred or repression in this world, it is because we have failed to be God’s servants, not because God has abandoned us. In sending His son, God said to us that He would never abandon us. Our own propensity for war or violence, repression and hatred; our own desires to put our thoughts first, to make the decision about what we are to do merely indicates that we perhaps have abandoned God. This is a world in which there is a lot to fear but putting the blame on an insensitive God does not remove or take away the fear.

When Jesus stood on the plain that day he knew the fears of the people gathered before Him. They were a people living under a tyrannical and repressive foreign government. The taxes imposed by Rome and their own leaders were so burdensome that there was virtually no middle class. Their own leaders worked hand-in-hand with the foreign governor, compromising their own values solely to survive.

Many felt that life was hopeless and adopted a cavalier, laziez faire, “what difference does it make” attitude. Some felt that it was necessary to fight back, to use the same weapons of violence as were used on them. And the Pharisees felt that only by slavish devotion to the countless, myriad, and often-contradictory laws was salvation possible.

This was the world in which Jesus lived; these were the people who gathered before Him that day. The Beatitudes, whether we speak of the traditional text found in Matthew or the shortened version that Luke wrote about in today’s Gospel reading, were not simply a collection of simple statements designed to comfort different groups of people. And they could not be read alone.

Think about the first time you read the Beatitudes and how you may have viewed them as individual statements. They seemed rather contradictory.

How can the meek inherit the world? Shouldn’t it be the ones that have the spirit in their lives who inherit the kingdom of heaven? But that is our thinking being applied to Jesus’ words. We fail to see the commitment that He put before us in order for us to reach the kingdom of Heaven.

Rather, they were meant to identify the stages of experience each person would go through in order to enter the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus spoke of the poor but he was not speaking to the financially poor. Some may feel that he was offering pity to those that lacked resources for there were certainly many that did, but that would only give credence to their poverty. Rather he was speaking about those that lacked spirit and acknowledged that they were poor in spirit would find the ultimate in riches. Those were the ones who were more apt to find what they are looking for.

Some might have been hungry but it was not food that would satisfy their hunger. It was a hunger for righteousness in this world and the hunger would be gone when there was no injustice.

When Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God on earth, he was not offering to make the people more comfortable in their sins. He was calling them to a new life in the Spirit, to a citizenship in His beloved community. The peace that they sought could be found in this community; it was a community that could bring peace to the world. Each of the Beatitudes was a step in the path towards that citizenship.

Each step was not merely an acknowledgement of what they lacked or what they sought; rather, it was a called to action. You cannot be a peacemaker simply by changing the environment; you must also change your heart.

To those whose loyalties lie with this world, those who are citizens of God’s kingdom are subversive agents, dangerous enemies that cannot be tolerated. They must be persecuted, ridiculed, ignored, or removed.

But Jesus warned those who make such citizenship an act of martyrdom to be carefully as well. It was not our task to go out into the work and deliberately seek persecution. To seek abuse in the name of God is hardly what the Word of God is about. That would, again, be our thinking; that would be our telling God what to do.

What Jesus told us to do then and what tells us to do now is to preach the Word and lead a life in great contrast to the world around us. Look at what Jesus said in the next passage in Luke. When we are struck on the check, we should turn the other check. When we find someone naked and cold, we should give that person the coat off our back.

We have a hard time with this approach because they are new rules and they are rules to a game that we may not want to play. They are not simply rules to follow, they are words of action. And it requires that we see the world in new terms, terms that we do not define.

God did not mean our lives to be solitary devoid of human contact. If others cannot see us, we are just as well hidden from God. Jesus’ words this day are a call to action, to do more than just listen. No matter what the cost might be, the words that Jesus spoke are how we should live. It is not simply a matter of course to preach the words; rather, we must demonstrate that we are living the words.

The Pharisees put forth a series of rules that defined each day. But in defining each day, they thought nothing of tomorrow. Jesus gave a set of rules to follow that would give us much more than today, following his rules gave us eternal life. Which set of rules do you wish to follow?

It’s That Simple

This is the message that I gave at Tompkins Corners UMC for the 6^th Sunday after the Epiphany (Year B), 16 February 2003. The Scriptures for this Sunday were 2 Kings 5: 1 – 14, 1 Corinthians 9: 24 – 27, and Mark 1: 40 – 45.

As some of you may know or as I may have alluded to in the past, I am a fan of the Star Trek series. Note that there is a distinction between being a fan and being a “trekkie”. A “trekkie” is easily identifiable by the depth of their knowledge of the original show and its resulting spin-offs as well as the size of their collection of Star Trek memorabilia. By definition, my sister Tracey with her vast collection of Star Trek materials is on her way to being a “trekkie” while Keith Shikowitz, my friend and doubles partner, is the quintessential “trekkie”.

I am a fan, most notably because of James T. Kirk, the captain of the Enterprise that most people know. I am slowly becoming a fan of Jonathan Archer, the captain of the NX-01, the first Enterprise, as the words of Star Trek so vividly remind us, to boldly go where no one has gone before. Archer gets a vote because his explorations in space set the tone for future explorations by Kirk , Picard, and the other captains of the Enterprise.

There are those who would vote for Jean Luc Picard as the best of the captains. In fact, in some management circles today, there are those who strive for the “make it so” approach that Picard uses in command decisions. But I like Kirk.

First, I like Kirk in part because he is from Iowa. And if you doubt that, all you have to do is go to the small country town of Riverside, Iowa. In the town square in Riverside today is a monument that points out that in 2233, James Tiberius Kirk, the future captain of the Starship Enterprise, will be born in that town. I like to think that had Kirk not left Riverside for the Starfleet Academy, he would have journeyed up the road to Iowa City and attended the University of Iowa, as I did. Much to my sister and Keith’s regret, as well as my own, I failed to take a picture of this unique monument when I passed through the town during the summer of 1998.

But perhaps the reason that I like Kirk as a leader is his approach to problem solving. For those not well versed in the curriculum of the Starfleet academy, all graduates must partake in a simulation known as the “Kobyashi Maru problem”. Notice that the requirement is that the graduate take part in the simulation, not pass it. For in the history of Starfleet Academy, only one person has ever successfully solved the problem.

The Kobyashi Maru problem is first and foremost a no-win situation. There is no solution to the problem and every future captain who has taken the simulation has failed, resulting in the loss of his or her ship, the officers and crew. It is a test of how a captain deals with life and death and ultimate failure. But Kirk passed this test and you must be asking how? As he himself said, it was a matter of changing the parameters of the problem so that a winning solution was possible. But as one of his officers noted, he cheated. What he did was sneak into the control room the night before he was scheduled to take the simulation and reprogram the computer to allow for a winning solution. Why did Kirk do it? Why risk an almost sure expulsion from the academy so close to graduation? As Kirk himself said, he did it because he did not want to face death. Nor did he like the idea of losing.

We are all like Kirk at times, not wishing to face death or the end of life. We see life in terms defined by society, measured by how well we do according to society’s guidelines. We have turned life into a race or contest; one in which the contestants have defined the outcome. And in such a race, solutions, the way to win, are often hard to find.

Kirk looked at the problem and came up with a solution that would be considered “outside the box.” We are not always comfortable with that type of thinking, for it puts us in the position of having to push the limits of our own thoughts. Jesus used a similar approach through his ministry.

Don’t confuse creativeness with cheating. It was said that the officers of Enron and WorldCom used similar thinking in their accounting processes. True, their accounting procedures were creative but were done solely for their own gain and done at the expense of the employees of the company. While the officers may have gotten rich, the employees lost everything. While Kirk may have been motivated by his desire not to face death, his actions saved the ship, his officers and crew from death and failure as well.

As we look at Jesus’ ministry, we will see countless examples of thinking “outside the box” and against the current views of society. Everyone who sought Jesus did so because society had cast them out, said to them that their lives were worthless. The choice of a leper in today’s Gospel reading was perhaps a very deliberate one on Mark’s part.

Leprosy was one of the most feared diseases in the Bible. It was not necessarily the leprosy of modern times, a disease better known as Hansen’s disease. But it was one that was contagious and contact with lepers was not advised. Elisha, the prophet, did not want to meet Naaman, the general in the Old Testament reading for fear of infection.

If you were a leper in those days, you were cast out and condemned to a life without hope. And if there was no hope, there can be no future. For those condemned by society and offered no chance for the future, Jesus was their last hope. To them, hearing of this man from Nazareth whose healing powers were indescribable, was a sign of hope. To them, Jesus represented hope and the promise of the future. And in a society where success was determined by one’s ability to fit into a predetermined mold, Jesus showed that there was a better solution.

Note that Jesus’ reaction to the leper’s request to be healed was one of compassion. Here was a soul forgotten not only by society, but also by his family and friends. And not only did Jesus answer the man’s request, he did so by touching him, something most definitely against all rules of society. But though Jesus knew and had no doubts about the correctness of his own actions, he also knew that the religious and political leaders of that time would use the occasion, as they did others, to show how Jesus was working against society. In part, that is why he commanded all those who he healed to remain silent.

It is easy to understand what Paul was writing about in the passage from Corinthians that we read for today. Corinth was a hot bed of athletic competition, highlighted by an annual race. Competitors in the race trained for the ten months preceding the race in order to be ready for it. In referring to disqualification, Paul was referring to the rules that disqualified those who would seek to use inappropriate or unethical means as a way to win the race. And though this race brought laud and honor to the victor, the other athletes received nothing to show for their work and effort over the previous ten months.

If we view life in the terms of the race, as Paul was saying some did, with only one winner, we will quickly find ourselves disillusioned with life. Though there are times when winning is acceptable, to view life in those terms is not. Life may be a race but it is one in which everyone has a chance to win and winning is not determined by how well some do or how poorly others do.

Paul spoke of training to win the race. He knew that any champion must have a dedication to succeed, no matter what the cost. Even a life in Christ required the discipline of a champion. But Paul wanted those that were reading this letter to know that a life in Christ offered all the chance for winning, not just for a select few or the ones with the most talent or dedication.

Each of us has a calling to follow God and how we answer the call will determine if we win the reward that goes with the calling. Paul knew that by remaining faithful to the calling, he would receive the reward but if he ignored or treated lightly his mission, the reward would be lost. And such a loss was a very real possibility for Paul had seen others who had given up their calling simply because the cost was too great and the demands of the life too great.

We are at a point in time where all we see around us are signs of despair and abandonment. We see panic where thoughtful consideration is needed. And we are asking what we should do. Could it be that life has become so complicated that simple answers do not work?

That was most certainly the response of Naaman when Elisha commanded him to bath seven times in the River Jordan. His response was that was too simple a solution. Did not his own position in life, as a powerful general, demand a cure reflective of his stature in life? Were not the rivers of his own homeland just as good or better as the River Jordan?

But it is too his credit that he, Naaman, listened to his servants. They pointed out that he would have willingly done something difficult or hazardous if that had been what Elisha had commanded him to do. So why not think about the simple solution? And once he did so, Naaman knew that the simple solution was the best solution.

Paul wrote that we are runners in a race but it is not a race with only one winner. The race defined by society can only have one winner, a winner defined by economy, politics, and other societal influences. And when we get tangled up with the rules imposed on us by society, it becomes easy to lose sight of what life is about.

But, it is very comforting to know that no matter how complicated life gets, there is a simple solution. And in a time where we are faced with challenges whose solutions seem beyond our comprehension, it is nice to know that a simple solution exists. And when it seems that society has passed us by, cast us out or shut us out, it is comforting to know that a simple solution exists.

It would be just as simple to say that no solution exists; that there is no hope; that we can do nothing. It would be very easy to say to those who society has abandoned that there is nothing we can do for them because there is nothing we can do for ourselves.

We are in a society rushing by, demanding more and more of our time, not giving us time to pause. And while we may think that in a complicated society it will be a complicated solution that saves us, all we have to do is think about Naaman. He wanted a complicated answer but found that it was a simple one that worked best. Jesus was on the road to the next town in order to continue his ministry but he still had the time to stop and answer the cry of a lonely leper needing help. Sometimes during the hectic pace of life, the best solution is something not complicated but simple, to stop and pause, to ask for Jesus’ help. For Jesus promised that no matter when or where, He would always be there to answer our cry for help.

We might be comfortable that Jesus is a part of our life. We may have found the peace that others seek. But then we had better remember that the race of life still requires training and discipline and we cannot run the race if someone else is on the side of the road. Our own race means nothing if we pass by those in need, if we shun others because they don’t fit into a predetermined mold. Remember that after he had been cured, the leper could not remain silent but had to tell others what had happened.

Life may be complicated and there definitely are no easy answers. But life changes when we take Jesus Christ as our own personal Savior. It is that simple.

“Two Roads”

This was the message that I gave at Walker Valley UMC for the 6^th Sunday after Epiphany (Year C). The Scriptures for this Sunday were Jeremiah 17: 5 – 10, 1 Corinthians 15: 12 – 20, and Luke 6: 17 – 26. It was also Boy Scout Sunday.

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
and sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence;
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

“The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost has always been one of my favorite poems. I suppose that is because of all that times that I have chosen roads not traveled by others. But though the roads that I have walked have been different from my counterparts, I know that I have traveled them with Christ as my companion.

The same is true for all of us. As we journey through life, we come to points were decisions must be made. One reason we are here today is that, at some time in our life, we decided that the journey we would make, the road we would take would have a singular destination. And just like the tree draws its strength from the stream, so too does the strength we need to complete our journey come from the presence of Christ in our lives.

As Paul said, our faith is built on the singular idea that Christ died and was resurrected for us. Jeremiah stayed true to the task put before him because his roots drank from the deep, life-giving water that assured him of God’s faithfulness to his people.

Paul reminded the early Christian community that this living stream is the firm belief in and commitment to Christ’s resurrection. Without the resurrection, our faith is truly in vain and we are “the most pitiable people of all.” With belief in Christ’s resurrection, the Sermon on the Mount is not just counter-cultural but utterly senseless as well. To claim the resurrection is to know that the least of people will truly will be first, and that our tears truly will be turned into joy. It is the certainty that those mired in death will be raised into new life, that God’s kingdom will reign on earth, liberating the captives and rescuing the poor.

We have to remember that the word “disciple” does not mean “a student of a teacher” but rather “a follower of someone”. Discipleship in the New Testament meant following Jesus and journeying with Him. As a journey with Jesus, discipleship means being on the road with Him. It means to be an itinerant, a sojourner; to have nowhere to lay one’s head, no permanent-resting place. To journey with Jesus means listening to his teaching — sometime understanding it, sometimes not getting it. It can involve denying Him, even betraying Him.

Journeying with Jesus also means to be in a community. While the road we take with Jesus may be an individual one, being a disciple means we make our journey in a company of others. Though we may travel a road less traveled, we are part of a community that remembers and celebrates Jesus. That is why we are here this morning; we have chosen to be part of a community that celebrates the presence of Jesus in our lives.

It is a journey in his company, in his presence. There is a joy in his presence. It is impossible to be said in Jesus’ presence. Perhaps one might feel sadness, but not sadness about existence itself. Jesus spoke of the joy that we would receive when the journey was completed and he warned what would happen to those who felt that the rewards they had gathered on this earth were the rewards that they would get in heaven.

As we invite others to join in this community, to walk with us on the road we have decided to take and share in this joy, we have to realize that each of our journeys is unique. Though we share our journey and celebrate our being a community together, we have to realize that we cannot make someone walk the path that we are walking. Each person chooses to walk his or her own road and we cannot command them to walk road that we walk.

The challenge is not to get others to walk on our road but rather to share in the journey, to arrive at that same destination. Like Paul and Jeremiah before us, we cannot wait for the kingdom to come to us. The waters of our baptism, our understanding as Methodists compel us to start construction here and now.

Following Jesus requires a strength, passion, and courage that is not of this world. Without it, we would all be “done for” after the first week. This source of life and strength is the stream which Jeremiah and the psalmist speak, and only when we plunge our roots deeply into it do we have any hope of being God’s instrument of justice and peace in this troubled world.

Being a disciple is also about being compassionate. “Being compassionate as God is compassionate” is the defining mark of a follower of Jesus. Compassion is the fruit of life in the Spirit and the ethos of the community of Jesus. Ours is not to command others to walk on the road that we have chosen to walk but rather to invite others to share our journey with them and to be a part of a community of sharing and compassion.

Discipleship means eating at his table and experiencing his banquet. That banquet is an inclusive banquet, including not just me and not just us, but those whom we might want to exclude. It means being nourished by him and being fed by him. Such seems to be the point of Jesus feeding the five thousand in the wilderness, just as Israel was fed in the wilderness during the Exodus from Egypt. It becomes a powerful symbol of journeying with Jesus and being fed by him on that journey. “Take, eat, lest the journey be too great for you.”

As we come to the table this morning, knowing that it is open to all, we are sharing in that journey and the community who make that journey. At some time our roads may separate and the paths we take vary, but we know that it is the destination that we are headed to that counts, not the path we take.

They Are At Again

I am constantly amazed by the hypocrisy of politics (and, yes, I am being sarcastic). Of course, I am also amazed at the willingness of people to accept much of today’s political rhetoric as truth as well and believing that the promises of the candidates (on both sides of the aisle) will become reality upon their election.

If each one of us would stop for a moment and think (a daring thought, I know) about what is happening in this country, then the whole political landscape would change. But we don’t and we let politicians throw mud (forget slinging) at each other, not realizing that what misses the target lands on us. We do not challenge politicians whose political voice is determined by the audience who listens. Remember Pat Paulsen, who “ran” for President in 1968 on the “Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour”, and the videotape piece they put together showing him talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time?

And please don’t get me started on those who call themselves Christian and conservative; it just doesn’t mix. I loved how those who espouse “family values” support Newt Gingrich. I suppose they do that because he has two previous families and one current family.

And for a party that supposedly expresses the right of the individual, they don’t seem to get it. The New York Times for 4 February 2012 reports G.O.P. Candidates Are Told, Don’t Use the Verses, It’s Not Your Song. It would be possibly funny except this is not the first time that the party which espouses the rights of the individual has violated those very rights. In a piece I posted following the 2008 election (The Difference between Republicans and Democrats) I noted that the Republican candidates were doing the same thing. It would appear that many more Republican candidates were caught doing it this time. I guess conservatism means that you do the same thing no matter how wrong or unethical it may seem.

It was noted in the Times article that many rock and roll stars favor the Democratic Party, though it didn’t say what they may be doing in this election year. Could it be that rock and roll, which has a history of going against the main stream, speaks to the very nature of true politics? Are not the songs of my generation more in tune with the true nature of this country and not the country that Republicans and conservatives would prefer (which may explain why country and western singers tend to be Republican)? I find it amazing that Republicans would be upset that they cannot use rock and roll songs without the permission of the writer of the song. You would think that they would respect the basic laws of this country but then again the only people that Republicans respect have bank accounts that have totals that exceed 8 figures which ought to tell you something.

For the record, when I vote this November, it will be for an independent candidate and not one of the major party candidates. That the Republicans would again violate copyright laws is only a minor point. Both parties are doing the same thing again, looking and grubbing for money and ignoring the real problems of this country. I cannot support that type of approach. And I hope that you cannot either.