Spirituality and the Spirituality Of Preaching

I finished a course today called "The Spirituality of Preaching." It was a week long intensive and a part of my Doctor of Ministry program, which - God willing - I will complete with graduation in May of 2013. The course started me thinking about spirituality in general and not just the spirituality of preaching, although for me, given my vocation as a preacher, the latter and the former are hard to differentiate.

I've always thought of spirituality as being in terms of relationships - our relationship with God and our relationship with one another and how those two things inform each other. One thing the course has reminded me of is that spirituality is an inner thing as well. That "inner thing" (because I can't think of any better way to describe it) is about my relationship with or connectedness with God, but it's both more and less than that I think. It's about inner health, having life in balance, keeping things in perspective, not allowing oneself to be overwhelmed by the challenges and complexities of life while at the same time realizing that some things (and maybe many things) are surely going to overwhelm us. That inner spirituality has to do with those practices that we use to keep ourselves feeling centred in and connected to God. As God constantly reaches out to us, our spiritual life is our attempt to reach back. Prayer, devotional reading, meditation, Scripture reading and study, quiet time - all are spiritual practices and, I have to be honest, in the light of this course I realize that I'm nowhere near as "good" at any of these things as I need to be. Which, I suppose, is why I need to be constantly thankful for God's grace which never leaves me even when I allow my connectedness to God to slip every now and then.

A colleague preached in class today about Paul's "thorn in the flesh" from 2 Corinthians. One point he made very well is that since Paul never identified what his thorn in the flesh was, there's no way we can let ourselves off the hook by saying "I don't have that problem!" Pastors as much as anyone have their own thorns in the flesh that we struggle with. I won't identify mine. The struggles are internal and personal. Mine are mine, to deal with God with. But in a way it's good to have our own thorns in the flesh. They are a continual reminder to us that we need to try to stay connected to God. May I learn to be continually better at that task!

A Thought For The Week Of June 25

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth." (Genesis 1:1) Wow. When you think about it, that handful of words that begins the Bible is awesome! They tell us that in the beginning God was already creating. So God comes before the beginning. God is around before anything else starts. I heard a physicist recently say that science talks a lot about what the Big Bang did but not a whole lot about where the Big Bang came from or how and why it happened. That's because it's mysterious. It's a lot like God - and maybe that tells us something. Whatever the process was that called existence itself into being was caused by God. God transcends time and space. And yet we believe that this awesome God who is so beyond us still loves and cares for every one us! Sometimes life deals us tough blows. There's no doubt about that. But in the midst of our troubles, we are still intimately connected with and loved by this God who created everything, who was around before the beginning and who will be around after the ending. If God loves us - and I believe that's true - then we'll be there after the ending, too, just as - in some way, even if only as a sparkle in the "mind" of God - we were there before the beginning. Nothing will even separate us from God's love. Have a great week!

I've Been Thinking About Why We Worship

My newspaper column, to be published June 29, 2012 in the In-Port News:

     That might seem like a strange question for a pastor to ask. Shouldn't it, after all, be self-evident? Do I even need to ask the question “Why do we worship?” And yet, I suspect that if we were to sit down with a diverse group of people who call themselves Christians, we would discover that there are a lot of very different answers to the question (and that all of them are very sincere and faithful answers, regardless of the fact that almost everyone is convinced that the only right way and right reason to worship is, by sheer coincidence of course, the way and reason that they happen to worship! I started thinking about this question when I heard a portion of the novel “The Color Purple” read aloud. In the novel, one of the characters says “Folks come to church to share God, not to find God.” Right there, in eleven words, you see two different perspectives on what worship is about. Well, since worship is at the heart of what we do as Christians, it's a valid topic. Although we probably have a fair amount of agreement on what we do in worship (not the form, but the content) we may not know why. What are some options?

     Some people worship out of duty. They feel a sense of duty to their God to gather together. There's nothing especially wrong with that. There is, after all, a biblical injunction about this: “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing,” is written in the Book of Hebrews, and it reminds us both that we should worship, and that we're often sorely tempted not to worship.

     Some people worship because they like the rituals. Human beings are creatures of habit; we like things to be at least a little bit predictable. We don't like chaos. There's comfort to be found for many in the natural and understood progression of a “good” worship service: the singing of the songs, the reading of the word, the saying of the prayers, the celebration of the sacraments. Doing these familiar things is for some a reminder that God is a constant; that God doesn't change.

     Some people worship noisily, with praise bands and loud music and shouting preachers reminding them of the joy and excitement that accompanies a relationship with God; others worship in quiet contemplation, seeking just a brief word or revelation from God that reminds them of the peace God wants to give us. Some see worship as their acts of service to the world, remembering that “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”

     Some people worship simply to praise God. Their worship is an act of thanksgiving from beginning to end – with hands and voices raised to the glory of God. Some people worship because they like the sense of community created, as different people with different gifts and talents and needs join together as one. As the character from The Color Purple hinted, some worship to share God, hoping that there's someone present who needs God's presence, and some worship to find God, remembering that since Jesus said “when two or more gather in my name I am among them,” then the experience of his presence must be natural to worship.

     I think all of those (and there are a lot more) are perfectly good reasons to worship. Too often we judge others who we think worship for the wrong reasons, believing that only our reason for worshiping can possibly be right. I don't think that's what God wants of us. The “why” we worship can have all sorts of different (and perfectly valid) answers. For me, after having thought about all this, the real question isn't “why we worship” but what ultimately happens when we worship. Whatever the reason for joining together, worship should change us in some way. We should always leave as a transformed person. Not perfected, not ideal, but transformed, understanding just a little more of who God is and what God wants from us. The great Christian ethicist John Howard Yoder wrote that “praising God is at the very centre of the Christian church's mandate. When we gather for worship ... we are to proclaim the virtues of the one who called us to the light and who made us into the people of God.”

     However and for whatever reason we worship, just by doing so we are rejoicing in our place among the people of God, who has a place for everyone!

June 20, 2012 sermon - "Blessedness"

Preached at the ACTS D. Min. in Preaching Chapel Service at the Augustana Chapel in the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, Illinois.

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them, saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:1-12)

     One thing that I've come to appreciate is that even after more than 2000 years and even when you think you've read and studied and preached on a passage long enough to know what it's about, Scripture can still surprise you when you take the time to really work with it – and you don't even have to do an incarnational translation to make it surprisingly fresh! This is, after all, a living word that's always at work revealing fresh insights for modern people, not a dead word that merely records the events and reflections of the ancients. These are not mere words on a page – they are the word of God, revealed to us, and since we can't control God, it shouldn't come as any surprise that we can't control the Scriptures. No, they can surprise us. My surprise around the Beatitudes came a few years ago. I had preached on them several times, and one day as I read through them and reflected upon them, something struck me. If you look at pictures that have been painted of the Sermon on the Mount (that wonderful collection of teachings that begins with the Beatitudes) you usually see them portraying Jesus at the top of a hill, surrounded by multitudes who are straining to hear his every word. It's a word for the nations, in other words; a word for the world according to that interpretation. It's extended to all. And then one day I really listened to the passage, and I heard this: “Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him ...” Jesus withdrew from the crowds, and sat with his disciples, separate from everyone else. It was only those handful of people who had committed themselves to him that Jesus would share this teaching with. I don't believe that Jesus had anything to hide, but I do believe that he realized that the world would never be ready for this teaching – I don't believe the world is ready for the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount as a whole even today. It takes a unique perspective on the world to really get this, and today even a lot of disciples of Jesus have missed the point.

     We don't really understand the concept of “blessings” or “being blessed” or “blessedness” today, and the end result of that misunderstanding is that there are a lot of people who walk through life thinking that they’ve never been blessed; more than a few, perhaps, who feel as if they’ve been cursed; maybe a few of those in the churches we serve. And yet, what’s truly shocking when you read these first verses of the Sermon on the Mount is to see exactly who it is that Jesus declares blessed. They’re the poor in spirit, they’re those who mourn. About those seeming unfortunates Jesus says “Blessed are those …” And then there are the meek – but the world thinks of meekness as weakness. And there are the peacemakers, but in a world where war sometimes seems like the best option rather than the last resort, peacemakers are a bit wimpy. There are the merciful, but my general perception north of the border at least is that our society is getting progressively less merciful – meaner, less compassionate, perhaps less caring. About these, whom many would think of as undeserving, Jesus says “Blessed are those …”   And there are the persecuted. Yes, the persecuted. Some blessing. That's just plain weird. And yet, once more, Jesus says of them, “Blessed are those ...” So why this unusual collection of people? To many in the world the Sermon on the Mount starts off with nonsense; it's gibberish. Many today would look at those in such conditions and think of them as anything but blessed, and when we face such things we don’t feel ourselves blessed. So what does Jesus mean?

     Something unfortunate has happened in recent years: we’ve started to equate “blessedness” with “happiness.” In fact, one popular translation of the Bible (the Good News Bible) translates the Beatitudes not as “Blessed are those …” but as “Happy are those …” That’s a problem, because blessedness and happiness are not the same thing. Happiness is an emotion. It comes from within us. It’s what we feel when things are going well in our lives and many good things are happening. It’s something we generate for ourselves. It doesn’t even have to be big things. If happiness is all Jesus meant in the Sermon on the Mount then He might as well have said, “Happy are those who are eating ice cream.” We had ice cream at the McCormick residence last night. We were happy! “Happy are those who are eating ice cream” actually makes more sense than “Happy are those who mourn.” I’ve mourned. It’s not a happy time. I was anything but happy when I was in mourning. That’s the problem with thinking of blessedness as happiness. Happiness is just temporary, but blessedness is permanent;  happiness depends on our circumstances, but blessedness transcends our circumstances; happiness is generated from within, but blessedness comes from God. Understand the difference. People being persecuted are not happy people. People at picnics are happy people.

     In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus pronounces a state of blessedness upon the most unexpected people, and what does that tell us? It reminds us that blessedness is a little bit like grace – it comes from God, even to those who seem to be the least likely to receive it. It reminds us that blessedness is offered to us by God no matter what our circumstances are. Blessedness in fact comes to those who may be the most desperate, unfortunate, poverty-stricken (spiritually or otherwise) people in the world – because God offers blessedness most powerfully to those who need it the most. It isn’t happiness. You can be both sad and blessed at the same time, or you can be entirely happy but totally bereft of blessings.  Happiness is human; blessedness is divine. Blessedness, in fact (at least if we take Jesus seriously in the Sermon on the Mount) seems to come most powerfully and most directly to those who might be the least happy.

     A little over a month ago I found myself (quite to my own surprise) lying on a hospital bed in our local emergency room. That experience taught me something about blessedness. I found myself totally at peace in the most unlikely of circumstances. I didn't really know why I was there, except that it was a heart problem. That should have worried me, but it didn't. In that moment of my life, I experienced the presence of real, honest to goodness blessedness. I wasn't happy to be there, but I was at peace about being there. I learned the truth of these wonderful words of Jesus: “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.” In the most unlikely circumstances, I found myself truly experiencing blessedness.

     When life doesn’t seem to be treating you fairly, when you’re down in the dumps, when your incarnational translations aren't going so well, or when you have trouble getting the hang of motorcycles or if social justice is getting a bit too hot to handle, when everything seems to be falling apart around you, and you feel as if you have no place to turn – it's not so. There’s one place you can turn without any hesitation – and that’s to Jesus. “ Blessed are you.” “Blessed are we.” Turn to Jesus, and let Him pronounce a blessing over you. Let Him give you peace rather than happiness. Happiness is only temporary, but God’s blessings will last for an eternity. Maybe that’s what Jesus meant when He said “I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

A Thought For The Week Of June 18

"My child, find your source of strength in the kindness of Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 2:1) There are times when you think you just can't go on. That can happen for any number of reasons. Life just seems to naturally have a lot of obstacles to overcome, and sometimes - when the obstacles become too much - we wonder how we're going to push forward. Our strength fails us. But in a strange sort of way, that's when we can suddenly discover that we're at our strongest. As long as we think we can handle "it" (whatever "it" might happen to be) we're probably going to try to handle it. The sudden recognition of our weakness is the moment when Jesus can enter; it's the moment when our weakness is replaced by his strength. That's the point when we suddenly discover that we can do those things that once seemed impossible. No barrier is too great for one who trusts Christ Jesus and looks to him rather than to themself for strength. We don't know what's going to happen today or this week or beyond. What we do know is that Christ Jesus will be there for us, giving us strength to move forward at the moment when, in our own strength, we can't go on. Have a great week!

I Believe In ... The Resurrection Of The Body: A Response To David McKane

Well, I do, but David McKane doesn't apparently. McKane is a writer for the United Church Observer - my denomination's official publication. He writes a column known as "Question Box" - where people write in to him with various questions about the church. One question this month had to do with why we still talk about the resurrection of the dead at funerals - by which I took the questioner to mean the words traditionally used at interments - "in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Please note the words "sure and certain." I don't use those words at an interment because they're traditional or because they sound good. I believe them. My faith tells me that the resurrection of the dead through Jesus Christ is a certainty, not a false hope. Or, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians, "as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22) I have no doubt about that. But apparently I'm supposed to have doubt. In fact, according to David McKane I'm not supposed to just have doubt. I'm not supposed to believe any such thing at all, since I'm a United Church minister. Here was the opening salvo in his response to his questioner:


"I may well get nailed for this, but the United Church does not preach the literal resurrection of the dead. I know that a lot of fundamentalists and literalists do, but not the United Church."


Right off the top there are a number of problems with his response. Let me highlight two. First, and most bothersome, is the sheer arrogance of his reply, in which he claims his position (I assume it's his position) as the position of the entire United Church of Canada, without any warrant or authority to do so. In fact, McKane's position is a complete contradiction of the formal statement of doctrine of the United Church - the 20 Articles of Faith of the Basis of Union. There are some changes proposed to the doctrinal section of the Basis of Union, but they have not been declared approved yet, and even if they are I can't think of anything in the proposed changes that would negate a belief in the resurrection of the dead. In fact, Article 19 of the Statement of Doctrine of the Basis of Union states, in part:


"We believe that there shall be a resurrection of the dead ..." 


McKane doesn't have to agree with that. I have no objection to his right to disagree with it. He's a minister; we ask our clergy for "essential agreement" with the Statement of Doctrine - which is pretty loose, and gives enough flexibility for clergy to disagree with a lot of the Doctrinal Statement, but it doesn't give them the right to disagree with the Doctrinal Statement and then claim their dissenting belief as the belief of the United Church. That's just plain arrogance. His statement regarding "fundamentalists and literalists ... but not the United Church" strikes me as both condescending and patronizing toward a significant number of our brothers and sisters in Christ, with whom we may have disagreements but who are nonetheless our brothers and sisters in Christ. It strikes me as an example of what I might refer to as the passive-aggressive arrogance that so many in the United Church seem to have toward those who are not in the United Church.


Personally, I believe in the resurrection of the body. It's proclaimed by the oldest creeds of the Christian community (the Apostles Creed, for example, states clearly that "I believe in ... the resurrection of the body.") It's proclaimed in Scripture by Paul. Throughout his Christian ministry, Paul was remarkably consistent on this issue. In 1 Thessalonians (one of his earlier letters) he writes that "the dead in Christ will rise first." (4:16) That implies a physical resurrection of some sort. In 1 Corinthians (one of his later letters) he writes "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (15:42-43) The words "spiritual body" seem important to me. Paul speaks of a "body." It may be a "spiritual body" - different in nature from the body we have now - but still a body. Paul also does say that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8) but he's talking here more about the limitation of earthly life in this body - that here "we live by faith, not by sight." (2 Corinthians 5:7) In the broad overall context of Paul's writings, the implication is that Paul does not see us as living for eternity as a disembodied spirit, but rather as a being with a spiritual body. Those are two different things. Why is this such an issue for Paul, and why does he stick so tenaciously to his position from the beginning to the end of his ministry?


I suspect that it has something to do with his context. Paul spends most of his Christian life ministering in the Greco-Roman world, a world heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Dualism (which, relevant to this discussion, would mean the absolute separation of flesh and spirit) was a significant theme in Greek philosophy, especially promoted by Plato. The basic idea (I'm summarizing) was that the body was bad and the soul was good, and the goal of life was essentially to free the soul from the body; to leave it behind in favour of a disembodied existence. That view (or at least variations thereof) is not unknown in Christian history. Augustine of Hippo argued in favour of a form of dualism in the fourth century. It may well be the dominant popular view of Christian "eternity" today. Most people I speak to seem to think of life after death as simply living in heaven, and seem to imagine it without a body (but, at the same time, they also seem to want to have some identifiable reference points to be able to know and recognize their loved ones who have gone before them!) Now, I'm not a person overly stuck on "doctrine." I believe doctrine is a human creation; a human attempt to systematize the teachings of Scripture and other revelations of God. Doctrine may be right and it may be wrong. It has to be flexible, because it has to make room for new revelations and understandings of God. I tend not to worry much about the distinction of heresy and orthodoxy, because orthodoxy is really nothing more than conformity with the prevailing and historic beliefs, while heresy is the rejection of those beliefs. Heresy and orthodoxy have always existed, and their meanings shift with the times. But to me there's no doubt that the orthodox, historical, doctrinal position of the church universal favours the literal and physical (in some way) resurrection of the dead. The reason I believe Paul and others hold so tenaciously this idea is because it impacts our understanding of both God and creation. God creates us in body and in spirit and that which God creates is good. That's declared by God himself in the creation narrative of Genesis. Dualism rejects the notion that everything God creates is good. It implicitly declares that the body is bad and to be discarded. That, in my view, is a fundamental contradiction of the gospel.


The story of creation tells us that we are created "good" - body and spirit. Body and spirit are intricately and intimately woven together by God; one without the other strikes me as not truly "us." We are the perfect hybrid, in a sense, but we are not perfect. There remains work to be done, however it seems to me that to ignore the idea of the resurrection of the body is to deny a fundamental aspect of who we are and of how God created us. It is to deny the goodness of what God has done. We are to be perfected and changed and transformed, but we are not to be torn apart. We are both flesh and spirit. The two are inseparable. To deny the resurrection of the body is to render us (for eternity) only a part of what we were created to be. That's my position at least.


McKane goes on to say a great deal about what he believes of the resurrection. That I have no argument with. I disagree with him, but my agreement or disagreement with his personal opinions is neither here nor there. God will someday sort out the differences we have in doctrines and beliefs. I do take issue, though, with McKane's statement in the article that he speaks on behalf of the position of the United Church of Canada. No he doesn't, and that really needs to be understood by those who read his words.

A Thought For The Week Of June 11

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. " (Matthew 5:11) The ninth and final beatitude - and, in many ways, probably the most important. This one, after all, is personalized. Throughout the series, Jesus refers to "those" who are the reciepients of the sometimes strange sounding blessings. Now, it's "you." Now, it's us! Most of the beatitudes are directed toward people who are facing difficult times or circumstances or who would not be counted among the blessed by worldy standards. Perhaps the stark reality of this beatitude is that it reminds us of the reality of our faith. As has been said, the gospel leads not to prosperity, but to death on a cross. As followers of Jesus, we need to get over the idea we sometimes have that we "deserve" some sort of reward for our faith; that we should be exempt from the struggles and trials that others have to go through. The way of the cross, and living by the gospel isn't easy - nor should it be. But for all it's challenges, it's also the way of blessing and of blessedness. Whatever you're facing this week, remember - God is with you! Be blessed!

June 10, 2012 sermon - Does The United Church Still Matter?

“I made your name known to the people you gave me. They are from this world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me. They did what you told them. Now they know that everything you gave me comes from you, because I gave them the message that you gave me. They have accepted this message, and they know for sure that I came from you. They have believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I’m not praying for the world but for those you gave me, because they are yours.  Everything I have is yours, and everything you have is mine. I have been given glory by the people you have given me.  I won’t be in the world much longer, but they are in the world, and I’m coming back to you. Holy Father, keep them safe by the power of your name, the name that you gave me, so that their unity may be like ours.” (John 17:6-11)

     I want to begin this morning by saying that in general terms and in the normal course of things I have a natural aversion to the process known as “navel-gazing.”  I’m sure you know what that means. It means becoming fixated with ourselves and our own problems and issues to the point at which we forget that there’s a whole world out there that probably needs help far more than we do. So I don’t engage in a lot of navel-gazing. It strikes me as largely a waste of time and energy that could be used far more productively. Certain occasions, however, seem to lend themselves to the process of navel-gazing, and it seemed to me that this is one of those occasions. The 87th anniversary of the founding of the United Church of Canada at Mutual Street Arena in Toronto.These are perhaps appropriate times to look back to where we’ve been, to look around at where we are and to look ahead to where we might be going. I’ll be honest - I think the United Church of Canada engages in far too much navel-gazing. We gaze wistfully at the past and we lament the present state of the church and we fear what the future holds - and we do that at all levels of the church. So the General Council repeatedly expresses fears about declining membership, declining donations to the Mission & Service Fund, an aging ministry (never mind an aging laity) which has led to the average age of our ordained ministers now being 54 - which, happily enough I suppose, makes me still a young buck! Presbyteries worry about churches closing - and the biggest concern is usually what to do with the property and money when the congregation is gone! And at the level of the congregation we worry repeatedly about deficits and membership numbers and attendance and not enough young people. Everyone is aware that the church isn’t as strong or as prestigious or as influential as it used to be. We engage in interminable debates about various doctrinal issues that are less than central to our faith and various social issues that have far more to do with culture than with Scripture. Sometimes, I fear, actual ministry gets submerged into a culture of fear and despair that has gripped our denomination and shows no signs of wanting to let go and that threatens to paralyze us, to turn us into a private club with a fortress mentality that seeks only to hang on for as long as we possibly can, and in the midst of doing that we forget the good news of the gospel - that life always goes on in some way or some form; that resurrection is inevitable, and so we need not live in fear but rather we should live in joy; we need not be afraid of risks, we should be risk takers; we need not worry about our own life as a church, but rather we should worry about offering abundant life to those around us with all that we have for as long as we can. So, today - the 87th anniversary of the founding of the United Church of Canada - seems like an opportunity for a bit of navel-gazing. With all the challenges that we face, do we really still matter?

     First, let’s go back to the past. As Methodists and Presbyterians and Congregationalists gathered together for the First General Council in 1925, what were the hopes and what were the dreams? The 1920’s were a time of great hope. World War I - the war to end all wars - was over, peace was the way of the future and the country was in a time of great prosperity. Everything was looking good. We were the first inter-denominational church union in the world. There are a lot now - just a couple of weeks ago the United Protestant Church of France was established. But we were the first - the trail blazers. The church in Canada was influential and big - and the  United Church of Canada would be the biggest and most influential - the largest Protestant church in Canada (a title we still hold, by the way.) The United Church was founded with what was basically a 3-point agenda: to unify Canadian Protestantism, to Christianize Canada, and to proclaim the social gospel as the way of Christ. So, how have we done.

     The quest for unity, I would suggest, is gone. It lived until the early 1970’s, when the United Church almost worked out a deal to merge with the Anglican Church. Now, that would have been a denomination. But that quest for unity faltered. Why? Because there was no unity on certain issues - the place of bishops and the ordination of women were two of the big issues. Our two churches went their separate ways, and at that point, I believe, the dream of Christian - or at least Protestant - unity died. We became a denomination among denominations, in competition with everybody else for a declining audience, so to speak. We’ve become very insular in many ways, erecting ridiculously difficult barriers against things that should be as simple as offering recognition to ministers ordained by Presbyterian, Methodist or Congregational churches around the world and tending to look down our noses at those in less “progressive” denominations, so to speak, who we think are just a bit behind the times. On the Christian unity front, I think we’ve failed.

     We wanted to Christianize Canada. Oh yes, in its early years the United Church believed very strongly in evangelism - which has become a bit of a dirty word now in a lot of United Church circles. We wanted to make sure that Canada was and would continue to be a Christian nation - and that our country would grow more strongly Christian and more firmly based on those elusive "Christian values" that so many speak about but that so few can agree on. It's perhaps that latter point that renders that dream so difficult to actually achieve. We don't entirely agree on what "Christian values" are or what a Christian nation would look like. The sheer grandeur (and difficulty of achieving) such a goal probably rendered that an impossible dream from the start. In any event, it's clear now that Canada is not a Christian society, but a pluralistic society (with people of many faiths and with people of no faith.) But if we've failed in the task of "evangelization" we still have opportunity to bear witness to and to stand for what we believe the Gospel tells us to stand for. So, there are some possibilities for us in that regard. All is not lost!

     And we wanted to promote the "social gospel." This was the unique way in which the United Church tried to "Christianize" Canada. The social gospel has been defined as the application "of  Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as excessive wealth, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labour, inadequate labour unions, poor schools, and the danger of war." We've held on to that. "Justice" may be the key word to United Church practice today. I would define our understanding of justice loosely as seeking to offer dignity to all people, regardless of their condition or of whatever differences may separate us. As a national church we do well at that; at the congregational level perhaps less so. That's because at the national level, it's a concept or a theory; at the congregational level the concept or theory has to be put into practice - and it's always easier to talk about something than it is to actually do it. I've noticed over the years, for example, that most United Churches talk a great game about standing with and supporting the marginalized, but then we back away when a marginalized person takes us seriously and shows up in our midst on Sunday morning or at a church social. It's always fascinating to see who's usually left to sit alone at church social events - and it's usually not the lawyer or the doctor or the teacher or the minister; those in the respected and respectable positions in society. It's usually not the happy family with mom, dad and 1.8 kids in tow who are stuck in the corner. It's the "others." To paraphrase Paul - we know what we should do; we just have trouble doing it.

     I think it’s fair to say that we’re not what our founders 87 years ago hoped we would become. Why? What went wrong? Is it our theology or is it how we put our theology into practice? Is the problem with us or is the problem with society? And why do we find the concept of real Christian unity so hard to grasp, even after 87 years as the UNITED Church of Canada? I don’t know that I have answers to those questions. And, truthfully, maybe nothing went wrong. Maybe this is just the way it is. Maybe it’s not even reasonable to expect that the vision of 87 years ago would still be the vision of today. Maybe we have to stop thinking that something went wrong or that something is wrong. Maybe we have to stop throwing our hands up in despair and start thinking about our possibilities. So, back to the original question - which should concern us all - does the United Church still matter? Is there hope for us, or should we just turn out the lights and lock the doors behind us when we leave today, and not bother coming back? There's always hope, of course, because there's always God - and God is a God of hope. And here's the thing: the point of the gospel and of a church that proclaims the gospel is not to be popular - it’s to be relevant, and to be relevant may mean to be unpopular because it means we have something meaningful to say that some people may not like. Let’s think about that.

     A church that actively seeks to break down barriers between people and engages in the ministry of reconciliation between people matters, even if we sometimes don't put that into practice as well as we should. If we do that we matter. A church that actively advocates on behalf of the marginalized in our society matters, because my perception is that our society is becoming a meaner, less compassionate and less caring society - and it's usually the marginalized who end up as the targets in such a society. And, yes - as uncomfortable as it makes many (including probably many here today) a church that advocates in such a way has to sometimes speak politically (although not in a partisan way) and has to both engage those with power and challenge them to act in a way that’s just and that offers justice and dignity to all. If we do that, we matter. A church that continues to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ - the life-giving and life-saving good news that God sent into the world (the message of grace and salvation and forgiveness and redemption and eternal life) is a church that’s offering hope. No matter how hard we try, we will never create the Kingdom of God on earth. Only God can do that - and so in spite of our efforts there will always be injustice, there will always be poverty, there will always be violence - and there will always be people who need to be given the hope that these things don't have the last word. Our task is to offer the hope of Christ and to hold up (as the prophets of old did) a vision of the world God wants, even if it seems far away. A church that makes God's word the last word and the only word is a church that matters. If we do that, we matter.

     We've changed in 87 years. We aren't what we were and we never will be what we were again. We aren't as large or as powerful or as rich or as influential as we used to be and we probably never will be again. But sometimes those things that we so often use as symbols of success are the very things that draw us away from the gospel and the pursuit of them blinds us to our true mission. Maybe being pushed to the margins of society (which is the reality of today) rather than existing at the centre of society (which was our founders’ hope) will be good for us. Maybe it's on the margins, in fact (offering hope to those who inhabit the margins with us) that we matter the most! So I would say - don't despair! Today’s question is "Does The United Church Still Matter?" The answer is - Yes. The United Church still matters. And so do we all!

A Thought For The Week Of June 4

Thought for the week: "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:10) The eighth Beatitude. I believe that "persecution" is an overused word in Western Christianity today. I know full well that there are Christians (and many others) who face persecution in today's world. But here in the West, to link the words "Christian" and "persecution" is ridiculous, and just cheapens the power of what Jesus meant. Having the Ten Commandments taken down from courtrooms or allowing gay-straight alliances in schools is not persecution. There are Christians who may not agree with either of those things, but they aren't being persecuted. We may sometimes be mocked for our faith, but we aren't being persecuted. But the early church faced real persecution, partly because they brought a message of freedom and dignity for all that was so offensive to those in power that persecution resulted. We might well ask why we aren't persecuted today in the West! Maybe because we often seem to have so little of real significance to say? Those who live the Gospel (truly and to the best of their ability) may well face persecution. There are examples of Western Christians who have faced conditions close to persecution. I think of Martin Luther King, Jr. for example. But those who live the Gospel (truly and to the best of their ability) also know that God approves and will not forsake them. The kingdom of heaven may be within us all, but surely there's a special place for those who serve and bear witness to God with all their being. May we strive to be among them! Have a great week!

June 3, 2012 sermon - Love Built In = Love Poured Out

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of Him Who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He Who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit, Who lives in you. (Romans 8:5-11)

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

     I’m going to make a guess that there are a lot of people in church today - not just here, but everywhere - who have come to church totally unaware that today on the church’s calendar is called “Trinity Sunday” - which is always the Sunday after Pentecost. As the name suggests, today is a day to mark that one doctrine in particular that marks Christianity as unique among the world’s faiths - a trinitarian God, Who exists as (according to the traditional language) one God in three persons. Since that is unique to Christianity, I suppose it’s worthy of having a Sunday set aside for its celebration, and yet the truth is that a lot of people, a lot of churches and a lot of clergy won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. I rarely dedicate a service or a even a sermon just to the trinity. Partly because I think the trinitarian nature of God is just something that flows through most of what I preach anyway; partly because the doctrine, if we go too far into it, is truly and completely baffling. It’s so baffling that I recently came across these words from David Lose, who teaches at Luther Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota: “Here’s my rule of thumb regarding the Trinity: People who say they understand it aren’t to be trusted. Which means, I think, that trying to explain the Trinity in a sermon is a really, really bad idea.” Fair enough, I suppose. The doctrine of the Trinity is baffling. It’s led to a lot of debates, divisions and conflicts over the centuries. There are those who believe that the Islamic faith exists today because Mohammed was exposed to early Christianity, kind of liked some of the beliefs, but fundamentally misunderstood the Trinity, believing that Christians were worshipping three gods - Allah, Jesus and Mary - instead of one God revealed in three different ways. So the Trinity is difficult to understand. There are all sorts of analogies that supposedly try to help us - H2O can be water, ice or steam (but they can’t be all at the same time.) An ancient formula talked about the Trinity as being like the sun in the sky - the actual sun, the light that shines from it and the heat we feel from it. (I like that one because all three depend on each other; you can’t have one without the other two.) An analogy I sometimes use is to compare the Trinity to a man who is at one and the same time a father, a husband and a son (one man in three distinct persons, but with the three persons always intersecting.) But in general I agree with David Lose. It’s impossible to truly understand the Trinity. Analogies help, but they’re never perfect. So, why bother with Trinity Sunday then?

     Not that God needs a defence, but I suppose that foundational doctrines that guide us in what we believe do sometimes need a defence. I don’t want to get bogged down in doctrine. I think doctrine is important, but sermons aren’t the best times to get overly doctrinal. Still, I suspect some of you have probably heard that the doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical; that it never appears in the Bible. If you’ve heard that, it’s not entirely true. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says that we should go and baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Some say that was put on the lips of Jesus by an early church that was developing the doctrine and wanted to justify it. But it’s there, so you can’t say it’s unbiblical. But I think there are stirrings of trinitarian language in the Bible long before that was written. When I want to consider the earliest Christian thoughts, I always turn to Paul, because most of his letters were written before any of the Gospels were written, and I have always found myself intrigued by today’s passage - not because of its emphasis on the sinful nature but because of the way Paul speaks of God. He doesn’t say anything explicit about the Trinity as we speak of it. There’s no “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” but there are those first stirrings I mentioned. Paul here uses the terms “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” basically interchangeably and he says that “Christ is in [us]” and that “the  Spirit of God lives in [us].” To me that’s trinitarian. Paul is already struggling (even if unconsciously) to come up with a way to speak of this God revealed in three different ways. So I believe the concept of the Trinity is biblical, and therefore it’s good doctrine grounded in Scripture. And that’s all I want to say about doctrine because David Lose says you can’t trust me if I claim to understand the Trinity, and I want you to trust me, and I don’t understand it fully, anyway! What I want to concentrate on isn’t the doctrine of the Trinity, but why it’s important to us. What difference does it make? How does it affect our lives? In this sense, I think it’s very important. If the crucifixion and resurrection are the heart of the good news, the Trinity may be the soul of the good news.

     That’s enough doctrine. Suffice to say that I believe God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I actually want to talk about another “God is” phrase - and this one’s definitely in the Bible, found in 1 John 4:16, where we’re told that “God is love.” I want to talk about that on Trinity Sunday because I believe it’s relevant to that idea. I don’t believe that “love” is another “person” of the godhead; I believe that love is the very essence of God, and because of that the Trinity is important. To say that “God is love” is a very bold statement. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that “only ‘God’ and ‘love’ are joined by ‘is.’” In other words, the boldness of the statement comes from the fact that it can be said of no one or nothing except God. To say anything about God with such certainty is bold - but I believe it’s true. “God is love.” God is also eternal; God has always existed. There has never been a time or place in which God has not been present. Before anything else existed, God existed; everything that exists finds its origin in God. If God is eternal, then God has always been “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and God has also always been “love.” There is no other way for a Christian to understand God’s nature.

     If, indeed “God is love,” then I invite you to think about this with me. Love by its very nature needs an object. Love needs someone or something to love. An eternal God existed before anything else existed, and yet God was still love, even when there was nothing but God, so God’s love must have had an object; there must have been some way for God to be in relationship, even though there was nothing except God. Even if we can’t understand it perfectly, the idea of the trinity was perhaps a way for early Christians to establish that God is perfectly self-sufficient in all things. God needs nothing. God doesn't even need an external object for divine love, because God is love, even in the absence of anything else. If God is love - then love is simply a part of God's being or nature. Love is perfectly expressed internally for God - not in a narcissistic, selfish way but in a healthy way in which God sustains and nurtures God's self even absent anything or anyone else. God cannot simply be one - because then there would be no object for God's love before God created; there would be no relationship possible. So relationship is foundational to the Trinity, and it’s therefore built into the godhead. The trinity is a Christian way of expressing that God is always by God's very nature expressing love outwardly. God's love is being extended and not reserved. So, “God is love” refers to an inner divine quality that necessitates relationship being a natural characteristic of God. That means that since love must be expressed outwardly and extended, God is self-sufficient. This can happen even if God has created nothing else. Speaking of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a way to say that there is a healthy and outwardly expressed love that’s just a part of God. God doesn’t have to create anything to express love to, because “God is love” - and the Trinity helps establish that. But while God doesn’t have to create, God does create - and God creates prolifically! This leads to the second important thing we can say about the mystery of divine love contained within the Trinity.

     It’s perfectly legitimate and totally biblical to say that “God is love,” but love is more than just a characteristic of God. It’s not just internal - it's active. Love may be perfectly expressed within the godhead, but from God love is also outpoured. That’s why I said a moment ago that God’s love is never just narcissistic. It’s never just a self-consumed love that blots everything else out. Narcissus, of course (in Greek mythology) was the man who fell in love with himself looking at his own reflection in a pool of water. So consumed he was by love for his own reflection that he could never leave it, and he died by the side of the water. This is not God. That’s what I mean when I say that God is not narcissistic. In fact, God is so not-narcissistic that “God so loved the world.” God loves that which God creates. It’s important to understand that God does not “need” that which God creates, because love can be satisfactorily expressed within the divine nature, but God “wants” that which God creates - which includes you and me! A former Moderator of the United Church once said that “God needs us.” No, God doesn’t. I do not meet a need of God. God did not have to create me. God created me just because God wanted to; just because God chose to. And I can say the same thing about all of you. To be wanted rather than to be needed makes me (and you) very, very precious. If God needed us for any reason (even if God needed us simply to have an object to express love to) then our relationship with God would be strictly utilitarian. It would be mutually beneficial, but it wouldn’t be real love. We would exist only because God had no choice but to create us. But the concept of the Trinity tells us that God has no need for us. God just wants us. God just wants to love us. That's an incredible statement about God when you think about it. And it's good news! God is love and God really - REALLY!- loves us!     

     To me, that’s what’s so important about the Trinity. That’s why I take it so seriously as a part of my faith. It’s the absolute proof of God’s love for me and for all the world. I don’t really worry too much about understanding the technical aspects of the doctrine. David Lose is probably right - you shouldn’t trust anyone who claims to understand it, anyway. But you don’t have to understand it, because it’s part of the foundation of divine love - and since when was love ever understandable or rational? Just accept from the concept of the Trinity what’s really important about it. It’s a sign of and a witness to divine love - a love offered to you and to me!