Targuman Rotating Header Image

ECUSA

In Pennsylvania it’s the year of the Bible

I guess I have been a little more absorbed in Penn State matters than I realized, because somehow I missed this little tidbit. On January 24 our General Assembly unanimously passed House Resolution 535 declaring this year the “Year of the Bible” in PA. Needless to say, atheists reacted. This evening I received the letter from our bishop, Nathan Baxter, which brought this and the atheist’s billboard to my attention. I think his letter to be worth repeating. This is the billboard to which +Nathan refers:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:
Recently the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Resolution 535 proclaiming 2012 the “Year of the Bible”. In some circles of our community this has been very controversial.  One of the most active protests has been made by American Atheists and Pennsylvania Non-Believers. Among their points of contention is that the Bible is the primary source of validation for all the major social ills of our history. To dramatize this point they hired a billboard dominated by a depiction of a very negroid featured black man wearing a large neck manacle, with the Biblical text “slaves obey your masters” in smaller print. The billboard was in a predominantly African-American community in Harrisburg. This caused another type of protest by citizens of that community and the city (my op-ed, while not printed by the newspaper, is available here).

 

A representative from the American Atheists was interviewed shortly thereafter on local Public Television, and his anger with Christianity and the Bible was palpable.  While his interpretation of the scripture texts was without regard for or knowledge of context, I was amazed that his literal knowledge of scripture seemed equal to persons who have been nurtured in a fundamentalist tradition. His vitriolic reaction to callers who differed with him, sometimes devolving into personal attacks, caused the host to question his behavior.  As the conversation continued it was revealed that he had indeed grown up in a very fundamentalist, literal Christian tradition and in an unguarded moment intimated something of the hurt to him and his family.

 

I have no question that the best of our democracy, the inspiration for our rich artistic and cultural life, and also the historic movements to correct social and political injustices (which were often based upon misuse of scripture), have all been directly rooted in the Bible and Jewish and Christian Faiths.  The Founding Fathers, even those who were Deists or non-practicing Christians, clearly found the Holy Scriptures a base of inspiration for their work.  Like Jefferson regarding slavery, they also often found themselves conflicted between their political values and the Judeo-Christian values they sought to exploit in the political and economic compromises made to establish the Constitution. Besides the historic record of the Bible and our particular religious history as the inspiration for our democracy, there are independent sources such as Alexis de Tocqueville, the young French researcher who visited and wrote about the phenomenon of American Democracy. I doubt that there would be the strength of our democracy without the religious heritage which so greatly influenced our ideals, including a call to respect the religious faith (or non-faith) of others.

 

Having said the above, there is no question that the misuse of religion, particularly Christianity, has deeply hurt and even destroyed many.  As I listened to the angry, bitter representative of American Atheists, my heart hurt for the pain he felt, the betrayal he clearly experienced and his estrangement from the God with whom he continues to invest his life’s energy to deny and debase. But his anger, and that of many, is more rightly directed to us…the Christian Community.  Whether progressive or conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical or mainline—whatever our doctrine or tradition, in our efforts to “Love God with all our heart mind and strength” (cf. Mark 12.30) we too often have not Loved or shown a Godly respect for our neighbor.  I believe the most difficult promise we make in the Baptismal Covenant is “…respecting the dignity of every human being.”  This is especially true within our denominations and congregational communities.  When we differ on theological or political views how do we treat one another in our differing?  When persons are struggling with conflicts of Faith and their personal experience or need, do they sense from us our judgment or grace? Do we know how to speak truth with Love, knowing that Love is the only truth—for it instructs all other truths? Jesus’ chief command for the Christian community is found in John 15: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another…by this shall the world know you are my disciples because you have love one for another.”  Love (or the Greek word “agape”) does not mean agreement with one another or even warm affection for one another. It does mean seeing the other as someone loved by God; and that truth informs and shapes the character of life, even our conflicts, in Christian community.  Without it we destroy one another, the integrity of the Church, and create spiritually wounded souls who, in their pain and anger, may never be reconciled again to the God of Love— until, I pray, they come to the nearer presence of God, who takes away not only the sins of the world but also the sins inflicted by the Church.

+Nathan

 

Happy Reformation Day

Cross at SunriseWhile there are some Episcopal priests who inexplicably insist that the Anglican tradition and the Episcopal Church are not part of the reformed tradition, it is undoubtedly true. So I wish you all a happy Reformation Day. (Ironically, at least as I encounter the colleagues I mentioned in the first sentence, I never knew of this special day as a Presbyterian. It was only when I began worshipping in Anglican and Episcopal churches that I became aware of this day.)

The 39 Articles of Religion, while now relegated to status as “Historical Documents” in the Book of Common Prayer, are clearly Protestant in character and doctrine.1 See these examples from the Articles. Fairly reformed, don’t you think?

Article X: Of Free-Will

The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Article XI: Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

Article XII: Of Good Works

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s Judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Article XIII: Of Works before Justification

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Article XXII: Of Purgatory

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Article XXVIII: Of the Lord’s Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

For this day then I encourage you to read the 39 Articles and see for yourselves whether the Anglican tradition is Protestant and Reformed.

 
  1. Given what is going on in TEC it is not surprising, though disappointing, that it is difficult to find links to sites that simply provide the information. Many are aligned with one “side” or the other in the current Anglican Meltdown. That reminds me of the old Steve Taylor song, Meltdown at Madam Tussauds. []

“With a wospel in our Gospel” Seuss Eucharist comes to our church

I did not realize until I performed a quick Google search that this “liturgy” had actually been used (and commented upon) already. I arrived at church yesterday morning to find that we had two Eucharistic services scheduled, a traditional in the sanctuary and a “Seuss Eucharist” in the church hall. All summer long our children’s Sunday School program had been using Dr. Seuss books for the launching point for teaching and this was apparently the culmination of the program. We have an excellent person leading our Sunday school programs and while I found it an odd choice I was reassured by the fact that every lesson and point that the teachers were making with the Dr. Seuss books were being followed up with quotes from Scripture. (At our service, apparently unlike the service in Pittsburgh, no Dr. Seuss books replaced Scripture in the readings.) Indeed, given that Mr. Geisel himself was a practicing Christian it is quite likely that his faith influenced his writing.

While Dean Munday of Nashotah House felt that this was indeed a sacrilege, I am not so sure. Munday wrote

Now, before someone calls me a GRINCH for casting aspersions on this program, let me be clear about my reasoning. The Eucharist is to proclaim the Lord Jesus Christ’s death, whenever we eat the bread and drink the cup, until He comes again. That is its message, and that is the meaning. It needs no other metaphor. Dressing it up in other garb can only obscure—not enhance—its message and its meaning.

I can assure you that I was reading the liturgy very carefully during the service. (I can also assure you that I was not entirely convinced of it nor was I entirely comfortable. But I would likely say the same thing after being at my parent’s church for a service.) What I was very surprised to realize is that the theology of the eucharist was essentially left intact. Consider Eucharistic Prayer B from the Book of Common Prayer (1979):

(more…)

 

This is the Christmas season

Christmas BerriesWe often forget that the past weeks have not been the Christmas season, rather the liturgical season begins with Christmas. I have some friends who follow the tradition of not putting up their Christmas tree until Christmas Eve. My kids would never go for that but we do follow Advent with Christmas and Epiphany. As someone who did not grow up in a church that followed the traditional seasons and lectionary doing so as an adult has been wonderful. Below I offer my sermon from 2008 given on the First Sunday after Christmas. The readings are the same each year.

I hope that you all have had a wonderful and blessed Christmas Day and that this season the Incarnation will fill and transform your life.

First Sunday after Christmas 2008 RCL

Isaiah 61:10-62:3
Galatians 3:23-25;4:4-7
John 1:1-18
Psalm 147 or 147:13-21

Did you get what you expected for Christmas? The season of Advent is all about waiting; we were waiting for the coming of the Christmas feast, but more importantly we were remembering how all Israel awaited the coming of the Messiah before Jesus was born and how we now await his second coming in glory. The problem with expectations is that they seldom live up to our hopes and visions. The same was true in Jesus’ day. Those who were awaiting the messiah, God’s anointed one who would save Israel had a wide variety of expectations and beliefs as to who the messiah would be and what he would be like.

Most were expecting a military figure who would lead a mighty army to drive out the Romans and establish a great Jewish kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital. Jesus the messiah was indeed the son of David whose kingdom has no end, but the kingdom that Jesus established is the reign of God in our lives. We might drive out an empire or a dictator for a time yet we know that the peace that follows is always fleeting. It is only once all people have allowed the kingdom of God to reign in their hearts and lives through accepting Jesus as their messiah that true peace can be established. This is the true identity of the messiah and his name is Jesus; Joshua in Hebrew, which means, “the Lord is salvation.”

In today’s Gospel we continue to learn more about Jesus’ true identity. As we heard in our readings of the past week, the Son of David is also the Son of God and the Gospel John tells us that Jesus is in fact nothing less than God himself.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

What an amazing claim! John opens his gospel with the most audacious assertion ever to be made. Jesus, it is abundantly clear that the Word of which John speaks is none other than Jesus, is God. Now I have heard many people, Christians and non-Christians, say that the belief that Jesus and God are one and the same only came about in the centuries following Jesus’ death and that it is the Creeds that make this statement not the Bible. That is simply untrue and this passage is but one example. That, however, is a sermon for another day.

Notice that John does not simply say that Word was God. He declares that Word was with God in the beginning and that all things were made through him. Listen again to the first three verses.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  2 He was in the beginning with God;  3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

(more…)

 

The origins of mercy & God’s justice

Wall Street CrossThis morning was a short homily due to other items in the service. As you may be able to guess Gen. 1-3 has been on my mind lately so I took a bit of a liberty to bring it in to the lectionary for today. If you are patient you will find I offer an interesting take on the origin of sin and mercy.

Twenty First Sunday after Pentecost
Proper 24
RCL

Jeremiah 31:27-34
Psalm 119:97-104
2 Timothy 3:14-4:5
Luke 18:1-8

The Justice of God

The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

A new covenant, God building up and planting Israel, people dying for their own sins, what a very odd passage this must sound to us today. The context lost to most, what we often miss is the realization that the prophet Jeremiah was declaring the salvation of the world. At the time he made this declaration Judah was besieged and Jeremiah himself had made it clear that Jerusalem would be destroyed because of the sins of the nation, because Israel had broken its covenant with God. And into this besieged city, full of famine and suffering, Jeremiah declares that God will not only bring punishment but after a time restoration and forgiveness of sins as well.

The nature of sin is something we do not consider very often from the pulpit but from time to time we need to reflect on just why it is that we must confess and receive forgiveness.

This semester I am teaching a 1-credit class on Genesis 1-3. Several folks here joined me a few weeks ago during our Forum between the services for a quick dip into the opening chapters of the Bible. I often challenge students asking them why it is that God bothered to put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden if Adam and Eve weren’t allowed to eat from it. The answer usually doesn’t take to long to uncover: if God had not provided an opportunity for them to disobey then they would also never fully understand what it means to love God, freely and fully.

There is a corresponding truth that takes longer to uncover. In presenting Adam and Eve with the opportunity to demonstrate their love and obedience to him, God also created the opportunity for sin. Sin did not exist in the Garden prior to this moment but the potential did. (more…)