Called to Question: week two reflection and questions

A reflection and some questions for our group discussion on chapters three and four of Called to Question:

"Some people who haven't gone to church for years are still very tied to it in psychological ways and never go beyond it....What forms us lives in us forever. The important thing is that it not be allowed to stunt our growth."

What do you think of this? Does this phrase resonate with you? - the idea that what forms you lives in you, and your task is to not allow it to stunt your growth?

Can you resonate with the idea of being formed, and influenced by that formation, and the subsequent risk of being stunted in the confines of your reaction to that formation?

And, then because we are talking about faith, spirituality, and religion, are you able to live in and with ambiguity and uncertainty? For example, there is a saying about leadership:

"The most important quality for a leader is the ability to tolerate ambiguity."

Chittister considers the various rites of the church to be religious, and thus staid and old, and lacking in spirituality. Modern day rituals like baptism and Eucharist, in her experience, are dry and lack meaning to a 21st century person of faith, in part because we can't bear the unknown. Rather we have to have clear concise answers for everything. She writes:

We can't hear mystery, we can't abide the beneficence of the unknown. We "define" the nature of God, the substance of the Holy Spirit, the persons of Jesus. We dogmatize the unknown and we excommunicate people who dare to wonder. I find it very hard to anymore to abide the dogmatizers though I sometimes admire their sincerity of "faith." Or is "faith: simply another term for the compulsion to know, and the willingness not to think.

Second point: what do you think about the idea of tolerating ambiguity? And, then, also how this ability is part of our faith - the ability to tolerate ambiguity being a sign of one’s ability to move into a deeper sense of spirituality?

Chittister continues this reflection in chapter four with a look at the messy church teachings which, on the one hand, describe humans as sinful and God as one who lies in wait to catch us in sin, and on the other hand, with a God who is all loving, forgiving, and every present. Her struggle is with the idea that one wrong sin and we are lost in hell forever. God sits, waiting for us to make a mistake, waiting to catch us in sin, waiting to punish us. How, she wonders, does one reconcile this predatory God with a loving God, a God of compassion?

Figuring out sin, and finding language to talk about it, is crucial to our wellbeing. No doubt there is grave sin, simple sin, all kinds of sin in this world. And each of us sin. Each of us cause brokenness, and contribute to brokenness, in ways known and unknown. Each of us could do a better job of being compassionate and loving.

Third, what is sin? Do you actively consider the ways you contribute to the sinfulness of the world? What then do you do?

The key is, as Chittister's says at the end of the chapter, our willingness to be part of the journey. God is ever present, with us every step of the way, in every mess and situation, and joy - God is present. God desires for all of life, for every situation, to be - or to be restored too - fullness of health and well-being. That all of life exist within a balance of creative order - sky and land and water - teeming with life and ordered for wholeness and well-being. And so when life slips into chaos, as it does, as we do, God is there, turning and returning our dis-order and brokenness into new life. We are invited to join God in this creative process. We will, of course fail from time to time, but the invitation remains.

Chittister concludes (paraphrased):

But life is not about “getting” God – like one understands the plot of a book or the thesis of a paper or like one gets groceries – one does not attain God. Rather life is about growing in God, our experience of and understanding of God is a life-long process. "God called me from the womb," Isaiah says, "and from the body of my mother. God named me...In God I live and move and have my being...There is, I think, a call: deep in the human heart, a magnet that takes us first to our true selves and from there into a consciousness of the God who is the call...

The spiritual life is much more simple than we might make it. It is simply the ability to abide in the ambiguity of God, trusting that this mysterious God is present with us always.

What do you think? Are you able to tolerate ambiguity? Or do you need answers and clarity?

Look Out! Here Comes God...

A reflection on the readings for Proper 6B: I Samuel 15:34-16:13 and Mark 4:26-34

Our Old Testament reading today comes from the Biblical genre known as Judges and kings. These books of the Bible talk about the long history, about 410 years, of the Hebrew people which modulated between tribal leaders, known as judges, and the kings.  This story was compiled and culminated in book form between the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. The primary effort during this time was the consolidation of settlements and tribes. Life centered around tribal relationships not cities. 

The transition from tribal leader/judge to king was slow because the region had no means of unifying the diverse tribes into one cohesive unit for defense and leadership. After several centuries of leadership by tribal judges they were finally able to unify the tribes and claim a king – the kings are familiar to us : Saul, David (author of the Psalms) and Solomon.

The story in the book of Samuel tells the story of the transition from the leadership of tribal judges to the leadership of a king.

Samuel was a great judge, prophet and charismatic leader, often considered a hero. Samuel was born to a woman named Hannah, raised in the temple under the great priest Eli. As a judge Samuel had to render legal decisions – in the sense of what is the law of God and how are the people living according to God’s law?

This Sunday’s reading describes the surprising and unexpected revelations of God. God is not a homogenous force. God does not act evenly over all creation. Rather, the manner in which God acts and inspires is contextual, historical, and personal. God has a vision for our lives, for all of creation.

Bruce Epperly on his blog, “The Adventurous Lectionary” says this about our readings this morning: “While no one is left out in the interplay of call and response, God’s revelation is always personal and variable. A shepherd boy is chosen as king; a mustard seed grows into a great plant; and a small child grows into the Christ. God takes initiative, but our response and a supportive environment help God’s dreams come to fruition and new dreams emerge. Where is God moving uniquely and intimately in your life? What is God’s dream for you, right now and over the long haul? Moreover, what are God’s dreams for you and for your congregation, and loved ones? How can we be open to God’s dream for ourselves and God’s dream for others?”

The reading from I Samuel describes Samuel’s covert operation to choose a new king. The lectionary has skipped from Chapter 8 last Sunday to Chapter 15, which we heard today. The seven chapters in between tell of Saul’s inept leadership as the king. Like last week our reading this morning has the people asking Samuel, the great tribal judge, for a  king…the prophesy we heard last week, that the king will fail because he represents a false idol over God, is proven true. The kings are perceived as being God like, of being a unifying agent pulling together the diverse tribes and various perspectives of the tribes of Israel.

Saul, caught up in his own diversions of power and greed, has lost the confidence and support of the people, they now clamor for a new spiritual-political leader. In chapter 15 verses 10-21 we hear God telling Samuel that Saul has failed as a king. Saul comes across as groveling and pathetic. By the time we get to chapter 16 a new king is being anointed, and the reign of David is ushered in.

David is one of Jesse’s sons, thus the lineage between Abraham, Moses, Jesse, David, and Jesus is made clear. Jesse has twelve sons, including David. In the story Samuel examines the older sons, any one being a likely candidate for the job as king. But they are all passed over until Samuel comes upon the youngest and least equipped, a shepherd boy named David. God tells Samuel that David is the chosen one. David becomes God’s choice for king.

Once again God is acting in and through the smallest and least likely of candidates. God sees deep into our lives and recognizes within us, deeper gifts and possibilities, hidden to the untrained eye. God uses small and unexpected events – and unlikely people – to manifest God’s desire into the world.

God acts through the small and seemingly insignificant, God acts in unexpected ways, inviting us to consider how God is working in our lives, and in our community. How might each of us be one of God’s “chosen? “ How are you being “called” for a particular divine task? Consider what great calling are you hiding, even from yourself?

There is a quiet movement of grace in our lives. Unheralded, and mostly unobserved, changing the world not by bravado or coercion, or even celebrity status or miraculous demonstrations, but by constantly growing grace and emerging presence.  Each moment contains the possibility of a miracle, of God’s inspiration manifesting in small and unexpected ways.  Small seeds burst open and grow into abundant sources of food and shade, - symbols of God’s grace spread generously. Small children grow into leaders. New creation arises from barren soil and ashes. God is calling us to take the time, to nurture patience, to become creatures of discernment.

We are called to look deeply into our lives, and the lives of others. We are called to be attentive to the movements of the Spirit within – to listen and to watch. And then, to not be afraid to take risks, to respond to God’s call, to follow the Spirit into the smallest of places, only to come out the other side, alive, renewed, and expansive. God grows within us like yeast in flour and water, like a seed taking root in soil, like new life bursting forth, in the most unexpected ways.

Look out, here comes God!

Remembering Sarge

A memorial sermon for Mary Jean (Sarge) Thomas: scripture: Isaiah 61:1-3; Psalm 130; 1st john 3:1-2; John 5:24-27

We are gathered here today to celebrate the life of Mary Jean Thomas, known to us as Sarge, who has joined the heavenly hosts of saints, those beloved members of our friends and family who have gone before us. In many ways Sarge will be remembered as a saint in this congregation. Now, it’s true that neither Sarge’s family nor her friends have ever called her a saint in my presence. But her nature and personality mirror these words from Michael Ramsey, The Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1970’s; and I quote:

“Being virtuous is not what makes a person a saint: the Pharisees were virtuous and they and their virtues needed conversion. It is not doing good that makes a saint…many people (do good) whom we never call saints. It is not the practice of religion which makes a saint…..No, the saint is one who has a (particular) nearness to God and makes God real and near to other people…..A blending of humility and sorrow, joy and peace, is the mark of a saint, and through him or her God is real and near.” (end quote)

Sarge was a woman who was gracious and kind and made real the image of God in the love she expressed to those around her. She had a deep, profound faith that guided her life as a wife, as a mother, as a friend. The youngest of five girls, she once told me that she had lived a blessed life. Those who know her well know that Sarge never hesitated to share her opinion, particularly in matters pertaining to church music and organ music. And, we won’t even mention the word “P” word (piano) in this service today. Oh, sure she liked the instrument, just not in church.

Sarge mirrors the faith in God that is exemplified by today’s readings. They exemplify a piece of Sarge’s character as a woman of faith. She probably held every position available in the church to a lay woman. Her most favorite of course was singing in the choir.

We gather here today to celebrate her life, honor who she was, acknowledge that she will be missed by a family who loves her, and lift up the Christian understanding of death.²

As Christians we believe that death is not the end of a life but a life changed. I’m not speaking here of magic, I’m speaking here of spiritual things. Grounded in God we come to understand that in death a person is born into a new life with God. We also understand that in death the one we love is able to live with us in a new way. True we no longer see that person, nor hear their voice, nor feel their touch. And that is sad, for we will miss those qualities of human companionship. But from the spiritual plane that person is now with us all the time, in every way. The one we love is alive to us in our memories, in the stories we share, in our laughter and our tears, in our hearts, and in our love.

William Shannon, a man deeply influenced by Thomas Merton, once wrote a letter to a woman he was consoling after the death of her sister. He says,

“I realize how very hard this is for you….(but) in one sense death separates us from loved ones, in another and more ultimate sense it deepens our spiritual union with them…We are one with one another, because whatever of us there is that is really worthwhile is from God and in God. And that is something that death does not and cannot change – though it appears to do so.”

²We come here today to celebrate the life of Sarge and to hold up the Christian understanding of life and death.  

As Christians we believe that death is not the end of a life but a life changed.  Like the quote from William Shannon,  I mean this in the most spiritual of realities. As Christians we call this a “mystery.” It is not something we can know by reason, but somehow by the grace of God, in death is changed is not ended.

As the days and weeks go on there will be moments when each of us, Sarge’s family and friends who knew and loved her well, will have such a keen sense of awareness, an abiding sense of her presence, that it will be as if she were here with us.

I suspect she will continue to be a presence in your lives, extending her love even though she has left this earthly life. Sarge was a wonderful member of this parish, a good wife, and a loving mother. As her children and grandchildren please know that YOU are the most important work of her life and labor. This gracious sense of God’s love that poured out through Sarge now lives in each of you, her children, grandchildren, and friends.  We are better people because we have known and loved her.

And so, Sarge will live on in your laughter and your tears, in your memories, and your stories. She will live on in the walls of this church - every time we sit a moment in our pews and listen to the organ postlude, we’ll think of Sarge, sitting right there, eyes closed, as if already in heaven, relishing every note. 

Okay, not every note. She had very strong opinions of what qualified as appropriate music for church….

But, even as she never hesitated to share her opinion, she always did so with grace, dignity, and respect. Sarge was a class act, one of a kind, lovable in every way. We’ll miss you Sarge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spiritual or Religious: a conversation begins

People on Facebook and various blogs are engaging in a conversation following the NPR interview with Theresa McBain which aired on Talk of Nation with Neal Conan on Monday, May 7. McBain is the United Methodist minister who discerned that she was an atheist and left the ministry. Apparently there is a movement afoot, some 200 former clergy who have joined a cause called "The Clergy Project."

Reading the transcript of the interview with McBain made me think that people in this country tend to think that Christianity looks a certain way, follows only certain dogmas and doctrines. In the interview the religion correspondent for NPR, Barbara Bradley Haggerty, perpetuated the idea, sadly. Perhaps the real issues that we ought to ponder here is not the shift to atheism, but the idea that people define themselves as atheists because the do not believe in the limitations of Christianity as they know it. (And, I suppose this would also be true for those who leave Judaism and other institutions of religion).

Joan Chittister in her book, "Called to Question" writes about her own journey of questioning everything she knows about her religion. She writes,

 "It is God that religion must be about, not itself. When religion makes itself God, it ceases to be religion...But when religion becomes the bridge that leads to God, it stretches us to live to the limits of human possibility. It requires us to be everything we can possibly be: kind, generous, honest, loving, compassionate, just. It defines the standard of the human condition...religion at its worst is a sham...religion at its best anchors us to the best in ourselves as well...it enables us to find meaning in life." (pg. 14-15)

"Called to Question" is a sometimes brutal reflection on the differences and connections between "religion" and "spirituality." For the most part I appreciate the way in which she is drawing the conclusion that religion and spirituality are intertwined. For example she writes:

The very purpose of religion is to enable us to step off into the uncharted emptiness that is the spiritual life, freely but not untethered. We have under our feet the promise of the tradition that formed us and the disciplines that shaped our souls. We can then wander...religion gives us the structures that weld the habits and disciplines of the soul into one integrated whole. Those same structures can also, however, smother the very spirit they intend to shape...spirituality is a commitment to immersion in God, to the seeking that has no end.

"Spiritual" and "Religious" are ideas that have spurred several books recently from well known church thinkers. Ideas that seem to point to where "we" are as people of faith - are we spiritual not religious - believe in God in some form but not in the institution of the church? Or religious but not spiritual - believe in the rules of the church but not in the mystery of an unknowable God (well, that might be minimizing the statement, but it points to the essence of the criteria)? Or spiritual and religious - living in the tension of mystery and ambiguity while finding some footing in the teachings and practice of faith community? 

June 17, at 9am in the Lounge we will discuss the concept of “Spiritual but not Religious” and its converse – “Religious but not Spiritual” and also the idea of “Spiritual and Religious.”

Think about the following;
1. Have you heard these terms before, "Spiritual but not Religious"...etc?

2. If spiritual is the concept of finding God in the world around us and religious is means the institution of the Church (or other religious institutions), where do you think you are along this spectrum?

3. What does religious mean to you?

4. What does spiritual mean to you?

5. How might Christ Church, Dearborn, be helpful to you in this journey of faith?

6. How might Christ Church be more engaged in the spiritual formation of people?

7. How does the institution of the church help or hinder your spiritual life?

8. What other thoughts or questions would you like to discus?

On June 17 we will talk about some or all of these ideas, as they seem relevant to us. Or we may go off on a different tangent. The conversation is open to where ever the group wants to go. We can also have conversations on this blog, if you wish to leave a comment - just be sure to leave your name so we aren't talking to anonymous people.

Summer Book Group Discussion "Called to Question"

Summer Book Group Surely we can think of a more interesting and engaging title?

My hope for the summer book group, which I hope will be an annual event, is for us to have conversations about matters of faith, spirituality, and practice. Last summer we read “Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life” by Karen Armstrong. Armstrong is a TED recipient, from which she started the Charter for Compassion, and the author of 20 books on religion. Our conversations last summer focused on the idea of compassion, what is it and how do we strive to live with compassion.

This year we will read and discuss Joan Chittisters’ book, “Called to Question.” We will discuss the questions we have about faith, spirituality, and religion. It is not necessary to read the book to participate in the discussion, which will meet Sunday mornings at 9am: June 17, 22, 29, July 22 and 29, and August 19 and 26.

It is not necessary to come to all the sessions, come as you are able.

June 17, at 9am in the Lounge we will discuss the concept of “Spiritual but not Religious” and its converse – “Religious but not Spiritual” and also the idea of “Spiritual and Religious.”

Think about the following;
1. Have you heard these terms before, "Spiritual but not Religious"...etc?

2. If spiritual is the concept of finding God in the world around us and religious is means the institution of the Church (or other religious institutions), where do you think you are along this spectrum?

3. What does religious mean to you?

4. What does spiritual mean to you?

5. How might Christ Church, Dearborn, be helpful to you in this journey of faith?

6. How might Christ Church be more engaged in the spiritual formation of people?

7. How does the institution of the church help or hinder your spiritual life?

8. What other thoughts or questions would you like to discus?

On June 17 we will talk about some or all of these ideas, as they seem relevant to us. Or we may go off on a different tangent. The conversation is open to where ever the group wants to go. We can also have conversations on this blog, if you wish to leave a comment - just be sure to leave your name so we aren't talking to anonymous people.

But, Seriously, Who Do You Say I Am?

I recently renewed my subscription to the NY Times. I love to receive the Sunday edition and frequently spend Monday, my day off, reading it. One of my favorite articles in the NY Time Magazine used to be, “On Language,” written by the now deceased, William Safire. The column ran for 32 years, including two years after Saffire died. The column explored the vagaries of the English language – what words mean and how they are used.  For example, Saffire once wrote an entire article on the word “wackadoodle.

Here is part of what Safire said, ….the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (pastor of the church President Obama use to attend in Chicago) was once called a wackadoodle by a journalist in the New York Times.

Safire goes on to write, “In 1995, The Philadelphia Inquirer quoted a state legislator, David Heckler, when he said that those wanting to repeal a firearms law were ‘ wackadoodles.’

In 2005, the Associated Press quoted a former prosecutor of Michael Jackson, who said, ‘It may sound kind of wackadoodle, but this is (Michael Jackson’s) world…(it’s) a separate reality.’

The Dallas Morning News zapped ‘Tom Cruise’s wackadoodle public behavior,” after his controversial appearance on the Today Show.

Safire then defines the word, “The adjective, growing in usage with about 9,000 Google hits, takes its first syllable from wacky – that is, ‘far-out, eccentric, off the wall’ possibly from ‘out of whack.’ The second syllable, “doodle” was first used in the 17^th century  - when it meant  something like, ‘simpleton’….’

So, a wackadoodle is someone who is a far-out, eccentric, off the wall, out of whack, simpleton?

I have to admit that when I first read this article my thoughts jumped immediately to the Trinity and the complex nature of trying to explain to someone, Christian or not Christian, what we mean by the Trinity – one God in three persons. We say it as if it is a simple statement: The Trinity, God in three persons. We proclaim the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity every Sunday in the Nicene Creed.

But in truth, the Trinity is a challenging enough topic for us Christians who have grown up with the concept. For those not Christian I imagine they think it a bit wackadoodle. Certainly our understanding of God in three persons can seem a bit “far out,” “eccentric” or “off the wall” and trying to explain it may turn the best of us into bumbling simpletons.

In the fourth century a huge debate was held amongst various Church leaders from around the world at a church council meeting in Nicea. This highly charged and deeply political meeting, (something we modern Christians know nothing about), set out to discuss the nature of Christ. Was he fully human? Was he fully divine? What is Christ’s relationship to God? And further more what is the Holy Spirit’s relationship to God and to Christ? What do all three have in common and what distinguishes them one from another? In some ways I imagine the council, as only we humans can do, belabored a point that Jesus himself would not have worried about.

I think this joke gets at the heart of the issue…

So one day Jesus was speaking to his disciples and he asked,

“Who do people say that I am?”

And his disciples answered, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elijah, or some other of the old prophets.”

And Jesus said, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, "You are the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

In response Jesus said, "What?"

The very idea that as Christians we worship one God but that that God expresses God’s self through three distinct entities which are nonetheless united as one is so complex that in the end all we can really say is that God is more mystery than known.

God is more mystery than known. Genesis reminds us that God created all – water, air, earth, female, male, sky, moon, water…God created all and as such God is in all and of all.  The story of Nicodemus in the Gospel of John is a well-known story that illustrates our human inability to comprehend the mystery of God’s nature. Some might say that in this story Nicodemus comes across as a wackadoodle….

When we read scripture, all of scripture, we are reminded to be cautious, mindful of the ways we humans tend to limit God by claiming that God is one thing and not another.

The Bible is filled with complex, often contradictory stories, of God’s relationship to creation, especially to humanity.  As a whole these stories give us a glimpse into the expansiveness of God’s nature – the many ways God is God.

In the end we sometimes just have to shrug our shoulders and acknowledge that our efforts to describe God are either limited, or perhaps, endless? How God manifests God’s self in and through the Trinity, as three persons in one, as God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit, is an effort on the part of Christians to describe God as relationship – God is in relationship with God’s self, with creation, and with us. And, really, what’s so whacky about that?