Shaking Things Up

/in /by

Confirmation class is underway. Last Saturday, the topic was Jesus and we talked about the different images of Jesus that we have. The starting point is the gospels – four of them in the canon. Each gospel presents an image of Jesus. The gospel writers were not writing history, they were telling the story of Jesus in order to evoke faith in their particular community. Therefore, each gospel is tailored to move their community in a specific circumstance. Before Constantine became Emperor of Rome there were many communities with various understandings and image of Jesus. Constantine did not want this diversity; if Christianity was to be the religion of the Empire it had to be uniform and united. Thus the creeds were born. But the creeds say little about Jesus. Though history different images of Jesus have come and gone (See Jaroslav Pelikan’s Jesus Through the Centuries).

I see our task is not to give these youth a single image to believe in, but it ignite in them the question about who Jesus was to these different communities, and what it means to follow him. The first three gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) are similar in structure and content; they are therefore called the “Synoptic Gospels.” The Gospel According to John is entirely different. Particularly in regard to the image of Jesus. In Mark, Jesus is truly struggling in the Garden of Gethsemane – please take this cup, but if it’s your will… In John’s picture of that scene Jesus is in total control, saying that this is all happening as he had planned it. Mark’s Jesus is more human and John’s is more divine. In the Synoptic Gospels there is a sense in which the future remains unknown, that Jesus had a real choice – things were in process. In John’s gospel everything is foreordained. Depending on which of these images one uses following Jesus will be different.

I grew up believing in the plan; I didn’t really think about it much, but it seemed as though that’s what everyone else believed. Historically, in America the Gospel According to John has become dominant, in that the image of Jesus in John is assumed as is the concept of Jesus being divine. My image of Jesus changed by the time I was in college, when I really read and studied the Bible. I was moved by Marcus Borg’s understanding of Jesus as one who shook things up. I also remember reading Paul Tillich’s book, Shaking the Foundations about the prophet’s role of challenging the powers that be. Jesus was one who subverted the conventional wisdom and challenged the powers and because he did that he was crucified as a political agitator.

In our last Adult Sunday School class somehow we got to talking about “shaking things up.” Part of the discussion surrounded the response of people to the proposed American Healthcare Act; the response influenced the decision, some said. I believe that part of following Jesus is being a trouble maker… but being a trouble maker in the name of Jesus. Usually if we go to a rally, or call a legislature or write a letter of talk to people in a way the is prophetic we do not associate that rabblerousing with our faith in Jesus and our conviction to follow him, in life, death and resurrection. Quite honestly, the reason I was against the American Healthcare Act was because it would deny millions of people healthcare and give rich people a tax break. I think that if Jesus witnessed this he would be turning over the tables, so to speak. We need to identify what we do for justice and peace in the world with our faith in Jesus. And we need to share with others, incite conversations about our images of Jesus who directs us to our opinions and convictions about such things as the AHA. I believe we need conversations with those we disagree with. But I believe they need to be about the center of our faith, Jesus Christ. Who is Jesus for us that compels is to act and believe in a certain way. I’m hoping to instill in the confirmands this question – I hope it helps transform the world.

P. Jim

Thoughts on preparing for SUMYT Retreat

/in /by

After my birthday, it came to mind that I might be the oldest person to be the speaker at the youth SUMYT Retreat. I have attended this retreat occasionally over the years between my two sons, and I don’t recall anyone my age as the speaker. One year two seminary students shared the role. I also recall two colleagues speaking and they weren’t “young” like the seminary students but they were younger than I am now. I was surprised to receive the invitation for this reason; how can someone so elderly relate to youth today? I know that the youth are the ones who choose the speaker, and two of the youth on the committee are youth at our church – that likely explains it. If adults were the one’s choosing, particularly clergy, I wouldn’t have been invited to speak. Bishop Hagiya once said that we cannot relate to anyone who is over 20 years different in age. I realize that in a changing world with all sorts of new technological devices it’s hard for people over 50 to keep up. Nonetheless, I have problems with assumptions that are made ere.

First of all, it seems to me that in our culture what is new and young are valued rather than what is old. We are inculcated to wait in anxious anticipation for the newest version of a game, phone or device. Older versions of programs are insufficient and frowned upon. This is where I may be a little old, but I detest when the newer versions come out because it takes so long to adjust; I still don’t like Windows 10. In the church I hear constantly how important it is to reach out to millennia’s; we need to understand them and adapt to their generational needs and habits. This is why younger clergy are appointed to the larger churches where there a lot of younger families. (I am no longer in the pool of possible pastors for those churches.) I also perceive a superciliousness in some younger clergy as if they have the needed knowledge and I don’t. And the question arises: Why don’t we lean the other way and wonder about what wisdom older people have to share?
When I lived in Japan and was introduced to Japanese aesthetics I learned about the concept of wabi sabi. It is beauty found it what is old, rusty, slightly cracked and imperfect. This aesthetic was also a part of the culture; whether we know it or not, art is the life blood of a culture. There is far more respect for the wisdom of the aged. Graphically, I remember when a Zen Master visited our local Temple in Oasa where I lived. It was a gold carpet, but metaphorically it was a red one.

Every stage of life has gifts and liabilities. Watching my sons grow up there are things I miss and envy – not the least of which is physical prowess. I also see things I don’t miss – the anxiety of youth. It is a mistake to over emphasize any of these stages over others. While technology is changing things so fast that older people have trouble keeping up, younger people today live largely disconnected from animals (accepting pets), streams, forests and the glory of climbing a mountain. (I’m speaking generally and comparatively here.) There may be some truth to the belief that one cannot relate to a person over 20 years different in age, but I don’t find it to be a helpful idea. It isn’t something we want to accentuate or use as a reason not to appoint an old fogey to a younger church. The real benefit comes when we are able to learn from each other.

I don’t know how SUMYT will go. I feel the need to use some technology to show that I’m up to date. I also know that in the end it isn’t about what we know or don’t know – it’s about the heart. And I want to believe that heart knowledge reaches across generations. That the youth at the retreat deep down are more hungry for meaning than for the newest gadget. We will see. Pray for me.

P.Jim