I am in favor of becoming a Reconciling Congregation because of the Bible, not in spite of it. One of my father’s professors as Yale Divinity School, Roland Bainton used the distinction between precedence and principle in biblical interpretation. Precedence is any single event or verse which is lifted from its context and given unqualified authority. One could, for example use the words of Jesus to the rich man, “go and sell all you own and give it to the poor” as a definitive mandate for everyone to do just that. Looking at precedence the people who owned slaves had the Bible on their side. To look for principles in biblical interpretation is to see texts as imbedded in a larger story – in the Old Testament it is the story of the people of Israel and their covenant with God. In the New Testament it is the story of Jesus – let us not forget that biblically Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible.
I have heard that at one of the meetings to watch the video The Bible Tells Me So sponsored by the Open Hearts Committee it was requested that I share about specific texts in the Bible that are often used to condemn homosexuality. (Confession: I have not seen the video so this may all be a repeat for those who saw it.) One of the things we will see is that these texts are used as precedence and not principle.
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
This is the text from the Old Testament that is used most often. It seems direct and conclusive, but then so much of Leviticus does. The Law, the Holiness Code in Leviticus comprises the details of living in covenant with God – 613 of them, to be exact. An important part of that covenant was for the people of Israel to survive, multiply and prosper. To do this they needed offspring. Essentially, women were seen as incubators – men put there seed in them and women gave birth to children, male children, preferably. To use that seed outside of that purpose was seen as a violation of the covenant. Onan was condemned for “spilling his seed upon the ground.” Notice there is no mention of women lying with women – they may not have cared. Furthermore, to view this verse as authoritative and not the rest of Leviticus is problematic. Eating pork is also termed an abomination, as well as many other things. Women were considered unclean while menstruating – and they were segregated. When a woman gives birth to a boy she is considered unclean for seven days, if it is a girl it’s two weeks. One cannot pick and choose and when we do that is when we abuse the Bible.
Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah
Because the story contains a threat for men to “know” other men it is viewed as a condemnation of all homosexual activity. But the story is not about homosexuality. It is much more about hospitality, and the lack of it. Two “angels” come into town and Lot shows them hospitality by inviting them into his home. The people of Sodom already don’t like Lot because he is an alien. They are angry and surround his house threatening to rape the visitors. Lot will not let them out. Instead he offers his two virgin daughters in their place (now there’s precedence for you!). More important than the gender of those to be harmed is the spirit of violence in the people – that spirit of violence is the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Violence toward strangers is also a violation of the covenant, whoever they are.
Genesis 1:27: …male and female God created them.
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” goes the quip, witty and cute. That God created men and women is often seen as reason enough to support our understanding of marriage between a man and a woman. The truth is, the Bible doesn’t have a lot of good to say about marriage, at least as we envision it. In the Old Testament men had numerous wives and fathered children by slaves. In the New Testament Paul instructs the nascent followers of Jesus to marry only if they can’t control themselves but it is better to stay single like him. Procreating was the issue, not sexual orientation.
Romans 1:26-27: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received their own persons the due penalty for their error.
This is the numero uno text for the condemnation of homosexuality. As precedence it is clear; in context is less so. It was the habit of men to visit temple prostitutes, many of whom were boys – this was the kind of homosexuality they knew. Speaking of precedence, there was none for a committed relationship between persons of the same gender. On the face of things, Paul likely did view homosexuality as perverse, but how he would have viewed a covenantal same sex relationship we just can’t say. “For this reason…” refers to the impurity of their hearts in general. The mention of homosexuality is an example of that impurity. If one reads on there is a longer list: They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventers of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Then at the beginning of chapter two Paul says this, ironically: Therefore you have not excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. When using precedence in the Bible one often doesn’t read on. What Paul is addressing is rebellion against God, in any form. One way in which to rebel against God is expressed sexually. But that sort of rebellion is not about homosexuality, it is about “hypersexuality.” It is when sexuality becomes a selfish act, outside of love or care, outside of any covenant, with little or no regard for others. I feel that the greater evil of visiting the temple prostitutes was not their gender but that they were likely children and it was not consensual. “Friends with benefits” is more dangerous to the fabric of our society that two women living in covenant with each other for 25 years!
Again, we must read the Bible looking for principle and not precedence. The word for “Word” in the Gospel according to John as in the “Word of God” is Logos, and it can be translated in numerous ways: mind, thought, spirit and also principle. One could as easily translate the first verse of John saying, “The Principle was with God and the Principle was God.” And that “principle” is, once again, Jesus. And if Jesus is about anything it is love.
An overarching principle of the OT is covenant: God’s covenant with the people of Israel. It is clear that it is in and through covenant that the Spirit of God works. I believe this about the covenants we make in our lives – covenants with our children, in our church and when we marry. To extend covenant to all people seems to me to be terribly biblical. In the NT love is an essential principle. If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels but do not have love…what am I? And who wrote that? The same person who wrote chapter one of Romans. To take the Bible seriously we have to think about that. This is a brief clarification of the texts used to condemn homosexuality, and an example of what I think it means to take the Bible seriously. There is much more to say and if anyone has questions I welcome them. P.Jim
The Bible Tells Me So
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeI am in favor of becoming a Reconciling Congregation because of the Bible, not in spite of it. One of my father’s professors as Yale Divinity School, Roland Bainton used the distinction between precedence and principle in biblical interpretation. Precedence is any single event or verse which is lifted from its context and given unqualified authority. One could, for example use the words of Jesus to the rich man, “go and sell all you own and give it to the poor” as a definitive mandate for everyone to do just that. Looking at precedence the people who owned slaves had the Bible on their side. To look for principles in biblical interpretation is to see texts as imbedded in a larger story – in the Old Testament it is the story of the people of Israel and their covenant with God. In the New Testament it is the story of Jesus – let us not forget that biblically Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible.
I have heard that at one of the meetings to watch the video The Bible Tells Me So sponsored by the Open Hearts Committee it was requested that I share about specific texts in the Bible that are often used to condemn homosexuality. (Confession: I have not seen the video so this may all be a repeat for those who saw it.) One of the things we will see is that these texts are used as precedence and not principle.
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
This is the text from the Old Testament that is used most often. It seems direct and conclusive, but then so much of Leviticus does. The Law, the Holiness Code in Leviticus comprises the details of living in covenant with God – 613 of them, to be exact. An important part of that covenant was for the people of Israel to survive, multiply and prosper. To do this they needed offspring. Essentially, women were seen as incubators – men put there seed in them and women gave birth to children, male children, preferably. To use that seed outside of that purpose was seen as a violation of the covenant. Onan was condemned for “spilling his seed upon the ground.” Notice there is no mention of women lying with women – they may not have cared. Furthermore, to view this verse as authoritative and not the rest of Leviticus is problematic. Eating pork is also termed an abomination, as well as many other things. Women were considered unclean while menstruating – and they were segregated. When a woman gives birth to a boy she is considered unclean for seven days, if it is a girl it’s two weeks. One cannot pick and choose and when we do that is when we abuse the Bible.
Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah
Because the story contains a threat for men to “know” other men it is viewed as a condemnation of all homosexual activity. But the story is not about homosexuality. It is much more about hospitality, and the lack of it. Two “angels” come into town and Lot shows them hospitality by inviting them into his home. The people of Sodom already don’t like Lot because he is an alien. They are angry and surround his house threatening to rape the visitors. Lot will not let them out. Instead he offers his two virgin daughters in their place (now there’s precedence for you!). More important than the gender of those to be harmed is the spirit of violence in the people – that spirit of violence is the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Violence toward strangers is also a violation of the covenant, whoever they are.
Genesis 1:27: …male and female God created them.
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” goes the quip, witty and cute. That God created men and women is often seen as reason enough to support our understanding of marriage between a man and a woman. The truth is, the Bible doesn’t have a lot of good to say about marriage, at least as we envision it. In the Old Testament men had numerous wives and fathered children by slaves. In the New Testament Paul instructs the nascent followers of Jesus to marry only if they can’t control themselves but it is better to stay single like him. Procreating was the issue, not sexual orientation.
Romans 1:26-27: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received their own persons the due penalty for their error.
This is the numero uno text for the condemnation of homosexuality. As precedence it is clear; in context is less so. It was the habit of men to visit temple prostitutes, many of whom were boys – this was the kind of homosexuality they knew. Speaking of precedence, there was none for a committed relationship between persons of the same gender. On the face of things, Paul likely did view homosexuality as perverse, but how he would have viewed a covenantal same sex relationship we just can’t say. “For this reason…” refers to the impurity of their hearts in general. The mention of homosexuality is an example of that impurity. If one reads on there is a longer list: They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventers of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Then at the beginning of chapter two Paul says this, ironically: Therefore you have not excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. When using precedence in the Bible one often doesn’t read on. What Paul is addressing is rebellion against God, in any form. One way in which to rebel against God is expressed sexually. But that sort of rebellion is not about homosexuality, it is about “hypersexuality.” It is when sexuality becomes a selfish act, outside of love or care, outside of any covenant, with little or no regard for others. I feel that the greater evil of visiting the temple prostitutes was not their gender but that they were likely children and it was not consensual. “Friends with benefits” is more dangerous to the fabric of our society that two women living in covenant with each other for 25 years!
Again, we must read the Bible looking for principle and not precedence. The word for “Word” in the Gospel according to John as in the “Word of God” is Logos, and it can be translated in numerous ways: mind, thought, spirit and also principle. One could as easily translate the first verse of John saying, “The Principle was with God and the Principle was God.” And that “principle” is, once again, Jesus. And if Jesus is about anything it is love.
An overarching principle of the OT is covenant: God’s covenant with the people of Israel. It is clear that it is in and through covenant that the Spirit of God works. I believe this about the covenants we make in our lives – covenants with our children, in our church and when we marry. To extend covenant to all people seems to me to be terribly biblical. In the NT love is an essential principle. If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels but do not have love…what am I? And who wrote that? The same person who wrote chapter one of Romans. To take the Bible seriously we have to think about that. This is a brief clarification of the texts used to condemn homosexuality, and an example of what I think it means to take the Bible seriously. There is much more to say and if anyone has questions I welcome them. P.Jim
Stories
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeI was delighted to hear Dan Church speak this past Sunday, and it’s not because I got a Sunday off! Dan shared a story he heard on NPR about a photographer who was in Ethiopia who was moved by a story of a woman named “Amazing” being helped by a man named “Grace.” (Dan’s sermon is posted on the website.) Then, underneath all of this was Dan’s own story, as he shared with us some of his upbringing and Bible stories that moved him.
On top of that, I had just returned from the SUMYT Youth Retreat at Indianola where the theme of the camp was…stories. Rev. Jim Head-Corliss built his presentation around a children’s story, and as it true at every gathering of youth in our Conference there were “faith talks” in which youth share some of their stories – particularly something about how they have experienced God in their lives. For me the juxtaposition of all of this was an experience of God – a “thin place” – that is now incorporated into my story.
Then, on Monday evening Rev. John Haller, our coach who is leading us through the Beta-Vitality process, while speaking to a group of us gathered to discuss Radical Hospitality, started out by sharing some of his own…. story. For example, he shared with us about a young woman from a sorority (not being a “Greek” the particular sorority alluded me) invited him to attend the United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas. This woman eventually became his spouse, and he was then also connected to that Church for the rest of his life. He says that most of his best friends remain in that Church. And he shared with us about how he was once invited to a six week class about some of the fundamentals of faith (kind of like our Reconfirmation class) and how moved he was by the openness of the discussions – any question was allowed and everyone was welcome. He then went on his own theological quest that eventually led to ordination in the United Methodist Church. Both of these experiences changed his life.
We were also invited to share with each other about a time when we experienced hospitality. After he recognized that two minutes was not enough time and he gave us five more, I found myself sharing about when I was in 8th grade and going through a tough time in junior high, my mother kept encouraging me to go to the youth group at church. For the longest time I resisted – being introverted and wounded by other youth at school. Finally I agreed, but hesitated again when we arrived and I sat for quite a while in the car… crying. It took some courage and a very patient mother to get me out of the car and into the building and my life was never the same.
A couple of weeks ago Carol Sullivan brought a friend, Yisrael to our Sunday School class. It became apparent to us that he had an interesting “background,” he grew up Jewish while his partner was Christian and they have gone back and forth over their years together. This got us off topic, but then God in our lives is the topic, isn’t it? I have since decided that in the class each week a person will be invited to tell a little of his/her story. I sincerely want to hear these stories. And that is one of the cores of radical hospitality.
John Haller also told us a story of a pastor who was working on starting a new church. He went to a coffee shop and first put up a sign, “Let me tell you my story and I will buy you a cup of coffee.” There were no takers, for ten hours! Then he changed the sign, “If you buy me a cup of coffee I will listen to your story.” He said there was a line. I told the folks gathered on Monday night that I would even be more radically hospitable than that – my sign would say, “If you let me listen to your story I will buy you a cup of coffee,” that way I would avoid all the caffeine. But then, we may need to add a line item in the budget for that.
People are hungry to be heard. And the stories of people contain a wealth of spiritual insight and wisdom. For me, what makes hospitality “radical” is instead of inviting people to come to us, we feel the urgency to hear their stories, believing that our lives will be changed.
See you in worship. P.Jim
Cedar Cross Cooperative Preschool
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeChildren are spiritual beings. We forget that because we tend to think of spirituality as something elevated and adult – that one achieves; we are an achievement oriented society, after all. I am no expert on human development, but I believe that spirituality like psychology needs to be considered developmentally. There are stages of faith, and each stage has its own authenticity and distinctiveness.
When Jesus said that one had to become like a child to enter the Kingdom of God I think he was trying to awaken in his disciples an aspect of spirituality or faith that adults often lose – that is a open ended, nonjudgmental and intuitive sense of awe and wonder. Consider the imagination of preschoolers. We see their painting as a bunch of blue and green splotches with little on no construct but to him/her it is surely a dinosaur swimming in the sea. We know that the last thing we should do is to tell them otherwise. With children we need to listen to their comments and questions as we view their paintings, not as constructs that need to be answered but as expressions of their inner spiritual picture book. We give them the language of faith – God, Jesus, stories in the Bible, the Church – as we would give them the paint and the paper and let them go with it. Questions about faith and spiritual matters can cause a panic as if we have to provide them with an answer, and it has to be the right answer. Rather, let questions be opportunities to explore – instead of trying to come up with the answer ask questions to further stimulate the child’s imagination. “Is God a man?” This could solicit a panic to get it right or to educate our children on the evils of patriarchy, but it could simply be an invitation to explore images of God. “I don’t know, what do you think?” isn’t a bad response. One of the challenging things for us is it could rouse our own explorations into how we see God, something we rarely do. When I teach confirmation to youth the first thing I ask them is about their images of God. At first they looked surprised because they were expecting something different – they were expecting me to tell them how they should see God or what they should believe about God. But once they understand what I am asking them they have no trouble talking about it because they have been imagining God all their lives. But sadly, they have rarely been asked the question.
With the youth in confirmation and with adults I say the theological task is not to come up with the answers but to articulate better questions. With children it isn’t to tell them what to believe but to awaken their spiritual imaginations. It isn’t as if we have to put God in them – God is already there.
Pastor Jim
Spiritual Training
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeOn my way up to visit Aaron in Bellingham last Friday driving through Mount Vernon suddenly a fast approaching car fills my rear view mirror. He has been weaving through traffic and now is tailing me. I am driving 65 in the left lane, traffic is ahead so that really there is no where to go. I usually leave a space between myself and the car in front of me so he might have imaged that there was room to get ahead – which is a kind of blindness. He then flashed is high beams four times. I was feeling a little…. angry and mischievous so I tapped my brake lights… four times. Then I got out of the way, he passed in a dash only to tailgate the next car, but he did manage to offer me a gesture going by. For the next few miles I analyzed my actions and decided it was really ill-advised to pump the brakes; when I saw the gesture it only made me more angry and that just didn’t feel good. I was reminded that automobiles are an invitation to rage.
This sort of thing doesn’t happen on trains. As many of you know, I took the train down to see my mother in February. One of those sitting near me on the way back, a young woman who is studying design at North Seattle Community College was on the train for the first time – it shouldn’t, but it astonishes me. I first took a train when I was about nine years old all the way to North Carolina and back. Of course, in Japan trains are standard and ubiquitous. The man sitting next to her was a 29 year old Englishman who was just traveling – spontaneously. That is, he went wherever he felt like, without a schedule (shejual) to his heart’s content. The man sitting next to me was traveling up to Everett to film a commercial. He grew up in Southern California, had been living in New York City for some years and had just moved to Beaverton, Oregon weeks ago. He was adjusting to “rural” Beaverton and the weather. We also talked about the Premier League – he is a Tottenham fan and was indignant when I told him that Kenneth liked ManU. “That’s like rooting for the Yankees!” On the way down I sat next to a man who had been up to British Columbia to visit his dying father. He had been going up from Albany, Oregon about every ten days. His father lived without family up there – he was the child living the closest. He said there was a man from the church who came every day to see him, as well as the priest, occasionally. Essentially, he said he didn’t know what he would do without the church. On the other side were two young men who didn’t speak to each other until after Portland, they were totally engrossed in their iPads! When they did they discovered that they were both students at Willamette University in Salem. Not only that, but the one nearest me was a just arriving exchange student from Japan! Well you can imagine how that perked me up. As he was just arriving he was having trouble with his English and I was able, surprisingly to assist a little. He asked me what I “did” and after I told him I was a “bokushi” he looked at me keenly and said, “I want to know about your church.” The best I could do at that point was to invite him to attend the First UMC in Salem. Even then, the connection was significant. Before detraining, in Japanese fashion he wanted to have a picture of us taken together. I can see him skyping home, “You wouldn’t believe I ran into this pastor who spoke Japanese.” That would never have happened if I had driven. And I was more relaxed when I arrived too.
We scarcely realize how isolated we have become in our culture. The automobile has been formed this in us over a century, and now its all those electronic devices that first kept the Willamette students separated. Ear buds say, “I’m not interested” whether we mean them to or not. I am no Luddite, I love email and the Internet, but I am also aware that much, if not most of the connecting via the Internet is with people like us. We increasingly organize our lives into lifestyle enclaves rather than into communities. I believe in the power of community in our world today. I believe that the focus of our evangelizing needs to be our community – not our “message” but who we are. There are so many people who live their lives like they drive, and it’s not very enriching. They are hurt and angry. THE WORLD NEEDS US!
See you in worship. P.Jim
Do We Let Coke Lead the Way?
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeDid everyone see the Cheerios commercial during the Super Bowl? The world was all a Twitter about it… literally. Comments on it flooded Twitter, I’m told – not having a Twitter account – not particularly wanting one either. In the commercial a little girl is speaking with her African American father about the eminent arrival of a sibling. They are pushing Cheerios across the table, one for mommy, one for daddy, one for her, and one for the baby… and then she says, “and one for a puppy.” I thought it was cute (I’m not sure it does much to encourage me to buy Cheerios, however.) The camera then pans out to see mommy, who isn’t clearly African American. She isn’t of Scandinavian descent; it takes a double take to see that she is white, and that’s where the trouble begins. That’s right, many people, it seems, were upset about the presentation of an interracial marriage on that venue. Are Super Bowl commercials not sacred anymore?
The Super Bowl is American Civil Religion’s Google it) sacred stage – its high holy day. Subsequently, the commercials ought to express the values of our culture. Then, if Cheerios was not bad enough along comes COKE which really stepped out of line and was sacrilegious. It featured people singing America the Beautiful in different languages, including, at least, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic and Tagalog. As you can imagine, there were complaints about this – mostly complaining that they should all learn and speak English. But that’s not all, amongst the very short clips was one of two men skating with a young girl, implying that perhaps they were her gay parents. That was simply too much for certain segments of the American population. Some are suggesting a boycott of COKE. The folks at COKE aren’t stupid – they wouldn’t show anything suggesting two people as gay parents if they didn’t think it would sell more COKE! We should take the hint. Our world is changing, and there are a lot of COKE lovers out there – new ones even – who would benefit from knowing that our Church does not condemn homosexuality. This is an important reason for becoming a Reconciling Congregation. (Interesting fact that I learned somewhere through social media – the woman who wrote America the Beautiful was a lesbian.)
Why isn’t our denominational motto, Open Hearts, Open Minds and Open Doors, and our Statement of Inclusion enough? Why do we have to take this step to identify ourselves as a Reconciling Congregation? To me that’s the difference between saying to strangers, come and visit and if you like us you can stay, and actively attempting to reach out to others risking that we might be changed. It is going beyond tolerance to intentional inclusion, from passivity to taking an active stand. It says to the world, anyone who is upset with the COKE commercial, for either reason, or the Cheerios commercial too, needs to reconsider the Gospel and the Way of Jesus Christ. It also becomes a tool of evangelism. There are many people out there who really do not know a church like ours exists. The more vocal we are about this the more people we will reach who will have the opportunity to experience the love of God in Christ who otherwise wouldn’t because of a false perception they have of what Christianity is.
If anyone at this point says, but what about the Bible I must simply say, I believe we are doing this not in spite of what is in the Bible but because of what is in the Bible. It would take a long time to explain this, and I am willing to do so for anyone who is interested. I believe people read the Bible through an old, simplistic and tarnished lens, no longer seeing the heart of the message – if we have not love….
I don’t want for COKE to take the lead. I think WE need to take the lead and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, firmly and with enthusiasm. I am committed to and excited about our Church becoming a Reconciling Congregation and ask everyone to support it too.
Pastor Jim
What is a disciple? The results are in!
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeWhat fun we had on Sunday, January 26, when we shared about being a disciple. During the sermon time we addressed the question, Who/what is a disciple of Jesus Christ? This was a follow up to our District Superintendent asking us this at our Charge Conference. I was pleased with the eager willingness of our congregation to share. Our responses can first be divided between actions and characteristics. It was clear that we all believe being a disciple is something that we live out in our lives. Some of the responses were: being a servant, living by the teachings of the Bible and Jesus, Living simply, doing what is morally right even if it doesn’t benefit us, helping others whenever there is an opportunity to do so, etc. The focus of these action kinds of responses is interpersonal – that is, they involve how we treat each other. Upon reflection what is missing is the social. Living simply is perhaps the only response that can be related to the affects of our lives on society. The absence of these responses may be my fault, in part. One of the questions that was on the cheat sheet that I didn’t really address was, does being a disciple involve being political. I would say firmly yes and I think that given the chance, and the lead, all of us would say so. To give a timely example, I think we all believe that our work toward becoming a Reconciling Congregation is a part of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.
Most of the responses concerned personal characteristics which is what one would expect. The most common characteristics grouped around not being selfish, being compassionate and being open. The responses about not being selfish were humility, not being self-reliant or perfect, and being respectful, obedient and self-sacrificing. These last two stirred some emotion, however. We live in a culture that values the self; it is perhaps the greatest conflict between our culture and our faith, and largely unaddressed. We are taught self-esteem, not self- sacrifice. We are taught to follow our bliss, not to be obedient. But as I said on Sunday, self-sacrifice and obedience suffuse the New Testament: If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. (Mark 8:34 NRSV). How do we balance having a sense of self-worth with a call to put that worthy self aside, not be preoccupied with it, to in this way sacrifice it for the common good and the glory of God?
There were numerous responses that can be grouped into being compassionate: empathetic, forgiving, and as one would expect, loving. The strong commitment to loving our neighbor as ourselves is fundamental to being a disciple. One of the things that attracted me to Methodism was our emphasis on God’s love and grace. As I write this I am preparing for class discussions on sin and salvation. The dominant understanding passed down from Paul, Augustine, Luther and Calvin and in the 20th Century Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth has been that we do not deserve salvation but God in His (sic) mercy has graciously decided to save a few of us. I imagine this drove Wesley nuts for its lack of compassion. Where is Jesus in this view?!
As much as our Church feels connected to the denominational motto, Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors, it is not surprising that openness would also be seen as a mark of a disciple: Listening, understanding, accepting, being teachable, transparent and diverse all suggest openness.
There was an interesting contrast between words that insinuate strength and those that hint at weakness. A disciple is not submissive, is confident, hardworking and disciplined. At the same time a disciple is vulnerable, sensitive, forbearing and patient, We Methodists are very attached to the word “discipline” and claim that spiritual disciplines are an important part of a life of faith, but that doesn’t mean we are so determined so as to be insensitive to those around us. I preached a few weeks ago about the power of vulnerability, the necessity of our accepting our weakness and even finding strength in our weakness, but that doesn’t mean we are submissive or lazy. It is a fine balance.
There were three responses that could suggest evangelism: Sharing God’s Word, sharing Christ and sharing our passion. We must know that in an evangelical church these sorts of responses would dominate. While we may not agree with these churches theologically, that doesn’t preclude a need to share our message. I think we have a message to share; I think people are out there who need to hear how we see the gospel of Jesus Christ. And I think this needs to be a part of what it means to be a disciple.
Then there is the issue of community. Can a person be a disciple of Jesus Christ and not be a part of a community of faith? Our culture says yes, our tradition says no. Paul could not have conceived of a person who is a disciple of Jesus by him/herself. As I have said, I don’t’ want to be absolutist about this, but I too do not feel comfortable, at least, with the idea of an individual deciding what it means to be a Christian without any other accountability. It isn’t just about amenability either, it is about identity. I don’t think we are who we really are without being in relationship with others. Other people form and change us. I have been shaped by each community I have been a part of, starting with the 1st Presbyterian Church in Corvallis, Oregon right down to you all. The belief that we are followers of Jesus first who then look for a community to be a part of, if we so choose, is connected to the understanding of faith being primarily about belief. If I believe in God and Jesus I am a Christian. Even if we accept this idea it seems to be kind of selfish and lazy. This also relates to the quotes I shared from Dietrich Bonheoffer’s The Cost of Discipleship: “The response of the disciples is an act of obedience, not a confession of faith in Jesus.” What Bonheoffer calls “the first step” is to act, not to believe. And traditionally Christians act in the context of community. We can say at the very least that it is far more difficult to be a disciple of Jesus by oneself; far less action occurs as well. Relating this to evangelism, I think one of the things we need to share with the world is the transforming power of living in Christians community; we invite them not to share our beliefs but into relationship with us, as we live in relationship with God.
Once again, I thank you all for your willingness to participate in this unusual “sermon”.
Pastor Jim
Sharing Our Faith
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeThe first module discussed by our Beta Vitality Task Force was about Spiritual Disciplines, but as discussions go, it morphed into talking about sharing our faith. It was out of this discussion that we formed the Caring Committee, but a number of other ideas were extended, some of which we would like to implement, one has to do with sharing our faith in worship.
You might have noticed a few times during our prayer time in worship in addition to asking for “Joys and Concerns” I have invited you share about a time when you have experienced God in the last week. It hasn’t sunk in… we haven’t done a good job of explaining it. In Youth Group they share about their “Pows, Wows and Hows”. The “Pows” are the concerns, the “Wows” are the joys and the “Hows” are the places they experience God. That’s where this idea comes from. I will continue to give this a try; please listen for it and be prepared to share.
We also floated the idea of people sharing about their faith lives in a similar way to what we do in the Stewardship season. Like a Mission Moment – Why is the church important to you? What was a formative experience in your journey of faith? Who was someone who helped you in your faith? What communities have been a part of your life? What is your image of God and/or Jesus? I think we can learn so much from each other; I know that the times people have shared during the Stewardship Drive, it has been meaningful. If anyone is interested in doing this, please contact me.
The second module that we discussed in Beta Vitality was small groups. Here too the matter of sharing our faith is involved. There are all sorts of small groups. Some small groups are centered around a task (choir, band, quilting, etc.) Other small groups are study oriented (Sunday School). There are small groups that are primarily fellowship oriented (Saints and Sinners). And even committees are small groups. At our meeting we viewed a video featuring Reverend Curtis Brown from our own Annual Conference Office. Interestingly, he did not suggest that we all add a new program to our church – enlist every member to join a small group – he said that we first need to pay attention to the character or spirit of the groups we have. To recognize that wherever two or three are gathered in God’s sight it is a small group and as such an opportunity to meet God. Even the Trustees. As a matter of fact, Curtis shared a story of a church that invited a newer member to become the chair of the Trustees. This man had little experience in the church – his greatest experience was through Disciple Bible Study. In Disciple Bible Study meetings begin with a devotion, and not a simply Upper Room reading and a prayer. These devotions were check ins on everyone’s life. Now, we know what kind of people gravitate toward the Board of Trustees – they usually aren’t the touchy feely share your feelings types. Yet over time these Trustees became one of the strongest small groups in the church. How is your heart today? Do we all remember that question? How is it with your soul? Creating new small groups is also a good thing, but more fundamental towards transforming the church is enlivening and revitalizing the small groups we have recognizing that whenever we gather we are called to share our faith.
See you in worship. Pastor Jim
What is a Disciple?
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeWhat is a Disciple?
Those of you who attended our Charge Conference in December may recall that our District Superintendent, Reverend Daniel Foster asked us, “What is a disciple?” The mission statement of the United Methodist Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. To follow that, don’t we have to have an idea of what a disciple is? Because it was a surprise question, the response was not enthusiastic. I can’t even remember what was said, other than, “all of us are” which although true doesn’t get at what I’m sure Rev. Foster wanted us to reflect on. Perhaps he could have refined the question to, what characterizes a disciple? What are the qualities of a disciple? How do we recognize a disciple of Jesus Christ? I Googled these sorts of things and got all sorts of lists, none of which I found satisfying (This is a lesson about the Internet – because Google places the most popular responses first it often narrows the possibilities; the most popular rarely reflects truth.) One example is from the Tabernacle Baptist Church:
1. Imitates the Master.
2. Does not fear the world.
3. Confesses the Lord.
4. Willing to forsake one’s family.
5. Offers up one’s own life.
6. Receives a reward. Hmmm?.
On January 26 in the worship service during the sermon time I will be asking the congregation these questions in a dialogue sermon.:
1. What characterizes a disciple?
2. What are the qualities of a disciple?
3. How do we recognize a disciple of Jesus Christ?
The text from the lectionary from the gospel is the calling of the disciples; epiphany is the time to ask this sort of question. So I ask you all to prepare yourselves. Reflect on what you think being a disciple means. I’m looking forward to what you all share. If you don’t come up with anything it will be a very short sermon.
Pastor Jim
A Rule for Advent
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeBy “rule” I don’t mean rules, as in strictures and limitations but as a practice – as in the Benedictine Rule. St. Benedict was a sixth Century monk who developed a practice for the lives of monks. In addition to the basic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience it included a set of hours during the day for prayer, worship, working, study, silence, and rest. It was a very structured life, something we can hardly imagine. Pastor Paula went to stay at the Benedictine Monastery in the desert and got a taste of what it means to follow such a patterned daily life. In short, it was great for the four days she was there. It was calming and regenerative. Even the vow of silence (all meals are taken in silence) was refreshing for her. A few years ago, I went on a five day silent retreat that also had a very patterned daily routine. It is hard to adjust to, but the feelings of calm that come over one are healing. I wouldn’t for a minute want to BE a monk and live all my days that way. But once in a while, having such a retreat or to have a rule as a practice during a particular time in our lives can be beneficial.
Most of the time when we think of this sort of thing we think of Lent, but Advent, too, was traditionally understood as a time for preparation for the coming of the Christ Child. The lectionary readings are about watching and waiting, being awake to see the coming child. The irony here is that what actually happens to us during the Advent season is that we prepare for Christmas and in the process go in the exact opposite direction; we become less attentive and more discombobulated. To salvage a little of the spirit of Advent, I propose coming up with a Rule for Advent. It doesn’t have to be much – just some kind of practice that will encourage the sense of wakefulness and calm that has been associated with Advent.
Here are some suggestions:
• Pray three times a day.
• Meditate once or twice a day.
• Read an Advent devotional.
• Attend worship every Sunday in Advent.
• Limit checking email, cell phone or Facebook to twice a day.
• Schedule some time for silence – maybe even a day for silence.
• Limit TV/movie watching to three events per week (including football).
• Do not listen to music while driving.
• Fast from the Internet outside of what is required for work or school.
• Limit spending for Christmas.
• Drive the speed limit.
• Have a family Advent candle lighting ritual.
These are just suggestions. Choose one or more that you think would bring a watchful calm into your life. See you in worship. Pastor Jim
Mad Men
/in Pastor Jim’s Blog/by Pastor Jim ClarkeThis is the sermon that was meant to be…. As I said this past Sunday my plan was for this to be an AMC Advent: The Walking Dead, Breaking Good and then on the 22nd the sermon title was going to be Mad Men. Here’s a brief synopsis of what I was going to say. “How in the world did Joseph avoid getting angry? He should have been angry, conventionally – that is what would have been expected of him. It would have been the right thing to do and more importantly the manly thing to do. One has to imagine the guys hanging out at the equivalent of the pub shaking their heads – Come on man! – at Joseph for being so wimpy and caring. Be a Man, for God’s sake – as strange as that sounds, that was the thinking. He decided not to get angry and to resolve things quietly so as not to disgrace Mary – so that she might be able to avoid becoming a prostitute. That’s just not how men are, is it?
Some things never change and one is that indeed, there are a lot of mad men in the world. There were then, there are now and there were back in the 1960s the time period for another AMC show, Mad Men. The title is a play on words for Ad Men – the story is about the lives of people who run an advertising agency in New York in the early 60’s. The show is full of mad men (and women too, actually). The main character is Don Draper but that is not his real name. In the Korean War he took on the identity of a man who died in front of him so that he could get home sooner. Besides, he had no trouble leaving his family and past – his upbringing was horrid. Between his puffs on an ubiquitous cigarette and a gulp of whiskey one can see in his eyes an almost animal resentment, both fearful and angry. He has the model 1960s family on the outside but at work he is driven and competitive; he has affairs and his marriage ends (in season 3, I think).
As was true with The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad, the writers of Mad Men are uncovering something that is true about our world today. Sometimes it is exaggerated – it is entertainment – but this deep spirit of anger and resentment. Walter White had it too. One can almost hear the vulgarities emanating from their hearts. And I will tell you that there are many people today who feel this all the time – more men than women but by not means exclusively. It is a kind of madness that is more dangerous than most clinical mental illnesses. (If this was a sermon I would probably say more about the state of boys in our culture).
The angel Gabriel came to Joseph and said do not be afraid – fear is usually behind both anger and resentment. I think the angel could have also said, don’t be angry or resentful. Go ahead, against convention and take Mary: love her, care for her, rather than toss her out, even if the guys at the bar think you’re “mad.” When I imagine this I wonder when we need to hear these words? So often our first response is anger – even with our families. Advent is a time to search our hearts to see what is there. Are we living with this latent resentment? Do we feel anxious and ready to be angry? How can we calm our fears so that anger isn’t the ready response?
Another character in Mad Men is Peggy who starts out as a secretary at the Ad firm. At a party she has sex with one of the “mad men” and becomes pregnant. This is the 60s so abortion isn’t the option it has become. She retreats into seclusion to have the baby. When the baby is born she refuses to hold it; the same deep resentment that was in Don Draper’s eyes are now in Peggy’s. If only the angel Gabriel could have come to Peggy and said, “do not be afraid to hold the child.” P.Jim