Category Archives: Sermons

Sermon, Sept. 13

wisdom_womanMay God grant me to speak with judgement, and to have thoughts worthy of what I have received; For both we and our words are in God’s hand, as are all understanding and skill. (Wisdom of Solomon 7:15-16)

Let’s talk about Wisdom. For what could be a more worthy topic? Wisdom is a breath of the power of God, a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty. She is intelligent, holy, generous, humane, steadfast, powerful, clear. She passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets; and she orders all things well.

That Wisdom hymn that we spoke together – I’m sure I read it in seminary at some point, but it came before my eyes again early this year while the Saint John’s Bible was in residence at the Chazen Museum. That Bible – a contemporary hand-calligraphed and illustrated Bible – includes, among its other amazing images, a beautiful picture of Lady Wisdom, with the wrinkles and kind smile of a beloved elder. My colleague and friend Dorota Pruski, the associate rector at St. Andrew’s, mentioned to me that that image was meaningful to her -so meaningful that she wrote a thesis in seminary about the images and language of Divine Wisdom in Scripture.

I invited her to come and speak about this image and how it touched her heart and her life at our Thursday evening Sandbox Worship, where the heart of our gathering is often somebody’s sharing of a piece of their life or faith journey. Dorota brought us this text, to read and reflect on together. And it blew me away. And when I realized that it was an option in the lectionary in September – today – I thought, I really want to spend more time with this text, and I hope some other folks will fall in love with it too, and find something fresh and joyful here.

So, let’s talk about Wisdom. First, just to get it out of the way, the Bible scholar bit. Like the Song of Solomon, the Wisdom of Solomon is in King Solomon’s voice – it talks about being a king, and about asking God for wisdom, as Solomon did in the court history of the Book of Kings. But this text wasn’t written by Solomon, who lived in the tenth century before Jesus. This is a very late Old Testament text, originally written in Greek. It was most likely written not long before the life of Jesus, or even around the same time – in the late first century before Christ, or the early first century A.D.

The Wisdom of Solomon is very Jewish,  drawing on deep textual traditions throughout the Hebrew Bible of naming and celebrating Divine Wisdom, and personifying Her as a beautiful woman, who invites the seeker to eat at her table and receive her gifts. The Wisdom of Solomon is also very Greek, in its high, almost philosophical language, its sense of the ideal and the abstract, its elevation of wisdom and understanding as the highest of divine qualities.

The text was probably written by a Hellenistic Jew – a pious member of the people Israel who had been educated and steeped in Greek scholarship and thought.  The word it uses for Wisdom is Sophia, but all those feminine pronouns aren’t just a grammatical accident. The text is very clear and intentional in describing Wisdom as a feminine aspect of God. For instance, in chapter 8, just a few verses after the end of this text, it casts Wisdom as a beautiful woman, desirable as a metaphorical bride; and also as a close companion of God and helper in God’s work.

In exploring this image of God’s Wisdom, I’m going to dig into two questions: What is wisdom, and what might it mean to integrate Wisdom into our image of God and our practices of prayer?

So, what is Wisdom? … Well, to begin with, there are different kinds of wisdom. Several places in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, a distinction is drawn between divine and earthly wisdom, or the wisdom of the current age.

One of those places is in the letter of James,  in the text that will come to us next week: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth. Such ‘wisdom’ does not come down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, devilish. For where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will also be disorder and wickedness of every kind. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy.”

As James describes it, earthly wisdom is tied up with envy, selfishness, pride, ambition. It’s driven by our wants and cravings. We might call it savvy or cunning. It’s the kind of wisdom that knows how to manipulate people and systems to get what you want, to gain or protect advantages for yourself or your group.

In contrast, Divine Wisdom is gentle, generous, pure, merciful, peace-making.   Does James’s list of the qualities of Divine Wisdom remind you of the Wisdom of Solomon? I don’t know whether James knew that text or not, since it’s possible they were written around the same time! But both were drawing on the same Old Testament themes and traditions.

Listen to more of the Wisdom of Solomon, to that text’s description of divine Wisdom:  “For it is God who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements;  the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons, the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals and the tempers of wild beasts, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots…  (chapter 7)  She teaches self-control and prudence, justice and courage; nothing in life is more profitable for mortals than these. And if anyone longs for wide experience, she knows the things of old, and infers the things to come; she understands turns of speech and the solutions of riddles; she has foreknowledge of signs and wonders and of the outcome of seasons and times.”  (chapter 8) 

Wisdom has to do with understanding the patterns of things, the big picture; the inner meanings and deep purposes; with knowing both self and world. Sometimes Wisdom is found in perspective, looking at the present in light of the past and the future, seeing how a particular thread fits into the great tapestry. Sometimes Wisdom is found in seeing to the true nature of things, telling it like it is, like James’ words on the power of the tongue in today’s Epistle. “The tongue is a small part of the body, but it can boast of some large accomplishments. How great a forest may be set ablaze by a small flame!” Truth.

And sometimes Wisdom is found in comprehending how little we know, in making peace with paradox and mystery,  with divine riddles like these: The person who saves their life will lose it, while the person who loses their life for the sake of Christ will save it. And: What good does it do a person to gain the whole world, and lose their soul?

So, what is Wisdom? … It’s hard to define neatly.  And sometimes things that sound wise turn out to be bogus, like, If you live a good and pure life and only eat organic food, nothing bad will ever happen to you.  The Internet, pop culture and advertising firms offer us all sorts of pseudo-wisdom, though once in a while they hit on something true, like the stopped clock that’s right twice a day. But I think often we know wisdom when we see or hear it, and when we’re not sure, we can take James’ advice and look to the fruits. Does this so-called wisdom yield good things? Does it produce mercy, peace, justice, kindness? Or… not? You could take home this text from the Wisdom of Solomon, post it on your fridge or near your desk, refer to it to remind you what divine Wisdom looks like.

Now, having failed to define Wisdom, I’ll move on to the “so what” question. What do we do with this? Why does it matter, beyond appreciating a poetic text? What might it mean to integrate Wisdom into our image of God and our practices of prayer? I have often prayed for wisdom, in the course of my forty years. Here’s the new idea I want to offer to you, and to myself: that we can pray TO Wisdom.

If this image touches you – if you are moved by this vision of a loving and lovely Lady who takes up residence in our souls and strives for order and grace in the world – you can claim this as your image of the Divine. You can pray to her, reflect on her, honor her.  And in doing so, you are not creating a new, prettier, nicer God. You are not departing from the Trinitarian theology, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, taught by our church.  You are simply giving a new, ancient name to the aspect of God better known to us as Jesus Christ.

Okay. Lemme back that up. Throughout Scripture, Wisdom is described as an attribute, an emanation, a companion of God the Father, the Creator and Source. It would be easy to see Wisdom as another name for the Holy Spirit, that breath of the Divine that blows through our world and lives. You’ve already heard me use feminine language for the Spirit – not because I imagine that the Spirit of God is actually a girl, any more than I imagine that God the Father is a boy, but in order to strive for a little complexity and balance in our images and language of the divine.  So it would be easy to identify Wisdom with the Holy Spirit.

But there’s actually a LOT of overlap in Scripture between the way Wisdom is described, and the way Christ is described. If you want a nice chewy beautifully-written thesis to read about it, let me know & I’ll ask Dorota for permission to share her thesis!  I’ll just give you the clearest and best example: the Christological hymn or poem at the beginning of John’s Gospel.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it…  And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

Can you hear the similarities? The Companion of God, the Light from God that shares in God’s work and passes into the world to dwell among humans? It’s even clearer if you read more of the Wisdom of Solomon, which describes Wisdom as God’s presence in the world throughout the history of God’s saving work for humanity, very much the way John describes Jesus, the Christ. If you replaced “Word” with “Wisdom” in John’s hymn, and changed the pronouns, it would sound like another chapter of the Wisdom text. But John used a different Greek term: Logos, Word. Maybe that’s a theological choice: he sees Jesus as the creating and prophetic Word of God, made flesh. Maybe it’s because Logos was a masculine word and let John avoid the messiness of using feminine language for Jesus. Who knows? …

The point is that here and elsewhere, there are close parallels between parts of the New Testament that describe the divine and cosmic nature of Jesus, and the Wisdom language of the Old Testament. And there’s a rich strain in Christian history, theology and liturgy that picks up on that and names Christ as Divine Wisdom. It’s most dominant in the Orthodox Christian tradition, but we have one very familiar example in our hymnal, in an Advent hymn based on a holy poem from the 6th century: O Come, thou Wisdom from on high, that orderest all things mightily… That hymn, that some of us have sung for decades, names Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, as Wisdom – Sapientia in Latin, Sophia in Greek.

And just as you could easily read the first verses of John’s Gospel as a hymn to Wisdom, so you can easily read some of the Wisdom texts as hymns to Jesus Christ.  Consider this passage from chapter 9:  “And thus the paths of those on earth were set right, and people were taught what pleases [God], and were saved by Wisdom.”

Here’s why I think this matters. It matters for some people who’ve never quite found their own way to approach Jesus in prayer. Maybe it’s a gender thing. Maybe the Jesus of the Gospels just doesn’t feel God-dy enough to them. If the image and language of Divine Wisdom opens a door for you which allows you to approach Jesus Christ in a new way, I hope you’ll walk through it, with joy. But naming and claiming Sophia as legitimate holy language matters for all of us, because it helps us have a broader sense of who and what Jesus Christ really is: Both the ragamuffin prophet of Galilee, and the cosmic Christ, present before and after and in and beyond. The divine Logos, yes, the Word that creates life; and the holy Sophia, yes, the Wisdom that orders Creation.

And it offers us, too, a fresh and wider vision of what Christ active in our lives looks like:  a Spirit that is intelligent! holy! generous! humane! free from anxiety!that forms us as friends of God! I talked with the kids a couple of weeks ago about seeing the love in their lives as signs of the presence of God, as manifestations of God’s presence. What about if we think of wisdom the same way? Look for it, note it, honor it, seek it. Wisdom, Sophia, Logos, Christ is calling out to us, asking us to be her guests, her students, her friends.

Sermon, Sunday, Sept. 6

This Sunday’s Bible readings may be found here

Happy Lammas!

What is Lammastide? No, it doesn’t have anything to do with those funny long-necked animals you sometimes see hanging out with the sheep or goats in a field by the side of the road…

Lammas is an ancient harvest festival that became a church festival in our mother church, the Church of England. The word means “loaf mass.” It was originally held at the time of year when the first grain ripened enough to be made into fresh loaves of bread, at the end of the summer.

At Lammastide, the people of God offer the first fruits of the growing season to God with thanks for the harvest. It’s a practice grounded in the Hebrew Bible, and followed in various forms by peoples around the world who name the Divine in many different ways. When the harvest comes in, you give some of it back to God. You don’t take it for granted. Nature is uncertain. Life is uncertain. But here we all are again. Thanks be to God.

When you start poking around the Bible to see what it says about bread, you run pretty quickly into the connection between bread and justice – by way of the obvious connection between bread and hunger. Just as surely and persistently as Scripture calls God’s people to offer bread to God, as a sign of thanksgiving; so just as surely and persistently does Scripture call God’s people to share bread with the hungry. Our lesson from Proverbs today puts it plainly: Those who are generous are blessed, for they share their bread with the poor.

In fact, there’s a strain of thought in the Hebrew Bible that giving to others is actually another way to give to God, in addition to making offerings at the Temple. Maybe even a better way. That idea appears both the books of the Law, laying out God’s ways for God’s people, and in the Prophetic books, in which the prophets call God’s people back to those ways.  It’s even in the Psalms – In Psalm 50, God asks, Do you think I eat the food you offer? If I were hungry, I have all Creation with which to feed myself. Make your offering to me by living justly.

And then there’s James, with his rather pointed counsel to treat people fairly, and never to dishonor or persecute the poor. It’s hard to imagine a more fitting text for Labor Day Weekend, if we hold in mind the origin and intentions of that holiday. Beyond the school supply sales, beyond the last weekend for summer travel,  Labor Day began as a holiday to honor the historic achievements of the Labor movement in its heyday, in advocating for and protecting working people and especially the working poor. Like pushing for the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established a limited work week with time for rest and leisure; for minimum wage and overtime laws; for the Occupational Safety and Health Act, better known as OSHA, which holds employers responsible for their workers’ safety; for helping to establish employer-based health insurance; pushing for the Family and Medical Leave Act, which protects your job if you have to take time off for a medical or family situation; and helping to end child labor.

People of good faith hold varying views on the labor movement today, but I am very glad to live in a country in which these policies and protections for working people are the law the land, and I’m grateful to those who worked and fought to make them so.

The Bible didn’t envision a democratic society, in which the people can organize to shape the laws that govern their lives. But those who have done that work, in our nation and others, have plenty of Scriptures they can quote – including the letter of James.  Jerry Folk, a Lutheran pastor and scholar who teaches at Edgewood College, has this to say about the witness of James:

“James and many other biblical authors believe that all workers have a God-given right to a just wage, safe and humane working conditions, and time for life with their families and friends; [and] that they have a God-given right to a life of dignity with some measure of comfort and security.”

My first thought on reading that sentence was, Wow, that’s pretty radical; surely he’s putting words in the Bible’s mouth. Then I started thinking about and looking up all the passages in the Bible – especially in the Torah, in the Prophets, the Gospels and, yes, James – that deal with justice, work, rest, human wellbeing, and with the obligations of the wealthy, and of the community as a whole, towards the poor.

And I realized, Nope, Professor Folk is not stretching a point. The Bible, our sacred text, really says that workers should be paid fairly, enough that they don’t go hungry and can care for their families; that work should not become bondage; that workers should have dignity; that everyone is entitled to time for rest; and that those unable to work should be cared for by the community. That is the Bible’s witness about God’s intentions for human society and economy.

James seems to be addressing these matters in a situation in which some Christian communities are treating the rich and the poor differently. There’s an ancient tradition that James may actually be the brother of Jesus – and, honestly, it could be true. There’s a lot here that sounds close to Jesus’ own teachings.

James warns those who are trying to follow Jesus that they must not shame the poor or treat them as less important than the wealthy. He reminds them that God sides with the poor, when the interests of the rich and the poor are at odds:

“Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? Yet you have dishonored the poor… If you show favoritism in this way, you commit sin.” His words echo the Book of Proverbs:  “The LORD pleads the cause [of the poor] and will take from those who take from the poor.”

And James offers these words, which challenge and convict me every time (2:14 – 17):

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not live out that faith in action? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not respond to their needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, not shown in action, is dead.”

In last week’s lesson, the first chapter of James, he writes,  “Be doers of the Word of God, not just hearers.”

What good is your faith if you don’t live it out in action?  What’s the use of your good wishes for those who don’t have enough, those who live with want and worry as constant companions, if you don’t act to improve their circumstances?  Those are questions that haunt my days, my years. It puts me mind of a famous quotation from C.S. Lewis that makes the rounds of the Internet from time to time: “If you want a religion to make you really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity…”

We live in a time of massive and increasing economic inequality in America. By some measures, our country has the greatest income inequality in the developed world. And when we look at wealth instead of income, the disparities are even greater. An article in Scientific American earlier this year reported that the top 20% of US households own more than 84% of the wealth of our country, and the bottom 40% of households own just 0.3%.

To some extent, we Americans tolerate this stark inequality because we believe that anyone who works hard can make good. And some do, of course. But we sharply underestimate the barriers and overestimate our society’s capacity for social and economic mobility. Mobility is measurable, just like income and wealth, and America has less, not more, social mobility than other developed nations. 

That’s a really brief snapshot of a huge, messy issue. Google “economic inequality America” to learn more than you want to know.

Massive and increasing economic inequality in America is a fact. How to understand it, and solve it, are issues on which smart and good-hearted people can hold differing views. One way or another, it is already one of the central themes of the year’s political debates.

But while the answers are complex, I believe the question for people of faith is pretty simple:  How do we live as God’s people in the face of these realities?  In the face of a social and economic order that is, from God’s point of view, disordered?

If indeed we accept the Bible as our witness to God’s plans and purposes for humanity, then we have to face the fact that God has told us again and again that the wellbeing of the poor matters. That having people in grinding poverty, hungry, struggling, vulnerable, hopeless, is NOT OK WITH GOD. And we have to come back to James’s words, those words that cling like a burr: what good is your faith if you’re not acting on it?

Just as surely and persistently as Scripture calls God’s people to offer bread to God as a sign of thanksgiving; so just as surely and persistently does Scripture call God’s people to share bread with the hungry.

Our parish is already generous with our charity. But the scope of inequality and need in our nation is such that charity isn’t going to solve it. I’m pretty sure those in our congregation who are most deeply involved with the charitable ministries of our city, like MOM and IHN, would agree. Charity can feed a family for a day or week, but most of the time it can’t prevent the hungry days from rolling around again.

The Biblical call to sharing and generosity is about more than charity. It’s about how we order our common life. Consider an example from the Old Testament, from Leviticus, the Book of the Law of God that tells God’s people the Jews how to live in God’s ways of holiness, mercy and justice. One of the laws of Leviticus is the law of gleaning – an appropriate topic for a harvest festival.

In a nutshell, gleaning means that landowners – the wealthy elite, in that context – weren’t supposed to take everything when they harvested their fields, orchards and vineyards. They were supposed to leave the edges and corners unharvested. Then those without land or work could come and gather from those edges and corners, to feed their families.

The Theology of Work Commentary says, “We might [see] gleaning as an expression of compassion…, but according to Leviticus, allowing others to glean… is the fruit of holiness. We do it because God says, “I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:10). This highlights the distinction between charity and gleaning. In charity, people voluntarily give to others who are in need. This is a good and noble thing to do, but it is not what Leviticus is talking about. Gleaning is a process in which landowners have an obligation to provide poor and marginalized people access to the means of production… and to work it themselves.  Unlike charity, it does not depend on the generosity of landowners. In this sense, it was much more like a tax than a charitable contribution. Also unlike charity, it was not given to the poor…  Through gleaning, the poor earned their living the same way as the landowners did, by working the fields with their own labors. It was simply a command that everyone had a right to access the means of provision created by God.”

The Commentary goes on to note, as I have, that our Biblical models don’t provide easy solutions for our circumstances:   “Certainly Leviticus does not contain a system ready-made for today’s economies.” There aren’t straightforward answers in Scripture to today’s socioeonomic dilemmas, and I won’t pretend that there are.

The people of the Bible didn’t live in a democracy, so we have to do our own work discerning how to participate in civic life as people of faith, and what it looks like to work towards God’s justice in a secular society.

The people of the Bible didn’t live with advanced capitalism. Exploitation of the poor by the rich was a clear and unvarnished reality in those times and places. It’s messier now, with questions about how a business’s profits relate to the wellbeing of its employees, or which poor people we should prioritize in a global economy, and many other complexities and ambiguities.

The people of the Bible lived in a world of rich and poor, starkly defined. Most of us here are more or less middle-class. We know that we are privileged, rich by global standards. But we also don’t feel wealthy or powerful enough to make much difference in the status quo. When the Bible talks about rich and poor, we often don’t know where to find ourselves in those stories and teachings.

In the face of all those questions and uncertainties, here is what we can hold onto, as concrete and crusty as a loaf of good bread. What we do with what we have, matters. What is ours, isn’t really ours in an absolute sense. Whether we were born into it or worked hard for it or a little of both, it comes to us as a resource for our own flourishing, yes, but also for the flourishing of others, and of the whole cosmos. (Did you know that word, cosmos, which means the system, the great big encompassing dynamic whole, that’s the word that’s translated “world” in the New Testament? As in, God sent his Son into the system, not to condemn the system, but that through Him the system might be saved?… That’s a whole nother sermon.)

I’m not just talking money here; we have all kinds of assets, resources, privileges. For example, I suspect that I am comparatively more wealthy in education and institutional position than I am in financial resources. That means that when I’m passionate about something, I may be able to advance it further by committing time and skill than by committing money. You know what your resources, your assets are.

What we do with what we have is one of the themes of our fall season. It’s not a liturgical season, though if it were I suppose green would be the appropriate color! But it’s the season of harvest, so deep deep in the rhythms of the year, it’s a time when we think about bounty, about offering, thanking, giving, sharing. It’s a season when the winter’s hardships loom, so our hearts and minds turn to the needs of those who may go hungry and cold in the months ahead. It’s the final quarter of the fiscal year and time to plan for the next one, so organizations and institutions are soliciting commitments and setting budgets.

In October we’ll have three weeks in a row with invitations to engage with the needs of the wider community – Backpack Snack Packs, Bread for the World’s Offering of Letters, and CROP Walk – we’re calling it the Hunger Weeks. And of course, right after that, we’ll kick off our parish pledge drive, our shared conversation about your choices to use some of your resources to support this church, and about how this church should use its resource to support God’s mission.

What we do with what we have, matters. We often don’t know how best to use our resources to forward God’s dream of an economy of human dignity and wellbeing. But maybe that’s one of the things that church is for.

Maybe it’s through our common prayer, through reading and talking about Scripture together, through shared learning and service, and through our conversations with one another – the kind where we see things the same way but push each other to go deeper, and the kind where we see things differently but discover our underlying shared hopes and fears – Maybe it’s through all that, the substance of our life together as a community of faith, that we’ll find the way to be doers of the Word of God, and not just hearers.

 

Kids’ sermon, August 30

We just heard a beautiful poem, full of wonderful images, like lilies and doves and flowers and apple trees. It is called the Song of Solomon because it talks about King Solomon, David’s son. People who study the Bible think it was written much later, and just used King Solomon as a character in the poem.

This is a poem about love.But not just any kind of love.This is a romantic poem. It’s the words of two people very much in love, in the spring, getting ready for their wedding. Two people who want to be as close to each other as possible. (I know; gross, right?)

In English, the language we use,there is just one word for love. That’s it: love. I saw a cartoon once where a lady got madbecause her husband said “I love lobster” and then he said, “I love you.” You could say, I love my mom, and I love gummi bears. But do you feel the same way about your mom and gummi bears? Not really!

In the language called Greek, which some of the Bible was written in, they had different words for different kinds of love .Eros is like boyfriend/girlfriend love, romantic love. Storge is like the love in a family. Philio is like the love we feel for our friends. Agape is like the love we have in a community or a team or a group of people that know each other and take care of each other. The kind of love where you share happy times and hard times, and where you try to help somebody even when it’s hard. This is the kind of love that Jesus tells us to have for each other. I don’t know what word the Greeks would use for how people feel about lobster or gummi bears! …

Okay, so coming back to this love poem we just heard. Why are we reading a love poem in church? Well, because it’s in the Bible. So why is a love poem in the Bible? A lot of people have asked that question, over the years. Some people have felt like it just doesn’t really belong here.It’s about romance… and some of it is pretty kissy-kissy… reading it might make people think about things other than God… so let’s just skip that part of the Bible. And certainly don’t read it to the children!

Other people have said, What is wrong with you? This isn’t a poem about romance at all. It’s a poem about the love between God and God’s people. The sweet, tender adoration that God has for us. And if you see something kissy-kissy there, that’s your issue.

I wonder if we can say that it’s kind of both? It’s kind of about the romantic love of two people, and also about the tender love God feels for us? I wonder if all kinds of love -Eros and Storge and Philia and Agape – I wonder if all those kinds of love, deep down, are really the same love?

At least, I wonder if all the good kinds of love we feel are really the same love, deep down. Because sometimes we get attached to things that aren’t really good for us, but it might feel like love. One word we use for that is addiction.That’s when you want something all the time, and it feels really important to you, like you need it to be yourself, and it feels like you love it; but the thing you’re attached to is unhealthy for you. Or at least it’s not truly adding anything to your life, it’s just taking your time and energy without building you up. The best example for kids might be computer or video games. Maybe you’ve felt a little bit addicted yourself, or you have a friend who’s kind of addicted. For grownups it might be cigarettes or alcohol or online shopping, or even a person who’s really exciting but who does hurtful things. People can get addicted to lots of things.

So not everything that feels like love, is good for us. Real love does good things in our hearts and minds and lives. And that’s true whether it’s the love of a friend, or a parent, or a pet, or a teacher, or a girlfriend/boyfriend someday. Real love doesn’t always feel good every minute. Sometimes we hurt each other, or we feel sad when someone we love leaves or gets sick. And sometimes we have to tell people we love something that they don’t want to hear. Like, come do your homework! …

But even if it doesn’t feel good all the time, real love is good, and we need it. Let me tell you a story about King Solomon, because it is also a story about love. Remember, King Solomon was King David’s son, and he was famous for being very, very wise. This is one of the stories that people told about how wise he was.

There were two women, sisters, who both had new babies. And one of the babies died. Very sad! So now there was only one baby, but both mothers said that that baby was theirs. The babies looked alike so nobody could tell for sure, and both women said, This is my baby. So they argued and argued, and finally they took the baby to King Solomon the Wise. They said, How can we solve this?

And King Solomon thought about it, and then he said, All right, I know what to do. We have to cut the baby in half. Each of you can have half of the baby. Was that a good solution?…

It doesn’t sound like a good solution, does it? But let me tell you what happened. One of the mothers said, All right, fine, that seems fair. But the other mother said, NO! Don’t hurt the child! She can have him. Just – let him live.

And King Solomon said, Let the baby go to this woman. She is the baby’s mother. He saw that she truly loved her baby. The other woman was so broken by her sadness and jealousy that she didn’t care what happened. But this woman loved the baby with such big, deep, strong love that she would rather let the baby go with somebody else than be hurt. (Now do you think King Solomon was wise?)

So that’s real love! And all that kind of love comes from God. That’s what we mean when we say that God is love. Have you heard people say that? God is love? The woman who draws the Sunday Papers is named Gretchen. And the way she draws God – it’s hard to draw God, nobody knows what God looks like! – so the way Gretchen draws God is as a heart with hands. Love that reaches out to us and touches the world, and our lives.

What do you think about that idea? That the love in your family, the love of your pet, the love you share with your closest friends, the love you feel for a special place like a lake or woods, the love you feel for doing something you’re really good at, all of that real, good love is holy? Comes from God? That it’s one of the ways God is in our lives, every day?

I’m going to give you all some hearts. I want to notice love in your life today, okay?Notice where there is love in your life. Put a heart on it if it’s a thing, or if it’s a person you could give them a heart. And say in your heart, Thank you, God! Thank for all the love in my life!

Sermon, August 9

Almighty and everlasting God, who didst enkindle the flame of thy love in the heart of thy holy martyr Jonathan: Grant to us, thy humble servants, a like faith and power of love, that we who rejoice in his triumph may profit by his example; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

One of the interesting questions I get, now and then, from folks who have come to the Episcopal Church from other traditions, is: How do y’all handle the matter of saints? As a church, we have a calendar of commemorations, people to honor on particular days of the church year. And at St. Dunstan’s, we’ve got our little wall of holy people, back there overlooking the baptismal font; our iconostasis, the name they use in the Orthodox churches. In a couple of months we’ll celebrate All Saints’ Day, one of the great feasts of the Christian year. So clearly we have some practice of honoring saints, more so than most Protestant churches. But the definition of a saint, what makes somebody a saint, is nowhere near as clear as it is, for example, for our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

We Episcopalians and Anglicans tend to live with, and in, the tension between the two ancient definitions of sainthood. The one we see in the New Testament, which uses “saints” to mean the whole fellowship of believers, called and holy. And the one that evolved in the early centuries of the church, which uses “saints” to mean those special individuals whose lives and often deaths bore witness in a particular way to their faith, virtue, and courage. Our church’s Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, the body that oversees our calendar of commemorations, has been wrestling with this conundrum for several years, trying to find a clear and theologically-grounded way to explain why we name and set apart certain people for remembrance, while we still affirm that every Christian life can and should show forth the love of God in Christ Jesus. The Commission’s solution is to hold up the idea of witness. That the people we hold up and honor are people who demonstrated, lived out, witnessed to their faith, in a way worth honoring and remembering. In a way that may inspire us as we strive to live our faith in the face of today’s challenges.

The introduction to our latest volume of commemorations, called “A Great Cloud of Witnesses,” says, “Following the broad stream of Christian tradition, there are no formal criteria for defining saints. Rather, sanctity is celebrated locally by a decision that [certain] individuals… shine forth Christ to the world… As illustrations, they mirror the myriad virtues of Christ, in order that, in their examples, we might recognize those same virtues and features of holiness in people closer to our own times and stations and neighborhoods. And, seeing them in those around us, we may be more able to cultivate these virtues and forms of holiness—through grace—as we strive to imitate Christ as well.”

Today I’ve got a new picture to add to our wall, our iconostasis. (No, it’s not Art Lloyd, though it’s a kindred spirit.) This is Jonathan Myrick Daniels – known to his friends as Jon. He died fifty years ago this month, on August 20, 1965. His feast day on our calendar is August 14, the date of his arrest. Jon was born in 1939 in Keene, New Hampshire. He became Episcopalian as a young man, after struggling with faith in his teens. He attended the Virginia Military Institute, where he was valedictorian of his graduating class in 1961. He received a fellowship to study English literature at Harvard, but he discerned a call to ordained ministry and left Harvard to study at my alma mater, the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, then known as ETS.

In 1965, Jon Daniels was 26, and America was torn by a deepening struggle over civil rights. In March of ’65, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called for people to come to Alabama to help, to stand with African-Americans in their fight for freedom. Who went to see the movie Selma, earlier this year? On March 7, civil rights activists had tried to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, as the first step of a march to state capitol in Montgomery to highlight the disenfranchisement of African American voters. As you may have seen in the movie – or, for some of you, on the news, fifty years ago -the marchers were beaten back by so-called law enforcement. King’s call was for allies, black and especially white, to join the marchers for a second attempt.

Dr. King’s call was much-discussed at ETS. One day at Evening Prayer in St. John’s Chapel – where today there hangs an icon of Jon Daniels, surrounded by other martyrs of the world’s long struggle for freedom and equality – during Evening Prayer, Jon heard the Magnificat, Mary’s prayer of joy and hope. And it spoke to his heart in a new way, a transformative way. He wrote later: “As the lovely hymn of the God-bearer continued, I found myself peculiarly alert, suddenly straining toward the decisive, luminous, Spirit-filled “moment”… Then it came. ‘He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble and meek…’ I knew then that I must go to Selma.”

Jon joined a group of other ETS students on a weekend trip to Alabama, to help with community organizing work there. But Jon missed the bus home – and took that as a sign that he should stay longer. His friend Judith Upham, who took this photo of Jon, back at ETS, wrote later about how they spent their time: “After the march, Jon and I just hung around, doing what we could to help.” If a demonstration needed marchers, they marched. They helped students complete college applications, played with children, helped voter-registration efforts, visited schools. They attended the local Episcopal church every Sunday and spent about an hour each week lobbying the rector to act, without success. Upham says, “He was too steeped in the ways of the South, and he had his job to consider.” Upham concluded, “We were in our 20s, young and naïve, assuming that if people knew the right thing to do, they would do it.” It also was, she said, “one of the few times in my life I was 100 percent positive that I was doing what God wanted me to do. If it cost me my life, that was all right. After all, there are worse things than death.”

On Aug 13, 1965, Jon Daniels, with about 30 others, went to Ft. Deposit, AL, a small rural town, to picket segregated businesses. On Aug 14, they were all arrested, and taken to the nearby Hainesville jail. They were held for 6 days. On August 20, they were released with no warning – meaning there was no ally ready to pick them up and take them to safer territory. Friends have described it as a set-up. It was a hot bright day, 100 degrees, and a sense of danger hung heavy around. A small group – Jon Daniels, a white Roman Catholic priest, and two black protesters – approached a small store, hoping to buy a cold drink. They were met at the door by Tom Coleman, an unofficial sheriff’s deputy, wielding a shotgun. Words were exchanged. He threatened them, then pointed the gun at one of the black protesters, a young woman named Ruby Sales. Jon Daniels stepped between Ruby and the gun. Coleman fired. And on a dusty road in Hainesville, Alabama, Jon Daniels gave his life for a friend, for the world, for Christ.

Jesus says, The bread that I give for the life of the world is my flesh.

The author of the letter to the Ephesians says, Be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

In the weeks before his death, Jon Daniels wrote, “I lost fear… when I began to know in my Bones and sinews that I had been truly baptized into the Lord’s death and Resurrection, that in the only sense that really matters I am already dead, and my life is hid with Christ in God.”

The shooter, Coleman, got off on self-defense, through an absurd claim that Daniels had pulled a knife. But Jon’s death drew national attention to the protests. In particular, it mobilized the Episcopal Church to engage the civil rights movement, to take seriously the struggle for freedom and justice, and join God’s work by supporting that struggle. Jonathan Daniels is still remembered and honored for having shown the church where to stand – as close as possible to those facing unjust oppression. Judith Upham said later, “I know that Jon’s legacy made a huge difference in theological education,… in terms of how do we practice what we say we believe.”

Why honor, why remember Jon Daniels? There are a lot of names on our calendar of witnesses. Most of them don’t get a Sunday sermon, in this church or any church. Jon Daniels became an important witness for me for various reasons – a fellow alumnus of my seminary, and a child of New Hampshire, where I served for three years. But I think there are good reasons to hold up his witness. Not just because Miranda likes him, but because his story indeed speaks to the ongoing struggles of our time and place.

I preached about Jon three years ago, in 2012. It was interesting looking back at that sermon. I alluded to the ongoing existence of racial inequity, but my only concrete example was the shootings at the Sikh temple. We continue to see the murder of those who seem racially or ethnically other, around our country. But since 2012 we have also become much more keenly aware of the real and lasting and life-compromising forms that structural racism takes right here, in our beautiful, beloved Madison.

The Race to Equity report, released in 2013, showed us a stunning reality. The United States has some of the worst racial disparities in the world, measured in things like differences in arrest and incarceration rates and educational outcomes across racial groups. Wisconsin has some of the worst disparities in the nation; and Madison has some of the worst disparities in the state. What that means, friends, is that by some measures, Madison has one of the biggest gaps in wellbeing, opportunity, and quality of life between racial groups, and especially between whites and blacks, of anyplace in the world.

And it’s not just that communities of color here fare about the same as communities of color elsewhere, and that the gulf exists because Madison is such a great place for white people. No. The data show that Madison is an actively bad place to be African-American. Jobless rates, poverty rates, and other measures of wellbeing for African-Americans in Dane County are all markedly worse than national averages for the same population.

I know that it continues to be uncomfortable, for some of you, to hear these issues held up in a sermon, as demanding Christian engagement and response. I truly honor that each of us has to work out for ourselves where the rubber of the Gospel gets traction on the roads of our lives, and when, where, and how we’re called to live out the faith we claim. At the same time, the many discomforts that the issues of racial equity stir up for us may be discomforts with which we need to get comfortable. Because racial inequality and systemic racism have been identified by our denomination and diocese as matters of urgency for our common life as followers of Jesus.

Our General Convention, our church’s legislative gathering, which met earlier this summer, passed a resolution [A182] that acknowledged that many Episcopalians find it challenging to understand or know how to respond to systemic racial injustices; that affirmed that the Gospel, our Baptismal Covenant, and the Five Marks of Marks of Mission call the Church and its members at every level to find more effective and productive ways to respond to racial injustice as we love our neighbors as ourselves, respect the dignity of every human being, and seek to transform unjust structures of society; that directs the Church at every level to commit to further study, teaching, training, and shared prayer and practice that specifically addresses racial injustice; and urges the Church at every level to increased engagement with civic conversations about racial injustice. Our Convention also committed two million dollars to this work, over the next three years.

I do believe, wholeheartedly, that this is one of the great projects – possibly THE great project – that God has for God’s churches in this nation, in this time: striving for more fairness and flourishing for all God’s children, and especially for African-Americans, who have struggled under the burden of racism in its many forms for so long. I also believe, wholeheartedly, that not everybody here is called into that work; and that even for those who are, there are many ways and levels at which to engage. A life like Jon Daniels’ draws our eyes and minds and hearts to the urgency and depth of the matter; it doesn’t lay out a course to follow or a model against which to measure ourselves. Being called into engagement with the corporate sin of structural racism doesn’t mean being called to take a bullet.

And here I’d like to circle back around to the ambiguity of sainthood. Earlier I named two types of saints: ordinary saints like all of us, claimed and called by God to live out holiness in our own simple and humble ways; and extraordinary saints like Daniels, who lived and died publicly, powerfully, prophetically, as witnesses to the love and mercy and justice of God. It turns out that the line between those kinds of saints, those definitions of sainthood, that line is much finer than it seems, once we’ve packaged up those extraordinary lives and put them in the pages of a book.

Jon wrote a lot, during his time in Alabama. About what he was doing and thinking and feeling. And his journals reveal a young man who was both extraordinary and ordinary. Who found the work of following the Gospel sometimes exciting and sometimes boring; sometimes clear-cut and sometimes messy; sometimes joyful and sometimes heartbreaking; sometimes remarkable and sometimes trivial.

Listen to Jon’s own words about the ambiguity and necessity of sainthood… “There are good [people] here, just as there are bad [people]. There are competent leaders and a bungler here and there. We have activists who risk their lives to confront a people with the challenge of freedom, and a nation with its conscience. We have neutralists who cautiously seek to calm troubled waters. We have [people] about the work of reconciliation who are willing to reflect upon the cost and pay it. Perhaps at one time or another, the two of us are all of these. Sometimes we take to the streets, sometimes we yawn through interminable meetings, sometimes we talk with [other white folks] in their homes and offices… sometimes we confront the posse, and sometimes we hold a child. Sometimes we stand with men who have learned to hate, and sometime we must stand a little apart from them. Our lives in Selma are filled with ambiguity. We are beginning to see the world as we never saw it before. We are truly in the world, and yet ultimately not of it. For through the bramble bush of doubt and fear and supposed success we are groping our way to the realization that above all else, we are called to be saints. That is the mission of the Church everywhere. And in this, Selma, Alabama, [and Madison, Wisconsin] is like all the world: it needs the life and witness of militant Saints.”

When Jon delivered the valedictory speech at the Virginia Military Institute in 1961, an official introduced him, saying, “This young man has not only been outstanding as a member of the cadet corps, he is an outstanding man, and you will hear of him later on, as the years go on.” Jon ended his speech with a few words for his classmates that I’d like to claim, and offer, as his words to us. He said, “My colleagues and friends, I wish you the joy of a purposeful life. I wish you the decency and the integrity of which you are capable. I wish you new worlds and the vision to see them.”

Let us pray.

O God of justice and compassion, you put down the proud and mighty from their place, and lift up the poor and the afflicted: we give you thanks for your faithful witness Jonathan Myrick Daniels, who, in the midst of injustice and violence, risked and gave his life for another; and we pray that we, following his example, may make no peace with oppression, and may live with purpose, decency, and integrity, striving to bring into being the new world of God’s justice and mercy; through Jesus Christ the just one, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Sources:

A detailed account of Jon’s arrest and death 

The Race to Equity report

Judith Upham shares some memories

A collection of Jon’s writings from his time in Alabama

Jon’s valedictory speech

Sermon, August 2

Today at 5:30pm we begin our Evening Church Camp! We expect around 25 kids from St. Dunstan’s and beyond. The theme of our Church Camp this year is “Message Received: Hearing God’s Call.” And we will work with five wonderful stories from the Old and New Testaments, about people who received a call from God, and how they responded. For some reason, the story of David, Bathsheba, and Nathan isn’t on the list. Even though God definitely had a message for David, and David received it…

We were meant to have the first half of this story last week, but I took the liberty of skipping it then, and adding it to today’s lesson. It makes for a long reading, but certainly not a boring one. The story hangs together better when you hear it in one piece, and besides… I really could not figure out how to preach a children’s sermon on this story. Some concepts need to be explained by a parent…! Like adultery and premeditated homicide.

It’s not a particularly pleasant story, and at first glance it’s not perhaps particularly edifying. In reflecting on it together today, I’d like to look at Nathan, the prophet. His voice and his role. The great prophet Samuel has died; Nathan follows him as the prophet who speaks God’s words, welcome and often unwelcome, to the King.

Nathan’s words to the King on this occasion are certainly unwelcome. We don’t know exactly how the word of God came to Nathan on this occasion. Perhaps it came in a vivid dream, as it had before. Perhaps he simply heard the chatter on the street about this nasty business with Uriah’s wife, and his righteous anger boiled up within him, the spirit of God driving him to the palace to confront the king.

He surely knew the risks. David could easily have had him thrown in prison, or quietly killed. Remember King Herod summarily executing John the Baptist, a thousand years later and three weeks ago in the lectionary? How easy for David, powerful and successful, having once turned from righteousness, to shrug off God’s words and follow the path of self-will. But as far as we know, Nathan doesn’t hesitate – or hesitates only long enough to figure out the best way to show the King his sin. Nathan goes to the king and tells him to his face: You. Are. That. Man.

The court history contained in the books of Samuel and Kings gives us three stories about the prophet Nathan; this is the second one. We had the first one as a lectionary text a few weeks ago. King David wanted to build a temple, a fancy house for God –  or rather for the Ark of the Covenant, a powerful symbol of God’s presence for the people Israel. Nathan says, Sounds great, God will like that, go for it.

But then Nathan receives God’s word that night:  “Tell David the King that it is not he who will build me a house, but I will build him a house. Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the Lord of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be prince over my people Israel…”  Let’s just remind the King who’s steering this bus, shall we?… And Nathan carries that word to the King.

In that story Nathan speaks for God, simply conveying God’s message to the King. That’s the formal role of a prophet, the official definition: one who receives and speaks God’s word. But in today’s story, Nathan enlarges that role. Confronting David for his treatment of Bathsheba and Uriah, Nathan again speaks for God; but not just for God.

Nathan confronts David with the theft and rape of Bathsheba. And in doing so, he speaks for her. Bathsheba is voiceless and almost without agency, in this story. The only action she takes is to send that message letting David know that she is pregnant. Other than that, she is taken; she is sent home; and once Uriah is dead, she is taken again. Bathsheba’s consent, her yes or no to David, isn’t recorded – because it isn’t relevant. Women had little standing or voice to claim their own bodies. Consider: our society, even now, is still struggling to fully understand that in the hands of a powerful or influential man, a woman may appear to go along with things, yet still feel violated – and deserve our sympathy and outrage.

Nathan is outraged about Bathsheba. His parable casts her as the little lamb, sweet, innocent, beloved. And what happens to her at David’s hands is like a death. Like being slaughtered, and devoured.  An interesting side note: The third story of the prophet Nathan, found in the first chapters of the first Book of Kings, has Nathan working with and advocating for Bathsheba. King David is on his deathbed and his son Adonijah has decided he would make a great king, so he’s more or less declaring himself king, with a great banquet with all his friends and supporters. David had sworn that Solomon, Bathsheba’s second son, would be king. Nathan goes to Bathsheba and says, Listen, if this happens, if Adonijah claims the kingship, you and your son Solomon are as good as dead. And he strategizes with her to approach David and remind him of his oath to make Solomon his successor. Pressed by both Bathsheba and Nathan, David rallies to declare Solomon the next King and arranges to have him anointed and crowned.

The Biblical text is clear that God favored Solomon as King. (By the way, this is why, within the terms of the text, the baby had to die – David and Bathsheba’s first son. Solomon, King of Israel, couldn’t be illegitimate. He couldn’t be that baby.  If that detail makes you stop and wonder, don’t wonder what kind of God kills a baby for its parents’ sins. Wonder how long after David and Bathsheba’s wedding baby Solomon was really born.) So: The Biblical text is clear that God favored Solomon as King. But it doesn’t tell us that Nathan was acting on God’s prompting in approaching Bathsheba and working with her to ensure that Solomon is able to claim his throne. Nathan has just never forgotten, in all these years, how much David owes to Bathsheba. And that the promise of the throne to Solomon was compensation of a sort for Bathsheba’s struggles and losses.

So in today’s story Nathan speaks for God; Nathan speaks for Bathsheba. And Nathan speaks for Uriah – who has also been rendered voiceless by this time. Uriah, a strong man, an ethical man, a straightforward man.  I like Uriah; don’t you? Sleeping at the palace gates with the servants, because he just doesn’t feel right about enjoying the comforts of home while his comrades in arms sleep on the ground out at the front? Poor Uriah. And poor General Joab, forced to risk and sacrifice his men because of the lusts and fears of his king, the king who stayed home at his comfortable palace in Jerusalem instead of coming out to lead his troops as a king ought to do.

Uriah stands for all those – soldiers and civilians – whose senseless deaths testify to the selfishness and hard-heartedness of their leaders, of those who command them and determine their fates. Don’t mishear me; there are noble deaths on the battlefield, no question. But Uriah’s death is not noble. It is a shame and a disgrace. Joab’s bitterness shows us that plainly. And Nathan tells it like it is, telling David: You murdered this man. Sure, you used the sword of the enemy to do it; but the blood is on your hands.

Nathan speaks for God, for Bathsheba, for Uriah. And Nathan speaks for the people. He sees, or God sees, or both Nathan and God see, that this a watershed moment in David’s kingship. Waaaay back in 1 Samuel 8, when Israel was calling for a king, even before King Saul, the prophet Samuel warned the people what kings do. Kings take. They take your sons as guards and warriors. They take your daughters as servants and cooks and concubines. They take your wealth to arm their troops, decorate their palaces. They take the best of your crops and your flock, for their banquet tables and storehouses.They take the best of your land to give away to their courtiers. You will become no better than slaves to the power, ambition, and greed of this King you want so badly. And the people say, Fine, whatever. Give us a King.

Samuel’s prophecy is the mirror that Nathan holds up to David today. You have become a taker. You have become that kind of king. For all your piety and righteousness, you have set your foot on a very slippery slope. Nathan’s words to David tell him that he has wounded his relationship with God, AND his relationship with his own people. He is in real and imminent danger of becoming the kind of king whose authority has everything to do with power and fear, and nothing to do with righteous rule and divine call. He calls David back to the straight and narrow path, to being the kind of King David intends to be, wants to be, a king chosen by God, beloved of God, ruling for God.

Nathan the prophet steps up to the risk and responsibility of speaking truth to power. I used to have a bumper sticker that said that: Dare to speak truth to power. It’s the kind of bumper sticker you have in your twenties, or your seventies. I can’t think of many times when I’ve lived up to its challenge.

But Nathan: he’s the real thing. Speaking truth to the greatest human power of his time and place, with insight, courage and savvy.  Speaking for God,  and also for those who couldn’t speak for themselves: Bathsheba, silenced by her gender and status; Uriah, silenced by his murder; the people of the kingdom, who had no approval polls or votes  to convey their dismay or concern to their king.

The prophet Nathan is an icon of a very important concept  for us as people of comparative privilege – mostly white, mostly straight, mostly educated,  mostly middle class or above.  The prophet Nathan is an icon of allyship.  Of being an ally to those without voice, without power.

Canadian educator Anne Bishop defines being an ally this way:  “People acting as Allies work to support diverse groups in [the] community with which they may not necessarily identify as members… Allies are people who recognize the unearned privilege they receive from society’s patterns of injustice, and take responsibility for changing these patterns. Allies include men who work to end sexism, white people who work to end racism, heterosexual people who work to end heterosexism, able-bodied people who work to end ableism, and so on.” (Source) 

Nathan is an ally. He is a man of education and status. He holds an important, recognized and respected position. He has the ear of the King.  And he chooses – in this story – to use the advantages, the privileges of his position, to say some uncomfortable things on behalf of others.  On behalf of women, the victims of war, and the common people, all of whom – for various reasons –  had very limited scope to speak for themselves.

Being an ally often means helping to elevate the voices of those who are trying to speak their truth and their needs  in the public square, but aren’t getting heard. But it can mean speaking for those who really are voiceless,  because of their vulnerability or marginalization – like modern-day slaves, undocumented workers, refugees…

Being an ally means looking beyond the boundaries of our comfortable worlds and lives, and listening to voices we don’t usually hear,  sometimes voices that are uncomfortable to hear,  because they show us the dark side of our worlds and lives.  I’m sure it would have been easier and more comfortable for the prophet Nathan to just shrug this business off. Boys will be boys, kings will be kings. What can you do?

Being an ally means taking with utmost seriousness the Gospel’s mandate to see ourselves as brothers and sisters to people of all backgrounds and circumstances. To serve Christ, the Lord we love and follow, in our care for the excluded and the beaten-down.  In the words of one of our hymns, we sing and pray, “Save us from weak resignation to the evils we deplore.” In our Prayers of the People, we use the words  of another Biblical prophet, Jeremiah,  to ask God to help and inspire us to work and pray for the good of the city where we dwell, – the city, nation, world –  for only in its peace shall we find our peace.

Being an ally means noticing, caring, engaging.  Not with everything at once; there’s so much, I know that. But with something. As you are called.

Nathan heard his call from God. Message received.  He knew for whom, and to whom,  he was called to speak,  and what he needed to say.  David heard and received God’s message because Nathan first heard and received God’s call.   What call do you hear? Where is your care for a friend or family member, or the deep insistent tug of some struggle in our world,  calling you into allyship,  with a voice that might sound suspiciously like Jesus?

What’s your call?

Sermon, June 21

This sermon is heavily indebted to a baccalaureate sermon preached by the Rev’d Canon Sam Wells, which you may read in full here. If you find inspiration herein for your own preaching or writing, please credit Canon Wells! 

The story of David and Goliath is a Sunday school classic.  And for obvious reasons: it’s a great story! An unarmed shepherd boy takes on a warrior-giant, in the name of God… and wins. If we had to say what the take-away is, we’d probably say something like this: if you trust in God, it doesn’t matter what’s stacked against you. Have faith and do what needs to be done.

But there’s an assumption there – an assumption that we are all Davids. Samuel Wells, an Anglican priest who was Dean of Duke Chapel during my year at Duke, preached an outstanding sermon on this story at a baccalaureate service in May of 2010. I’m going to share the gist of it with you today. I hope it’s something you need to hear. I know that, on the threshold of the emotional, mental, and physical demands of serving as a deputy to our church’s General Convention next week, I very much need to hear it.

Sam Wells starts with that point I just raised: we tend to identify with David.  America is a nation of underdogs.  Our popular culture is full of skinny little guys somehow triumphing over the huge, aggressive quarterback type, literally or metaphorically.  We love it when a small liberal arts college makes it to the Final Four.  We love movies where the small-town lawyer wins out over the huge polluting corporation.

Wells writes,  “In movies, athletics, business and politics,  we all feel the pull of that righteous cultural conviction: Stand up for the little guy.” Then he reminds his audience that, in fact, the school they are graduating from … is Duke. The Yankees of collegiate basketball. Hardly an underdog by any standard.  And he reminds them, too, that those movies where the plucky little guy – or girl  – triumphs over the huge, faceless corporation are made by huge, faceless corporations, who know exactly what we like.

Wells writes,  “We want our movies to be about David, but we spend our lives trying desperately… to be Goliath.”  We admire David’s resourcefulness and faith, but we spend our lives and resources and energies stockpiling what makes us feel strong and safe: SUVs, alarm systems, advanced degrees, 401ks… all the apparatus of a secure middle-class existence. If we were honest with ourselves, are there moments when we feel a little like David in Saul’s armor, so weighted down that we can hardly move?

Those Duke graduates Wells was addressing – they’d just spent four years, lots of time and effort, and a staggering amount of their parents’ money to acquire a degree from Duke.  Why? Because it gives you a chance to become Goliath. It gives you strength. Acclaim. Respect.  All the things Goliath had…  and David didn’t.

But we love David, in this story – cute, plucky, teenage David, whose call to kingship is still a secret between himself and Samuel. It’s hard to say whether he has more faith in God or in himself, but either way, he’s an appealing character here, even in his slightly obnoxious cockiness. But what happens next? Where does the story go from here, as it unspools in the chapters and weeks ahead?

David defeats Goliath. The people swing behind David and support him. Saul, increasingly unhinged, loses the people’s confidence. There’s a bitterly-fought civil war between Saul’s people and David’s – the lectionary skips that! Eventually, sure enough, David becomes king.  And… power does to David what power tends to do to people.

David becomes Goliath. He becomes a bully. He becomes a taker. He becomes a cynical manipulator, a merciless powerbroker.  He becomes a man whose own power is everything to him. David becomes Goliath. 

Wells asks the graduates to reflect, as they stand on the cusp of a new life, on whether that’s the direction they want to go,  or whether they want to chart a different course. Most of us don’t stand at such a turning point, this particular Sunday in June 2015. But it’s never a bad time to ask ourselves what we trust. What we rely on. Where we turn,  when we feel in need of strength, of power.

Wells calls our attention to those five stones, the five smooth stones that David gathered from the riverbed for his sling, his only weapon. He uses those stones to count off the sources of David’s power. Listen.

Here’s the first stone, the first source of David’s power: He trusts the value of ordinary days and ordinary work. He has spent his young life, at this point, keeping the sheep and running errands for his father and brothers. Wells writes,  “Some parts of every life, and every part of some lives, are unrewarding, unregarded and unattractive.” We all spend some hours of our days and some years of our lives doing stuff that doesn’t feel important or meaningful – or maybe it feels important to us, but nobody else seems to think so. Stuff like caring for young children. Being unemployed or working a humble job. Tending to your own health or that of a family member.  Taking care of home, garden, pets, all those tasks that become undone again the moment you wake up in the morning.  David is proud of how those years have shaped him. He knows that mundane and humble work has been training for what’s ahead. It’s grounded and strengthened him, and made him who he is.  That’s the first source of his power: his confidence that his life has prepared him for this moment, that ordinary days and humble work have blessed him.

Do you find power there?

Here’s the second stone – in Sam Wells’ words, David has made friends with the outdoor world. He’s not a technology guy.  Skip the armor and the sword, which where the ICBMs of his era. David knows about sheep, and lions. He knows about riverbeds, smooth stones, the trajectories of projectiles. He’s developed some skills, some competence and confidence that you’ll never get in job training, in a lab or an office. Wells writes,  “If you want to be like David, ask yourself,  ‘When was the last time I felt the joy of nature and sharpened my wily wits by spending some time in the fields, in the streams, in the mountains?’… David learns from his outdoor life the wisdom of the owl, the cunning of the fox, the agility of the wildcat, the sharp eye of the eagle. That’s where he gets his power.”

Do you find power there?

Here’s the third stone. David knows himself. Saul tries to make David into a mini-me: here, put on my armor; here, wear my helm; here, strap on my sword. None of it fits, and wearing it makes David unable to use the skills he has. David knows he’s not going to win by being Saul, nor by being Goliath. He tells Saul, You do you, man. But it’s not my thing.  Wells asks,  “If you’re feeling burdened and heavy laden right now, is it because you’re wearing someone else’s armor? Are you trying to be someone you’re not and never will be? … Don’t be a second-rate version of someone else. Strive to be what only you can be.” David knows his strengths, and he knows his weaknesses. He knows the only way he’ll prevail here is by being who he is and doing what he does.

Do you find power there?

Here’s the fourth stone.  David knows God.  Wells writes, “David knows Goliath is not God. Goliath is the reality in front of him right now, and that reality is big, ugly and intimidating. But David knows what’s in front of him isn’t ultimate reality.”

Wells makes a provocative and powerful suggestion here: he says maybe a big reason that Christianity has lost so much cultural favor in this country is that Christians turned Jesus into Goliath. Into a “My way or the highway” bully, forceful and arrogant. But Jesus isn’t Goliath. God isn’t Goliath.  And Goliath isn’t God. David knows that. He knows that divine power, holy power, looks and sounds and acts differently than human power.  He knows that the deep order of the universe, the heart of reality,  the bend of the great arc, is not about history’s Goliaths. It’s about the slow and subtle and mysterious workings of a different kind of power, a paradoxical strength. David finds power in his knowledge that Goliath’s power, as overwhelming as it seems,  is limited.  God’s power is different. God’s power is more.

Do you find power there?

Finally… here’s the fifth stone.  The fifth source of David’s power… is simply that he recognizes that power is the issue here.  He sees Goliath’s power, and he knows the sources of his own power –  the graces of an ordinary life; the gifts of the natural world;

knowledge of self and knowledge of God. He knows he needs to muster those resources to walk safely through this challenge. To prevail, for himself and for his people and for his God.  As David stands over the giant’s corpse,  we see that the power in this story lay, in Wells’ words,  “not in Goliath’s bravado but in David’s skill; not in Goliath’s muscle but in David’s faith; not in Goliath’s plausibility but in David’s truth; not in Goliath’s armor but in David’s wisdom.”

Can you find power in daily living, in ordinary tasks? Can you find power in the generous gifts of the natural world?  Can you find power in knowing yourself deeply and truly? Can you find power in knowing that God’s love and purposes arch boldly over our human moments of struggle or perplexity?  Can you find power in simply taking a step back to name the power dynamics of the situation in which you find yourself – the situation of a moment or a year or a lifetime – facing honestly the powers at work around and sometimes against you, and reminding yourself that you, too, have power? The kind of power that can’t be taken from you – the kind that you can only lose by forgetting you have it.

Looking forward into David’s life and kingship,  Wells writes, “David lost sight of [this kind of] power, later on.  Most of us do, for a season.  And when we lose sight of that power,  that’s precisely the moment when we’re drawn to Goliath. In the end Goliath’s problem is not that he’s too strong but that he’s too weak. The more we try to become Goliath, the weaker we become. It shows we’ve lost sight of where true power lies.”

Here’s what I ask of you, friends, as I prepare to set out for General Convention. Where there will be the joy of gathering as a church from all corners of our nation, and beyond; of spending time with old friends and making new ones; of being part of discerning and shaping our denomination’s future.  Where there will also be the physical struggle of long, long days of meetings and legislative sessions and intense conversations; the mental struggle of organizing time, forming opinions, and keeping up with it all; the emotional struggle of staying grounded in my own convictions, experience, and faith, and staying open to new ideas and learnings, when conversations get heated and visions clash.

I ask that you pray, for me, for our bishop Steven, for the other deputies from this diocese and for all the bishops, deputies, and others attending our Convention, that we may resist the power of Goliath – the power of force, might, and arrogance, the sneering power that belittles the opponent – and put our trust instead in the true sources of holy power, in David’s five smooth stones.

And I pray for you, friends, that in whatever ordeals, strains, struggles or decisions you face, you, too, may trust deeply that the power you need is already at hand; and may find that to be abundantly true.  Amen.

 

Sermon, June 14

The Sayers essay quoted below is published with a number of her other essays in the compilation “Letters to a Diminished Church,” W Publishing Group, 2004. The wording has been altered slightly in places to make it easier for oral presentation to an American audience. 

If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Cor 5:17-21

Here’s the same text rendered in casual American English, by Eugene Peterson in The Message, a Bible paraphrase:

“God has given us the task of telling everyone what God is doing. We are Christ’s representatives. God uses us to persuade men and women to drop their differences and enter God’s work of making things right between them. We’re speaking for Christ himself now: Become friends with God; God is already friends with you.”

This portion of Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth reminds me of a quotation from Stanley Hauerwas, scholar, teacher, iconoclast, and sharp-tongued pacifist.  It’s from a talk he gave in 2011 and it’s one of a number of snippets of text posted around my workspace in my office, so that when my eye – and mind – wander from a task, they may fall on something that reminds me of my true work. Here’s the line from Hauerwas: “The church is a prophetic community necessary for the world to know that God refuses to abandon us. We are God’s hope for the world, and you are a servant of that hope.”

The church is a prophetic community necessary for the world to know that God refuses to abandon us. We are God’s hope for the world, and you are a servant of that hope. God has entrusted the message of reconciliation to us. We are ambassadors for Christ.

It is quite clear, in the Scriptures, liturgies, and teaching of the church, that we are called, as followers of Christ, to proclamation. To speaking out God’s good news. To telling other people about the grace and hope and life we have received, by turning to God and living a life of faith. To preaching, in word and action, our countercultural conviction that there is love for us when we feel least lovable, that there is hope for us when we feel most hopeless, that there is a better way for us, a new path, even when we feel the least in control of our lives -and also even when we feel the most in control.

There are so many ways to put words to that Good News – and not only words, but actions and symbols and songs. There are many, many ways to proclaim the Good News. But we are called – asked – ordered – to proclaim it. By Paul: Be ambassadors for Christ. By Jesus: Be my witnesses, to the ends of the earth. By our Book of Common Prayer, right there in our baptismal covenant: Will you proclaim by word and example the good news of God in Christ? By the words of the prayer we say together after the Eucharist: “Now send us forth, a people forgiven, healed, renewed, that we may proclaim your love to the world.”

Anybody squirming yet? … This call to proclamation does not always sit comfortably with us Episcopalians. We tend to be ill-at-ease with evangelism – or as many of us prefer to call it, The E-Word. We don’t care for the idea of being all up in other people’s faces about Jesus or God. Now, there are some substantive reasons for that. For one thing, we are an open-minded faith that believes in many paths to God, and we don’t assume our neighbors are doomed to Hell if they happen to be Presbyterian or Catholic or Jewish.

For another thing, we are an incarnational faith, that sees God’s presence in the world around us, as I mentioned last week. So we don’t believe that an act of service  or a deep conversation or an hour spent on your knees in the garden has to have Jesus stamped all over it in red ink to be holy.

But let’s be frank – a big part of our reluctance to proclaim the Gospel is because it’s hard to be “out” as a Christian in our workplaces and neighborhoods, among our acquaintances and even our friends and family. As my friend Rob the strategic marketing guy says, Christianity has a huge brand problem. People think a lot of awful things about Christians. Christians are superstitious, sanctimonious, anti-science, incapable of critical thought, moralizing, punitive, bossy, judgmental, hypocritical, and really just not the kind of people that you’d want to chat with over a coffee or a beer.

One of the questions I’ve been asking folks in recent weeks is, Have you ever talked about St. Dunstan’s to someone who doesn’t attend? Your answers have followed two strong themes. You talk about your church to people, who seem like they might need what it could offer: a sense of community, unconditional love, a safe space to question, heal, seek and grow. And you talk about your church to people who wonder out loud, What the heck is up with those Christians, anyway? You gather your courage and you say, We’re not all like that. And you talk about belonging to a faith community that’s inclusive and welcoming and smart and curious.

I love that. I love that people are speaking up for St. Dunstan’s, speaking up about the Episcopal Christian way, in those moments. AND… I know it’s hard. I know there are probably lots of moments when you back away from those conversations. Because you’re not sure how it will be received, or because you just don’t have the energy or the words right now. I certainly do. I have a clergy friend who ALWAYS wears his clergy collar when he’s traveling, and welcomes the opportunities to start conversations about faith with strangers on an airplane or a bus. I cannot imagine doing that. Let’s just put in our earbuds and agree not to make eye contact. It’s tough to put yourself out there – to out yourself as a Christian – when our brand image is so bad, and when the starting point has to be, But not THAT kind of Christian. 

That problem is not new, though it’s taken different forms over the decades and centuries. One of the ways that we here at St. Dunstan’s are working towards knowing our own tradition more deeply is by remembering the lives and work of some of the saints who have gone before us, and their witness to the faith, in whatever form it took. Who here knows the name Lord Peter Wimsey? Lord Peter is not a saint, as he would be the first to admit. He is a fictional detective, and the best-known creation of the British writer Dorothy Leigh Sayers, who lived from 1893 to 1957. Sayers is not on our calendar of saints for some reason, though several of her friends and contemporaries are – Evelyn Underhill, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton. Her birthday was June 13, so I’m taking the liberty of claiming and commemorating her, this Sunday.

Sayers’ mystery novels are what most people know about her, if they know anything, and they’re certainly how I came to know and love her. But she was much more than a novelist. She wrote broadly on politics, feminism, and faith. She translated Dante, and wrote a fantastic, funny, engaging play about the life of Jesus; one of these years we’ll stage it here! Her work on human creativity and the doctrine of the Trinity is well-regarded and delightful.

We tend to carry a vague idea that it was easier to be Christian back in the first half of the 20th century, because everyone was Christian then, right? But that isn’t necessarily true – and it certainly wasn’t true in the intellectual, academic, and activist circles of Sayers’ social world, which may have had a lot in common with the intellectual, academic, and activist circles of our lives in contemporary Madison, Wisconsin. She found, as we often do, that the Christianity most people think they’re avoiding isn’t the Christianity that we claim and strive to follow.

In an essay called “The Dogma Is the Drama,” Sayers addresses exactly this issue, and tries to lay out the true heart of Christianity, the real good news, as she understands it, in the face of public views of Christianity as dull, conventional and rather repressive.

As our commemoration of the life, work, and witness of Dorothy Leigh Sayers today, and as encouragement for the socially-risky business of proclaiming our faith, let me read to you a portion of Sayers’ essay, “The Dogma Is the Drama.”

“It would not perhaps be altogether surprising if, in this nominally Christian country where the Creeds are daily recited, there were a number of people who knew all about Christian doctrine and disliked it. It is more startling to discover how many people there are who heartily dislike and despise Christianity without having the faintest notion what it is. If you tell them, they cannot believe you. I do not mean that they cannot believe the doctrine; that would be understandable enough, since it takes some believing. I mean that they simply cannot believe that anything so interesting, so exciting, and so dramatic can be the orthodox creed of the Church….”

Sayers then proceeds to offer up a short “examination paper,” in question-and-answer format, laying out what the general public apparently believes about Christianity:

“Q: What does the Church think of God the Father? A: He is omnipotent and holy. He created the world and imposed up on humanity conditions impossible to fulfill; he is very angry if these are not carried out. He sometimes interferes by means of arbitrary judgments and miracles, distributed with a good deal of favoritism. He likes to be flattered and is always ready to pounce on anybody who trips up over a bit of difficulty in the Law, or is just having a bit of fun. He is rather like a dictator, only larger and more arbitrary.

“Q: What does the Church think of God the Son? A: He is in some way to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth. It was not his fault the world was made like this, and unlike God the Father, he is friendly to humanity and did his best to reconcile humans to God. He has a good deal of influence with God, and if you want anything done, it is best to apply to him.

“Q: What does the Church think of God the Holy Spirit? A: I don’t know exactly. He was never seen or heard of until Pentecost. There is a sin against him that damns you forever, but nobody knows what it is.

“Q: What was Jesus Christ like in real life? A: He was meek and mild and preached a simple religion of love and pacifism. He had no sense of humor. Anything in the Bible that suggests another side to his character must be an addition. If we try to live like him, God the Father will let us off being damned hereafter and only have us tortured in this life instead.

“Q: What is meant by the Atonement? A: God wanted to damn everybody, but his vindictive sadism was satisfied by the crucifixion of his own Son, who was quite innocent, and therefore, a particularly attractive victim. He now only damns people who don’t follow Christ or never heard of him.

“Q: What does the Church think of sex?  A: God made it necessary to the machinery of the world, and tolerates it, provided that the people involved a) are married, and b) don’t enjoy it.

“Q: What is Faith? A: Resolutely shutting your eyes to scientific fact.

“Q: What is the human intellect? A: A barrier to faith.

“Q: What are the seven Christian virtues? A: Respectability, childishness, mental timidity, dullness, sentimentality, judgmentalism, and depression of spirits.

“Q: Wilt thou be baptized into this faith? A: No thank you!”

Sayers concludes,

“I cannot help feeling that as a statement of Christian orthodoxy, these replies are inadequate… But I also cannot help feeling that they do fairly accurately represent what many people take Christian orthodoxy to be…. Somehow or other, and with the best intentions, we have shown the world the typical Christian in the likeness of a crashing and rather ill-natured bore – and this in the name of One who assuredly never bored a soul, in those thirty-three years during which he passed through the world like a flame….  Let us, in heaven’s name, drag out the divine drama [of Jesus’ true life and teaching] from under the dreadful accumulation of slipshod thinking and trashy sentiment heaped upon it… We do Christ singularly little honor by watering down his personality till it could not offend a fly…

“It is the dogma, [the Gospel itself,] that is the drama – not beautiful phrases nor comforting sentiments nor vague aspirations to loving-kindness and uplift, nor the promise of something nice after death – but the terrifying assertion that the same God who made the world, lived in the world, and passed through the grave and gate of death. Show that to the non-believers, and they may not believe it; but at least they may realize that here is something that a person might be glad to believe.”

Let us pray.

Almighty God, you spoke the universe into being and made us to hear and tell the story of your love. Give us the courage, insight, humor, and passion that we might, like your servant Dorothy, proclaim that story still, in faithful witness to our hope in you; who with the Son and the Holy Spirit is glorified in the telling. Amen.

Thanks to the good folks at Key Hall for posting this wonderful prayer, which fits our celebration of the life and witness of Dorothy Sayers so well! 

Sermon, June 7

The Scripture lessons for this Sunday may be read here. 

The people Israel had been living in the Promised Land for many generations. Sometimes following God’s ways, sometimes not so much. Often at war, sometimes conquered. Not particularly powerful nor particularly wealthy, as nations go.

This story took place about three thousand years ago, a little over a thousand years before the birth of Jesus. The prophet Samuel had been ruling the people Israel for several decades. But he was growing old, and his sons were not of his caliber. So the leaders of the people came to him and said, Samuel, appoint a king for us. All the other nations around us have kings to rule and govern them. Courageous kings, at the head of armies; noble kings, dispensing justice from thrones; virile kings, surrounded by their lovely wives. We want what everybody else has. We want a king too.

Samuel didn’t take it well; but then God told him, “Samuel, cheer up! They’re not rejecting YOU. They’re rejecting ME. You, and the prophets and judges who went before you, have ruled in My name and served My will. Now my people want a human leader. So be it. Give them a king. But warn them. Show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

So that’s what Samuel did. He said, “This is what your king will do, because this is what all kings do. He will take your sons to serve him as guards and warriors. He will use the wealth of the country to build up an army for the wars he will wage. He will take your daughters to work in his palace – as perfumers and cooks and bakers – if you’re lucky. He will seize the best of your land, your fields and vineyards and orchards, and give them away as gifts to his courtiers, his favorites. And of the land he leaves you, he will take one-tenth of the produce you grow, and one-tenth of the sheep and goats of your flocks, to feed his army and fill the table for his feasts. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, to work for HIM. And you will be no better than slaves  to his power, ambition, and greed. And on the day when you finally see this clearly, you will cry out to God because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but God will not answer you that day.”

But the people did not listen. They said, “No! We are determined to have a king, so that we may be like other nations, with a king to govern us and fight our battles.” And so Samuel anointed the warrior Saul, whom God chose to be the first King of Israel.

The books of 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings – really all one long chronicle – are written with great nuance and skill. I love it when the summer of Year B rolls around and we begin to walk through this amazing piece of ancient literature once again. Like all great literature, these Biblical books tell a particular story that is also a universal human story, an always-and-everywhere story. And the always-and-everywhere element of this chapter, of Israel’s desire and Samuel’s warning, is the very human tendency to want what we want, even when people warn us of the cost.

We want what we want, even when we know the cost. We know about the destruction of our planet, but we still drive our cars and run our computers and, God help us, buy bottled water. We know about slave labor and child labor, but we still want our iPhones and our chocolate. We know about the underpaid, underprotected factory workers, but we still want cheap clothes and goods. We know about residential segregation, and the ways it perpetuates economic and racial stratification, but we still want to live around people who look like us, who’ll take care of their yards and drive appropriate cars, and we very much want to send our kids to a “nice” school. We know the costs. But we want. So we forget.

This is what my Facebook feed feels like sometimes:  Yes, yes, slaves… Yes, yes, pesticides… Yes, yes, racism… Ooh! Cute cat video!…  We want. We want our consumer goods, our comfortable lifestyle – nothing ostentatious, just, you know, nice – we want the best of everything for our children, of course – maybe we just want to be able to get through the day without feeling too terrible about ourselves. So we look away, we stop our ears, to avoid hearing the prophets who are tallying the costs of the way of the world.

There are many moments in Scripture, in both the Old and New Testaments, where the way of the world and the way of God are held up against each other. In tension, even at war. Many Christians hold that tension central to their way of being; they live day by day striving to follow God, knowing that puts them at odds with the ways of society, the ways of humanity.

Episcopalians – Anglicans – are not a tradition that tends to draw that line starkly. We were founded, back in the 16th century, as a national church. The religious order and the political and social order were not identical; but there was a LOT of overlap. Remember, the Queen is STILL the official head of the Church of England, our mother church. And we are the inheritors of that mindset in many ways, that mindset of establishment. We’ve never been an established church, in this country, nor even a particularly large church. But we have a history of being the church of the wealthy and the educated. I remember when I was in high school, one of our Social Studies books, for some reason, had a list of all the presidents of the United States with their religious affiliations. And the Episcopalians had the most, by far. It’s less true than it used to be, but for many generations the Episcopal Church was the church of the elites – to the point that upward mobility could mean abandoning the Methodist or Baptist church to “go Episcopalian.” That kind of strong identification with those at the top of the heap hardly encourages a church to point the finger at the injustices, consequences and costs of the status quo.

There are some really good things about Anglican and Episcopalian this-worldlyness. I’m not calling us to become the kind of Christians who view the present and material world with suspicion. One of the hallmarks of the Anglican and Episcopal way is an incarnational and quotidian spirituality – incarnational in that we see God present in this world, not only in the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, but in many ongoing and lifegiving ways; quotidian, a fancy word for everyday, in that we see the potential for holiness and service to God in ordinary life and even the most humble tasks. I love that aspect of our distinctive Christian way. But maybe we need to draw a cleaner, clearer line between assuming that God is present in this world, and assuming that this world, therefore, is the way God wants it to be.

There is a lot about the way of this world that is sick, and broken, and destructive. In our baptismal rite, we are asked to renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God. Which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God… What images flash before your eyes, if you reflect on that phrase? Waterfowl with oil-soaked wings? Children in refugee camps? So many examples. You’ll have your own list.

Jesus loved the world so much. He saw the potential for holiness and grace in everyday life and ordinary people. And at the same time, he was outspoken about the ways in which the status quo of his time and place corrupted and destroyed God’s creatures. That’s why he got called crazy.

In today’s passage from Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ mother and brothers come to find him and bring him home, for his own protection, because everyone is saying that he’s out of his mind. He’s out of his mind because he’s saying that the old holy prophecies of healing and hope for God’s people can still come true. He’s out of his mind because he acts like sin can be healed, forgiven, released, instead of worn as a shabby shameful garment for a lifetime. He’s out of his mind because he says that God’s ultimate desire for humanity is that we should live and grow and flourish, not that we should follow a bunch of nitpicky little rules.

Michael Curry is the bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina. He was my bishop while I was seeking ordination, and he ordained me to the priesthood in 2009. He’s also currently one of the candidates for Presiding Bishop, and he’s one of the best-known preachers in our church. He preached on this Gospel a few years ago, and talked about our calling to follow Jesus and become “crazy Christians.” He said,

We need some Christians who are as crazy as the Lord. Crazy enough to dare to change the world from the nightmare it often is into something close to the dream that God dreams for it…. We need some crazy Christians. Sane, sanitized Christianity is killing us.  That may have worked once upon a time, but it won’t carry the Gospel anymore…. [We need some Christians] crazy enough to believe, as Dr. King often said, that though “the moral arc of the universe is long, it bends toward justice.” …. We need some Christians crazy enough to believe that children don’t have to go to bed hungry; that the world doesn’t have to be the way it often seems to be; that there is a way to lay down our swords and shields, down by the riverside; that as the slaves used to sing, “There’s plenty good room in my Father’s kingdom,” because… we are all equally children of God, and meant to be treated as such.

Bishop Curry’s words remind me of a line from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, which is coming along in next week’s lectionary: “If we have been unreasonable, it is for God; if we have been reasonable, it is for you.” Paul’s talking about holding that space of being just sane enough to get people to listen, and just crazy enough to dare to speak and live God’s radical truth.

Unreasonable for God’s sake. Crazy Christians. It makes a great slogan, and a pretty good sermon. But how do we do it? How do we claim that craziness? How do we find the patience and strength and courage to believe in, and work for, a future in which our simple everyday pleasures – good food, rewarding work, rest, play, time with those we love – are not bound in complicated and far-reaching ways to human or environmental degradation, exploitation, waste or suffering? How do we become strong enough to count the costs, and, sometimes, to re-calibrate our wants? How do we get strong enough to be that kind of crazy?

One thing is certain: we’ve got to do it together. By doing this: coming together for worship, sharing prayer and song, food and conversation, receiving Scripture and reflecting on it together. In the words of Kyle Oliver, a priest and educator who thinks a lot about these questions, “We Episcopalians are a ragtag bunch united primarily by our firm conviction that praying together forms us into the people God is calling us to be.”

Walter Brueggeman, the great Old Testament scholar and writer, has a keen sense of how the ways of the world differ from the ways of God; and he, too, says that it’s the gathered life of the community of faith that makes us able to step back from the first, and step into the second.  (Here’s a summary of the Brueggeman talk I’m citing here.) He talks about inculturation, nurture, formation, discipleship. He says that all our ministries, all the things we do together as a faith community – preaching, liturgy, education, social action, administration, stewardship, ministries of food and fellowship and hospitality – they are all instruments and tools for the nurture of God’s people into that alternative worldview. Into the ways of God, that are often unreasonable or flat-out crazy by the standards of the world.

And I love this: Brueggeman says, of course we’re ambivalent about that. We’re not sure we want to detach from the status quo, to opt out and turn our back on everything normal and taken-for-granted. Do you really want to become that person on Facebook who’s always ranting about bottled water?  We like a lot of the normal stuff. We like malls and Smartphones and exotic vegetables. We’re likely to spend a lot of time trying to straddle the ways of the world and the ways of God, betwixt and between, back and forth, neither one nor the other.

But, says Brueggeman, there’s good news even in our uncertainty, our double-mindedness: “The good news is that our ambivalence as we stand [between worlds], is precisely the [space] for the work of God’s Spirit…. It is in our ambivalence that the Spirit in us can be stirred and we can be opened to new possibilities… Surely one of the crucial tasks of ministry is to name the deep ambiguity that besets us, and to [reframe that ambiguity as a space of] waiting for God’s newness among us. This work is not to put people in crisis. The work is to name the crisis that people are already in… Ministry is for truth telling about the shape we are in. And that truth telling makes us free.”

Over the past few weeks I’ve had the blessing of talking with many of you, through a series of focus groups, about how your church and your faith shape and support your daily life in the world. And a lot of you have said, in one way or another, that belonging to a church, and to this church, is what helps you not to be too overwhelmed or discouraged by the ways of this world. Not to lose heart, to use Paul’s language, when faced with the powers that corrupt and destroy the creatures of God. You’ve said that coming to church helps you reset and release hatred, bitterness, fear.  That it helps you see the big picture, remember that long arc of justice. That it reminds you that you’re not alone; that you’ve got companions in the work, the struggle, the ambivalence. That it simply reminds you that goodness exists – and sometimes that’s enough.

That’s my prayer for this place, this community, this faith-village with its elders and youngsters, its worker-bees, bards and sages. My prayer is that our shared life, in all its aspects, will shape and bless and empower us as followers of Jesus, who, like him, love the world so much; who, like him, see the potential for holiness and grace in everyday life and ordinary people. And who, like him, are empowered to speak and act to challenge and change the ways in which the status quo harms God’s creatures, and name, together, the bold, strange, hopeful, crazy truth that things could be otherwise.

 

Sermon, May 10

I know it’s Mothers’ Day, but I have a story for you today about fathers. Two fathers, a couple, who live and attend church in Orlando, Florida. Rich and Eric attend the Cathedral Church there, and when they became parents, they sought to have their baby son, Jack, baptized at their church. The Dean of the Cathedral agreed to the baptism, but he explained that the congregation includes some conservative folks who would have a hard time accepting and celebrating Rich and Eric’s partnership and parenthood. The Dean suggested doing the baptism at a smaller evening service, attended by more “open” folks. Fine. But then, a few days before the baptism, Rich and Eric got a message from the Dean. Some members of the congregation were opposing the baptism, and the Dean explained that it would need to be delayed, in order to resolve those difficulties. Angry and sad, Rich took to the Internet to share the story and ask for prayers. After an outpouring of support for the family and anger at the Cathedral, word is that the Dean and the family are discussing next steps, and that Jack likely will be baptized at the Cathedral soon.

Today’s lesson from the Acts of the Apostles is about baptism – and who’s entitled to it. This is the end of the story of Peter and Cornelius the Centurion. Cornelius was pious and generous man. But he was also a Roman, a member of the occupying army. Not quite an enemy combatant… but in that ballpark. And he was a Gentile, a non-Jew. The apostle Paul was going around saying that Gentiles could become Christians without following Jewish religious practices, including being circumcised. The apostle Peter was not on board with that, seeing it as wishy-washy anything-goes feel-good inclusivity. But then Peter has a holy vision, in which God says to him, “What God has made clean, you must not call unclean.”  And moments later he is called to the home of Cornelius, to teach him about the Christian faith. So Peter preaches the Gospel to Cornelius and his household. And they are so stirred by his words that the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they praise God with wild abandon. And Peter says, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” It’s a rhetorical question. The only person likely to withhold the water is Peter himself, and his heart has been changed. Cornelius and his family are baptized on the spot.

Peter’s question should remind us of another one, from last week’s Acts lesson, just a couple of chapters earlier. Philip the deacon, walking the wilderness road, meets a court official from Ethiopia. Like Cornelius, he’s a pious man, with a heart open to God. Like Cornelius, he’s a Gentile, an outsider to the covenant. He’s not an enemy combatant -but he’s a black African, and he’s a eunuch;  his body has been mutilated in a way that would have made him ritually impure for a lifetime, within the purity codes of the Jewish religion. But Philip, like Peter, heeds God’s call to welcome this seeker into the body of Christ. After Philip preaches the Gospel to him, the eunuch says, “Look, here is some water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” Well… Nothing. The eunuch is baptized, marked as a member of the household of God, clean and pure and whole in God’s eyes, and goes on his way rejoicing.

Can anyone withhold the water? What is to prevent me from being baptized? One of the central themes of the book of the Acts of the Apostles – and, for that matter, of the Gospel of Luke, by the same author – is the early church’s discovery, and rediscovery, again and again, that God’s mission is bigger than their understanding. That where they see barriers, God sees doorways. That where they see dividing lines, God sees connections. That where they see distinctions and differences,  God sees unity and belonging. As Peter says at the moment of his great epiphany,  “I truly understand that God shows no partiality.” God has no favorites. All who seek, find. All who enter are welcomed.

Good news. And…  the story of two thousand years of the life of the church is a story of the church’s forgetting this, or failing to realize it fully, again, and again, and again. The 19th-century poet and priest Frederick William Faber put this into words so beautifully in a hymn known to us as “There’s a wideness in God’s mercy.” It’s in our hymnal, but some of the best words aren’t included: “For the love of God is broader than the measure of the mind, and the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind. But we make God’s love too narrow by false limits of our own; and we magnify its strictness with a zeal God will not own.”

We make God’s love too narrow by false limits of our own. That has been the story of the church, over and over and over again. Rich and Eric and Jack are only the latest to feel the sting of being told that they are only mostly children of God. Most of the comments I’ve seen on their case mirror my own immediate reactions: the Dean had NO RIGHT to create a barrier for this child’s baptism; my church would have agreed to baptize this baby in a heartbeat; et cetera, et cetera. But I’ve also seen a point raised that gives me pause.

The 1979 Book of Common Prayer moved the rite of Holy Baptism back into Sunday worship, into the regular liturgical life of the congregation, after centuries of baptism largely being practiced as essentially a private family rite, performed after church or at another time. In our baptismal rite, the congregation stands for the Church Universal, the Church in all times and places, as it welcomes a new believer. And our baptismal rite gives the congregation a voice. At the beginning of the rite, the congregation is asked, Will you do all in your power to support this person in her life in Christ? And you answer – WE WILL. I love that part! And at the end of the rite, the congregation says, “We receive you into the household of God,” and invites the newly-baptized to share the life of faith.

The question raised by this kerfuffle in Florida is, can you – should you – perform a baptism if the congregation gathered is unable, through their convictions, to commit to supporting that child, that family; and to receiving them as fellow members of God’s household? I don’t like saying that the Dean may have a had a point, in asking this family to wait. But the Dean may have had a point. I can’t imagine how awful and awkward and sad it would be to perform a baptism, to name a child, and mark him as Christ’s own forever, and have few or no voices from the congregation speak up to welcome and affirm. Should the Dean have withheld the water? No. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe there’s any justification in our church laws or our sacramental theology for turning away that family. Is it a real issue that the congregation of that Cathedral was not able to assent to Jack’s baptism with boldness and love? Yes. I do believe that. I think the Dean made the wrong call; but it was a tough call. The family was ready; the child was ready; God was ready; but the people weren’t ready. The church wasn’t ready.

Listen, I can’t talk about this situation in Florida from a position of smug inclusivity. I could, and would, baptize a child with two daddies – or two mommies – without a moment’s hesitation. But right now, I can’t tell a gay candidate for ordination that their sexual orientation won’t be an issue in some dioceses of our church. Right now, I can’t say yes to a gay couple who want to celebrate their marriage as a sacrament of the church. I hope those things will change soon. If that is your hope too, keep on praying.

But I don’t believe in preaching sermons that only point a finger elsewhere. I wouldn’t tell you the story of baby Jack and the Dean just to say, Thank God that we are not like them! … I’ve been asking myself, where does our church draw lines, create distinctions, make barriers? Where would today’s curious guest or seeker, today’s Cornelius or court official, find our welcome to be restrained, our hospitality qualified, our inclusiveness conditional?

It’s not an easy question to answer, which makes it all the more important to ask. We think of ourselves as inclusive Christians; it’s a strong value for us, that wide welcome. We Episcopalians often define ourselves against churches that exclude, that limit the access and authority of certain types of people. To paraphrase the immortal words of comedian Tom Lehrer, “Some churches do not love their fellow man, and we HATE churches like that!” We make a point of welcoming everybody. No, really – EVERYBODY. St. Dunstan’s has a welcome statement that we crafted and adopted, several years ago; you can read it on our website. I’m proud of that statement. I think it matters.

But when we adopted that statement, one of our members reminded us, You know you can’t just adopt this and then sit around feeling smug. You still have to actually welcome people. To use the language of the baptismal liturgy, each visitor and newcomer poses a question for the congregation: Will you receive this person as part of this household of God, and do all in your power to support her in her life in Christ? And the people of the congregation have to be able and willing and ready to say a resounding, WE WILL!…

There isn’t a clear-cut place in the life of St. Dunstan’s as a parish where we are drawing lines and placing limits around a category of people for whom Christ died, and we have to quit it. It’s not that straightforward for us. What is to prevent the stranger from being baptized? Who is withholding the water?  Where do we, unintentionally or accidentally-on-purpose, draw lines and build barriers that make it hard to enter, connect, belong?  The questions raised by these lessons from Acts – those questions require deep, reflective, risky engagement. They require the demanding and paradoxical work of looking for who isn’t here. Like those pictures they sold in mall kiosks, twenty years ago,  where you had to stand and stare at them until your eyes crossed, and then you might start to see the outline of … something. It’s kind of like that, figuring out who isn’t here, and then trying to figure out why.

We are a quirky church – St. Dunstan’s in particular and the Episcopal Church in general. And we’ve always kind of assumed that the people who would join our churches would be people basically like us. People who are literary enough to enjoy the high language of our liturgy. Who are musically trained enough to appreciate our classic hymnody. Who inhabit their bodies in such a way that they can sit still for 75 minutes. Who know how to dress and behave with basic middle-class decorum. Who’ll bring the right kinds of food to our potluck suppers. Who’ll somehow magically already know about all our pet projects and ministries and three-letter acronyms, so we don’t have to keep explaining ourselves. So tedious!…  I’d say our tolerances at St. Dunstan’s are pretty good; we’ve got folks who don’t fit that mold, in lots of ways, who are nonetheless beloved members of this fellowship of faith…  But we’re still haunted by that image of the archetypal Episcopalian. We still use “we” to mean “people like us”, without recognizing the lines we’re drawing.

In his book “People of the Way: Renewing Episcopal Identity,” Dwight Zscheile talks about our expectations and how they shape our capacity to welcome the guest and stranger. He tells a story of visiting another Episcopal church with his family – a church that proudly proclaimed “Radical Hospitality” on a banner hung outside. Dwight and his wife are both Episcopal priests; they are white, middle-class, educated; they know how to dress and how to behave in church. Ideal guests, right? However: they had their young son with them. He was the only child in church. And they quickly realized, from the glares around them when their son so much as rustled his drawing paper, that they were expected to have him out of church – in a glassed-in “cry room” or a distant nursery tucked away in the basement.

Zscheile writes, “Radical hospitality is a wonderful idea, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of the leaders who [proclaim] it… Living into the reality is another thing, however…. In practice, the Episcopal Church has been best at including those who share its existing predominant socioeconomic class and culture…. The Episcopal Church has become a boutique, niche church, serving a narrow audience of self-selecting members.” He quotes another Episcopalian who described the Episcopal Church as being like NPR: with an audience that is “small, but discerning.” And in fact, there’s probably a lot of overlap between NPR’s constituency and that of the Episcopal Church – well-educated, affluent, liberal.  But, Dwight says, this rather self-satisfied posture can lead us to “abdicate responsibility for engaging neighbors who differ from us. We assume that those who want to worship how we already worship, [and] who think like we do, will find us, and we can then ‘include’ them.”

Those words convicted me. Because I have told myself pretty much exactly that: We’ve got a good thing going here, we Episcopalians; But we’re such a nuanced, sophisticated kind of Christian that not many people can really appreciate it. We’ll probably always be a small denomination; that’s just the way it is. It’s kind of a hipster thing: artisanal, small-batch church. You’ve probably never heard of it.

Zscheile challenges me to have more faith in the gifts of the Episcopal Way. He himself was raised unchurched, came to the Episcopal Church as a young adult, and fell in love. Listen to what he says about this church of ours, this way of being Christian: “Anglicanism offers a richly textured Christianity with ancient roots, expansive sources, a living commitment to justice and reconciliation, and space for people to explore, question, and grow along the way. It embodies the wisdom of centuries, not just the latest fads. Its historical embrace of…  cultural context … mandates that it speak the language of the people. At the same time, it is inhibited in many places by a traditionalism that obscures the power of its traditions; by elitism that restricts [access to] its treasures; and by a lack of theological and spiritual clarity and urgency that would fuel a renewed sense of purpose. Episcopalians still largely assume that people will find the church, rather than recognizing that [we are pushed] out into the world, on the arms of God, to serve and embrace the stranger.”

THAT’S Peter in Cornelius’s living room,  making the choice to let the baptismal waters flow.  THAT’s Philip standing by some muddy roadside puddle with the Ethiopian court official, acknowledging that Jesus has already chosen this man as his own, and our job is just to assent and receive. THAT’s the hard and hopeful and necessary work for us: of trusting that what blesses us here, could bless others too, and daring to offer, proclaim, invite.  That’s the work that should tug at our imaginations as we begin to envision what this church will look like, could look like, in five years, or ten, or fifty; as we craft a vision, in words and worship, poetry and song, marker and glue and pipe cleaners and Lego, of St. Dunstan’s as the church of our wildest dreams.

Sermon, May 3, 2015

Preached by the Rev. Miranda K. Hassett.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine,  neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.

So when I first looked over today’s Scripture lessons, I more or less threw up my hands. There is so much here –  these are all wonderful, rich, important texts. There was no way to cover them all, and I didn’t know where to start, where to focus.

And then I remembered that today is our parish workday, the day every spring when we spend some time together, after church, tending our grounds and the plants and trees that live here, to help them be tidy and pretty and healthy and ready for spring. And I started to think, Maybe I should take a cue from Jesus here. Maybe I should talk about pruning.

So I did a little research. I am not particularly a plant person – I’m learning, as my husband develops our yard at home, and as we develop our property here at St. Dunstan’s. I’m learning. But I didn’t know much about pruning: just that it means cutting off parts of a tree or vine or bush, and that you’re supposed to do it. So I turned to Google and read up a little.

Here’s one of the first things I realized: I have a strong reaction to the idea of being pruned. In this text from the Gospel of John, when Jesus says to his disciples, and to us, that we are branches of his vine and can expect to be pruned to bear more fruit, that makes me cringe. That’s because I’m an animal. If you cut a limb off of an animal, that’s a terrible injury, quite possibly a mortal injury. My natural reaction to a big pair of pruning shears is terror. But plants aren’t like that. They are different. They grow and heal differently. Losing a limb or part of a limb is an injury, sure, and they have to heal; but under normal circumstances it isn’t a dangerous injury by any means, and it can make them healthier and stronger in the long run.

So I have a gut reaction to this image Jesus is using. I don’t want to be pruned. That sounds really bad. Painful and dangerous. Plants probably don’t especially like being pruned either. But I have to try to put myself into the mindset of a plant, for whom having something cut off – wisely and well – is not a mortal injury,  and may well be for my health. One website that I consulted pointed out that people who have a couple of backyard fruit trees – as we do at St. Dunstan’s – are much more likely to under-prune their trees than to over-prune. Of course there’s the “getting around to it” factor, but I think we’re also really worried about doing it wrong and hurting the tree. So I suspect I’m not alone in my resistance to the concept of pruning. I don’t want to hurt the tree! I can barely stand to cut my dog’s toenails, or take a splinter out of my child’s foot! I’m not going to cut off pieces of this poor helpless plant!

But… pruning is important.  If we fail to tend to our trees in that way, they get overgrown, shapeless, less healthy, less fruitful. This would have been commonsense for Jesus’ original audience. The agricultural economy of ancient Israel relied heavily on perennial plants and trees that had to be shaped and tended year by year: olive trees, fig trees, grapevines.  But it’s not commonsense for most of us. So let me share with you a little about the logic and importance of pruning.

First, pruning removes the “3 D’s”: You prune off the stuff that’s dead, diseased, or damaged. A branch that’s died, or become infected by some blight or insect illness, or been damaged by high winds or careless humans. You remove that stuff not just because it’s useless – but because leaving it there may compromise the health of the whole tree. That’s most obvious in the case of disease; you want to try to prevent any disease or rot spreading to the rest of the tree. But dead or damaged wood can also provide an entry point for bugs or infection, through broken or rotted wood. It can be a doorway to systemic illness that may weaken or kill the whole plant. So the Wise One tending the vineyard, the orchard, cuts away what is unhealthy, lest it cause the whole branch or vine to weaken or die.

Second, pruning makes space. Some kinds of trees and vines are prone to growing overly thick. Growing a crowd of branches, tendrils, and leaves. For the plant’s health, and especially for fruit to grow and ripen well, there needs to be room for air to circulate, and for the sun to shine in among the branches, because sun is what ripens the fruit. So you prune to loosen things up a little bit, to make some space within the tree or on the vine for the plant to breathe, because plants do breathe, and for fruit to grow and ripen well. This is one reason you can’t just prune a plant once; you have to pay attention, and tend it year by year.  Keep clearing it out when it becomes overgrown. So the Wise One tending the vineyard, the orchard, prunes to make some room, to create space for the plant to breathe and grow, so that the branches that are left can flourish and get what they need to bear big, healthy, ripe fruit.

Third, pruning is a way to tell the plant how to direct its energy and growth. Here’s an example, not exactly pruning but the same principal: Last year we ordered two dozen young blueberry bushes and planted them along the north side of our property. They came to us with berries already formed – tiny green berries! So exciting, proof that these are fruit bushes that will fruit for us! And the first thing we had to do was pick off all the little green berries. And we’re going to do it again this summer: pick off all the little green berries. Because fruiting takes a lot of the plant’s energy and resources, and we don’t want the plants to put their energy into developing berries yet. The plants are still new and still small, and we want them to focus on developing their root and branch structures. On becoming stronger, hardier, better-rooted plants. It’s not time for them to fruit yet. Maybe next year. But right now, taking off the berries is a way to tell the plant, Don’t do that this year. Just focus on becoming a stronger plant, please.

Much the same applies with trees and vines. Take our little pear tree, out there. See those funny branches reaching straight up? I had to look this up – they’re called watersprouts. Growing those funny, vertical, fast-growing branches is a way that some trees, and especially pear trees, sometimes respond to pruning or to weather stress. Sometime this summer, we need to prune those upright watersprouts. Because the tree is putting resources into growing those guys. And they’re not what we want. They make the tree crowded and tend to shade out the rest of the tree, and any fruit they bear will be too high for us to reach!… So we’ll cut off the watersprouts, to prevent the tree from putting its resources into growing stuff that’s no good to us. So the Wise One tending the vineyard, the orchard, cuts away what is not useful, or not ready, to encourage the plant to put its energy into fruitful growth.

Cutting away what is dead, diseased, or damaged. Making room for air and light. Directing resources towards needed growth. None of this really resolves my fear that being pruned may be… uncomfortable at times. But it does help me see the point.

Jesus is, actually, quite clear that the point is fruitfulness. The phrase “bear fruit” appears six times in these eight verses.  And he sums it up this way: “My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit and become my disciples.” Discipleship is an important word and idea in the New Testament. Some churches talk about discipleship a lot, but it’s not a very Episcopalian word. I don’t remember talking about discipleship in Sunday school or confirmation class, and as a priest myself, I haven’t used this word, this idea, a lot. But I may start. Because that word, discipleship – it captures this idea, this thing we are talking about here, about being more than just members of a church, about being followers of Jesus. Being people who, I hope, are members of a church because that community of faith helps us find the path and the strength and the clarity to follow Jesus. To live lives shaped by his Gospel of mercy, generosity, healing, hope, and love.

This Gospel – this parable that Jesus offers today – it’s an image, a metaphor of discipleship. And it’s really very simple, because in this parable, this image, we’re not the one with the pruning shears. Worrying about who else is fruitful, who is growing in the shape God intends for them – that is above our pay grade. Leave it to the Wise One who tends our orchard, our vineyard. We’re just… branches. And all we have to do is abide in the vine. Hold on. Stay connected. And let the vine bear fruit through us. The vine is strong and true, so if the branch is healthy, if air and sun and water and good soil are available, then fruit will happen. It’s not something to force or fret about, for us branches. We just stay connected, and let the life of the vine live in us.

Let me hang one more idea on this overgrown metaphor: The fruit isn’t for the plant. Its usefulness is elsewhere, and beyond. It’s to feed somebody else. Or maybe to be planted elsewhere to start something new growing. The fruit we bear is to feed and nurture others. The Acts of the Apostles gives us one vision of what that can look like – Philip the deacon, being open to the whisper of God: Take that road today. Go talk to that stranger. The first letter of John gives us language for the generosity of fruitfulness: “We love because he first loved us.” The word “love” appears 27 times in these 14 verses. We love because God in Christ loved us. We carry the love we have received out into the world. Bushel baskets of love, borne out from the vineyard, the orchard, to feed and delight those beyond its walls.

Let us pray. May the Wise One tending this vineyard, this orchard, this garden of God, shape us gently and tenderly, clearing away what is unhealthy, creating space for light to shine in, focusing our growth where we have the greatest potential to bear fruit for your Kingdom. Amen.