This Sunday we will continue our sermon series on the Jewish monarchy will an important bit of history -- the first major defeat of the Israelites in the Promised Land. This defeat was the precipitating cause of the Israelites "crying out for a king." Oh, you can imagine the Israelites saying, who will save us from the mighty Philistines?
In this two-part battle against the Philistines (the invading Greeks), the Israelite army in thoroughly defeated. In the first part of the battle, the Israelites are routed, leading them to wonder why God was not helping them in the fight. They decide that God is not adequately represented, so they bring the Ark of the Covenant to the battlefield. The ancient Ark not only led the Israelites from Mt. Sinai into the Promised Land; it was also thought by many to be the actual throne of God. By carrying the Ark into battle, they were ensuring that God would be with the army, which would insure a victory. The text of 1 Samuel 4 even suggests that the Philistines caught wind of this and were very much afraid.
But even then, the Israelites are defeated, and the Ark of the Covenant is captured. This is not only a terrible military defeat for the Israelites; it is a national embarrassment. Their most sacred artifact, which contained the actual stone tablets with the Ten Commandments, had been captured by an ungodly army.
What is interesting about this story is what happens next; by the end of the story in 1 Samuel 6, nobody wants anything to do with the Ark of the Covenant -- not the Philistines; not the Israelites. Sometimes the power of God is more terrifying than comforting, I guess.
On Sunday, we'll unpack some of this; my hunch is we'll even get to talk about Indiana Jones for good measure. Should be a fun start to the month of June.
By the way, my apologies for the delayed posting this week. My traveling schedule this week and last has really juggled my work, and I'm still playing catch-up. But I've been keeping a list of things I'd like to share with you on the blog, which I hope to get to in the next few days.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, May 25
Tomorrow is Memorial Day Sunday, which I'm sure means many things to many people. As someone who grew up in Indianapolis, it means that "the greatest spectacle in racing," the Indianapolis 500 (or simply "The 500" for those of us who know) takes place tomorrow. I had warned you that the race might lead to a corresponding "greatest spectacle in preaching," in which the sermon would be dramatically shortened and the rest of the service sped up. However, I've discovered that the race has been pushed back (evidently the TV people are trying to increase west coast ratings) until after 1:00, which means I don't need to rush.
For many of you, this might be bad news. Perhaps some of you are thinking of how tenable your "I went away for the weekend" excuses might be if your car stays in front of your house. (And you think pastors are unaware of such rationalizing, don't you?) Or maybe this will lead to your own "greatest spectacle in racing" as you run out of town.
For the rest of you, we will enjoy a full service -- lots of music, thanks to Brooks, and a continuation of our sermon series on the Jewish monarchy. Tomorrow we will encounter the first of the Jewish kings, Saul, as he is selected, but before he is crowned.
I have been surprised reading 1 Samuel 9 -- every time I read it, the politics of Saul's selection keeps coming to the surface, even in this narrative of God's ordaining Saul to be king. Saul looks the part -- tall and handsome; he comes from the Benjaminites (to preclude inter-tribal bickering/positioning from the larger tribes); he is from a wealthy family, which means a certain education level and that he is appropriately cultured. This is the man who will rule Israel and save the Israelites from the Philistines. This leads to an important question: Whose expectations of a king led God to select Saul? God? Or the Israelites? Or both?
For many of you, this might be bad news. Perhaps some of you are thinking of how tenable your "I went away for the weekend" excuses might be if your car stays in front of your house. (And you think pastors are unaware of such rationalizing, don't you?) Or maybe this will lead to your own "greatest spectacle in racing" as you run out of town.
For the rest of you, we will enjoy a full service -- lots of music, thanks to Brooks, and a continuation of our sermon series on the Jewish monarchy. Tomorrow we will encounter the first of the Jewish kings, Saul, as he is selected, but before he is crowned.
I have been surprised reading 1 Samuel 9 -- every time I read it, the politics of Saul's selection keeps coming to the surface, even in this narrative of God's ordaining Saul to be king. Saul looks the part -- tall and handsome; he comes from the Benjaminites (to preclude inter-tribal bickering/positioning from the larger tribes); he is from a wealthy family, which means a certain education level and that he is appropriately cultured. This is the man who will rule Israel and save the Israelites from the Philistines. This leads to an important question: Whose expectations of a king led God to select Saul? God? Or the Israelites? Or both?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Pictures, Pictures!
As promised, here are some pictures of my niece (and a couple of other people).
Here is Abigail Nicole. Underneath the hat, I am told there is wavy dark hair.
Here is the proud father, my brother-in-law Erik. He was so excited that he made sure that this picture was one of the very first pictures he emailed out.
a
And here's the proud Mama, my sister Amanda.
a
Everyone is home and doing well. Abigail has a clean bill of health, and word is that the dog is already very protective of her. (Given that the dog is a Bichon, though, I'm not sure what her protection would entail.)
Friday, May 16, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, May 18
The summer sermon series begins this Sunday (there will be occasional interruptions, but it will continue until at least Labor Day). It will focus on the beginning of the Jewish monarchy, under Kings Saul, David, and Solomon.
Looking back, especially as Christians, it is important to understand how central these years are to Jewish identity. In the two centuries before the life of Jesus Christ, the kingships of David and Solomon were seen as "the good old days," when all was right with the world. And when these people imagined a Messiah, a chosen one, who would come to restore justice on earth, they expected that such a restoration would look like "the good old days" of King David, especially, and King Solomon.
Historically, this time period is very interesting, as the tribes of Israel coalesce into a single kingdom, which is militarily strong, politically influential, and fairly wealthy. It was a time of peace (mostly) and prosperity after several generations of fluctuating tribal fortunes -- including some times when some of the tribes of Israel were actually at war with each other. After these first kings, the kingdom would splinter into factions and then into two kingdoms. By the time of Daniel, the last of the Jewish kings would be defeated by the Babylonians.
In some ways, it might seem that this period bears little relevance to our lives today -- after all, we do not live in a kingdom. However, as we explore these stories and understand them better, I think we will find many correlations about the influences -- positive and negative -- of religion, military power, politics, money, etc. on our lives, and where God is among these influences. In many ways, as we'll begin to explore Sunday, this long story is a "be careful what you wish for" story -- at the outset, God warns against this course of action, but then accepts it and makes the best of it, yielding to the wishes (the "free will") of the Israelites. There were benefits for the Israelites -- there would have been no Temple in Jerusalem if there hadn't been a kingdom -- but there would be costs.
And before God suggested the blessings, God laid out the costs of a monarchy through the prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 8, which is where we'll begin our story Sunday.
Looking back, especially as Christians, it is important to understand how central these years are to Jewish identity. In the two centuries before the life of Jesus Christ, the kingships of David and Solomon were seen as "the good old days," when all was right with the world. And when these people imagined a Messiah, a chosen one, who would come to restore justice on earth, they expected that such a restoration would look like "the good old days" of King David, especially, and King Solomon.
Historically, this time period is very interesting, as the tribes of Israel coalesce into a single kingdom, which is militarily strong, politically influential, and fairly wealthy. It was a time of peace (mostly) and prosperity after several generations of fluctuating tribal fortunes -- including some times when some of the tribes of Israel were actually at war with each other. After these first kings, the kingdom would splinter into factions and then into two kingdoms. By the time of Daniel, the last of the Jewish kings would be defeated by the Babylonians.
In some ways, it might seem that this period bears little relevance to our lives today -- after all, we do not live in a kingdom. However, as we explore these stories and understand them better, I think we will find many correlations about the influences -- positive and negative -- of religion, military power, politics, money, etc. on our lives, and where God is among these influences. In many ways, as we'll begin to explore Sunday, this long story is a "be careful what you wish for" story -- at the outset, God warns against this course of action, but then accepts it and makes the best of it, yielding to the wishes (the "free will") of the Israelites. There were benefits for the Israelites -- there would have been no Temple in Jerusalem if there hadn't been a kingdom -- but there would be costs.
And before God suggested the blessings, God laid out the costs of a monarchy through the prophet Samuel in 1 Samuel 8, which is where we'll begin our story Sunday.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Reflections on Worship, May 11
Preachers, especially young preachers, have a bad habit of trying to cover too much in their sermons. In approaching a specific passage, they often throw every strong theological concept in their makeup at the problem -- an "everything but the kitchen sink" approach. Usually, this impulse is caused by not preaching often enough, so that when a young preacher finally gets a chance to preach, they try to make the most of the opportunity, knowing that they won't get to preach again for several weeks. (I should add that there are other causes of this problem that are less kind to my colleagues, so I'll refrain from listing them here.)
I mention this not because I think I succumb to this problem (I have certain other problems when I preach), but because an interesting thing happened on the way to the pulpit on Sunday -- I wanted to cover way too much ground in approaching Acts 2. Given my general brainstorm approach to preaching (trust me, they'll never teach it as a practicable alternative in seminary), this can be a problem. Usually I piece together my sermons (which are rooted in prayer, study, imagination, etc.) on Friday and Saturday, deciding which components from my reflections to include -- obviously, the final decision is made in the sermon itself, which frequently bears only partial resemblance to my thinking on Saturday.
Last weekend, however, I was in real trouble. My thinking was deeply rooted in several related theological streams -- and I like to be open about that sort of thing when I preach. But if I had really delved into all of the significant contributing components to Sunday's sermon, it would have taken at least 40 minutes. Now I grew up in a church where the sermons were that long, and I've attended others where the sermons are longer, but people don't respond well to a 40 minute sermon when their expectations are that sermons last 20 minutes. So I found myself trying desperately to shed huge pieces of the sermon Saturday night and Sunday morning.
In the end, I don't think it turned out too bad. No, that's being a little false: when I listened to it this morning, I was surprised by how well it seemed to hang together. This is due partially to 1) the grace of God, and 2) to my skills in preaching. However, if the sermon seemed a little empty to you -- i.e. that it was missing something in the logical progression -- you're right. I wanted to delve more deeply into the several meanings of visions and dreams, in our culture, in our history, and in the Bible. That did not happen because the thrust of my reflections was rooted in a certain appreciation of prophecy; so I emphasized that. (Though frankly, even that was condensed: I had hoped to dig more deeply into how we cultivate the past for valuable examples of prophecy, including how we should approach the Scriptures. That was scrapped too, in the interest of time.)
By now, you've figured out that I won't preach short sermons very often. I don't like short sermons. I have dear friends who insist that anything worth saying can be said in a well-conceived 10-minute sermon; everything else is repetition. I respectfully disagree, strongly, for two key reasons: 1) repetition is essential in a sermon so that the lessons are understood -- few people understand any teaching with only one pass at it, no matter how thoughtfully prepared, and 2) the problems we face in our lives demand more than 10 minutes of reflection. It takes time to explore the Scriptures; it takes time to illuminate them and contextualize them; it takes time to make them relevant to our experiences; it takes time to suggest how we should think (differently/more fully) or live (differently/more fully) or relate to God (differently/more fully). I try to incorporate these things into my sermons; I think I do so (though you would be a better judge of that as listeners).
I'm not sure what the point of this reflection is -- well, I'm not sure what the point of sharing this reflection on Sunday's sermon is. I take preaching seriously; I enjoy it and I strive to do it well and ever-better (is that a word?). When I feel like I've fallen short, and Sunday I felt a little like that because I felt I was leaving vast parts of my important thinking out of the sermon -- including a fun jaunt through various dream stories in the Bible, I don't like the sermon, regardless of how well I've preached or not. I feel a little disingenuous because I try very hard to model my thinking and reflections within my sermons. On the other hand, it is almost always more important to gauge how well others appreciated and understood the sermon, regardless of my feelings about it.
As a dear friend and teacher once told me, after I felt I butchered a sermon on Ecclesiastes (your pastor has never been unconfident in selecting his sermon Scriptures, even in school; he dives into passages where angels (i.e. other preachers) fear to tread): 'The Gospel was preached.' By which he meant, I preached on the Bible; I took it seriously; and I tried to relate it to people's lives. He's right (as Bill often is), but I still aim higher for that, I guess, taking my preaching strategies from a combination of the Latin teacher/rhetor Quintilian (1st Century), who thought that the highest form of rhetoric was "the good man (the moral man) speaking well," and Augustine, who added "about things of ultimate importance" to that statement, based on his appreciation of the great 3rd Century preacher Ambrose.
I mention this not because I think I succumb to this problem (I have certain other problems when I preach), but because an interesting thing happened on the way to the pulpit on Sunday -- I wanted to cover way too much ground in approaching Acts 2. Given my general brainstorm approach to preaching (trust me, they'll never teach it as a practicable alternative in seminary), this can be a problem. Usually I piece together my sermons (which are rooted in prayer, study, imagination, etc.) on Friday and Saturday, deciding which components from my reflections to include -- obviously, the final decision is made in the sermon itself, which frequently bears only partial resemblance to my thinking on Saturday.
Last weekend, however, I was in real trouble. My thinking was deeply rooted in several related theological streams -- and I like to be open about that sort of thing when I preach. But if I had really delved into all of the significant contributing components to Sunday's sermon, it would have taken at least 40 minutes. Now I grew up in a church where the sermons were that long, and I've attended others where the sermons are longer, but people don't respond well to a 40 minute sermon when their expectations are that sermons last 20 minutes. So I found myself trying desperately to shed huge pieces of the sermon Saturday night and Sunday morning.
In the end, I don't think it turned out too bad. No, that's being a little false: when I listened to it this morning, I was surprised by how well it seemed to hang together. This is due partially to 1) the grace of God, and 2) to my skills in preaching. However, if the sermon seemed a little empty to you -- i.e. that it was missing something in the logical progression -- you're right. I wanted to delve more deeply into the several meanings of visions and dreams, in our culture, in our history, and in the Bible. That did not happen because the thrust of my reflections was rooted in a certain appreciation of prophecy; so I emphasized that. (Though frankly, even that was condensed: I had hoped to dig more deeply into how we cultivate the past for valuable examples of prophecy, including how we should approach the Scriptures. That was scrapped too, in the interest of time.)
By now, you've figured out that I won't preach short sermons very often. I don't like short sermons. I have dear friends who insist that anything worth saying can be said in a well-conceived 10-minute sermon; everything else is repetition. I respectfully disagree, strongly, for two key reasons: 1) repetition is essential in a sermon so that the lessons are understood -- few people understand any teaching with only one pass at it, no matter how thoughtfully prepared, and 2) the problems we face in our lives demand more than 10 minutes of reflection. It takes time to explore the Scriptures; it takes time to illuminate them and contextualize them; it takes time to make them relevant to our experiences; it takes time to suggest how we should think (differently/more fully) or live (differently/more fully) or relate to God (differently/more fully). I try to incorporate these things into my sermons; I think I do so (though you would be a better judge of that as listeners).
I'm not sure what the point of this reflection is -- well, I'm not sure what the point of sharing this reflection on Sunday's sermon is. I take preaching seriously; I enjoy it and I strive to do it well and ever-better (is that a word?). When I feel like I've fallen short, and Sunday I felt a little like that because I felt I was leaving vast parts of my important thinking out of the sermon -- including a fun jaunt through various dream stories in the Bible, I don't like the sermon, regardless of how well I've preached or not. I feel a little disingenuous because I try very hard to model my thinking and reflections within my sermons. On the other hand, it is almost always more important to gauge how well others appreciated and understood the sermon, regardless of my feelings about it.
As a dear friend and teacher once told me, after I felt I butchered a sermon on Ecclesiastes (your pastor has never been unconfident in selecting his sermon Scriptures, even in school; he dives into passages where angels (i.e. other preachers) fear to tread): 'The Gospel was preached.' By which he meant, I preached on the Bible; I took it seriously; and I tried to relate it to people's lives. He's right (as Bill often is), but I still aim higher for that, I guess, taking my preaching strategies from a combination of the Latin teacher/rhetor Quintilian (1st Century), who thought that the highest form of rhetoric was "the good man (the moral man) speaking well," and Augustine, who added "about things of ultimate importance" to that statement, based on his appreciation of the great 3rd Century preacher Ambrose.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, May 11
This Sunday we will celebrate Pentecost, the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world, which is symbolically the birthday of the church on Earth. Worship will consist in reflection and celebration of the Holy Spirit (lots of Spirit-filled music), and the sermon will focus on Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, recorded in Acts 2.
All people are encouraged to wear red in celebration of the day. The chancel is appropriately colored, and I will be wearing red also. Following the service, we will have a few moments of fellowship out on the balcony (long enough to celebrate and be joyful, short enough that it will not get in the way of your Mother's Day dinner plans).
All people are encouraged to wear red in celebration of the day. The chancel is appropriately colored, and I will be wearing red also. Following the service, we will have a few moments of fellowship out on the balcony (long enough to celebrate and be joyful, short enough that it will not get in the way of your Mother's Day dinner plans).
Friday, May 9, 2008
Reading DisciplesWorld - May 2008
Here begins a recurring series of blog entries on DisciplesWorldmagazine. This is a long-planned addition to the blog, but I've been behind in my reading, especially my magazine reading. But I've resolved to read the magazine as soon as it arrives, which I've done this week.
I encourage you to browse through the recent issues of DisciplesWorld, which are kept both on the shelves in the Narthex and in the library. This publication attempts to speak to the broad experiences of our shared fellowship in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). It is recommended and recognized by the general church, but it is an independent publication, which means that it is neither directed nor funded by any general church office.
The latest issue takes an extended look at a few of the issues raised by Latino illegal immigration into the United States. In some ways, this issue is more theoretical than practical for us in West Virginia; still, we can read stories of churches and Christians on the front lines. And we can reflect on them. What does Christian hospitality look like? How far does it extend? Are some churches who practice sanctuary with illegal immigrants flouting the law wrongly or rightly? What needs are we called to address among these poor migrants? Any?
It is certainly true that illegal immigration has significant impact on our economy -- many such immigrants provide lower cost labor, especially in construction, food service, agricultural, and other industries. Some of their wages are sent to their families in other countries, improving their lives. But these immigrants pose shared costs for the broader society, especially in matters of health care and education. The church is called to speak for truth. We are called to recognize and serve the needs of the poor. We are called to reach out to the outcast. We are called to be upright and responsible citizens. We are called to be law-abiding.
It seems to me that this problem poses significant political and theological problems, none of which are easily solved. Sometimes it is frustrating to be faced with seemingly insoluble problems; so we turn our heads and look away. But it is important for us to occasionally face such problems, to dig into them to better understand them, to try to imagine possible solutions -- by doing so we exercise our religious beliefs and deepen our faith; by doing so we refuse to be silently acquiescent in ignorance; by doing so we continue to imagine how much more God may be calling us to do.
There are also several other articles in the magazine, news pieces, columns, Bible studies. There are two pages on Romans which offer a particular interpretation that I probably won't dwell on in our Bible study. There is also an interview with Barack Obama, following previous interviews with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
I encourage you to browse through the recent issues of DisciplesWorld, which are kept both on the shelves in the Narthex and in the library. This publication attempts to speak to the broad experiences of our shared fellowship in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). It is recommended and recognized by the general church, but it is an independent publication, which means that it is neither directed nor funded by any general church office.
The latest issue takes an extended look at a few of the issues raised by Latino illegal immigration into the United States. In some ways, this issue is more theoretical than practical for us in West Virginia; still, we can read stories of churches and Christians on the front lines. And we can reflect on them. What does Christian hospitality look like? How far does it extend? Are some churches who practice sanctuary with illegal immigrants flouting the law wrongly or rightly? What needs are we called to address among these poor migrants? Any?
It is certainly true that illegal immigration has significant impact on our economy -- many such immigrants provide lower cost labor, especially in construction, food service, agricultural, and other industries. Some of their wages are sent to their families in other countries, improving their lives. But these immigrants pose shared costs for the broader society, especially in matters of health care and education. The church is called to speak for truth. We are called to recognize and serve the needs of the poor. We are called to reach out to the outcast. We are called to be upright and responsible citizens. We are called to be law-abiding.
It seems to me that this problem poses significant political and theological problems, none of which are easily solved. Sometimes it is frustrating to be faced with seemingly insoluble problems; so we turn our heads and look away. But it is important for us to occasionally face such problems, to dig into them to better understand them, to try to imagine possible solutions -- by doing so we exercise our religious beliefs and deepen our faith; by doing so we refuse to be silently acquiescent in ignorance; by doing so we continue to imagine how much more God may be calling us to do.
There are also several other articles in the magazine, news pieces, columns, Bible studies. There are two pages on Romans which offer a particular interpretation that I probably won't dwell on in our Bible study. There is also an interview with Barack Obama, following previous interviews with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Housekeeping: Last Sunday, Book Group, Regional Assembly
A few random things to comment on (in this slightly delayed entry):
- I enjoyed the opportunity to spend some time with our young people on Sunday morning. It was good to worship with them downstairs and to teach the older kids class. I think they enjoyed the pastor's presence, and I enjoyed being with them. I think that I will make occasional Sunday morning appearances downstairs (perhaps not again for the majority of the service, but for shorter moments during the service), but we'll see.
- The Book Group will meet on Friday, May 16 at 7:00 at Central Christian. We will discuss pp. 1-59 of Tony Hendra's Father Joe: The Man Who Saved My Soul. All are welcome for rollicking discussion.
- The regional website has addition links to more Regional Assembly material, including some videos from the three days. Click here to see Rev. Gloria Hernandez' Thursday night sermon.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, May 4
This Sunday, the Rev. Darrell Pierce, retired minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) will be preaching. His sermon, based on 1 Peter 5:6-11, is entitled "Humble Exaltation." I wish I could hear it.
Instead, after Wiggle Time, I will head downstairs to spend the worship time with our younger people. I've been looking forward to joining them for a while.
After worship, there will be a festive Mothers Luncheon, to which everyone is invited. If you are a mother, have a mother, have ever seen a mother, you should plan to stay. (And if you're cantankerous and insist you don't fall under any of those categories, you should plan to stay anyway.)
Also, there are several worthy fundraising events on Sunday. In addition to our on-going Relay for Life preparations, there are a few others. The Fairmont Council of Churches is sponsoring its annual CROP Walk (which raises money for anti-hunger projects through Church World Service); if you want to donate, you can give me money on Sunday. The Boy Scouts are hosting an OX-Roast at Camp Mountaineer -- those who have been before tell me this is an event not to be missed. And, as mentioned on the blog earlier this week, we will be collecting our Special Pentecost Offering (for New Church Ministry) this Sunday and next.
Instead, after Wiggle Time, I will head downstairs to spend the worship time with our younger people. I've been looking forward to joining them for a while.
After worship, there will be a festive Mothers Luncheon, to which everyone is invited. If you are a mother, have a mother, have ever seen a mother, you should plan to stay. (And if you're cantankerous and insist you don't fall under any of those categories, you should plan to stay anyway.)
Also, there are several worthy fundraising events on Sunday. In addition to our on-going Relay for Life preparations, there are a few others. The Fairmont Council of Churches is sponsoring its annual CROP Walk (which raises money for anti-hunger projects through Church World Service); if you want to donate, you can give me money on Sunday. The Boy Scouts are hosting an OX-Roast at Camp Mountaineer -- those who have been before tell me this is an event not to be missed. And, as mentioned on the blog earlier this week, we will be collecting our Special Pentecost Offering (for New Church Ministry) this Sunday and next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)