Sermon from September 7, 2009

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Let us pray, “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer. Psalm 19:14”

Here is good one about tolerance: A man who was walking across a bridge and came upon another man standing right on the edge, about to plunge to his death. The first man shouted "Stop! Are you a Christian?" "Yes, as a matter of fact I am." "Well so am I. Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "I'm Protestant," "Well so am I. Are you Episcopal or Lutheran?" "I'm Lutheran." "Wow... I am too. Are you ELCA Lutheran or Missouri Synod Lutheran? "I'm ELCA Lutheran," "Me too, that's amazing! Were you LCA or ALC?" "I'm LCA." "I can't believe it, so am I." But tell me are you a German Lutheran, or a Swedish Lutheran?" He answered, "Swedish Lutheran" To which the first man said, "Die you heretic," and he pushed him off the bridge.

Sounds crazy right? But how many times do we divide ourselves by churches or religious groups? I can think of hundreds of times I have been at church when someone has come up with a new idea and the first words out of someone’s mouth is “But we have never done it this way before.” Why are we not willing to take a chance? Why can we not trust in God when we are presented with a new and exciting avenue of ministry that differs from the status quo.

Every single church and every single Christian is guilty of this. I cannot tell you how many times I flinch in chapel at seminary when someone changes the order of morning prayer. My friends tell me I’m part of the rubrics police--i.e. I get annoyed when pastors and leaders do not follow the red italic text in the hymnal. We so easily forget texts like this one today--“Whoever is not against us is for us.”

This one particular line appears four times in the Synoptic Gospels--twice in Luke and once in Matthew and Mark. It is a line that, I believed, had great importance in the early church and among the Gospel writers. Think of the implications this line had on the early church--on the disciples hearing these words first hand. They thought they were doing the right thing by telling Jesus about this healer--TEACHER THIS GUY IS NOT PLAYING NICE WITH US! They are thinking they need to defend Jesus and the ministry he is establishing among the people. Think about the implications this man could have had on Jesus if he screwed up? But Jesus stops them and so eloquently turns their mistake into a teachable moment; “Whoever is not against us is for us.”

Robert Jenson, a famous theologian, has a wonderful quote his commentary on Mark, "Whenever you want to draw lines in order to mark who is outside the kingdom and who is inside, always remember: Jesus is on the other side of the line! Jesus is always with the outsiders!" What criteria should we use to determine if someone is "of Christ" or not? Where does active church membership fall within requirements for being "of Christ"? Most importantly, where is Jesus in all of this?

As a good Lutheran Seminarian, I would answer this last question by saying “Jesus is present in the hearing/the speaking of the word and in the Holy Eucharist.” But digging even deeper, I believe Mark is making the argument that Jesus is our midst just by saying his name. In verse 37 from last weeks lesson, “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name”, in today’s reading, verse 38 “someone casting out demons in your name,” verse 39 “no one who does a deed of power in my name” and verse 41 “whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ. “ Bearing the name of Christ and acting in Christ's name indicates a belonging to Christ and perhaps even, being Christ's presence for the world . By claiming the Name of Jesus, God grants us the presence of Jesus in our lives no matter who we are.

Donald B. Kraybill, a professor in the field of sociology and religion says, "The genius of the gospel is its seed of self-criticism or self-reformation. Each generation of Christians, like the Pharisees, is tempted to make sacred its programs and freeze its routines. Jesus showed us that humanly created structures aren't sacred. There are no sacred places, organizations, times, objects, doctrines or social positions, except in the sense that all good things are finally sacred." We must remember that God is in charge and through God, all things are made Holy and Sacred. When it comes down to it, our hymnal will not save us, our Book of Concord will not save us, our church, our pews, our ideas will not save us but it is simply the cross that will save us. No matter what we do on earth, the cross is what saves us. So in the Name of Jesus, go and proclaim this message of God’s love for us and remember that whoever is not against us is for us. Amen.

A call for Church Unity Four weeks ago and now Lutheran CORE wants to seperate.

ELCA NEWS SERVICE

September 10, 2009

Lutheran CORE Plans Next Steps, Intends to be 'Free-Standing' Synod

CHICAGO (ELCA) -- Saying the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America(ELCA) has "fallen into heresy," because of actions taken at last month's churchwide assembly, the chair of Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Reform)said the organization intends to be a "free-standing synod" which will carry out ministries apart from the ELCA.

In addition CORE is expected to consider initiating conversations with member Lutheran congregations and reform movements in the United States and Canada toward a possible reconfiguration "of North American Lutheranism," said the Rev. Paull E. Spring, State College, Pa., LutheranCORE chair. Spring is a former bishop of the ELCA Northwestern
Pennsylvania Synod.

Those and other ideas will be discussed when Lutheran CORE holds a convocation Sept. 25-26 at Christ the Savior Lutheran Church, Fishers, Ind. Nearly 700 people have registered as of Sept. 8, said the Rev. Mark Chavez, Landisville, Pa., CORE director and vice president, WordAlone Network, New Brighton, Minn. WordAlone is a member of Lutheran CORE. Lutheran CORE is a coalition of pastors, lay people, congregations and reform groups in the ELCA. CORE expressed distress and sadness over the assembly's decisions on human sexuality. The assembly adopted by a two-thirds vote an ELCA social statement, "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust," which CORE said changed ELCA teaching and policy on same-gender relationships. Voting members also directed that changes be made to ELCA ministry policies to make it possible for people in committed, same-gender relationships to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, clergy, deaconesses and diaconal ministers. CORE opposed that change, citing biblical teaching on marriage and homosexuality.

Following the assembly's decisions on sexuality, CORE announced it was ending its relationship as an independent Lutheran organization "officially recognized" by the ELCA. The organization is also encouraging ELCA members and congregations to send finances directly to ministries they support versus giving to the ELCA.

More than 1,000 people have contacted Lutheran CORE since the assembly, most expressing sadness and asking questions, Spring said. However, CORE is "encouraging people to remain in the ELCA -- for now," Spring said in a telephone interview with the ELCA News Service. "I myself intend to remain on the ELCA clergy roster and remain a member of an ELCA congregation," he said, adding that he and others may not participate much in the ELCA beyond the congregation. Despite his own "disappointment and shock" over the assembly's actions, Spring said he hopes Lutheran CORE can "be a visionary, future-oriented group."

"We have no desire to look back at what happened in Minneapolis. We need to look to the future with confidence, amid much uncertainty," Spring said.

CORE's 2009 convocation is expected to adopt a proposed constitution, authorize proposals for developing fiscal plans and authorize its steering committee to initiate conversations with "congregations and reform movements" within Lutheran CORE, Lutheran Congregations for Mission in Christ, and other compatible organizations, Spring wrote in a Sept. 4 e-mail to CORE supporters. There's also much planning to do over the course of the next year, he said. Convocation speakers include the Rev. Kenneth H. Sauer, Columbus, Ohio, former bishop of the ELCA Southern Ohio Synod and former chair of the ELCA Conference of Bishops; Ryan Schwarz, Washington, D.C., a CORE steering committee member and runner-up in the election for ELCA vice president at the 2009 assembly; plus Spring and Chavez. "We will try to be churchly," Spring said of the upcoming CORE convocation. "We are trying to be responsible. There's a lot at stake
here, including the future of Lutheranism in the United States."

---
Editors: Pastor Spring's first name is correctly spelled as "Paull."

Okay so I am not sure what happened. In this article the leader of LutheranCore, Rev. Paul Spring, said that he would remain apart of the ELCA and stay on the rooster. But when I get to the end article I am left scratching my head trying to figure out what happened.

The church needs to be unified. I do not think Lutheran CORE would disagree with me on this point. The church just made a huge decision and needs to heal. It was a decision that has taken years to decide and will most likely take many years to heal from. My question is why would Lutheran CORE, an organization that claims that their "intention is to remain within our church and to work with congregations, individuals, and other reform-minded groups for the reform of our own church" would end its relationship as an independent Lutheran organization "officially recognized" by the ELCA and encourage ELCA members and congregations to send finances directly to ministries they support versus giving to the ELCA? Where the hell is the church unity in this?

Whether you agree or disagree with the decisions the church made, we MUST (and I stress the word MUST) stay united. We should not go and run away from this. God gave us grace and we must show this grace. We have always been able to agree to disagree and live in communion and fellowship with one another. This is no different. Yes this decision did question theology and personal piety of many Lutherans but the church has been doing this for 2000 years. I seem to remember the debate in Acts about whether or not to minister to Gentiles and not just to the Jews. It was not a decision that many were happy about but the church unified and did what had to be done.

Remember there is always grace. We all sin and fall short of the Glory of God. The church and people that make up the church are no different. I am not calling the decisions of the ELCA right or wrong but they are still the decisions we must all live with. I am not to happy about what the church decided but I have accepted it. If I had my way, it would have been a 2/3 vote for the recommendations. I feel that if the church is going to make a monumental change like it did back in August then it should of had monumental support for the changes. But the vote is done and there is nothing we can do to change the vote. We are only left to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments just as we have done for 2000 years. So instead of run away as Lutherans have classically done before, we should unite and be the church in the world. That is what we need most right now.

A continuing debate...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness (Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence--Paragraph 2).

I posted these few sentences of this amazing document to give all of you, my devout readers, my perspective on the Health Care Reform vote. I have been trying to keep up on the debate but seminary has begun and I have very little time to watch the news. If I say anything that is wrong please comment and me know.

With Ted Kennedy's death still in our thoughts and minds, we are approaching a very important vote in our nation's government. I would argue this bill is as important as the civil rights bill and the emancipation of slaves. Ted Kennedy fought for many years for the national health insurance plan and died fighting for the bill. I am sure many on the other side of this bill are hoping that the bill would die with him. But those fighting, well at least for me, will never stop fighting because of that first line in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
This concept of unalienable rights has developed and evolved since this document was wrote. Many of those who signed this document owned slaves and would never have thought that slaves had rights. But America evolved and realized that slaves are people and these people do have rights. Granted, America is still dealing with problems of racism and discrimination but America has made many great strides in establishing laws that try to create equality for all.

This same argument could also be given to the woman's movement in the United States (and in many different institutions). This document was wrote by men and uses masculine pronouns but, like the civil rights movement, America's ideals and norms changed and the rights of women were created. Essentially, that first line should now read, "...all men and women, black and white, Asian, Mexican, European, etc, are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." While America has made goals to ensure the equality for all, there is still much work to be done.

So we all have certain unalienable rights--"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When I hear those words I think about Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. The basic essence of this theory (please correct me if I am wrong because I was a sociology major in undergrad and we didn't really like the entirety of this theory) is that if you provide the basics needs for life, people will be happy and productive. You can look this theory up on google.
I do believe that the writers of this document put life first to emphasize life. We all have the right to live--the right to live a life devout to your country and your God (whoever that may be), and to live searching and pursuing happiness. How is Health Insurance not apart of that?

I still cannot fathom how some individuals (and no this is not a party issue anymore because there are many democrats that I will not support if they are against this bill) can say Health Insurance is not a right the government should provide. The government is called by our founding fathers to secure these rights for us. If the government does not do this, the people must stand up against the government. The United States has the ability to provide the best damn health care to all people. How can we deny this medical care to people just because they cannot afford it. This vote should not be a political move but rather a move to ensure those unalienable rights--to open the door to individuals, myself included, who cannot afford health insurance. America has always been about giving rights to individuals. How is this any different?

While some have made the argument that since Health Care is not in the Constitution the government should not get involved. I would ask you read my entry from July 8th. The government role is to ensure the well-being of all of it's citizens. Left to our own devices, we would hurt our neighbor. This is why we have laws and police to enforce those laws. The government ensures us our safety. So if the government ensures us our safety it makes logical sense for the government to ensure the health of it's citizens. For example, the government banned the use of trans-fats in food to help improve the diet of it's citizens. Another example would be minimum wage. The government tells employers they must pay a wage (I am not going to call it a livable because it is far below the standard of living in many parts of the U.S.) that can provide the bare necessities.

Okay enough of a rant. I could write a dissertation on this subject. Please comment and let me know what you think.

Sermon for the 13th Sunday after Pentecost

My sermon from August 30th. You can watch me this time too!

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Let us pray, “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer. Psalm 19:14”

Grace and peace to you from our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In the Lutheran Church there is dyad, this concept, of Law and Gospel. For Luther, the idea that we must work to earn our salvation was inherently wrong but Luther never said we should abolish the law. The Law is our moral guide, our moral code. I would add that the Law is what reminds us of our own humanity.

But the word LAW usually send shrivels up the spins of Lutherans because we are afraid to say “you must do this” or “you must do that.” It is one of the reasons why Martin Luther wanted to remove the books of James and John, traditionally known as the Catholic Letters/Epistles, from our canon—from the bible. Luther never like the theology of the book of James— “Faith without works is dead”—because of the negative interpretations that the church once had for this line. James wrote that line more likely out of necessity because the early church was taking Paul’s words to literally and practicing a Theology of cheap grace—you don’t have to anything like go to church or volunteer to help the less fortunate because we are going to heaven.

So now how does the Lutheran Church view this idea of Law and Gospel? I am going to try my best to explain without breaking a few heresies along the way. The first use of the law is the Civic law—do not kill people, do not steal, ect. The second use of the law is the knowledge of sin—we know we have sinned because we are told this is wrong. The Third use of the law is a guide to Christian living—we should do this because this is what God wants us to do.

Now the Gospel fits into this scheme in a very different way. We have this law that guides us tells us we should live this way but then we have the Gospel that says it is okay if we can’t live up the standards set before us. Martin Luther never believed that we could ever maintain perfection—other reforms did such as John Wesley. Luther would have said that the law was very good and necessary but not a tool of bondage. We are not bounded to the law. It creates a protection to us so that we cannot be accused of not living a good moral life but it would also guide us so we can live this good and moral life.

So knowing all of this about Law and Gospel, our readings from Deuteronomy and Mark should make a bit more sense. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites believed the law was a divine gift that provided guidelines for living out the covenant. The law is very important to the Israelites and to this day stays important to the Jewish faith. But like any good thing, overuse of the law had become a problem. The law became oppressive and discriminated against the less fortunate of society. What was once seen as free had become a prison filled with guards and wardens who did not believe in grace.

I love Jesus’ response to the Pharisees. He is able to quote scripture so eloquently:
Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
'This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.'
8You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition."
Lets focus on that last line—“ You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.” God’s command is law and the Pharisees are sticking with the law right? Jesus is not questioning their ability to hold to the law—personally I think it’s good to wash your hands before you eat and make sure the food is clean—but to deny an individual rights at the table because they do not have the ability to wash their hands or hold to the law is a bit much. Jesus is protesting against the human customs being given the weight of divine law, while the essence of God's law is ignored. God’s law was to ensure the wellbeing of ALL of God’s people and not just the few who stuck with the law.

So here we are left with this concept of Law and Gospel. The law is our guide and the Gospel—not just the New Testament but the entire bible; Hebrew Scripture and the Christian Canon—the Gospel frees us when we cannot hold to the law. Just as our Lord said, “15there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile." 21For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

Our sin is made evident in what we do and what we say. We are the essence of sin but thankful there is a God who redeems us and loves us even when we cannot live up to God’s standards. So go and do what Luther said, “Sin and Sin Boldly.” Do whatever is necessary to live out your baptismal calling. We are all still called today to do the work of the church. We might not be able to build bridges or knock on doors but we can all still love one another because it is by God’s grace, God’s wonderful and mysterious grace, that we find God’s salvation. May God grant us this grace this day in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.