Sermon (Fr Cunningham) - January 28

A number of years ago I was teaching a seminary class on the administration of a church.  Part of the material for this class involved the students assessing a number of real world church situations, in which less than pleasant things had occurred.  These scenarios were things I had actually experienced and involved everything from excessive gossip, the feeding of feral cats within the confines of the church pre-school, to fights over the remodeling of a parish hall.  The students were supposed to come up with ways in which they would deal with the given situation.  Some of the student's answers were good and others not so much.  In the not so much category there was one student whose answer for everything was catechesis; that is comprehensive religious instruction.  In his mind, if you just gave people the right instructions and knowledge about the nature of the Christian faith, there would be no fights within the church.  In other words, as long as people knew theology and church history including the resolution of the iconoclast controversy at the seventh council of Nicaea, all manner of things would be well.  Or to paraphrase Belinda Carlisle for what it's worth catechism would make heaven a place on earth.  Now, he was young and quite pleased with himself and so we should forgive him, even though a certain less than charitable part of me would like to watch his first year in ministry through one of those one way mirrors that you see in mediocre spy movies, because the fact of the matter is people are not always rational actors, no matter how much information they possess.  The issues that generally arise in church arise not because of knowledge deficits, but rather for the reasons that they occur everywhere else and that is sin – or as St. Paul puts it this morning, "Knowledge puffs up."  You can have all the knowledge you want and things can still go very wrong. 

The impetus for St. Paul's discussion today is food, in particular food that has been sacrificed to idols.  I assume that most of us these days do not have a whole lot of experience with food that has been sacrificed to idols, although we do seem to have a fair amount of experience with food as an idol.  If you don't believe me ask yourself how many TV shows or networks, magazines, online sites and so on are dedicated to food.  But I digress.  In the time in which Paul was writing, sacrificing animals to a particular deity was fairly common.  And as a result of this frequent sacrificing, the priests at those particular temples kind of doubled as a butcher.  So you could bring your cow in on the front end and get a nice brisket out the back end.  And what ended up happening was that a lot of meat that people consumed came from uncertain pedigree.  You didn't know if the ribeye you were enjoying at the neighborhood barbeque had started as sacrifice to Jupiter.  And, as a result of this, there came an issue for many who converted to Christianity about how to handle this food that had been used in an act of pagan worship.   You see, in these converts’ previous lives the act of eating these products could be seen as an act of worship of a pagan deity or at least a tacit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of such a system.  Now the knowledgeable or catechetical response, to use my previous example, was to say to these people that these other gods did not really exist which meant that nothing really happened in the sacrifice that was offered to them and so eat up.  But there was another piece to this, the piece that prompts Paul to say that "love builds up." And that piece had to do not with knowledge, but rather with the spiritual life of the person in question.  That is the new Christian who was having trouble eating food sacrificed to idols.  And so what Paul is reminding his hearers is that in all things love should lead the discussion and not knowledge.  Because the fact of the matter is that even though Paul and many others knew that this was not a real issue, the other fact was that many in the community struggled with this.  They felt that in eating food sacrificed to idols they were somehow betraying their new beliefs.  And so Paul is telling those in Corinth that there is something they need to do that goes beyond mere knowledge.  They need to love and understand those who are struggling.

There is an old expression that knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit and wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.  In many ways I think this is the message of Paul.  We can know all sorts of things and often voicing the things we know can be detrimental to our relationships with one another.  I mean I know which friends of mine could probably stand to lose a few pounds, but generally speaking it is not a topic of conversation in which I actively engage, because it could potentially be detrimental to our relationship.  There are bits of knowledge that can trigger things within us and others that put barriers between us and the person with whom we are in relationship.  And even more importantly, which is what Paul is discussing today, we need to be careful when our knowledge harms someone else's relationship with God.  Today in the Letter to the Corinthians Paul says that yes food sacrificed to idols is meaningless, it carries no magical juju, but some people's consciences are not at a place where they can understand this and that by eating this meat they would be distressed or confused.  So rather than saying that they need to suck it up and go pick up a rack of ribs from the Temple of Artemis, he instead asks for grace to protect these people's conscience and giving them a little room to grow in the love and knowledge of Jesus Christ.  I mean ultimately he is keeping the first thing, the first thing.  And the first thing is not a dining choice, but rather Jesus Christ and so he is asking everyone, including himself, to back off and love those who are not ready for this knowledge, so that they may grow in their love of God without being distracted by a peripheral issue. 

As most of you have probably noticed, we live in rather contentious times.  If I were to sum up our day and age on one of my more cynical days, I would say that everyone hates everyone else and the reason for this hatred is the other person's fault.  And in such an environment we revel in using knowledge as a weapon, to make the person with whom we disagree squirm.  But what if we were to disengage from this, what if we were to look at the example Paul sets for us today?  What if we made our first priority not knowledge or being right, but rather other people and what is best for that other person?  Now please this is not an invitation to throw aside knowledge and go start some neo-luddite commune, but is rather a call to get over ourselves a little bit - to engage with people in a loving and graceful way, understanding their perspectives, struggles and fears.

I remember years ago when I was learning to drive the instructor talked about being dead right.  That was being involved in a car crash that was avoidable, but happened because the driver who was in the right did nothing to avoid the accident.  An example of this would be entering an intersection on a green light, knowing that there was a car about to run the red light from the other direction.  You were perfectly within your rights to enter the intersection on the green light. You also were just involved in a major accident.  So much of our acrimony that goes on these days seems to originate from people who are dead right; people who don't care what destruction they cause, but care only for being right.  And it is a rather graceless and ugly state in which to exist. But when dealing with real people in the way that Christ calls us to, we have to make sacrifices if we are going to truly and fully love them.  We are going to have to put aside things that we may know to be perfectly logical to allow others to grow and flourish in their love of God.  And this does not mean that we set aside the truth, but rather that we speak the truth in love.  That we first worry about the person and what is best for them. 

If it helps you can think about it like training for a marathon.  A coach would not expect you to run 26.2 miles on the first day of your training, but would rather build you up to that distance over time, asking a little more each day.  When we love other people, we want what is best for them.  And what is best for them is helping them to grow in love and service to Jesus Christ.  And that is going to look different for different people.  This morning Paul would ultimately want the new converts to understand that the other so called gods are not real and for their conscience to not be troubled by them, but they are not there yet.  Just as the person who just started training for a marathon is not there yet.  Loving someone else is desiring what is best for them and what is best for them may change over time, and so we need to be ready to love and nurture each other in all times so that we may be God's own both now and forevermore. 

Sermon Jan. 14 2018-Father Cunningham

         So today, as I prepare to deploy in a few hours, I wanted to share some parting words of wisdom to sustain you in my absence.  But the only thing that I could think to say was to be on your best behavior and don’t turn the parish into a seedy nightclub with a name like The Copa Chrysostom.  So instead I will just focus on the bit we have from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, without delving too much into the prostitute bits – because that might get kind of awkward.

         There is a lot going on in this passage, but the overall theme on which Paul is focusing, has to do with our behavior and what we should and should not do and in some cases how much we can do of certain behaviors.  And this last part is really the piece I want to discuss today, because that is often the place where decision-making is at its most difficult.  For I assume most of us would not be at a loss about whether or not to become the kingpin of a Belarusian drug cartel, but how about taking that second brownie or buying an expensive watch?  The question, I think many of us run into is just how much of worldly things are we allowed to indulge in.  Where is that line between in the world and of the world?

         Paul puts it like this, “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything.”  Now the background for this probably relates to the very early Christian question about just how Jewish you had to be in order to be a Christian.  Did you have to follow the law or where you now set free?  And in that one of the things that often came up were the Jewish dietary laws – did you have to stick with the Mogen David or could you branch out a little, and maybe enjoy a nice Argentinian Malbec now and then.  And it seemed that as people abandoned dietary laws some might have been indulging a bit too much.  This is why Paul follows up the opening statement by saying, “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food.”  And since we are on the subject of food it would seem as good of place as any to get this conversation started about the proper amount of worldly things that the Christian can and should partake in.  And the good thing with discussing food is that it does a very nice job of framing the question, because we all eat.  So let’s take a moment and think about our relationship with food. 

         At its most basic we need food to live or as Django said in the movie Ratatouille, “Food is fuel. You get picky about what you put in the tank, your engine is gonna die. Now shut up and eat your garbage.”  But we of course know that for most people food is more than just fuel, it is one of life’s great pleasures (that is if it is not prepared by Norwegians).  And therein lies the issue.  If we simply looked at food as fuel we could treat ourselves like a car and fill up the gas tank when needed and avoid it when not needed.  But because it can bring such joy there is the temptation to over-indulge and to give food too great of importance in our lives.  After all gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins.  And so the question becomes; where is the line?  Where is the balance between having enough to be properly nourished and gluttony?  And this is not an easy thing to judge.  Some Christians across the ages have pushed towards asceticism arguing that food should be viewed as simple fuel and should not be tasty lest it become too tempting.  In fact, one of the Desert Fathers by the name of Evagrius Ponticus stated, “Keep to a sparse and plain diet, not seeking a variety of tempting dishes. Should the thought come to you of getting extravagant foods in order to give hospitality, dismiss it, do not be deceived by it: for in it the enemy lies in ambush, waiting to tear you away from stillness.”  In other words Satan lurks in every jelly donut and deluxe nacho platter.  But that is not a universal sentiment.  Others have not followed such an ascetical line of thinking, after all Dom Perignon was a Benedictine monk.  Now, I really don’t know how good of monk Dom Perignon was, but still it points to the fact that some Christians have been very comfortable with food for mere pleasure.  For unless I have been seeing the wrong doctor, I don’t think that anyone has ever received the medical diagnosis that they were not drinking enough champagne.  And so the point is that even in the Christian community there is no consensus on where the line is between appropriate eating and gluttony – so what are we to do?  How do we make sure that we are not being dominated by anything as Paul says?  Well since we have been on the subject of champagne, let me bring in an example that, while not providing a definitive answer, I think can help guide our thinking. 

         A few years ago in the Wall Street Journal there was a sort of humorous article about various countries and how much their government said was an appropriate amount to drink on a given day.  The funny part in the article was that there was no consensus and there was a huge variance.  Some countries said you should only have a half of a drink a day while others said that you could have as many as six drinks.  I believe the six drinks came from the Basque region in Spain or maybe it was Northern Wisconsin.  But, anyway, the author of the article’s conclusion was not so much about which one was right but rather argued that the answer was probably more personal.  That is, most people know when they have had enough and if that is one drink and you live in the Basque region of Spain you shouldn’t have five more because the government says that it is okay.  And I think finding the line in our Christian walk is much the same, the limit will have to do with our interaction with whatever we are dealing with.  We need to sort of know when we are beginning to have an unhealthy relationship with something in our lives; when something becomes more important to us than God.  And this will vary from person to person.  And while I know this may not be the most satisfying answer, because it puts the responsibility back on us, it is probably the right one. 

         Paul this morning is most likely addressing those who have said that by Christ replacing the law they could indulge as much as they wanted.  But it would seem that in this indulgence they were being dominated by their cravings.  Somehow through the death and resurrection of Jesus they found a new god as Paul states in Philippians, “their god is the belly.”  The real issue being addressed today is when something that is not God becomes more important than God.  If we use the freedom found in Christ to replace him with something else we have missed the entire point.  But beyond that the question comes down to whether or not we have made anything in our lives more important than God?  And while I know we have used food as our primary example anything can fall into this category, even seemingly pious things.   The question that we all must ask when doing anything is do we still love God above it or in our love of the worldly has God been relegated to a second position.  And I wish I could give you a step-by-step program to identify such things, but I cannot.  We must spend time in prayer and reflection so that we may see if we are loving God first, so that we may be his both now and forevermore. 

Sermon Dec. 31 2017-Father Cunningham

               As many of you who know me may realize I can be a bit cynical - sometimes this cynicism is merited like when watching a Brad Pitt movie, but other times it can be a bit much and may lead to me making small children cry.  Anyway in my defense, I do have to say though that the Bible does sometimes back me up in my cynicism, like with what we have today in Isaiah.  It may not seem cynical at first blush but let me just read a brief snippet and see if you can see it.  Here goes:

I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,
my whole being shall exult in my God; 

for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, 

as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

For as the earth brings forth its shoots,
and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up,

so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise
to spring up before all the nations.

 You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord,
          and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.

 

Okay, for the less cynical of you out there it might take a minute to spot.  I mean it does sound pretty nice – it is full of phrases like, “robe of righteousness” and “My whole being shall exult in my God.”  But still it is there.  So let’s start by taking a look at the theme of the reading.  What it is basically saying is that at some point in the future we will be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord.  And the reason why we will be this crown at some point in the future is because we will be pure and righteous.  And therefore by being pure and righteous we will give off this sort of radiant glow like the jewels in a crown.  And I admit this does not seem very dark and brooding.  In fact, it sounds like we are pretty awesome, but let’s go back a little ways and see how it is that we actually get to this point of being a royal diadem.  And ask did we get there of our own accord or was it because of something that God did?  And while I will not go as far as saying that the narrative implies that God is going to put some lipstick on a pig it is somewhat similar.  Just look at some of the verbs that are used to describe this procedure.  God is said to clothe, cover, adorn and to deck us.  We end up being a crown of beauty, because God essentially dresses us up as one, not because of any qualities of beauty that we possess ourselves.  In today’s reading there is no understanding that we are capable of doing any of this by our own will.  All of which paints a not terribly rosy picture of humanity.  We are awful until God does something about it. 

         And so what is going on here and why exactly do we have this reading on the first Sunday after Christmas?  Well believe it or not it really is a distillation of the Christmas message, which posits in the words of John’s Gospel that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to the end that all that believe in him should not perish.  You see the only way we do not perish is because of what God has done.  The message of Christmas is that God of his own will has figured out a way to save us from ourselves through the birth of his Son in Bethlehem of Judea.  And what is so interesting and yet so wonderful because God has a very realistic opinion of us – we are not fooling him.  What a strange and marvelous thing and how counter our prevailing culture.  To love people despite knowing all of their problems and shortcomings.  To come to rescue a people who are in no way deserving of being rescued.  If that doesn’t fill you with gratitude I don’t know what will. 

         But if God comes to save a people not worthy of saving what does that tell us about how we are to behave?   Well it rather obviously points out that we should also love those who are unworthy of being loved.  Because obviously if God does that for us who are we to say that we are not interested in such behavior?  God announced on Christmas that he loved us despite the fact that when left to our own devices we are not very loveable.  But God is willing to make us righteous or to cover us with a robe of righteousness as Isaiah puts it.  And therein lies the second lesson from Christmas.  The first being the joy and gratitude that we should exude over Christ coming into the world, the second is for us to act towards humanity the way that God acts towards us. 

         And that seems to be a real problem for us because we seem to be very good at justifying in our minds why other people simply are not worthy of being loved.  It may be because they have different political opinions than we do – perhaps they have committed the unforgivable sin of having a different view on tax policy than we have or it may be something else, but whatever the issue we are very adept at putting people in categories that make it okay for us to not love them. For while on some level we know that we are to love one another as God loves us we very easily come up with a list of caveats to explain why others do not really fall into the category of one another.  But based on what we hear about humanity today in Isaiah it is exactly because we know terrible things about other people that we should love them, not despite. 

         I once had a parishioner proudly tell me that she would never forgive her son because of how he had treated her late husband.  I don’t recall exactly what the son did, but I think it was fairly rotten, but that is kind of the point.  As Jesus says in Luke, “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.” 

         And all of this may sound like we are setting ourselves up to be doormats for Jesus, that we should just sit back and take abuse and love people anyway.  And the answer to that question is both yes and no.  There is evidence of both answers in the life of Jesus.  We have Jesus overturning the tables in the temple, which is not terribly meek and mild, but we also have Jesus going willingly to the cross despite the fact that he had done nothing wrong.   And so there is obviously a balance to be struck.  And I think the problem nowadays is we error on the side of overturning the tables.  We really like to tell others the things that they are doing wrong.  But nowadays there does not seem to be enough of us who will willingly go to the cross.  Sometimes we may need to step back and say that we are going to love others simply because they are created in God’s image just like us.  God has no illusions about humanity and its capacity for horrid behavior – I mean this baby which we celebrate this season will be crucified in just a few short months.  And while we are not God and cannot clothe people in garments of salvation we can look at people as being capable of such, capable of being made righteous by God.  Christmas is about an unearned gift and our reaction to it should be to give unearned gifts to the rest of humanity so that we may be God’s both now and forevermore.