Sermon (Fr Cunningham) March 18, 2018

In some ways the Gospels are presented as a mystery.  This is, of course, not your average whodunit, even though there is a murder.  With your average mystery novel or television mystery the question from the outset is: who did it?  That is: was it Colonel Mustard in the parlor with a candlestick?  And while, as I stated, the Gospels all contain a murder, the question is not who did it or even why they did it, but rather the question centers around who Jesus is.  Is he the Son of God or is he just some regular guy with delusions of grandeur?  The Gospels all answer this question in one way, which is that Jesus is the Son of God, but they also all show the other side; meaning that in the Gospels you have two different narratives.  Those who say Jesus is not the Son of God are often given the blanket description of the Scribes and the Pharisees.  This group, to one degree or another, believes that Jesus is a fraud.  Or put another way that Jesus is very mortal and that any actions he does that are Messiah-like are either delusional at best or are attributable to a darker power at worst.  On the other side of this mystery, we have another group which includes Jesus himself, who posit that Jesus is much more than what his detractors say and that who he is and what he does is something which comes from God.  Or to quote St. Peter, this side believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of the living God.  And as we get closer to Easter the drama of the Gospel narrative is getting us closer to the answer of whom Jesus is.  And today’s readings are making the case for this second answer-that Jesus is the one true Messiah.  But so what?  What does it really matter on which side someone comes down as to who Jesus is?  Well, it matters a whole lot.  So today while I want to look at this question and the two possible answers, I also want to personalize it a little and ask how the way in which we see Jesus affects us and the way in which we live. 

C. S. Lewis once wrote that, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”  And so the question for us is if we believe the answer to the question is that if Jesus is truly the Messiah, then Christianity must be infinitely important, but are we living that way?  Does it infuse everything we do or are we living like it is moderately important – sometimes affecting what we do and other times being forgotten about?

Honestly, though, if we think about it allowing Jesus to be infinitely important at times, but not at others, really makes no sense.  And the reason it does not make sense is because it means that we view the world in two different and contradictory ways.  And those two ways are either bottom up or top down.  And let me issue a bit of a caveat and say that I know what follows is a bit of an over generalization, but I believe it is sufficient for our discussion.  A bottom up view of the cosmos basically posits that the universe is here, it started somehow and the highest form of intelligence as far as we know is mankind.  Someday Mr. Spock might show up or dolphins might mutate and become our sea-mammal overlords, but right now we are all there is.  The other side, which is the Judea-Christian view, is that there was nothing, God created something, which includes us and part of us is that we are created in the image of God.  As a result we have some knowledge of Him and how he meant for things to be.  So to summarize one side says that there is nothing higher than us and the other says there is nothing higher than God. 

Now depending where you want to put the starting point we have been living in a man-centered era for somewhere between 130 and 400 years.  And while the exact date of its beginning is not that important, what is important is to see where it all ends up.  What happens when a society has largely answered the question by saying that mankind is really the most important thing in the cosmos and that Jesus is of little importance?

To make this more clear let’s go back and talk about the Scribes and Pharisees who insisted that Jesus was not from God which will be as fun as it sounds.  Now, of course we know that they were wrong, but we should not necessarily impugn their motivation.  They felt that they were protectors of Judaism and as protectors they could not just allow anyone to come and have revelations.  If they did they would soon find themselves with hundred, if not thousands of would be messiahs going in different directions.   They believed that there was an order to the universe and it had been revealed to the Jewish people and anyone altering such a view was doing it from a human centered point of view and this could not be tolerated.  I was an English major, so you have to pardon me when I occasionally bring in references to poetry, but in W.B Yeats’ The Second Coming we hear his terrifying vision of a world where everyone can choose their own revelation.  He writes, “Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”  In a man centered world things do ultimately fall apart since there is no center, because everyone is a center.

            We look at the world these days and are often frustrated and a large part of that frustration is the bitter divisions that exist, but I would have to add that we really should not be surprised.  If man has been exalted to the highest form of being in the cosmos then why wouldn’t there be factions?  Because after all the question becomes which man is it that you are supposed to be following.  There are a lot of them, something like seven billion the last time I checked.  The economist Edgar Fiedler once said, “Ask five economists and you'll get five different answers - six if one went to Harvard.”  That is pretty much how humans are.  We have lots of opinions about the ways in which things are supposed to work.  And in some ways that is not a terrible thing, except if you forget to put God first.  We can have squabbles about what we should put on our pizza or color of your new countertops but not when it comes to who brings order to the universe.  Humanity is simply not equipped to take on this much responsibility.  I don’t want to get off on too much of a tangent, but have you ever noticed how many utopian projects that begin centered on a man or an idea that a man has cooked up end in bloodshed.  It happened on large scales like The Soviet Union or Cambodia and on smaller scales like Jonestown or the Manson Family.  But let’s get off this and get back to Jesus.

            We are getting very close to Easter and getting to the answer of who Jesus is.  And the thing with all of this is we have to decide if we are going to put Christ above everything. Jesus puts it rather clearly today when he states, “Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor.”  And so the question that comes to us is are we willing to lose our life for the sake of Jesus? Are we willing to submit our wills to his perfect will?  Are we willing to make Jesus of infinite importance?  Too often we treat Jesus as Lord when it is convenient, but that is not what Jesus says to us today.  We are to lose our life; that is to have it totally consumed by him.  

            Sometimes in all of the squabbles and troubles of this life we forget to put Jesus first – to serve and to follow him.  It is infinitely important and not something we do when we are in the mood.  The world is arranged from the top down and Jesus is our link to the God who has ordered all.  We must submit ourselves to him freely and fully so that we may be his both now and forevermore. 

 

   

Sermon (Fr. Cunningham) March 4, 2018

          Today in our Old Testament reading we commemorate the time when Charleton Heston came down from Mount Sinai and gave the Israelites the Ten Commandments.  I have to say that the Ten Commandments are funny things.  I mean funny not in the ha-ha, shoot milk out of your nose, type of funny but rather in terms of holding an odd place in our society.  And by odd I don't mean what is in the actual Ten Commandments, but rather how people react to the name of them.  The Ten Commandments are often used as something divisive with one side wanting to post them all around public and private spaces while the other side claims that such a display would be the first step in creating a theocracy, a sort of real life Handmaids Tail.  So the thing that I find funny in all of this is that no one ever talks about the actual Ten Commandments, that is what they actually say. They seem to have become more of a brand name like Heinz 57 or A-1 Steak Sauce.  And as a brand they are a controversial one.  But the thing is there are a number of commandments that I would think wouldn't be controversial at all, unless there is some secret society that is strongly in favor of murder, bearing false witness, taking a day off, stealing and so on.  There are really only two or three that I see as having the potential for controversy and those would be the ones about idols, having other gods and taking the Lord's name in vain.  Honestly, I'm not sure how many Christians even take those all that seriously these days. But since this is Church you have probably already anticipated that I am going to say that Christians ignoring the Ten Commandments is not a good

thing.  So today I really want to focus on one of the commandments that I am not sure anyone cares about anymore and that is number three which states, "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name." 

I mean it sounds like God is pretty serious about this one and yet on a daily basis we hear people tossing around God's name in vain with reckless abandon.  And so the question is why is God so serious about this and why are we so unserious about it.? To start thinking about this question I want to start with a rather lengthy quote from G.K. Chesterton.  I apologize for its length but I think it is all necessary to get the point.  Chesterton states, "There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.'"  So to paraphrase and put in context where I want to go: Chesterton is saying that modern people do not see the use in not taking the Lord's name in vain so they simply ignore that commandment, but what we should do is to try and understand why such a restriction was there in the first place.     

          Let's first start with just what this commandment is telling us.  It tells us not to misuse God's name, which sometimes gets translated as taking the name of the Lord in vain.  It is essentially saying that there are appropriate uses of God's name and that there are inappropriate uses and that we are not to use God's name inappropriately.  The basic distinction between appropriate and inappropriate is whether we are using God's name as a way to bring ourselves up to him or to bring him down to us.  So to illustrate the difference let's look at some examples.

          First, in terms of appropriate use let's look at the first verse of the 63rd Psalm which states, "O God, you are my God, earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you, my body longs for you, in a dry and weary land where there is no water."  Now notice the Psalmist does not restrain from using the name of God, in fact he uses it twice, but look at how he uses it. He basically is saying three things about God in the Psalm.  First who God is: he is his God.  Second, he says that he is seeking after God and third, he states that his body and soul needs God for their very existence.  So in this Psalm there is an acknowledgement of who God is, the Psalmists declaration of a desire to be with God, and a statement of the Psalmist's total dependence on God.  It is both a statement of truth and a statement of desire to draw closer to God.  Now let's look at another example of using God's name in a less than proper way and see if we can spot the difference.

For fun I put the term OMG in Google.  Quite frankly I wasn't sure if the young kids were still using this abbreviation, but apparently they are.  For those of you unfamiliar with this term OMG is short for Oh My God.  So after using Google, the first story I saw had the headline, "OMG, I Want this House", which I found particularly funny because it was taking the Lord's name in vain in order to covet a neighbor's house.  It was a two for the price of one in terms of breaking of the Ten Commandments.  But I want to focus on the second one I saw read which stated, "OMG! You Need To See Kylie Jenner's Push Present." For those of you not familiar with Kylie Jenner, you are indeed blessed, but I will ruin that for you and let you know that she is the half-sister of Kim Kardashian.  Also for a little more clarification I learned that a "push present" is something that you get after you have delivered a baby.  So it seems that Kylie's boyfriend gave her a one million dollar Ferrari to thank her for delivering the child.  And if you are curious the car has only two seats and I am relatively certain that Ferrari does not make a child safety seat.  I will leave it for you to judge if this is a statement about the priority of the new child in their lives.  But back to using the Lord's name in vain.  The question with this headline is what does God have to do with this situation?  There is no acknowledgement of who God is or a desire for closer communion with him.  It simply seems that his name is mentioned to add some excitement about this gift.  It's almost like God is called in to warm up the crowd so that they are in the right mood when we hear the really important news about Kylie Jenner and her new Ferrari.  And this is what I mean by bringing God down to us.  The Psalmist mentions his total dependence on God whereas this article about Ms. Jenner mentions God for no greater reason than to bring greater glory to this bit of information.  In one we glorify God in the other God is there to glorify us.

          Now I assume that many would reply that this is not really what it means, that it is simply just a phrase, devoid of larger meaning like how people say awesome to mean that they like something.  I would agree that in most cases it is probably meant as a simple interjection to draw attention to what is going to be said next.  But let's think about it in terms of Chesterton.  Why was there an injunction in the first place?  I think it has to do with our relationship to God.  If we believe that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe that makes God pretty important and quite superior to us.  So part of maintaining a proper relationship is remembering that God is set apart from us.  In fact the term holy simply means set apart.  Just as we wouldn't have the dog eat its dinner off of our grandmother's china we should not treat God in the same way that we would treat common things.  Similarly, we should not treat the name of God in the same way as we treat the word "wow" or "neat."  The injunctions against using God's name in vain are the entry level for treating God as set apart and for seeing with wonder and awe just who God is.  For the thing is, it is only when we properly understand who God is and who we are in relationship to him that we can properly and fully live our lives.

          Our ancestors knew some things and God knows some things as well. And so this rather odd sounding injunction is really about putting us in a proper place in terms of our relationship with God.  Often in life it is the small things, done faithfully, that form the character of who we are.  Not taking God's name in vain is a daily practice, which can help draw us closer to God so that we may be his both now and forevermore. 

Sermon (Fr. Peay) February 25, 2018

“For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?”

 

            One of my very favorite films is “A Man for All Seasons.” Written by Robert Bolt, the film is based on the life of Thomas More and chronicles his relationship with Henry VIII – it’s a brilliant film. There is a scene where More is confronted by his accusers at his trial, and one in particular, Sir Richard Rich, perjures himself and accuses More of treason. Rich had recently been appointed as Attorney General for Wales and was wearing the appropriate chain of office – embossed with a red dragon. Sir Thomas More asks Rich what the chain is for and, on being told says, “For Wales? Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world, but for Wales?”

            As I look at the situation of our nation and the world I suppose we could fill-in the response with any number of things, couldn’t we? How many people have sold their souls, ruined themselves and their families, in the pursuit of profit, or of political power? How many people have sold themselves to get ahead, only to discover that they’re not even close to being ahead. The tragedy of the human condition is when we simply forget who we are and then try to “gain the whole world” to fill the hole in us that can only be filled by right relationship with the God in whose image and likeness we are made.

            I so appreciate what contemporary spiritual writer Cynthia Bourgealt has to say in her wonderful book Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening. She writes, “Jesus taught from the conviction that we human beings are victims of a tragic case of mistaken identity. The person I normally take myself to be—that busy, anxious little “I” so preoccupied with its goals, fears, desires, and issues—is never even remotely the whole of who I am, and to seek the fulfillment of my life at this level means to miss out on the bigger life. This is why, according to his teaching, the one who tries to keep his “life”

(i. e., the small one) will lose it, and the one who is willing to lose it will find the real thing.” God’s way of helping us not to lose sight of the real thing, of the bigger picture, of the real life to which we are all called – and for which we were all destined – is the covenant.

            What we see in the reading from Genesis is the beginning of that covenant relationship. When God extends the promise of relationship to Abram and to his descendants, which the Romans reading reminds us includes us. What, then, is a covenant? A covenant is a solemn promise made binding by an oath. The oath may be either verbal or symbolic. The oath demonstrated the actor's obligation in making good the promise. The covenant-concept was quite prevalent in the ancient near East, but there are profound differences between those and the Hebrew idea of covenant. Typically a covenant is a bi-lateral arrangement; this is not the case with that entered into by God and Abram and what will become the nation of Israel. The covenant is seen as a gift God makes to the people, which takes the covenant-relationship beyond the level of a contract into that of a bond of communion. The Dutch Old Testament scholar, Theodore Vriezen, has said, "the Covenant between God and the people did not bring these two 'partners' into a contract-relation, but into a communion, originating with God, in which Israel was bound to him completely and made dependent upon him."  To put it into the most basic terms – it’s a relationship.

            While God sacrifices none of his holiness, he extends participation in that holiness to his people. The people may violate the covenant, may depart from the covenant, but they are forever marked by its effect. The implications of this communion are made even more profound when considered in the light of the Old Testament understanding of humanity made in the "image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1:26ff). Or, in the words of the Psalmist: "what is man that thou art mindful of him?. . .Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor" (Psalm 8:4-5). The covenant brings a dignity to humans called into this relationship that is far more than any mere contractual arrangement could ever bring.

            In the person, the life, and the work of Jesus Christ the covenant-concept is raised to a new level, as is the divine-human relationship. The law of love becomes the definitive standard for the Christian community, since it was by demonstrating this law in his act of absolute self-giving on the cross that the Christ brought salvation. This is Paul's point when he talks about how it was in faith that Abraham became the father of many nations and reckoned to him as righteousness. It is through our faith in this new covenant made in Jesus that will bring us to that same righteousness and bring us back into the relationship for which we were destined. As Paul says, “Now the words, ‘it was reckoned to him,’ were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.”

            What is more, in the covenant of grace God pursued fallen humanity and brought it back to its original situation. Here the individual believer is given a new dignity, like the dignity given to all of Israel. The relationship entered into by God and a particular person in the covenant of grace implied a relationship between all those who had entered into the covenant, which is undertaken through Baptism. This is why we renew it each year at Easter time.

            The covenant, then, reminds us that there is such a thing as a common good, that there is a bigger picture and of which we are a part of it.. It is very important for us to remember that what happened with Abram, later Abraham, was that God took an individual and brought a people into being. It wasn’t about Abram, it was about God’s gift of relationship and the widening of that relationship from a single family to a much, much wider picture.

            So we have to remind ourselves again and again that our life in faith, our growth in spirituality isn’t ultimately about our own self-satisfaction or our own self-fulfillment. Rather, it’s about being part of the bigger picture and finding our true selves in that relationship. As William Neil points out in his book, The Difficult Sayings of Jesus:It

has been clear to every martyr what Jesus meant when he said: ‘What does a man gain by winning the whole world at the cost of his true self?’ or in the more familiar words of the King James Version: ‘What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’ For them ‘the whole world’ meant home and family, security and a peaceful life. All of this they were ready to sacrifice rather than be false to their commitment to Christ. It would have meant for them, as the author of Hebrews says, ‘crucifying the Son of God again—and making mock of his death’ (Heb. 6:6).… Self-sacrifice, self-denial, and self-giving are the hallmarks of our true selves, the men and women that God means us to be. This is the abundant life to which Jesus calls us, compared with which worldly success, fame, and fortune are tawdry baubles, which end with our bodies in the grave. But a life lived in the spirit of Christ will never die. It has a quality that is eternal.”

            God’s response to our self-focused condition is to extend God’s self to us through the covenant; a covenant, a relationship which was put into flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ. God’s response to our condition tells us just how much we’re valued. How do we respond to God’s invitation to covenant relationship? How do we demonstrate that we see a picture with a focus larger than ourselves? Perhaps by living as freely toward God as God has lived toward us in Christ? What does it profit……