After February, then what?

In a forum called United Methodist Insight dated January 23, Mark R. Holland comments on the so-called Wesley Covenant Association’s (WCA) announced plans to abandon The United Methodist Church essentially no matter what kind of decision the Special Session of General Conference makes in February.  He examines in some depth the public strategy that the WCA seems determined to follow.

I deeply lament the possibility that The United Methodist Church (UMC) might divide or even splinter.  For the life of me, I don’t understand how a denomination that has survived controversies such as slavery, lay representation, women’s ordination, uniting The Methodist Church and The Evangelical United Brethren, civil rights and interracial marriage can be looking at dissolution over the issues that the UMC is addressing in The Way Forward.  At this point there are folks far more insightful than I who are dealing with the questions at hand.

But I can’t help wondering about one form that any Silver Lining might take.  What if, in the event of a full-blown split in the UMC, that people who are not Wesleyan Methodists at heart go their own way, leaving historic Methodism, albeit numerically diminished, intact?  The UMC has long attracted clergy from other denominations because we would accept them after divorce.  The UMC Pension Plan and Guaranteed Appointment has a certain allure to pastors who are part of communions that don’t offer similar benefits.  The UMC also has a reputation (sometimes deserved) for being willing to take anyone into its ranks who merely expresses a desire to do so.

The same can be said for lay members.  When some denominations would not let people enter into full participation in congregational life because of divorce, the UMC welcomed them with open arms.  And it was right so to do.  But where we failed was in properly instructing or examining these transfers. The church has a right to ask of potential members that they understand and uphold United Methodist doctrine.

The UMC is one of those denominations that champions compromise.  One spouse has spent a lifetime in a particular denomination.  The other is a member of a different group.  Neither person is comfortable in the church of the other, and so they couple chooses the UMC as some kind of middle-of-the-road alternative.  They become titular Methodists even though there is no core agreement with our theology by either of them.

There are other choices that have little to do with embracing Wesleyanism. The choosing of membership in a local UMC might boil down to nothing more than a family moving to a community where there is no congregation of their own denomination.  The UMC becomes their alternative because it is “the only game in town.”  There are also more than a few people on our rolls who have entered for programmatic, social or even recreational reasons.  But they had no sense of choosing The United Methodist Church because it most clearly reflected their own spiritual journey.

So, what if the coming storm is a way of making Congregationalists out of Congregationalists, of making biblical literalists out of literalists and making hard-liners out of hard-liners while leaving the children of John Wesley to pursue this unique mix of knowledge and vital piety?

I know there are those that would say that I am being uncharitable.  Perhaps I am.  I will live with that judgment.  But as I began, I observed that it may be that division is inevitable.  And it may be, may be, that this is that fragment of good that can come out of a bad situation.

It seems clear that we cannot go on the way we are.

We all need a little help sometimes

In the book of Acts, chapter eight, verses 26-39 we read the story of the Apostle Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.  The Ethiopian was an official in charge of the treasury of the queen of Ethiopia. He was returning to Ethiopia after having gone to Jerusalem to worship.

I think we admit that there could be a lot to unpack here.  A eunuch would not have been allowed beyond a certain point in the Temple precincts.  Eunuchs were prohibited from entering the Temple proper.  The account says that the eunuch had been in Jerusalem “to worship” (v. 27).  Worship is a word that entails animal sacrifice in situations such as this.  And again, there are several religious firewalls in place regarding this description.  No doubt that this traveler had come to Jerusalem for devotional purposes, but the way in which this account is before us is a bit odd.

In any event, the narrative unfolds with an angel of the Lord directing Philip first to this particular road, and then to approach the chariot of the eunuch.  The official was reading (and the practice of the day was always to read aloud; reading silently was almost unheard of) from Isaiah.  Particularly his passage is from chapter 53 of that book.

When at the command of the angel Philip comes near the Ethiopian’s chariot, the apostle hears the reading and he asks a question.  He asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’  (The eunuch) replied, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ (vss. 28-29)

In this little passage, we get a profound instruction.  The eunuch was reading, but he did not comprehend all that was before him.  He has the wisdom to confess to Philip that comprehending this text was beyond him without the instruction of someone more knowledgeable.  

By inference we hear the eunuch saying that he could read such a passage over and over innumerable times, but he would never be any closer to discerning its significance.  He could commit it to memory, recite it forward and backward, but in the end have no clear understanding of these verses.

When Josh Pastner was Head Coach for The University of Memphis’ men’s basketball team, he would day “Practice doesn’t make perfect.  Perfect practice makes perfect.”  He was saying that a player could stand at the free-throw line and shoot a thousand shots a day, but with flawed technique the player would never get any better.  True improvement only comes with good coaching.

I offer this as a comment on the spiritual discipline of Bible study.  Reading the Bible repeatedly is spiritually productive only to a point.  (And I might especially add that reading flawed versions of the Bible can do extraordinary violence to one’s engaging of scripture.)  True depth of understanding – and therefore spiritual maturity – comes from consulting those who know far more about the Bible than most of us.  Books (or people) that are conversant in the original biblical languages, that comprehend the context of the composition of scripture and who can offer us insights into interpretation give us an opportunity to reach far beyond our own grasp. 

That is not to say that we should let writers of commentaries do our thinking for us.  But, if we employ such tools to assist us in forming our own conclusions, we are much better off than if we are merely throwing darts at the board of biblical understanding. 

How can I (understand), unless someone guides me?

Jesus’ Mission Statement

On the third Sunday after the Epiphany, the New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) offers as the gospel reading for the day Luke 4:14-21.  This is a narrative in which Jesus returns to his hometown and attends the synagogue service on the sabbath day.  While there, he receives the scroll that contains the writings of Isaiah.  He turns to what we know as chapter 61 and reads:

The spirit of the Lord God is upon me,

   because the Lord has anointed me;

he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed,

   to bind up the broken-hearted,

to proclaim liberty to the captives,

   and release to the prisoners;

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.   --NRSV

He then rolls the scroll up, returns it to the caretaker and sits down.  He then declares, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

The reading ends here, and in some ways that is too bad.  Next week the lectionary continues with the responses to Jesus’ proclamation, including the attempt by some to toss him over the cliff on which the town rests.

There is a lot of stuff here: Jesus' return to Nazareth and the dynamic that is present in a unique fashion between him and these particular villagers; the observation  that Jesus chooses to make such an extraordinary announcement in the synagogue (as opposed to open air or even in the Jerusalem Temple); or that he makes his announcement by first taking a text and then assuming the posture of teaching in proclaiming this news.  All of these are meditation-worthy, and I may come back to some of them in the coming days.

But what strikes me the most is not so much what Jesus says, as what he chooes not to say.  Because he cuts off the reading from the prophet in mid-sentence.  The concluding words to this section of Trito-Isaiah are: and the day of vengeance of our God.  The Messianic prophesy includes – in addition to words of good news and healing and liberation – words of vengeance.  In Advent we frequently make the point that the Israelites anticipated a great political leader, or a mighty king or a military commander who would deliver them from the burden of their oppressors.  And, part of the role of any one of these figures was that of an avenging presence.  The Messiah would be an instrument of wrath who would rain down punishment on those who had abused the people of God.  Everyone in the synagogue at Nazareth would have known that passage in full.  Part of the shock and anger that the people eventually direct toward Jesus must be, at least in part, because in proclaiming Messiahship he left out the vengeance.  Some people must have asked, “Well, if he’s not going to take names and kick can, what’s a Messiah for?”

Jesus doesn’t merely announce his Messiahship in this passage, he defines it.  His steadfast refusal to be an agent of violence and retribution should help everyone understand his nature.  If we read Isaiah a little more carefully, we find Jesus’ understanding of his mission even more compelling.

"You were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak..."

The Epistle reading for this week suggested by the New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) is 1 Corinthians 12:1-11.  This reading is part of the much longer discussion of spiritual gifts that extends through the middle of chapter 14.  12:2 reads: You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak.  It is an odd little verse that commentators frequently ignore while moving on to the greater argument about spiritual gifts that Paul develops.

But I do pause over it a moment.  The NRSV translates the phrase referring to idols as idols that could not speak.  Other versions offer the simpler dumb idols.  There is a bridge connecting verse 2 with verse 3, Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says, "Let Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.  That connection involves idols that cannot speak and people or spirits that either affirm or blaspheme verbally.  It may be a stretch, but it makes sense to me.

But the thing that captivates me is this identification of dumb idols.  It is true that idolatry is the one great transgression in both the Old and New Testaments.  Knowing that can spin Paul and his readers into the observations about oral expression.

That brings me back to idols that could not speak.  I wonder what that must be like.  I can envision people bowing down and praying before idols.  Some understandings of idols may have compelled worshippers to offer sacrifices in the presence of idols.  My question is, “How does an idol-worshiper receive affirmation?”  I suppose that if the petitioner prays for rain and then it rains that the worshiper could say, “Well, my offering must have been accepted.  The idol has granted my request.  The idol must have approved my offering.”  But, what if the idol-worshiper requests something besides favorable weather or a good harvest?  Does such a person ever ask for direction, or comfort, or other items that we do not objectively measure?

If this idolater feels like the idol’s spirit is leading them down a particular path that gets pretty subjective.  An individual could act in any manner they choose and write it off to, “Well, I feel like the idol is leading me in such-and-such a direction.”

That strikes pretty close to home.  I don’t know that there is a hair’s breadth of difference between the idol-worshiper and any Christian believer who bases their action on some ill-defined “feeling.” 

Does the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob answer prayers?  Does the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ grant petitions?  I say a resounding “yes” to these questions.  Does God give some kind of secret instruction to the few, especially to the few whose thoughts or behavior fly in the face of all we know of the nature of God?  I don’t think so.  Lacking the rending of the heavens and the voice of God booming like thunder, it is our common experience and tradition that directs us along the paths that God chooses.  As is the case with those who worship dumb idols, for people of faith a lack of clear instruction does not mean that we get to make up our own answers.

In praise of character -- and characters

Sr. Clydia Boose
1907 - 1974

It is funny how the mind works, sometimes.  The Epistle reading for this past Sunday in the New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) is 1 Corinthians 12:1-11.  The NRSV renders verse 1, “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed.”  Some older translations say, “I would not have you ignorant, brethren.”  It reminded me of The Reverend Clydia Boose.  Sister Boose, as everyone called her, was the first female elder ordained in the Memphis Conference of what was then The Methodist Church.  She was born in 1907.  She was ordained deacon in 1940 and elder in 1948.  She served local congregations until her death in 1974.  I was just starting out then. I had had her pointed out to me a time or two and had shaken her hand once before she died February 7.

What brings her to mind is a comment she made early in life about why she hadn’t married, she said, “It’s scriptural: I would not have you, ignorant brethren!” 

Methodism and the Memphis conference in particular owe Sister Boose a lot.  She opened several doors.  She kicked down a couple more.  She was a pioneer without being a crusader.  We need more folks like her today.

Sister Boose was, and I say this in all respect and care, a character.  She knew that.  She reveled in that.  That was one of the things that made her a terrific pastor.  So many of our people in leadership positions currently (I hesitate to call them “leaders”) are plain vanilla.  They have no variance of hue.  Their leadership style is to be scared of their shadows and to try with everything that is in them not to rock the boat. 

I know I sound like so many of the old curmudgeons that I swore I would never resemble, but we surely could use some characters right now.  I say that in all facets of life: government, business and the church.

I haven’t heard of a person being called a Statesman since Cordell Hull died.  “Public Servant” is a title of a bygone age.  Likewise, Church Leader is a term that no one can associate with a particular name or face.  (Quick: name an active United Methodist bishop that is not appointed to your own area!)

R. I. P., sister Boose.

The Wedding at Cana of Galilee

The Gospel reading in the New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) is John 2:1-11.  In some of our Bibles there are little section titles that describe what is in the following pericope.  Many Bibles label this tale The Wedding at Cana.  But, at least as many choose the heading The Water into Wine.  That’s fine.  There is nothing inappropriate there.  And it is the nature of the sign (John’s preferred designation over miracle).  So, I don’t quibble, I merely find it an interesting observation.

I always double-clutch when I read this narrative, or when I see it referenced.  The reason is that I have been in _way_ too many discussions about this story in which folks try to dispute the nature of the product Jesus produced.  Put simply, they deny that Jesus turned water into real wine.

It is a matter of their teetotalling leanings and a denial that Jesus could, in all righteousness, miraculously produce a beverage that contained alcohol.  In this conviction, they perform all manner of linguistic and logical gymnastics in order to “prove” that Jesus transformed the water into something like fruit juice.  Part of their argument has to do with the quality of the beverage that Jesus offered.  The steward says to the groom, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now. – John 2:10 NRSV  Their contention is that anything containing alcohol must really be undesirable in its taste, so that Jesus, in transforming the water into something else, must have given the wedding guests clear, sparkling, unadulterated juice that obviously (in their estimation) would have had a far more pleasing taste.  Their rationale goes on and on.  In the face of every bit of historical and linguistic indication they steadfastly hold to the position that Jesus would not have given the people at Cana wine.

I do from time to time encounter folks who establish their opinion and then not only cherry-pick from scripture in order to back up their position, but they will warp or misrepresent the Bible in a hardline attempt to support their stand. 

“What does the Bible say?” is my first line of inquiry in approaching life issues.  “What do I think the Bible says?” is much more shaky ground.  And when people seem to twist the witness of scripture in order to confirm a bias, they do a real violence to their argument and to any further appeal to scriptural authority they might employ.

I understand abstinence and teetotalling, I really do.  But wine is wine.  And Jesus did a really good job.

The Confession of St. Peter

In the Christian calendar, the church observes the Confession of St. Peter on January 18.  Matthew, Mark and Luke each report (with varying degrees of detail) the time in which Jesus asks his disciples what the crowds are saying about him.  He then asks the disciples themselves about their opinion.  At that point Peter makes his Confession – his affirmation – of the Messiahship of Jesus.  The synoptics variously report Peter’s words as:

Matthew 16:13-20 -- “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Mark 8:27–30 --  “You are the Messiah.”

Luke 9:18–20 --  “The Messiah of God.”

It is Matthew alone who reports Jesus’ response, both in terms of revelation and in passing Kingdom responsibility along to Peter.  But for all of the synoptic writers this is clearly a watershed moment not only for Peter, but for the church as well.

In modern times The Confession of Peter has been related to The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  The Faith and Order Movement of the World Council of Churches and the Anglican Friars of the Atonement have each advocated a time of uniting prayer since the early 20^th century.  The week has moved around the calendar a bit, but it the church now designates the week as taking place January 18 – 25.

Peter’s profession is that of all Christians.  No matter what their views on other ideas and doctrines great and small, it is the affirmation, “(Jesus is) the Christ,” that gathers Christian believers together.

Week of Prayer for Christian Unity

Did you know that January 18-25 (from Friday through Friday [?]) is The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity?  Neither did I.  If you don’t have a resource like the United Methodist Program Calendar, you may not have had any way of knowing.  I haven’t received anything from the denomination, the conference or my district promoting it in any way.  I can remember in the past receiving all manner of items related to this time.  There would be bulletin inserts and wall posters.  I would get suggested orders of worship and children’s activity books in the mail.  Clergy meetings would have time set aside to interpret this week to pastors.  It was as regular as clockwork.

Then, in THIS year, we don’t hear anything?  When fightings without and fears within threaten to rend The United Methodist Church asunder we don’t hear a whisper regarding prayer and unity?  What are the Powers That Be thinking?

It is true that the Week of Prayer has its origins in ecumenical concerns.  I don’t mean to diminish the importance or the urgency of these issues at all.  But, how do we not take advantage of a built-in apparatus for unifying prayer to encourage United Methodists to bring our concerns regarding agreement before the Throne of Grace in an organized – dare I say methodical – fashion?

So, pray for Christian Unity.  And United Methodist unity. 

You can see all that the UMC has to offer on the subject this year here.

The World Council of Churches has some info here.

The United Methodist Church Official Site links to a Roman Catholic resource for the week under the title “Ecumenical Sunday” (January 20) here.

More on the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity

This (click this link) came over the transom late yesterday.  A little more lead time would have been helpful.  As it is, this link was on the Memphis Conference Facebook page.  The rank and file who are not of the Facebook persuasion still have had no information or contact.

Ordinary Time

Monday was the first day following the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord.  As such (by most reckonings) it was the first day of Ordinary Time.  This is the liturgical season that begins immediately following the Baptism feast and it runs through Shrove Tuesday, or the day before Ash Wednesday (March 6 in 2019). 

The church calls this time after The Epiphany Ordinary Time.  (I addressed those unusual days between Epiphany and The Baptism in a post dated January 11.)  This period gets its name from the way that we number the days during this time.  We do not designate this stretch ordinary because we label this time as somehow common or dull.  Rather, the church employs this designation because of the nature of the numbering of these days.  Instead of using cardinal numbers (one, two, three) it utilizes ordinal numbers (first, second, third).  So, we call this coming Sunday, February 20, The Second Sunday After The Epiphany.

Because Ash Wednesday is a moveable feast (an observance that does not occur on the same date each year), ordinary time will be of varying duration from year to year.  Ash Wednesday can fall anywhere between February 4 and March 10, though the two extremes of the range are very rare.  The last time Ash Wednesday was on February 4 was 1818 and will next occur in 2285.  The most recent time Ash Wednesday fell on March 10 was in 1943 and will next occur in 2038.  So, the duration of ordinary time is between four and nine weeks.  In the modern liturgical usage, the first Sunday in Ordinary Time is The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord and the last Sunday is The Feast of the Transfiguration.  Obviously, there are two more days in the season before Lent begins on Ash Wednesday.

Ordinary time carries with it emphases on mission (begun with the narrative of the Wise Men visiting the infant Jesus) and spiritual growth.  The liturgical colors of the season are white (for the feast days) and green (signifying new, eternal and abundant life) for the rest of the season.  The New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) offers gospel texts that reveal the nature of Jesus Christ (in keeping with the Epiphany theme).  The epistle readings address the topics of spiritual gifts and the character of the church (in an examination of spiritual growth).

We can be deceived by looking over our shoulders at Christmas and ahead to Easter so that we think that ordinary time is a “down time,” a respite between major occurrences where nothing of significance takes place.  But it can be an extraordinary time, where the church addresses some of its most formative ideas. 

What a great time.

Of action and reaction

In these pages I stay away from secular politics.  That is both a matter of personal preference and of professional survival.  I believe that a pastor is not only allowed to speak but is bound to talk about issues of justice and the common good.  But, to jump into issues of partisan politics is inappropriate at best.

But I would make the following observations to my friends who are currently members of The United Methodist Church.  Looking at the last fifteen or so years – the Trump, Obama, Bush and even Clinton administrations – have you absolutely agreed with every policy and action of our country?  Were there instances when you disagreed strongly with a given administration, on the left or on the right?  If so, how did you respond?  Did you leave the United States, renounce your citizenship and pledge your allegiance to some other flag?

If not, what is moving you to give up on our connection?  I know that the upcoming General Conference of February 2019 is addressing issues that push a lot of hot buttons.  But, is any resolution that may come about something over which you would leave your church? 

Church affiliation is not like razor blades.  It is not meant to be disposable.  Membership vows in this communion ask, “Will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church, and uphold it with your prayers, your presence, your gifts and your service (and, more recently, with your witness)?  Those who are in good standing in the church have unanimously answered “I will” at some point in their lives. 

No matter what General Conference 2019 does, how can Methodist people not show a little faith and a little patience and see how all this shakes out at General Conference 2020?  Is this how people live their lives?  Do they throw away or abandon everything with which they do not agree one hundred per cent?  I have my differences with the UMC and the way it sometimes does things.  I have a list as long as my leg.  But, in those times when I have been at odds with the church, I have never been tempted to take my jacks and go home.  I am not lifting myself up as an example or some paragon of virtue.  I am merely saying that I don’t get it. 

Our Confirmation Ritual says, “Dearly beloved, the church is of God and will endure until the end of time…”  I know that it is not particularly saying that The United Methodist Church will persist for eternity.  But I do so hope that this is not its death knell.

Lord, have mercy.  Christ, have mercy.  Lord, have mercy.

Further thoughts on Baptism

In meditating on The Sacrament of Baptism and on The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord recently, I confess to one glaring omission.  In the midst of observing on (and lamenting over) the various disputes that arise related to these subjects I skated right past one of the crucial facets of the day.  The second reading for Sunday contained in The New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) is instructive.  That reading is Acts 8:14-17:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

The reading reminds us that central to our understanding of Christian Baptism is the concept that it is at the moment of Baptism that the God confers the Holy Spirit on the person(s) being baptized.  This may not be a Pentecost-type moment for some, but it is the understanding of The United Methodist Church and others that this is the moment in which God acts. 

The reading from Acts 8 nods to some of the complexities that surround the church’s dealing with the Samaritan believers.  It is important for us to remember that these are the fledgling days of the Christian Faith.  Doctrine and practice would be worked out and refined as time went along.  But, even allowing for this, the text is careful – even precise – in its language.  Some people in Samaria had come to faith.  That profession had led to their baptisms.  But their baptism was in the name of the Lord Jesus.  Whether this is an irregularity or a misunderstanding on the part of those administering the baptisms, we cannot say.  But, the church even in that day was careful not to re-baptize these believers.

Now, one could make the argument that, since these Samaritans did not receive Triune Baptism – baptism in the name of The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit – that their baptisms were not legitimate.  But Peter and John did not take that position.  Instead, they administered a kind of remedial grace in laying hands on the Samaritans.  In that act, the Holy Spirit came upon them. 

The details of early baptismal practice are a bit murky.  It is legitimate to point out that when the gift of The Holy Spirit initially came upon the church at The Day of Pentecost that baptism was not involved.  Within that context it is probably safe to say that at least some of the inhabitants of the Upper Room on that day had been baptized already.  According to John 4:2 (although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized) baptism was an early part of the ministry of Jesus and his disciples.  Yet, we would hardly expect to have a description of those baptisms as being Triune.  Nor would we anticipate that accounts of these acts would include the bestowing of the gift of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit as a gift to believers was not a part of the narrative at that time.  This is to say that the action of baptism in Jesus’ lifetime was worked out in time and experience in the days that immediately followed Christ’s Ascension.

In our day it is the understanding of the church that, in the act of baptism, The Holy Spirit comes to abide in the heart of the individual.  There is no perfect scheme that takes into account all situations.  In John’s Gospel, the 22nd chapter for instance, Jesus imparts The Holy Spirit by breathing on the disciples who assembled in the upper room.  

But, as the church and its members rely on our common experience as an authority in working out our understanding of God, experience teaches us that it is in baptism that God commonly chooses to give this gift.

Perhaps if we accentuated this facet of baptism more, the matters of “how much water” and “when in the life of a person” would fade away, and that the matter of grace would move front-and-center in our understanding.

The Baptism of the Lord -- February 13

You would think that this Feast Day would be straightforward.  Jesus goes to the Jordan.  John baptizes him (with or without a lot of dialog, depending on which gospel account you are reading), the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends in (some sort of) bodily form and a voice speaks.  It is the inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry.  Celebrate!  Give thanks!  End of story.

And yet, almost from the very beginning there were teachers who were proclaiming Christian baptism in the exact same terms as the baptism offered by John.  Their call was to John’s baptism, not that of Jesus and the church.  There are people within the larger church who do this same thing today.  They use John language to talk about what they call Christian baptism. 

But what was John’s proclamation?  “Repent!  Renounce your sins!  Make way for the coming of the Lord.  Prepare yourselves for the Messiah, the Christ, the one who will save you from your sins.”  Let’s be clear: “get ready” is not the same thing as “Have faith.”  There are those who claim that their belief system can trace its lineage all the way back to John the Baptist.  They say that with pride.  I don’t get it.  What has John done for them lately?  John’s baptism?  You can have it I say.  John didn’t save You.  You are not John’s disciple.  Nowhere in scripture do you hear a call to proclaim, “John the Baptist is Lord!”  Why then would you want to embrace John’s baptism?

It is true that the larger church has muddled the significance of this Sacrament through the years.  To this day there is no uniformity of opinion as to what the Rite means.  Some communions see baptism as a literal washing away of the stain of sin.  Others see it as an act of professing faith in making ready to join the church universal or a particular congregation.  This is what is meant by “believer’s baptism.”  Some congregations won't even recognize  the baptism performed by other congregations within their fellowship.  The idea is, "If we haven't baptized you, then no one has baptized you!"  

The United Methodist Church (and others) define baptism as an initiation into the Body of Christ and a claiming of the individual into the family of God.  Again, like many other groups the United Methodist Church practices the baptism of infants, with parents or sponsors taking the vows on behalf of the candidate until such time as the individual can affirm those promises for themselves.

I have a book in my library with the provocative title Baptism: The Water that Divides by Donald Bridge.  The work itself is a bit murky, but what a great title!  That which designs to unite believers is in fact one of the great points of contention within the church.  For something that Christ commanded, and that the church has normatively required from its beginnings, there is no consensus among the major faith groups as to what this means at all. 

I won’t enter the discussion about the amount of water that constitutes baptism.  I leave that issue grieving that people will split families and even congregations over what amounts to a measuring cup.

So, owning that this action of the church has no foreseeable resolution, I simply commend the day as an extraordinary one in the life and ministry of The Lord Jesus. It is worthy of our notice and our commemoration.  There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. –Ephesians 4:4-6

Lord, haste the day…

The Days Right After The Epiphany

We find ourselves in an odd stretch this week.  Epiphany fell on Sunday last.  So, there is a full week between the Epiphany observance proper and the unofficial commencement of The Season After The Epiphany.  The first Sunday after the Epiphany marks The Baptism of the Lord.  The season itself moves along – in this instance for eight weeks – before it concludes with The Transfiguration of the Lord. 

The season itself carries an emphasis on revelation and mission.   The gospel readings from the New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) during this stretch are all narratives in which Jesus reveals who he is to various audiences in a variety of ways.  They carry on the theme that began with the revelation of Jesus to the Gentiles, as that act is symbolized in the visit of the Magi in Matthew 2.

But, these days between the feasts of Epiphany and Baptism are a kind of No Man’s Land liturgically.  We are moving toward the observance of the first of the two theophanies that bookend the season.  But, we are not quite there yet.  Some older calendars marked Epiphanytide.  Most of the church now views this term as archaic.

The Daily Office Lectionary in The Book of Common Prayer marks this week with readings that tell of Jesus at the wedding in Cana, of a pair of healings, two more miracles (feeding of the multitude and walking on water) before finishing out the week with the story of the woman apprehended in adultery and a saying on discipleship.  Needless to say these readings all appear in John’s gospel. 

I would never say that any scripture portion was irrelevant.  But in these selections, there is a sense of marking time while waiting for something else.  I don’t offer an alternative.  I simply make the observation that this time has the feeling of pausing before things are revved up again.  Maybe that’s okay.  It could well be intentional.  It could be the case that the church (or the NRCL) sees the necessity for preventing things from getting too heavy while The Epiphany finishes doing its work on us.  It is the time between the ticks of a clock, the moment between the beats of a heart.  Perhaps the pause will do us good.

"The Chalking of the Doors"

There is a charming seasonal custom that dates back into the history of the church that is known as “The Chalking of the Door.”  It has its roots in a time before there were any concerns of denominationalism, and so it was simply a practice of “the church.”  Modern-day Catholicism continues this practice, but it also has adherents in other communions as well. 

It is, at root, a house blessing.  With chalk (symbolizing a common, ordinary substance and being a material that does no lasting damage to the door) the participants mark a series of symbols on the door.  This year the markings would look something like “20 † C † M † B † 19.”  The numerals are the first and last pairs of numbers that together mark the current year (2019).  The crosses are an invocation of Christian blessing.  The letters C M B indicate two things.  They are the first letters of the traditional names of the Wise Men from the East who visited the Baby Jesus in Matthew 2:1-12 (Caspar, Melchior and Balthazzar).

The letters are also the initials for the phrase Christus mansionem benedicat, which means, “May Christ bless this house.”  These blessings are part of a simple ritual that includes seasonal hymns or carols and a responsive or antiphonal invocation.  The blessing frequently includes reference to the Wise Men visiting the house of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, paying homage and offering gifts.  This accounts for the practice of annually blessing homes on or near the Day of Epiphany.

So, for all of us, in 2019 may Christ bless our houses.

January 7

I sometimes come across things that capture my fancy for no particular reason.  For instance, I found out that it was on this date in 1610 that Galileo Galilei makes his first observation of the four Galilean moons: Ganymede, Callisto, Io and Europa, although he is not able to distinguish the last two until the following day.  I have always had a mild fascination with Galileo.  I have this picture in my study

Galileo and Viviani by Tito Lessi

So, the mention of Galileo caught my eye.  It is remarkable what has happened in astronomy in the last several years.  This is what Galileo saw in 1610:

This is an image of the same bodies captured by Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) on the New Horizons spacecraft during its flyby of Jupiter in late February 2007.

My takeaway, aside from the breathtaking nature of the images, is that our understanding is always changing.  It is supreme arrogance to assume that we know all there is to know about anything.  This applies to astronomy, or theology, or life.

I hope to keep my eyes open.

The Epiphany of the Lord

On the Feast of The Epiphany there is a lot of baggage that needs to be cleared away in order to get to the heart of the matter. Much of the clutter surrounding the day does no harm, but it can obscure our view of the central concern of our observance.

For instance, our creches and our hymnody insist on three wise men.  Matthew chapter two, where the single biblical account of the visit of the wise men occurs, does nothing to enumerate these Eastern travelers.  Tradition has calculated that total because of the number of gifts that the gospel records.  Matthew says in verse 11 that they offered the child gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  There is nothing, however that indicates that there was “one wise man, one gift.” The number of visitors could have been two, and the gifts may have been presented collectively.  It is interesting to note that some Eastern Christianity practitioners give twelve as the number of wise men. Some Christian traditions name the wise men, designating them as Melchior, Gaspar and Balthasar.  The Cologne Cathedral in Germany houses a great shrine of the Magi, even purporting to house relics from “The Three Holy Kings.”

The designation Magi is the plural of Magus.  (This is the from which we receive the word “magic.”)  The Magi were priests or other adherents of Zoroastrianism in Persia.  The existence of the sect is verified from a variety of non-biblical sources.

In many modern-day manger scenes, the Wise Men play a significant symbolic role.  In some depictions, one of the three figures is quite young.  A second is middle-aged.  The third appears as a very elderly man.  The meaning is clearly that people of all ages respond to the coming of Christ into the world.  In like manner there are creches that have one wise man of fair skin, blond hair and blue eyes.  A second member of the group has olive skin and straight, dark hair.  The final traveler has very dark skin and thicker features.  These diverse characters indicate that the Savior comes not to one group, but to every nation.

That these visitors receive the title “kings” comes from scriptural references such as Isaiah 60:3 “Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn,” or Psalm 72:10 “May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts.”  Again, while the association is certainly present, the actual designation of the Eastern travelers as kings is nowhere explicitly present in Matthew.

Henry van Dyke’s The Other Wise Man is a delightful story, but it, too, serves to muddy the water a bit.  There are scores of other fictional works and seemingly countless fragments of Christian lore and legend that also take a kernel of truth and expand on it beyond the boundaries of literary precision.

So, if we set all of these things aside, what do we know?  I am not engaging in any literary-critical questions here.  I do want to take a look at what is before us in the received text.

What we have is a declaration that God is at work in order to bring about the final realization of God’s divine plan.  This will occur in spite of the most wicked expressions of opposition, such as those exhibited by King Herod.  Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah of the Jews; he is the fulfillment of Old Testament scripture; and he is the savior of the entirety of creation, in spite of any artificially-erected boundaries. 

In the early days of the church, it was Epiphany rather than Christmas that was the pre-eminent winter feast.  The revelation of worldwide salvation took precedence over the birth of the king of the Jews.

Sadly, the church now treats this great day as an ending of something, rather than a beginning.  The Epiphany comes at the conclusion of the Twelve Days of Christmas.  It has its moment as a flash in the pan and then the calendar moves on.  Even though the following eight weeks (in 2019) receive their designation as “The Season After Epiphany,” observances such as The Baptism of the Lord and The Transfiguration move to the forefront during these days.

But, today is the great Feast Day.  Let’s not let it slip away too quickly.

What will February bring?

The United Methodist Church (UMC) is facing a crisis of sorts.  I say “of sorts,” owing to the fact that no one can be certain of what our church will look like, say, this time next year.  The church will hold a special Called General Conference in February, from the 23^rd to the 16^th.  (The United Methodist Church normally convenes its General Conference every four years.  This body alone can speak for the denomination, can set policy and budget for the entire UMC and alter our communion’s Book of Discipline – our document of organization and polity.  (The Book of Discipline is ordered by numbered paragraphs [¶] rather than page references.  In this writing ¶10.4.A would designate Discipline Paragraph 104, section 4, sub-section A.)  In this instance, however, the UMC makes provision for a Called General Conference to meet in the interregnum under certain circumstances.  Our Council of Bishops has called this meeting.)

The stated issue is “human sexuality.”  The real matter at hand is how the denomination will relate to the LGBTQ community.  Currently Paragraph 304.3.1 prohibits the ordination of “self-avowed, practicing homosexuals.  The Social Principles (a series of statements in the Discipline dealing with current official teaching on a variety of issues) states:

We affirm that all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God,” and that all persons need the ministry of the church, the denomination states… The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. -- ¶65.G

These are the things that are truly on the table.  There are several suggestions as to how the church should order itself in this matter.  They range from “do nothing, make no changes” to a sweeping revision of our practices.  The final action of the Special Charge Conference (2019) will precipitate responses on a spectrum with “total dissolution of the denomination as we know it” on one end and “business as usual” on the other.

One of my major concerns is that I fear that there may be strong knee-jerk reaction by a lot of people.  So, I offer this word of calm.  It is not the case that delegates will leave 2019 having finally decided all of the issues and nuances of the question.  Anything that this body decides will require enabling legislation that will take time to implement, whatever it may be.  The UMC has its next regularly-scheduled General Conference on the calendar for May 5-15 of 2020 (2020).  The work of 2019 will fall in the lap of 2020 for fine-tuning and for legislation that 2019 had not foreseen.  I believe that we need to remember that the Conferences elected delegates who will attend 2019 in the year 2015 for attendance at the 2016 General Conference.  The Annual Conferences had no idea at the time what would come before these delegations.  I believe that the 2020 makeup will be decisively different from its predecessors.  It will fall to these folks in 2020 to shape the UMC position with any degree of permanence.  I suspect that enabling legislation will have to wait for General Conference 2024 to formalize it. 

All that is to say that I would hope that Methodist people would show some restraint in February or March of this year.  Observers say that the Queen Mary doesn’t turn on a dime.  The Queen Mary is a speedboat compared to the machinations of the UMC.  I have every hope that cooler heads will prevail and that no one will do lasting violence to our witness.