Post-Election Theology

As on who can be labeled a "progressive Christian," I'm not among those celebrating yesterday's election results. I'll admit to a certain level of disappointment and even depression over the morning headlines, but I also think that we on the right, left, or middle tend to overstate the events of the moment.

Perhaps it arises from the immediacy of our culture, with information and results available instantly with the click of a mouse or finger to the touchscreen. Or perhaps it is simply human nature to imagine the good or bad things happening to me at this moment have tremendous significance because, after all, they are happening to me.

There certainly are long term trends in our world that concern me: the growing gap between rich and poor, the way campaign financing has become a big-money, free-for-all, or the seemingly unavoidable impact of climate change. But the realization that climate change is a near scientific certainty says very little about any particular weather event. Similarly, we may not want to draw overly large conclusions from any election.

So what conclusions to draw? For me such questions are always filtered through a theological lens. That means I wonder about the ways in which religion and faith enter into elections (often in ways that distort or undermine key tenets of that religion or faith). Even more, I wonder about what the curious twists and turns of politics say about the human condition, about the power of sin to distort us, and about the possibility of that power being broken or diminished.

We live in anxious times, and fear and anxiety seem to amplify the problem of sin. Fear tends to focus me more on me and mine, making it more difficult to consider the needs of the other. From a basic, Christian perspective, that moves me away from Jesus' command to love the other as much as I love myself. But if my ability to love others requires me to have enough excess for myself that there are leftovers, then I don't really love others as myself. Neither do I really trust God. Instead I must secure mine at the expense of the other. God will not provide, and so I must, a view often expressed in that non-biblical quote, "God helps those who help themselves." (Not only is this proverb, popularized by Ben Franklin, not to be found in the Bible, but it is quite contrary to the biblical witness.)

We "progressive Christians" like to think we are better at loving the other. After all we are willing to pay higher taxes to benefit those less fortunate than us and support a higher minimum wage even if it raises prices a bit at the store or restaurant. But even if it is true that we are better at one facet of following Jesus, I suspect that we are merely myopic in different ways from those Christians celebrating yesterday's election. I don't think we are any better at the more fundamental issue of trusting ourselves to God. And so we are just as prone as those with differing views to think the sky is falling when people who disagree with us get elected.

I'm not arguing for stoicism or passivity here. Rather I'm saying that if we come to politics or the big issues of the day from a Christian perspective, we cannot measure where things stand based simply on whether I am pleased with things at this moment. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was far from passive, but his dedication to his work was rooted in a deep faith and did not come and go based on the day's headlines. Dr. King could say, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice," not because he was winning in the polls, but because he trusted in a God who is a God of justice.

That brings me back around to the question of how the the power of sin to distort and deceive us can be broken. And here I must confess to an all too typical, "progressive" problem: the tendency to think of progress as an almost entirely human enterprise. We have been prone to see Jesus as a philosopher and moral teacher divorced from his claims to be part of God's movement on the stage of history. We have been prone to embrace Christ's words on loving neighbor and lifting up the poor while ignoring and even disparaging his words on the power of God's Spirit at work in us and through us. We have imagined that the kingdom, that new day of God Jesus proclaimed, is about convincing everyone to agree with Jesus (and us). We have done far to much trusting in our powers of reason and persuasion rather than the power or God. But deep down, I know better.

And so while I am not all that happy this morning, while I do worry that there will be serious consequences from yesterday, ones that some who celebrate today will later regret, I do not despair. For I do not believe that the fate of the world or history finally and ultimately rests with us. If the Christian claim of resurrection means anything, it surely means that the very thing that seems to be the victory of forces opposed to God can become the means by which God's purposes are fulfilled.

But we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews (think "good, church folks") and foolishness to Gentiles (think everyone else), but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power and wisdom of God.  - 1 Corinthians 1:23-24

Sermon video: On Being Children and Saints

Audios of sermons and worship available on the FCPC website.

Sermon: On Being Children and Saints

1 John 3:1-3

On Being Children and Saints

James Sledge                                                               November 2, 2014 – All Saints

Some of you may be familiar with the writings of Kathleen Norris who has authored books such as Amazing Grace, Dakota: A Spiritual Geography, and The Cloister Walk. The title of that last one comes, at least in part, because Norris, a married Protestant, spent nine months as an oblate in a Benedictine monastery. The book as a chapter entitled, “The War on Metaphor.” In it Norris describes attending an event for a group of Protestant clergy, mostly Lutherans, where the poet Diane Glancy did a poetry reading. As a way of introduction, Glancy said she loved Christianity because “it was a blood religion.” The audience gasped in shock, says Norris, who goes on to say that Glancy shared how she appreciated the Christian faith’s relation to words and how words create the world we live in. But Norris worries that we Christians have lost our sense of the power of words, and especially of metaphor. She writes:

My experience with Diane (Glancy) and the clergy is one of many that confirms my suspicion that if you’re looking for a belief in the power of words to change things, to come alive and make a path for you to walk on, you’re better off with poets these days than with Christians. It’s ironic, because the scriptures of the Christian canon are full of strange metaphors that create their own reality—the “blood of the Lamb,” the “throne of grace,” the “sword of the Spirit”—and among the name for Jesus himself are “the Word” and “the Way.”

Poets believe in metaphor, and that alone sets them apart from many Christians, particularly people educated to be pastors and church workers. As one pastor of Spencer Memorial - by no means a conservative on theological or social issues - once said in a sermon, many Christians can no longer recognize that the most significant part of the first line of “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war” is the word “as.”

…This metaphoric impoverishment strikes me as ironic, partly because I’m well aware, thanks to a friend who’s a Hebrew scholar, that for all the military metaphors employed in the Old Testament, the command that Israel receives most often is to sing. I also know that the Benedictines have lived peaceably for 1500 years with a Rule that is full of terminology, imagery, and metaphors borrowed from the Roman army. [1]

I’m inclined to think that our “metaphoric impoverishment,” as Norris calls it, extends to the terms “children of God” and “child of God.” In current usage, these are often little more than flowery ways of saying “human being.” Indeed to suggest that the terms do not apply equally to all people sounds almost fundamentalist.

I can appreciate why. Especially to our metaphorically impoverished ears, where words simply impart information, to apply “child of God” in a non-universal fashion, is to engage in the worst sort of exclusivism where some people matter and some do not, where some have value, and some do not. But “child of God” is no pedestrian label.

Relationship Problems

I suppose there are exceptions, but generally, even the best relationships go through rough spots. These rough spots may be dramatic blowups, but perhaps more often they are rather mundane. Things become routine and stale. There is a sense of going through the motions with little in the way of the dynamic, exciting feelings from a previous time.

I imagine that many couples experience this, but I'm talking about the human-divine relationship. To fall in love with God/Jesus, to feel the life changing rush of the Spirit, to have one's life completely reoriented is a remarkable experience as powerful and life changing as any romantic encounter. But as with romantic love, life with God can turn routine and stale. The animating spark of the Spirit can feel absent.

The Church has not always been of much help in such things. So often faith has been reduced to believing certain things, saying the right formula, adhering to some doctrine, or showing up on Sundays. In my own Presbyterian tradition there are strong currents of intellectualism that sometimes turn faith into more philosophical exercise rather than passionate relationship. I know people who can get very passionate about philosophy and such, but I'm not sure that qualifies as a relationship.

An oft stated bit of biblical wisdom says that among the psalms, those of lament are the most numerous. But you don't hear a lot of lament in the Church. You do hear it more frequently from poets and writers and pop songs celebrating and wrestling with the difficulties and pains of human relationships. Has the Church so domesticated and institutionalized this faith business that we no longer realize its fundamentally relational dynamic?

How do you handle it when a human relationship had gotten stale, stuck, rutted, or empty? Does it work in a similar manner with God? I wonder if our faith could learn a thing or two from our love lives.

October 19 sermon video: Not a Party Without You

Audios of sermons and worship available on the FCPC website.

Hiding from God

I am currently on "study leave," one of the perks we pastors enjoy. My denomination requires that churches give their pastors at least two weeks of such leave on top of vacation. I often use this time to attend conferences or workshops, but this one is different. I had the free use of a beach condo, and so I packed up my books (or in this case my iPad with Kindle app) and headed to Myrtle Beach.

It's fairly quiet here in late October, but the weather has been lovely. I've been able to sit on the balcony in the warm sun as I read, looking up occasionally across the dunes to the water beyond. There are a few people on the beach, largely hidden by the dunes, but the pool right below me is deserted. There is almost nothing to distract me save an occasional dragonfly buzzing by. And so I've had to create my own distractions.

I have been getting a lot of reading done, but I've done less well with another piece of my time here. I told some folks I was coming here for "a time of study and personal retreat." For a pastor, the term "retreat" carries some significant spiritual connotations, the expectation that my time here would include some very deliberate time of drawing near to God. But it feels more like I've been hiding.

That thought didn't really occur to me until today. This morning was the first chilly one, and so I had been reading on the couch inside. At one point I got, refilled the coffee cup, then stepped out onto the small balcony for a moment. I stood there, leaning on the railing, and for some reason, the story of Elijah fleeing into the wilderness and ending up at Mt. Horeb came to mind. (If you're not familiar with it, the story begins at 1 Kings 19.)

In the story, Elijah is fresh off one of his greatest triumphs, but there is also a threat on his life. Considering all the wonders God had just done through Elijah on a different mountain, Mt. Carmel, it is a bit strange the Elijah falls into such a deep funk, but he does. He journeys into the wilderness, sits down, and asks to die. Eventually an angel provides food and prods him to travel to Horeb. There he finds shelter in a cave, but his depression seems little improved.

My own back story and situation have little in common with Elijah, but still the image of emerging from the cave struck me as I leaned on the balcony railing. There was no violent wind, no earthquake or fire. There wasn't even a "sound of sheer silence," what older translations rendered "a still, small voice." The sound of the waves was enough that no one would call it silent, but is was still. And I could not help but wonder if God didn't pose the same question to me long ago spoken to the prophet. "What are you doing here?"

What am I doing here? What am I up to? I'm on study leave, of course, but the question is bigger than that, just as it was for Elijah. I imagine it's the sort of question we are all meant to wrestle with at times. Perhaps we even need to be in a bad, depressed, uncertain, confused, or similar place for the question to have the required poignancy. Just what is it we are up to? And along with that, what are we supposed to be up to?

Elijah snaps out of his funk when God gives him work to do and sends him on his way. I suspect that God's "What are you doing here?" question is always connected to a calling, to what it is we're supposed to be doing. It's easy to imagine this being only for larger than life characters such as biblical prophets, but I'm convinced it's equally true for pastors and every other sort of regular person of faith. I wish God would be as obvious as in the Elijah story. Then again, maybe that's just the story's way of making its point clear. Maybe Elijah struggled to hear God a much as I do. After all, he got depressed enough to run away and want to die.

What are you doing here, James? And what are you doing, whoever and wherever you are? I think there is always a command that follows the question, a call to "Go." And somewhere in that "Go" is what it means to be fully alive.

Sermon: Not a Party Without You

Luke 15:1-2, 11-32

Not a Party Without You

James Sledge                                                   October 19, 2014 (Stewardship 3)

How many of you enjoy a good dinner party or a big cookout or a great wedding reception with lots of good food and drink? I like nothing better than a gathering of friends enjoying great food and good wine. I’ve been to a few such parties and gatherings where I’m tempted to sound like a commercial and say, “Life doesn’t get any better than this.”

Turns out Jesus thought much the same. When he wants to talk about the coming of God’s new day, he doesn’t use the image of prophets like Isaiah who spoke of a peaceable kingdom where “the wolf shall live with the lamb.”  Instead Jesus speaks of a great wedding banquet.

Wedding were the social occasions of Jesus’ day. They were often huge, lavish events that lasted for a week, and Jesus uses them as an image of the day that is to come. “People will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God,” says Jesus. The book of Revelation sounds a similar note as it moves to its joyful conclusion. “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

In the early church, worship included a meal where the Lord’s Supper was celebrated. The imagery is largely lost in our day, but the church gathered at table understood itself to be participating in a preview of the great banquet to come. We still proclaim, “This is the joyful feast,” even if our meager communion elements look little like a grand party.

If a sociologist who knew nothing of Christianity were to study American congregations, I wonder if she would ever conclude that our faith anticipates a grand, extravagant party. Christian faith in our country is so individualistic, about my salvation or my spirituality. People can be members in good standing at most churches with little sense of a joyful, community gathered for a feast. Many seem uninterested in joining a party.

Sermon video: Citizens and First Century Stewardship Problems

Audios of sermons and worship available on the FCPC website.

Sermon: Citizens and First Century Stewardship Problems

2 Corinthians 9:1-15

Citizens and First Century Stewardship Problems

James Sledge                                                   October 12, 2014 (Stewardship 2)

Comedian and actor Bob Newhart is probably known better today for roles such as the elf father in Will Ferrell’s movie Elf or guest appearances on “The Big Bang Theory,” for which he won an Emmy last year. Some likely recall a couple of different Bob Newhart TV shows. And if you’re my age and older, you may remember that he started as a standup comedian, and his signature bit was the one-sided phone conversation.

Newhart, with his slow, deadpan delivery, is a bit of a comic oddity, a straight-man who gets the laughs. That slow delivery allows people to supply the punchline, to imagine the unseen person on the other end of the phone providing it. If you’ve never seen a Newhart phone bit, you should watch a YouTube video of him.

I mention Newhart and his phone routines because we encounter something similar with Paul’s letters. Not that there’s much comedy, but these are one-sided conversations. We hear Paul responding to questions, problems, controversies, situations, and events without having much specific knowledge of those things. We must do some filling in the gaps based on the side of the conversation we can hear.

“Now it is not necessary for me to write to you about the ministry to the saints, for I know your eagerness…” Of course for us, it’s not at first clear what this ministry to the saints might be, why it’s not necessary for Paul to write about it, or why he does, in fact, write a great deal about it.

The ministry to the saints is apparently an offering Paul is collecting for the church in Jerusalem. Paul’s work on this offering shows up in several of his letters, including a previous one to those in Corinth. It’s not clear exactly what the need was, but Paul has obviously placed a great deal of importance on helping the Christians there.

It’s worth recalling that Paul is not always on the best of terms with the folks in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Christians are Jewish, and they require any non-Jews who want to join them to become Jewish first, adopt Jewish dietary restrictions and males be circumcised. But Paul, although he is Jewish, has been starting non-Jewish churches in places like Corinth without requiring circumcision or dietary restrictions. He even insists these not be done.

Yet Paul has no desire to separate from the Jewish Christians or to start a different, non-Jewish faith. Paul understands Jesus as God’s way of joining Gentiles to God’s salvation story that runs through Israel, and he sees the offering for the needy Jewish Christians in Jerusalem as a tangible witness to their unity in Christ. He is excited about this opportunity to demonstrate this unity that they have in Jesus despite their significant theological difficulties.

Apparently the Corinthians were excited, too. Or at least they had been. Now, Paul seems worried that things have changed. He’s bragged about their enthusiastic support of the offering, inspiring others in the process, but will the Corinthians follow through?

And here Paul runs smack into a basic stewardship problem. On the one hand, there is the practical matter of needed funds. He’s made a commitment to help needy Christians in Jerusalem and is determined to keep that commitment. He’s even willing to do a bit of arm twisting, saying both he and the Corinthians will be humiliated if the offering is not ready.

But on the other hand, simply avoiding humiliation and providing funds is not what Paul is after. This explains the tension in Paul’s appeal, and in many church stewardship campaigns. The money is needed, and Paul is willing to work hard to get it. But Paul also wants the Corinthians to discover something deeper. He wants them to be the cheerful, happy, joyful givers that God loves.

Now it may sound hard to believe, but I did not originally notice the connection between today’s reading from 2 Corinthians and this year’s stewardship theme, “Our Community of Joyful Givers.” I’m not sure how I missed it, but I did. When I finally did notice, I went back and read the passage over and over again, wondering just what makes for cheerful, joyful givers rather than reluctant, begrudging ones.

Sermon video from Oct. 5: Falling into God

Audios of sermons and worship available on the FCPC website.

Make Me Happy, God

Happy are those whose help is the God of Jacob,
     whose hope is in the LORD their God,
who made heaven and earth,
     the sea, and all that is in them; Psalm 146:5-6

If you enjoy trite theology, join Facebook. And you don't need to seek it out. Just "friend" enough folks, and it will find you. Some good stuff may find you, too, but you are sure to see plenty of posters and pictures with pithy sayings such as "God is about to make your greatest pains become your greatest strengths." Perhaps. Or perhaps your greatest pain is some dreadful disease that will shortly kill you. I'm not suggesting that God can't do anything with you beyond that, but I'm not sure that's the same as turning your Alzheimer's or cancer into a great strength.

Sometimes Facebook theology posters feature a scripture verse, but rarely with much context. I don't that I've seen one using today's psalm, but it could work. "Happy are those whose help is in the God of Jacob" plastered over a big smiley face. I don't dispute the psalm, but it turns out that God sometimes defines happiness much differently than I do. Read the entire psalm and you'll get a better sense of that. Jesus' beatitudes offer some more insights.

Of course trite theology is not restricted to Facebook. In fact, most all of us lapse into it at times. We imagine that what we want or what we are trying to do is somehow synonymous with what God wants. And so we pray that God would heal our illness or help our congregations grow and deal with their financial difficulties (which is all well and good). But if we or our congregations don't get better, we may be left wondering what is wrong with our faith or what is wrong with God.

I think that trite theology, both the sort on Facebook and the sort in my life, often arises from a religious life motivated by "my good." I want something that I think only God can give me, and now I have to figure out how to get God to give it to me. But any faith that starts with me rather than God is bound to get off track.

I do think that God wants us to be happy or content or fulfilled or something along those lines, but I'm not so sure that we can ever get there by pursuing those things, by making them our goal. Jesus talks about the need to deny ourselves and lose our lives in order to find true life. But my own life, along with all that trite theology on Facebook, shows just how hard it is to trust Jesus on this one.

Click to learn more about the lectionary.

Sermon: Falling into God

Philippians 3:4b-14

Falling into God

James Sledge                                                             October 5, 2014 (Stewardship1)

Seminary students sometimes have a bit of nerdy fun translating today’s Philippians passage. When Paul says the immense value of knowing Jesus has made all he once valued “rubbish,” the word he uses has a bit more shock value. One Greek dictionary defines it simply as “dung, excrement.” And so at least one seminarian in any class will inevitably translate it using a four letter word I can’t repeat here.

But what is it that would make Paul so thoroughly reassess his former life? Despite how large Paul looms over the New Testament, I’m not sure the Church – and especially the Protestant Church – has always had the best answer.

Heavily influenced by Martin Luther, Protestants have typically understood Paul’s experience, and so salvation and conversion, as rescue from some failed past. This was Luther’s personal experience. As a priest, he was racked by feelings of guilt, sure he could never follow Jesus well enough or confess his failings fully enough to be acceptable. But Paul’s writings on grace, on how restored relationship with God is a gift and not earned, freed Luther from his guilty past.

Five hundred years later, Luther’s notion of faith and salvation as this sort of rescue still exerts great influence on Protestant theology and thought, even if it fails to connect with many in pews. One reason lifelong Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. say they’ve never had a “conversion experience” is because they understand it as rescue, but they’ve never really thought they needed rescue, having grown up in the church.

But it turns out that Martin Luther’s faith experience did not mirror Paul’s. Unlike Luther, Paul never felt oppressed by God’s law. He wasn’t seeking freedom from guilt and worry. In our reading this morning, he describes himself so, “…as to righteous under the law, blameless.” That doesn’t mean he thought he was perfect. It simply means he tried diligently to live a life ordered by God’s law, and could be forgiven when he failed.

But now that he is “in Christ,” Paul views everything from his past in a new light. And many of us have had a similar experience even if we’ve never had a religious conversion: the experience of falling in love.