Sermon for: January 13, 2008 [Epiphany 1_Baptism of Christ
Brian McHugh, priest & vicar
[Is 42:1-9][Ps 29][Acts 10:34-43][Matt 3:13-17]
I often hear human beings begging God to help them. And I often hear people complaining that God doesn’t help them. Yet it seems to me that one of the major problems in our relationship with God is that we reject God and what God wants to do, will do, or can do for us. Given what a relationship with God can mean for our lives, I am not surprised.
What happens to Jesus when he comes to John in the wilderness to be baptized happens to Him a lot. [1] Matthew presents Jesus as someone Who knows that God has sent Him to bring the message of salvation to God’s people. In a very public setting where many will see it, Jesus comes to John to be baptized with John’s baptism of water for repentance so that He can publically begin His ministry and preach His Gospel. But John says No. John says, “I need to be baptized by You; why would You be coming to me?”[2] Jesus has to tell John to do it. Jesus has to make it clear that John must allow Jesus to, in a sense, serve him if God’s purpose is to be fulfilled.
This will happen again and again. Jesus comes to His friends Mary and Martha because their brother Lazarus had died. When Jesus is told that His friend Lazarus is deathly ill, He doesn’t go directly to him. He knows what He will do and the effect it will have. When Jesus arrives at Martha and Mary’s, He says He will go to Lazarus’s grave. By their reactions, the sisters gently show that they are not ready to accept what Jesus can offer. One says that she knows that if Jesus had come earlier her brother would not have died – and that he will rise again on the last day. The other reminds Him that Lazarus has been dead for days. Dead is dead. They wonder how Jesus can help, but perhaps because they have been friends they have some hope.
And Peter of course. I think there is a telling reason why Peter is the chief of the apostles. He is so very human, so very like us. At the last meal that they share together, Jesus washes the disciples’ feet. He has something very important to teach them by doing so. But you remember Peter’s answer: “No, Lord”, You will never wash my feet!” Pushing Jesus away. The hesitancy of those close to Jesus not to allow Him to minister to them is heightened by the fact that so many strangers in real need do let Him touch them and heal them and give them new life though both His acts and His teachings.
What about you and me? Are we open to the ways in which God-in-Christ can serve us, help us? My experience is that often we are not. Is it because we think we are unworthy, consciously or unconsciously? This could be one reason. Lots of people in Scripture thought so. And many of the ones who thought they were worthy, like the religious establishment, are pretty unpleasant.
This is where the Mystery of the Incarnation comes in. Its mythical-message is that God chooses to come and live among us and share in our humanity. This is a pretty improbable message, especially if we think that we are not worth it. We are fallible, often uncaring, unloving, selfish, thoughtless people. Why would the God of Unconditional Love want to share in our humanity? But the Mystery of The Incarnation says that God does. And our liturgy teaches us this too. There is that lovely line in our present Book of Common Prayer, in Eucharistic Prayer B: “In Him You have delivered us from evil, and made us worthy to stand before You”. This is the amazing message of “Christ-in-Us”.
But maybe there’s a second reason we don’t really want to embrace the message, worthy or not. Baptism is a sacrament that plunges us into the waters of Incarnation. Baptism requires of us that we accept the God Who shares our Life, and that we live our lives accordingly. Baptism requires of us that we accept our worthiness, and let God minister to us, pronounce us worthy. But the problem is - this will change us. This will ask us to strive, each in our own unique way, by our own determination and aided by grace, to be the person God created us to be - like Him, like His Christ. This is scary. Most of the time most of us prefer the devil we know to the devil we don’t. And so we put up with a World that can get pretty messy and discouraging. We make do with muddling along. It’s too challenging to think about being healed or changed or given new life. Like John, like Peter, like Mary & Martha, we often reach out for, but at the same time push God away. When Jesus asked John to baptize Him, the people would see that this was a serious issue. Baptism was not just something to do because everyone was doing it; not just something to do to hedge our bets about staying on God’s good side while living the same old way.
If we let God serve us, if we let God be our Saviour and Liberator and Messiah, it’s a serious business. We must grow and change. We must let go of old ideas which limit our own personal lives and our understanding of family, community and culture. We will embrace new ideas about neighbor, family, friendship, male & female, dignity, respect, poverty, war, mortality, gender roles, success, greatness - all those things that Jesus’ teachings are full of.
Jesus says to John about the baptism: "Do it. God's work, putting things right all these centuries, is coming together right now in this baptism." Oh yes: the baptism of Jesus is the opening salvo of Jesus’ Gospel and Messiahship. It’s going to be a bumpy ride if we choose to take up our Cross and follow Him and become fully human. But I know what I want. And believe me, we all would have more glorious lives and a more blessed human community is we really opened our hearts and lives to the God Who serves us in Love.
Remember what Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Christianity. He said, “I think is a wonderful thing; I hope someone tries it sometime.” I hope we/you all know from coming to worship how much we are loved. Let’s us “try it”, take the next steps towards letting God serve us, heal us, give us Life.
[1] As the Rev. Barbara Crafton says
[2] Matt 3:13
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Brian’s Reflection: Saturday, January 12, 2008
The proper function of man is to live, not to exist.
I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them.
I shall use my time.
- Jack London, author, born Jack Griffith on
this day in San Francisco, 1876
The issue of when to die – and, by corollary, the issue of what is Life and how to live it - is becoming, I think, the issue of the age. At least in countries that have the whatever that allows such questions to come to the fore. I suspect that if you are scrabbling for potato peels in Darfur, there are other things to think about.
As a priest, I often ask people what they want to do when Life becomes difficult, or when the “quality of Life” becomes unacceptable. No one, no one, has ever said to me, “I am going to do everything I can to stay alive, no matter how horrible or painful Life is”. Never. Almost everyone I ask says, “When there is no quality to my life as I determine it, I am out of here”. Some have ways they are planning, others have no clue. Only a couple of people have ever said that they are dealing with the issue of whether or not it is wrong to end one’s life – and they were both former Roman Catholics, who were clearly taught that “suicide” was a sin that would merit Hell.
When people ask me the question, I say – with a smile, and with humour, and with a hint of slyness, and a hint of avoidance, “It’s a huge pitcher of Black Russians and the hot tub for me!” Indeed, my friend Sheldon and I have a giddy pact.
I’m not going to pontificate on this. Simply, it is an issue we are all going to have to deal with, at a stage when “modern medicine” can keep us biologically alive for years in a coma.
How as a boy I loved “The Call of the Wild” by Jack London, first serialized in the Saturday Evening Post” in 1903!! I think I read it several times. I am in agreement with Mr. London. When I will die, or how, is not a primary worry of my life. Agatha Christie, who died on this day in 1976, once said, I live now on borrowed time, waiting in the anteroom for the summons that will inevitably come. And then - I go on to the next thing, whatever it is. One doesn't, luckily, have to bother about that. I’m with her too; all I really know about the Afterlife is that it resides in the presence of a good and loving Creator – so who’s to worry. Things will get gently and justly sorted out then.
As London says, the point – especially in our times with all out technology – is not to exist but to live. And to live honestly. “Retirement”, for me, will be not about “length of days” in unemployed bliss. It will be about recklessly spending my life being myself and doing what I believe to be important. Like Dom Odo Cassel, I hope to drop dead at the altar having just proclaimed the Easter Gospel.
So who wouldn’t want to retire?! You can do just as much “using your time” poor or rich or with whatever resources you have.
Brian+
The proper function of man is to live, not to exist.
I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them.
I shall use my time.
- Jack London, author, born Jack Griffith on
this day in San Francisco, 1876
The issue of when to die – and, by corollary, the issue of what is Life and how to live it - is becoming, I think, the issue of the age. At least in countries that have the whatever that allows such questions to come to the fore. I suspect that if you are scrabbling for potato peels in Darfur, there are other things to think about.
As a priest, I often ask people what they want to do when Life becomes difficult, or when the “quality of Life” becomes unacceptable. No one, no one, has ever said to me, “I am going to do everything I can to stay alive, no matter how horrible or painful Life is”. Never. Almost everyone I ask says, “When there is no quality to my life as I determine it, I am out of here”. Some have ways they are planning, others have no clue. Only a couple of people have ever said that they are dealing with the issue of whether or not it is wrong to end one’s life – and they were both former Roman Catholics, who were clearly taught that “suicide” was a sin that would merit Hell.
When people ask me the question, I say – with a smile, and with humour, and with a hint of slyness, and a hint of avoidance, “It’s a huge pitcher of Black Russians and the hot tub for me!” Indeed, my friend Sheldon and I have a giddy pact.
I’m not going to pontificate on this. Simply, it is an issue we are all going to have to deal with, at a stage when “modern medicine” can keep us biologically alive for years in a coma.
How as a boy I loved “The Call of the Wild” by Jack London, first serialized in the Saturday Evening Post” in 1903!! I think I read it several times. I am in agreement with Mr. London. When I will die, or how, is not a primary worry of my life. Agatha Christie, who died on this day in 1976, once said, I live now on borrowed time, waiting in the anteroom for the summons that will inevitably come. And then - I go on to the next thing, whatever it is. One doesn't, luckily, have to bother about that. I’m with her too; all I really know about the Afterlife is that it resides in the presence of a good and loving Creator – so who’s to worry. Things will get gently and justly sorted out then.
As London says, the point – especially in our times with all out technology – is not to exist but to live. And to live honestly. “Retirement”, for me, will be not about “length of days” in unemployed bliss. It will be about recklessly spending my life being myself and doing what I believe to be important. Like Dom Odo Cassel, I hope to drop dead at the altar having just proclaimed the Easter Gospel.
So who wouldn’t want to retire?! You can do just as much “using your time” poor or rich or with whatever resources you have.
Brian+
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Brian’s Reflection: Friday, January 11, 2008
The god whom science recognizes must be a God of
universal laws exclusively, a God who does a wholesale,
not a retail business. He cannot accommodate his
processes to the convenience of individuals.
- William James, philosopher, born on this day, 1842
“Whom science recognizes”? Oh no. Whom theology recognizes. Whom common sense recognizes. Whom Justice recognizes. Whom Compassion recognizes.
There are few things more repugnant to me than a concept or understanding of God which says that God gives or refrains from giving things to people by arbitrary choice. Like health, or illness. If I ever did believe it – and I doubt it – I certainly do not believe it now. Nor do I believe that God is in the “retail” business of rewarding the Good and punishing the Bad.
“God” does only one thing. Offer the light of truth and reality to our lives. Another way to say it: Be with us in whatever Valley of the Shadow of Death or Valley of Delights we walk. Why? To show us the way to Charity and to Wholeness. The choice is ours. God does not force anything on us. God is never about force or coercion. In the end, where we end up is our own choice, our own acceptance or rejection.
There are a lot of expressions of “religion” these days which promulgate a “retail” God.
I just laugh, if ruefully.
Brian+
The god whom science recognizes must be a God of
universal laws exclusively, a God who does a wholesale,
not a retail business. He cannot accommodate his
processes to the convenience of individuals.
- William James, philosopher, born on this day, 1842
“Whom science recognizes”? Oh no. Whom theology recognizes. Whom common sense recognizes. Whom Justice recognizes. Whom Compassion recognizes.
There are few things more repugnant to me than a concept or understanding of God which says that God gives or refrains from giving things to people by arbitrary choice. Like health, or illness. If I ever did believe it – and I doubt it – I certainly do not believe it now. Nor do I believe that God is in the “retail” business of rewarding the Good and punishing the Bad.
“God” does only one thing. Offer the light of truth and reality to our lives. Another way to say it: Be with us in whatever Valley of the Shadow of Death or Valley of Delights we walk. Why? To show us the way to Charity and to Wholeness. The choice is ours. God does not force anything on us. God is never about force or coercion. In the end, where we end up is our own choice, our own acceptance or rejection.
There are a lot of expressions of “religion” these days which promulgate a “retail” God.
I just laugh, if ruefully.
Brian+
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Brian’s Reflection: Thursday, January 10, 2008
But when he came to the side of the table where the bread and wine were, he bowed himself seven times, and then, after the reading of many prayers by himself ….. he himself came near the bread ….. and then bowed very low three times towards it and the table ….. Then he laid his hand upon the gilt cup, which was full of wine, with a cover open it. So soon as he had pulled the cup a little nearer to him, he let the cup go, flew back and bowed again three times towards it.
- William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, on his feast day (died 1645)
Well, one should always have a little amusement now and then! Here in all his finery is William Laud, who was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Charles II. In a virulently (my adjective! – does this expose my leanings???) Puritan age, he was strongly “catholic” in his devotional and theological leanings. The description above was, of course, written by one of his most virulent Puritan foes. Anyway, Laud managed to become bishop of three dioceses and then of Canterbury. He had several Puritans who “vilified” either him or his ideas horribly mutilated (ears chopped off and noses split) and imprisoned. And now he is a “saint” in the Anglican and Episcopal Kalendar. “Saint” means, to “us”, someone striving to live their faith with commitment and devotion. Shows you how irenic we Anglicans are – or were, until the Episcopal Church-bashing Third-Worlders ….. well, never mind. Laud was eventually clapped into the Tower and executed. Hence a “martyr” - though I think he would have shuddered at the thought of many virgins as a reward, being in essence a prig.
Laud, by the way, is the man who gave us either the gift or the curse of the altar rail. He put one up in Canterbury Cathedral to keep the wandering livestock and their imprudent manners away from the altar. (So the story goes.)
What about those ecclesiastical duds of his! Especially the hat – known as a “Canterbury Cap”. I was contemplating whether or not I should affect this style. On reflection ….. no. However, it is reported that Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth, was installed to his office wearing a “cassock of light black wool and a floor-length tippet (preaching scarf) of sable fur”. More my style.
Have a laugh. What a bunch we are!
Brian+
But when he came to the side of the table where the bread and wine were, he bowed himself seven times, and then, after the reading of many prayers by himself ….. he himself came near the bread ….. and then bowed very low three times towards it and the table ….. Then he laid his hand upon the gilt cup, which was full of wine, with a cover open it. So soon as he had pulled the cup a little nearer to him, he let the cup go, flew back and bowed again three times towards it.
- William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, on his feast day (died 1645)
Well, one should always have a little amusement now and then! Here in all his finery is William Laud, who was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Charles II. In a virulently (my adjective! – does this expose my leanings???) Puritan age, he was strongly “catholic” in his devotional and theological leanings. The description above was, of course, written by one of his most virulent Puritan foes. Anyway, Laud managed to become bishop of three dioceses and then of Canterbury. He had several Puritans who “vilified” either him or his ideas horribly mutilated (ears chopped off and noses split) and imprisoned. And now he is a “saint” in the Anglican and Episcopal Kalendar. “Saint” means, to “us”, someone striving to live their faith with commitment and devotion. Shows you how irenic we Anglicans are – or were, until the Episcopal Church-bashing Third-Worlders ….. well, never mind. Laud was eventually clapped into the Tower and executed. Hence a “martyr” - though I think he would have shuddered at the thought of many virgins as a reward, being in essence a prig.
Laud, by the way, is the man who gave us either the gift or the curse of the altar rail. He put one up in Canterbury Cathedral to keep the wandering livestock and their imprudent manners away from the altar. (So the story goes.)
What about those ecclesiastical duds of his! Especially the hat – known as a “Canterbury Cap”. I was contemplating whether or not I should affect this style. On reflection ….. no. However, it is reported that Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Elizabeth, was installed to his office wearing a “cassock of light black wool and a floor-length tippet (preaching scarf) of sable fur”. More my style.
Have a laugh. What a bunch we are!
Brian+
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Brian’s Reflection: Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The best index to a person's character is(a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and(b) how he treats people who can't fight back.
- “Dear Abby” (Abigail Van Buren), whose
column began on this day, 1956
Hang on gang. This will be a little ….. brusque.
“The poor” are a good example of those who meet both categories. Which is why Jesus had so much to say about how “the poor” are treated. He wasn’t just saying it was “nice” to be concerned about the poor. Or optional. He was saying that we are judged by it on the scale of integrity, character, humanity.
The “Poor” includes a lot of categories.
Which is why torture is so profoundly, shockingly disgusting. In my view as a Christian, anyone who tortures – for whatever reason or justification or rationalization - automatically becomes sub-human. Apparently many people, including in America, seem willing to justify it. Or to accept their sub-humanity in the face of terrorism.
Now. Can you imagine Jesus saying, “This woman doesn’t believe in my religion, and if she doesn’t she is going to hell, so we had better put her on the rack until she accepts me as Lord and Saviour” ?
Many of Jesus’ followers over the millennia have done so, including many in America these days who claim that they are followers of the Prince of Peace and that America is a “Christian Nation”, but who support torture.
Let’s get real folks. Can you see Jesus as a torturer? Recall what He said, “What you do to the least of these, you do to Me”. As I understand it, “the least of these” includes what Abby calls those “who can’t do us any good” or those who as prisoners “can’t fight back”. There are a lot of people who fall into those categories – but I shall refrain from naming any lest I be accused of “politicizing”.
But you know who they are.
Brian+
The best index to a person's character is(a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and(b) how he treats people who can't fight back.
- “Dear Abby” (Abigail Van Buren), whose
column began on this day, 1956
Hang on gang. This will be a little ….. brusque.
“The poor” are a good example of those who meet both categories. Which is why Jesus had so much to say about how “the poor” are treated. He wasn’t just saying it was “nice” to be concerned about the poor. Or optional. He was saying that we are judged by it on the scale of integrity, character, humanity.
The “Poor” includes a lot of categories.
Which is why torture is so profoundly, shockingly disgusting. In my view as a Christian, anyone who tortures – for whatever reason or justification or rationalization - automatically becomes sub-human. Apparently many people, including in America, seem willing to justify it. Or to accept their sub-humanity in the face of terrorism.
Now. Can you imagine Jesus saying, “This woman doesn’t believe in my religion, and if she doesn’t she is going to hell, so we had better put her on the rack until she accepts me as Lord and Saviour” ?
Many of Jesus’ followers over the millennia have done so, including many in America these days who claim that they are followers of the Prince of Peace and that America is a “Christian Nation”, but who support torture.
Let’s get real folks. Can you see Jesus as a torturer? Recall what He said, “What you do to the least of these, you do to Me”. As I understand it, “the least of these” includes what Abby calls those “who can’t do us any good” or those who as prisoners “can’t fight back”. There are a lot of people who fall into those categories – but I shall refrain from naming any lest I be accused of “politicizing”.
But you know who they are.
Brian+
Brian’s Reflection: Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The best index to a person's character is(a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and(b) how he treats people who can't fight back.
- “Dear Abby” (Abigail Van Buren), whose
column began on this day, 1956
Hang on gang. This will be a little ….. brusque.
“The poor” are a good example of those who meet both categories. Which is why Jesus had so much to say about how “the poor” are treated. He wasn’t just saying it was “nice” to be concerned about the poor. Or optional. He was saying that we are judged by it on the scale of integrity, character, humanity.
The “Poor” includes a lot of categories.
Which is why torture is so profoundly, shockingly disgusting. In my view as a Christian, anyone who tortures – for whatever reason or justification or rationalization - automatically becomes sub-human. Apparently many people, including in America, seem willing to justify it. Or to accept their sub-humanity in the face of terrorism.
Now. Can you imagine Jesus saying, “This woman doesn’t believe in my religion, and if she doesn’t she is going to hell, so we had better put her on the rack until she accepts me as Lord and Saviour” ?
Many of Jesus’ followers over the millennia have done so, including many in America these days who claim that they are followers of the Prince of Peace and that America is a “Christian Nation”, but who support torture.
Let’s get real folks. Can you see Jesus as a torturer? Recall what He said, “What you do to the least of these, you do to Me”. As I understand it, “the least of these” includes what Abby calls those “who can’t do us any good” or those who as prisoners “can’t fight back”. There are a lot of people who fall into those categories – but I shall refrain from naming any lest I be accused of “politicizing”.
But you know who they are.
Brian+
The best index to a person's character is(a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and(b) how he treats people who can't fight back.
- “Dear Abby” (Abigail Van Buren), whose
column began on this day, 1956
Hang on gang. This will be a little ….. brusque.
“The poor” are a good example of those who meet both categories. Which is why Jesus had so much to say about how “the poor” are treated. He wasn’t just saying it was “nice” to be concerned about the poor. Or optional. He was saying that we are judged by it on the scale of integrity, character, humanity.
The “Poor” includes a lot of categories.
Which is why torture is so profoundly, shockingly disgusting. In my view as a Christian, anyone who tortures – for whatever reason or justification or rationalization - automatically becomes sub-human. Apparently many people, including in America, seem willing to justify it. Or to accept their sub-humanity in the face of terrorism.
Now. Can you imagine Jesus saying, “This woman doesn’t believe in my religion, and if she doesn’t she is going to hell, so we had better put her on the rack until she accepts me as Lord and Saviour” ?
Many of Jesus’ followers over the millennia have done so, including many in America these days who claim that they are followers of the Prince of Peace and that America is a “Christian Nation”, but who support torture.
Let’s get real folks. Can you see Jesus as a torturer? Recall what He said, “What you do to the least of these, you do to Me”. As I understand it, “the least of these” includes what Abby calls those “who can’t do us any good” or those who as prisoners “can’t fight back”. There are a lot of people who fall into those categories – but I shall refrain from naming any lest I be accused of “politicizing”.
But you know who they are.
Brian+
Monday, January 7, 2008
Brian’s Reflection: Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The image is one thing and the human being is another.
It's very hard to live up to an image, put it that way.
- Elvis Presley, born on this day, 1935
Well, Elvis hits it right on the head, yes? I’m sure he was just thinking of himself – what he had to deal with in terms of being Elvis, and what his fans expected him to be. At some level or other, every one of us has to confront this issue. Who are we. Are we being ourselves, or are we letting others “tell us” who they want us to be. How much time do we spend trying to meet others’ expectations?
Christianity, along with other religions, really ups the ante! We are called to be Christlike! Now, if that doesn’t make you feel stressed, nothing will.
But let’s think about this. We seem to think that being Christlike means we have to be exactly like Jesus, behave exactly as He did, love exactly as He did. I don’t think so. There isn’t only one image or definition of “Christlike”. And it doesn’t mean that to be Christlike we can’t be ourselves, the unique self that God made each of us. What it does mean – to me anyway – is that we become “as Christ” in our own unique and individual way. Jesus’ great love may have led Him to a death on Calvary, led him to the Cross - but each of us will have our own “Calvary” and our own “Cross” on the path to becoming a loving human being.
An imposed “image” is false. An “image” discovered in the mystery of finding our unique Self , and embraced, is more what I think God had in mind.
Elvis – and it happens to many – got lost in the expectations of others. Let’s not go there.
Brian+
The image is one thing and the human being is another.
It's very hard to live up to an image, put it that way.
- Elvis Presley, born on this day, 1935
Well, Elvis hits it right on the head, yes? I’m sure he was just thinking of himself – what he had to deal with in terms of being Elvis, and what his fans expected him to be. At some level or other, every one of us has to confront this issue. Who are we. Are we being ourselves, or are we letting others “tell us” who they want us to be. How much time do we spend trying to meet others’ expectations?
Christianity, along with other religions, really ups the ante! We are called to be Christlike! Now, if that doesn’t make you feel stressed, nothing will.
But let’s think about this. We seem to think that being Christlike means we have to be exactly like Jesus, behave exactly as He did, love exactly as He did. I don’t think so. There isn’t only one image or definition of “Christlike”. And it doesn’t mean that to be Christlike we can’t be ourselves, the unique self that God made each of us. What it does mean – to me anyway – is that we become “as Christ” in our own unique and individual way. Jesus’ great love may have led Him to a death on Calvary, led him to the Cross - but each of us will have our own “Calvary” and our own “Cross” on the path to becoming a loving human being.
An imposed “image” is false. An “image” discovered in the mystery of finding our unique Self , and embraced, is more what I think God had in mind.
Elvis – and it happens to many – got lost in the expectations of others. Let’s not go there.
Brian+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
