Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Complicated and the Complex

A recent article in the New York Times has helped me immensely in understanding the difference between the complicated and the complex.
As the article says, it’s complicated to put a man on the moon. It takes blueprints, chemistry, metallurgy and the coordinated efforts of thousands of highly skilled people to pull off a feat like that, but we have done it. Even the time when there was a really bad glitch, they were able to figure it out and bring them home.
On the other hand, it’s complex to raise a child. There are no blueprints. The math is pretty simple: 3 meals a day, 8 hours of sleep at night. But there is no way anyone is going to do it perfectly.
I’ve led churches through two major building projects and that was very complicated. We had to decide what we needed, what we wanted to build, work with an architect and a contractor and we had to raise the money.
But compared to growing a congregation, building a church is easy.
One of the problems with growing a church is that, although nearly every pastor and church member would say that he or she wants the church to grow, the truth is that growth means change, it means more work, it means having to accommodate more people – it may even mean a building project! And none of that is easy.
Trying to figure out the complexity of growth is difficult even for an individual – to say nothing of a congregation. It’s a miracle that it ever happens.
The flowers that bloom in the spring, the vegetables that grow in our gardens, the tiny baby that you can hold in your hand who becomes a six-foot-tall man – it’s all so complex that only God can really figure it out.
How can we not live in faith?

Posted by Roger Talbott in 16:14:30 | Permalink | Comments Off

Saturday, April 24, 2010

To Whom Would We Go?

All week, the Pray-as-you-go website that I use for my daily devotions has been reading through John 6 and I have found that irritating. The lectionary spends weeks in John 6 during the summer of year B. It’s there because the lectionary we now use is a product of Vatican II and John 6 is dear to the heart of Roman Catholicism – full of eucharistic imagery. “I am the Bread that came down from heaven.”
I don’t know if I react negatively to this chapter because I’m a preacher who, every three years, has to make some kind of sense out of its difficult theology, or because I was formed in a church that moved the preached Word to the center of worship, which the Eucharist occupied for both the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches (even though we did it more out of necessity – not enough ordained pastors to serve the sacraments in all our churches – than out of conviction); or if I am like those offended, doubting disciples who, at the end of the chapter, just walk away because what Jesus has to say about drinking his blood is just too hard for me to understand.
There was a time when I loved this chapter – when I read it uncritically as a believer who would never question that Jesus was giving us a theology for our communion service. Now, I wonder why a Jewish Rabbi is sounding like Pope Benedict XVI.
I might well wonder. John may or may not be the latest of the gospels. I’ve always  been intrigued by John A.T. Robinson’s argument that, at least parts of the Gospel, may be the earliest recollections we have in the New Testament. But even if it did not reach it’s final form until the end of the first century, the Early Church clearly has a profound understanding of the Eucharist already.
I wonder if part of that understanding really is that Jesus is offensive to the human, worldly thinking that all of us literally “bring to the Table” when we meet him? And we have to make the same decision that His disciples make at the end of John 6. Some walked away and some, like Peter, said, “Where else can we go? Who else has the words of eternal life?”

Posted by Roger Talbott in 14:09:10 | Permalink | Comments Off

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Mind Changing

Don’t be like the people of this world, but let God change the way you think. Then you will know how to do everything that is good and pleasing to him. Romans 12: 2

 

When we do something over and over again, it creates a neural pathway in our brains – a habit. That is why it’s hard to break a habit. However, it is possible to create a new habit that bypasses the old habit by creating a new, parallel pathway in the brain. Creating new habits also makes us more creative because we have that many more options for choosing alternative behaviors. You can see this in a little child who always erupts in a tantrum when frustrated. As the child becomes more verbal, he or she may develop a habit of asking for help that by-passes the tantrum habit – although I know one “boy” in his 60’s who, when he is really frustrated, still choose the tantrum alternative from time-to-time.

 

The formation of Christians in the Early Church apparently focused, in part, on creating new habits. One was to respond to ill-treatment with non-violent resistance rather than retaliation (to “turn the other cheek” meant to prove to the one who struck you that you could take what he dished out.) Another was to pray for those who oppressed you and love those who hate you. Another was to share what you had with those who have less.

 

Brian McLaren, a leader of the Emergent Church movement says that preachers can help their congregations think differently. One is to counter the news media’s ”Them-against-Us” subtext. Nearly every news story is about bad guys hurting good guys or good guys winning over bad guys. Whether the bad guys are terrorists, investment bankers or Republicans, the message is the same; “We” are the good people who are threatened by and need to defeat the bad guys.

 

Christian preaching needs to teach other habits of thought. One of them is that, if there is One God and one world that the One God loves, then dividing the world into “bad guys” and “good guys” is not realistic. We are one people; we just don’t all know that yet. However, learning to think that way takes some practice. When we begin to create a new pathway that sees our neighbor as “brother” or “sister” rather than “the enemy”, we can develop more practical ways of responding to each other than throwing rocks or nuclear weapons at each other. We can begin to exchange ideas, goods, recipes and our children can marry each other.

 

That, of course, is the worst nightmare of a person who thinks like “the people of this world” and there are enough of us and we are frightened enough of “the bad guys” that we interpret openness as betrayal of our values, our culture, even our faith. I say “our” because those old pathways still operate in my brain. We never get rid of them, anymore than that old boy I know can get rid of throwing a tantrum when he really gets frustrated. But he can choose a better response to frustration and I’m proud to say that I’ve seen him do that more and more often. I also am proud when I choose to transcend my prejudices and my tendency to divide the world into “them” and “us” and start thinking and acting as if we are all in the same boat together, because that is reality. There is only one boat – one world and the Lord God made all of it.

Posted by Roger Talbott in 02:35:47 | Permalink | Comments Off

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

And they named him Jesus

As many of you know, my son is married to a rabbi,  and they have two children. When their first child was born, we learned something about how Jews name their children. In one way or another, a child’s name needs to link him or her to previous generations. Our granddaughter, for example, is namde Amina Zohar. Her first name begins with the same letter as her mother’s grandfather, Albert’s, name. Albert escaped Nazi Germany a year or so before the holocaust began. Her middle name, Zohar, means “light” – the same thing that my mother-in-law, Helen’s, name meant.
Jesus, the baby born in the stable on this night so long ago, had just one – to begin with. People didn’t have last names in those days. Instead, he was probably known as “Jesus bar-Joseph” – meaning Jesus – son of Joseph. Although there is a verse in one of the gospels that says he was known in Nazareth as “Jesus, the son of Mary” – an indication that the neighbors questioned the legitimacy of his birth.
The name of Jesus has a history, too. It’s really the same name as Joshua. Like a lot of kids, Jesus was named after a historical figure. But he was not named Abraham the father of the nation. He was not named Moses, the lawgiver. He was not named David, the great king and conqueror. He was not named Solomon, the wise man. He was named after Joshua, the leader who immediately followed Moses; the leader who led Israel into the Promised Land. The lawgiver, Moses, could bring the nation to the edge of the Promised Land, but the law could not bring them in.

The thing that distinguished Joshua was his, faith, his absolute obedience to God, his courage, which came out of his faith that God would be on his side, and his integrity which came out of his faith that he was living his life before God.
Joshua would do whatever God told him to do, even if, at first, it didn’t make sense. “When you go to conquer Jericho,” God said, “don’t send your army. Send the band. Let them march around the walls of Jericho blowing their horns.” So Joshua did, and the walls, famously, came a tumblin’ down.
And Joshua was completely unafraid. When others believed they would face giants in the Promised Land who made the Israelites look like grasshoppers, Joshua’s response was, “They’re not so big. We can take them.” He wasn’t afraid.
The third thing is that unlike Moses, with his large ego and short temper; David, with his eye for the ladies; and Solomon, who often was too smart for his own good; Joshua was a man of complete integrity.
Jesus was named after Joshua.
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
There’s something about that name,
Master, savior, Jesus,
Like the fragrance after the rain,
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
Let all heaven and earth proclaim
Kings and kingdoms shall all pass away
But there’s something about that name.
Bill and Gloria Gaither

Posted by Roger Talbott in 14:03:06 | Permalink | Comments Off

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Give Us This Bread Always


Comments on John 6:24-35 and Ephesians 4:1-16 for Sunday August 2

Sometimes I wonder whether we can begin to understand this passage unless we are hungry. It’s so easy for those of us, who know where our next meal is coming from, to judge this crowd’s inability to understand the spiritual implications of the feeding of the 5,000. We say, patronizingly, “Of course, these people whom Jesus had fed the day before came back again looking for a free meal and they were put off because Jesus was trying to explain that they didn’t live by bread alone, but by the Word that comes from God.”

Methinks we spiritualize too much.

I think we should take seriously John Crossan’s contention that if the gospel is good news for the poor, than, at the very least, it is about bread.  If we take seriously the Ephesians’ emphasis on unity in Jesus Christ, then the communion table becomes not just a symbol of Christ’s presence, but a foretaste of that feast where everyone in the world has a place at the table and everyone is fed. It’s something we “see” just as clearly as the crowd saw the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 and yet we, like them, do not really believe.

A boy put his meager resources into the hands of Jesus and somehow it was enough. The Sign that Jesus talks about is the same Sign that we experience in those moments of unity when people come together and take care of each other.

There are moments people remember as miracles, of a sort:  the evening the violent thunderstorm blew down the street knocking out the electricity. Neighbors introduced themselves to each other as they moved tree limbs out of the road and patched damaged houses as best they could; the funeral that brought the estranged members of a family together and for a day or two the things that divided them didn’t seem nearly as big as the grief that united them. Common need, common effort, common humanity leads to a kind of communion that we only wish we could experience once in awhile at church.

Over and over again, people in these circumstances ask, “why can’t we always be like this? Indeed during those few horrible days in mid-September 2001 some people ventured that everything had changed. Republicans and Democrats sang together on the Capitol steps. Liberals hung out American flags and conservatives volunteered for community service. Communities responded to acts of hatred toward Moslems by forming protective rings around mosques.

Aid was distributed to those most directly affected by the destruction of the twin towers without regard to differences between CEO’s and janitors. When people come together in genuine community, the maldistribution of bread is no longer a problem.

“Give us this bread always” is a prayer for a world that is no longer afraid of itself; a world that is not fragmented, but centered in a common humanity or the Common Human Being – the One we all know and love; whose face we see in the face of our brother or our sister.

“Give us this bread always” is a prayer for a world that no longer is afraid of tomorrow –  that day when there will be no bread – that day, like the others we worry and worry about, never comes if we break bread together on our knees.

“Give us this bread always” is a prayer for a world that is no longer afraid of gods who makes distinctions based on creeds and rituals, but trusts in the God who gives gifts to us, not for our personal enrichment, but for the building up of the organic unity of humanity that Ephesians calls the Body of Christ.

We misunderstand this prayer if we think that once it is answered there is no longer any reason to pray, because the magic breadbox will supply our every need. We only truly pray this prayer if we pray it as Jesus taught us to say: “Give us this day, our daily bread”. It is in the constant renewal of our dependence upon God and in the constant renewal of community so imperfectly effected by the coming together of the Church around the Table – but effected none-th

Posted by Roger Talbott in 13:06:31 | Permalink | Comments Off

Friday, July 3, 2009

Back On Line!

Easter came and went and I was a little overwhelmed with all those end-of-the-year things we do in church. Didn’t get back to posting any blogs until after Pentecost. And then, when I did, the good folks who run this website treated me like a stranger – in other words, whenever I tried to log on, they kept telling me that they didn’t recognize my user name.
They still don’t the first time I try, but now at least they are sending me to a second log-in site that does recognize me. So, I’m back with a couple of new postings below!
Thanks for reading!!
Posted by Roger Talbott in 00:45:10 | Permalink | Comments Off

Be Careful to Whom You Pledge Your Allegiance

The first reading this week tells us about David becoming King of Israel. We see the leaders of
Israel’s 12 tribes coming to David. These are proud and independent men. The warlords and tribal leaders of Afghanistan probably are the closest thing we have in this world to these tribal chieftains of Reuben, Zebulon, Naphtali and all the other tribes; men with hard eyes and strong arms and calculating minds. They are not men who are inclined to bow to anyone else. They are not men who give up their authority or their independence easily. Yet they are here today to tell David that they want him to be their king.

How did David become king?

He did not do it in any conventional way.

He was not born a king. He was born in Bethlehem, the last of a big family of boys. In a culture in which the first son inherited twice as much as the second, the best the kid at the end of a line of seven or eight could hope for was to work for one of his older brothers someday as a servant. So David was not born a king – quite the opposite. Neither was that other child born in Bethlehem 10 centuries later.

The other way men become kings is they conquer their subjects. From Genghis Khan to Napoleon, people of modest birth have risen to the heights because of their ability to conquer. David was certainly an uncommonly successful military leader, but these chieftains do not come to him because they have been beaten in battle. That is what is so remarkable about this moment. These tribal warlords are voluntarily surrendering their absolute power to David.

Why?

The Bible tells us that these chieftains say, “You are bone of our bones and flesh of our flesh.”

This means they could trust David to understand them. He was one of them. It also meant that David’s fellow feeling for his people gave him a finely tuned sense of justice. We know that David cared about the little guy. Before he became king, he was kind of a Robin Hood figure operating on the edges of Israel. He helped the Israelites capture iron smelting furnaces from the Philistines and gave the Israelites the same advantages both in swords and plowshares that the Philistines had. He also made sure the poor were taken care of, even if he had to “persuade” the rich to share their bounty.

One of the most important affirmations we make about Jesus is that he is “bone of our bones and flesh of our flesh.”

David’s concern for the little guy was part of his appeal. Like David, Jesus is Robin Hood. Jesus robs from the rich and gives to the poor during the offering. And that is not the only way He turns the world upside down. So, be careful about pledging Him your allegiance.

Posted by Roger Talbott in 00:37:33 | Permalink | Comments Off

Sometimes, it’s Patriotic to Cry

On the evening of
September 11, 2001, the church that I served at the time was full of members and neighbors who had found their way, mostly by word-of-mouth to a special worship service. I remember very little about what was said that night – just an overwhelming feeling of shock and grief.  I do remember, however, just as the service ended, that one of our members sitting in the front row, a good friend, raised her hand and asked, “Roger, can we sing ‘God Bless America?’”

I thought I could get out of it by pointing out that we don’t have “God bless America” in our hymnals, but she insisted that we could all sing the first verse from memory. She was right. We could and we did.

Now you may be wondering what kind of Godless liberal, freedom-hating, terrorist-loving preacher could possibly object to singing “God bless America”?

I don’t. I like hearing a recording of Kate Smith singing about how we are almost 100 million strong as much as the next person. But it just didn’t seem like the right song for that night in church.

It wasn’t the right song for that night because it’s bouncy, upbeat, confident tune just didn’t match the feeling of unbearable horror and sorrow that we felt that night. Admittedly, the repertoire of American patriotic music probably doesn’t offer a song that expresses sorrow. We are an upbeat, positive-thinking, optimistic nation, which is one of the great things about this land, but it also means that we have a hard time dealing with the fact that bad things sometimes happen in good countries.

We need a new David, the great song-writer of the bible, who could shout with joy at the victories the Lord gave him over his enemies, but who could also write the saddest songs in the world – one of which, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me” was even sung from the cross. We need a patriot like David, who in our first reading this morning, laments Israel’s defeat in battle at the hands of its enemies, the loss of his best friend, Prince Jonathan, and of Jonathan’s father, King Saul.

We do not have any Davids in America. It’s almost as if tears are unpatriotic. The problem with that is that when patriots don’t know how to cry for their land and what has happened to it, they stop being human and when we stop being human as a nation, we start adding to the long, sad story of man’s inhumanity to man. One of the oldest and most universal insights of the collective wisdom of the world is that human beings never make good decisions when they are only using their heads or only using their hearts. Wisdom is the product of a deep and long conversation between the head and the heart.

That wisdom that combines both the head and the heart is known as “prudence”. “Prudence” has nothing to do with the kind of prudishness that the novelist John Le Carre’ once described as “the ability to spot a sin even before it happened.” Nor does it have anything to do with the over-cautiousness that we often associate with the word. Prudence Is the very practical, situation-based wisdom that chooses the right means to achieve a good end.

David was weeping for a king who was not prudent. Saul, the first king of Israel, is a representative of the mystery of human leadership. Why is it that it is often the leaders with the best credentials that make the worst failures? One only has to reflect on the fact that the three men who came in to the office of President of the United States with the best credentials – who were by far the best prepared to take the reins of leadership – were John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon.

Saul had all the gifts that a king needed. He even looked like a king. He stood head and shoulders above everyone else. He was brave. He could be cunning. But he was not prudent. Like Richard Nixon, his paranoia got in his way. David was the bravest, most gifted and probably the most loyal of his military commanders, but Saul was jealous when the crowds shouted that Saul had slain his thousands and David his tens of thousands. So Saul plotted to do away with David.

Jonathan, the king’s son, loved David and warned him of his father’s plans. So David fled and lived as a kind of Robin Hood outlaw on the frontier between Israel and the land of the Philistines. Twice, David had a chance to kill Saul. David refused to harm Saul, because Saul was “The Lord’s Anointed” – in Hebrew, the Messiah.

David, too, as we heard a couple of weeks ago, had been anointed by the strange Gandolf-type figure, Samuel, when he was a little shepherd boy growing up in Bethlehem. He believed; everyone, including Jonathan, believed that David would be king someday. But David did not believe in taking history into his own hands. David was prudent. He would not achieve a good end by foul means. In doing so, he only added to his stature when he finally became king.

David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan and the defeat of the Israelite army at the hands of the Philistines is a model of prudence and shows us the path to prudence in public life. Because in his lament David recognizes the fact that bad things do happen to good countries. Especially when they are imprudent. Saul had, as I said, fired his best military commander. He had managed to go from being wildly popular to having really, really low approval ratings. He made a lot of bonehead decisions and never learned from them. He talked a lot about God; he was publicly pious, but he never understood that he was God’s servant, not the other way around.

That, in fact, is the essence of prudence, as we understand it in the Christian faith. We are God’s servants, not the other way around. Think for a moment about those three words, “God bless America”. An English teacher would tell you that sentence is imperative – and those who say it are being imperious. An English teacher would also point out that the sentence should have a comma after “God”. We are saying, “God, bless America!

That’s one of the reasons we don’t sing, “God bless America” in church. We are waiting for someone to write a song that begins, “America, bless God.”

Singing a song like that, of course, would require humility, another virtue that is seldom associated with patriotism in America. Raising the possibility that we might sometimes be wrong, as a nation, is almost grounds for a charge of treason.

In writing the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”, Julia Ward Howe was very sure that the Union armies were doing God’s work by inflicting God’s wrath on the slaveholding states of the Confederacy.

Lincoln was not so sure. Shortly after the embarrassing and costly Union defeat at the Second Battle of Bull Run, Lincoln sat alone and wrote on a fragment of paper a few lines, that he probably kept for awhile, believe it or not, in that stovepipe hat that he wore. His secretary, John Hay, found it in his effects after Lincoln’s assassination and entitled it a Meditation of the Divine Will

“The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.

In this present civil war it is quite possible that God purpose is something different from the purpose of either party . . . “

 

Posted by Roger Talbott in 00:24:21 | Permalink | Comments Off

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Prayer following a Seniors Program of WWII Songs

O God,

Who calls us to work with you

to turn the lights on again
all over the world.

Sometimes a song,

like the smell of fresh baked bread,

makes us homesick for the world in which we grew up.

We know now that we were seeing you

in all those old familiar places,

and in the faces

and the embraces

that first taught us about love.

We pray,

that when we come to the end of our life’s journey

We will be home again

And know the place for the first time. Amen

Posted by Roger Talbott in 18:47:53 | Permalink | Comments Off

Monday, April 6, 2009

Snow on Holy Monday

In the northern tier of states,

we don’t completely trust

The Easter promise that

New life will rise from the cold earth.

Take today.

It’s the day He cursed the tree

For not bearing figs six months early.

If He were only Mother Nature’s child,

Our seasons might synchronize with the equinoxes.

But no,

Springtime and harvest always come second for this One

Who stands on the far shore with other fish to fry.

Seasons are less important than the points

He wants to make,

Which, like that one about the figs, are often lost on me.

The guy I voted for says we need

More war, not less,

If we are going to get out of this mess

The other guy made to save the world.

All the Messiahs put their trust in power.

But I took the name of a savior who couldn’t even save Himself.

Or make April safe from snowstorms.

As I was hauling my garbage to the curb just now

I sensed a difference.

The thermometer told me it was cold

As January,

But

There was something behind the clouds.

The sun

Had risen

Even though it looked and felt like winter

Something in the air,

In the light,

Said that it was April.

The daffodils believe the sun.

And though by snow bowed low,

They lift their green hearts,

And they grow.

Posted by Roger Talbott in 17:38:03 | Permalink | Comments (1) »