ADVENT EFFORT
from St. Peter’s Post, December 2005
The First Sunday of Advent has come and gone. So it is official: we are now in the midst of the 2005 Season of Advent.
During the four weeks of Advent, the Church around the world prepares for the coming of Jesus Christ. Christians get ready for Christ best by admitting that our lives are out of step with our profession of Christ, by confessing our sins, by letting God’s grace cleanse our hearts and minds and bodies. To prepare for the Lord’s coming, we can and should be doing these things.
But there are so many other Christmas and holiday activities going on during this time of the year. The challenge for the Church is to stay focused, as a coach would say, during December. In the middle of all the preparations for December 25 — the practices and the parties, the card sending and the gift giving, and so much more — the challenge is to stay focused on the coming of Jesus Christ and on getting ready for Him.
To be sure, let’s enjoy all the December activities. But let’s now allow them to distract us. Beneath the holiday cheer and the rush-here-rush-there, let’s be intentional. Let’s strive. Let’s focus. Let’s allow God to move us to heartfelt repentance. Let’s see our need, our deep need, for a Savior. Let’s get ready — for Jesus Christ.
He is coming.
LOVING DISCIPLINE
from St. Peter’s Post, November 2005
Stereotypes of Christians float around in American popular culture, and they are bound to influence us. For example, a sentimental stereotype pictures Christians as so nice that they would (or could) never discipline other people. Another stereotype, which is often found especially among secularists, imagines Christians as unforgiving, ruthless, perfectionistic, and anxious to discipline — actually, punish — the least behavioral infractions committed by others.
Unfortunately, these stereotypes have more than a little influence on the real behavior of real Christians. Often, wanting to avoid the stereotypical enforcer, Christians today are tempted to lapse into the stereotypical nice guy (or gal).
Both of these stereotypes miss the mark. For the way that Christians best correct each other is the way of loving discipline. Loving discipline maintains respect for the ones who are corrected, yet seeks to correct their misbehavior.
On a recent weekend St. Peter’s United Methodist Church was glad to provide Christian hospitality for the wedding of a couple from out of town. The pastors who presided at the Service of Christian Marriage were competent, faithful pastors in The United Methodist Church. The bride, groom, and their families — from the earliest planning consultation until the last Amen of the service — were extraordinarily thoughtful, gracious, and generous. General comments following the service were glowingly positive.
But then there was that one incident. After the service, Carole, our Church Secretary, was walking down the hall that leads to the pastor’s study. She noticed that a few young men, in the Serendipity Classroom, had opened bottles of beer and were celebrating the wedding of their friends. Carole did not respond with stereotypical niceness; that is, she did not act like she did not see what, in fact, she had seen, and keep walking down the hall. Nor did she react with stereotypical ruthlessness; that is, she did not slip into an attack mode and angrily scold the young men. Instead, Carole approached the men, calmly informed them that St. Peter’s United Methodist Church does not allow alcoholic beverages on church property, and kindly asked them to put away their open bottles. The young men behaved like gentlemen. They respectfully received her word, quickly did what they were asked to do, and headed for the post-wedding reception at the beach.
That is the way we Christians love others when they require discipline. Loving discipline.
In American society today, the taken-for-granted rules of civility and decency are crumbling. In response to this, the Church is wise to develop some basic goals and guidelines for basic behavior. That is why the Education Committee formulated, and the Administrative Council approved, “Our Classroom Goals” and “Student Goals.” Both of these statements are found in this issue of the newsletter. With God’s help, they will help our Sunday School to teach and transmit the Christian faith. They are exercises in loving discipline — for the sake of the Gospel.
On occasion, our life together in the Church will involve some discipline. But always, let it be loving discipline. As God lovingly disciplines all of us.
EVIL ATTRACTS GOOD
from St. Peter’s Post, October 2005
At the end of September, during the national conference of The Confessing Movement within The United Methodist Church, one of the conference speakers mentioned, under his breath in a personal conversation, his admiration for Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes, an Englishman and a philosopher, described his general view of the world in this way: the rather cruel state of nature is a place where people are often in a condition of war of “every man against every man.” In Hobbes’ worldview, there is “continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Obviously, Thomas Hobbes not provide the stuff of devotional uplift.
Sometimes it seems that we have entered a particularly Hobbesian era. The war in Iraq, whatever our opinions about it, drags on; and the death counts mount. Palestinian terrorism against Israelis, and Israel’s military responses to Palestinian terrorism, do not go away. The “culture wars,” in American society and around the world, continue. On the natural side of things, it appears that American society is always fighting hurricanes, one after the other. All of this is not to mention the daily challenges in marriages, families, neighborhoods, schools, businesses, congregations, and denominations. Sometimes it can, and does, feel like a Hobbesian world, where conflict and strife are all over the place.
Let’s be honest: sometimes it seems like evil is winning the day.
But the Church believes that Jesus Christ, through His death and resurrection, has defeated evil. To be sure, evil still lurks in many forms and in many places. Still the Church trusts that, though evil has not been eliminated, it has been denied victory by the cross of Christ. And the defeated character of evil can been seen, even when and where evil strikes.
Consider Hurricane Katrina. This murderous, horrific storm was an eruption of natural evil in this fallen world. Furthermore, the storm loosed an evil in some people to loot, rape, and otherwise savagely exploit the weak. Because of natural and human evils, millions of people in the gulf region were harmed in body and/or plundered of possessions.
But the story does not end there. Order and the rule of law have been reestablished in the gulf area. Due to the kindness of strangers, the mercy of churches, and the justice of governments, people are being fed and sheltered. Homes are being reclaimed. Lives are being renewed. Hope is being reborn. It is as if evils, and the losses resulting from evils, attract good.
Consider how the immunity system in the human body works. An injury occurs. On its own, without conscious thought, the body’s immunity system figures out what the problem is, where the problem is, and what must be done to restore health. So, the body’s immunity processes send cells, reparative cells, to the cite of the injury. The damaged tissues are removed; new tissues are built and infection is fought; and the body’s journey toward recovery continues, often with the help of modern medicine. Again, biologically speaking, it is as if injury (or evil) attracts healthful recovery (good).
We know that good attracts evil. Think of the temptations faced by extraordinarily good women and men. Good draws the attention of the evil one and his minions.
But also, evil often sets the stage for the arrival of good. Sometimes the arrival of good takes a while. Most often the arrival takes place under the media’s radar screen. Usually the arrival is simple and subtle. But when evil happens, good is soon to follow. If we wait long enough, and we look carefully enough.
Because of the cross and resurrection of Jesus, evil is defeated, and the world is redeemed. Still, evil looks for potential victims and attacks them. But that does not end the story. For good arrives on the scene. Sooner or later.
Thanks be to God.
WORSHIP FIRST
from St. Peter’s Post, AUGUST 2005
Our greatest privilege in this life is to worship the one, true, living God on Sunday mornings and/or Wednesday evenings. In the Service of Worship, this God — whose Name is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — encounters His Church. In the Service of Worship, this God actively addresses and empowers, loves and forgives, commands and corrects, His people. In the power of God the Spirit and through God the Son, the congregation lifts up its voice in giving thanks and praise to God the Father. Faithfully gathering around the Word and the Water, the Bread and the Cup, is the best and most important activity in this world.
Today, not all would agree on the importance of the Church’s worship. Even among Christians today, there is a popular belief that real religion involves just God and me: God speaks to me, privately; privately, I speak to God; so I am religiously okay. According to this way of being spiritual, the Church is unimportant, and the Church’s worship is unnecessary. Therefore, people of this persuasion attend a Service of Worship if and only if the service meets their felt needs.
During the Service of Worship, God indeed meets our needs. But He meets our deepest needs. He meets our need to trust Him. He meets our need to be pulled away from the idols which we grasp, which then capture us. He meets our need to have our sins disclosed and forgiven. He meets our need to be taught to love rightly God and neighbor. At times, He seems to ignore the needs that we think are most pressing. (That is probably for our own good, for our growth in grace.) But the bottom line is this: the Service of Worship is for the service of God, for the worship of God; and the faithful worship of God changes those in worship to be more like Christ.
As the Season of Pentecost wears on, I challenge the entire congregation to worship God every week. Also, make a special point of inviting and encouraging others — relatives, friends, acquaintances, and neighbors — to attend with you. In the Service of Worship, we will be doing the most important thing in the world: worshiping God with God’s people.
BEYOND THE NAKED PUBLIC SQUARE
from St. Peter’s Post, JULY 2005
It is July. Another hot, humid July in coastal Carolina. And the Fourth of July, the annual celebration of our nation’s Declaration of Independence, presents an excellent opportunity for Christians in America to consider our country.
In addition, St. Peter’s United Methodist Church is showing C-SPAN’s recent, three-hour interview with Reverend Richard John Neuhaus. (On the Sundays of July 3 and July 10 at 6:00 p.m., the second and the third hours of the Neuhaus interview will be shown. A brief discussion will follow each hour-long segment, and light refreshments will be served.) Rev. Neuhaus is a Roman Catholic priest who has been writing and speaking on Church-and-society issues for over 40 years. In 1984, his book, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America (Eerdmans), was first published.
Given the time of the year and the current Sunday evening programs at St. Peter’s Church, this is a good time to discuss Neuhaus’ idea of “the naked public square.”
First, a funny little story. After The Naked Public Square appeared, Duke Divinity School scheduled Rev. Neuhaus for a speaking engagement. Publicizing the speech, Duke ran an advertisement with all the details of the coming event. Duke’s ad mistakenly renamed Neuhaus’ book Naked in the Public Square. Needless to say, Rev. Neuhaus did not conform his appearance to the erroneous title. (Once again, the importance of proofreading is underlined…)
In 1984 and in 2005, Rev. Neuhaus sees the problem of the naked public square in American society. According to Neuhaus, the naked public square is what results when religion is denied free and full participation in the great conversations of American public life.
In contemporary American life, there are prestigious, well-known, and well-funded organizations that are attempting to silence the Church’s voice in public life. The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way are three such outfits. They are committed to building a wall of separation between the Church and the society that is high enough to keep religion out of public affairs and into only private matters. Before citizens enter the public arena for deliberation and debate, such organizations demand that they check their religion — especially if it happens to be more traditional — at the door. This creates the naked public square. And this is happening in a country that acknowledges, in its founding documents and principles, God and liberty.
Evidence of the naked public square is all over the place. Some public schools, elementary and secondary, are hostile to all forms of prayer and to all expressed interest religion. Some politicians attack any mention of God in public and any public policy proposal that is related to religion. The mainstream media routinely neglects or misinterprets important religion stories. Colleges and universities encourage the expression of the most outlandish opinions, but disallow the public statement of serious Christian perspectives. The courts seem to rule routinely in secularizing directions. And on and on it goes.
So, what is to be done about the naked public square? According to Rev. Neuhaus, the goal should not be to overwhelm the public square with religion. American democracy should not aim to become an American theocracy. Instead, the American experiment in ordered liberty should open itself anew to the voices of religion in the public arena. These religious voices, if they are wise, will state their cases in mostly moral terms. Since Scriptural quotations are not usually persuasive to non-believers, believers are most effective when staking out their public proposals in the language of morality. Everybody understands the moral claims of justice and injustice, right and wrong, truth and falsehood — even if they do not agree with them.
Centuries ago Aristotle stated that politics, in its highest form, involves free people in deliberating and debating how they ought to order their life together. This Aristotelian understanding of politics includes religious voices and their moral claims in the great public conversations of our time and place. Therefore, this Aristotelian understanding of politics insists that society get beyond the naked public square — and beyond its discrimination against religion, beyond its lack of freedom, beyond its injustice.
Again, the current challenge, according to Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, is to get beyond the naked public square.
THE WILL OF GOD
from St. Peter’s Post, JUNE 2005
The seasonal gears have shifted in a churchly way. Some of the highest events of the Church’s year — for example, Palm-Passion Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Day, Pentecost Day, and Trinity Sunday — are now behind. And the long Season of Pentecost, with its twenty-six “ordinary” Sundays, has begun.
The seasonal gears have shifted in another way. For “the lazy, hazy days of summer” have arrived.
Experiencing these changes (which create a pause in the action), in the Church’s calendar and in nature’s routines, we might want to consider what God asks of His people. In other words, what is the will of God for us?
The briefest answer is from Jesus Christ, when He declares: “The first [commandment] is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31, RSV)
Another answer, which is more specific, is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). The Ten Commandments give detail to the love of our Lord’s commandment(s).
Yet another answer is the baptismal covenant and its promises — to renounce and resist sin, to confess Jesus Christ as Savior, to serve Jesus Christ as Lord, to be faithful members of Christ’s holy Church, to be actively loyal to The United Methodist Church, and to participate in the ministries of St. Peter’s United Methodist Church.
There is one more answer that deserves mention. It is called “The General Rules of the Methodist Church” (1808, in The Book of Discipline [2004], pp. 71-74). Though little known and seldom quoted in our time, the General Rules were used by Methodists in earlier generations, as a standard, to make sure they were increasing in faith and faithfulness. For your Pentecost-summer reading, the General Rules follow.
“It is…expected of all who continue [in these Methodist societies or covenant groups] that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation, [underlining added, here and below, for emphasis]
“First: By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced, such as:
“The taking of the name of God in vain.
“The profaning the day of the Lord, either by doing ordinary work therein or by buying or selling.
“Drunkenness: buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity.
“Slaveholding; buying or selling slaves.
“Fighting, quarreling, brawling, brother going to law with brother; returning evil for evil, or railing for railing; the using many words in buying or selling.
“The buying or selling goods that have not paid the duty.
“The giving or taking things on usury — i.e., unlawful interest.
“Uncharitable or unprofitable conversation; particularly speaking evil of magistrates or of ministers.
“Doing to others as we would not they should do unto us.
“Doing what we know is not for the glory of God, as:
“The putting on of gold and costly apparel.
“The taking such diversions as cannot be used in the name of the Lord Jesus.
“The singing those songs, or reading those books, which do not tend to the knowledge or love of God.
“Softness and needless self-indulgence.
“Laying up treasure upon earth.
“Borrowing without a probability of paying; or taking up goods without a probability of paying for them.
“It is expected of all who continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,
“Secondly: By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity, doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men:
“To their bodies, of the ability which God giveth, by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting or helping them that are sick or in prison.
“To their souls, by instructing, reproving, or exhorting all we have any intercourse with; trampling under foot that enthusiastic doctrine that ‘we are not to do good unless our hearts be free to it.’
“By doing good, especially to them that are of the household of faith or groaning so to be; employing them preferably to others; buying one of another, helping each other in business, and so much the more because the world will love its own and them only.
“By all possible diligence and frugality, that the gospel be not blamed.
“By running with patience the race which is set before them, denying themselves, and taking up their cross daily; submitting to bear the reproach of Christ, to be as the filth and offscouring of the world; and looking that men should say all manner of evil of them falsely, for the Lord’s sake.
“It is expected of all who desire to continue in these societies that they should continue to evidence their desire of salvation,
“Thirdly: By attending upon all the ordinances of God; such are:
“The public worship of God.
“The ministry of the Word, either read or expounded.
“The Supper of the Lord.
“Family and private prayer.
“Searching the Scriptures.
“Fasting or abstinence.
“These are the General Rules of our societies; all of which we are taught of God to observe, even in his written Word, which is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of our faith and practice. And all these we know his Spirit writes on truly awakened hearts…”
The General Rules — as with Jesus’ commandment(s), the Ten Commandments, and the baptismal covenant — express God’s will for the good of the people called Methodist. They were written and used in the hope of drawing people closer to God. This they accomplished in earlier generations.
Even with all their old-fashioned words, the General Rules might be more than a little assistance to us United Methodists today. Applied to our circumstances and with the help of the Holy Spirit, they might well draw us closer to God.
A blessed Pentecost Season and summer to you.
THE REAL RATZINGER
from St. Peter’s Post, MAY 2005
April 19, 2005. The Tuesday of the Fourth Week of Easter. The day Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, in relatively short order, by the voting cardinals of Catholicism. For the Roman Catholic Church, for world Christianity, and for the whole world, the day that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger became Benedict XVI will prove to be a good day, a memorable day.
Joseph Ratzinger brings great theological gifts to the papal office. For years, he taught and wrote theology. Like Karl Barth, the Protestant systematic theologian of the last century, Ratzinger wrote theology for the Church. Though both were professors of theology in great universities of Europe, their theological labors served Christ and His Church. That is, their work extended beyond the confines of academic, speculative theology into the arena of Church doctrine and dogma.
Early in John Paul II’s pontificate, Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican. It could be said that he was CDO — that is, Chief Doctrinal Officer — of Roman Catholicism. For over twenty years, he oversaw matters related to Catholic doctrine. Given the prolific documentary output of John Paul II’s pontificate, including many encyclicals and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Ratzinger has been an especially busy man over the last two decades and more.
As one committed to the transmission of the Catholic faith, as opposed to various Catholic faiths, Cardinal Ratzinger has become somewhat controversial. Some in the media have depicted Ratzinger as harsh and negative in personality and in ministry. That depiction recalls some personal experience.
In January 1988, The Center on Religion and Society in New York City sponsored a conference at which Cardinal Ratzinger presented the primary paper. Hospitality and protocol required that The Center’s staff, then-Lutheran Rev. Richard John Neuhaus and this United Methodist pastor, meet Cardinal Ratzinger at Kennedy International and be driven with him to the neighborhood in Manhattan where the conference would be held. At the airport meeting and throughout the events that followed, the Cardinal proved to be humble, kind, and personable.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s paper, entitled “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today,” was delivered to a standing-room-only crowd of 600 at St. Peter’s Lutheran Church at Citicorp Center on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Early in the lecture, Ratzinger spoke these words: “[M]aterialist and feminist exegesis, whatever else may be said about them, do not even claim to be an understanding of the [Biblical] text itself in the manner in which it was originally intended…” At that point, some 40 or 50 gay-rights militants stood and shouted down the Cardinal with: “Nazi!” “Fascist!” “Antichrist!” Ratzinger stopped speaking and stepped away from the microphone. Immediately, officers from the NYPD arrested those who had disrupted the lecture. In a matter of minutes and with an uncommon graciousness under pressure, Cardinal Ratzinger resumed his lecture and continued to its conclusion. Then he responded to several, thoughtful questions from the assembly. At that point, the twenty-one conferees walked to the residence of John Cardinal O’Connor, the Archbishop of New York, for an enjoyable dinner.
The next two days were spent discussing Ratzinger’s lecture and papers by Raymond E. Brown, William H. Lazareth, and George Lindbeck. (By the way, the lecture, the three papers, and a report on the conference conversation are published in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church [1989, Eerdmans].) Throughout these days of discussion, Cardinal Ratzinger was creative, engaging, wise, and an excellent listener. He did not resort to using the weapon of church authoritarianism. Nor did he use table-pounding tactics, as his detractors might have predicted. Again, Cardinal Ratzinger looked, spoke, and behaved like a very sophisticated theologian of the Church. Because he was, and is, exactly that.
People who are curious to know more about the theology of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, might want to read The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church (Ignatius, 1985). His simple prose contains profound truths that are highly relevant for our day and for his new pontificate.
As Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger becomes Benedict XVI, the whole world will be watching and listening. What will be seen and heard is a pope who, like John Paul II, will serve the truth of the Church’s faith in love — even when that truth is not gladly received.
[This article first appeared in The News & Observer (04/22/05) and The Carteret County News-Times (04/27/05).]
OUR LORD LEADS, OUR CHURCH TEACHES
from St. Peter’s Post, APRIL 2005
After returning home from the Service of Holy Communion on Holy Wednesday (March 23) and while helping with the evening dishes, I was half listening to the radio. “On Point” on NPR was on the air. The program’s host, Mr. Tom Ashbrook, casually mentioned that, for the rest of the hour, two guests, a Roman Catholic and a United Methodist, would be discussing the culture of life. Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, the editor in chief of First Things, would be the Catholic spokesman; and Dr. William Lawrence, the Dean of the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University, would be the Methodist representative. By this time, I was helplessly hooked. (After all, this pastor had worked with Rev. Neuhaus in New York City for nearly seven years, and Dr. Lawrence was formerly at Duke Divinity School.) The dishes had to wait. (Actually, truth be told, they were completed by Marsha.)
As the program unfolded, Rev. Neuhaus and Dr. Lawrence discussed the meaning of the culture of life and how it applied to Terri Schiavo. Rev. Neuhaus was determined to lay out moral principles, and then apply them to Mrs. Schiavo’s life and death. Taking a different approach, Dr. Lawrence was content to focus on difficult family, pastoral, and medical decisions that have to be made when someone becomes as debilitated as Mrs. Schiavo had become. Rev. Neuhaus’ moral principles served a culture of life, while Dr. Lawrence’s interest in decision-making tended towards a culture of choice.
Curious about official United Methodist teaching in this challenging area, I turned to our “Social Principles” in The Book of Discipline (2004) and our Book of Resolutions (2004). The following three quotations, which are taken from longer statements, seemed especially important:
(1) “The Church opposes assisted suicide and euthanasia.” (Discipline, 161N, p.104)
(2) “We recognize and affirm the full humanity and personhood of all individuals with mental, physical, developmental, neurological, and psychological conditions or disabilities as full members of the family of God. We also affirm their rightful place in both the [C]hurch and society… We call on the Church and society to protect the civil rights of persons with all types and kinds of disabilities.” (Discipline, 162G, “Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” p. 107)
(3) “Historically, the Christian tradition has drawn a distinction between the cessation of treatment and the use of active measures by the patient or care-giver which aim to bring about death. If death is deliberately sought as the means to relieve suffering, that must be understood as direct and intentional taking of life, whether as suicide or homicide. This United Methodist tradition opposes the taking of life as an offense against God’s sole dominion over life, and an abandonment of hope and humility before God…” (Resolutions, 115, “Faithful Care for Persons Suffering and Dying, pp. 323-324)
United Methodist teaching, on issues surrounding Terri Schiavo’s life and death, advances two general moral principles: (a) Christians are always to care for, and never to kill, the severely disabled; and (b) Christians can and should allow a dying person to die (without treatments that would burden or harm the dying patient, and do nothing but prolong the process of dying), even while showing that person compassion. (By the way, these quotations and principles would make for especially good and helpful conversation in some of St. Peter’s Church’s Sunday School classes and small-group meetings.)
During this Season of Easter, while we continue to celebrate the grace and glory of the Resurrection of our Lord, we can be thankful that the Church gives us wisdom for helping us face the greatest challenges in this life. That is, our risen Lord has not left us to our own thinking, our own plans, our own choices. Our risen Lord, through his Church, has blessed us with his presence, with moral principles, and with moral boundaries that help lead us through all of life — including the valleys of severe disability and “of the shadow of death” (Psalm 23).
Christ is risen. Christ is with us. Christ, through his Church, leads us. Thanks be to the risen Christ!
TRUTH
from St. Peter’s Post, MARCH 2005
Yes, yes, yes, we know. Nobody has a corner on the truth. Nobody possesses all the truth, all the time. (After all, the truth is served, not possessed.) Every person mixes “the truth” with opinion. Everybody has a certain slant on the truth that is shaped by religious commitment (or the lack thereof), economic status, social class, political conviction, cultural preference, family upbringing, educational background, geographical location, national citizenship, and on and on. As St. Paul wrote, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully…” (I Corinthians 13:12, RSV, emphases added)
Yes, yes, yes, our claims to truth are qualified, limited, and therefore humbled. We indeed see dimly now, but still we see. And we know partially now, but still we know. So we can talk about the truth, even if our talk about truth should be conducted with a strong dose of humility.
Recently, the Friday Night Movie at the Parsonage featured “Quiz Show.” As you might recall, this film tells the story of a television, quiz-show scandal in the 1950s. The program was a fraud. Answers to the questions, or just the questions, were given to the contestants in advance of the live programs. The outcomes of the TV game show were totally controlled by the program executives. When its national ratings soared, a winning contestant was kept to continue winning. When its ratings began to slip, the winning contestant was told to lose on purpose. The hero of the story was a young Harvard Law School graduate, who worked for a Congressional oversight committee. Sensing that some monkey business was going on in the wildly successful television program, the young but persistent lawyer investigated the show from top to bottom. Due to his relentless questioning, the truth of the scandal was uncovered. What made this movie interesting, even exciting, was the lawyer’s dogged pursuit of the truth of what was going on, on and off stage, at this quiz show. Therefore, “Quiz Show” is a modern morality play of sorts.
Watching a morality play or participating in life, most people cheer when truth is sought and served. On the other hand, most of us cringe when truth is disregarded and distorted.
In the Church, we have a particularly high regard for the truth. Bishops, pastors, and lay leaders are called to especially high standards in truthtelling with regard to doctrine, morals, personal conversation, and church governance.
Truthtelling in the Church is always to be attempted with love and tact. Too often our truthtelling in the Church is neglected so that personal and institutional difficulties will be avoided. Bishops will neglect thorny teaching, pastors will skirt tough preaching, and laity will not speak unwelcome words, all to avoid difficult encounters with others.
However, could it be that the first duty of a bishop, a pastor, and a lay leader is to tell the truth as lovingly and as wisely as possible?
Why should we be so concerned with the truth in the Church? one might reasonably ask. One answer is that Jesus Christ, who is the Truth in person, requires truthtelling of his people. Because Jesus Christ is the Truth, his teaching and preaching, healing and miracles, were truthful. And because his words and deeds were truthful, the world rose up and murdered him on the Cross. But the truth, especially God’s Truth, cannot be silenced or eliminated. The resurrection of our Lord demonstrates that this Truth, the source of all truth, prevails.
So? So what?
As the People of God, as the People of the Truth, we can and should strive to live in the truth. Yes, it is a challenge. Yes, it is difficult. But it is a wonderful, God-given, Son-inspired, Spirit-blessed privilege.
THAT SAYING IN THE RESTROOM
from St. Peter’s Post, FEBRUARY 2005
Last month the men’s restroom, on the other side of the back of the sanctuary, was spruced up. Ben Ball, Tom Crittenden, Bruce Haddock, and Gary Smith applied a fresh coat (or two) of paint. Dark blue paint, to be specific. And adding some nice touches here and there, Karissa Smith acted as the interior decorator of the project. It all turned out very nicely, very attractively. St. Peter’s United Methodist Church and especially the men of the church are grateful to the painting crew, the interior decorator, and the unnamed others who contributed to the project.
The redecorated restroom displays a handsomely framed cross with a saying. Located beneath the cross, the brief verse is attributed to an Edwin Markham, a name that rings not one bell in this pastor’s memory. The verse goes like this: “Whoever falls from/God’s right hand/Is caught into/His left.”
On a first glance, the reader will think this sentence is one of those nice sayings that does more to move the heart than inform the mind. However, upon a second glance, the reader might discover this saying both moves the heart and informs the mind.
The saying — “Whoever falls from/God’s right hand/Is caught into/His left.” — suggests that God has two hands, so to speak. Picturing God’s two hands is another way of claiming that God has two ways of working in the world. Luther, the great German reformer of the Church, said the right-handed work of God involves the Gospel, while the left-handed work of God involves the Law. God’s right-handed work — that is, God’s Gospel work — in the world employs forgiveness, empowerment, the sacraments. On the other hand, God’s left-handed work — that is, God’s legal work — in the world employs the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandment to love God and neighbor, and the authority of institutions of society (family, school, church government, and the state).
With this in mind, the saying — “Whoever falls from/God’s right hand/Is caught into/His left.” — begins to thicken and take on more meaning. It declares that the love of God to people in this world can be exercised through His right-handed work and through His left-handed work, through the Gospel and through the Law, through the Church and through the state, through forgiveness and through discipline (even punishment).
We United Methodists are tempted to believe that God has only a right-handed work. But the greater Church reminds us that God’s left-handed work is real and necessary, and that it can lead people toward the sphere of His right-handed work.
For example, consider the response of some United Methodist leaders to the war on terror in Iraq. As pacifists, some of our leaders believe this war is wrong in its motivation, its strategy, and its goal. Neglecting the mysteries of God’s left-handed work, they seem to assume that only God’s right-handed work is worthy of God. However, God’s providence can, at times, work through the just use of military force for just ends. In other words, the right hand of the Almighty does not try to disable His left hand. If it did, chaos and injustice would always win the day in this world.
Another example concerns the training of children and youth. Some adults find it difficult, if not impossible, to discipline young people. Some believe that love, without discipline, is sufficient for the training of our young. But again, is this not another way of trying to turn the Almighty One into a one-handed God, so to speak?
“Whoever falls from/God’s right hand/Is caught into/His left.” It is a wonderful saying. Simple, yet deep. Brief, yet wide ranging. And it is all about the love of God working throughout all of our lives in this world — for our good and for God’s glory.
And there the saying hangs. On our church’s restroom wall.
A JANUARY MIX
from St. Peter’s Post, JANUARY 2005
THANK YOU
The Stallsworth’s of Morehead City (and the Stallsworth’s of Belleville, IL) are deeply grateful for the thoughtful — actually, wonderful — Christmas gift from St. Peter’s United Methodist Church. Because of your generosity and careful planning (or was it scheming?), Brandie and Ryan Stallsworth were flown to New Bern, driven to Morehead City, and delivered safely and soundly at the parsonage late on Christmas Eve. This to the surprise of (most of) the local Stallsworth’s. Experiencing the first Christmas in twenty-one years without our beloved Paige, we were profoundly thankful to have Brandie and Ryan in Morehead City on Christmas Eve and Day. Grateful to God for our many years with Paige and recalling her often, we had a blessed time together. You made that possible. Again, our heartfelt thanks to you for this thoughtful, great, memorable gift!
CHRISTMAS PARADE
The 2004 Christmas Parade down Arendell Street in Morehead City, on December 11th, was enjoyable. The marching bands, the other musical groups, the elected officials riding in fancy cars, the beauty queens waving, the participating businesses, the candy throwing, and the various floats made for a good time for the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of spectators who lined Arendell. The vast majority of the musical selections, the groups, and the floats celebrated the Santa side of the season. And of course, that was fine. But there were two floats that remembered the Christian reason for the season. St. Egbert’s Catholic Church and St. Peter’s United Methodist Church’s Pioneer Clubs had floats that featured the Holy Family — Mary, Joseph, and Baby Jesus — in Nativity scenes. Again, out of all the floats and marchers of the day, only some Roman Catholics and some United Methodists witnessed to the (historical and theological) truth of Christmas. It was one of those unplanned events in Christian unity. And it made this United Methodist pastor very thankful for, and humbly proud of, our congregation’s participation in the 2004 Christmas Parade.
MAKING A STATEMENT
Did you ever think that, by greeting someone with “Merry Christmas!,” you would be making a statement? Or offering a witness? Well, it seems that day in America has arrived. As we all know, there has been a big push — by secularizing organizations and forces in our society — to transform “the Christmas season” into “the holidays.” They strongly prefer “Happy Holidays!,” as a greeting, to “Merry Christmas!” Christians, a “Happy Holidays!” greeting would be most appropriate to Jews whom we know. Otherwise, we can be eager to greet one another and others with “Merry Christmas!” throughout the entire Christmas season of 2004-5 and those that follow.
NEW SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASS
A new Sunday School class has started at St. Peter’s United Methodist Church. Meeting in the kitchen near the Choir Room, the class is small. And it still lacks a name. But it has started. The new class hopes to involve those who have recently graduated from high school, twentysomethings, and others. Each Sunday morning we are discussing various “issues,” drawn from the newspapers or from magazines, that relate to being Christian in our time. The goal is to build us up, in relationship to Christ and in the Church’s faith, to meet the challenges of our day with truth and in love. If you are a young adult, you are invited to join us.
THAT ORDINATION SERVICE
On the evening of December 12th, the pastor preached the sermon at an Ordination Service of Worship, as Benjamin S. Sharpe, Jr. entered the priesthood of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). The service took place in York Chapel at Duke Divinity School in Durham. For years, Ben Sharpe had been a faithful, resourceful United Methodist pastor throughout the North Carolina Conference. You may remember when he served as the pastor of Atlantic United Methodist Church in the New Bern District several years ago. Recently, Ben sensed the Holy Spirit’s leading into the AMiA priesthood. He is now establishing a new congregation, The Church of the Messiah AMiA, in south Durham. This opening story from the sermon might be of some interest: “Probably ten years ago, Ben Sharpe and I were discussing a matter, we took to be of some importance, about the Church and the world. As I recall, we were disagreeing about the matter. In advancing his case, Ben, in good lawyerly fashion, was lining up all the evidence at hand that favored his position. Then I noticed that the main source of authority, for his opinion — the trump source, if you will — was ‘Lisa said…’ [Lisa is Ben’s wife.] Repeatedly, Ben noted, ‘Lisa said…’ Since that memorable conversation with Ben, when telephoning the Sharpe household and Lisa has answered, I have carefully and respectfully addressed Ben’s good and faithful wife as ‘Bishop Lisa.’” It should be noted that the bishop presiding at the ordination service, The Right Reverend Charles Murphy III, was amused by this story. And the evening’s preacher was thankful that he was.
