6-20-2010 Sermon by The Rev. Dr. Brian K. Jensen

NABOTH’S VINEYARD

     David Oriani is now a sophomore at the University of Rhode Island.  About seven years ago    – as a seventh grader in a Rhode Island public school – he began to experience harassment from numerous school bullies.  In fact, it became more than harassment.  Eventually, some of his schoolmates began to brutalize him.

    David Oriani recalls faking illnesses to avoid having to go to school at all.  He was terrified to walk the school hallways.  His grades began to slip.  School administrators tried to intervene, but seemingly to of no avail.  The harassment and the brutalization were endless.

  David’s thoughts began to darken.  He says, and I quote, “I felt, ‘What did I do to deserve this?’  I wanted revenge.  I never sat down and planned anything.  I, personally, couldn’t pick up a gun and kill someone.  It’s not who I am.  But I will tell you, I did want to hurt them.  I wanted them to feel as bad as I felt.”

   David Oriani eventually transferred to another school and – with the help of his parents and a sympathetic principal – he gradually rebuilt his self-esteem.  In an age when bullying has often had fatal consequences, David Oriani’s story is really a success story.  Oriani could stand as a poster boy for a modern movement that seeks to understand resilience among the young.  The question is asked, “What is it that allows some kids to negotiate the path to a brighter tomorrow, while others get lost – or even crash and burn?”  Again, “What is it that allows some kids to negotiate the path to a brighter tomorrow, while others get lost – or even crash and burn?”

   Keep that thought in mind as we turn to the passage I read a moment ago from the first book of Kings.  It may seem for a little while as if I’m off on a hopeless tangent, but that’s part and parcel to a preaching theory I learned from a professor named Frank Caldwell.  Dr. Caldwell  said that when you begin a sermon, no one should know where you’re going.  But by the time you finish a sermon, everyone should know where you’ve been.  Hopefully, by the end of this sermon, everyone will know where we’ve been.  

   The passage I read from the first book of Kings is frequently entitled, “Naboth’s Vineyard.”  Naboth was a simple man who had a beautiful vineyard in a place called Jezreel.  It was Naboth’s bad fortune, however, that his vineyard just happened to be located near the palace of the king.

   The king – King Ahab was his name – wanted Naboth’s vineyard for himself.  He offered to buy it or to exchange it for a nicer vineyard, but Naboth wouldn’t sell.  After all, the vineyard had been in his family for generations, and it was far more to him than just a parcel of land.

     When Naboth wouldn’t budge, basically King Ahab began to pout.  Ahab went home, laid down on his bed, turned his face away from everyone, and refused to eat.  We can almost imagine him stomping his feet and throwing a tantrum as well, can we not?  Perhaps we could say that Ahab was a bit of a spoiled brat.

     Now King Ahab’s wife was a Phoenician princess named Jezebel.  When she found out what her husband’s problem was, she said in essence, “Are you not the king of Israel?  Sit up and eat and be happy.  I’ll get Naboth’s vineyard for you.”

    And that’s exactly what she did.  She wrote letters in Ahab’s name to the leaders of Naboth’s town.  She told them to set a couple of unsavory characters near Naboth at a feast to bring charges against him and have him put to death.  And that’s exactly what the leaders of Naboth’s town did.  When Naboth was put to death, King Ahab went to take possession of Naboth’s vineyard.

     God takes a harsh stance against those who abuse their power to take advantage of the weak.  He sent the prophet Elijah to confront Ahab in the vineyard.  When Elijah showed up, Ahab said to him, “Have you found me, O my enemy?” You see, no one wants to confront the word of God – or a representative of God – when they know that they’ve done wrong.  That’s why he referred to Elijah as his enemy.  And Elijah lived up to his billing.  He promised Ahab that because of the evil he had done, God would bring evil upon him.

     Now there are actually several directions I could go with this story.  We could talk about the abuse of power of the powerful against the weak.  Not long ago I read a story about how a man wanted to purchase some property to build a new baseball stadium in Texas.  The people who owned the property wouldn’t sell.  You see, the property had been in their family for generations.

     So the rich and powerful man spoke to some friends in the local government and had the land condemned.  He was then able to purchase the land, develop it, and build his new baseball stadium.  Then the rich and powerful man left the baseball business and became governor of Texas.  Then he gave up his job as governor of Texas when he got elected President of the United States.  But, that’s not the direction I want to go.

    Another direction we could go is to blame this whole series of events on Jezebel.  Like I said, Jezebel was a Phoenician princess.  When she married King Ahab – which was likely a political alliance – she brought her Phoenician gods with her.  Now this was bad news for the nation of Israel.  They were taught to worship the one true God – the same God we worship today.  But here the king and his wife were worshipping foreign gods as well, and leading the rest of Israel to follow suit.  This we might refer to as the fruits of TOLERANCE.  We allow anyone to think and act and believe as they choose, in spite of the inherent dangers of such actions, but that’s not the direction I want to go either.

     After all, today is Fathers’ Day.  What I want to do today is express the importance of fatherhood, and point out what a poor example of fatherhood Ahab set.  Ahab set a poor example, and I think history bears me out on that.  The Bible itself tends to blame Jezebel for this incident with Naboth and his vineyard.  In fact, the very name “Jezebel” applied to a person has come to mean wanton and treacherous.  Think about it.  How many girls have you ever known named Jezebel?

   But let’s take a closer look at Jezebel.  Jezebel was not an Israelite – she was a Phoenician – and she was not raised with any allegiance toward God.  In fact, we should actually admire her religious convictions, in a way.  She had temples built in honor of her Phoenician gods, she actively pursued their worship, and she did her best to convert others to her way of thinking.   We would admire such religious conviction in a person if they were Christian!  She was far more zealous for her faith than most milquetoast Christians in the church are for their faith today.

     And as far as Naboth goes, Jezebel was acting on behalf of her husband.  She was only trying to give the king what she knew the king wanted.  She was only trying to give her husband what she knew her husband wanted.  Granted, she went to extreme measures, but she was only doing what she thought best.

   Ahab – King Ahab – is the one who should have stepped up and set things right.  Only Ahab, clearly, wasn’t strong enough to do the right thing.  We may want to say that these things happened to Ahab – certainly that’s the way the Bible wants to put it – but Ahab could have prevented it all.  The problem was that Ahab was just too weak.  Apparently, he allowed people     to walk all over him.

   And what kind of father was Ahab?  Well, two of his sons actually became king over Israel as well.  Ahaziah reigned in Israel for two years, and Jehoram was king for twelve.  Yet Scripture tells us that both did evil in the sight of the Lord.  Both led Israel away from God.  Ah, children tend to become what their parents lead them to become, do they not?

    It’s up to a father to set a good example for his children.  Of course, it’s up to a mother set a good example as well, but bear with me here.  It’s Fathers’ Day!  It’s up to a father to set a good example for his children.  For as with King Ahab’s boys, children tend to become what their parents lead them to become.

     If, for example, a father belittles his wife, what do you suppose his children will do to their wives?  If a father is too busy to spend time with his kids, how much time do you suppose his kids will spend with their own kids?  If a father sees worship as extraneous to his real way of life, how do you suppose his children will see the church when they grow up?  I could go on and on I suppose.  Instead, I want you to listen to the words of one of my favorite poems.  It’s entitled, “The Little Chap Who Follows Me.”  Listen closely to the words.

A careful man I ought to be;

A little fellow follows me.

I do not dare to go astray

For fear he’ll go the self-same way.

            I must not madly step aside,

            Where pleasure’s paths are smooth and wide,

            And join in wine’s red revelry…

            A little fellow follows me.

I cannot once escape his eyes;

Whate’er he sees me do he tries.

Like me, he says, he’s going to be;

The little chap who follows me.

            He thinks that I am good and fine,

            Believes in every word of mine;

            The base in me he must not see,

            The little chap who follows me.

I must remember as I go

Through summer’s sun and winter’s snow,

I’m building for the years to be,

A little chap who follows me.

     Now back to David Oriani.  Bullied as a 7^th grader, he managed to survive without incident.  What is it – what is it – that allows some kids to negotiate the path to a brighter tomorrow, while others get lost – or even crash and burn?

   The late Julius Segal – a pioneering psychologist in resiliency research – said it’s this: “The kids who survive are the kids who are able to locate a charismatic adult; a person with whom they can identify, and from whom they can gather strength.”  Again, the kids who survive are the kids who are able to locate a charismatic adult; a person with whom they can identify, and from whom they can gather strength.  Sometimes it’s a teacher, sometimes it’s a mother, and sometimes it’s a father.

   Thus, on this particular Fathers’ Day, I challenge the fathers to truly be fathers.  To be a father is to do more than just provide for your family.  To be a father is to set a good example for your kids.  They will become what they see in you.  But more than that, come home early from work once in a while.  Turn off the television.  Open up a Bible – read it to your kids – and talk about what it means.  Don’t just try to shape them into athletes.  Don’t just try to turn them into scholars.  Try to help them become moral, Christian human beings as well.  Because, truth be told, that may be exactly what our society needs…more than anything else in the world.  Amen.

 

6-13-2010 Sermon by The Rev. Dr. Brian K. Jensen

THEOLOGICAL AMNESIA

   Katherine Dill – no relation to our own Kevin Dill – was a woman in my first church who was well into her eighties by the time I knew her.  Katherine Dill was one of the greatest teachers I ever had.  Some of you may have heard me say, “The most spiritual people I have ever known tend to be women in their eighties.”  Katherine Dill is one of the reasons why.

   Katherine had a husband named Jack who was in poor health so I went to see the two of them often.  It seemed like every time I went to see them, Jack was laying on the couch taking a nap.  When I came in the door, Jack would sit up on the couch, Katherine would sit in a chair on the side of the room, and I would sit directly across from Jack.  Jack would tell these old stories that Katherine had probably heard a hundred times before, but she was on the edge of her seat just the same.  When Jack would falter and fail to finish the story he was telling, Katherine would finish the story for him.  Like I said, she’d probably heard those stories a hundred times before, but still, she was on the edge of her seat.  And Jack never seemed to mind when Katherine finished   a story for him either.  It was almost as if the two of them had become one person.

     It was from Jack and Katherine Dill that I learned what marriage is really meant to be.   Jack and Katherine had been married for 63 years and in the course of those 63 years the two had indeed become one.  I learned that when the Bible says that the two shall become one in marriage, that doesn’t happen overnight.  It happens after many years of love, and hard work, and a word that isn’t spoken very much anymore.  That other word is sacrifice.      The two become one in marriage after many years of love and hard work and sacrifice.

     Katherine said to me on numerous occasions, “I just want you to know that I’m praying for you.”  Think about how that must have felt to me.  Imagine someone you respect and admire saying to you, “I just want you to know that I’m praying for you.”  It gave me a sense of peace and contentment, and I’m sure it contributed in large measure to any success I might have had in that church.  It happened because Katherine was praying for me.

   Of course, I’d had people say that they were praying for me before.  It used to happen a lot in seminary.  Whenever you’d get into a theological disagreement with someone in seminary and they’d be totally frustrated with you, they’d say, “I’ll pray for you!”  What they were really saying is that they’d pray for you to get God to make you agree with their way of thinking.  In that situation I wanted to respond, “No!  Don’t pray for me!  I don’t want God to make me think like you!”  Yet when Katherine Dill said to me, “I just want you to know that I’m praying for you,” it was something else entirely.

   After Jack died, I went to see Katherine as often as I could.  Occasionally the subject of eternal life would come up.  When Katherine would wonder if she was worthy of eternal life, I’d say to her, “Katherine, what are you talking about?  If anyone’s going to get into heaven, it’s you.”  To which Katherine would reply, “Oh, I don’t know.  I’m just such a sinner!”

     That was the final lesson Katherine taught me.  She taught me that the most deeply spiritual people in the world have the most pervasive sense of their own depravity.  In other words, the people who seem to us to be the closest to God are the ones who are most keenly aware of how far away from him they really are. 

     John Calvin once wrote in his epic theological treatise, Institutes of the Christian Religion, “Without knowledge of self, there is no knowledge of God.”  Thus, knowledge of God begins with knowledge of self, and knowledge of self begins with the recognition of one’s own sinfulness; with the recognition of one’s dire need of the grace of God in Christ.  In other words, we have to see ourselves for who and what we really are before we can even begin to comprehend God, let alone draw near to him.

     Truth be told, that was Simon the Pharisee’s problem in the passage we read from the gospel according to Luke.  He failed to see his own sinfulness.  He was completely unaware of his own deep need for the grace of God in Christ.  He was quick to point a finger at the sins of those around him, but he failed to see his own pressing need.

     Our passage begins by saying, “One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him.”  Now the Pharisees were a particular sect of the Jewish faith at the time of Jesus.  They were deeply devoted to the Law of Moses.  The word “Pharisee” stems from a Hebrew word meaning, “one who is separate.”  That in itself should give you a clue as to what the Pharisees thought of themselves.  The Pharisees enjoyed great prestige and would be the first ones to tell you how exclusive they really were.

   Now as you know, Jesus frequently butted heads with the Pharisees.  Thus, one might naturally wonder who this Pharisee was who extended a dinner invitation to Jesus, and why he extended it.  Unfortunately, we have no clue as to who this Pharisee was other than the fact that his name was Simon.  And as to why he extended a dinner invitation to Jesus, we can only speculate.

      Some scholars suggest that Simon invited Jesus to dinner because he was an admirer of the young prophet and was sympathetic to his cause.  After all, not all of the Pharisees were enemies of Jesus.  Some even came to him for advice.  Yet this scenario is unlikely because Simon failed to perform some basic courtesies to Jesus that we’ll talk about momentarily.  Others suggest that Simon invited Jesus to dinner with the intention of enticing him into some word or action that might be used against him in a Jewish court of law.  This scenario, too, is unlikely because, as we see in verse 40, Simon actually calls Jesus “Teacher,” or “Rabbi.”  He must have had at least some respect for Jesus.

     Other scholars suggest that Simon was just a collector of celebrities.  You know, maybe Simon was a “name dropper.”  He liked having important people at his house.  Actually, this      is a very plausible reason for Simon’s invitation.  Perhaps Simon was a man who was only   trying to patronize Jesus.  It helps to explain the omission of the customary courtesies of the    day that Simon failed to extend to Jesus. 

  What were those customary courtesies of the day?  Two thousand years ago, when an important guest entered a house, there were three things that were always done.  First, the host would place his hand on the shoulder of the guest and kiss him on the cheek.  It was what they called “the kiss of peace.”  Second, most roads in those days were only dust tracks, and shoes in those days were leather soles held in place by straps.  Cool water was supposed to be poured on the guest’s feet to cleanse and comfort them.  And finally, either a pinch of sweet-smelling incense was burned, or a drop of rose oil was placed on the head of the guest.  These were the things that good manners dictated, yet in this case, not one of them was done. 

    As our story progresses, we see that a woman of the city came to Jesus.  Our passage indicates that this woman was a sinner, which is a nice way of saying that she was likely a prostitute.  This woman began to wash Jesus’ feet with her tears and to anoint them with oil.  There are two questions that come to mind right here.  Number one, how did the woman get into this invitation-only dinner, and number two, how did she gain access to Jesus feet when he was sitting at the table?

     The home of a wealthy Pharisee like Simon would have had a large open courtyard surrounded by a wall.  Often these courtyards had gardens and fountains, and in warm weather, meals were eaten there.  It was the custom that when a Rabbi was at a meal in such a house, all kinds of people came in and they were quite free to do so.  They came to listen to the wisdom that fell from his lips.  That explains how the woman got into the invitation-only party.

     How did she gain access to Jesus’ feet when he was sitting at the table?  In those days, people didn’t actually sit at tables like we do today.  They reclined on their sides beside the table.  They planted their left arms on a couch and folded their legs behind them.  It would have been a difficult time to be left-handed, don’t you think?  In any case, Jesus’ feet would have been sticking out behind him.  That’s how the woman gained access to Jesus’ feet.

     Clearly this woman was repentant of her behavior.  She must have wept bitterly – so much    so that she shed enough tears to wash Jesus’ feet with her hair.  Around her neck she wore, like all Jewish women at the time, a little vial of concentrated perfume.  They were called alabasters and they were very expensive.  She poured this ointment on Jesus’ feet, for it was all she had to offer.

     By now, I suspect, this woman was creating quite a scene.  Simon thought to himself, “If this man were really a prophet, he would know what kind of a woman she is.”  Jesus, fully aware of what lay in Simon’s heart, posed a question to him.  “Simon,” he said, “a certain creditor had two debtors: one who owed $50,000.00 and one who owed $5,000.00.  When they could not pay, he forgave them both.  Which of the two will love him more?”  Simon wisely replied, “The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more.”  Jesus said to Simon, “You have judged rightly.”

     Then turning toward the woman, Jesus said to Simon, “Do you see this woman?” Likely keeping his gaze upon her, he added: “I entered your house and you gave me no water for        my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.  You gave me      no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.  You did not anoint       my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.  Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much.  But he who is forgiven little, loves little.”

     Simon’s heart must have dropped to his feet at that.  Jesus deftly pointed out the contrast between the two of them.  Simon was conscious of no need for forgiveness and therefore felt    no love in his heart.  Simon’s impression of himself was that he was a good man in the sight      of God.  The woman was conscious of nothing but a deep-seated need for forgiveness.  Since she was so overwhelmed with love for him who could give it, she found her forgiveness.

      Perhaps nothing shuts a person off from God any more than self-sufficiency.  The ultimate irony is that the more Godly a person is, the more conscious they are of their own depravity; the more aware they are of their own sinfulness.  My friend Katherine Dill saw herself as a sinner.  When the Apostle Paul spoke of sinners, he referred to himself as the foremost of sinners.  St. Francis of Assisi once said, “There is nowhere a more wretched and more miserable sinner than I.”  And as John Calvin said, “Without knowledge of self, there is no knowledge of God.”  The denial of who and what we really are does nothing but expand the chasm that exists between us and God.  It can render us loveless and it can leave us unforgiven.  Such are the fruits of the self-sufficient life.

     It seems as though Simon the Pharisee had a bad case of theological amnesia.  Sometimes   we get a bad case of theological amnesia as well.  What is theological amnesia?  Theological amnesia has to do with forgetting what it really means to be a Christian.  Christians are sinners   in desperate need of the grace of God in Christ.  Theological amnesia stems from a lack of familiarity with Scripture.  We need to learn to open to our Bibles again.  We need to read    them and recognize ourselves in its pages.  For apart from Scripture, we have the capacity to rationalize our way around anything.  People can literally justify their behavior in everything from little white lies to adultery. 

     Ladies and gentlemen, we need to learn to recognize ourselves for who and for what we are – not in accordance with the world’s standards – but in the eyes of God.  We may not like what we see at first, but the grace of God perpetually gives us the chance to begin anew.  May we learn to see ourselves for who and for what we really are.  For that, my friends, is where forgiveness can be found, and our journey toward God begins.  Amen. 

 

6-6-2010 Sermon by The Rev. Dr. Brian K. Jensen

SACRED COMMUNITY

   Last Friday night I saw an intriguing documentary entitled, “The Smartest Men in the Room.”  It was all about the rise and fall of Enron.  Now I’m not going to go into all of the gory details, but I was absolutely appalled at the things Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and friends did.  At one point one of them actually said, “The Lord helps those who help themselves.”  Of course, you know that phrase is not in the Bible, don’t you?  In any case, that got me to thinking theologically.  I thought, “Does God exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve God?”  Again, does God exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve God?  Keep that thought in mind as we move forward.     

    Have you seen the young men dressed in white shirts and ties going door-to-door in our community of late?  They represent what is now known as The Church of Jesus Christ of     Latter Day Saints, perhaps better known to us as the Mormon Church.  Their mission, in a nutshell, is to convert anyone they can to the Mormon faith.

     Now typically, they do their best to avoid going to the homes of the ministers in town.  Yet recently, two of these young men actually did come to my house.  Unfortunately, I was not home at the time, so my wife answered the door.  As they tried to strike up a conversation, she quickly told them that her husband was the minister at the First Presbyterian Church.  They duly noted her statement, then tried to give her some of their literature just the same.  My wife politely refused, then told them that Presbyterians are Christians too and that she was really quite happy with her faith.  As the young men started to leave, one of them suddenly stopped and asked,   “Do you know any Catholics?” 

     I’m not exactly sure what they meant by that statement, but I have a pretty good idea.  In my younger days, I was actually quite critical of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses going door-to-door trying to recruit people to their way of thinking – what we might call proselytizing.  Then I studied a passage from the ninth chapter of Luke where the disciples caught someone casting out demons in Jesus’ name.  They tried to stop him because he was not one of them.  Jesus said to them, “Do not stop him; for he who is not against us is for us.”  Thus, unless we can prove that Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses are actually against us, we have to assume that they are for us.  That proved to be a bit of an eye-opener for me.  I am no longer as hard on them as I once was.

   Say what you will about their process, but you’ve got to admire their dedication.  I mean, how many of us would be willing to go door-to-door in an effort to expand the Presbyterian Church?  They are committed to their cause.  And if you were to ask them, “Does God exist to serve us,   or do we exist to serve God?” their answer might be better than the typical mainline Christian.

   Does God exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve God?  Perhaps we will find an answer to that question in the passage we read from the gospel according to Luke.  Jesus and his disciples had gone to a town called Nain.  There they met a procession that was carrying a dead man out of town.  He was the only son of a widow, and she was devastated, as you might expect.  After all, no parent wants to outlive their children.  When Jesus saw the woman, he had compassion for her.  Then he stopped the procession and raised the young man from the dead. 

     At first glance, it might appear as if this woman had been served by God, not to mention her son.  Thus, when we ask the question after reading this passage, “Does God exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve God?” we might be inclined to answer, “God exists to serve us.”  But when   we look at this passage contextually, we see that it’s really the other way around.  You see, this event occurred very early in Jesus’ public ministry.  He had recently called twelve disciples to follow him.  He had just preached what Luke calls “The Sermon on the Plain.”  And now he has raised a young man from the dead.  As our passage puts it, after this event occurred, “Fear seized all of them; and they glorified God, saying, ‘A great prophet has risen among us,’ and ‘God has looked favorably upon his people!’”  The point of this passage is God’s glorification.  God does not exist to serve us, rather, we exist to serve God.  There may be some clear benefits to serving God, as we see in this passage, but first and foremost, we exist to serve God.

     I am not at all convinced that our culture sees things that way.  Our culture is more inclined to look at life the way Winnie the Pooh looks at life.  Author Rodney Clapp points that out in a book entitled, Border Crossings.  One day Winnie the Pooh was sitting on a log when he heard   a buzzing noise.  He thought to himself, “If there’s a buzzing noise, somebody’s making a buzzing noise, and the only reason for making a buzzing noise that I know of is because you’re a bee.  And the only reason for being a bee that I know of is making honey.  And the only reason for making honey is so I can eat it!”  Of this, Rodney Clapp writes:

Now, even though this philosopher carries the strange title of Winnie the Pooh, and    even though his work is mostly appreciated (only) by children, this bit of reflection deserves our serious attention.  After all, it resembles the way the American Church is more and more thinking about God and discipleship. 

 

This incident shows Pooh to be a pragmatic individualist.  He cannot imagine bees possessing an existence and purpose apart from his own use and interest.  Winnie the Pooh is the quintessential consumer, entirely practical and entirely self-centered.  As Pooh himself puts it, “The only reason for being a bee is to make honey, and the only reason for making honey is so I can eat it.”

 

Thus reasoning, Winnie the Pooh has a range of other possibilities blocked from his vision.  He cannot see, for instance, the wider ecological purpose of bees: how they weave into a fabric of flora and fauna not only by providing honey, but also by such crafts as pollinating flowers.  Another thing Pooh cannot see is a theological purpose    for bees: that in the wonder of their existence, they speak and spell the glory of a Creator God.

    I ask you again, “Does God exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve God?”  Winnie the Pooh clearly sees God existing to serve us.  And perhaps more often than we’d care to admit, we see God in the very same way.  We turn to God urgently and often when we want something from him.  We turn to God seldom to thank him for his provision.  As Lyle Schaller, the guru on church growth and leadership in the 1990s once said, “It used to be that people joined the church and said: How can I help this church meet its needs?  Today people are more likely to join the church and say: How can this church help meet my needs?”  The world has made us into consumers.  The mantra, “Have it your way,” has come to be the way we expect our hamburgers to    be prepared at Burger King, as well as the way we expect all other businesses and institutions    to treat us…including the church.  The world has made us into consumers, and its effects are nothing short of devastating. 

   Along that line of thinking, I recently came across an interesting article entitled, “Visions of the Sacred Community.”  It was actually written by four Jewish men: Isa Aron, Steven Cohen, Lawrence Hoffman, and Ari Kelman.  While the bulk of their research was done on synagogues, their findings seem to be quite applicable to the church as well.  They write:

Congregational leaders who embark upon change efforts develop contrasting images of the qualities they seek in the congregation and of the characteristics they hope to shed, transcend, or avoid.  They aspire to become what we call visionary congregations: those that most effectively develop, nurture and apply powerful, widely-shared and widely understood visions of the sacred community.  In contrast, they distinguish their communities from what we call functional congregations, those that may excel at performing discrete functions that satisfy their consumer-members, but tend to fall short of genuinely achieving an integrated sense of sacred community.

   The goal here is sacred community.  Community is one of the things our Church Revitalization Task Force has tried to emphasize in recent weeks.  Sacred community is found in what they call visionary congregations, but seems to be lacking in what they call functional congregations.  Thus, obviously, we want to be a visionary congregation.  Yet in order to do so there are certain pratfalls that need to be avoided, and there are certain characteristics that need to be developed. 

     Functional congregations – those that fall short of sacred community – tend to have the following six characteristics in common.  The first characteristic is consumerism.  In other words, we pay a certain amount to the church when we make a pledge, and we expect a certain level of service in return.  That’s what we call “consumerism.”  The second characteristic is segmentation.  In other words, programs tend to stand on their own with very little integration into the life of the church.  It’s a lot like the silos you might see on a farm.  There is no overarching sense of connection or purpose.     

     The third characteristic is passivity.  In other words, the ministry of the church is done   almost exclusively by paid professionals.  Worshippers sit passively in their pews, parents     drop off their kids for religious education, and church boards deal with minutia.  The fourth characteristic is meaninglessness.  People feel like they’re just going through the motions at church without a genuine sense that they’re making a difference. 

     The fifth characteristic is resistance to change.  You know the seven last words of the church, don’t you?  They are: We’ve never done it that way before!  The church that says that is resistant to change.  And last but not least, the sixth characteristic of a functional church is nonreflective leadership.  Leaders of the church are more concerned with programs and institutional arrangements than they are with purpose or with vision.    

   There you have it, the six characteristics of a functional congregation.  A functional congregation will often be lacking in sacred community.  The goal is to become a visionary congregation.  A visionary congregation is much more likely to have sacred community.  Visionary congregations, too, seem to have six characteristics in common. 

     The first characteristic is sacred purpose.  A pervasive and shared vision infuses all aspects  of the church.  The second characteristic is a holistic ethos.  The parts are related to each other such that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  Scripture, service and acts    of loving kindness are intertwined throughout the church’s life.    

   The third characteristic is a participatory culture.  People do more than sit in pews on Sunday mornings and avoid church commitments all week long.  They are actively involved in the work of creating sacred community.  The fourth characteristic is meaningful engagement.  Meaningful engagement is achieved through repeated inspirational experiences that infuse people’s lives with meaning.  That comes through worship and personal involvement in the life of the church.

    The fifth characteristic is an innovative disposition.  We have to be willing to try new things, and we have to accept the fact that some of the things we try will fail.  People who sit back and say, “I told you so,” help no one.  The sixth and final characteristic of a visionary congregation  is reflective leadership.  This requires a commitment to the overarching purpose of the church, attention to relationships, the mastery of both the big picture and the details, and a sincere and prayerful approach to change. 

   If the goal of our church is truly sacred community, then we need to strive to become a visionary congregation.  Ladies and gentlemen, we are currently taking all the right steps.  These are exactly the kinds of things the Church Revitalization Task Force has been considering, and these are exactly the kinds of things we’ve been discussing at our congregational luncheons.  I suspect you’re going to be hearing more about these kinds of things in the days and weeks that lie ahead.

     For now, however, let’s return to our initial question: “Does God exist to serve us, or do we exist to serve God?”  If we believe God exists to serve us, then we have bought completely into the consumer culture around us.  Yet if, instead, we believe that we exist to serve God, there is   still a flicker of hope for our future.  For a people that believes it exists to serve God might just be on the way to building sacred community.  Amen.