localpastor

November 12, 2023 ~ Proper 27 ~ Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Thirty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Joshua 24:1-3a, 14-25; Psalm 78:1-7; Wisdom of Solomon 6:12-16 or Amos 5:18-24; Wisdom of Solomon 6:17-20 or Psalm 70; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Matthew 25:1-13 ~ The Sunday After Veterans Day ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/884796946

Other gods

“…as for me and my household, we will serve Yahweh, we will worship Yahweh Who is our God.” — Joshua 24:15b.

If I prove anything by telling you the following story it’s that I can be really, really boring. But it gets worse. I have friends who can also be really, really boring.

Here’s the first step on this journey to boring. One evening last week I sent an article to a friend by email about the inadequacies of Scripture translations. “Interesting article,” responded my friend.” Then we went back and forth about this by email. Like I said— I am boring. I have boring friends.

Next he wrote, “I always felt Christianity lost touch with its roots, its beliefs because so often we don’t realize translations can be so inadequate. So what we really need to do is focus on the teachings of Jesus.”

“That’s easy to do,” he said. “Much of what Jesus taught was political and proposed a revolution against Rome. But the leaders in Israel at that time supported the Roman power structure.”

“The scholar Reza Aslan says the revolutionary teachings of Christ can be seen as both new and subversive but peaceful. They needed to be peaceful because Israel was not powerful enough to confront Rome even while Roman culture undermined Judaism.”

I responded— more boring— I responded. “The observation that the teachings of Jesus being new is inaccurate. All of what Jesus taught can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures.”

“Many people ask: ‘Who is Jesus?’ And Jesus is quoted as asking, ‘Who do you say that I am.’ But that brings us back to issues of translations. A literal translation of those words is, ‘Who do you say me to be?’”

“I maintain Jesus here takes the traditional Jewish position: God is One. But at the same time Jesus asks if God is One, how do I, Jesus, fit in? This leads us to some basic questions. ‘How do we, how can we describe God?’”

“If Jesus is a part of the description of God, a Trinitarian description, God Who is One and three, then becomes valid. But if Jesus is just about teaching, not a part of the description, what comes into play is a unitarian description of God. However, God the Creator, God Redeemer and God Spirit are all evident, all referenced in the Hebrew Scripture.”

I continued, “It takes over three centuries for Christians to formulate a Trinitarian description of their own. And this description tries to say how Jesus fits in with this Jewish God Who is One and also tries to fit that description in with what is found in the Hebrew Scriptures.”

I signed off the correspondence with this: “If you say ‘God does not exist’ that becomes your God because from a philosophical perspective God is an a priori concept. In 1781 the philosopher Immanuel Kant addressed that idea in The Critique of Pure Reason.” Then I said. “All this is really too much thinking for one night.”

“Yeah,” said my friend, “that definitely makes my head hurt!” (Slight pause.) I know. A discussion about the definition of God is proof that I am really, really boring and I have really boring friends.

I am so boring… now all you Johnny Carson fans out there know what happens here. When I say “I am so boring…” you say, “How boring are you?” (Pause.) I am so boring… my hobby is watching paint dry. Let’s try that one more time. I am so boring… I sometimes wonder why Bonnie married me. (Slight pause.)

We find these words recorded in Joshua: “…as for me and my household, we will serve Yahweh, we will worship Yahweh Who is our God.” (Slight pause.)

I have said this here before: theologian Walter Brueggemann says the God of Scripture is written with remarkable, intentional, artistic illusiveness— very complex ideas, a very complex God. And if it does not make our heads hurt to just think about a description of God, we’re doing it wrong. We cannot domesticate God, reduce God to a manageable package, reduce God to meaninglessness platitudes.

And yes, many people do try to make the concept of God simple, friendly, accessible, put God in a box, domesticate God. This is not really n option offered by Scripture. Equally, to reduce the reality of Jesus to mere teachings, cast Jesus as simply a revolutionary, as my friend tried to do, is doing it wrong. (Slight pause.)

So, does God exist? I hope this is obvious. For me the answer is ‘yes.’ Therefore, the words uttered by Joshua: “as for me and my household, we will serve Yahweh,” resonate with me. (Slight pause.)

Now, there is something said in this passage which is often overlooked. Joshua tells the people to (quote:), “…throw away the foreign gods among you and turn your hearts toward Yahweh….”

Monotheism as it was understood in this era was not how we see monotheism today. The Israelites would have admitted there were other gods who were real and people would carry around little statues which represented other gods.

Therefore, when Joshua tells them to throw away the foreign gods, what is being addressed are these little statues. But throwing them away is not just a physical gesture. It is an emotional gesture. Joshua invites the people to turn their hearts towards God, be emotionally attached to God, emotionally embrace God. (Slight pause.)

Question: what little statues, foreign gods, what gods might we have, might we be invited to throw away? I think many of us, myself included, probably have a stash of foreign gods, other gods.

I will not be foolish enough to try to name my set or your set of gods. And they are probably not little statues we carry around, either. But we really have them— little gods— for instance cars, sports, politics… the list could be endless.

So, instead of delineating these little gods, I want to ask a question. Since I’ve made a statement, the statement that God does exist, “to where does this God of Scripture call us?’

I think God calls us to mission. This mission is to work toward the reality of the Dominion of God, the realm of God— here, now. But how do we work toward that reality? (Slight pause.)

I believe we work toward the reality of the Dominion through the mission of helping others. And each local church in the Congregational tradition finds its own mission.

Here, in this church, your Missions Committee, your Deacons, other boards and committees, are deeply involved in mission. Further and as Carol reminded us last week, your stewardship support empowers the work of mission in this place.

All that says two things. First, yes— thinking about how we describe God should make our heads hurt. If it does not, we’re doing it wrong.

But second, working toward the Dominion of God means working on mission. And the mission of this church is to help people.

Helping people is an outward sign that we, this church, seek the justice, peace, freedom, equity of the Dominion toward which we are working. And here, in this place, things like the Holiday Fair and suppers both support mission and bring people together. That mission— helping people, bringing people together, points to the reality of God.

You see, there is one description of God on which we can rely. God calls us to help others. And working on mission, helping people, will not make our head hurt. Indeed, working on mission helps us turn our hearts toward God. Amen.

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is a précis of what was said: “This is an old, often told story. Someone walking on a beach saw another person lean down, pick up a starfish and fling it back into the ocean. And they did it again and again, starfish after starfish. The person who was walking along went up to the one tossing the starfish into the ocean and said, ‘This beach is miles long— they weren’t in Maine— this beach is miles long and there are thousands and thousands of these starfish. How is this of any help?’ The rescuer of starfish reached down, picked up another starfish, tossed it into the water and then said, ‘It helped that one.’ This is what the mission of the local church is about. We can’t do everything but dealing with one starfish at a time, helping one person at a time, is what we can do. And yes, mission connects our hearts with God.”

BENEDICTION: The knowledge that God loves us frees us for joyous living. So, let us trust in the love God offers. Let us also be fervent in prayer as we make choices daily, and seek to do God’s will and walk in God’s way as we travel on our Christian journey. And may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding and the abiding truth of Christ keep our hearts and minds in the knowledge, love and companionship of the Holy Spirit this day and forever more. Amen.

11/05/2023 ~ Proper 26 ~ Thirty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost ~ Joshua 3:7-17; Psalm 107:1-7, 33-37; Micah 3:5-12; Psalm 43; 1 Thessalonians 2:9-13; Matthew 23:1-12 ~ 11/01/2023 ~ All Saints Day ~ Sometimes observed on first Sunday in November ~ Revelation 7:9-17; Psalm 34:1-10, 22; 1 John 3:1-3; Matthew 5:1-12 ~ Communion Sunday ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/882585966

The Crowds and the Disciples

“Jesus saw the crowds and went up the mountain. After Jesus sat down there, the disciples gathered around and Jesus began to teach them…” — Matthew 5:1-2.

One of the thoughts for meditation today in part says (quote:) “…early communion services did not center on the passion, but rather on the victory through which a new age had dawned. It was much later— centuries later— that the focus of Christian worship shifted toward the death of Jesus.” (Slight pause.)

I have said before. In early Christian art there is nothing resembling a cross until the middle of the third century, no sign of a cross with a body on it, a crucifix, until the middle of the fourth century. Further, that first crucifix displays Christ dressed in regal attire, a sovereign, wearing a royal crown instead of a crown of thorns, Christ resurrected, levitating off that cross, free from the bonds of death.

This cross, this art, is a statement about liberation, about the love of God. It will be another century before the kind of crucifix with which we are familiar today, a battered body with a crown of thorns, becomes common.

So it takes five to six hundred years for Christ suffering on a cross to appear in Christian art. For a long, long time the church did not see— be ready for a $64 term here— the church did not see substitutionary atonement as a way to understand what God did for humanity in the reality of the Christ.

Here’s a simple, less imposing way of saying “substitutionary atonement”— Christ died for our sins. Now I need to be clear about this on several counts.

First, the idea of substitutionary atonement did not push to the front of church thinking until about the year 1,000 of the Common Era. Can the concept of substitutionary atonement be found in Scripture? Yes it can. But so can a justification for slavery.

But remember this. Given the post resurrection stories in Scripture, for people who have seen the risen Christ and for a long, long time after that it seems the resurrection of Christ rather than the death of Christ was central to and for the Christian faith. The resurrection was at the center of Christian faith.

In fact, Eastern Church thinking focuses on the resurrection as a mystery which is central to the faith. The resurrection invites us to a leap of faith— faith… in… God.

That raises the obvious question. Clearly a shift in how we Westerners think about Christ happened. Why?

There are a multitude of reasons but contrary to populist belief, history is not about specific episodes. Full histories, real histories pursue multiple paths, not specific episodes, single stories.

But and however, prime among the aforementioned multitude of reasons for the transition to substitutionary atonement in the West is what theologians define as the overwhelming influence of the culture on faith. This is a given: the culture of medieval times was often both harsh and transactional.

Saying Christ died for our sins is about a harsh transaction. So how the culture thought about the resurrection became altered. It became a transaction, not a mystery.

The East did not succumb to this choice. But we in the West decided the culture, a harsh and transactional culture, should be more prime for our understanding of the Christian faith than the clearly non-transactional free gift of the love of God defined in and by the mystery of the resurrected Christ.

So, does substitutionary atonement have any role? Yes. But I question its primacy, because it seems to stem less from Scripture than from the culture. And a primacy of culture which proclaims a transactional way of life cannot be allowed to supercede the primacy of Scripture which proclaims the free gift of God’s love. Simply put, did Christ die for our sins… or was Christ raised for our sins? (Long pause.)

We find these words in the work known as Matthew: “Jesus saw the crowds and went up the mountain. After Jesus sat down there, the disciples gathered around and Jesus began to teach them…” (Slight pause.)

I think on many levels the culture can be a factor which becomes too important, a factor which diverts our attention away from what is truly and deeply important. Indeed, the culture inappropriately effects even how we translate Scripture.

David Hart, a translator of the New Testament, has written that many passages need to have more accurate translations. One verse often translated, “Blessed are those who are poor in spirit:…” is more accurately translated as: “Blessed are those who live into perfection….”

Here’s another obvious mis-reading but we can’t blame the translation. Perhaps the culture is at fault. Scripture does not say the Sermon on the Mount was preached to a crowd. That is an a cultural image, not found in Scripture. Scripture clearly says Jesus left the crowds, went up the Mountain and spoke to the disciples, not the crowd. So let’s look at what Jesus said up on that mountain.

Given the word images Jesus painted about what the Dominion of God looks like, to what have these disciples been called to do because of the teaching Jesus offers? The sermon contains teaching about what the Dominion of God needs to look like right now, here, today. These are among the points made by Jesus: ‘Blessed are those who are gentle, who hunger and thirst for justice, who show mercy, who work for peace.’

We need to recognize two things. First, these images, these lessons are not reflected our world today. And second, ‘to whom are these lessons being taught?’

Jesus educates a small cadre as to what the Dominion of God needs to look like. Is Jesus writing off the crowds? No. But some are called to spread the word.

So, then we need to ask, ‘who are we?’ – ‘who am I?’ Am I simply a follower but a member of the crowd? Or am I a disciple of Christ? (Slight pause.)

I want to suggest if we buy into a cultural vision of Christianity, we are not disciples. But if we adhere to what is found in Scripture then we are and need to be what we Protestants call the Priesthood of All Believers. We need to be disciples of Christ.

We need to listen to help everyone willing to listen to the message of Jesus to understand the Dominion. And those willing to listen need to know that buying into cultural Christianity is not a place to which God calls humanity.

Further, living into perfection is something to which the Beatitudes calls us. Those words do not describe a static, cultural, way of life. The words call us to live into perfection, call us to understand perfection is not a singular, unchanging state.

And if we live into the teaching of Christ, we grow and change as we constantly listen for the call of God. I suggested this last week. We can be the church. We can be re-formed by the reality of the living Word, God’s gift to us through the resurrected Christ. (Slight pause.)

So we are called to live out our lives as Christ would have us live, loving one another, serving one another, sharing with one another, with gladness and with generous hearts. Now I might be wrong, but I do not hear too much about loving, serving, sharing or gladness and generous hearts in the transactional culture we know today.

Perhaps what we need to do is simply leave the cultural Christianity, transactional Christianity behind. Perhaps what we need to do is to try the way of life recommended by the Christ in the words of the Beatitudes. Amen.

11/05/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “A requirement when we examine Scripture is that we concentrate on not our culture nor on the culture over the course of many centuries which has effected how we read and hear Scripture. It requires us to read and to listen to the message of Christ and then ask, ‘what would the Dominion of God need to look like here, now, today?’ Then we need to strive to emulate the ethic of Christ, as we work toward a sense of the perfection God might seek.”

BENEDICTION: Go from here in the Spirit of Christ. Dare to question that which holds us captive. Count it a privilege that God calls upon us to be in covenant and to work in the vineyard. And may the peace of Christ which passes all understanding keep our hearts and minds in the love, knowledge and companionship of God the Creator, Christ the redeemer and the Holy Spirit the sanctifier this day and forever more. Amen.

10/29/2023 ~ Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost ~ Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Known in Some Traditions as Reformation Sunday ~ Proper 25 ~ Deuteronomy 34:1-12; Psalm 90:1-6, 13-17; Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-18; Psalm 1; 1 Thessalonians 2:1-8; Matthew 22:34-46 ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/880180589

Re-formed

“You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. I am Yahweh, your God.” — Leviticus 19:18b.

It was said earlier that today is the Sunday closest to October Thirty-first and in some traditions this is known as Reformation Sunday. Now, we Congregationalists rarely acknowledge this. And yet we are a part of the Protestant Reformation.

This day is known as Reformation Sunday because it’s said Martin Luther nailed 95 thesis to the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31st 1517. Most scholars say that’s a fabricated story, simply not true but the 95 thesis are real.

Luther didn’t think of this as protesting something, an act of rebellion. The intent of this priest— he was a Catholic priest— the intent was that of a dutiful church person who wanted to testify, help the church steer toward a Biblically appropriate course.

The fact that we are now better than 500 years into this era raises a question about the Protestant Reformation, itself. To we moderns, does the Reformation seem to be “back there,” distant? If it is back there, distant, what makes it relevant?

Related questions: Christianity is some 2,000 years distant. The Jewish tradition is better than 5,000 years distant. If those origins are “back there,” distant, what makes any of this relevant? (Slight pause.)

Well, let’s start by looking at the word Protestant. (Slight pause.) Most people probably think the word “protestant” means we are protesting something.

But in Latin, the universal language when the word ‘Protestant’ comes into existence, Latin combines pro and testari. Testari is to witness, testify, attest. Pro means for.

So a ‘Protestant’ is one who witnesses, testifies, attests for and to the reality of God and the Word of God in Scripture. To the extent we Protestants protest anything we protest any institutional church when it runs afoul of the will of God and Word of God as that might be discerned in Scripture. So the Reformation was about re-formation, inviting the institutional church to a course correction. (Slight pause.)

These words are in the Nineteenth Chapter of the work known as Leviticus: “You must love your neighbor as you love yourself. I am Yahweh, your God.”

Leviticus centers on Israel’s narrative of faith and that narrative portrays the character of God. Yahweh as a person, a being, not a power to be harnessed or reduced to a tradable, usable commodity. That is how Yahweh, God is portrayed, as a person. Yahweh, God is a reality to be honored.

And Israel’s reflections on faith— these reflections on faith— are always bifocal. Israel never testifies about God without also asking about the character of Israel. Israel needs to embody holiness by listening for and listening to God, God Who is holy.

The text articulates a crucial connection between God’s holiness and Israel’s faithful obedience, a form of human holiness. This is about faith as a response to God’s rescuing, sovereign holiness. Further, these words also tell us about the will of God.

What is the will of God? We should not be corrupt, unjust, partial. We should maintain justice for the poor, the outcast, deal fairly with all those we encounter, do not slander, do not profit from the blood of a neighbor. All that is tall order.

Why is it a tall order? Tell me, in the entire history of humanity who among us or what institution built by humans has escaped from failing, escaped from falling short based on the standards of God? Who among us or what institution has constantly and consistently treated each other with the respect each of us deserves as a child of God?

So this text is about interactions with our neighbors. It calls on us to strive to meet the standards of God, a call to holiness. A link is made between the reality of the neighbor, hence the holiness of neighbor and the reality, the holiness of God. It’s about treating each other as holy and doing this through transformed, re-formed social relations. (Slight pause.)

Re-formation— brings us back to the Reformation— it is better than five hundred years since the Reformation event. So let’s go back in time for a moment— way back. (Slight pause.)

It’s sometimes said Genesis contains the establishing but mythic stories of Israel. But if Abram and Sari actually existed, based on the details and the context of the story we find in Scripture the era described would have placed it about 2,500 Before the Common Era.

Another mythic, establishing tale is of the story of Joseph. The details of the story found in Scripture place it about the year 2,000 Before the Common Era. Next in this Biblical time line, the Exodus story gets beyond myth since there is some factual evidence for the story. Scholars think some kind of Exodus event happened around 1,500 years Before the Common Era.

Moving forward again, we believe the reign of David, a benchmark in the story of Israel, actually happened around the year 1,000 Before the Common Era. And the Babylonian Exile happened between the years 600 and 500 Before the Common Era.

We are confident Christ was born in what we call the year 4 Before the Common Era. So, tell me, do you begin to see a pattern here, something like a 500 year pattern?

Again moving forward, the next date to notice is the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Note: by this time there is an Eastern Roman Empire. The year 476 of the Common Era is the date assigned for that collapse, close enough to be yet another 500 year interval.

This next touchstone we Westerners, do not even acknowledge. The Protestant Reformation is not the Great Schism of the church.

The Great Schism of the Church was the split between the Eastern Church and the Western Church. 1054 of the Common Era is the date most historians use for that. This again is in line with that 500 year picture, is it not?

And we, of course, date the Protestant Reformation to 1517. So guess what? Right now, today we are 500 years after that.

You tell me: is it time for another Reformation, time for another re-formation of the institution we call church? Whether by dint of external forces— for instance the Babylonian Exile or the demise of Rome— or by dint of the fact that human institutions have become broken and adjustment, refocus on God is needed, re-formation seems to me to be in order.

Please note: adjustments due to brokenness are often set in motion by members of the institution and tend to come from the bottom up, not the top down. Can you say, “Martin Luther”? He wasn’t the Pope. He was just a priest hanging out in Germany. And bottom up, not top down sounds very Congregational to me.

All that brings us back to the ancient words from Leviticus. The truth is both we and institutions are always in need of Reformation, in need of re-formation, institutional re-formation and personal re-formation. If that were not the case the words we heard about not being corrupt, unjust, partial, maintaining justice for the poor and outcast, dealing fairly those we encounter, not slandering and not profiting from the blood of a neighbor would never have been recorded. (Slight pause.)

I think the word Reformation sounds like a large thing has happened, a kind of top-down event. But I think re-formation is, as I suggested, bottom up. Now, that poses a serious question for the larger church and for this church. How will we, this church, re-form, re-make ourselves right now? (Slight pause.)

I want to suggest if we do think bottom up is the way re-formation really works— as a Congregationalist I certainly think that— we need to start by concentrating on us.

We need to ask ourselves how can we witness, testify, attest to God and to the Word of God as it is discerned and discernable in Scripture. And yes, we do need to link the reality of neighbor to the reality of God.

Do not misunderstand me. Re-formation happens slowly, one step at a time. But unless we do step toward re-formation at the local church, re-formation will not happen here. And if it does not happen on a local basis, a larger Reformation will never happen.

So it has been about 500 years since the Reformation, has it not? Are due we for a re-formation here in this local church? Your call. Amen.

10/29/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This, then, is a précis of what the pastor said before the blessing: “Catholic theologian Richard Rhor says this. ‘We worshiped Jesus, made Jesus into a mere religion instead of journeying toward union with God and the children of God. That shift made us a religion of believing and belonging instead of a religion of transformation.’— Richard Rhor. Re-formation, transformation— I want to suggest being a follower of the One, Triune God means being re-formed and transformed as we witness, testify and attest to God.”

BENEDICTION: God sends us into the world ready and equipped. God is with us each day and every day. We can trust God Whose love is steadfast and sure. Let us commit to doing God’s will and God’s work. And may God’s presence be with us this day and forevermore. Amen.

10/22/2023 ~ Twenty-First Sunday after Pentecost ~ Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Proper 24 ~ Exodus 33:12-23; Psalm 99; Isaiah 45:1-7; Psalm 96:1-9, (10-13); 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10; Matthew 22:15-22 ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/877487531

The Emperor’s Clothes

“Jesus then asked them {that is asked the disciples of the Pharisees and the sympathizers of Herod}, ‘Whose head is this, and whose inscription, whose title?’” — Matthew 22:20.

The Emperor’s New Clothes is a short story penned by the Danish author, writer of fairy tales and poet noted for children’s stories, Hans Christian Andersen. The story was first published in the same book as The Little Mermaid. It was the third and final installment of Andersen’s Fairy Tales Told for Children.

Now just to remind us and to be precise, the story Andersen told about The Emperor’s New Clothes runs something like this. An Emperor who cares for nothing except appearance and attire hires two weavers, two tailors, who promise to make the finest suit of clothes possible.

The catch is this fabric is invisible to anyone who is unfit for their position or just hopelessly stupid. The Emperor is shocked when these workers show him the cloth for the suit. He cannot see anything. What is he to do? The Emperor pretends the cloth can be seen for fear of appearing unfit to be the Emperor.

The ministers and lackeys who surround the Emperor also realize they have to claim they see the cloth. After all, they assume the Emperor sees the cloth. So if they say they can’t see it, then they will be deemed either stupid or unfit for their positions or both.

When these swindlers who purport to be making the suit claim the product is finished, they mime dressing the Emperor who then marches through the streets before the subjects of the empire. Needless to say, the subjects of the empire who experience this procession, play along with the pretense. What is there to gain from ridiculing the Emperor?

Suddenly, a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up this deceit, blurts out that the Emperor (quote): “…isn’t wearing anything at all!” The cry is then taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but proudly stands a littler taller and continues on, perhaps not oblivious to reality but very determined to ignore it. (Slight pause.)

Anderson’s tale may date back as far as the Fourteenth Century. However, the story cannot be traced back to Biblical times and I am not trying to do that. On the other hand, there are fascinating connections between the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes and the story we find in Matthew when Jesus asks ‘whose inscription is on the coin?’

So, let me briefly refresh your memory about the question asked by Jesus. It said, “Jesus then asked them {that is asked the disciples of the Pharisees and the sympathizers of Herod}, ‘Whose head is this, and whose inscription, whose title?’” (Slight pause.)

The question about whose head is on the coin and whose inscription is not an idle one. Indeed, the tax issue was not an abstract question. It was specific. Just like today, taxes were real.

The question, however, refers to a particular tax, the “census” tax, the head-tax instituted by the Roman government in year 6 of the Common Era. That is why a Roman coin and not a more local currency is invoked in the question.

In New Testament times Judea had become a land not just occupied by Rome, occupied by the Roman army. Judea had effectively become a province of Rome, a part of Rome. I sometimes, myself, refer to it as Roman Palestine.

This census tax triggered the nationalism that finally became what was called the Zealot movement among the population. It took many years but this Zealot movement in turn and eventually fermented and produced a disastrous war between the people of Judea and the Roman Empire.

That war lasted from about the year 66 to the year 70 of the Common Era and essentially marked the end of Judea as an identifiable nation. The author of Matthew who is writing some 15 years after the war ended, knew this and is looking back on those consequences.

To set this up with another time frame, the author of Matthew is writing fifty-five years after the resurrection. So this is all being looked at with the eye of someone who knows not just this history of the followers of the Christ but the meaning and reality of the resurrected Christ in the context of that time.

Well, let me come back to the Roman coins with which that tax was paid. These coins had both an image of the Roman Emperor and an inscription on them.

The inscription said, “Tiberius Caesar, son of the divine Augustus.” As Augustus was by Romans considered to be a god, this effectively read, ‘Tiberius Caesar, son… of… god.’

Further, not only was Tiberius Caesar considered (quote), “son of god,” but there was another title by which Caesar was commonly called: “bring-er of peace.” Both those sound like a Christian description applied to Jesus, do they not? All of this is to say, from the perspective of the writer of Matthew the questions being asked are not about the image on the coin or the tax being imposed.

The questions being asked are these: ‘What do you believe about God?’ ‘Who is your God?’ And, therefore, the question is ‘To whom is your first allegiance?’

There is a yet another perspective to examine which makes the question Jesus asks in this story not an idle one. The text is clear on this count. The ones who question Jesus are (quote): “the disciples of the Pharisees and the sympathizers of Herod.”

Mind you, Herod is Jewish. But Herod is a puppet governor of Judea in charge of the puppet government of Judea which has been set up by the Roman Empire.

So the question is being asked of people who have allegiance to the societal structure put in place by Rome, a societal structure by which Rome dominates the people of Judea is the challenge with which Jesus presents them. And it’s a straightforward challenge.

Do they deny an understanding that Rome, a society they have supported, assisted and even helped build, is barren and worthless when compared with the Dominion of God? And perhaps more importantly, do they deny the divinity of the Emperor.

In short, by asking the question, “Whose head is this, and whose inscription, whose title?” this passage portrays Jesus as effectively saying just what the youngster in the tale by Hans Christian Andersen said: this Emperor “isn’t wearing any clothes!” (Slight pause.)

I think it’s likely many of us have heard sermons which talk about this passage as addressing the relationship between religion and the state, the separation of church and state. I know I have.

I hope you realize I do consult respected commentaries when I prepare a sermon. Not a one of the commentaries on this passage I consulted makes the claim that these words have anything directly to do with the church, the state and the separation thereof. Indeed, I think these words pretty directly ask us right now, today, “Who do we think God is?” and “Who do we think Jesus is?” Perhaps the only place church and state and the separation thereof do interact here is with this question: ‘Have we made a god of the state. Have we turned the state into a god?’

The question put to us is not at all about church and state. The question is ‘how we think about God.’ For me, especially given that Matthew is written some 55 years after the Resurrection, the clear message I take from these words is simple. Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Second Person of the Trinity, that Triune God, One in Three. Yes, Who is God? Amen.

10/22/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This, then, is a précis of what the pastor said before the blessing: “Again, certainly one aspect of the question Jesus puts to the Herodians is easy to figure out: ‘Who is your God?’ To come back to what I said in A Time for All Ages, if we fully rely on God, if we forever rely on God, we are making a claim about who we think God is.”

BENEDICTION: We have gathered, not just as a community, but as a community of faith. Let us respond to God, who is the true reality, in all that we are and say and do. Let the Holy Spirit dwell among us, let us be aware of the reality of Jesus and may the peace of God which surpasses our understanding be with us this day and forever more. Amen.

10/15/2023 ~ Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost Twenty-eight Sunday in Ordinary Time~ Proper 23 ~ Exodus 32:1-14; Psalm 106:1-6, 19-23; Isaiah 25:1-9; Psalm 23; Philippians 4:1-9; Matthew 22:1-14; NOTE: ADDED PSALM 19.

VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE; NOTE: THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE SOUND FOR THE FIRST SEVEN MINUTES OF THE VIDEO SO MUSIC HAS BEEN INSERTED OVER THE ACTION INSTEAD OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT PORTION OF THE SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/876014361

Prayer

“Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart / be acceptable to you, / O LORD, my rock and my redeemer.” — Psalm 19:14.

I am of the generation known as ‘Baby Boomers.’ The name, of course, comes from the fact that, after World War II, hundreds of thousands of GIs got discharged from the armed forces, got married and suddenly there were all these children— the ‘Baby Boom.’ At one point this generation totaled seventy-seven million souls and even now sixty-five million of us are still hanging out.

My wife Bonnie’s brother is, literally, among the first of the baby boomers. His parents got married on V.J. day in 1945. He was born nine months and six days later.

I, myself, arrived in 1947. But the point is we were and are a very large group who together moved through childhood, into if not maturity certainly adulthood and then through all the following years, simultaneously (if not together).

When I started Elementary School, you could see the‘Baby Boom’ in action. There were over fifty, nearly sixty students in my First Grade class at parochial school, all crammed into one classroom, shepherded by one nun.

By the time I hit the seventh grade my parents, thinking I needed to be in a smaller group, got me transferred from that parochial school in Brooklyn, New York, to one with a much smaller class size in Manhattan, nearly an hour away from where we lived.

My Dad actually worked near the school to which I transferred, so I would travel to school on the Subway with him. But most of the time I made the return trip alone.

In some ways the best education I got was from silent observation on the trip into Manhattan and back. I saw all kinds of people I had never run into before, from sidewalk venders to panhandlers to buskers— street entertainers.

I remember the first time I saw someone standing on a Subway platform holding up a sign with writing scratched on a piece of cardboard. It said they were homeless and needed money. Rumor to the contrary, homelessness is not new. It was common even rampant during the Great Depression. I saw it in the late 1950s when I was in the Seventh Grade.

To me, that person I saw seemed to be looking out at the world with a blank, hopeless stare. I remember being confused and upset at the sight.

I remember wanting to do something about it, maybe even see if I could give them some money. But I went to school with exact lunch money and three tokens, enough to make a round trip on the Subway and one extra token if needed in case of an emergency.

Being confused, upset and, since I could not help feeling a little helpless, I asked my mother if there was anything I could do if I saw someone who needed help. “Well,” she said, “right now you are not really in a position where you can do anything for them. You need to be a little older to do that. But you can always pray for them.”

That is actually a habit I developed and never relinquished. When I see someone in need and there is nothing I can do, I pray. (Slight pause.)

When Psalm 19 was introduced we heard that the first section praises God, the creation God made and its order. The second section suggests in the Torah this ordering affirmed. Still, what is our part in the creation? Who are we? Where do we belong? I actually think being a part of the so called ‘Baby Boomer’ generation has helped me with this. There are so many of us, I think the silent questions of my generation have been: ‘what is our part in the creation?’ ‘Who are we?’ and ‘Where do we belong?’ (Slight pause.)

I firmly believe some of the meditation my heart has experienced during prayer has grappled with these very questions. And so, in reverse order this is what I say about the questions: ‘Where do we belong?’ We can find where we belong by seeking and walking the paths God shows us, striving to help people as we go.

‘Who are we?’ We are children of God. We are loved by God.

‘What is our part of the creation?’ As I said, we are called to walk in the paths God shows to us. But certainly as the final words of the Psalm suggest, aside from everything else, one segment of our part, our place in life, is to engage in prayer and meditation.

We need to pray for all those around us. We need to pray for all those in need. We need to pray that the justice of God may surround all people.

We need to pray that the words we pray and the thoughts, the meditations of our hearts, are acceptable, pleasing in the sight of God. And it follows that sincere prayer and meditation, in and of itself, means we will seek to ways to act on God’s will.

Still, that leaves us with an obvious question: “how do we pray?” “Are there methods?” The short answer is: yes, we can learn to pray and a prime way is to pray is by praying with others. So what I am about to say is an outline taught by a wide range of folks from Catholics to Pentecostals to Main Line Protestants.

Indeed, I was a member of an Episcopal Church— the last time I looked Episcopalians were considered a Mainline Protestant group— I was a member of an Episcopal Church where members of the laity were trained to pray with other parishioners in the course of worship. This is some what I learned.

First, prayer can be seen as a conversation with God. But we need to let God begin the conversation. So we need to listen to a prayer request from a person who is requesting prayer and then wait in silence as we strive to listen for the voice of God before praying— that’s the hard part.

Second, pray with other people. Don’t pray alone or one on one. When two or three are gathered means two or three are praying with someone requesting prayer. There is no question about this: prayer is mostly meant to be a communal act, not simply the act of an individual.

While clerics often voice prayer, prayer is not meant to be the exclusive act of an intermediary, a pastor or priest, praying in the stead of a community. You are the ones who need to pray. Further, prayer is not meant to be an act of self-indulgence but is meant to be communal.

Those who live in cloisters understand when everyone within and outside the cloister walls voice their prayers, it is the cacophony of everyone’s prayer to which God listens. Even hermits understand prayer is not solitary and know others pray with them.

Third, prayers should be as brief and as clear as possible and always pray for the will of God to be done when voicing a specific prayer request. Also, when praying for someone, with someone, pray facing one another, eye to eye.

When appropriate, only when appropriate and with permission, those who pray together might hold hands or rest a hand on a shoulder. Why? Tactile contact can reinforce both a sense of the other and a sense of togetherness in prayer. (Slight pause.)

Last, prayer has four aspects. They can be represented in the acronym A-C-T-S. They are adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, supplication— A-C-T-S.

That idea is pretty universal. Rabbi Marc Gellman says in the synagogue they teach children four basic prayers, except this is the kid’s version: “‘Gimme!’ ‘Thanks!’ ‘Oops!’ and ‘Wow!’”

“‘Wow!’ are prayers of praise and wonder at the creation. ‘Oops!’ asks for forgiveness. ‘Gimme!’ is a request, a petition. ‘Thanks!’ expresses gratitude.” [1] (Slight pause.)

So, what should life in church look like? Church is a community of faith. A community of faith should look like a community immersed in prayer. (Slight pause.) Amen.

10/15/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Benediction. This, then, is a précis of what the pastor said before the blessing: “Sometimes it is said religion is private. That is an inaccurate statement, something our society has made up out of whole cloth, a falsehood. You may believe it; that’s a different issue. It is a falsehood. A lot of people believe all kinds of falsehoods— the earth is flat, for instance. Religion is not private. Religion is personal, but personal is not private. That is also true of prayer. Prayer is personal but it is not private. Prayer needs to be shared. If we, the community of faith, do not pray together, do not pray for each other, do not pray with each other, we lose a dimension of who we are and who we are called to be as believers in the One Triune God.”

BENEDICTION: God can open our minds to what is true. God can fill our lives when we participate in the work of God’s realm, participate in seeking justice and peace and love. When we seek what is pleasing to God we are doing God’s will. And may the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, help our hearts and minds be one with Christ, Jesus and be kept within the unity of the Holy Spirit, this day and forever more. Amen.

[1] NY Times ~ 09/20/2009 ~ The Right Way to Pray? ~ by Zev Chafets.

VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/873372792

10/08/2023 ~ Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Proper 22 ~ Exodus 20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20; Psalm 19; Isaiah 5:1-7; Psalm 80:7-15; Philippians 3:4b-14; Matthew 21:33-46 ~ Columbus Day Also Known as Indigenous Peoples’ Day, a Holiday Weekend on the Secular Calendar ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/873372792

I Did Everything Right

“I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the Law— blameless.” — Philippians 3:6b.

Who here remembers or has looked at YOUTUBE to catch the early television series known as The Honeymooners? Most of us, right? O.K., we know The Honeymooners. I happen to know the specific New York City neighborhood in which that series was set is the Bushwick section of Brooklyn.

Why do I know that? Jackie Gleason, the star of the show, grew up in that neighborhood and used it as the setting for the show. It was also the neighborhood of my youth until the ripe old age of twelve.

When I was twelve my family moved from that house in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn to a house in Woodhaven, Queens, New York. It was in 1961. My grandparents then my parents had lived in that Bushwick house from September 1929 to January 1961— two generations of us.

Shortly after that move I was home alone in this new house. My mother had gone to a doctor appointment. I don’t know where my brother and sister were. I presume at school. Was I was sick? I don’t know. Sick or not, the point is I was home— alone.

That this was a new house is also a pertinent fact. Mom had to travel 50 minutes by Subway to the old neighborhood for that doctor appointment.

But it’s unlikely I was sick. Why? I decided I would be productive, help my mother, surprise her by cleaning the bathroom, stem to stern— floors, tub, toilet.

And so, I got to work. When the floors, tub and sink were done, I turned my attention to the toilet. For reasons beyond me now, I took the cover off the top of the tank and washed it in the tub.

Once I was satisfied that the cover was clean, I lifted it out of the tub and carried it back toward the toilet. Of course, I was carrying a wet, slippery, heavy piece of porcelain with wet, slippery hands.

My twelve year old brain did not quite grasp that. As I got near the toilet having not quite made it, the rectangular chunk of ceramic slipped from my grasp and as it hit the floor shattered into hundreds of pieces.

When I felt the thing begin to slip I gave up trying to hold on and let go. Therefore, both my hands were now stretched out parallel to the floor, palms facing down to the floor.

There was one oddity about how that tank top shattered. As I said, my palms faced downward. And so a single, large shard of porcelain— it looked like a dagger, about three inches long— bounced up and logged itself dead center in the palm of my left hand.

I distinctly remember looking at it, amazed as it was hanging there, sticking down from my palm, not falling out, just dangling. I did what any self confident twelve year old would do. I pulled the shard out. The wound, of course, began to bleed.

I ran to a closet, got a cloth and pressed it very hard against my palm. Much to my surprise, the bleeding quickly stopped. I think the piece of porcelain really was like a dagger. Had it been jagged, pulling it out would have done more damage. But it was thin, narrow, smooth. So when I extracted it, no additional damage was done.

I knew my mother was at the doctor’s office, so I called her there. Once I got her on the line and explained what had happened. She handed the phone over to Doctor Gabriel Kirshenbaum— the family doctor for two generations.

With a soothing, deep, resonant bass voice, the doctor calmly walked me through what had happened, what I had done in response, then assured me I would be fine. He did promise my mother would be home soon. In fact, he gave her money for a cab so she would not have to take the Subway. (Slight pause.)

It was not until she walked through the door that my emotions exploded. I ran to her. I hugged her. She hugged me. And I cried and I cried and I cried.

“Why,” I asked, “why did this happen? I was trying to be helpful. I trying to do the right thing. I was trying to do everything right.” (Slight pause.)

We hear these words in the Letter commonly called Philippians: “I was above reproach when it came to justice based on the Law— blameless.” (Slight pause.)

Was Paul was riddled with guilt over an inability to live as the law demanded? No. When this passage is examined carefully Paul is claiming a Hebrew heritage, defending it, is clearly and deeply involved in it.

Further, Paul is not renouncing doing things right, not renouncing tradition. So, where’s the guilt? It’s not here, at least I don’t see it.

But that does pose the question ‘why is Paul not riddled with guilt?’ (Slight pause.) I think the answer is also obvious.

Paul explains that lack of guilt with testimony. Paul’s testimony, Paul’s claim, is about an old understanding, a traditional understanding, a Hebrew understanding, of the relationship of God with humanity.

And Paul’s testimony, Paul’s claim, is also about a new understanding, new for Paul at least. The Apostle to the Gentiles says this understanding of a new relationship with God is because of the reality of the Christ.

Why is it significant that Paul has both reclaimed an old understanding and now has a new one? I think what makes this significant is, in a real sense, these two understandings are one.

And that understanding is both simple and seems to constantly escape us: God loves humanity. So yes, based on Paul’s testimony we, humanity, need to strive to do things right. However, and I think this is where Paul is coming from, we need to strive to not simply do things right, as in correctly. We need to strive to do things well.

This is what I mean by doing things well: our doing, our action, is not what’s primary. Our success in any endeavor is not primary. It is the love God has for humanity which is primary and that empowers us. Hence, for us, the place where we need to be is to make faithfulness is primary.

That the love of God comes first is a hard idea for many of us to grasp. After all, we like to be and even want to be in control. But we are not.

On the other hand, these words also present us with a paradox. The paradox stems from an insistence that the heritage of the Hebrews is not to be forsaken.

After all, when it comes to justice based on the Law Paul is blameless. The paradox? If God is the prime mover, if God takes the initiative, how are we to move forward? Are we to ignore the Law?

Paul’s answer is found in this passage. It says Paul was blameless when it came to justice. What I think it therefore says is that true justice, God’s justice is not based on the law. Justice, God’s justice, is not based on rules.

And that is a very hard concept for us to grasp. Let me phrase that in to a way it’s more commonly said. Justice is not based on our works. We are not justified by works. And that very basic idea, that justice is not based on our works, should lead to us to ask ‘what is the basis of God’s justice?’ (Slight pause.)

The basis of God’s justice, this relationship with God, based in faith. Further, that God takes the initiative is a primary tenet of the Hebrew Scriptures.

That God takes the initiative is a primary tenet of the reality of the Christ. And that is the new understanding to which Paul has come: the advent of Christ is pivotal. Christ embodies the love God offers. Christ embodies the justice God offers.

Should we have a response? Yes, we should. But any response on our part pales compared to God’s embrace of humanity, the love of God for humanity.

And that brings me back to 1961 when I found a shard of porcelain hanging out of my hand. Should I have not tried to help my mother?

My answer is the same as Paul’s answer. I should have helped my mother. Be blameless. Help as much as you can.

But perhaps this more to the point: in trying to help my mother I was trying to be about relationship. But sometimes the best laid plans of twelve year old boys do go astray. And yes, there are times our work has no impact on justice.

But as Paul insists, what will never go astray is the love God has for humanity. So what we should never forget is God loves us.

And that, my friends, is Paul’s basic testimony. In the reality of the Christ, the love of God is present to us, now and forever. Amen.

10/08/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “My late Mother always downplayed Mother’s Day. She said, ‘Don’t try to give me a present and be nice to me one day a year and forget to deal with the other 364 days.’ A point well taken. Relationship is constant. Love is constant. The law called love, in fact, needs to be our guideline, our law.”

BENEDICTION: Let us never fear to seek the truth God reveals. Let us live as a resurrection people. Let us understand every day as a new adventure in faith as the Creator draws us into community. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.

10/01/2023 ~ Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time~ Proper 21 ~ Exodus 17:1-7; Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16; Ezekiel 18:1-4, 25-32; Psalm 25:1-9; Philippians 2:1-13; Matthew 21:23-32 ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/871520254

A Plethora of Pachyderms

“…it is God who is at work in you, enabling in you the desire both to do the will of God and to do the work of God.” — Philippians 2:12b-13.

You may have noticed the title of my comments today: A Plethora of Pachyderms— Pachyderms— elephants. To unpack that just a smidge, when we don’t talk about something it’s said, “There’s an elephant in the room.” If there are at least several elephants, I call that a plethora of pachyderms.

So, let me name one elephant, probably often mentioned in church parking lots but not often mentioned inside the walls of our meeting houses. (Slight pause.) Have you heard? The church is dying.

Well, that’s poppycock! The church is not dying. Not even close. If the so-called Dark Ages couldn’t kill the church, it is the height of egocentricity to think we can!

But let me offer an explanation and use numbers. If you told someone who worked on Madison Avenue in advertising ‘the church is dying’ and then named any church in rural Maine as a larger proof of the dying church, the response of that person who works in advertising would be… laughter.

Why? People who work in adverting know demographics. Maine, especially rural Maine, like many other rural areas, is losing population. So, when it comes to numbers, one church, any specific church, is not the issue. Indeed, church growth can often be seen in city areas and in areas called exurbs, areas just outside of suburbs.

So while this next statement is a generality, it is still broadly true: census data tells us two areas, rural areas and suburbs, are losing population. Exurbs and cities are gaining.

Further— and we don’t often pay attention to this statistic— a majority of Main Line churches are in… rural areas— a majority. So yes, there has been a decrease in the Main Line church numbers but you can readily see why just based on where the population of Main Line churches resides this is a truth.

In short, it’s mathematically inaccurate if not mathematically incompetent to separate church population from where churches are located. Indeed, on what locations do leaders tend to concentrate when they are planting churches today? Cities and exurbs. And generally Main Line churches do not put enough effort into planting churches, so that really puts them behind the eight ball.

But let’s set today aside and talk about New Testament times. Why? The New Testament can address another pachyderm, maybe a lot morem roaming around the church. This long-snouted beast also deals with demographics— New Testament demographics.

In antiquity ninety percent of the population of the Mediterranean basin lived in what we would call slavery. Less than five percent of the population was literate.

Now, Jews and Christians were both called “people of the book” in ancient times and today. Also there is some clear Scriptural evidence Jesus could both read and write.

Hence and by definition, two statements can be made. Those who were literate, that group of less than five percent, offered leadership and were deeply involved in Judaism and Christianity. Jesus was likely among those in that less five percent group.

To be clear, I am not coming close to saying anything like ‘all those in that ninety-five percent group who could not read and write were banned from belonging to the ‘people of the book.’ I am quite sure they were included as there is evidence for that also. I am inviting us to focus on the reality of the demographics of ancient times and how they worked and to think about that. The leadership is likely to have been in that five percent.

One more item rarely discussed in the church today about New Testament times is what the economic system looked like back then. Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan says the economic system found in that era was a system of Domination.

What that means is the ten percent lived off the work and the sweat of the ninety percent. Once we label the economic system in those times as domination, I think it becomes easier to envision and comprehend a population of ninety percent enslaved and ninety-five percent illiterate.

There is another pachyderm from antiquity that needs to be addressed. Once again, it has to do with demographics.

Paul wrote letters to different locations in the Mediterranean Basin— the Church in Thessalonika, the Church in Rome, etc., etc., etc. What did these churches look like? How large were they?

It’s unlikely that any of them had more than fifty people. Why do I say that? We believe those churches met in people’s houses. Even among the elite, very few had a house large enough to hold a meeting of more than fifty. These churches were very small.

Further, scholars tell us that by the year 100 of the Common Era— 70 years after the Resurrection, 36 years after Paul died— the number of Christians in the entire Mediterranean basin was less than 10,000. Christianity was not exactly spreading like wild fire. (Slight pause.)

Walt Disney told us elephants could fly… but I’m not so sure. Well, there’s another long snouted Dumbo flying around these days: when the American Revolution happened most people were Christians.

Well, that depends on definitions. If by Christian we mean church members, it would be hard to prove most people were Christians. You see, in 1776 the percentage of the population who were members of a church, any church, was seventeen percent.

Indeed, this church, a Congregational Church, was founded in 1757. To be clear, in that era, especially in New England, you needed to be a member of a church to even be counted as a citizen. Put differently, if you were not a member, you were not counted. But more to the point, if you were not a citizen you did not count.

All that brings me back to the words from Philippians: “…it is God who is at work in you, enabling in you the desire both to do the will of God and to do the work of God.”

Based on what I’ve said, when Paul wrote these words what do you think that world look like? Would Paul and the disciples of Paul, those to whom Paul addressed those letters have been discouraged? Would they have said their church is dying? (Slight pause.)

That raises up yet another pachyderm. In our era we tend to believe this maxim: “If you build it, they will come.”

The director of a non-profit once said to me that idea may have been true once. But this, he said, is true now: you need to go out there and be there with the people. You need to be with the people you want to reach, stand at their side, talk with them about their lives.

Some of them will come back to whatever edifice you’ve built; some won’t. But it’s not about you. It’s about the place at which the people you meet are in their lives.

If they listen and come back with you, that also is about the place at which they are in their lives. If they don’t listen, that is still about the place at which they are in their lives.

This brings me to the last elephant for today. Work in the vineyard is hard. Work in the vineyard often involves little in immediate results, often involves decades of effort, sometimes more than one lifetime. This can feel very hard because often there is little reward. Which is to say we who are involved in church work need to name that. This is hard work.

Why would I say that? Paul knew that. Paul experienced it. And Paul offered this advice, advice which says we need the help of God to even (quote:) “…desire both to do the will of God and to do the work of God.” And perhaps, just perhaps, the will of God and the work of God means simply being present to people— being present to people. Amen.

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is a précis of what was said: “I sometimes say I don’t take the Bible literally; I take the Bible seriously. Biblical scholar Nicholas Thomas Wright says this: New Testament times are just like today. Back then everybody believed in God. Very few people took it seriously. Since I suspect you constantly hear me talk about relationships, perhaps at least as part of our hard work, our call, is two fold: take the Bible seriously and take all people seriously.”

BENEDICTION: Redeemer Who sustains us, visit Your people; pour out Your courage upon us, that we may hurry to make welcome all people not only in our concern for others, but by serving them generously and faithfully in Your name. And so let us remember, the grace of God is deeper than our imagination. The strength of Christ is stronger than our need. The communion of the Holy Spirit is richer than our togetherness. O Holy Triune God, guide and sustain us today and in all our tomorrows. Amen.

09/24/2017 ~ 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ (Proper 20) ~ Exodus 16:2-15; Psalm 105:1-6, 37-45; Jonah 3:10-4:11; Psalm 145:1-8 Philippians 1:21-30; Matthew 20:1-16 ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/868784126

Bread/ Love

“I have heard the complaining of the people of Israel; say to them, ‘At twilight, in the evening, you will eat meat and in the morning you will have your fill of bread. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, I am your God.’” — Exodus 16:12.

I have said this here before so most of you know it. I am a Vietnam veteran. When drafted I was working as a computer operator. I suspect the Army used Army logic in making the following decision. They said, “computer operator… computer operator— that starts with a ‘C.’ What else starts with a ‘C’— oh, yes— cook— let’s make him a cook.”

So after eight weeks of Basic at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, I was shipped off to cook’s school at Fort Lee, Virginia. Cook’s school meant there was some serious training from butchering to baking.

It also meant after only eight weeks I got a promotion. I was now a Specialist Fourth Class. In language more accessible to civilians, that meant I had gone from a lowly Buck Private at the start of Basic to corporal in just sixteen weeks, three grades up.

Shortly thereafter I found myself on a plane to Vietnam. While there I served in two locations, downtown Saigon and Tan Son Nhut Air Base. As those things go these were both relatively safe.

On the other hand, once in each of those locations I was blown out of bed by incoming. I am not looking for any sympathy in saying that. I am merely naming the reality of that war and many wars in the modern era. No place was or is safe.

The Saigon the mess hall at which I worked was a little exclusive. This facility served only field grade officers and above. Again, in language more accessible to civilians, that meant only officers who had attained the rank of Major or above could eat there. We also served civilian personnel of higher ranks from the American Embassy.

It turns out there was real advantage for me in being at that Field Grade officer Mess. Because of the contacts I made I was able to talk one of those high ranking officers into getting me transferred to a computer outfit on Tan Son Nhut Air Base. This computer installation kept track of all the supplies for all the helicopters in country.

Sometime after that transfer I got three days of in country R & R. Again for civilians, R & R is Rest and Relaxation. In-country meant Vung Tau which is about 60 miles southeast of Saigon on the shores of the Pacific Ocean. As part of a helicopter unit I did not worry about transportation to Vung Tau. I just hitched a ride on a chopper.

As it happens that ride was a real adventure. We took off, got some altitude, then the chopper swooped low over the rice patties. The flight crew was trying to draw fire from the Viet Cong and thereby invite them to reveal their position. We would have, in turn, gone after them. Fortunately, we drew no fire. (Slight pause.)

When I got back from Vietnam I did some soul searching. I asked, ‘why had I survived when better than 50,000 of us did not?’

While I thank God every day for my safe return, I do know this about the fact that I did come back. It is totally wrong— not merely inappropriate or incompetent but wrong— to say I survived because God favored me. Why? The implication is God wanted better than 50,000 dead. I don’t think so. (Slight pause.)

We hear these words in the work known as Exodus: “I have heard the complaining of the people of Israel; say to them, ‘At twilight, in the evening, you will eat meat and in the morning you will have your fill of bread. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, I am your God.’” (Slight pause.)

The story of the miraculous feeding of the Israelites portrays God as a zealous protector of the people of Israel. Hence, the question the reading poses is simple. Are the actions portrayed meant to be merely about God looking after the welfare of the Hebrew people or is there something else going on?

I want to suggest the miraculous details of the story are not about food. Rather, this story is about a witness to liberation, the freedom Yahweh, God, offers and a witness to the presence of Yahweh, God.

You see, the following words refer to liberation, the freedom offered by God, and they are found in verse 7 (quote:): “…it was Yahweh Who brought you out of Egypt,…” These next words refer to the presence of God and they are found in verse 10 (quote:): “…they looked toward the desert, the wilderness, and there the kabod of God, the glory of Yahweh, appeared in the form of a cloud.”

Let me address that Hebrew word kabod. It is often translated as “glory.” But that’s because there is no equivalent in English. One meaning of the word is the reality of the presence of God. But there is more to kabod than that. Kabod also means a manifestation of God, hence the reference to the cloud.

I need to be clear on this count. Contrary to populist modern concepts, in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Christian Scriptures, the work we commonly call the Bible, the presence of God, this kabod, this glory, this manifestation of God, is often seen as an overwhelming and sometimes even a frightening experience. (Slight pause.)

Now, the Fifteenth Verse of the King James translation of this passage says this about the bread like substance found each morning. (Quote:) “When the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, it is manna…” The word “manna”— and that’s where we get that word from— the word “manna” is actually a transliteration of a Hebrew word. But the translation I used and many other translations say (quote:) “When the Israelites saw this, they said to each other, “What is it?”

Why? The word manna means “what is it?” I think the manuscript is purposeful in using this verbal skewing, this word play, and it’s a key to the reading and to the story.

You see, using word play to refer to the flakes— this fine, delicate, powdery, substance, as fine as frost— using word play lets us know to not take the bread and meat pictured too literally. What does this word invite us to ask? It invites us to ask, ‘does God provide?’ Yes, God provides.

And what God provides is this manna— this “what is it?”— and that points us toward a central, vital truth. God provides— God provides liberation, freedom, presence. Therefore, God provides love; God walks with us.

In short, this is not a passage about food. Neither is this a passage about winning or losing. This is a passage about the kabod, about the constant, real presence of God, about the love God offers, about liberation, the freedom God offers, a passage about God who walks with us.

One clear reason I say this passage about the constant presence of God is scholars agree that manna, this “what is it,” does not stop until the Israelites enter Canaan. The manna does not stop for forty years. Therefore, this is about the kabod, the constant, real presence of God, the love God offers, the liberation of God, God who walks with us. (Slight pause.)

Over the course of years I have probably said this on a Sunday morning a couple hundred times. There is another way to present the idea which says this passage is about the kabod, the constant, real presence and love God offers, liberation and freedom of God, God who walks with us.

God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us. God loves us and wants to be in covenant with us. What more is there to say? Amen.

09/24/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is a précis of what was said: “Earlier I stated God did not want 50,000 to die. To discredit God in that way is a justification which says God chooses winners and losers. And people do say winning and losing is up to God. But this claim is not made by Christian theology. It is made by American theology. For example, a baseball player, a football player will say they won because God helps— American theology— someone wins or loses because God wanted it. Christian theology says God loves everyone. Winning and losing is not part of the love for everyone equation, is it? And the love God has for us is a constant, real presence. God walks with everyone.”

BENEDICTION: God surprises us. Let us trust God and give thanks. Let us seek God’s will. And may the blessing of the God of Abraham and Sarah, the God of Jesus, the one who is the Christ, and the Holy Spirit who broods over the world as a mother hen over chicks, be upon us and remain with us always. And may we love God so much, that we love nothing else too much. May we be so in awe of God, that we are in awe of no one else and nothing else. Amen.

09/17/2023 ~ Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost ~ Twenty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time ~ Proper 19 ~ Exodus 14:19-31; Psalm 114 or Exodus 15:1b-11, 20-21; Genesis 50:15-21; Psalm 103:(1-7), 8-13; Romans 14:1-12; Matthew 18:21-35 ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/866812227

Meat and Potatoes

“Welcome those who are weak in faith but do not quarrel or argue with them.” — Romans 14:1a.

I think there are people we meet in life with whom we have an immediate connection. And so it was when I first met the Rev. Dr. Chris Xenakis.

Perhaps the connection happened because we are both veterans and both pastors. Reasons don’t matter. We connected.

Chris has an interesting background. Born into an Eastern Orthodox family, during his late teens Chris shifted to a fundamentalist group but is now a United Church of Christ pastor. Here’s a translation of that shift: it is— pardon this assessment— a shift out of a fringe into the mainline. The interesting background does not end there.

Ordained in 1979, Chris is a retired Navy Chaplain, has two doctorates— a Doctor of Ministry and a Ph.D. in World Politics. I sometimes kid Chris and sometimes say he should be addressed as the Rev. Dr. Dr.

He’s published many articles and just one of his several books has the daunting title World Politics and the American Quest for Super-Villains, Demons, and Bad Guys to Destroy. Chris also published a web article about church that went a little viral— Is Autonomy Turning Ministers and Churchgoers into Turtles?

What are turtles? In Chris’s definition, turtles are those who might hide in their shells, withdraw from interactions with settings beyond the local church— other local non-profits, local churches in other denominations, the local Association, the Denomination.

Chris drew on the work of sociologist Robert Putnam in this article. Putnam says American life, itself, is based on social capital. Social capital refers to networks people need to facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit.

We Americans were not as isolated from one another in the past as we are now, says Putnam. When de Tocqueville visited the United States and wrote Democracy in America in the 1830s, it was our propensity for civic association— our investments in social capital— that impressed him as the key to making American democracy work. A neighbor’s barn burns down? The entire community comes together to help rebuild it.

Social capital encompasses the connections of friends, neighbors, community, institutions and, by its nature, the connections should keep expanding, become more broad. Indeed, life is much easier in a community blessed with substantial, expanding social capital. But Putnam argues social capital is in short supply in America today.

Chris, in turn, took note of people pulling back in many arenas from scouting to clubs like Rotary or Masons. And, if this pulling back trend is happening outside the doors of our churches, we are not immune inside the doors. The end result of pulling back is it reinforces thinking which says only our own autonomy is central.

Hence, churches sometimes treat any ties with local organizations or a denominational associations like they are distant, remote. But is autonomy a healthy response?

Chris quotes Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber who says if you insist there is no need for others it is not about independence, strength, not about wanting to make your own decisions, or even about saying you are strong. Rather, saying there is no need for others is about… fear.

When we allow someone else’s need, she says, we make ourselves vulnerable to betrayal and/or the vulnerability we attribute to appearing as if we are weak. Hence, when insistence on autonomy is the overwhelming factor, it is really fear— fear of vulnerability, fear of looking weak which overcomes us. (Slight pause.)

These are the words find in Romans. “Welcome those who are weak in faith but do not quarrel or argue with them.” (Slight pause.)

In this reading Paul addresses some specific quarrels and articulates a theological framework for dealing with them. Many might recognize the dilemma Paul faces here.

How can quarrels be mediated without destroying the fabric of the community? It is the theological framework for unity, not the fissures Paul really addresses.

Indeed, what is most striking about the response of Paul is there is no attempt to decide any specific issue being raised. To translate it into the modern vernacular, the Apostle says, “You mean meat and potatoes matter? Tell me, who… really… cares? Let’s talk about what’s important!”

To be clear, it is plainly stated no one needs to chastise or limit another’s rights or beliefs. It is however and also, clear the health of the whole community takes precedence over autonomous rights or beliefs.

Paul asserts it this way: we belong to God. God created us and in the Christ-event God claimed us. That relationship takes precedence over all other needs, wants, desires without exception. What matters is the integrity of the relationship with God, not our own specific practices.

This text places the pluralism of Paul’s era and the pluralism of our era firmly within a community context. The entire section of this letter begins with “Welcome those who are weak in faith.” And then the “welcome” is heard again (quote:) “…God has welcomed them.”

What Paul seeks in this passage is not merely the tolerance of diversity. Tolerance means a grudging acceptance of the inevitability of differences. Instead, Paul articulates an active welcome for those with conflicting views and practices.

Paul’s argument is if Christ, through God, welcomes all people, then we must find a way to welcome one another and respect the integrity of one another. But it would be a mistake to take this passage as an endorsement of any and all behavior. Why? Paul insists on the reality of limits in other places in this Epistle. So primarily, Paul is moving us beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. (Slight pause.)

Debates will always characterize the life of the church, as one or another emphasis comes to the fore. But the debates should not prevent a common understanding of Who God is, a common understanding of the reality of God. The debates should also not prevent a common understanding of who we are and the truth that there is a need for all people to seek the will of God together. (Slight pause.)

My friend the Rev. Dr. Xenakis says we live in a time of tumultuous cultural and technological change and the church is changing, just as American society is changing. And because of our humanity— our humanity — we do not like change. Congregations resist change; pastors resist change, but change is what we are all facing.

Chris says modern American life brings out the turtle in all of us as people pull into their shells, lock themselves in. Chris then quotes the motto of the United States and says perhaps we need more E Pluribus Unum— out of many, one— in our time. He says diversity and community might be exactly what we need to help us survive in the Twenty-First Century— more E Pluribus Unum. [1] (Slight pause.)

In a recent book the Reverend Mary Susan Gast writes there is a mobility, a flexibility, in the treasured concept of covenant. Covenant yields a way of life which is always mobile, flexible, always on the move. God summons us to change and change can be sustained when we move beyond our own comfort zones to faithful obedience.

I think that is where Paul takes us in this passage. Paul takes us from being the turtles Chris addresses, the turtles autonomy can make us into, and leads us toward a path where we can live into freedom, mobility and the flexibility of faithful obedience.

Why would I say that? Paul puts it this way: “whether we live or whether we die, both in life and in death, we belong to Christ.” It is, you see, not about us. It is about community in Christ and the community of Christ. Amen.

09/17/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is an précis of what was said: “Today’s sermon title was Meat and Potatoes something of an American icon. Another American icon is autonomy. Can you say Sylvester Stalone as Rambo or Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones? One individual triumphs autonomously— American icons. In this passage Paul is letting us know it is not about meat and potatoes, not about autonomy, not about our icons. It is about the community of Christ— our lives together— that is what the community of Christ is about.”

BENEDICTION: We have observed this day to honor God, who promises to be with us as we go. We do not live or die to ourselves for Christ has claimed us. Hence, we are taught to value every person. And may the peace of Christ, which surpasses our understanding, keep our hearts and minds in the love, knowledge and companionship of the Holy Spirit this day and forevermore. Amen.

[1] https://carducc.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/is-autonomy-turning-ucc-authorized-ministers-and-churchgoers/

09/10/2023 ~ Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost~ Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time Proper 18 ~ Exodus 12:1-14; Psalm 149; Ezekiel 33:7-11; Psalm 119:33-40; Romans 13:8-14; Matthew 18:15-20 ~ VIDEO OF FULL SERVICE: https://vimeo.com/showcase/7960701/video/864386648

Pesach

“This is how you are to eat the animal: your loins girded, your belt buckled, your sandals on your feet, and a staff in your hand; you shall eat it hurriedly, in haste. It is the Passover of Yahweh.” — Exodus 12:11.

John Adams, a driving intellectual force in the struggle for freedom, signed the Declaration of Independence and was the second President of the United States. In a letter to his wife, Abigail, dated July the Third, 1776, Adams also proved to be a predictor of the future, a prognosticator, by writing the following.

(Quote:) “The second day of July 1776, will be the most memorable… in the history of America.” Adams was not wrong about the date. The actual vote for independence happened on the second but the Declaration was ratified on the fourth, hence the discrepancy.

Adams continued, “I am apt to believe it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as a great festival…. commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God, Almighty…. solemnized with pomp, parade, shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other….” [1]

So it is solemnized in those ways but on the Fourth, not the Second. Also please note the other prediction contained in these words. “…from one end of the continent to the other.” When Adams wrote, the thirteen states were only on the east coast.

Independence is celebrated with many and various rituals as noted. But any celebration with ritual defines a challenge. How is the idea of independence actually tied to our rituals? Do these oft repeated rituals help us understand independence?

After all, I am sure we can all agree true independence, real independence, is not about ritual. So what is true independence, real independence? (Slight pause.)

We find these words in the work known as Exodus: “This is how you are to eat the animal: your loins girded, your belt buckled, your sandals on your feet, and a staff in your hand; you shall eat it hurriedly, in haste. It is the Passover of Yahweh.” (Slight pause.)

We Congregationalists tend to think churches with a “high church” style of liturgy— Episcopalians, Lutherans— employ ritual. But the fact is we have ritual. Just the weekly ringing of the bell before the service and a coffee hour after it constitute ritual. A mentor once said to me a Congregational service is a hymn and sermon sandwich. But even that is still ritual.

And you may have noticed the sermon title with a peculiar word— Pesach. Pesach is a transliteration from Hebrew for the word “Passover”— a celebration riddled with ritual.

The reading concentrates on the procedures followed by the Israelites when the first Passover happened, the origin story of the rituals. At the end of today’s passage, we hear (quote:) “…all the following generations shall observe this forever as a feast day.”

And so year after year for 3,000 plus years Passover has been commemorated with ritual. If you have ever been to a Seder, the ritual of the Feast of Passover, you know the ceremony consists of a ritual meal. For those of you who have never been to a Seder, the ritual meal consists of a solemn retelling of the happenings recorded in Scripture concerning the Exodus event.

In the course of the ceremony an explanation of the events is recited. The illustrations in the ritual range from eating a bit of bitter herb such as horseradish which signifies the bitterness of the enslavement experienced by the Hebrew people to the repeating and a listing of the plagues endured by the Egyptians.

It is remembered the Israelites left in haste so there was no time for bread dough to rise. Hence, matzah, the unleavened flatbread is consumed. There is much more to this ritual but the point is that it’s ritual.

When done in an appropriate way, the Seder ceremony helps people examine the Exodus event. But this ritual can be rendered meaningless unless a participant in a Seder comes away with an understanding of the depth of meaning contained in the ritual.

Participants need to engage not just in the narrative of what happened but also to engage in what the ritual represents. Therefore, the ritual, itself, is not the point of the Seder. The meanings behind the ritual are the point. (Slight pause.)

Well, before we get to any of the meanings behind the ritual, let me raise another issue. Perhaps because of movies which dramatized the Exodus event, the Charlton Heston effect, we tend to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of Israelites fleeing captivity in Egypt.

But most Biblical scholars say multitudes are a figment of our collective imagination. If a real Exodus event happened— and there is some clear evidence an Exodus event did happen in some form— at most several thousand people participated.

Those numbers should push us to ask, since so few fled Egypt, why has this ritual been repeated for 3,000 years? Is the meaning of the ritual so significant it insists on being practiced? And if so, what does this Seder ritual really mean? (Slight pause.)

The ritual of the Seder, of Passover, remembers the liberation of Israelites by God from slavery. Hence, Passover is not about the Exodus event, itself. Rather, Passover is about liberation— liberation of all kinds— offered by God. And that the Exodus is about liberation is a message clearly conveyed by the Seder ritual.

Further, the Biblical scholars say the Exodus event is the most important episode of the Hebrew Scriptures because the Exodus is the singular, the central sign of the covenant of God. You see and as I just suggested, the Exodus event is about the liberation of all kinds— about freedom, deliverance, equity, the saving action, the redeeming, forgiving grace God offers. All that is what the covenant is about.

So, the ritual is not in place to remind people about what happened. We know what happened. The ritual is in place to remind people about liberation, freedom, deliverance, equity, the saving action, the redeeming, forgiving grace God offers.

Therefore, what does the covenant of God mean? The covenant of God means God offers us, us, liberation, freedom, deliverance, equity, saving action, redeeming, forgiving grace. That’s what the covenant of God is about. (Slight pause.)

This brings me back to one Mr. John Adams, July Fourth and the words of the Declaration of Independence. I have said this here before. Many see the words about being created equal and unalienable rights as the most important part of the Declaration.

But words toward the end of the document state the signers rely on the protection of Divine Providence and mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Pledging to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor— that, my friends, means these people understood covenant when it comes to the assembly.

The words do clearly say “Divine Providence.” Adams, good Congregationalist that he was, would have known and acknowledged that.

This brings me to us, to the church. We, the church, should not be simply about ritual, doing the same thing over and over without asking ‘why are we doing that?’

We, the church, need to be about being in covenant with God and each another. If we do that, remain in covenant with God and each other, we will be empowered to be mindful of God and fearless when it comes to the mission to which God calls is.

I might add the mission to which God calls us is something which constantly changes. Why? We are in covenant with one another and we change because we grow.

Indeed, in the passage from the Gospel reading Jesus says “where two or three are gathered….” The collectiveness of that, the mutual covenant, is the message we really need to hear in those words.

Why? Covenant with each other by definition demands both independence and interdependence. And to reiterate, we, ourselves, constantly change and yet we should strive, need to strive to remain within the covenant call to us from God. Amen.

09/10/2023
Elijah Kellogg Church, Harpswell, Maine

ENDPIECE: It is the practice of the Pastor to speak after the Closing Hymn, but before the Choral Response and Benediction. This is a précis of what was said: “I think today when most folks consider covenant they say something like— ‘Covenant— well, that’s just between me and God.’ But that is not what Scripture says. Scripture says the covenant with God is worked out and acted out with each other. If our rituals do not remind us that we need to be in covenant with God and each other, something which demands change in us, then either we are doing it wrong or we need different rituals. And as I said, perhaps real independence is not just being independent but it also means being interdependent.”

BENEDICTION: Let us go forth in the Spirit of Christ. Let us seek the will of God. Let us put aside ambition and conceit for the greater good. Let us serve in joyous obedience. (Slight pause.) And hear this prayer of Melanesian Islanders: May Jesus be the canoe that holds us up in the sea of life. May Jesus be the rudder that keeps us on a straight course. May Jesus be the outrigger that supports us in times of trial. May the Spirit of Jesus be our sail that carries us through each day. Amen.

[1] Note: I’ve modernized the punctuation and spellings.
https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L17760703jasecond