Monthly Archives: November 2009

What Should We Be Doing Today?

Posted on by
Reply

I begin this piece by asking what you plan to do at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Will you stop to pause and remember the significance of that time some ninety years ago? Will you stop to pause and perhaps hear the bells of the church tolling in remembrance of those who have fallen in wars long ago and perhaps even recently? Or perhaps you will stop to pause and wonder why the bells are not ringing or why the people are more interested in the sales taking place and what they can get at low prices for Christmas this year.

How many people will recognize that the reason for this day has nothing do to with the economy but with a promise that we, as a nation, would remember those whose service insured our freedom today? Some will say that is what Memorial Day is about but when Memorial Day comes about, all we will probably hear about is the start of summer sales that come with Memorial Day. How is it that we have become so cavalier in our attitudes about military service and war?

I am the grandson of an Army officer who served in World War I and up until 1944. Had medical reasons not forced his retirement, my grandfather was scheduled to command a regiment that landed on Omaha Beach in Normandy on 6 June 1944.

I do not know what my grandfather thought about war, even as I read and reread the diary he kept from his embarkation to France and his service in France and Belgium and during the period between the two World Wars.

There was a somewhat casual comment made in one entry that his outfit had been attacked with poison gas – “We’ve been gassed. “ And while he had pictures that showed the horrors of war, he very seldom mentioned such horrors in what he wrote in this diary.

In part I know that his diary served more as a draft of the reports that he would file as the company adjutant for I see essentially the same phrases in his diary that appear in the official history of the regiment. So, I don’t know how he really felt. Even his entry for this day some ninety years ago doesn’t speak of peace, joy, or relief (see My Grandfather’s Diary Entry for this day, 11 November 1918) but the comment that if the armistice had not been signed, they would have completed the planned attack for that day.

And while I cannot speak to his thoughts on the nature of war and what he saw and what he experienced, I do know that we don’t want to be exposed to the horrors of war today. We have sanitized war so much that civilians killed are listed as nothing more than collateral damage. We have no idea, only estimates, of how many civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan these past eight years. We want our wars to be like a video game, where points are scored for the damage done and the number of people killed; where there is no blood and no pain. We do not want to know that war is, in essence, a real-life horror film with real blood and real deaths, with pain that is real and which is inflicted on many, not just one.

I am also the son of an Air Force officer who served in the Pacific theater during World War II and throughout the 50s and 60s. I do not know what he thought about the things he saw in the Pacific in the 40s or his thoughts on the wars fought in Korea or Viet Nam. The only time he spoke of the deaths in World War II was a passing comment about the number of casualties that we would have incurred had we invaded the Japanese home islands instead of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What I remember about that singular comment was the relief in his voice that we did not invade the islands.

I grew up on many Air Force Bases where B-52 bombers and Titan II missiles were based. Their presence was an almost constant reminder that our country lived under a blanket of fear from nuclear attack and that vigilance was necessary for peace. The one thing that we did not perhaps know or perhaps did not care to know was that any nuclear attack and the almost certain retaliatory attack would leave not only this country but this globe totally ruined and uninhabitable for thousands of years to come. Perhaps it was fortunate that the only thing that kept this country and the former Soviet Union from attacking each directly during those contentious days was the knowledge that an attack by one country on the other would lead to mutually assured destruction of both countries and the world. This constraint against nuclear war in the 1950s and 1960s was known as MAD and there never has been a more aptly coined acronym.

Those who have read this blog know that I am opposed to war and that I cannot see the problems of the world being solved through war or violence. (And, for those who offer bumper-sticker responses please use something other than “War hasn’t solved anything except …”)

The problem is that we have become comfortable using war as a tool to solve problems and we think that we can live in a world where war is a dominant part of the culture. We just make sure that we are not reminded of its financial costs or its costs in human terms, the dead and wounded, those with broken minds and spirits.

And too often, those who speak out against war, who call for non-violent solutions to the problems that we face, who call for responses other than to send our youth off to foreign lands and perhaps die for a cause that they do not understand are apt to be called unpatriotic and opposed to this country.

I would have continued the tradition of my father and my grandfather and joined the Air Force when I graduated from college in 1971. I understood what a life in the military was and what you were called to do first. But I also saw a military constrained by political forces far more than any other time in this country’s history.

Let’s face it – there has never been a war that wasn’t driven by political forces. Mao Zedong is quoted as saying “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”

From the days of the Korean War, it has been politics that has controlled this country’s thoughts about war. It has transformed military service from an honorable expression of service for one’s country into simply being a mercenary force designed to serve the purposes for short-sighted and self-serving politicians. Our military is sent to fight without a clear-cut mission or an understanding of the people with whom they will interact. Our lack of knowledge about the lands and people where we send our troops makes the “The Ugly American” more and more a truth than fiction.

When the time came, I chose not to go, not to follow in the footsteps of my father and grandfather. My argument wasn’t against the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, or the Marines; my argument was against the draft and a political policy that clearly limited what our service personnel could and could not do. But, as far as the draft was concerned, I was lucky. I had medical problems that precluded my being drafted into the Army and I was able to avoid service in Viet Nam. One of the great unanswered questions in my life is what I would have done if I had received an induction notice. Would I have gone to Canada; would I have enlisted in the Air Force and tried for OCS? What would my parents have said and done? Those are questions that I did not have to answer.

I was lucky; I had options available to me. Others were not so lucky and we now know that the draft policies of this country during the Viet Nam war were designed to supply the large number of bodies that the generals said were needed to win the war. They are the same words we hear today from our generals with respect to Afghanistan.

Our youth do not have to worry about the draft today. Personally, I think that is a good thing. If the military is to be what it is supposed to be, it must be a volunteer army; that is the heritage of this country and, if you will, an embodiment of what this country stands for.

There was a period of time when I counseled students to seek a life in the military. I recognized that, for some, it would provide the discipline they needed for life. For some, it would provide opportunities that they may not see otherwise. And for many, it would provide the funding for college that would enable them to get a college degree. And for some who were interested in becoming a physician, such options were important because it cut the cost that they, the student, would have to pay.

But I was counseling for service in peace time, not war, and in retrospect, that was probably a mistake. The military has and should always be focused on war and the prevention of war. The military has never done well in peace time. I saw such comments in my grandfather’s diary when he was serving during the period between the two World Wars.

Following the two World Wars, we down-sized our military and told our veterans that they were on their own. We promised the veterans of World War I bonuses but when the time came to pay them, we reneged on the deal. Fortunately for the veterans of World War II, we gave them the G. I. Bill and enabled them to get the skills necessary to resume a civilian life. But since then, we have cast aside our veterans, shunting them to side and into the darkness where no one can see them.

Yet, we continue to tell our youth that military life will give them what they need, the training and the funding for life after they have given their country the early part of their youth. For the lucky ones, this may be true. But for too many, it is only a hoped for reality and not what they find when they come home.

The issue, the problem is that we expect our soldiers, sailors, and marines to prepare for two mutually exclusive situations, a peace-time situation and a war-time situation. We do not prepare those who serve for this dichotomy nor do we help with the transition afterwards. The violence that destroyed Fort Hood last week will erupt on another post or another base or on a ship somewhere in the middle of the ocean because of this conflict.

There will always be a conflict between the duties of a soldier and the desires of someone who enlists for the future because those two futures are many, many times exclusive. The exclusiveness of this is even more today because it is complicated by an age-old axiom and the by-product of societal thought.

Even with the lessons handed down from generation to generation, we still fight our current wars using the previous wars’ tactics. Our casualty rates in the Civil War were high because both armies used tactics that assumed that rifles being used were as inaccurate as the ones used in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. But the technology of 1860 was far ahead of the technology of 1810 and it showed in the increased number of casualties. There were those who saw the carnage and wondered if there was some sort of manageable peace solution possible. But, by then, it was too late for any sort of negotiated settlement and Grant recognized that the only way to win was to eliminate the Confederate armies.

Ironically, it was after one of the bloodier battles that Robert E. Lee offered his quote that it was fortunate that war was so terrible or we would grow very fond of it. But it seems that in today’s world we have grown very fond of it, as we have sanitized and hidden the blood of war.

But now we are faced with an entirely different type of war, no matter what it is called. And, even with the lessons of Viet Nam, we still haven’t learned that you cannot defeat a population with huge armies, especially when those huge armies are viewed as conquerors and not liberators. You would have thought that that we would have finally understood another quote from Chairman Mao, “the guerilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.” But we haven’t and we are now paying the price for our ignorance.

If our military is to succeed, it must understand its mission and its goals. The military can not be an instrument for the implementation of an unclear vision or poorly stated mission statement. And it must have the resources to fulfill the vision as well. But such a statement, such a vision, and those resources must come from the politicians and the people.

This is unfortunately something this country has not done or is doing now. This country, which so willingly cheers its military personnel as they go off to war, quite easily ignores those soldiers, sailors, and marines while they serve and when they come home. Many of our enlisted personnel have families, yet because of the current pay structure are eligible for food stamps and similar benefits. (It is interesting to note that those who argue for a strong military also call for a reduction of these same benefits. Perhaps if their efforts were directed towards the men and women of the Armed Services and the people of this country instead of the contractors back home, we could have strong military, one in which people would be glad to join.) We ask our military to serve without question but then to disappear quietly into the background so that they can be forgotten when they come home.

On this day, we must first resolve that we will not see war as the first but only the last option in resolving problems. On this day, we must resolve that we will understand who our enemy is and what they fight for. Let us also resolve to remove the causes of war — poverty, hunger, homelessness, lack of medical care – before fighting other people. And let us resolve that when the fighting is done and our military come home, they truly can come home, that this country will honor our commitment to their service and not cast them aside to be quickly forgotten.

George Clemenceau once said, in effect, that war was too important to leave to soldiers. (There are many who say he meant generals but there are several variants.) But if we forget the soldiers, then we make it easy to not think about the cost of war.

War is perhaps at times unavoidable. I cannot help but think of Patrick Henry’s comment during his “give me liberty” speech that war was already on the doorsteps of our fledging nation and that it was inevitable that we would fight. If we must fight, so be it. But let us fight for reasons that are clear and just, not ideological and self-centered. And if we must fight, let it because there were no other options available; war should never be the first option in any conflict.

We should be doing two things today. We should not be spending time and money on ourselves. Rather, we should be spending time remembering those who served. And then, we should be spending time and effort to work inside and outside the military to develop answers that do not require violence to solve problems; we should be spending time and effort finding ways to build up people and nations, not destroying them.

So I ask, “What will you be doing today?”

 

Welcome to the neighborhood

Posted on by
2

I recently conducted a workshop entitled “Technology in the Pulpit”.  It was designed to explore many of the ways that computers and its attending technology can be used not only in the pulpit but in other ways to facilitate evangelism and the work of the church.  This include exploring how to become a blogger.

For me, it was an interesting time because it allowed me to do what I am supposed to be doing, teaching, and in an area that I have explored since it became part of the educational and religious landscapes some twenty years ago.

More importantly, the two “graduates” of the workshop are now bloggers in their own right and a part of the Methodist Blogging community.  They are

  1. The Odd Thought, and
  2. Living Water

Please visit their sites and help welcome them to the neighborhood.

Basic Needs

Posted on by
2

Here are my thoughts for the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost. The Scriptures for this Sunday are Ruth 3: 1 – 5, 4: 13 – 17; Hebrews 9: 24 – 28; and Mark 12: 38 – 44.

—————————————————————————–

There was an interesting article in Christian Century this past week about biblical literacy (see http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=7927). It does repeat some information that I have used in the past from a 1997 Barna Survey (such as 12 percent of adults think Noah’s wife was Joan of Ark and about ½ of those surveyed don’t know that the Book of Isaiah is in the Old Testament) or a 2004 Gallup survey that showed that nearly one in ten teens think that Moses was one of the 12 apostles.

This article looks at the impact of scriptural illiteracy and ways of overcoming it. It is important to consider this because there are too many ideas about religion in general and Christianity in particular that come from a lack of knowledge about the one document that is the primary source of information.

Now, I am only mentioning that because of what I see in the readings for today and what they mean for us in this day and age. And, for me, this is an important distinction. If you do not know the basic facts about the Bible it is very difficult to understand what the words mean. And it is entirely possible that you will find a different message in the Scripture readings for today than the one I found. And there is nothing wrong with that because, if nothing else, it means that you are thinking about what you have read. The Bible should never be viewed as fixed in time because to do so is to remove the meaning from the words.

And so it is that I have to wonder why the Book of Ruth is part of the Old Testament. Now, one answer is found in the concluding part of the verses today. Ruth and Boaz had a son who is named Obed. And Obed will become the father of Jesse and Jesse will be the father of David. And, as the hymn goes, from the branch of Jesse’s tree shall come the Messiah.

But, there is more to the story than just the establishment of the royal line that will lead to Jesus. Or at least that is the way it seems to me. The story of Ruth is a recounting of tribal and societal policies, of making sure that everyone has the basic needs. It is in Ruth that we learn that farmers were told not to take the entire crop from the field but leave some on the edges so that the poor would be able to have some grain. This is also a tale about the nature of society where widows were often left outside the care of society.

Naomi, Ruth’s mother-in-law, is a widow whose two sons have also died. To be a widow without children, especially sons, in that time was to be put outside the safety net of society. There was no security for Naomi and even less for Ruth. If Naomi is to have any sort of future, she must return to her homeland (having moved to Moab early in the story) and hope that her family will take her in. Ruth, being a Moabite, does not have that security and Naomi has suggested that she return to her family as well. But unlike her sister-in-law, Orpah, Ruth says that she will follow Naomi, even though there is no guarantee of security for her.

Now, the Gospel reading for today also speaks of a widow and most of the time we speak of the generosity of the widow (who gave everything) as compared to those who gave a portion of their abundance. But while we remember that part of the Gospel reading, we often forget the first part where Jesus said that those who “devour widows’ homes and say long prayers for appearance only” will be the ones who are condemned.

I think that we spend so much time in today’s society trying to make the Bible fit our view of the world that we forget what it is that the Bible is trying to tell us. And even if we did at one time know what was in the Bible, we have cast it aside in favor of whatever information we might think is in the Bible because it enables us to have our own view.

The Bible’s main message is that we must care for each other first. The poor get a better treatment in the Bible than they do in real life today, even though there are so many people today who say they are Christians. We may argue that capitalism is or isn’t the best economic system available; we may argue that there are other systems that are better for today’s economy. I am not much of a Bible scholar and I am not much of an economist. But I do recall what John Wesley said about earnings.

John Wesley had no problems with people earning as much as they could; in fact, he encouraged people “to earn as much as they could.” But such earnings came with the condition that you didn’t do it at the expense or “on the backs” of others. In other words, if your employment required the exploitation of others, you were in the wrong business. Your gain should not be at the expense of others.

Unfortunately, when you look at the disparity in incomes today between the various economic levels, it would be hard to say that the very, very rich are not exploiting the poor and under-classes. And the reports that I hear that tell me that local food closets are being pushed to the limit each week with more and more families seeking assistance in putting food on the table says that we have forgotten the Biblical imperative to leave some of the abundance for others.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t finish the John Wesley trilogy on finances. Not only did he say that one could earn all that they could, he said that one should save as much as they could and then give all that they could. It has long been noted that Wesley was one of the highest paid clergy in England but that the British tax collectors could not find his wealth.

They never could understand how someone earning as much as John Wesley was earning could not have anything. But John Wesley had figured out what it would take for his family to live and everything above that amount was given away.

Early Methodists followed his example, living simple lives and saving their money. But they saved their money not to hoard it but to give it away. It has long been noted that most people today do not save enough and our own society seems directed towards getting as much as one can for one’s own benefit as possible with little concern for others.

And yes, this is about health care. I am not going to make a plea for one form of health care or another. But it strikes me that too many people on both sides of the debate are offering plans that are “me-first” in nature and what is it going to cost me instead of trying to determine what is the best for all people. Yes, it is going to cost some people some money but is that a reason to say that others should not get some sort of decent health care? I am not interested in the argument that one plan is going to create some sort of gigantic bureaucracy when the private plans have already created a gigantic bureaucracy devoted more to making a profit than to insuring that people are healthy. Everything in the health care debate and the debate/discussion about the economy seems to be directed towards insuring the well being of the one individual who already has and not providing for the well being of those who have nothing. This is in direct contrast to what the basis for the Old Testament and Gospel readings for today.

The futility of these arguments can be said in what the writer of Hebrew tells us about the futility of the priests who offer sacrifices time and time again. The only true sacrifice is the one that Christ made for us. As long as our attempts to resolve societal issues focus on ourselves long before we worry about what others need, we will never find the answer. On the other hand, if we, like Christ, focus on others before ourselves, the answers will come quickly and easily.

The basic needs of people need to be answered before we even think about the superfluous needs of individuals. Let us pause and think about that as we enter the last days of the Pentecost season and prepare for Advent and the coming of Christ.

“Are You Now or Have You Ever Been?”

Posted on by
Reply

This was a piece that I had written a couple of weeks ago but haven’t posted yet. But I am prompted to post it because this month’s issue of Connections, a monthly newsletter by Barbara Wendland.

She prefaced this month’s issue by a note indicating that

It’s a statement I’ve thought about and worked on for several months. Throughout those months I’ve kept wavering about whether to use it or not, because I know it expresses beliefs that some readers will find unacceptable.

However, I also know that many churchgoers and “church alumni/ae” have had many of the thoughts I’m expressing here but have assumed they were alone, because they didn’t hear anyone expressing such thoughts. I think it’s important to remind these readers not only that they’re far from alone but also that many Christians are thinking such thoughts and believe they need to be openly addressed in the church. So I’ve decided to send this issue.

I suspect that at a later time, some of the beliefs I’ve expressed in this Connections will have changed. And I’m not claiming that they’re the truth—they’re merely how these subjects look to me at this point in my life.  I offer them in the hope that they may help readers re-think their own beliefs. Thanks for considering them.

I find myself in agreement with much of what Barbara had to write in the newsletter this month. But I also disagree with her on some of the points. Before you read my thoughts, I want to encourage you to read this month’s issue of Connections. (And if you are not a subscriber, you really need to think about becoming one; she puts a lot of time and thought into each issue and she is addressing questions that many of the laity and clergy of the United Methodist Church today are asking.)

I have posted some of my own thoughts on this topic in the piece “Why?”

I found out after I started this piece that the title of this piece is also the title of play written by Eric Bentley in 1999. And while my thoughts about the title are related to the content of the play, the search and hunt for communists in 1950’s, I want to take the implications of the question just a bit further.

Of course, for those who are of my generation and the previous one, the question that was asked was “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” For some, refusal to answer the question left them effectively blacklisted in terms of employment; others willingly answered the question and named names. It was a period of time when the fear of communism ran rampant through society and life, beginning when Joseph McCarthy, the Republican Senator from Wisconsin, held up a piece of paper and said that it contained the names of communists employed in the United States State Department. It most likely ended when Edward R. Murrow produced a documentary film that questioned the veracity of Senator McCarthy and those who supported him in his efforts. It is interesting to note that the actual number that was supposed to be on the page was never consistent nor were the names divulged and those who were proclaimed communist were often done so by innuendo and hearsay, with no ability to face those who made the accusations.

Now, you will tell me that such rampant witch-hunts could not occur today; we are a much more enlightened society. But we just went through an eight-year period where one’s patriotism was questioned if you opposed or questioned the Bush Administration’s war plans.

We have become a nation of labels, quick to be affixed and affixed with super glue so that they cannot be removed.

We are called technological luddites if we even suggest that computer-based education is overrated or that on-line education will be the path to the future. Yet, we ignore the fact that every new technological innovation has been applied to education and found wanting as those involved have simply transposed what is being done in one method to the “new and better” way. We are told we are socialists if we even suggest that there be some sort of single-payer option for health care and that such options would be unwieldy and cumbersome bureaucracy; yet we ignore the fact that we are dealing with such bureaucracies already. As Dom Helder Câmara, late archbishop of the Brazilian diocese of Olinda and Recife (Wednesday, Oct. 13 was the 10th anniversary of his death – Source: Guardian) once said, “When I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why so many people are poor they call me a communist.”

But such exchanges are only the tip of the iceberg, as it were. Name-calling has replaced thoughtful dialogue; hate and invective are the basis upon which our public speech is based. No longer are we interested in the resolution in the problem but affixing blame and avoiding responsibility. This can be seen in how we view Christianity.

Somewhere along the line, somewhere in the past twenty years or so, we have also lost the definition of what it is to be a Christian. To say that you are a Christian today is to invite invective and disdain, ridicule and derision. For too many people, to state that you are a Christian and especially an evangelical Christian is to state that you are a “bigot”, “homophobic”, “chauvinistic”, and “reactionary.” But in the same breath, individuals will describe Jesus as “caring, understanding, forgiving, kind, and empathetic.” How can the description of Christ be so different from those who have been asked to tell the story? (From Speaking My Mind by Tony Campolo)

But even amongst many Christians, there is some disagreement as to what a Christian is. As Tony Campolo also noted,

… the last place where I can really quote Jesus these days is in American churches. They don’t want to hear ‘overcome evil with good.’ They don’t want to hear ‘those who live by the sword die by the sword.’ They don’t want to hear ‘if your enemy hurts you, do good, feed, clothe, minister to him.’ They don’t want to hear ‘blessed are the merciful.’ They don’t want to hear ‘love your enemies.’ (Tony Campolo as quoted in Christian Week magazine and reported in SojoMail for 9/10/03)

It appears that Christianity in America is a different sort of religion from what it was meant to be. It is one in which people can live their own lives, not one in which they seek the one given to us by Christ.

We have Americanized Christianity so that it fits our concept of society and our culture. It’s an adaptation of the true truth to fit our materialistic and consumer-driven world.

To say that you are a Christian is to also say that somehow you cannot think independently and freely. To say that you are a scientist is to say that you deny the existence of God and Jesus Christ. And each side of this faith/science divide looks upon those on the other side with a questionable eye. I cannot say for certain but I do know that some schools to which I have applied for a position feel that my openness about my beliefs are a detriment to my ability to present science in a non-judgmental, scientific and logical manner.

We have created a society in which we ignore the role Christianity (and in fact, all faiths) have played in history. We may speak of the atrocities that many religions have committed in the name of faith yet we ignore the role those same religions have played in the maintenance of society and culture.

Where would we be today if monasteries during the Dark Ages had not kept copies of the books from being destroyed? Where would we be today if the Arab countries of that same time period had not developed chemistry, algebra, or the idea of the zero? Where would Starbucks and all other coffee houses be if the Arabs had not created coffee?

The time has come for us to consider what Christianity is, what faith is, and why each one of us has chosen the path upon which we have walked. The discussions that have taken place and are taking place in this land speak to a situation in which many of us proclaim to all that would hear that we are Christians if it is Sunday morning at 10 am but whose words, thoughts, and deeds pronounce a different faith or belief.

Are you now a Christian? Have you ever been a Christian? Now may very well be the time for you to respond because tomorrow could be too late.

A New Vision (Part 2)

Posted on by
Reply

I am at Dover UMC this morning.  (Location of church)  The service starts at 11 and you are welcome to attend.  The Scriptures for this Sunday, All Saints Day, are Isaiah 25: 6 – 9; Revelation 21: 1 – 6; and John 11: 32 – 44.

————————————————————————————

I normally don’t do a series of messages but as the title of this one would suggest I am doing so this week. There were things about the Scriptures last week and the message that I saw in those verses that matched in part what I was thinking about the message for today.

The focus last week was a metaphorical new vision of God by Job and the physical restoration of Bartimaeus’ sight. These visions came on the Sunday when we pause to remember Martin Luther and his vision of a new church.

The opening lines of the second reading for today tell us John the Seer’s vision of the New Jerusalem and a new beginning for mankind. I do not, as some today do, see the Revelation of John as the end of mankind. Rather, I have come to see the Revelation as a new beginning, of a promise of a new hope found in Christ.

It is interesting that we would read this particular passage of Scripture on a day when we pause to remember those who have gone before us. It would not seem logical to think of the past when the focal point of any discussion should be about the future. But, in reality, when we remember the Saints of the church, be it a particular church or the church in general, we are remembering the vision they had for the church and where they thought the church would be long after they had left. And for us today, the vision of the church many years ago must also include the vision that John Wesley had when he first spoke out against a church that had no vision, which could not see the poor and the needy, the hungry and the homeless, the sick and imprisoned.

There isn’t a church in this country or on this planet that wasn’t formed with some vision of its purpose. We see it in the Methodist churches from Cold Spring and South Highlands eastward to Mahopac. Each of those churches represents a stop for the circuit riders some two hundred years ago. I would also expect that the churches along route 22 from Pawling northward to Pine Plains can be measured in terms of the circuit riders who visited this area early in our country’s history.

Sometimes, you have to wonder about the vision or purpose behind the creation of a particular church. I cannot help but think of the local Pentecostal churches in the hollows of eastern Kentucky that are within ear-shout and eye-sight of other similarly named churches. It always struck me that these were churches started by members of one church who had a disagreement and decided it was best to form their own church, even if you could walk just down the road from one church to the other.

But, no matter the reason, every church knows the purpose for which it was founded and a vision of where it would like to go. Or at least it should. A church whose only vision is to be a memorial to the Saints long past is a church without a vision.

For any person or organization to have a vision of the future, to think beyond the moment, is and can be a very dangerous thing. There are risks involved when a church begins to think of what might happen and what it will take to make the vision a reality. It is quite easy to see the present as safe and fear what tomorrow might bring or to sit and think that yesterday was so much better.

But pause for a moment and think about what it must have been for the early church, meeting secretly in believer’s homes, because public knowledge that they were believers and followers of Jesus Christ meant their arrest, torture, and execution. The only assurance that these early believers, these early Saints, had was that there was a promise in life after death, no matter what might happen to them in the present.

Still, the prospect of a new vision can be a very threatening thing. You would think that a new vision should be a liberating thing but people who have been oppressed for long periods of time are not always open to new visions.

You would have thought that the Israelites, after many years of slavery and oppression in Egypt, would have rejoiced in the journey through the wilderness to the Promised Land. But time and time again, they rebelled against that vision and time after time, they demanded a return to Egypt and slavery. Even after all the wanderings, when they stood on the banks of the Jordan River, preparing to cross over, the spies that were sent in to scout the land returned with tails of danger and accounts of giants. The vision was theirs to claim but the people still would rather accept a reality of slavery than any vision of freedom.

It may not seem logical but many times those who have been oppressed or forgotten may approach the prospect of a new vision with a certain degree of numbness and apathy. It is far easier and safer to continue in a world where things may be bleak and without hope because it is a familiar situation than entertain the possibility of something new and transforming because it is unknown and potentially dangerous.

It has been an axiom of society that we cannot buck the status quo. And there are many, even in the church, who would offer no vision of the future because they are heavily invested in the present. Their opposition and reluctance to see the future, to have any vision for the future, can sap energy and prevent change, because they stifle the imagination.

But the hope and promise of a better tomorrow can overcome those who would work against the new vision. They will offer many thoughts that are only designed to stifle and hold back. The future can be very frightening because it is unknown when held up against the reassurance of what the present offers.

The power of vision is its ability to imagine an alternative to the present reality. Vision offers a way for an alternative consciousness to develop, to produce a scenario different from the present. It offers one the opportunity to see an alternative to the status quo, to shed light on the deficiencies of the present.

The people were in grief because Lazarus had died; all they wanted Jesus to do was console Mary and Martha in the loss of their brother. But Jesus offered a new vision, of a life that transcends death. To bring Lazarus out of the tomb was to offer a new vision, a continuation of what He had said early on His ministry, “Go and tell the people what you have seen and heard”. (Luke 7: 22)

Even those who offer a new vision know that it can be frightening. It would be naïve to even think about getting involved in the development of a new vision if one did not realize its costs. To announce a new vision for the future is to say that there is something wrong with the present. And this will lead many to proclaim such visionaries as radicals or revolutionaries and even subversive. And we all know what the secular and sectarian authorities did to Jesus and those who proclaimed the vision of a new church some two thousand years ago. (Adapted from Threshold of the Future by Michael Riddell)

But if the present condition, the numbness of a living death, is nothing more than despair and absence of hope, a vision can offer hope. When we read the prophets, especially Isaiah, we forget their timeless messages found a beginning in social and political crises. In the book of Isaiah, Assyria had swept the northern kingdom of Israel away. Now it rode from the north and endangered Jerusalem. Little did the city realize that the seeds of Assyria’s destruction lay in her expansion. The impending crisis had a “silver lining.”

The verses from Isaiah that we read today share the hope of the changing situation. Through the prophet, God announced a time of celebration in Jerusalem and an end to the desperation that covered the city “like a veil.” God was liberating Mount Zion (upon which the city was built) from danger and was restoring the reputation of the city and the people.

Hope in the light of vindication and liberation. The message of Isaiah still rings true today as it did so many centuries ago. Where do you see hope in the light of danger? How has God restored you when you were “down and out?” How did you thank God for your turnaround? (From http://www.word-sunday.com/Files/a/28-a/FR-28-a.html)

What is your vision of the church today? What shall be your vision tomorrow? When I was selecting the music for this Sunday, it was only natural that I pick something like “For All the Saints”. And I will admit that I picked “Be Thou My Vision” for the most obvious of reasons even though it was not on the suggested list of hymns in my worship planner. But there was a song on the suggested list that I might never have thought about, our closing hymn this morning, “We Shall Overcome.”

Perhaps no song is more associated with the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s but I doubt that many people know of its ties to this area or its history within the Methodist Church. The popularity of the song as a protest song comes, in part, from the effort of Pete Seeger in the late 40s and early 50s.

But the song itself has ties to the African Methodist Episcopal church of the late 19th and early 20th century. Even then, its roots run back to at least 1867. As I explored the history of this song, I noticed something. A gentleman named Thomas Wentworth Higgins, writing in the June, 1867, issue of Atlantic Monthly said that he wondered how such spirituals were developed and written. He concluded that there was something in the minds of some people that lead to the song’s creation but he also concluded that such songs grew by gradual accretion, bits and pieces, in an almost unconscious way. There was a vision involved in the creation and development of this song, just as there is for almost any other song.

In 1968, Robert Kennedy used the words of George Bernard Shaw to speak of a vision for this country, “some see things as they are and say why; others see things as they could be and ask why not.” Sadly, that implementation of that vision was taken away from us that horrible, horrible spring some forty-one years ago. But the vision was not taken away. And today, on this All Saints Sunday, we are reminded of the vision that our forefathers and those who walked the path before us had. We are called to see the vision of Christ renewing our lives and transforming them; we are called to see the vision of tomorrow in the hope and promise of Christ’s resurrection. The words that we now see say that we shall overcome; we shall make the vision the reality.

The Foundation of Our Hopes

Posted on by
Reply

This is the message for the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, 12 November 2000, at Walker Valley United Methodist Church, Walker Valley, NY.  The Scriptures are 1 Samuel 1: 4 – 20; Hebrews 10: 11 – 14 (15 – 18) 19 – 25;  and Mark 13: 1 – 18.

To me, there is an interesting connection between the Gospel and Old Testament readings for today. At the end of the Gospel reading, Jesus speaks of war and the rumors of the war in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and what must happen before the coming of Christ. The Old Testament reading takes place at Shiloh, the place in Israel where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. But to someone like myself, Shiloh has an entirely different meaning.

The place named Shiloh is about 45 miles east of Memphis and about fifteen miles from the Tennessee – Mississippi state line. In April of 1862, 42000 soldiers under the command of Ulysses S. Grant moved up from Corinth, Mississippi, to the town of Pittsburg Landing. The encampment of soldiers was on the grounds of the simple log building known as Shiloh Methodist Church. And though Shiloh means a "place of peace," the Battle of Shiloh was one of the bloodiest of all the Civil War battles.

It was at Shiloh that Grant and the other Union commanders realized that victory would not come easy. Nor would it be the quick, bloodless victory everyone hoped it would be. After Shiloh, everyone knew that the war would be costly and long.

In the Gospel reading for today, Jesus speaks of war and the rumors of war. He gives a dire prediction that nations will fight nations and kingdoms will go against kingdoms. In the death and destruction of the Civil War, many saw the end times that Jesus said was coming in the Gospel reading. Historians have noted that the period after the Civil War was a period of great evangelism in America as people sought to avoid the "end times."

There are those today who say that the end times, if not occurring right now, are very close. But I am not one of them. I freely admit that I have problems with those preachers who preach evangelism based on end times and a Second Coming of Christ. After all, even Christ said to be aware of those false prophets who preach fear in His name.

Many Bible historians have pointed out that Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels after Roman soldiers destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A. D. Besides, to assume that the success of the Gospel requires massive destruction seems to me a contradiction of terms. For the Gospel is as much a message of hope and peace as it is about the ultimate triumph of God over sin and death.

There are those who say that world is not the place for the church; that the world is none of the church’s business. The business of the church is saving of souls and spreading the Gospel.

Louis Evely wrote,

To believe in God is to believe in the salvation of the world. The paradox of our time is that those who believe in God do not believe in the salvation of the world, and those who believe in the future of the world do not believe in God.

Christians believe in "the end of the world," they expect the final catastrophe, the punishment of others.

Atheists in their turn invent doctrines of salvation, try to give meaning to life, work, the future of humankind, and refuse to believe in God because Christians believe in him and take no interest in the world.

All ignore the true God: He who has so loved the world! But which is the more culpable ignorance?

To love God is to love the world. To love God passionately is to love the world passionately. To hope in God is to hope for the salvation of the world.

I often say to myself that, in our religion, God must feel very much alone: for is there anyone besides God who believes in the salvation of the world? God seeks among us sons and daughters who resemble him enough that he could send them into the world to save it. (From In the Christian Spirit by Louis Evely)

What goes on in the world does concern the church. While I may not believe in the end times that were prophesized in the Old Testament Book of Daniel and its counterpart in the New Testament, the Book of Revelation, I do think that the destruction, violence, and poverty will be commonplace if we do nothing. In those times when life is darkest, it makes it even more critical that the church be a place of peace and the bearer of the "Good News", that there is hope in this world. To do so we must build that strong foundation of faith in God.

The passage from Hebrews tells us something about the way we live and what we do. If we allow the world to stay the same each and every day, then we are like the priests who made the same sacrifices each day. Their work did nothing to take away the sins of their congregation; their work did nothing to make the world a better place.

But with Christ’s sacrifice, the world changed. As the writer of Hebrews points out, in verses 19 – 25, we have access to God, that we can approach God with a boldness that was not possible before. With Christ, we have built the foundation by which we can do man y things. No longer do we fear the darkness; no longer do we fear the future. In Verse 23, the confession of our hope is our confident expectation of the future. If we do our part, there is no question that God will fulfill his part of the agreement.

Hannah’s live, as we read in the Old Testament reading for today, was very bleak. In ancient Israel, the failure to have children was regarded as a tragedy. First, children were needed to help with the everyday work of life. And without sons, the family name would not be preserved and without heirs, a family could not maintain its place in tribal allotments.

Because she did not bear him any children and especially sons, Elkanah could have divorced Hannah. But it is to his credit that he choose not to do so; rather, he married Peninah who bore him many sons and daughters. But Hannah’s life did not improve, for as we read, Peninah did not show her the same respect that Elkanah did.

But instead of giving up, instead of resigning herself to a life of depression and misery, of letting the darkness of life overcome her, Hannah turned to God. Through her faith, she asked God to give her a son and because of her faith, God gave her that opportunity.

In placing her life in God’s hands, in expressing her faith as the foundation for all she was to do, Hannah’s life changed. So too is for us; when we place complete and unbinding faith in God, so also do our lives change.