All Posts by Father Steve

Ash Wednesday’s Sermon

Why is being an Episcopalian during Lent like playing football for Coach Vince Lombardi in the NFL?

I don’t know if you know it but Vince Lombardi was an altar boy, at one time aspired to become a Roman Catholic priest, and attended daily mass for the whole of his adult life. Maybe that explains why he was the winningest coach in the history of the National Football League. They don’t call the trophy awarded to the team which wins the SuperBowl the “Vince Lombardi trophy” for nothin’. As the head coach of the Green Bay Packers from 1959 to 1967, he never had a losing season. The people of the Green Bay community, which sold out every game of his entire tenure, called him “the Pope.”

In 1963, Vince Lombardi wrote a book called “Run to Daylight: A Diary of One Week with the Green Bay Packers. In it, he describes how he got his Packers ready to play week after week. On Mondays, they would look at game films. Lombardi says he never had to tell any of his players what they did wrong because they already knew. Instead, on Monday, Coach Lombardi would give each player one thing on which to work that week, one mistake to correct, one skill to improve, just one thing that would make them a better football player. And that, my friends, is good theology.

Compare this to your annual visit to your personal physician. Listen to that the doctor says: Lose weight. Stop smoking. Get more sleep. Stop drinking alcohol. Get more exercise. Cut back on sugar.

If you go to Group Health, you not only have to listen to the sawbones tell you all these things, they print them out in what they call a “visit summary” and send you home with a copy. The problem with this approach, as opposed to Vince Lombardi’s, is that it is too much at once, too many changes, too many major goals, too many projects, just too damn much.

You may remember that last October I read and recommended to you a book by Jana Riess called “Flunking Sainthood: A Year of Breaking the Sabbath, Forgetting to Pray, and Still Loving My Neighbor.”

This is a very funny book in which this goofy woman tries twelve different spiritual exercises which she thinks may lead her to becoming a spiritual superstar. None of them worked out very well. She tried fasting. She tried lectio divina. She kept the Orthodox Jewish Sabbath for a month of Sabbaths. She tried generosity. She tried praying the daily office. She tried the Eastern Orthodox Jesus prayer. And she did not become more saintly. She shudda listened to Vince Lombardi.

If you seriously feel the need to do some major spiritual reconstruction of yourself, you could get yourself a spiritual director. There are such things ‘tho not everyone who holds him- or herself out as a spiritual director is necessarily the real deal. In truth, there are some real lulus out there who claim to be spiritual directors but are more like spiritual fruitcakes. A really qualified spiritual director can offer a lot of help to someone who wants to go deeper into the spiritual life, which can be immensely rewarding.

But I’ll let you in on a little secret. These people are steeped in the classics of Christian spirituality: The 4th Century Apothegmata Patrum (The Sayings of the Desert Fathers); The 14th Century “Cloud of Unknowing”; The Eastern Orthodox “Philokalia”; Dame Julian of Norwich’s “Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love”; My favourite: Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection’s “The Practice of the Presence of God”’ The Russian Orthodox “The Way of a Pilgrim”; Saint John of the Cross’ “Dark Night of the Soul”; Saint Bernard of Clairvaux’s “On Loving God”. But they’ve also read Vince Lombardi and so you might be surprised when your highly qualified, highly educated, highly experienced spiritual director gave you one thing to do, one change to make, one good habit to acquire, one thing on which to work.

Or you could do it for yourself by yourself. But, if you do, don’t try to do everything at once. Just one thing at a time.

Unlike giving something up for Lent and then snatching it back with great relish the moment the Forty Days are over, a better idea would be to make a permanent change for Lent, one that lasts beyond Easter, one that last for more than a year, one that changes – in a little way – who you are … you know, like, forever.

This might be a good and sensible and useful way to do Lent. In the Invitation to a Holy Lent, which I will deliver in just a few minutes, the Church invites you to do a very large number of things: self-examination; repentance; prayer; fasting; self-denial; reading and meditating on God’s holy Word. Holy moley!

Suppose we followed the Lombardi Principle and focused on just one of those things.

Take, for instance, daily intercessory prayer. Suppose you decide to pray for Charlie every day of Lent. Charlie’s a good guy. He is a long-time and valued member of this congregation. He is in all kinds of medical trouble. And he could certainly use all of our prayers every day.

If you don’t know how or if you aren’t very good at composing prayers which you think might be suitable for the ears of the Almighty, there is help. That’s why God wrote the Book of Common Prayer.

Here’s one, filed under Prayers for the Sick: “Heavenly Father, giver of life and health: Comfort and relieve your sick servant N. (that’s where you say “Charlie”), and give your power of healing to those who minister to his needs, that he may be strengthened in his weakness and have confidence in your loving care; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”
If the “every day of Lent” part is a challenge, that tells you where your focus should be. A discipline only works if it is a discipline. You decide to become a daily intercessor for Lent, daily means daily, as in once a day, at least, every day. Most people who strive to become intercessors fix a set time every day at which they will pray. For Bishop Sandy and Mari Hampton, that’s right after breakfast. They don’t even get up from the table to clear their dishes; they just get right to their prayers.

If you are going to go to this much trouble just for the sake of our Brother Charlie, you may as well spread your sights a tiny bit wider and get the prayer list from Georgeanne. I mean, if you’re there and you’re praying, is there a really good reason not to include the rest of the folks for whom we, as a congregation are praying? Some people find it useful to use a notebook or journal in which they can keep their prayer list and into which they can paste or tape written prayers that they want to use for different occasions. There used to be a rubric before the Collect for Ash Wednesday in the 1928 Prayer Book which said “This prayer is to be said on Ash Wednesday and on every day during Lent.” The Collect for Lent might be a good one to tape in there, since this is a Lenten spiritual exercise, after all.

You do this for the forty days of Lent and it has already become a habit. You’re praying not just for Charlie but for whatever else you feel moved to include in your daily offering of prayers. And you don’t stop on Easter; why would you? This is, after all, the new you: you are now a bona fide intercessor, which maybe you weren’t before.

Jesus recommends this, you know. In this evening’s Gospel, Jesus says “Whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

So maybe there are still seventy-eleven other things that need improving in your spiritual life. Maybe you still have a long way to go on the road to sainthood. Maybe you can think of a lot else that needs work, maybe even a long list. If you feel that way, remember Vince Lombardi. And remember that there’s another Lent next year.

About the Lord’s Prayer

Today, the Tenth Sunday after Pentecost, the 28th day of July, 2013, about three billion people around the world will pray the Lord’s Prayer.

Some, like us, will say it in English. Some will say it in Latin, or in Greek, or, like our brothers and sisters at Saint Spiridon’s Russian Orthodox Church in downtown Seattle, in Old Church Slavonic. Lutherans will say it is German, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian. Dutch Reformed will say it in Dutch. The Lord’s Prayer will be prayed in the very many dialects of Chinese, in Korean, in Japanese and in Thai. In New Zealand, they’ll pray it in English but also in the Maori language. It is a sort of symbol of Christian unity, which exists in neither institutional nor organizational form, that so many Christians will pray the same prayer on the same day.

The Lord’s Prayer has the distinction of being the only prayer taught to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. If He taught any others to his disciples, they didn’t write ‘em down nor did the Church preserve them by liturgical use.

That the Lord’s Prayer is authentically the words of Jesus is beyond doubt. Exactly which words our Lord used when he taught them is a matter of some dispute.

There are two major problems encountered by prayer detectives trying to figure out exactly what Jesus said in response to his disciples request that He teach them to pray. The first arises from the Lord’s Prayer appearing in one form in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew and in a slightly different form in the Gospel according to Saint Luke. The second arises from the doxology – “the kingdom, the power and the glory” part — tacked on to the end .., or not tacked on …, as you may prefer.

About the different versions in the New Testament: Here is how the Lucan version (which we heard in the Holy Gospel read this morning) differs from the Matthean version:

Luke says: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.”  (That’s the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible version.)

Matthew has it: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.” (This, too, is from the New Revised Standard Version.)

It is the latter one, the one from Matthew’s Gospel, that we use liturgically and that most people use liturgically.

Then, to make matters even more confusing, there is the matter of the doxology. Notice that neither of the versions – neither Luke’s nor Matthew’s – includes the part about “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.” There is an interesting story about how that latter bit came to be attached to Jesus’ words of prayer. Apparently, these words were added by the Early Church, so early that they found their way back into some copies of the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, which explains why there are some early texts with it and some without it. Imagine the poor monk sitting in the scriptorium copying the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. He gets to the part about how Jesus taught the disciples to pray and discovers an apparent omission from the manuscript from which he is copying. “Oh!,” he exclaims, “look at what the last guy to copy this left out! I can fix that.”

The Lord’s Prayer was used universally by the Early Christians. They used it in the mass; they used it in what became the daily orders of prayer; they used it in their private prayers and devotions. In some places, they used it with the doxology. In other places, they left the doxology out.

Somehow, the Matthean doxology came to be identified with Protestant usages and omitting it with Roman Catholic usages but this was never universally the case.

Our own usage of the Lord’s Prayer in our own Prayer Book is illustrative. We use the doxology when we pray this prayer in the Holy Eucharist, and in Morning Prayer and in Evening Prayer. But we omit the doxology when we pray the Lord’s Prayer in Compline … which always messes some people up.

Although the Lord’s Prayer was used by pretty much all people everywhere from the beginnings of Christian worship, it is not perfectly clear that our Lord intended us to use it at all. J. I. Packer, a professor of history and systematic theology at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, published a book in 2007 in which he argued that Jesus never intended us to learn the Lord’s Prayer by heart and repeat it by rote. Professor Packer argues that the Lord gave us what we not call the Lord’s Prayer as an example, a guideline, on which to build our own spontaneous prayers to the Father. He’s going to have to work awfully hard to persuade very many people that his argument is correct.

Which is not to say that Christians have treated the Lord’s Prayer as a sacrosanct object which may not be altered. For example, we have translated it.

It is most likely that Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer to his disciples in Aramaic. If that is true, no copies of the original text exist as all of the recorded versions are in koine Greek. But we don’t pray it in Greek, nor do we pray it in Latin, into which it was translated early on. We had the audacity to translate our Lord’s words into English, several times, differently each time.

There’s the one that God likes best; that’s the one in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. There’s the commonly used one which appears in the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer. And there is the modern one – the one translated in 1975 by the ecumenical International Consultation on English Texts.  This is the one that people have had to get used to as the Rite II alternative in our 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

There are still more than these. Some of you have read a transliteration of the Bible called “The Message” by Eugene Peterson.  Here’s what he does with the Lord’s Prayer:

Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are.
Set the world right; Do what’s best; As above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
You’re in charge! You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes.

Some of you are familiar with the version of the Lord’s Prayer in the 1989 New Zealand Book of Common Prayer:

Eternal Spirit, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver, Source of all that is and that shall be, Father and Mother of us all, Loving God, in whom is heaven: The hallowing of your name echo through the universe! The way of your justice be followed by the peoples of the world! Your heavenly will be done by all created beings! Your commonwealth of peace and freedom sustain our hope and come on earth. With the bread we need for today, feed us. In the hurts we absorb from one another, forgive us. In times of temptation and test, strengthen us. From trials too great to endure, spare us.  From the grip of all that is evil, free us. For you reign in the glory of the power that is love, now and for ever. Amen.

Your vicar is in no position to criticize these whacky versions of the Our Father … because of the one I wrote myself. In 2003, an international on-line Christian magazine called Ship of Fools held a contest to see who could best reduce the Lord’s Prayer to the 160 characters which would allow it to be sent as a text message. Your own vicar entered this contest and did not win.  He came in third place worldwide with the following entry:

God@heaven.org, You rule, up and down. We need grub and a break. Will pass it on. Keep us focused. You totally rule, long term. Amen.

I’m sorry.

Even without the damage we can do to it trying to modernize it, the Lord’s Prayer appears to be less than the perfect prayer, so why do we use it ubiquitously.

It really isn’t the perfect prayer, you know. It doesn’t include all seven of the kinds of prayer identified in the Catechism to the 1979 Prayer Book: adoration, praise, thanksgiving, penitence, oblation, intercession, and petition. It doesn’t cover all six of the things which the 1979 Prayer Book tells us to include in the Prayers of the People: the church, the nation, the world, the local community, those of suffer and the departed.

It seems to me that we persist in praying the Lord’s Prayer for several reasons: First, Jesus told us to. Second, the church tell us to. Saint Paul tells the Colossians to continue to live the Christian life “just as you were taught” and the church teaches us to pray the Lord’s Prayer.
When we pray it, we connect ourselves vertically with every Christian who has ever prayed it in all of Christian history. When we pray it, we connect ourselves horizontally with all of the Christians on the earth today who pray this same prayer. And because Jesus told us to … did I mention that?

Trinity Sunday Sermon 2012

Exodus 3:1-6 THE SERMON
Psalm 93 Trinity Sunday
Romans 8:12-17 3 June 2012
John 3:1-16 All Saints’ Church

This morning, this Trinity Sunday morning, I’d like to talk to you a little about epistemology. You know: epistemology, just like what you discuss at the dinner table most every evening … or not.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with ways of knowing. It asks a set of difficult questions like: What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? To what extent is it possible for a given subject or thing to be known? How do we know what we think we know?
Epistemologists argue with one another about the nature of knowledge, and about how knowledge relates to ideas like truth and belief.
If you like, you may blame a Scottish philosopher named James Frederick Ferrier for all of this, because he is the one who coined the word in the middle 19th Century but philosophers were arguing about epistemology two thousand years before Ferrier was a wee bairn.

It is considered good form to begin a sermon with a joke, if the preacher can find one which suits the subject matter, and I know only one joke about epistemology, so you’re going to get it.
An engineer, an experimental physicist, a theoretical physicist, and a philosopher were hiking together through the hills of Scotland. They reached a hilltop. Looking over to the next hilltop, they saw a black sheep.
In delight, the engineer cried, “What do you know? The sheep in Scotland are black!”
“Well, some of the sheep in Scotland are black,” replied the experimental physicist.
The theoretical physicist considered this a minute, then said, “Well, at least one of the sheep in Scotland is black.”
The philosopher thought for a second, then responded, “Well, it’s black on one side, anyway.”

Today is Trinity Sunday, the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity, the only major feast dedicated to a doctrine rather than a person or an event. So all over the Episcopal Church – and most of the other churches which use the Revised Common Lectionary – preachers are spelling out the mystical doctrine of the Trinity in terms which they hope their congregations will grasp. You know them all by heart:
The Trinity is like a shamrock with three leaves corresponding to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but it is one thing, which thingness the leaves all share in common. Saint Patrick allegedly came up with that one.
The Trinity is like water: sometimes it exists in the form of a vapor, like steam, and sometimes as a liquid, like water in a glass, and sometimes as a solid, like ice, but no matter which form it is in, it is still water. I don’t know who came up with that one but my old Lutheran pastor used to preach it yearly.
The Trinity is like a man who is a son to his parents, a father to his children and a husband to his wife but is the same man, despite these different roles. I don’t know who came up with this one, either, but I do know that it is a perfect example of the heresy of modalism so don’t think any more about it because it is not good for you to think heretical thoughts.
The illustrations go on and on: The Trinity is like an egg: the shell, the yolk and the albumin. The Trinity is like a tree: the roots, the trunk and the branches. The Trinity is like a fire: heat, fuel and oxygen.
And all of these classic illustrations are in some way flawed, partially in error, incomplete or imperfect parallels.

The reason for this is that, when thinking about the nature of God, we get damnably literal. And it is not entirely our fault.
Like everyone born into Western Culture since about 1650 or 1700, we are the children of the Enlightenment. If you want to blame somebody for this, blame Baruch Spinoza, and John Locke, and Pierre Bayle, and Isaac Newton and Voltaire and René Descartes and, closer to home, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
But it is too late to change it so you’d better just get used to the idea.
Some people consider the Enlightenment to be a very good thing. Immanuel Kant wrote: “The Enlightenment was Mankind’s final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance and error.”
And it was certainly the philosophical underpinning for both great advances in science and in the founding of the world’s great democracies.
But, in its peeling away of ignorant superstition and its elevation of the role of reason above all other ways of knowing, it lost too much, tossed out too much, and created too narrow a way of looking at the world. And one of the silliest things it did was to insist that everything knowable can be reduced to its elements and fully apprehended by man.
And the problem with this is that it doesn’t work when it comes to knowing God. What is God’s specific gravity? What is the atomic formula for the stuff of which God is made? How much water does God displace in the heavenly bath tub? And what colour is God, anyway?
And how can God possibly be three persons without also being three gods? It is irrational, the Enlightenment says. Therefore, because God does fit within the confines of our reason and logic, God cannot exist.

Many aeons ago, when I suffered through confirmation classes – first as a Lutheran and then again as an Episcopalian – I was exposed to the selfsame graphic description of the Holy Trinity. It is called the Shield of the Trinity and looks a great deal like a simplified diagram of the female reproductive anatomy. There are three circles arranged like the points of a triangle. The two at the top are the Father and the Son; the one at the bottom is the Holy Spirit. Then there is another circle in the middle of the triangle and it is labeled God. The three outer circles are connected by ribbons which say either “non est” in Latin or “is not” in English. Thus, the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit and so on. But each of the outer circles is connected to the one in the middle with a ribbon which says either “est” in Latin or “is” in English. Thus, the Father is God, the son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.
It is a lovely illustration, except that it gives away too much of the mystery of the Holy Trinity by trying to diagram it like an molecule or a newt’s eye or the relationship between stars in a constellation.

All attempts to rationally define God are doomed to failure from the start because God is not subject to that kind of knowing. It is a question of epistemology.
Even the classic creeds, as good as they are and as complete as they attempt to be, are insufficient to contain the knowledge of God. The Apostle’s Creed said it simply. The Nicene Creed said it more completely. The Athanasian Creed says it rather exhaustively. But none of these are able to embrace the fullness of God’s being because they use only logic and reason to express it.
This is probably why, late in his career, Thomas Aquinas stopped writing philosophical theology and began to compose hymns. He actually left the third and final part of his master work – the Summa Theologica – unwritten. Four of the Eucharistic hymns in The Hymnal 1982 are by Thomas Aquinas. Notice that the next time you sing “Humbly I adore thee, verity unseen” or “Now my tongue the mystery telling.” How many of you can quote anything from Aqiuinas’ Summa Theologica? Not many, I’d guess. But how many of you are familiar with these hymns? Most of you, I’d wager. So which was the better thing? Through which thing are you more likely to find a true knowledge of God? Which is the better epistemology?

When I was a young priestling, serving at Trinity Parish Church in Seattle, we had a black lay reader with a huge bass voice and an English accent. I can vividly recall him reading the Old Testament lesson which was appointed for our hearing this morning.
“In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.”
That is the stuff of which goosebumps are made, vastly superior to comparing God to a shamrock or to water, to a man or to an egg, to a tree or even to fire … although I think the fire metaphor may be coming close.
If it hurts your brain to think of God in philosophical terms, change your epistemology. Finding God in art, in music and in poetry will likely lead you closer to a true knowledge of God than ration and logic are capable of producing.

The Mezzo Wore Mink: A Liturgical Mystery


The sixth installment of the Liturgical Mysteries reintroduces the good people of the village of St Germaine, North Carolina, the good people of St Barnabas’ Episcopal Church, the fellow who is both chief of police to the one and organist-choirmaster to the other. There is much that is new in this episode. The interim priest at St Barnabas’ produces “The Living Gobbler” — a Thanksgiving spectacular show calculated to compete with the neighbouring Baptist’s “Singing Christmas Tree.” The reader also meets a sterile cross between a male pacarana and a female nutria, the pelts of which were to be marketed as “minque,” a Ferris wheel in a cemetery, a Christian nudist summer camp, a mayoral election in St Germaine, a Christian massage parlour called The Upper Womb, and a vegan Rottweiner (a cross between a Rottweiler and a Dachshund). Interposed with all of this are fragments of yet another horrible installment of the crime noir writing of the protagonist, influenced not only by using Raymond Chandler’s actual manual typewriter but, in this episode, by wearing Raymond Chandler’s actual fedora. This is incredibly funny stuff! I can’t wait to begin reading “The Diva Wore Diamonds.”

Report on SCOM Grant for Belize Trip

July 17, 2011
Christine Hertlein

Holy Cross Anglican Primary School was founded in 2006 by Frances and Vernon Wilson as a confrontation with poverty and is intended to serve the “poorest of the poor”. After vacationing on Ambergris Caye and seeing many children on the streets rather than in schools, it was determined that a school was needed to provide education for those who could not otherwise afford it in a very depressed area of the island (San Mateo). In Belize there are no public schools. The government and churches work together to provide an education at a cost to the students. The government finances teachers’ salaries and, in some cases, land for the schools. Churches then provide funding for the building, other operational expenses, and administration. In most cases the churches are already in existence when the school is built. Holy Cross is an exception. There is no Anglican Church on the island; the school was built without a church to provide administration. The bishop of Belize is hoping that a church plant will come out of the school but that remains to be seen. The school is supported by donations from and work completed by small teams traveling from the United States and Canada. Holy Cross has grown from one building with fifty students to eight buildings which have served over 500 children. Because the government has limited class sizes to twenty five students, only four hundred children are able to attend now and the school has to turn down applications. Those children are probably unable to afford the tuition at the other primary school on the island and will remain uneducated.
The first three days of the trip were spent in Belize City. We stayed at the diocesan guest house and attended church on Sunday at the Cathedral Church of St. John. On Monday we met with the Right Reverend Philip Wright, Bishop of the Diocese of Belize and Miss Leslie who is director of education for the diocese. The bishop has concerns about Holy Cross Anglican School. Frances and Vernon Wilson left Holy Cross four months ago and the sustainability of the school is the number one concern. Will the Wilson’s ideas and dedication be replaced or will the school slowly decline? A dramatic change was seen in the children attending Holy Cross. They seemed more “alive and happy”, but the bishop is wondering how long the people will think things are free and what about when these children go out into the “real world”. Is a new generation of dependence being created? His dream is to create an environment which creates equality among people, not dependence. He has seen a shift from the partners of Holy Cross. They are working more collaboratively with the school and Holy Cross is defining their needs rather than being given things other people think they need. Another concern for the bishop is the fact that the local people are seeing “salvation” or hope coming from only white faces. In the three weeks I was on the island, I witnessed the presence of six mission trips to the school and there were only two people of color among them.
Miss Leslie showed us what they are doing to try and meet the Millennium Development Goals. The only goal lacking at this time is in regards to gender equality. This is not so much of a problem in the schools, but it is still a big problem in the homes. Every school, including primary schools, has HIV aids education and a corner for health education in general. School teachers are not required to have more than a high school education, but Miss Leslie is trying to hire teachers with at least two years of higher education.
The following day we observed a soup kitchen sponsored by women of the cathedral. Most are retired women who had lived, worked and raised their families in the United States and have returned to their native Belize to live out the rest of their years. They feed as many people as they can (usually about 150 or more) until the food runs out. Food is also delivered to shut in parishioners. Their concern is who will take over this ministry when they are no longer able to do it.
We then boarded a water taxi for our trip to Ambergris Caye (a ninety minute ride) where we spent the remainder of our three weeks talking with people who work at Holy Cross, business owners, street vendors and residents.
Lydia Brown is now the volunteer coordinator at Holy Cross. Born and raised in New Zealand, she and her husband who has an interest in renewable energy in developing countries came to Belize in March of this year. She receives no salary at this time and both she and her husband are unable to work for pay until they receive their permanent residency which takes a year to complete. Lydia has struggled with the idea of short term mission trips coming to Holy Cross. Her first reaction was “Why pay $2000 to come here and do $100 worth of work?” She also felt those on these mission trips took away work from the islanders. Since she has been there however, she has seen that some of the mission trips provide a change of heart for missioners and may change lives. There are construction teams which come throughout the year and Vacation Bible School groups which come during spring and summer breaks. The VBS groups are required to provide snacks for the children. Each team which comes pays a project fee to the school of $3000. This dollar amount, in some cases, can be negotiable and the money is used to cover the costs of the projects which the team will be doing. She would rather have the parents of the children and the community involved with these projects, but they feel there is no need to be involved while others are doing the projects for them.
The school has a feeding program which up until this time provided breakfast, lunch and snacks for the children, but because of the cost involved, according to Lydia, they have had to cancel the breakfast meal. This is unfortunate because for many children these are the only meals they eat during the day. A tuition of $50 per year is being initiated this year to help defray costs (it costs $500 per year to educate one student) and it is hoped that the parents will take some ownership of the school. Ten dollars is required at registration and the balance can be paid in installments throughout the year.
Alfredo (“Freddy”), one of two maintenance men at the school, came to the island six years ago. Born and raised in northern Belize near the Mexican border he dropped out of school at age eleven to help with the family. His father was a drug dealer who had been caught and sent to jail. According to Freddy, he has “never seen a school which has grown so fast”. He is happy for the children who are being educated and is happy to know there are people who care about the children’s well-being. He is also impressed that the school is for all children, not just Belizeans (there is a large population of undocumented people from Central America on the island). He would like to see the community support the school, by painting classrooms and helping with repairs needed but they won’t help because there is no pay. Some question the need to help as they believe the school gets everything for free. Freddy believes the school instills moral values in the children, but because many of the parents are working and not at home, the children see things done badly. He believes that for some, the school is like a babysitting service and some parents don’t even look at their child’s report card.
Kristin, a chaplain for a girls’ school in Baltimore has been bringing mission groups to the school for the past three years. The school likes to have their students involved in community service locally, nationally and globally. This group spends forty hours a week at the school. Kristin believes that her students get the most out of the trip by working with the children and not in construction. They learn more about social justice issues and what life is like for the children of the island. She realizes that one week a year is not going to effect a change on the locals of the island, but her students’ lives are transformed. She hopes this is a seed that is planted to encourage service work in the future.
Sarah and Andrew, students on Kristin’s team both agreed that not only did the trip give them a chance to bond with others of their team, but they really understood the dark future of the children of the island. It was hard for them to hear what life was like for the children. They both stated that this trip “has changed how I think about people here”.
Dorita, from the mainland of Belize, has been on the island for thirteen years. She works in her brother’s grocery store. Her education is the equivalent of our sixth grade. She noted that since Holy Cross was built there are fewer children on the streets, but she doesn’t understand why now the children are being charged minimal tuition when “they (the school) get so much help for free”. When asked about the mission trips which come to help, she replied, “They bring business to us”.
Padre Arturo, a missionary of the Roman Catholic Church came from the Philippines. He has been on the island for one year and will be rotated out after serving four years at St. Peter’s Catholic Church. He feels Holy Cross is doing good work and it is his plan to initiate a feeding program modeled on the Holy Cross program in the Roman Catholic schools.
Marta, a street vendor selling produce has two children she tried to enroll in Holy Cross last year, but they were turned away. She applied too late and the school was full. The school is located closer to her home and “it’s free”.
Barnaby, a jeweler, was involved in the building of Holy Cross. It is his dream to start a vocational training program for the uneducated to learn a trade. He is willing to teach jewelry making. He noted that, “children are the future and need to learn moral values”. “Holy Cross does this for our children”.
Patojos, a native islander and dive shop owner feels that, Holy Cross is a draw for more poor people to come to the island for “free education”. His wife home schools their five children. She was educated in the United States.
Claudia, another street vendor who makes and sells jewelry, came to the island from Guatemala on vacation with a friend twenty two years ago, liked it, and decided to stay. She has one son who was graduated from Holy Cross this year and another younger son who is still attending Holy Cross. Her oldest son begins high school this fall on a scholarship. She stated, “If it weren’t for Holy Cross, my children wouldn’t be able to go to school”.
Carter, from Virginia, and on his fourth mission trip here bringing high school kids, said that the kids he brings can understand just how lucky they are. They begin to realize that the world is not just about them and hopefully the trip will inspire service work in the future. He feels that the only thing missing at Holy Cross is theology; there is no Anglican presence (church) on the island. He would like to see a rectory built and staffed by priests who are vacationing or on sabbatical.
I was most impressed by a Canadian group which came to the school. Darcy, the rector of a parish near Toronto, related that his parish wanted to get involved in mission outside of the country four years ago. St. Simon’s made a ten year commitment at that time to partner with Holy Cross. He brings a group to Holy Cross every other year and during the off years they send money for projects. They are looking at sending money for solar panels next year. They will re-assess their commitment after eight years to see if they want to continue at Holy Cross, go somewhere else, or discontinue the project altogether after their ten years are completed. He hopes that the mission trips will “enlarge the kids’ worlds”. He encourages the young people to look for commonalities between them and the children on the island, rather than differences.
I found in talking with the people of the island, most people were aware of Holy Cross and agreed the work done there is good. Only one person I spoke with, a Lebanese, did not know about Holy Cross. The misconception seems to be that most people also think that because so many mission trips come to help the school, that everything should be free for the students. They don’t realize the school has expenses to meet such as paying salaries for their office manager, maintenance men, and kitchen staff, not to mention utility bills. A taxi driver who drove us to the airport asked when we would be coming back. We responded we had to raise more money in order to come. He was under the impression that we were paid to make the trip (by whom I don’t know)!
There is a group of mothers who have banded together to help out the school. The school was gifted with several sewing machines and these mothers decided to learn to sew in order to make uniforms for the children. Only one or two of these women knew how to sew, so they began classes. Teaching the classes were volunteers with mission trips who were seamstresses. It was decided to begin with sewing jumpers for the girls this year because they were relatively simple to make. The proceeds from sales are to be turned over to the school. In the future they plan on learning to make pants for the boys and shirts and blouses as well. When asked how much the women money wanted to make for their time and efforts the response was “none”. “Why should we earn money for this when people taught us a skill for free?” They are also learning how to sew tote bags to sell to tourists. These women realize the value of education and are willing participants in raising money to see that their children are educated.
The impact of Holy Cross on the community is obvious. Children whose parents are unable to afford tuition in the other school on the island are now able to go to school. With the support of the sewing project, the women are participating in fundraising. By setting this example, perhaps others in the community will come forward and help as well and Holy Cross will not have to depend exclusively on donations. While short term mission trips fill a need for maintenance and construction, more long term partnerships are desired so the school does not have to exist wondering from day to day where money will come from.
It is my hope that the students in my seminary will, as future priests, carefully consider mission trips for their parishes in the years to come. The goal of these trips should be to help people become self-sustainable, not to do everything for them. For example, the people who help with construction projects should be teaching people of the community how to build as the seamstresses taught women to sew. Also I would hope that short term mission trips are combined with long term commitments. I would encourage those people leading a mission trip to contact the diocese prior to going to learn what is most needed and where. It is always well to remember that mission trips should be taken to teach people skills needed to improve their lives not to give them what we think they need.

Finding Divine Motivation in Natural Disasters

Exodus 3:1-15        THE SERMON
28 August 2011        All Saints Church

First there was the earthquake and then there was the hurricane; if you didn’t know better, you’d think that God was really MAD at somebody.

It is kinda funny how we humans attribute divine motivation to natural events. If there is a perfect growing season for lentils in the Inland Empire of Eastern Washington and Idaho, you don’t read in the newspapers that anybody much says that the bumper crop is evidence that God loves us a lot. If a native salmon run which was fished out and dammed out and polluted out somehow returns to a river in the Northwest, you don’t see some talking head on television saying that God is showing his love for his people (and his fish) by causing that to happen. It is only (or, at least, primarily) when bad stuff happens that people are reading and vociferously willing to attribute divine meaning to the event.

On August 23rd, in the early afternoon, an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.8 on the Richter Scale shook the State of Virginia. Because of the way the Virginia Seismic Zone works, shocks were felt from Atlanta to Chicago, from Detroit to Toronto and from Ontario to New Brunswick. There was particular damage to buildings in Washington D.C., which is not all that far from Richmond, Virginia. Cracks appeared in the topmost section of the Washington Monument, which is not closed to tourists. And there was considerable damage to our own National Cathedral, where Sunday services have been moved to a very large synagogue nearby.
The Rev. Pat Robertson, who specializes in explaining the Lord’s motivation when natural disasters occur, was quick to explain. The cracks in the Washington Monument are God’s judgment upon the nation and upon the national government, in particular. He reminded listeners that when Jesus was crucified, the curtain in the Temple at Jerusalem was rent in two. And he suggested that the damage to the spires of our National Cathedral is a judgment upon the Episcopal Church for tolerating homosexuals.

A preliminary assessment of the damage to the cathedral showed that there are cracks in several of the flying buttresses and extensive damage to three of the four finials atop the pinnacles of the central tower. Because the cathedral is entirely hand made, Joe Alonso, the cathedral’s head stone mason, said it will take many years to complete all the necessary repairs to a building started in 1907 and completed in 1990. The national cathedral is in poor economic shape, having laid off a significant portion of its staff in the last two years.  The damages are uninsured and the cost of repair will run into multiple millions of dollars. The Very Rev. Samuel Lloyd, dean of the cathedral, said that the same people who funded its completion will fund its repair, God willing, which means average Episcopalians making average-sized contributions. There is already a “contribute-here” sort of link on their website. The earthquake and the subsequent damage “has not been a jarring thing for our faith,” Lloyd said. “What it has done is challenge us to claim our faith, to go to work to make this place be as grand as beautiful and powerful as its always been.”

And then there was Hurricane Irene.

I first became concerned about this tropical storm when it threatened to rip apart Vieques Island – a small island just 21 miles long and five miles wide off the coast of Puerto Rico. My friend Consuelo lives there and reported that she would likely be off the Internet for a few days because Vieques always loses electric power when hurricanes visit. Once the hurricane had passed, she managed to get a cell phone connection and reported that all was messy but all was well … and they look forward to getting their power back … because nobody but the English like to drink warm beer.

Conservative columnist Glen Beck found divine meaning in Hurricane Irene.  He said that it was a great blessing and it was God’s way of telling people that they are unprepared.  Beck is a Mormon and Mormons store a year’s worth of food in their homes as a form of divine preparedness.

Then we got word that my daughter Heather Anne, her husband Michael and our two grand-kitties – Astoria and Commissioner Gordon – were required to evacuate their apartment in lower Manhattan. The storm came ashore in North Carolina and was headed for New York City, where a big storm can make a big mess, as the subways have this nasty tendency to fill up with water when it rains. We got word that they have moved to higher ground – not that there is much higher ground in New York City.

And then Heather wrote “In events like this, I’m largely concerned for abandoned animals, the elderly, and the homeless. I pray that they will all be looked after and that Irene runs out of steam earlier than expected. It’s easy in times like this to feel very insular and only be concerned for one’s own safety, but I hope that other coastal towns are faring okay and pray that the islands and states that have already been hit strongly can recover quickly.”

That’s my baby girl!

And then there’s this whole thing about the burning bush.

We all know the story of the burning bush.  If we haven’t read it ourselves, we’ve had Charlton Heston act it out for us on television.  But do you know the rest of that story?

During his presidency, George Bush was going through an airport when he encountered a man with long gray hair, wearing a white robe and sandals, and holding a staff.     President Bush went up to the man and said, “Has anyone told you that you look like Moses?”  The man didn’t answer. He just kept staring straight ahead. Then the President said, “Moses” in a loud voice.  The man just stared ahead, never acknowleding the President. The President pulled a Secret Service Agent aside and, pointing to the robed man, asked him, “Am I crazy or does that man look like Moses?” The Secret Service Agent looked at the man and agreed. “Well,” said the President, “every time I say his name, he ignores me and stares straight ahead refusing to speak. Watch!”  Again the President yelled, “Moses!” and again the man ignored him. Feeling the President’s frustration, the Secret Service Agent went up to the man in the robe and whispered, “You look just like Moses. Are you Moses?” The man leaned over and whispered back, “Yes, I am Moses. However, the last time I talked to a bush, I spent forty years in the desert and ended up leading my people to the only spot in the entire Middle East where there is no oil.”

The significance of the story of Moses and the burning bush is not that it was a marvel … of course it was a marvel; marvels are how God gets our attention. The significance of the event is that it changed Moses, it propelled Moses out of the life of a fugitive from justice which we was living and into the center of events which led to the freeing of the people of Israel from bondage. The meaning which Moses attached to this event in the wilderness near Mount Horeb is what moved him to be God’s agent in the Exodus.

People attach meaning to events; that doesn’t mean that the meaning inheres in the event itself.  It is the people – not the event – that find and attribute the meaning. Humans are meaning-assigning creatures.  This trait distinguishes us from our nearest neighbours in the animal kingdom.  But the meaning-assigning function in humans can be for good or for ill.
Humans can perceive an event and come up with some of the wildest, most outlandish, bizarre, seriously warped meanings to assign to it. Why do we say “God bless you” when somebody sneezes? Because the human soul comes out the nose of the sneezer and must be blessed in order not to be stolen by the Devil before it gets sucked back in with the breath. Normal event; whacko meaning attached.

Some finials fall of the pinnacles of spires at the National Cathedral? It is the direct result of the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Normal event: whacko meaning attached.

So what is an appropriate response when we hear of a disaster? The Christian response is “What can I do to help?”  And this congregation repeatedly gets it right. We hear about a hurricane in New Orleans or an earthquake in Haiti, we respond with help.  Most often we send money.  Occasionally we send Charlie Callahan.

And the issue is never about “what did they do to bring this down on themselves?” but rather “what shall we do to relieve the suffering?” The Christian meaning of disaster is “What can we do to help?

What Colour Is Today?

There is a variety of rules governing what colour is appropriately worn on which day or during which season. One wears white shoes only between Memorial Day and Labor Day. One wears black to funerals. Brides where white, unless they are Chinese, in which case they wear red.

The Church has a long and complex tradition of which liturgical colours are worn on which day and during which season. White is worn on Easter Day and on the seven Sundays thereafter. Red is worn next on the Feast of Pentecost (the eighth Sunday after Easter); then it is back to white for Trinity Sunday (the Sunday after Pentecost).

Finally, we get to green — the proper liturgical colour for the long, long season of Sundays after Pentecost which the Roman Catholics call “Ordinary Time” suggesting that green is their ordinary colour. This Sunday was supposed to be green.

Alone in the sacristy, I slipped on my white stole, as I have put it on for so many Sundays since Holy Week ended. Ken, the deacon, was not there. Deacons wear their stoles in a crosswise manner, over one shoulder and fastened at the opposite hip. Ken is up at Camp Huston with the high school students attending the diocesan Six Day experience which culminates the year for diocesan youth events. Our usual ritual in the vestry is that the first one who puts on a stole says to the other “Purple?” and the other replies “Purple.” No Ken; no ritual.

I was ably assisted this morning by Eric, who subbed as a subdeacon but subdeacons do no wear stoles of any colour so that was no help at all. Eric was a lot of help, just not in this particular.

I walked down the main aisle singing the processional hymn when I noticed that the altar was vested (quite appropriately) in green. There was nothing to do. There was no chance to run back to the sacristy and fetch my green stole. I had committed a liturgical boo boo for all the world to see.

So I began to think up fanciful explanations which I could offer when I was eventually called out for my liturgical error.

“The first Sunday after Trinity is always green in the Mozarabic Rite.” I’m not sure what the Mozarabic Rite is but that sounded authoritative.

“Tomorrow is Helen Keller’s Birthday.” There seemed no connection between that commemoration and the wearing of white.

“Today is Madagascarian Independence Day” or “Today is Romanian Flag Day.” Same problem.

“In addition to being the Second Sunday after Pentecost, today is the feast day of Saint Anthelm of Belley (1107-1178), prior of the Carthusian Grande Chartreuse and Bishop of Belley. Pope Alexander III had sent Anthelm to reconcile Henry II of England and Thomas Becket.” But that had nothing to do with white stoles.

In the event, nobody noticed, so I didn’t have the opportunity to lie.

Becky Garrison, Starting from Zero with $0, New York: Seabury Press, 2010.

Affiliation with mainline institutional churches has been steadily declining for several decades. From the churches’ perspective, this constitutes a crisis of sufficient import to actually prompt change in institutions which are loathe to change. There is no shortage of prophets ready to explain how the church needs to be remodeled, reinvented or reimagined. The problem is that so few of them agree with one another. Becky Garrison has written a book in which she samples some efforts to create the church of the future. I was delighted to find a chapter devoted to my daughter’s congregation and another devoted to a missional effort in my own diocese. As with a true sampler, one will not agree with every idea suggested in this book because there are so many voices with so many different ideas speaking. It is not so much a programme to be adopted as a somewhat different way of thinking about the enacting of the mission of the Church and of the kinds of structures which do (and do not) support that renewed mission.

A Sermon for Ash Wednesday

9 March 2011

     Yesterday, Starbucks rolled out their new logo – which looks a great deal like their old logo, only without the words “Starbucks Coffee” encircling the mermaid.
     I can’t say I like it. I rather preferred to the old one. I actually rather preferred the one they changed in 1992 when they removed the nipples from the mermaid. I don’t know who they thought those nipples would offend; they certainly never offended me.
     The new logo is larger than the old one, and it is still green … thank God for that.
     The introduction of the new logo coincides with the 40th anniversary of the opening of the first Starbucks store at Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle. It also coincides with the introduction of two new products: cocoa cappuccino and some miniature desserts called Starbucks Petites.
     I sent e-mail to Howard Schultz, the CEO, to tell him what I thought. I’m certain he will be captivated. And I expect a response any moment now.
     Starbucks grew from a single store in 1971 to a world-wide empire in the 80s and 90s. Schultz was CEO from 1987 to 2000. The company nearly lost it in 2007 and the board brought Howard Schultz back to revitalize the brand. Howard closed hundreds of under-performing stores to cut costs and implemented changes such as offering customized drinks, free Wi-Fi access and a customer rewards program (such as the gold card which I carry in my wallet).
     And it worked. Starbucks’ profits for 2010 were double their profits for 2009. The Wall Street Journal asked him how he did and he said he went back to basics.
     That is to say, Schultz emphasized those qualities which allowed Starbucks to grow so phenomenally in the past: a good produce, community responsibility, attention to the customer experience, fair treatment (and retention) of employees.
     Certainly not everyone agrees as to just what those basics which prompted Starbucks’ success really are. If Howard thinks it was the logo, I straightened him out on that score.

     Going back to the basics has a certain appeal to everyone.
     In the 1970s, there was a movement in the United States to take public education back to the basics. The “new” emphasis was thought to be on reading, writing and arithmetic. This was thought to be necessary when people discovered that high school graduates could not read, could not write and could not balance a checkbook.
     But not everyone agreed as to what those basics ought to be. Bruce McMenomy probably thought they ought to include the study of classical Greek and Latin. Christe probably thought greater emphasis on science would make a lot of sense. I was teaching college freshmen in the early 70s and I thought that greater high school emphasis on grammar and spelling was warranted.
     There was another parallel movement going on in the 70s which had to do with living.
There were a lot of people, young people in particular, who thought that life had become too complex and that living in “voluntary simplicity” was probably better. A simpler, more self-sufficient, less mass-produced lifestyle was the goal. We read Organic Gardening and Farming Magazine and the Mother Earth News. We grew our own food, preserved a lot of that, raised our own animals, sometimes even built our own shelter. The idea was to get back to the basics.
     Except not everybody agreed on what those basics were and that, in part, is what caused the movement to peter out … that and things like going to law school, becoming an accountant or a stock broker, or a physician.
     Even the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century can be seen, from a certain perspective, as being an attempt by many in the Church to get back to the basics.
     There was much discussion, for over a hundred years, of “the Church of the New Testament” to which many people wanted to return. The problem with this kind of thinking is that there is not one homogenized uniform church depicted in the New Testament but rather many, with lots of variety.
     Anything a reformer didn’t like about the modern church was declared to an accretion, an after thought, a bolt-on after-market accessory which needed to be stripped away.
     But Lutherans and Calvinists and Anglicans couldn’t get anywhere near an agreement on what the basics were. Which is why the Reformation failed to produce one new reformed church and produced several hundred, instead.

     The problem with all of the “back to the basics” movements – whether in brewing and vending expensive coffee, or teaching children what they need to know, or living a successful and satisfying life, or reorganizing the church – the problem with all of these is that even people who agree that there ought to be reform can’t seem to agree as to what the basics are to which they ought to return. Bummer!

     So, here we are tonight, standing on the front porch of Lent, peering inside, and perhaps wondering how we’re going to keep this one holy.
     We could always give up chocolate, or alcohol, or cigars but what if there is a better, more profitable approach? What if this year we observed Lent by getting back to the basics? This seems a stellar idea, if only we could agree on what they are.
     And perhaps Holy Mother Church will tell us, which would save a great deal of study, puzzling and debate.
     According to the Proper Liturgy for Ash Wednesday in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, a holy Lent includes self-examination and repentance, prayer, fasting and self-denial, and reading and meditation on God’s word. Before you sign on, notice that this seemingly adequate list does not include going to church, nor paying your pledge, nor feeding the hungry, nor being part of a Christian community.
     The Catechism in the 1979 Prayer Book makes up for these lapses in the Ash Wednesday liturgy by suggesting that holy living includes bearing witness to Christ, working for reconciliation among people, and being involved in the life, worship and governance of the church. But before you adopt this list as a pledge, note that it doesn’t mention private prayer, nor Bible study nor sacrificial giving.
     The old Offices of Instruction in the 1928 American Prayer Book answered the question “What is your bounden duty as a member of the Church?” by saying “My bounden duty is to follow Christ, to worship God every Sunday in his Church; and to work and pray and give for the spread of his kingdom.” That’s not bad at all, maybe better than either of the 1979 models, but it still leaves out a lot which I would want in my list and maybe it leaves out some stuff which you think ought to be in yours.
     Here is a proposal for how to keep a holy Lent this year: spend the next forty days figuring out the basics. This seems a worthy and potentially rewarding endeavour. I’m not suggesting a snap judgment in which you reel off the first few things that come into your head. I am suggesting that you think seriously about what it means to be a Christian, how one goes about that, and how you could do it better.
     This homework will not be graded. Nobody is going to be compelled to share their list of basics nor will be compare one person’s set with another and pronounce which is the best. This strikes me as the kind of pursuit which God loves and which God enjoys fulfilling.
     But be careful! If you do this seriously, if you make this your Lenten discipline for 2011, you may have to actually change something about yourself. Getting closer to God often works like that; it is part of the basics.

Christ the King Sunday

Psalm 46                     THE SERMON

Jeremiah 23:1-6        Proper 29 – C (RCL)

Colossians 1:11-20   21 November 10

Luke 23:35-43         All Saint’s Church

 

 

For a people who have neither a king nor a queen, Americans seem fascinated by royalty.

The British foreign press has remarked more than once that Americans are more interested in Queen Elizabeth and her family than are residents of Great Britain.  Americans mourned the death of Princess Diana as if she were one of us.  Americans have strong opinions on the suitability of Prince Charles to become king.  Americans are already excited about the wedding of Prince William and Kate, announced last week.

          Americans, without their own king or queen, compensate for this lack by inventing local royalty.  When Sweetness and I visited Graceland in Memphis a few years ago, it was to tour the home of Elvis Presley, who was known as “the king.”  There used to be a program on television called Queen for a Day. When Budweiser calls itself “the king of beers”, that is a good thing.  I don’t know what Queen Latifa is queen of but she is a good thing, too. 

          As much as Americans are enamored of kingship and queenship and royalty in general, we really don’t want the actual real thing. There was some support, in the late 18th Century, to have a king in America rather than a president but democratic ideals swept that idea quickly away.  And one of the mottos of that debate in the colonies was “No king but Christ.”

          Today is the 26th Sunday after the Feast of Pentecost, the last Sunday of the Church Year, the Sunday next before the first Sunday in Advent … and we call this Sunday “Christ the King.”

          On this Sunday, in many parts of the Christian Church, we celebrate the kingship of Jesus Christ. In sharp contrast to those depictions of our Lord, naked and bleeding on the Cross, today’s image of Jesus is of a ruling monarch, with a crown on his head, emphasizing his victory over death, rather than the horror of his Crucifixion. The Christus rex which hangs over the altar at Saint Thomas’ Church, Medina, is an artistic depiction of Christ the King. 

          The Feast of Christ the King is a relatively recent addition to the Christian Kalendar. It was instituted in 1925 by Pope Pius the 11th on the last Sunday in October and later moved to the last Sunday after Pentecost.       What began as a Roman Catholic observance has spread throughout the Western Church and is now observed by Lutherans and Episcopalians, as well. The Collect of the Day, with which we began this morning’s celebration, is a translation of the original Roman Catholic collect composed in Latin for the Christ the King Sunday.   It celebrates the power of Christ to free those who are enslaved and to unite those who are divided … which are kingly acts indeed.

          There are a number of Episcopalians who are not all that thrilled about projecting onto Jesus the image of a king, which may account for the less-than-universal acceptance of the Last Sunday after the Feast of Pentecost as Christ the King Sunday. Kings (and queens, for that matter) don’t come off all that well in the Bible.  They tend to be selfish, arrogant and forever getting themselves into trouble by pursuing their own ends rather than the God’s.  Remember Ahab and Jezebel. 

          Monarchs don’t do all that well in secular history, either, especially when viewed through the lens of modern democratic individualism, which is the only lens most of us 21st Century Americans have through which to view history. 

          From a feminist perspective, monarchy is intrinsic to hierarchy and all hierarchy is seen as a means by which men subjugate women.  To suggest that the Son of God is somehow implicated in all of this by plopping a crown on his head runs counter to the feminist agenda. 

          Other folks are just confused by the image of Jesus the King … because their sense of the Jesus of the Gospels is that he is more the anti-king … the one whose powerlessness becomes power, whose lack of the means to attain a military or political victory leads to God’s victory over sin and death. 

          Yet the scriptures appointed to this morning are all about Christ understood as a kind of king.  The prophecy from the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah says that the Messiah, who is Jesus, “shall reign as king.”   Saint Paul says to the Colossians that God the Father “has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son …”  Saint Paul understood Jesus to be the Messiah about whom Jeremiah spoke.  Saint Paul understood Jesus to be a king and to have a kingdom with us as his subjects. 

          The story from the Passion according to Saint Luke seems out of place because it is out of season.  This story is supposed to be read on Palm Sunday and Good Friday, not on the Sunday next before the Christmas shopping season begins in earnest.  Yet in it, Jesus is described as “the king of the Jews” and, in actual fact, He was. 

          The Church has been singing about Jesus as some sort of king ever since.  We sing “Crown him with many crowns.”  We sing “The king of love my shepherd is.”  We sing “Beautiful Saviour, King of Creation.”

          But what do we mean when we celebrate Christ the King Sunday and make statues and paintings of Christ the King and believe what it says in the Holy Scriptures and sing all of those old royal hymns?

          Not everything we know about kingship is good. As any child who has seen the Walt Disney version of Robin Hood can tell you, Good King Richard is balanced by Prince John, the Cowardly King of England.  It is, after all, the oppressed peasants in the cartoon strip The Wizard of Id who are forever saying or writing “The King is a fink” and not without good reason.  The Evil Queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was no sweetie pie, either.  King George the Third of England was a compete nutter, certifiably mad, and, had he been sane, we might all be British subjects at this very moment. 

          So, surely, when we say that Jesus is a king, we must mean the good kind. 

          As much as American like royalty, they tend to prefer it in somebody else’s country, lest the authority of a king or queen be exercised over us in ways which we dislike. 

          Folks in those other countries which still have kings and queens have had the same concerns over the years, which is why monarchy just isn’t what it used to be.   The king in The Wizard of Id hands down draconian sentences for minor offenses: he is constantly ordering someone to be executed, and nobody wants monarchs who are able to do that.  So modern kings and queens have had their powers scaled down to the point where they function mostly as symbols of national unity.  The monarchy in Great Britain and in the Scandinavian countries is very much like that.  Monarchs are less like rulers and more like figureheads in the 21st Century. 

 

          Which is, just possibly, what we tend to do with Christ the King.  This results in a scaled-down Jesus, a sort of symbolic Christ who is not really capable of doing much more than inspiring our imaginations and giving us a central figure around whom to rally.  And that Jesus is just too small to be the Christ of the Gospels. 

The Christ of the Gospels is the King of kings and the Lord of Lords.  He is the one through whom all creation came into being, the one to whom all creation must answer, and the one who loved us all so much that he conquered sin and death to set us free from it.   And that Jesus ain’t no figurehead. 

We have this awful tendency to forget who is in charge of the Church.  Maybe Christ the King Sunday was invented as a sort of antidote to that kind of lapse in our thinking.

          There is a push in the Anglican Communion right now to make the Archbishop of Canterbury into some sort of pope and the primates of the several churches which make up the Anglican Communion into a kind of College of Cardinals. 

          Because we are an Episcopal Church – a church of bishops – there is another awful tendency to try to make the local bishop a sort of Christ figure, from whom we expect the perfection of Jesus Himself, who will give us all the right answers and solve all of our problems. 

          Congregations have an awful tendency to try to turn their rector or vicar into a sort of Christ figure for them, but all that does is burn out rectors and vicars and disappoint congregations.

          The American solution to all of this clericalism is to turn the congregation into the ultimate authority, drawing on our democratic experience in the civil sector, but congregations are no more an adequate substitute for Jesus than are ordained people. 

          None of these tendencies would appear if the people of God more firmly believed in the kingship of Jesus Christ.  People subject to King Jesus wouldn’t turn Him into a figurehead.  People subject to King Jesus wouldn’t need to seek alternatives to his rule in the rule of church organizations and officers. The trick is to remember who is in charge – neither archbishops nor bishops, neither rectors nor vicars, and not even congregational meetings – but Jesus. 

          You have to wonder what the church would look like if we believed that seriously.