Notes from Evensong talk on Emmaus narrative from Luke 24 last night May 15 2011. Newly called co-pastors Mike Massar and Griff Martin were present. Got a lot of strong positive feedback on this.

Paradigmatic texts of the Bible – those that summarize or frame life in relationship with God

microcosms – deep rich inexhaustible stories of the Bible
Isaiah 6
Romans 8(?)
Luke 24

Microcosms -> astronomy
color picture = 3 pictures in 3 different colors
not one color picture but 3 combined

Luke 24
3 post-resurrection stories of transformation
3 women :: empty tomb and angels (no Jesus)
2 of them :: recognize Jesus in breaking of bread
11 :: direct encounter of risen Christ

So we can read Walk to Emmaus as one of a series of three stories

3-4 years ago staff meeting
Jay and plan to share vision over 6 months
focusing on Luke 24
his read of the story
my read of the story – not against his but different
cannot remember what I said

If in astronomy take 3+ pictures in 3+ different wavelengths -> what are 3+ ways to look at Luke 24?

1) Relationship

2) Presence

3) Knowledge/Understanding

1) Relationship

2 of them – deliberate ambiguity (men? married couple?)

Jesus is the stranger = paroikos = lives somewhere not their home
2 disciples welcome the stranger
talk with him = questions and listening and answers

note – not we go there but they come here
the paroikoi come to us – what do we do when they come here?

consider Acts and Passover and Pentecost
nations come to Jerusalem
then Jerusalem to the nations
centripetal and centrifugal movements in Christian mission (David Bosch)

conversation
hospitality
welcome to our home
share a meal together
(separation?)

2) Presence

Where is Jesus? -> Where is God present? (main issue of post-resurrection narratives)

dualities of divine presence in Luke 24

1. individual and communal

Jesus and me
Jesus and us – we overlook?

2. Bible and sacrament

word and ritual
is Jesus somehow present in communion?

3. memory and experience

recognize presence in the moment
but also in memory -> now I see how God was there!

3) Knowledge/Understanding

Movement from not knowing/understanding/recognizing -> recognize/understand/know/proclaim

not know – where is Jesus? what now?
not recognize
not understand – here the Scriptures

conversation with questions – although Jesus asks first

kerygma – basic story of Jesus who he is what he did
not theology and not Bible – just telling the basic story
summary of Christian faith ~ Apostles Creed?
for Baptists :: hymnal?

Scripture

Eucharist/Communion/Lord’s Supper -> ritual worship

then they recognize // understand // (memory) // know

the Lord is risen indeed!

testimony -> share what they know (experienced) with others

(Still room for mystery -> Jesus disappears from their sight)

Is there a way to put these 3 pictures together and form one? one pictures that represents the life of the Christian community centered around liturgy (word and ritual)? the story of Emmaus is our story – story of this church family?

We are on a journey. Sometimes a journey to Baton Rouge / always within Baton Rouge / sometimes from Baton Rouge. We have questions. About the news. About life. About God. This is a place where people can ask questions. Where someone listens to us. Is interested in who we are where we are from and what are we doing here. Where we share the basic message about Jesus Christ the Son of God. Where we study the Bible together. Where we worship together. Practice hospitality together. You come to my house. You invite us to your apartment. We share meals together. Friend chicken / beans and spinach / tea eggs and bigos / fufu and Kigali and grapefruit jello. We experience the love and presence of God together. We share our stories with each other. We discover and learn things together. And although it breaks my heart sometimes we get up and return to where we came from. And always we hear and carry with us and share the paschal proclamation It is true! Christ is risen! The Lord is risen indeed! (from sermon on Luke 24 to Church of the Nations in May 2011)

Perhaps no issue has generated more controversy at University Baptist Church than worship. By which one means worship style.*

Twelve years ago when I began serving here we had two Sunday morning services. One early more contemporary and supposedly the growth/outreach service. One later more traditional. The growth/outreach service was not growing in attendance. When the congregation began to debate whether to discontinue it became clear that only a few participated because of style. Most because of the earlier time – which means one attends worship earlier is finished earlier and has a larger portion of Sunday free.

So University Baptist Church went to one worship service with a rotating/blended style. Some Sundays more high church and traditional. Some more contemporary. I thought it was a great solution and was working well.

And then our last senior pastor after a few years pushed hard for the creation of a new second service. It would be emerging in style – not contemporary. It would be the growth/outreach service – to attract and involve the unchurched of/and the current generation. Most significantly it would be the later service.

Several people have said to me they had no problem with a second service. Even with an emerging worship style. What bothered them was that the traditional would become the early service and the emerging service would take what they regarded as the primary time. Moreover they felt there were serious problems with how that decision was made.

All those in favor say ‘aye’.

Aye.

Okay then the motion passes. There will be a second service. Emerging style. 11:30 a.m. and the traditional service will be at 9:15 a.m.

Wait. What?!? We didn’t agree to that second part!

At the time I supported the creation of a second service. With an emerging worship style. Was not happy with the 11:30 a.m. time. That is rather late. And since my own small congregation shares many activities we would have to change our time as well. We lost a couple regular families because 11:30 a.m. is just too late for them. They need to get to the lab/library/office.

But there we were.

Attendance was much stronger for the earlier service. There is some debate concerning whether attendance at the second service was growing. Some advocates of the second service pointed to evidence that most of our Sunday morning guests came to the second service. It was fulfilling its purpose.

Throw in some controversy concerning the term emerging and its relationship to the so called Emergent movement. It was becoming increasingly evident that the senior pastor was theologically more liberal than even this moderate Baptist church.

And now that senior pastor has been gone for more than a year.

Most of this is just background.

I believe that right now given our much lower attendance at both services – especially the second service – and that the person who birthed the second service is gone we should consider returning to one Sunday worship service with a rotating blended style. This is a private and personal opinion. I could be wrong. My small congregation has it own worship gathering and so my opinion does not carry so much weight.

Here is what really troubles me.

It has been made clear to me in conversations that if we discontinue the second service and move to one service with a blended worship style that most of the people who attend the second service would be hurt and angry and would leave.

Why?

I am not entirely persuaded that contemporary or emerging worship style is the cultural language necessary for reaching this generation. Christ the King Catholic Church on the Louisiana State University campus is busting at the seems with several services on Sunday many standing room only with several thousand attending each week.

Catholic. Mass. Several thousand. Standing room only.

Traditional liturgical worship styles seem to attract young people quite well thank you very much. Granted we might ask if Christ the King uses what freedom it has to make what changes make Mass more attractive to university students. Guitar instead of organ? And so on.

But we are not Catholics. We are Baptist Protestants.

I am concerned that yes perhaps this current generation of Baptists expects contemporary and/or emerging style to such an extent that if a church does not provide that they will look elsewhere. Can it be that we have created this by raising an entire generation with certain expectations? That we feed them a steady diet of casual contemporary emerging and so on – and then sure enough that is all they will accept when they become adults?

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I should be more open to these newer worship styles. Fair enough. But does that work both ways? That the emerging generation needs to work harder to appreciate and even include the traditional and the liturgical?

If children grow up on junk food – and no I am not saying contemporary or emerging worship style is junk food – do we just shrug our shoulders and say “oh well sure you can have pizza and soda for dinner again”? Or do we educate our children such they learn to appreciate and even enjoy different and often more nutritious foods?

Have we failed to help our children appreciate and even enjoy more traditional and liturgical worship? Even if – thanks to modern popular culture – they also enjoy and even expect newer forms and styles? Of course one can respond that those who prefer more traditional and liturgical need to learn to appreciate newer styles and approaches.

That “they will just leave and go elsewhere” really bothers me.

Why? Why would they do that? Why is that all they expect and accept?!?

And while we are on the subject – to what extent do Anglican or Catholic or Orthodox Christians struggle with this issue of worship style? Ah therein lies the rub.

Addendum:

A dear reader of this website offered the following in his excellent comment:

From what I have experienced, a worship service in itself will never “attract” the unchurched/prechurched/dechurched people in the community. They do not care about worship style – that is a church member debate. I can understand the need to incorporate modern elements (video, guitar, etc.) when appropriate, but not at the expense of deeply rich, traditional worship elements. In the end, I hesitate to say, most contemporary services are started under a false pretense – that the unchurched/prechurced/dechurched are out there waiting for a contemporary service to draw them in. This is simply not reality.

Word. By the way let me make clear that I am a strong supporter of using presentations/clips in worship. To my knowledge I was the first person to use a presentation during a sermon in University Baptist Church and almost almost always have a presentation when preaching to my own small congregation. We have found it helps people concentrate on the message not the messenger. It also helps people get back on track if their attention wanders. Finally when preaching to people many of whom English is not their first language it greatly helps them understand the message. We always use English subtitles when we have movie night.

*Postscript:

Quite possibly what we have been facing is not about worship style at all. But about something else. Power? Theology?

This is a cold cruel and cynical answer – which I had heretofore avoided – to a question explored several weeks ago.

Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

Because they are losing money like crazy? Because seminaries and parishes and dioceses are no longer able to support themselves? Surely it is not that simple!

The executive committee of General Theological Seminary‘s board of trustees said April 19 that the school may have to sell some of its property to raise enough money in order to pay its bills after mid-November. …

The April 19 news followed a more general warning about the school’s financial future issued by the entire board after a March 29 meeting when it said it needed cash to service its debt and pay for the 2010-2011 school year. O’Pray told faculty, students and administrative staff that day that the seminary needed between $2 million and $4 million, seminary spokesman Bruce Parker said at the time.

Just one seminary needs another $2-4 million to stay afloat. Yowza. Wonder how many buildings built paid for and formerly occupied by orthodox Anglican parishes need to be sold to keep all these Episcopal seminary professors employed for another year?

For the record no it is not that simple. The Episcopal Church is not doing everything in its power to keep the property of departing parishes and dioceses simply to sell it off and pay the bills. Because if money was the primary motivation then the Episcopal Church is going about it all wrong. Millions spent each year on legal fees suing parishes and dioceses to keep said property? And refusing even to let those departing parishes to buy back the property? Indeed on one occasion selling the parish property to a Muslim group for one third what the Anglican parish would have paid?

The primary motivation has to be something like spite. Because it is costing the Episcopal Church millions of dollars each year to pursue this policy. Although one could argue that they spend millions of dollars to end up with a net gain of tens of millions of dollars. That will keep a fair number of clergy of non-self-sufficient parishes and maybe professors at non-self-sufficient seminaries going for a while.

Disclosure – I serve a small mission parish which is not self-sufficient. The issue is not self-sufficiency. The issue is simply what is the Episcopal Church going to do with all this surplus property it has no use for?

H/T Midwest Conservative Journal

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been to Binghamton many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait the rector’s wife was associate pastor so guess maybe they do. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in positions of religious leadership and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

From one of the coordinators for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship in Louisiana I received by email a link to a recent opinion piece published through the Associated Baptist Press: “Why 20- and 30-year-olds are leaving the Baptist church” by Carra Hughes Greer who is minister to families with youth at a Baptist church in Georgia.

You can read the whole thing at Associated Baptist Press.

(Let me begin with a couple disclaimers[?]. First – I assume Carra Hughes Greer is an outstanding Christian minister and is a better Christian and minister than I am. Second – I do not disagree with everything she writes.)

Why do we see fewer young Baptists in our churches? (The editor erred when s/he assigned the title “Baptist church”. There is no Baptist church. There are Baptist churches. Which may cooperate to form associations denominations networks and so on.) Not just because they had enough of the Southern Baptist Convention controversies of the 1970′s and 1980′s. But because they are tired of both “harsh” churches and “watered-down” churches.

Her definitions of each are interesting. “Harsh” churches loudly rail against problems in our culture. Greer outlines what one might identify as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell style Baptist Christianity.

“Watered-down” churches care more about maintaining the institution than about engaging the various burning issues of the day. Which issues? Greer offers a sample list:

[H]omosexuality, social justice issues, women in ministry, poverty, environmental concerns, human rights issues, health-care issues, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, orphans in China, monks in Burma, etc. They are eager to have open, honest, almost jaw-dropping, conversations balancing current issues with their faith.

I understand and do not dispute that young Baptists want to discuss such issues in light of their Christian faith.

What troubles me is the apparent dichotomy. If your church takes “conservative” positions on certain theological social and cultural issues then it is harsh. (And note how the article lumps together more extreme with more reasonable “conservative” Christian concerns.) But if your church does not openly discuss certain – pay attention now – other theological social and cultural issues then it is “watered-down”.

Do you see the subtle dichotomy? Discussing education health-care marriage and female pastors is harsh. Discussing social justice women in ministry poverty and the environment is not. Perhaps I misunderstand and the article merely distinguishes between “railing against” and “openly discussing”.

Dichotomies real or imagined aside – so if we do not discuss openly this second list of issues then we are not being missional?

I am trying to imagine what would happen if the congregations I serve – Church of the Nations and University Baptist Church – started talking about abortion homosexuality social justice women in (ordained? vocational?) ministry poverty environmentalism health-care.

I know we have congregants who are much more conservative on theological social cultural political issues. I know we have congregants who are much more liberal. And of course we have congregants who are a mixture of both. Whatever one means by “conservative” and “liberal” in this context.

I know from experience that social cultural and political issues can be far more divisive than theological issues. The Baptistlife.com forum in which I used to participate is hard cold proof of this.

There is some irony here. My views on sexuality are generally “conservative”. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are married to each other is the biblical theological and Christian ideal. And yet in something like sixteen years of ordained ministry not once have I preached against “homosexuality”.

I prefer to focus more on theology. Who is God? Who is Jesus? Who are we? What about our relationship to the creator? What about our relationship to the rest of creation? What about our relationship to other creatures including human beings? What about sin? What about salvation? What about worship? What about prayer?

And yet to be fair in my teaching and preaching sometimes I have touched on social cultural political issues. But I tend to focus on the biblical and theological framework and allow congregants to decide how that plays out in terms of policies and positions.

And perhaps Greer is right. Perhaps we should be “talking about these issues in our Sunday school classes, Bible studies and sermons”. Perhaps I am being a coward for not doing so more. And one might respond “well of course we talk about God and theology and so on – but people will naturally want to balance their faith with these other issues”.

(I remember what happened once when we had a discussion about abortion during Sunday school. Got to the point where one couple said to another couple “you are the kind of people we protect our children from”. I am not making that up. It was not pretty.)

Is the underlying assumption that the purpose of Christian faith is to address these issues? (By the way that right there is a critical question and may be the question we need to ask concerning Greer’s article.) That there is no Christian consensus on how to address these issues? Or that there is a Christian consensus?

Please note these are questions that I have rather than criticisms.

Do we in fact see young Baptists flocking to churches that practice what Greer recommends? How are liberal and moderate Baptist churches doing? Perhaps we should ask how are Episcopal churches doing? Because boy do they ever talk about social cultural political issues.

How are more traditional churches doing? Orthodox Christianity is growing quite nicely in the United States. And although yes they do engage these issues – sometimes taking a “conservative” and sometimes taking a “liberal” stand – they tend to focus much more on worship prayer and theology.

If we focus on God (and our relationship with him and with each other) then do these other issues take care of themselves? Perhaps that is naive and simplistic.

Let me wrap up by addressing a few other points.

She makes fine points about what 20- and 30-year-olds are like. “Not all of them expect loud, Christian rock music, want to wear torn jeans and a T-shirt to church, seek a coffee bar in the worship space or the biggest and brightest LCD screens”. Word.

And this paragraph was especially powerful:

Instead of church politics, they want churches to become missional. They understand the institutional church but desire the simplicity of the early church. They grow weary of time and money spent maintaining the large church grounds, renovating empty Sunday school rooms, installing the latest technology and managing growing numbers of committees. When the church becomes too distracted to be a church on mission, young Christ-followers focus on serving through a para-church or nonprofit organization that is directly meeting the needs of others.

Although again I must ask what do these people think the purpose (mission) of the church is exactly?

I had some difficulty understanding her recommendation that:

[O]ur churches must begin to reflect our changing communities. The ministerial staff must diversify to include people of all ages, races and genders as leaders.

Well sure I suppose if you have a large enough ministerial staff. And how many staff would one need in order to include people of all ages races and genders?

(How many ages?) x (How many races?) x (How many genders?) = (How many staff?)

My last comment is not directed so much to Greer’s article as to Protestantism in general:

For younger generations, what’s at stake is our ability to find ways to relate, engage and work side-by-side with older generations finding common ground on issues of social justice, faith development, worship experiences, etc.

What kind of Christian tradition has to struggle with this at all? In what kind of Christianity do different generations even have to find “common ground” on these issues?

Do you see the problem?

But Greer does raise some legitimate questions and make fine points about 20- and 30-year-old Christians and how we may better relate to and include them in the life and work of the Christian church.

Addendum: Asked my wife what she thought about the article. She thinks I am reading it far too critically.

Once again – I normally do not post sermons because I do not think they are much worth posting. But this sermon received strong positive feedback yesterday. -RMW

“Priest-hood of the Believer(s)”
Hebrews 5
Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations (and University Baptist Church)
20th Sunday Pentecost (B)
October 18, 2009

*********

“People kept driving by. No one stopped to help me”.

Monday evening in this room getting ready for a meeting. Raining raining raining outside. Knock knock knock. A man at the door from the courtyard – never seen him before. We let him in. He begins to explain his situation. Working in the neighborhood. Has a flat tire and needs to get all the way back to his home about thirty minutes away. And expresses some real frustration that he was on the side of Highland Road and people kept driving by and no one stopped to help him.

What did they see?

A stranger? A man with dark skin? Maybe does not take good care of his car? What is he doing in this neighborhood? What is he doing at this church on a dark and rainy evening when many women gather for Bible study? What does he need? What does he want? Is he telling the truth?

What did we see? How did we speak to him? What did we do for him?

Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray since he himself is subject to weakness. That is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as for the sins of the people.

Our Bible reading for this morning from the book of Hebrews chapter five describes beautifully what a priest is and what a priest does. We talked about this last week. A priest represents the people before God and also represents God before the people. Remember that. Bring people into the presence of God and bring the presence of God to people.

And how does a priest represent God? How does a priest deal with people on behalf of God?

He is able to deal gently – because he himself is subject to weakness. He has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as for the sins of the people.

The person who represents God does not deal harshly with those who do not know God or with those who lead a life that is away from God or even against God. The person who represents God recognizes that he or she is also a sinner. Also is broken. Also struggles. Also hurts. Also questions. It does not – does not! – mean we hate ourselves. We recognize our own weakness and brokenness. But we also recognize that God is good and loves humankind and shows mercy to us.

Stephen Freeman is a pastor in the Orthodox Christian tradition who serves in East Tennessee. Several months ago on his website he describes the order of worship on a particular Christian holiday. He says the part of the worship that moves him the most is when the priest – the spiritual leader of the church family – when the priest stands before the people and says “Forgive me brothers and sisters because I have sinned”.

I also have sinned. Deal gently because I also am subject to weakness.

In the Baptist Christian tradition – and Church of the Nations is part of the Baptist movement of the Christian faith – we speak sometimes of the “priesthood of the believer”. It is one of the most important distinctive teachings of the Baptist Christian tradition. That every believer – every Christian every person who believes in Jesus Christ the Son of God – every believer is a priest. That is we are responsible for our relationship with God. We do not need anyone else such as a human priest to go between us and God.

I do not disagree with this teaching. But what troubles me about it is so often people use it to emphasize the responsibility and authority of the individual believer. We do not need priests. Okay. But surely the priesthood of the believer means that we are priests. How often do we Baptist Christians talk about that? What does it mean if we are priests? If each of us represents God to the people we meet each day. And even that we help bring people into the presence of God. We have responsibility toward and authority with each other.

Not only are we priests but we are priests to each other and to all humankind.

We deal gently with each other. We deal gently with those who are ignorant or going astray because we ourselves are subject to weakness. Forgive me brothers and sisters because I have sinned.

Meletios Webber is a pastor and psychologist. In his book Bread and Water he describes how the mind (which is damaged by sin) is judgmental. Sit in an airport or a bus station and notice people without giving them any labels (22). Like “too small too fat beautiful ugly rich poor black white different strange bad driver”. He writes:

The purpose is to reach a point where we notice a person without giving him or her a label. We begin to experience true compassion – to see that person as God sees him or her. The less there is a label (which defines people and sets them apart) the more intense is the love – a love that goes in both directions at once. This is a very powerful experience. (22)

What do we see?

{For the last few years I have been haunted by this part of our Bible reading:

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth he offered up prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son he learned obedience from what he suffered and – once made perfect (or complete) – he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.

He learned obedience from what he suffered and was made complete.

I wanted to focus on this part. But it overwhelms me and I do not fully understand it even though I am convinced this may be one of the most powerful statements in the book of Hebrews. So let me finish with this.} [my wife suggested I remove the section above not because it is bad but because it did not fit and disrupted the flow and focus of the sermon - RMW]

Jesus is the great high priest – there is no one like him now or ever. But we also are priests to for with each other. We represent God to others and we bring others into the presence of God. We deal gently with each other and new persons that we meet because we also are broken and weak. We begin to see people without labeling them as persons created in and who bear the image of God. We help people learn about God who loves them. We help encourage children and help them learn to read. We worship with people who have no home and share with them clothes and water and food. We travel four hours to help clean a high school and give away thirteen hundred backpacks filled with school supplies. We welcome and shelter women who are escaping abuse. We help those struggling with sin.

And one other thing priests do – we pray. Sometimes for ourselves but more often for each other and for the world. Like Jesus – in the garden when he was facing death and on the cross – we offer up prayers with cries and tears. That God will save when we cannot. That God will heal when we cannot heal our friend. That God will comfort those around us when we cannot. That God will provide for needs when we cannot. That God will do what we cannot. And that God will show us when we can do something what to say what to do how to help how to care how to serve how to be with those who are suffering – in ways that are beyond our understanding and beyond our own strength.

Sanctuary of University Baptist Church

I ask you please to pray for University Baptist Church.

Yesterday morning the senior pastor announced his resignation. He is not moving to another congregation. It was rather a shock. I cannot say a complete surprise because he has faced a steady stream of “discontent” from certain people regarding certain issues. Although it has been particularly rough the last few weeks. It is neither appropriate nor necessary to elaborate.

One thing I will share is that a planned “service of reconciliation” last evening still took place – although with many more present and without the pastor. Many people spoke strongly and positively of the pastor and the difference he had made – or that God had made through him – in their relationship with God.

The church declined to accept the resignation and has urged him to reconsider and to continue serving as our pastor. He did come in at the end of the gathering and said he will think about it and give an answer next week.

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it
with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt,
purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is
amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in
want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake
of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen. (Book of Common Prayer, 816)

Ruins of Coventry Cathedral

What and where is the Church? Is there only an ideal Church off somewhere/somewhen in heaven? Or can we see and experience and participate in the Church here and now?

Metropolitan Ware writes:

The Church is accomplished on earth without losing its essential characteristics. There is not only an ideal Church that is invisible and in heaven. This ideal Church exists visibly on earth as a concrete reality. (The Orthodox Church, 242)

This is an important even essential cornerstone of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

I do not know to what extent this is compatible with Baptist Christian theology (however one defines that) concerning the church. But in a delightful article Prof Steven Harmon at Samford University explains why the church still needs Baptists. The heart of his position is this:

I’m convinced that the church cannot make progress toward the visible unity for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20-23) unless it receives the distinctive gifts the Baptist tradition has to offer the rest of the church. (Baptists Today, August 2009: 28)

I find it interesting that Prof Harmon’s argument refers to Christian unity – rather than some other goal or principle. We will come back to this. And it is significant the he refers to the “rest of the church” – which is to say that the church is more than (a) the Baptist tradition or (b) local Baptist congregations.

So what are these distinctive gifts that the Baptist tradition offers? The first gift that Prof Harmon describes caught my attention:

I believe one of the gifts that the rest of the church needs to receive from Baptists is our gut-level aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church. (That’s theologian-speak for the refusal of Baptists to equate any expression of church life in this present age with the full realization of the kingdom of God.)

The reason this grabbed my attention is that I wonder what is the relationship between this position (aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church) and what Metropolitan Ware writes. To what extent is (this particular) Baptist ecclesiology compatible with its Orthodox counterpart. One could focus on the term “fully”. Perhaps Orthodox ecclesiology would concede “look – we are the visible concerete reality of the Church… but we are not the full realization of the kingdom of God”.

I am not a theologian – although I would like to be more of one. I am not sufficiently versed in Baptist or Orthodox theology or in theological method to figure out how these two positions relate to one another. My guess is that Orthodox theology would indeed say “yes we are the full realization” – and then qualify or explain that somehow. My guess is that there are irreconcilable points-of-difference between Baptist and Orthodox theologies of the church/Church. Although I would rejoice were it possible to synthesize and harmonize them.

Please understand I am not trying to pick an argumment with either or to set one against the other. Not at all. I am trying to understand. And to struggle through my own understanding of the Christian church.

One fine brother in Christ wrote in a forum that “Rick is not comfortable being Baptist”. I suggested there might be some truth to that. But hang on a moment.

Prof Harmon in the same piece also writes:

“Real Baptists” are relentlessly dissatisfied with the present state of the church in their pilgrim journey toward the community that will be fully under the reign of Christ.

That sounds like the journey of my own heart. Relentlessly dissatisfied – hopefully in a good way! Indeed at times I feel like “the earliest Baptists… [who] ended their lives on the periphery of the Baptist churches they helped establish”.

Is there a home – ecclesiologically? Or is God content always to travel in a tent?

Please note – I do not normally post my sermons partly because they are seldom worth posting. But I got strong positive feedback yesterday so decided to share it.

*********

“Perfect and Continuously Becoming”
(Ephesians 4)

Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
Tenth Sunday Pentecost (B)
August 09, 2009

*********

What is this? [Indicate piece of bread. Now tear or cut off one corner.] This is bread. It has certain properties and characteristics.

What is this? This too is bread. It has the same properties and characteristics of bread – the whole and the part. [Now tear or cut off a different corner.]

Is this bread? Does this also have the same properties and characteristics of the whole and this different part?

Let me begin with another question. Can something that is perfect change – and still be perfect? If bread is perfect – is this piece of bread also perfect? If I add these pieces together – are they perfect? If I break one of these pieces in two – is it perfect?

Can something that is perfect change – from place to place and/or from time to time?

In our Bible reading from last week the book of Ephesians chapter four the apostle Paul writes:

“There is one body, and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one Baptist; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”.

I want to go back to this other Bible reading from the book of Ephesians because what the apostle Paul says about the Christian church is so important. I am convinced that when we talk about the good news of the Christian faith the good news of Jesus the good news that God loves us with an infinite love and offers us salvation forgiveness eternal life through Jesus Christ his Son – the Christian church is an essential part of the good news of God.

The Christian church is an essential part of the good news of God.

This is not always easy to believe or understand. Because individual Christians are not perfect – we too are sinners. Often we are indeed what we want to be what God wants us to be and calls us to be – holy beautiful and powerful. Sometimes we are not. But as we talked about a few weeks ago the apostle Paul describes the Christian church as the living temple of God – and we are the living stones. And the apostle Paul also describes the Christian church as the body of Christ.

We can even say one more thing about the Christian church. Miroslav Wolf is a scholar of the Christian faith from Eastern Europe who teaches at Yale University. Several years ago he wrote a book called In Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. The Christian faith teaches that the one God that we know and love and worship and serve – this one God is somehow also three persons. God the Father God the Son God the Holy Spirit. Not three gods but three persons.

What God is – one but somehow three / unity and diversity – so is the Christian church. Unity and diversity / one but somehow many even infinite.

Several months ago I read something very interesting that Kallistos Ware wrote.

“The Church is accomplished on earth without losing its essential characteristics. There is not only an ideal Church that is invisible and in heaven. This ideal Church exists visibly on earth as a concrete reality” [The Orthodox Church, 242]

Perhaps another way to say that is this. The Christian church is the body of Christ – Jesus Christ the Son of God who is perfect. The Christian church is the image of God the Trinity – who is (are?) perfect. The Christian church is perfect. This is not only an idea – perhaps in heaven. This is a reality – here and now.

This also is not easy to believe or understand. Let me pause for a moment to explain what we mean by “perfect” in this context. At the very least it means “complete, the way it is supposed to be”.

Kallistos Ware also writes:

“The Church on earth lives in a state of tension. It is already the body of Christ – therefore perfect and sinless. But because its members [us] are imperfect and sinful – the Church must continually become what it is”.

Perfect – but we the Christian church must continually become perfect.

What does all of this have to do with us – with Church of the Nations on the tenth Sunday in the season of Pentecost?

We are not a large church family. We do not own our own building. We do not own our own buses. This month we will see several people leave. But also we hope and pray and believe we will welcome even more new people. Church of the Nations is perfect – just the way we are. With the people who are here. With the nations that we represent. With our different ages and backgrounds and languages and cultures and personalities. And we are perfect – just the way we will be. With the people who will come. Perfect even though we change – from place to place and from year to year. Perfect even though our members are not – we are people who are hurt and who hurt who are sinner and are broken. But together – together – we become something different. We become the body of Christ. We become the image of God the Trinity. [Ware, ibid., 244]

When you come to Baton Rouge and become part of Church of the Nations. When you come to Baton Rouge and become part of some other church family that is smaller or larger. When you leave Baton Rouge and become part of another church family in the United States or another country.

We are bread. No matter when. No matter which part. Because bread is perfect.

One of my very first posts on this website was about Anglican Christianity as Western Orthodoxy. That is – if Anglican Christianity either reinvents or rediscovers itself as Western Orthodoxy – as a Western expression of Orthodox Christianity. One does not necessarily need to convert to Orthodox Christianity in order to appreciate that Orthodoxy offers much to Protestant Christianity. Indeed I would argue that Orthodoxy may offer solutions to the many problems which threaten Protestant Christianity – which I would argue is in serious danger of becoming a failed experiment.

Enter Metropolitan Jonah and his presentation before the Anglican Communion of North America 2009 on June 26 – just three days ago.

H/T Fr Cantrell at Apostolicity.