Readings FIRST LESSON The first lesson is from A Return to Love by Marianne Williamson The word “charisma” was originally a religious term. It means “of the spirit.” Charisma is the power to effect what happens on the earth from an invisible realm within, and it is the natural right and function of the Child of God. The new frontiers are internal ones. The real stretch is always within us. Instead of expanding our ability or willingness to go out and get anything, we expand our ability to receive what is already here for us. When our lives are given to the Holy Spirit to use for God purposes, new talents emerge within us. We don’t get our lives together and then give them to God, but rather we give our lives to God and then things start coming together. As our hearts open, our talents and gifts begin to blossom. Many people have told me that once they’re successful and have made a lot of money, they will use that success to help the world. But that’s a delay technique by which the ego tries to keep us from showing up fully in are own lives. Even if we don’t yet consider ourselves successful, we can devote our work now to being used in the service of the healing of the world. From that point of power our careers will take off. No matter what we do, we can make it our ministry. No matter what form our job or activity takes, the content is the same as everyone else’s: we are here to minister to human ears. If we talk to anyone, or see anyone, or even think of anyone, then we have the opportunity to bring more love into the universe. You are powerful in whatever moment you choose to be. The choice to be used as an instrument of love, right here, right now, is a choice for personal empowerment.
SECOND LESSON The second lesson is from the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 10 verses 38 through 42 |
This Week's Sermon Date: July 18, 2010 Title: Be True To Yourself Message Delivered By: Rev. Dr. Joe McMurray It seems that archaeologists have discovered an old cave which holds the secret to the question, “Where do pets come from?” In a newly written chapter that seems to fit at the end of the Book of Genesis, another dialogue between Adam and the Lord was found. It reads as follows: And Adam said, "Lord, when I was in the Garden, you walked with me every day. After I have wronged you, and you lost trust in me, I have been expelled from the Garden and do not see you anymore. I am lonesome here and it has become difficult for me to remember how much you love me." And God took pity on Adam and said, "This is not a problem, Adam! Chill! I will create another companion for you that will be with you forever and who will be a reflection of my love for you. In this way, you will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you might be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourself." And God created this new animal to be a companion for Adam. And it was a good animal. And God was pleased. And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and wagged its tail. And Adam said, "Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and cannot think of a name for this new animal." And God said, "This is not a problem. Since I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, its name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call the animal 'Dog.'" After a while, it came to pass that Eve came to the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam has become filled with pride. He struts and preens like a peacock and believes he is worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught him that he is loved, but perhaps too well. I worry that Adam’s ego is unfettered, and there is nothing to contain it."
And the Lord said, "This is not a problem! I will create for him Adam another companion who will be with him forever, but who will see him as he is. The companion will remind him of his limitations, so he will know that he is not always worthy of adoration." And God created Cat to be a companion to Adam. And Cat would not obey Adam. And when Adam gazed into Cat's eyes, he was reminded that he was not the supreme being. And Adam learned humility. And God was pleased. And Eve was pleased. And Adam was eventually pleased. And Dog was pleased. And Cat didn't care one way or the other. Please pray with me: God, all too often we limit your creation. We think we know all things; we believe we can see all things. But there is much you have created that we cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch … Among these are our feelings of love and joy, of empathy and compassion, and our deep need for relationship with you. To know is not necessarily to see. Give us patience to accept what we cannot see; to know that you are broader and deeper than even our wildest imagination. And may my words and all of our thoughts be filled with honor and praise to you. Amen. Last week, I spoke about the busy-ness of life—that we have choices about how we spend our time—that many times we use being busy as a way of distracting ourselves from feelings of hurt and longing, from pain and suffering, or from facing the trials and tribulations of life that we all must face sometimes. In examining this week’s Gospel, one interpretation might be that there is het another strong support of this theory in Scripture—that we do have to take time for the important things. Even Jesus called Martha to stop and be still for a moment, and to listen as her sister, Mary, listened. But there was another compelling direction in this Gospel that I could not resist—an issue which is unlikely to have been the focus of much discussion in Jesus’ day. And it has to do, in a sense, with “tradition” and how tradition is defined. We hear a lot about what the word “traditional” means. People tend to overuse the word and even more tragically, give it extra meaning that may not have been intended. Often, when people refer to “traditional” customs and practices, they are referring to historical things in a particular context. Part of the problem with this approach is that when we deal with history, we must we willing to open ourselves to the breadth of it. History is not just one thing because it is subjective. It depends on who is presenting the history to us. When people talk about traditional clothing, that terminology does not fit our understanding if we’re discussing Roman culture. Their concept of “traditional” and ours will be two different things because definitions change over time—because cultures and practices change over time. When we speak about traditional values, we are speaking very particularly about values within a certain context. If two people from the United States are talking about traditional values, they’re probably referring to issues of morality as it exists in today’s culture, as opposed to ten, twenty or even fifty years ago. Not to mention the fact that the term “traditional values” in a contemporary context has been completely hijacked by one group to demean entire classes of people. When we speak of traditional marriage, we refer to marriage as a concept that reflects what we may believe historically—what may or may not be true historically. But the reality is, marriage is a fairly modern concept. So when people talk about “traditional marriage between a man and a woman the way it’s always been,” it depends upon how far back you want to go. An article entitled “The History of the Institution of Marriage” by Dr. Larry R. Peterson, says this: “Virtually all scholars agree that we have witnessed a major transition in the meaning of marriage in the years from 1600 to 1995. In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse. By1995, most Americans consider the primary purpose of marriage to be a commitment to emotional and psychological support between two individuals.” Marriage, then, in the days when the Gospels were written, was an arrangement that was determined not by love, passion or trust, but by property, economic stability and social status. To use the term “traditional” marriage, today, people obviously don’t mean “the way it’s always been.” They use that phrase for emphasis of their argument, but the fact is, it’s just not historical or true. That doesn’t preclude us from going back 2000 years to discover that relationships then, in many ways, were pretty much the same as they are now. We have institutionalized them or legalized them differently according to the culture or religion, depending on what had the most power and influence. But many of the so-called “structures” or units of relationship and family were not always so clearly defined. Even in those days, when what was called “traditional” marriage was considered a legal contract rather than a spiritual or religious realignment, there also coexisted alternative types of “marriages” if you will—differently organized family units that defied what was conventional or traditional. In other words, they were diverse. There was no “normal” or “typical” or “traditional” then just as there is not now. And we find one example of that in Luke’s Gospel this morning. This household is a perfect example of a diverse family unit. On the one hand, we have Mary—Mary is more of a disciple than she is a housekeeper (or domestic engineer as Martha would probably prefer the term were she alive today). There was Mary, seated at Jesus’ feet, as the disciples often were. Mary, engaged in hearing the word of God from Jesus’ mouth—listening to his stories, his philosophy, his teachings, his beliefs … perhaps trying to picture herself as called to this ministry, with even more challenges than women face today. And then there’s Martha. Martha, Martha, Martha! Martha runs the household. Martha is the domestic one. (And by the way, no one knows where Lazarus is at this point.) Martha wants to have things just so. She is the “busy” body—meaning, she is the one who is all about the business of the house—but is also out of touch with the true meaning behind Jesus’ visit. And in her way, she not only is certain of her place in that moment, but she’s also convinced it should be Mary’s place, as well. Martha reaches beyond her own limited concept of what “tradition” should be; and she assigns that same context to Mary, who is not asking to be or interested in being assigned or defined by Martha’s rules. Though Jesus can see what’s going on and asks a very pertinent question of Martha, he does not bemoan the important role of hosting. We know of the importance of hospitality in those days—being hospitable was one of the premier aspects of the religious law—hospitality and welcoming the stranger, though Jesus obviously is no stranger to them; though he is a guest. Jesus also draws a line when it comes to something as important as listening to the word of God—to the important message he’s conveying to them; the important teaching they need to learn. Jesus knew when it was time to put things down, to stop and pay attention. Martha was too concerned with all the arrangements of Jesus’ visit, paying too little attention to the purpose of the visit. By perpetuating her need to be busy, she would miss the importance of why Jesus was there in the first place. You know, every Saturday, I do my final sermon prep for Sunday worship. But if ever I find myself saying, “Gee, I really want to go do such-and-such, but I can’t because I have to write my sermon tonight,” what does that say? In other words, am I feeling put upon that I must be dutiful, I must be responsible, I must take care of business because I have contracted to do this work? And if this ever happens, I’d have to catch myself and wonder, “How does that impact the flow of the message? What does this do to me as the messenger? How am I enhancing this work by making it dutiful? How does this type of attitude lend itself to offering something that emanates from the flow of God’s energy through my mind, through my heart, through to my hands, and then from pen to paper (or from keyboard to screen)?” It is the process of opening oneself—no matter what the work is that must be done—opening oneself wide and letting the grace and wisdom of God flow through us. Our Board of Directors always stops to pray before our board meetings. We center ourselves and focus on why we are doing what we are doing. We periodically revisit our mission statement as a reminder of how God works through us. It is important to be grounded in what we do, and to be sure of who we are and what we are called to do. And through the work we do, we offer something to the congregation that will hopefully reassure them that the business of the church moves forward, that all is taken care of, that there is balance and control, so that the congregation can let go of worry; focus our minds and energy on worship, thanksgiving, prayer, music and all things ethereal that tell the world of our deep relationship with God. Marianne Williamson has a great sense of this throughout her book, A Return to Love. She has a great sense of purpose in her writing, suggesting that we’re not just dumped here in the middle of this cesspool we call “life” and then forced to make the best of it. We’re given opportunities to see life as an initial blessing, and through our ideas, our energy, our words and our deeds, continue the act of blessing—blessing one another as God blesses us. She believes that everything we do has the capacity to be ministry, in and of itself. It is how we view it, how we engage it and interact with it, what we create with it, and what we do with our creation that is the ongoing blessing. And if we are on the receiving end of blessing, we, too, can thank God and bless those from whom the bounty came. Then it’s ours to use, to bend and mold and shape—it is ours to take responsibility of it and turn it into something useful that will make us proud, will make God proud, and then bless others with it—as a continuing flow of blessing in the world. And we do this by being true to ourselves—not limiting ourselves as our culture and society limit us by sticking to the “traditional”—whatever that means. Instead we find our true selves, cultivate our gifts and become co-creators of the Universe. God gave us this ability. May we use it wisely, and continue to follow where God is leading. Amen. And Adam said, "Lord, when I was in the Garden, you walked with me every day. After I have wronged you, and you lost trust in me, I have been expelled from the Garden and do not see you anymore. I am lonesome here and it has become difficult for me to remember how much you love me." And God took pity on Adam and said, "This is not a problem, Adam! Chill! I will create another companion for you that will be with you forever and who will be a reflection of my love for you. In this way, you will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you might be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourself." And God created this new animal to be a companion for Adam. And it was a good animal. And God was pleased. And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and wagged its tail. And Adam said, "Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and cannot think of a name for this new animal." And God said, "This is not a problem. Since I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, its name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call the animal 'Dog.'" After a while, it came to pass that Eve came to the Lord and said, "Lord, Adam has become filled with pride. He struts and preens like a peacock and believes he is worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught him that he is loved, but perhaps too well. I worry that Adam’s ego is unfettered, and there is nothing to contain it."
And the Lord said, "This is not a problem! I will create for him Adam another companion who will be with him forever, but who will see him as he is. The companion will remind him of his limitations, so he will know that he is not always worthy of adoration." And God created Cat to be a companion to Adam. And Cat would not obey Adam. And when Adam gazed into Cat's eyes, he was reminded that he was not the supreme being. And Adam learned humility. And God was pleased. And Eve was pleased. And Adam was eventually pleased. And Dog was pleased. And Cat didn't care one way or the other. Please pray with me: God, all too often we limit your creation. We think we know all things; we believe we can see all things. But there is much you have created that we cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch … Among these are our feelings of love and joy, of empathy and compassion, and our deep need for relationship with you. To know is not necessarily to see. Give us patience to accept what we cannot see; to know that you are broader and deeper than even our wildest imagination. And may my words and all of our thoughts be filled with honor and praise to you. Amen. Last week, I spoke about the busy-ness of life—that we have choices about how we spend our time—that many times we use being busy as a way of distracting ourselves from feelings of hurt and longing, from pain and suffering, or from facing the trials and tribulations of life that we all must face sometimes. In examining this week’s Gospel, one interpretation might be that there is het another strong support of this theory in Scripture—that we do have to take time for the important things. Even Jesus called Martha to stop and be still for a moment, and to listen as her sister, Mary, listened. But there was another compelling direction in this Gospel that I could not resist—an issue which is unlikely to have been the focus of much discussion in Jesus’ day. And it has to do, in a sense, with “tradition” and how tradition is defined. We hear a lot about what the word “traditional” means. People tend to overuse the word and even more tragically, give it extra meaning that may not have been intended. Often, when people refer to “traditional” customs and practices, they are referring to historical things in a particular context. Part of the problem with this approach is that when we deal with history, we must we willing to open ourselves to the breadth of it. History is not just one thing because it is subjective. It depends on who is presenting the history to us. When people talk about traditional clothing, that terminology does not fit our understanding if we’re discussing Roman culture. Their concept of “traditional” and ours will be two different things because definitions change over time—because cultures and practices change over time. When we speak about traditional values, we are speaking very particularly about values within a certain context. If two people from the United States are talking about traditional values, they’re probably referring to issues of morality as it exists in today’s culture, as opposed to ten, twenty or even fifty years ago. Not to mention the fact that the term “traditional values” in a contemporary context has been completely hijacked by one group to demean entire classes of people. When we speak of traditional marriage, we refer to marriage as a concept that reflects what we may believe historically—what may or may not be true historically. But the reality is, marriage is a fairly modern concept. So when people talk about “traditional marriage between a man and a woman the way it’s always been,” it depends upon how far back you want to go. An article entitled “The History of the Institution of Marriage” by Dr. Larry R. Peterson, says this: “Virtually all scholars agree that we have witnessed a major transition in the meaning of marriage in the years from 1600 to 1995. In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse. By1995, most Americans consider the primary purpose of marriage to be a commitment to emotional and psychological support between two individuals.” Marriage, then, in the days when the Gospels were written, was an arrangement that was determined not by love, passion or trust, but by property, economic stability and social status. To use the term “traditional” marriage, today, people obviously don’t mean “the way it’s always been.” They use that phrase for emphasis of their argument, but the fact is, it’s just not historical or true. That doesn’t preclude us from going back 2000 years to discover that relationships then, in many ways, were pretty much the same as they are now. We have institutionalized them or legalized them differently according to the culture or religion, depending on what had the most power and influence. But many of the so-called “structures” or units of relationship and family were not always so clearly defined. Even in those days, when what was called “traditional” marriage was considered a legal contract rather than a spiritual or religious realignment, there also coexisted alternative types of “marriages” if you will—differently organized family units that defied what was conventional or traditional. In other words, they were diverse. There was no “normal” or “typical” or “traditional” then just as there is not now. And we find one example of that in Luke’s Gospel this morning. This household is a perfect example of a diverse family unit. On the one hand, we have Mary—Mary is more of a disciple than she is a housekeeper (or domestic engineer as Martha would probably prefer the term were she alive today). There was Mary, seated at Jesus’ feet, as the disciples often were. Mary, engaged in hearing the word of God from Jesus’ mouth—listening to his stories, his philosophy, his teachings, his beliefs … perhaps trying to picture herself as called to this ministry, with even more challenges than women face today. And then there’s Martha. Martha, Martha, Martha! Martha runs the household. Martha is the domestic one. (And by the way, no one knows where Lazarus is at this point.) Martha wants to have things just so. She is the “busy” body—meaning, she is the one who is all about the business of the house—but is also out of touch with the true meaning behind Jesus’ visit. And in her way, she not only is certain of her place in that moment, but she’s also convinced it should be Mary’s place, as well. Martha reaches beyond her own limited concept of what “tradition” should be; and she assigns that same context to Mary, who is not asking to be or interested in being assigned or defined by Martha’s rules. Though Jesus can see what’s going on and asks a very pertinent question of Martha, he does not bemoan the important role of hosting. We know of the importance of hospitality in those days—being hospitable was one of the premier aspects of the religious law—hospitality and welcoming the stranger, though Jesus obviously is no stranger to them; though he is a guest. Jesus also draws a line when it comes to something as important as listening to the word of God—to the important message he’s conveying to them; the important teaching they need to learn. Jesus knew when it was time to put things down, to stop and pay attention. Martha was too concerned with all the arrangements of Jesus’ visit, paying too little attention to the purpose of the visit. By perpetuating her need to be busy, she would miss the importance of why Jesus was there in the first place. You know, every Saturday, I do my final sermon prep for Sunday worship. But if ever I find myself saying, “Gee, I really want to go do such-and-such, but I can’t because I have to write my sermon tonight,” what does that say? In other words, am I feeling put upon that I must be dutiful, I must be responsible, I must take care of business because I have contracted to do this work? And if this ever happens, I’d have to catch myself and wonder, “How does that impact the flow of the message? What does this do to me as the messenger? How am I enhancing this work by making it dutiful? How does this type of attitude lend itself to offering something that emanates from the flow of God’s energy through my mind, through my heart, through to my hands, and then from pen to paper (or from keyboard to screen)?” It is the process of opening oneself—no matter what the work is that must be done—opening oneself wide and letting the grace and wisdom of God flow through us. Our Board of Directors always stops to pray before our board meetings. We center ourselves and focus on why we are doing what we are doing. We periodically revisit our mission statement as a reminder of how God works through us. It is important to be grounded in what we do, and to be sure of who we are and what we are called to do. And through the work we do, we offer something to the congregation that will hopefully reassure them that the business of the church moves forward, that all is taken care of, that there is balance and control, so that the congregation can let go of worry; focus our minds and energy on worship, thanksgiving, prayer, music and all things ethereal that tell the world of our deep relationship with God. Marianne Williamson has a great sense of this throughout her book, A Return to Love. She has a great sense of purpose in her writing, suggesting that we’re not just dumped here in the middle of this cesspool we call “life” and then forced to make the best of it. We’re given opportunities to see life as an initial blessing, and through our ideas, our energy, our words and our deeds, continue the act of blessing—blessing one another as God blesses us. She believes that everything we do has the capacity to be ministry, in and of itself. It is how we view it, how we engage it and interact with it, what we create with it, and what we do with our creation that is the ongoing blessing. And if we are on the receiving end of blessing, we, too, can thank God and bless those from whom the bounty came. Then it’s ours to use, to bend and mold and shape—it is ours to take responsibility of it and turn it into something useful that will make us proud, will make God proud, and then bless others with it—as a continuing flow of blessing in the world. And we do this by being true to ourselves—not limiting ourselves as our culture and society limit us by sticking to the “traditional”—whatever that means. Instead we find our true selves, cultivate our gifts and become co-creators of the Universe. God gave us this ability. May we use it wisely, and continue to follow where God is leading. Amen.
.
|
Selected Past Sermons