Tell

Sermon for Year B, Proper 18

By The Rev. Torey Lightcap

Saint Thomas Episcopal Church

September 16, 2012

Mark 8:27-38

“Tell”

Peter confesses that Jesus alone is Lord –

  Not Cesar, not any of the Greek gods the Romans worshipped,

    Especially there at Cesarea Philippi where so much blood was spilled, …

    No one but Jesus –

Jesus is Lord and God, Christ and Messiah. No other competition prevails.

We’d like to think we know precisely what he means when he tells Jesus

  “You are the Messiah,”

  But we can’t. We can’t know it with absolute precision.

As usual, it’s sort of convoluted by history.

What we can say, from our vantage point in history,

  Is that his pointing to Jesus and acclaiming him Messiah

  Was, for Mark, one of the central moments of his gospel.

It was a moment preceded by a miracle of loaves and fishes

 And followed by the Transfiguration of Jesus on a mountain –

    A moment that, for the readers and hearers of Mark,

    Would have taken the words of the confession of Peter, still hanging fresh in the air,

      And made them undeniably concrete.

Ask Peter who Jesus is. He’s ready with an answer.

‘Course, Peter’s also truly human: and he’ll bungle that response soon enough

  By letting his ego get in the way and tripping over his own words;

  And later, he’ll deny his confession outright, but for now, it’s enough.

It’s an admission of the stark truth.

Back in June of this year, my colleague Jim Naughton

  Posted an article titled “A dumb question I’ve been meaning to ask”[1]

  To the web site that I help out on a little, the Episcopal Café.

Jim has a way of saying things that,

  Once you’ve heard him say them,

  You smack your head and wonder why you hadn’t thought of it yourself.

A former baseball reporter, he writes in snappy sentences that clear out the fog.

So. Here’s what Jim wrote:

“I have had [a] question on my mind for a few weeks

  That I have only recently decided is worth asking.

“Is it important that we speak compellingly about Jesus?

“The answer might seem obvious.

  Of course, as a Christian church, we need to speak compellingly about Jesus.

“And yet, I don't hear that many preachers – even good ones –

    Speaking compellingly about Jesus.

  I don't know of many dioceses in which Episcopalians

    Are being taught to speak compellingly about Jesus,

    And even when people say that we need to preach the Gospel,

    I experience this as a call to spread certain values,

      Rather than as an invitation to figure out what Jesus was up to.

Jim went on to write, “I am not an evangelical.

  And I understand … contemporary seekers

    Might not immediately be interested

    In a set of … propositions.

  I am aware that the Bible has been used as a club

    Against minorities and marginalized people of all kinds.

  Still, if we aren’t offering people a deep and abiding encounter with Jesus,

    Then I don’t understand what we are up to as a church.

  To my ears, we don’t sound like a church

    That takes this encounter as its reason for existing.

  But perhaps I am wrong about our purpose, or am not listening to the right people.”

Jim kicked up quite the discussion with that item,

  And he left that one statement kicking around in me, consciously and unconsciously,

  All the way up into the pulpit this morning so I could share it with you:

  “[I]f we aren’t offering people a deep and abiding encounter with Jesus,” he wrote,

    “Then I don’t understand what we are up to as a church.”

I want, this morning, to expand on this line of thought.

First of all, I want to assume that it is absolutely crucial

  To “speak compellingly” about Jesus, to “figure out what he was up to,”

  And to “offer a deep and abiding encounter with him.”

I also need to further assume that this is not just the job of Members of the Clergy,

  But rather, the clear responsibility of each and every baptized person in the room.

I want to assume that because if I can’t assume that,

    Then I should assume instead that I am, perhaps, just in the wrong building,

  Or some strange club with a lot of rituals and symbols

    That talks about Jesus because it’s required

    But has no need to do so compellingly, with full throat and heart and mind and soul.

If I can’t assume that Peter’s confession is true

  And that I should be confessing it with my own lips and in my own life,

    Then I should really just do everyone a favor and go back to bed.

There is, though, this one small problem,

  Which is simply this: We don’t talk about Jesus. We no longer confess.

We like to attribute the phrase

  “Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary use words” to St. Francis.

In reality, we don’t know who said it, and it’s just as well.

It’s a nice thought on its face, but really –

  Aren’t we using words to communicate everything these days?

So the St. Francis bit should be a big winner with people who don’t talk

  And/or who read minds, but as for the rest of us, …

I don’t know; if we took it on its face, I could see the profit.

But I’m not sure we do; seems to me this little nugget

  Is a way to avoid talking about what we believe, talking about Jesus.

Again, in the ‘70s we got this great term, “Lifestyle evangelism,”

  Today the evangelistic method-of-choice practiced by 100 million Christians.

This is also evangelism for psychics and mind-readers,

  Where it’s claimed that it’s more effective to just live a simple and good life

    Than it is to actually talk about Jesus

  Because it’s harder to live a righteous existence than it is to go around preaching.

A hundred million Christians.

And again, if we took it on its face, it would be easy to go there.

By these numbers, if it really worked, the world would be all for Jesus by now.

But again, it seems to have proved not so much an evangelistic tool for Christ

  As it has a set of rationale for why we don’t have to talk about him.

We may say that we place Christ at the center of all things,

  But by and large, when you break it down, the rhetoric today mostly is about being nice,

    Or offering good programs, or beautiful music, or transcendent architecture,

      Or something that sounds like church but isn’t specifically

        About the transformation we experience when we place ourselves

        In the hands of the living God,

          Who in our faith narrative we know most intimately as Jesus Christ.

We don’t do it, and why? Why not?

I think I might have some ideas.

Because it’s hard.

Because Midwesterners don’t like to focus too much on themselves

  When they talk to other people.

Because it’s “woo-woo” religion – you can say “God” some, but not “Jesus” a lot.

Because it crosses too many social barriers.

Because it wrongly assumes other people will be comfortable

  With us disclosing more about ourselves than they may want to know.

Because “Jesus Christ” as a concept is weighed down and brimming

   With waaay too many political and religious associations

    That we may not want to be lumped in with.

Because The Episcopal Church is for socially conscious people

  With standing and obligation in the community,

  Who can’t afford to be sullied by too much religion.

Because the last time someone said “Let me tell you about Jesus,”

  He was wearing a sandwich board and ringing a bell and waving a Bible

  And going on about the End of Time

    And why you were going to get the short end of the deal,

      And who wants to be associated with that?

…

Does that begin to touch on some of it?

And…

Please know that a person who wears a black shirt and clerical collar

  And a cross around his neck

    Is in no way immune from this kind of thinking.

Why else should I be able to pinpoint it?

I can assure you, I didn’t do focus group testing to come up with that list!

Brothers and sisters, I shake in my boots every time I talk with a stranger about Jesus:

  I don’t know whether they’re going to up and fly away,

  And I don’t have enough charm and wit to keep things going on my own.

I just know that I trust God to carry me through every conversation,

  And I never have to be anything more or less than who I am.

Underneath all the societal baggage is the sure knowledge

  That I am always a child of God.

So I don’t have to fake a second of it.

Plus, from deep within, I have a clear sense steering me, and I bet you do, too,

  That the Jesus I have come to know and confess

  Is not the Messiah of exclusivity or one-party politics

      Or hatred or hell or thoughtlessness, …

    But is the Messiah of peace, shalom, justice, healing,

      The Messiah of the Kingdom of God, come on earth as it is in heaven.

That the Messiah I confess broke bread with sinners and outcasts,

  And taught us all to pray,

  And calls us each and every one to do the same for one another.

If you were baptised in The Episcopal Church, there is a question that was asked of you

  On the very day you were baptised.

If you were not old enough to answer at the time,

  It was answered by someone else for you,

  But then later the decision was given back to you to make for yourself.

I was not baptised in the Episcopal tradition, but when I was confirmed

  I took that question on for myself anyway in the words of The Baptismal Covenant.[2]

If you have never heard of or read about The Baptismal Covenant,

  You can still hear this question right now and take it into yourself.

That question, plain and strong, is this:

  The minister asks,

    “Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?”

And the person to whom the question is directed responds,

    “I will, with God’s help.”

Now, there’s a clear question, and a clear answer,

  That will cut through the clutter.

We didn’t just get baptised long ago and far away;

  We didn’t just promise to do things that were expedient or convenient for ourselves:

  We all promised God that we would possess the confessing tongue of Saint Peter.

So it is that we find this somewhat harsh light shining on us today –

  This deep, dark part of ourselves we weren’t sure we would have to explore

     When we came through the door.

Big questions:

  If we talk about Jesus, and how and when and where.

Whether we’re willing to be accountable for promises we have made.

Dear friends, if God is active and moving in our lives,

  Then let’s give thanks for it.

Let us confess with our lips and our lives

  Without apology or hesitation

    That we are loved beyond reason by God the Father,

    Enlivened by the power of God the Spirit,

    And deeply embraced in our humanity by God the Son:

      Yes, even Jesus Christ, who is our Lord.

[1] http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/theology/a_dumb_question_i_have_been_me.html

[2] http://www.bcponline.org/Baptism/holybaptism.html

Clean

Sermon for Year B, Proper 17

By The Rev. Torey Lightcap

Saint Thomas Episcopal Church

September 9, 2012 (8 a.m.)

Mark 7:24-37

“Clean”

It’s easy to remember that Jesus was a Jew.

For some odd reason, though, it’s also easy to forget that he was a Jew

  Who regularly and intentionally crossed boundary lines

  In order to touch and teach, heal and feed.

There’s no getting past this.

He was well acquainted with the laws and restrictions of his culture and his religion –

  The things that set him, as a Jew, apart, from the rest of his society –

  And he openly, freely disobeyed them.

Rules and laws and guidelines are made to be observed

  Because they help keep order: they keep us alive, keep society going forward,

    Keep things from breaking down or getting out of hand.

But in another sense – a larger sense – rules and laws and guidelines

  Can often become the object of their own worship.

Those who make them can forget why they’re making them

  Because sometimes our noses get too close to the page,

    And we see the letter of the law, but we risk forgetting why it exists in the first place.

In Jesus Christ, God reaches out to us:

  God reaches out to us, beyond the body of law, with a word of undeniable grace.

That word is simple and plain: I love you, God says, I will never abandon you,

  And I want you to be just as merciful to others as I have been to you.

Merciful, indeed.

Mark points out that the woman in the first episode is Gentile,

  Which is simply a word that means “Greek,”

  Or in other words, not a Jew. This is a cause for caution.

It’s supposed to be outside Jesus’ orbit to really even have a conversation with her,

  Because doing so risks making him “unclean,”

  Which by itself presents all kinds of problems for him,

    Not the least of which is that he won’t be able to participate in religious life.

That’s bad enough.

But the Gentile woman has a Gentile daughter who, we’re told,

  Is possessed by a spirit that is “unclean”!

Added to that, all this is happening in the thoroughly Gentile town of Tyre,

  Which was despised by Jews.

Healing an unclean spirit from a Gentile girl with a Gentile mother in a Gentile town.

How far outside the law can Jesus go to show mercy?

How far outside our established norms and rules are we supposed to go to show mercy?

God, in Jesus, takes it to the absolute extreme.

Before consenting to heal the woman’s daughter,

  Jesus has a conversation that reveals a common expression from that time.

Jews of his day, apparently, referred to Gentiles as dogs;

  It was simply a term of slander – thoughtless, racist language.

Yet remarkably she seizes on the term because despite what our translation says,

  He never uses the word “dogs”:

  He says “puppies,” which softens the idea.

“Why give food to puppies?” he asks playfully.

Well, she responds, giving as good as she gets,

  Puppies do eat the crumbs that fall from kids’ plates.

And the mercy of God is extended to her without regard for her station in life.

If this weren’t enough, Jesus leaves that place,

  Taking a circuitous route still deeper into Gentile territory, and ends up in the Decapolis,

  A group of ten cities on the eastern edge of the Roman frontier

  Known for their distinctly, thoroughly Greek culture.

It was well known that they had birthed

  Greek scholars, Greek poets, Greek jurists over the years.

It’s not hard to imagine some fairly sharp hostility between the cities of the Decapolis

  And their Jewish neighbors in the west, and their nomadic neighbors to the north.

Everywhere Jesus wandered in these loosely affiliated cities,

  He must have seen evidence of Greek culture:

    Architecture, sculpture, Roman tombs, monuments, avenues, fountains, theaters,

    And temple after temple where sacrifices were offered to the pantheon of gods.

The non-Jewishness of it all must have been completely visible –

  A finger in the eye of Jesus and his followers.

I’ll bet they must have tread pretty lightly,

  Yet, at least in some of them, with a feeling of disgust.

Who in this place would possibly deserve to be healed?

Well, as it turns out, a man with no hearing makes a good candidate.

Obviously another Gentile – another threat of becoming unclean.

You might imagine that touching the man, as Jesus does, was forbidden,

  And everything after that was just beyond the pale.

Just beyond the pale.

Scholars tell us that the spit applied to the tonuge,

  And Jesus touching the man in this way,

    Would have been considered just as defiling as touching bodily excrement.

Wow. By now the people in the crowds following Jesus must be asking themselves,

  Is there any law remaining we can think of that he hasn’t violated?

  Any rule left in the books he hasn’t broken?

I doubt most of us hearing this today are terribly shocked by this news.

We already know Jesus to have been something of a rebel.

It simply remains to us to think about how we might respond.

First of all, Jesus is on a mission of showing mercy to people:

  The blessing and joy and life of God, wrapped up in acts of mercy and kindness.

Those of us who call ourselves Christians had better be prepared to lose the label

  Unless we too can learn to go out of our own way and be called out of ourselves

  In order to show mercy and kindness to others.

Second, this mission of mercy is specifically extended and given to people

  Who are very much unlike Jesus:

  They aren’t Jews, they live in places he’s not supposed to go,

    In conditions that create major discomfort,

    And they have problems he isn’t necessarily even required to care about.

He could live his whole life in their absence and be just fine,

  Yet he cares enough about them,

    Although he hasn’t even met them, to go to wherever they are:

    To show the power of God, yes,

      But to show it people who themselves had every right to pass him by.

He crosses boundaries left and right; he crosses them and crosses them,

  Taking their residue to the next place and to the next place,

  Enfolding them in a message of mercy and healing

    That isn’t just some pie-in-the-sky scenario,

    But is real, and Godly, and very much in simple human terms, on a human scale:

      A daughter restored to sanity and a deaf man who can hear.

Third, when they are healed, they praise God!

They may return to their appointed daily rounds,

  But it is with words of thanksgiving on their lips – doxology and love

  To a God who does all things well,

    Or, as the Greek text tells us, Makes all things beautiful.

It is not the pantheon of gods in the cities –

  Gods who demand selfish sacrifices of wine and grain and oil –

  But it is a God who demands a harvest of mercy,

    A God who shows us, through Jesus, that rules about who is unclean

    Ultimately pale in comparison to rules about who receives mercy and kindness.

See! Whoever they are, whatever they’ve been through, whatever situation they’re in,

  They rise and walk and are whole.

Long before Jesus, the prophet Hosea wrote in the voice of God,

  “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

And it is in following these words of advice from scripture

  That Jesus shows his followers what true worship really looks like.

Committing place to purpose

Look at Mr. Catolick's latest on Lambeth's, er, conference facilities:

I'm not Church of England; I'm not even "cradle" Episcopalian. I would love to go to England, but I haven't even done that yet. (I saw Ireland from a plane at sunrise, and that was pretty good, though obviously insufficient.) I'm a stateside massing priest, a guy who cares, and who understands that image and first perceptions count.

It occurs to me that perhaps our C of E friends might entertain turning Lambeth into some kind of all-seekers-welcome sort of spirituality/helping-the-needy kind of place - Iona Nueva with a dash of seek-knock-find Taize, or somesuch, with the "least" of Matthew 25 as its guiding spirit.

If Lambeth itself - center of that messy, polymorphous object of grace called the Anglican Communion - was seen to represent some kind of health and healing and a move toward the center of the Gospel, perhaps more would take it seriously.

The great round world has shifted out from under Christendom. This is understood. Lambeth is not for knocking around in; it is for the centrality of mission, and the unashamed heart of same.

More head-scratching here in Iowa.

My, what we have made of Jesus and his ministry. Repentance is the only appropriate response at this point.

Anglican Communion to Administer Virtual Self-Ordinariate; Rabble Confused

LAMBETH PALACE, VIA A FACEBOOK LINK FROM TWITTER DM -- A 500-member panel of theologians, experts, and leaders from throughout the 78-million-member Anglican Communion have pieced together a self-administered, online Ordinariate through which its own disaffected members will be able to be received into the arms of their own mother church, a thoroughly confused Archbishop of Canterbury announced yesterday.

The hastily called press conference produced more questions than answers.

"On this day, noted as Thanksgiving Day in the United States, and marked for the faithful there as the day in which all give thanks for freedom to worship God as they see fit, we are especially grateful for the way in which we have quickly established a new port in the stormy seas of global Anglicanism," Dr. Rowan Williams said as he was flanked by noted Anglican primates, scholars, and bishops. "From this day, the Anglican Communion is truly offering a place for all people on their life-pilgrimage to participate in the ongoing work, worship, and mission of the Anglican Communion, free from the hard restraints of the Bonds of Affection."

Under the terms of the Ordinariate - which Williams, rubbing the sleep out of his eyes, stressed more than once was in the formative stages - requirements for membership would be based upon taking at face-value a model familiar to many: the Canons of The Episcopal Church.

Those Canons (particularly Canon I.17.3) state, in part, "All communicants of this Church who for the previous year have been faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause prevented, and have been faithful in working, praying, and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God, are to be considered communicants in good standing."

The idea for an Ordinariate came about when leaders were engaged an in email conversation over the Church of England's recent and seemingly painless commendation of the proposed Anglican Covenant to individual synods for their study and approval through its General Synod. The Covenant, ostensibly a set of governing principles intended to gather the church in unity, has been described by opponents as ill-conceived, coercive, and downright un-Anglican. The Covenant has been received by groups on both the left and right with disdain and skepticism.

"Running away from the way things seem to be going appeared to be a good strategy, even though my endorsements have gotten us into the way things seem to be going," Williams said as he looked around, shrugged his shoulders, and took a sip of coffee so strong its smell was detected in the back of the press room. Noted Anglican scholar and former bishop N.T. Wright then whispered something in Williams' ear for the next ten minutes.

While Wright continued whispering, The Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, took the microphone and laid out the particulars.

"There's only one place left to escape to, and that's cyberspace," she said. "We have therefore designated Facebook a jurisdiction-free zone with respect to territorial incursion. It is therefore its own jurisdiction."

At this point, a number of reporters left the room.

"All one must do, therefore, to belong to the newly constituted Anglican Ordinariate of Facebook is attend virtual services, give the equivalent of a dollar through a Paypal link, commit to a life of prayer, and work for any of the thousands of designated Facebook causes."

"Yes," interjected Archbishop of York John Sentamu. "Mission is, of course, primary for Anglicans. While we wish future members of the Ordinariate well and will pray for them as they go, we encourage them to remember that Facebook is rife with many ways to participate in the various causes of justice, from not eating all your french fries on the way home to not running out of hot water in the middle of a shower. All that requires is one click of the mouse."

Commensurate with the historic fourfold ministry, the Anglican Ordinariate of Facebook (AOF) will be served by a number of Virtual Episcopal Visitors - retired bishops, essentially, who will be assisted by priests and deacons, all ready to chat, comment on photos of members' grandchildren, or administer virtual sacraments. A number of competent, faithful, pastoral, tech-savvy female priests in the United states have been nominated AFO Provisional Primates pending their own consent through a complicating "Liking" process.

"No doubt the Americans would be overrepresented in this scheme, but apparently I have no say in the matter," Williams said. "I mean, these women - they aren't even bishops."

In the hours following the announcement, things grew strange; a number of power-plays occurred, none of which it is certain will prove fruitful for those involved.

Elizabeth Regina, who is Canon Theologian, Professed Life Member of the Order of St. Arbucks and Priest-Lecturer at Obnox College in the (Nonextrajurisdictional) Super-DioSynod of Llangolen-Upon-Whitby, was nominated by supersecret floor-ballot for Cosmopolitan of the emerging AOF, but, as with others whose names have come forward, "She is a she and therefore subject to her own her/men/eutic of suspicion," ACO Secretary General Kenneth Kearon noted.

The Primate of the Province of the Antarctic then posted the following to his blog, leaving open the question of his ability to handle matters confidentially.

We have had considerable experience in this part of the world of dealing with international claims which segment our territory. Ever on the lookout for godly growth and a slice of North American money we would be happy to offer hospitality.

I'll have Archdeacon Penguin draw up a scheme. I can mention now, even before its promulgation, that joint (even multiple and overlapping) memberships will be possible and that membership fees may be paid in international red herrings.

Confidentially, I have made an approach to the Diocese of Uruguay but have not yet had an reply.

Support the No Anglican Covenant Campaign

Announcing the No Anglican Covenant Campaign, sponsored by a coalition of bloggers (including myself) and concerned individuals calling themselves Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity.

The cause is well described in the group's press release, issued this morning:

LONDON – An international coalition of Anglicans has been created to campaign against the proposed Anglican Covenant. Campaigners believe the proposed Covenant constitutes unwarranted interference in the internal life of the member churches of the Anglican Communion, would narrow the acceptable range of belief and practice within Anglicanism, and would prevent further development of Anglican thought. The Coalition’s website (noanglicancovenant.org) will provide resources for Anglicans around the world to learn about the potential risks of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

“We believe that the majority of the clergy and laity in the Anglican Communion would not wish to endorse this document,” according to the Coalition’s Moderator, the Revd. Dr. Lesley Fellows, who is also the Coalition’s Convenor for the Church of England. “Apart from church insiders, very few people are aware of the Covenant. We want to encourage a wider discussion and to highlight the problems the Covenant will cause.”

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was first proposed in 2004 as a means to address divisions among the member churches of the Anglican Communion on matters ranging from human sexuality to the role of women. The current draft of the Covenant, which has been unilaterally designated as the “final” draft, has been referred to the member churches of the Communion. The proposed Covenant establishes mechanisms which would have the effect of forcing member churches to conform to the demands and expectations of other churches or risk exclusion from the Communion.

Critics of the proposed Anglican Covenant, including members of the new Coalition, believe that it will fundamentally alter the nature of historic Anglicanism in several ways, including the narrowing of theological views deemed acceptable, the erosion of the freedom of the member churches to govern themselves, and the concentration of authority in the hands of a small number of bishops. Two English groups, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, ran anti-Covenant advertisements in last week’s Church Times aiming to make more members of the Church of England aware of the dangers of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

"If the Anglican Communion has a problem, this is not the solution,” according to former Bishop of Worcester Peter Selby. “Whether those who originated the Covenant intended it or not, it is already, and will become even more, a basis for a litigious Communion from which some will seek to exclude others."

The launch of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition website coincides with the commemoration of the sixteenth century theologian Richard Hooker. “Hooker taught us that God’s gifts of scripture, tradition and reason will guide us to new insights in every age,” according to the Canadian priest and canon law expert, the Revd. Canon Alan Perry. “The proposed Anglican Covenant would freeze Anglican theology and Anglican polity at a particular moment. Anglican polity rejected control by foreign bishops nearly 500 years ago. The proposed Anglican Covenant reinstates it.”

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition began in late October with a series of informal email conversations among several international Anglican bloggers concerned that the Covenant was being rushed through the approval process before most Anglicans had any opportunity to learn how the proposed new structures would affect them.

More on Richard Hooker.

Prayer: O God of truth and peace, who raised up your servant Richard Hooker in a day of bitter controversy to defend with sound reasoning and great charity the catholic and reformed religion: Grant that we may maintain that middle way, not as a compromise for the sake of peace, but as a comprehension for the sake of truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.