Most everyone knows by this time that the Supreme Court of the United States is in session this week to argue the constitutionality of State restriction on same-gender marriage. It is widely assumed that SCOTUS will determine State bans unconstitutional and that same-gender marriages will become legal in all fifty States. In Ohio, such a lifting of restrictions is meaningful.
Ohio is a State that currently bans same-gender marriage. If we are right, and if SCOTUS removes State restriction, then same-gender marriage will become legal in Ohio. That may mean that churches, congregations and Temples may be crowded with same-gender couples who looking to legalize their commitment in marriage.
While Shiloh is not officially ONA (the UCC classification of congregations that are "open and affirming" of LGBT persons and issues) the congregation certainly holds to the acceptance of all persons. In fact, when I brought the issue of ONA status, now more than ten years ago, the leadership at Shiloh thought it a misrepresentation of the church's openness to reduce hospitality to ONA distinction. Our welcome went further than the ONA classification. Therefore, the congregation did not consider ONA status.
Now, however, it may be time for Shiloh to reconsider the determination of ONA status. The reason for pursuing such classification is an intentional openness to those couples who may be seeking marriage equality in wake of the Supreme Court decision. If couples consult the UCC website and search for congregations that are ONA, Shiloh would not be included among those churches. That would be an unfortunate exclusion. Even though the ONA policy is limited, it may be time for Shiloh to state at least that portion of its intentional affirmation of all persons.
If SCOTUS outlaws State restrictions on same-gender marriages, Shiloh will have an opportunity to serve a widely rejected population. Statement of ONA status would certainly ease that intentional hospitality.
Assuming that Shiloh accepts LGBT persons among those to whom we are called to extend Christ's radical welcome, this may be the perfect time for the congregation to study, vote upon and demonstrate Christ's love by adopting the ONA stance. While the statement is more limited than Shiloh's affirmation of all persons, this may be the perfect time for us to embrace at least that part of intentional affirmation.
By the way, if SCOTUS should rule against State bans on same-gender marriage, it is likely that such a decision would be rendered sometime around the end of June, 2015, when many of us will be attending the General Synod meeting of the United Church of Christ in Cleveland. It should be one huge celebration!
Monday, April 27, 2015
Monday, April 20, 2015
Small Church Practice? O Hell No!
Tony Robinson (no relation) recently wrote in a United Church of Christ online devotional that it may be time that we revert to "small church." What he meant by that, I assume, was not small membership congregations, or small budget ones, but ones whose practice is small. I am unsure whether Robinson was advocating a move to small purpose congregations or if he was pointing out current conditions. Either way, I think that he is dead wrong.
In the devotional, Robinson said that we are moving toward communities that engage in spiritual prayer and renewal, biblical studies and mutual care. (I am not quoting because I did not retain the devotional). Interesting. Where in there is anything that lies outside of one's self or immediate community? Where is mission and ministry? Where is an act of self-sacrifice that embodies the purpose to which Christ Jesus calls the Church?
Small church minimizes the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus. It reduces it down to individual and group spirituality, prayer, study and care. None of those things are bad, mind you. All are part and parcel of the function of the Church of Jesus Christ. But they cannot, and must never, become the full function of congregations that serve to represent Jesus Christ.
Churches that claim to be congregations of Jesus Christ, communing with him and joining him in mission and ministry, can never be reduced to individual and group function within the life of the small-ministry congregation. On the contrary, the impact of even a small population or small budget church can be meaningful in communities and throughout the world. Small numbers can make significant changes if they are focused on embodying the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, in, to, with and for those communities.
Imagine if the disciples had decided to embody Robinson's small church practice. They would have remained a tight-knit community of like believers, or relatively so, who prayed and studied together, caring for one another and ensuring that the needs of each community member was met. They would have died peacefully, never having accomplished a single, wider ministry or mission than that required beyond the exercise of the group. In short, nothing would have happened.
And nothing happens today in congregations that accept Robinson's small church practice. In fact, Christ Jesus is not practiced, because the practice of Christ calls us beyond our walls, our spiritualities, our studies, our worship, our prayers. It calls us into the world, meeting the needs of those who struggle mightily in a world whose benefits are skewed to the benefit of the wealthy and the powerful. Small church does nothing, beyond one's own group, to meet those needs or to stand with Christ against the world's injustice, inequality, exclusionary close-mindedness.
Nope. I do not accept the concept of small church. We are called to big ministry and mission in Christ's name. We are called, as communities of faith, to stand with Christ against the wrongs of the systems under which we live and to engage in concrete acts of kindness and generosity for those who are victimized by them. If we reject the ministry of Jesus Christ in favor of the small church practice that Robinson seems to advocate in his devotional, then we are not the Church of Jesus Christ at all.
We might be sound spiritual communities, learned and prayerful ones perhaps, but we are not following the ministry and mission to which Christ has called us.
In the devotional, Robinson said that we are moving toward communities that engage in spiritual prayer and renewal, biblical studies and mutual care. (I am not quoting because I did not retain the devotional). Interesting. Where in there is anything that lies outside of one's self or immediate community? Where is mission and ministry? Where is an act of self-sacrifice that embodies the purpose to which Christ Jesus calls the Church?
Small church minimizes the ministry and mission of Christ Jesus. It reduces it down to individual and group spirituality, prayer, study and care. None of those things are bad, mind you. All are part and parcel of the function of the Church of Jesus Christ. But they cannot, and must never, become the full function of congregations that serve to represent Jesus Christ.
Churches that claim to be congregations of Jesus Christ, communing with him and joining him in mission and ministry, can never be reduced to individual and group function within the life of the small-ministry congregation. On the contrary, the impact of even a small population or small budget church can be meaningful in communities and throughout the world. Small numbers can make significant changes if they are focused on embodying the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, in, to, with and for those communities.
Imagine if the disciples had decided to embody Robinson's small church practice. They would have remained a tight-knit community of like believers, or relatively so, who prayed and studied together, caring for one another and ensuring that the needs of each community member was met. They would have died peacefully, never having accomplished a single, wider ministry or mission than that required beyond the exercise of the group. In short, nothing would have happened.
And nothing happens today in congregations that accept Robinson's small church practice. In fact, Christ Jesus is not practiced, because the practice of Christ calls us beyond our walls, our spiritualities, our studies, our worship, our prayers. It calls us into the world, meeting the needs of those who struggle mightily in a world whose benefits are skewed to the benefit of the wealthy and the powerful. Small church does nothing, beyond one's own group, to meet those needs or to stand with Christ against the world's injustice, inequality, exclusionary close-mindedness.
Nope. I do not accept the concept of small church. We are called to big ministry and mission in Christ's name. We are called, as communities of faith, to stand with Christ against the wrongs of the systems under which we live and to engage in concrete acts of kindness and generosity for those who are victimized by them. If we reject the ministry of Jesus Christ in favor of the small church practice that Robinson seems to advocate in his devotional, then we are not the Church of Jesus Christ at all.
We might be sound spiritual communities, learned and prayerful ones perhaps, but we are not following the ministry and mission to which Christ has called us.
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The James Ossuary
We wake up to the television news every morning, except for Saturdays and Sundays, when the news is replaced by special interest programming and infomercials. This morning, I stayed in bed a little later than usual because of the promise of a news report that would forever change the face of Christianity.
I was intrigued. The promise was of a new archaeological discovery that would undo much of what we had thought of as core to the Christian faith. When I heard a bit more, I was skeptical. This new archaeological discovery supposedly proved that the Resurrection never happened, but that Jesus lived a normal life, with wife and child, and died, being buried according to the customs of his day.
The burial customs of Jesus' day were unique, as we all know. One is pronounced dead. The body is placed in a secluded spot until persons can determine that the body is really quite sincerely dead, instead of being just merely dead. They poke it with a stick. If it moves, it is alive. If it does not, then the body is determined to be dead. At that point, the body is treated with caustic spices. These hasten the decomposition process. The body is then wrapped in cloth, also to hasten decomposition. The tomb is closed. A year to the day after the person's death, the family members open the tomb, unwrap what is left of the body, collect up the bones and place them in a stone box, called an ossuary, where other family bones are stored.
The breaking news was not breaking news at all, but an old story. In 1980, and ossuary was discovered in a Jerusalem private collection that bore the inscription: Jesus, son of Joseph, brother of James. It was, of course, in Hebrew script. The only new information to come from the report on this discovery of "The James Ossuary" was the discovery of a site where it had been, purportedly, entombed. At that site, archaeologists uncovered ossuaries for Mary and a young boy. This had led the archaeologists to conclude that the James Ossuary proved Jesus' typical burial, and that the discovery of Mary's and the boy's prove that Jesus had a wife and son.
I am giggling as I type this on my laptop. Even is the James Ossuary belonged to the Jesus of Nazareth that we follow, that leads to doubt about the ascension of Jesus, not his resurrection. Let's say that Jesus was buried in the typical fashion. That only means that his ultimate end was not an ascension into heaven but a normal death. It says nothing of the Resurrection, unless one believes, as I do, that the Resurrection points to spiritual instead of physical reality.
Besides, archaeology has surfaced literally hundreds of ossuary. Many bear the names Jesus, Joseph and James, some even in combination.This is old news. It discounts nothing. It proves nothing. It does raise some doubt about the historicity of the ascension narrative, but I imagine that few of us take that as scientific fact.
My point is that I should have gotten out of bed instead of waiting for this "breaking" news. There was nothing new here, and nothing particularly exciting. I get to hold onto my belief in the spiritual resurrection of Christ Jesus for yet another day.
Happy Easter!
I was intrigued. The promise was of a new archaeological discovery that would undo much of what we had thought of as core to the Christian faith. When I heard a bit more, I was skeptical. This new archaeological discovery supposedly proved that the Resurrection never happened, but that Jesus lived a normal life, with wife and child, and died, being buried according to the customs of his day.
The burial customs of Jesus' day were unique, as we all know. One is pronounced dead. The body is placed in a secluded spot until persons can determine that the body is really quite sincerely dead, instead of being just merely dead. They poke it with a stick. If it moves, it is alive. If it does not, then the body is determined to be dead. At that point, the body is treated with caustic spices. These hasten the decomposition process. The body is then wrapped in cloth, also to hasten decomposition. The tomb is closed. A year to the day after the person's death, the family members open the tomb, unwrap what is left of the body, collect up the bones and place them in a stone box, called an ossuary, where other family bones are stored.
The breaking news was not breaking news at all, but an old story. In 1980, and ossuary was discovered in a Jerusalem private collection that bore the inscription: Jesus, son of Joseph, brother of James. It was, of course, in Hebrew script. The only new information to come from the report on this discovery of "The James Ossuary" was the discovery of a site where it had been, purportedly, entombed. At that site, archaeologists uncovered ossuaries for Mary and a young boy. This had led the archaeologists to conclude that the James Ossuary proved Jesus' typical burial, and that the discovery of Mary's and the boy's prove that Jesus had a wife and son.
I am giggling as I type this on my laptop. Even is the James Ossuary belonged to the Jesus of Nazareth that we follow, that leads to doubt about the ascension of Jesus, not his resurrection. Let's say that Jesus was buried in the typical fashion. That only means that his ultimate end was not an ascension into heaven but a normal death. It says nothing of the Resurrection, unless one believes, as I do, that the Resurrection points to spiritual instead of physical reality.
Besides, archaeology has surfaced literally hundreds of ossuary. Many bear the names Jesus, Joseph and James, some even in combination.This is old news. It discounts nothing. It proves nothing. It does raise some doubt about the historicity of the ascension narrative, but I imagine that few of us take that as scientific fact.
My point is that I should have gotten out of bed instead of waiting for this "breaking" news. There was nothing new here, and nothing particularly exciting. I get to hold onto my belief in the spiritual resurrection of Christ Jesus for yet another day.
Happy Easter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)