Unknown's avatar

About djgrieser

I have been Rector of Grace Episcopal Church in Madison, WI since 2009. I'm passionate about Jesus Christ and about connecting our faith and tradition with 21st century culture. I'm also very active in advocating for our homeless neighbors.

And the Word became flesh and tented among us–Further Reflections on John 1

I’ve been thinking about John 1 and the image of the tent or tabernacle. The Greek verb that is translated as “dwelt” in “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” derives from the word for tent. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the same word is used for tabernacle, the place in which God was present during the Hebrews’ sojourn in the wilderness.

It’s a rich image, evocative of the temporary nature of the flesh in which the Incarnate Word resided and also because of the resonance with the Hebrew Bible, the author of John’s gospel was making a revolutionary statement about God’s presence in the world.

I thought about the image of “tent” earlier last week as I reflected on Paul’s words in II Corinthians while preparing a funeral homily. Paul uses “tent” to refer the flesh:

For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling—

We tend not to think of flesh or body in these terms, perhaps because “tent” no longer has a ubiquitous presence in our culture. Tents are for camping, not for living, or dwelling.

Still, there is one way in which that image might take on new power in the contemporary context. One alternative translation is: “And he set up his tent in our midst.” Jim Keane, SJ, sees in this idea a parallel with the Occupy movements.

And the Word became flesh: A Sermon for Christmas Day, 2011

“In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.”

What do we celebrate at Christmas? Of course, the answer is obvious, even trite—the birth of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World. But what do we celebrate at Christmas, what does the birth of Christ mean? Last night we heard the familiar story from Luke’s gospel. We know it well. The images are fixed in our memories, down to the marrow of our bones, the crude stable, the angels, the shepherds. Indeed, so familiar to us is the story that sometimes it becomes difficult to hear it afresh. Luke’s nativity story is as comfortable to us as our favorite pajamas or sweater, as familiar to us as the back of our hand.

Today we heard another gospel, a different gospel, but it too is familiar to us. Its words and images flow over us, surround us.  Their beauty and brilliance have been dimmed as well by our repeated hearing of them. What new thing can we say about Christmas? What new or renewed faith, what transformation can come about in the midst of such old familiar stories and words?

In fact, that’s one of the problems with rituals. Human beings are by nature, ritualistic. Ritual takes us out of ourselves and out of our daily lives. Ritual draws us in, brings us into the presence of eternity. We like things to stay the same. We are comfortable with routine. We think things have always worked this way, that, for example, Christmas has always been celebrated in the way we do it today. Of course, that’s not true. We know approximately when Christians began celebrating the incarnation of Christ—it was probably in the fourth century. We know by whom and when the first crèche—the first nativity scene—was erected: by St. Francis of Assisi in the thirteenth century. We know that Christmas was not celebrated in colonial New England, that Santa Claus came on the scene in the mid-19th century, that “White Christmas” and “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” date from the 1940s. We know all this, but when somebody messes with it, we get mad. All of that accumulated tradition combines to make Christmas an evocative and powerful event.

Yet all that familiarity, all the ritual does something else, too. It prevents us from encountering the gospel anew, it keeps us from hearing the words of Luke or of John with open hearts and minds, open to the possibility that Christmas, besides being the “most wonderful time of the year,” that Christmas might transform us, and transform the world.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.” The profound and mysterious hymn with which the Gospel of John begins makes some extravagant claims about Christ. What is proclaimed in these words is that Christ, the Word, has been present in the world since creation, indeed that the Word was itself the creative process through which the world, and we, were created.

There’s something of an irony here. At Christmas we celebrate the birth of Christ, the coming of Christ into the world, but John begins by asserting that Christ has been present in the world from the very beginning of creation. The problem, of course, is that we don’t get it. We don’t recognize Christ’s presence among us, in us.

In the beginning was the Word… There are few texts of scripture on which Christians have thought and reflected than the opening verses of John’s gospel. The English translation captures only a small portion of all that lies in the Greek word logos that connotes as well, reason, natural law, the order of the universe. And behind the Greek lies the Hebrew concept of wisdom—the idea expressed in the Old Testament that it was through wisdom that God created the universe.

These rich words convey to us something of the faith of the early Christians who confessed them and sang them in worship, but the profundity of what they confessed elude our grasp. What might it mean for our faith not just to confess, but to believe that in creation in this world around us, we see the presence of God, we detect Christ?

We live in a world that loves to compartmentalize and to criticize. We tie things up into neat packages—this is science, that is religion. This is my faith, there is the rest of my life. This is Christmas, that, well, that is the rest of the year. We tie things up in neat packages, even though life resists such neat categorization. We want things neat and tidy, but life is messy. On Christmas, we want to hear the old familiar story, to sing the carols, to go home and have a nice Christmas dinner, exchange presents, and tomorrow wake up, and get back to business as usual.

What we don’t want, not really, is to encounter Christ. Oh yes, we love the baby in the manger, we love the story of Mary and Joseph, of shepherds and angels, we love the warm fuzzy feelings that Christmas is so good at providing. We want Christ on our terms, not on God’s terms.

John’s gospel reminds us that Christmas is not just about all of that. John proclaims to us loudly and powerfully that the Christ who was born in Bethlehem is the Incarnate Word, present in all the universe, present in all our words, present in us.

Christ comes to us, of course, as the little baby in a manger in Bethlehem. But our faith also proclaims that Christ is present all around us, even when we fail to recognize Him. Christ is here, in this place as we worship. We encounter Christ as we gather around the altar and share in the Eucharist. Christ is present, too, in the poor, the homeless, the destitute. May the spirit of Christmas infect us and transform us, that we see Christ in all that we do, in everyone we meet, in our neighbor, and yes, in our enemy, too. Amen.

 

A broken world, a broken body–Bethlehem: A sermon for Christmas Eve, 2011

My next-door neighbor loves decorating for Christmas. Last year, he was out in the middle of a snow storm in the dark, stringing up lights. This year, he began earlier, the weekend after Thanksgiving. But he didn’t stop then. He has continued to fill the trees and shrubs in front of his house with strands of light. Some of them are tasteful, like the wreath and garland bedecked with white lights over his garage door. Others are less so. Among the latter, a dozen or so red-lit candy canes that appeared last weekend. He is exuberant in his decoration. His joy for the season is on display for all to see, every night. Continue reading

No room at the inn, Madison style

As we were leaving church this evening after the early service, we encountered a homeless man, lying in a fetal position, on the sidewalk in front of the church. Released from the hospital a couple of hours earlier, cops had dropped him off here because of the men’s shelter. Unfortunately, he couldn’t walk the twenty yards to the shelter entrance and shelter staff were not going to come out to help him. We called 911 and EMT’s transported him back to the hospital but as they left, they told me that he would probably be back on the street in an hour or so.

He’s not the first person discharged from a hospital to end up at the shelter later the same day. It happens regularly.

The fault in this does not lie with the hospital, or the police, or the shelter staff. The fault lies with all of us, with a society that turns its back on the most vulnerable.

Occupy Trinity Church, Part III

The debate goes on and on. Apparently the actions by #OWS over the weekend, the interventions by Bishop Sisk and Presiding Bishop Jefforts Schori, and the arrest of Bishop Packard have aroused passions. One only need read the comments thread on Jim Naughton’s Episcopal Cafe article to see that things have gotten interesting.

Naughton referred to “An extremely insightful essay” written by Tom Beaudoin at America in which he ponders the theological meaning of private property when it comes to churches:

I think we have a very important theological matter before us when Occupy, through its religious-leader allies, is saying to Trinity Wall Street: We in Occupy — as a multifaith, interreligious, spiritually pluralistic movement that is also and equally a nonreligious, secular movement — can better meet your mission as a Christian church in this particular time, and this particular place, with negligible negative financial impact (Trinity is a verywealthy community), and with a rare and time-sensitive influence, by using this particular private property to host the next stage of Occupy Wall Street, and let’s meet to talk about the liability issues and any other concerns you have, let’s have that dialogue starting immediately, but in principle we have a substantial theological point worthy of your consideration.

The presumption in this theological claim, which I think is correct, is that no Christian church is – on the very terms of its theological existence – permitted to fall back on the mere invocation of “private property” without also a theological conversation about the spiritual significance of what that concept means and how it is being used.

There are several interesting issues in this statement. The first has to do with how “private property” relates to the property of an Episcopal parish, which as we all know to well by now, is held in trust by the parish for the diocese, and by the diocese for the national church. It may be different in Trinity’s case because of its unique history with an immense land grant coming from Queen Anne in 1715. Nonetheless, even here there is a question of “who owns the property.”

But aside from that question, there is the question of “private property” itself and that is probably what Beaudoin is getting at. I used to enjoy telling my students that “God is not a capitalist.” No matter how hard conservative Christians try to spin scripture, to derive capitalism, or even the notion of private property from Hebrew or Christian scriptures takes considerable finesse and exegetical hijinks. In Hebrew Scripture, in fact, there is no sense of private property at all. The land is owned by Yahweh, distributed to the people, given a sabbatical every seventh year, and in the fiftieth year, the Jubilee, whatever land was alienated from its original inhabitants, for debt or sale, or whatever, is returned to its original occupants.

But the question is not what private property may or may not have meant in scripture. Beaudoin is challenging the use of “private property” as Trinity’s defense against the use of its property by #OWS. And here I think he is doing some theological legerdemain. For in fact, what he is arguing is not that #OWS is challenging Trinity’s claim to private property, but rather their mission. Read this carefully:

We in Occupy — as a multifaith, interreligious, spiritually pluralistic movement that is also and equally a nonreligious, secular movement — can better meet your mission as a Christian church in this particular time, and this particular place,

In other words #OWS, or Beaudoin’s articulation of it, is not challenging Trinity’s defense of its private property, but of its mission. And this is a different thing. I haven’t read Trinity’s mission statement, and I don’t think that matters much. Trinity has enormous wealth and has done enormous good across the world with that wealth. My guess is that all of those in #OWS would be supportive of Trinity’s work in Africa and elsewhere. But it also has a mission to its particular context and that is Wall Street. Among its members and among its lay leadership are people from all walks of life, including investment bankers and CEOs of banks and financial firms, yes, the 1%.

There is a great deal of discussion about how Jesus would respond to #OWS. Well, in fact, the gospels are quite clear. Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, and tax collectors were probably the first-century equivalent of the 1%.

My hackles are raised whenever anyone, someone on the outside, whether lay or clergy, attempts to define the mission of a congregation, church, or even denomination. It is the height of arrogance to do so. Mission should be contextual and reflect the life of the congregation. It may be appropriate to ask questions about that mission, to invite an expansion of that mission, but to say that an outside group “can better meet your mission” is nothing more than hubris.

On preaching to oneself in Advent

Yesterday was one of those difficult days in ministry. I was tired and frazzled. A funeral last Friday was followed by the usual Saturday and Sunday events and business. Sunday afternoon, I sat by the bedside of a dying parishioner, praying and reading Psalms as I listened to her labored breathing. Monday morning, I received word that she had died, so there was another funeral to plan this week. Monday also was our regularly scheduled vestry meeting. All of that meant I woke on Tuesday after little sleep, knowing that the day would be long, busy, and exhausting.

By the time I arrived at church yesterday, it was already full of activity. Members of the altar guild were decorating the nave for Christmas and full of questions about upcoming services, including the funeral. There were bulletins to prepare and questions from staff, lay leaders, and others about Christmas Eve and Christmas Day services. In the middle of all that, I paused for an hour to talk with family members and plan the Thursday funeral service. Then there was a staff meeting, and a walk-through of Christmas Eve with the thurifer.

I was physically and spiritually exhausted as I welcomed people to our evening Eucharist and began the service. But something miraculous happened, at least for me. As I spoke about the gospel for Tuesday in 4 Advent (Luke 1:26-38–the same gospel that we read on Sunday), I realized that the words I was saying were addressed not primarily to the congregation gathered there. They were addressed to me. I spoke about all that had been going on in my life the past few days, all that had been going on the world around us, and the difficulties many of us face in this season. Christmas is meant to be a time of joy and celebration, but for many it is a time of great stress, sadness, even conflict. It is often difficult to be open to God’s presence in such times, to welcome the coming of God into our midst.

As I was speaking, I sensed that all of the day’s–the week’s–stresses were leaving me and my heart was making room for God. As I looked at the faces in the congregation, it seemed as if something similar was happening to some of them. I left my burdens at the altar, received Christ in the bread and wine, and received strength for the journey. The words I preached changed me. I’m told from time to time that a sermon of mine has had a powerful impact on a hearer. This is the first time in my memory, that a sermon of mine has had such an impact on me.

Today, there is more bustle at church with workmen in the nave, arrangements concerning the funeral, pastoral appointments in the afternoon. But today, at least for a bit, I am prepared for the coming of Christ.

 

Perplexed and Pondering: A Sermon for the Fourth Sunday in Advent, Year B

December 18, 2011

Today is the fourth Sunday of Advent and our attention turns to the story of the birth of Jesus. Our attention turns to Mary. As you know Christians have speculated for nearly two thousand years about Mary. Why Mary? In answer to that question, elaborate theologies and doctrine have developed to explain what set Mary apart, why God chose her as the woman who would give birth to Jesus Christ. The irony is that as important as the question why Mary has been for two thousand years of the Christian tradition, it’s not a question Luke, the gospel writer who tells us the most about her, is interested in. Continue reading

Occupy Trinity Church

This isn’t going to end well, and once again, the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church is not acquitting itself particularly well.

I’ve blogged about the relationship between Trinity and the Occupy Wall Street protestors before. Things have only gotten more tense in the last month. There was actually something of a moment of grace last week, when retired Bishop George Packer and his wife, accompanied by the Rector of Trinity and his wife, visited the OWS encampment. After conversation, many of the protestors attended services at Trinity. Read about it here.

Unfortunately, that was only a temporary break in the growing tension. On Friday, Bishop of New York Mark Sisk and Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts Schori weighed in, urging the protestors to abandon their demands that Trinity allow them use of a portion of Duarte Square for their encampment.

These events brought front page coverage in The New York Times and increasing debate among Episcopalians about the controversy. Elisabeth Drescher offers her perspective here.

Today, Bishop Packard, who has been advocating more loudly on behalf of the protestors, was arrested for entering the disputed area of Duarte Square.

As Drescher points out in her essay:

Trinity Wall Street and the Episcopal Church are, it seems, trying to maintain a delicate balance in their approach to Occupy Wall Street, and their consistent ministry to participants in the movement is laudable. Their active chaplaincy, preaching, and material support has been a powerful reminder of the moral role that churches and other religious groups continue to play even as institutional religion becomes more and more irrelevant in everyday life. Indeed, Trinity Wall Street and many other Episcopal Churchcommunities, have made clear that “being church” is much more than maintaining a building where fewer and fewer people gather to worship for an hour or so on Sundays. They have illustrated the Christian understanding of the call of the faithful to be Christ’s body in the world throughout the Occupy protests, and this has made me proud to be an Episcopalian.

Unfortunately, with the responses from Sisk and Jefforts Schori, as well as the ongoing response from Trinity, the Episcopal Church seems once again to be coming down on the side of the powers that be. For Trinity, that might not be surprising given the amount of real estate they own in the area. I also know well how difficult it is to maintain program, ministry, and perspective in the midst of ongoing protests, so I am not unsympathetic with the position Trinity’s leadership finds itself in. But I believe there ought to be some room for compromise, some creative response to the situation that would begin to shape a vision of what church might be in the twenty-first century.

I find it especially troubling that all those goes on as I prepare a sermon on Mary, and reflect on her words in the Magnificat:

he has scattered the proud in their conceit.
He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.

Bishop Packard’s blog is probably well-worth following.