Is 10 Minutes too Short for a Sermon?

We had a discussion yesterday at Ministerium (surprise!) about the length of our preaching. I told the group my sermons are typically 8-10 minutes. They seemed shocked by this and even teased me about it a little. This surprise came primarily from the Assembly of God pastors and the Methodist pastor. Their thought seemed to be that if it isn't around 25-30 minutes, the sermon can't be any good. I countered by saying that if I can't do it in 8-10 minutes and make my point, then I should just sit down because I'm apparently not good at cutting to the chase as it were. Then they expressed some fear that parishoners might complain because "what do we pay you for if you only preach 10 minutes?" I wanted to say something like, "then maybe you need to get out and do more stuff that they're aware of if you're so worried about that" - but I didn't say anything.

I'm venting a bit because I'm not sure I enjoy going to ministerium anymore. There isn't much respect for what we do as Lutherans - i.e., liturgy, short sermons, emphasis on communion, etc. It's not that they're mean about it - they do sometimes ask questions in an attempt to learn about some of these things, but when I tell them how we do it, I sometimes get smirks and/or smart-alec responses. Not often, but just enough to drive a person semi-bonkers. It seems like when we get on these topics, my only ally is the RCA pastor. Maybe ally is a bad word, but he is good about helping me to explain things to them and to try to temper their negative responses.

But the whole thing is getting a bit frustrating, and I'm wondering if I should minimize my attendance. What do you think?

Cleanliness is next to godliness

This blog idea arose from a conversation last Wednesday at our ministerium (I have a feeling those meetings will be the breeding ground for many of these topics in the weeks and months to come). One of the pastors had visited a parishioner and was complaining to us about their level of cleanliness (or lack thereof) and that we needed to pray for them to clean up their house. I know I'm not innocent of having had similar thoughts about "dirty" people before, but as I think more about it, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this thought - at least not entirely. I do think it is important for us to take care of ourselves and the possessions that we've been blessed with to the best of our abilities. However, the more I think about who God is and how God relates to us, the more convinced that the notion of cleanliness being next to godliness is wrong. I even question whether or not it is possible.

Our God is a dirty God. That is, he is a God who gets his hands dirty and associates with the people we like to call dirty or "unclean." We see this in Genesis 2 with the creation of people from dust. We see this in John 9 when Jesus makes mud to heal the blind man. We see this in God's passion for the poor, the widow and the orphan throughout the Bible - people who are dirty. We see this in Jesus' birth in the (presumably) dirty stable and placed in a dirty manger. We see in when Jesus washes the disciples' feet (John 13). We see this in Jesus' interaction with (and sometimes even touching) lepers & the sick (Matt. 8, Matt. 12, Matt. 14, Mark 1, Mark 6, Luke 5, Luke 13, Luke 14), menstruating women (Matt. 9, Mark 5, Luke 8), & the dead (Matt. 9, Mark 5, Luke 7, Luke 8) - all people presumed by his contemporaries to be dirty.

We see continually how the Pharisees are scolded by Jesus for their obsession with cleanliness - be it literal or symbolic. I think this can help us as we evaluate what is truly important as God's people: is it to be clean and free from dirt and the poor, or should we too get dirty once in awhile and live/work/play/help the "dirty" among us? Afterall, we're all dirty in some way: we carry disease, we're made of earthly elements which when considered alone are dirty, and we're sinners - the ickiest dirt. I think when we judge others based on their level of cleanliness, we're actually bringing judgment upon ourselves. I think we need to get our hands dirty like God and leave worries about cleanliness to the Pharisees. What do you think?

Joy or Happiness?

At our weekly Bible study last night, we were presented with the question of what our "joy" level is right now. I explained that for me, I define the term joy differently than many other people probably do. I see joy as a constant in my life. I equate it with a sense of contentment, peace and comfortableness - in fact, I like to think of the Hebrew term shalom here. For me, the joy I have comes from God and it's the knowledge that Christ is my redeemer and that in him, I have an advocate. I get a sense of completeness from this and I know that ultimately, "things will be alright" because of this. I believe it is the sort of peace that Paul writes about which surpasses all understanding and which guards our hearts and our minds in Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:7).

I think this is different from many people who equate joy with happiness. I see happiness as an emotion - something that comes and goes depending on circumstances. But the joy that I have in knowing Christ is the savior of the world in ongoing and cannot wax nor wane. It's true that I might not always be happy, but I am always joyful because Christ is always part of my life - and nothing can take that away. I always have a sense of joy, whether I'm happy or not. Joy is a state of being, not simply an emotion - at least, that is what I think.

I'm not sure this is easy to understand - some in the Bible study group grasped immediately to the concept and understood well, while others couldn't quite wrap their minds around this differentiation. What is your sense of joy and happiness?

How Often Should we Commune?

The frequency of Holy Communion has come up more than once within discussions among layity that I've witnessed or been a part of. Some people are open to having it every week, while others think that once a month or (gasp!) even once a quarter would suffice. I have some thoughts and questions regarding this "issue":

*In Holy Communion we receive God's forgiveness of sins. Why wouldn't you want to receive God's gift of forgiveness as often as you can?

*In Holy Communion we are met by Christ. Why wouldn't you want to be in Christ's presence as often as you can?

*Some people say that Holy Communion gets cheapened if it is done "too much." I would argue that Holy Communion isn't about us, or how we feel, or what we want from it. It's finally about what God does in the sacrament for us. If we say we have to be "of a certain mind" to receive, then we make it about ourselves and our righteousness - Holy Communion becomes a work rather than a gift given to us by God.

*To go further, if we deny God's offering of Holy Communion, we deny God, his grace and his forgiveness.

*People who feel they're just going through the motions probably need Communion more than the people who feel they're "of the right mind." That is, the unrighteous need it more than the righteous.

*Why do we make it a point for young people to "be ready" for Holy Communion? What does that mean, anyway? We have to be ready to accept forgiveness? If so, doesn't this make it about us again? How come we don't have to "be ready" for Holy Baptism? Aren't both sacraments which function the same way for essentially the same purposes? This is perhaps oversimplification, but both are gifts from God to forgive sins, right?

Is our Salvation a Result of God's Love, or God's Jealousy?

Here are a series of questions with very few answers that were spawned by a pamphlet produced by Augsburg Fortress (the ELCA's publishing company) entitled "It's all about Love." You'll notice that the questions sometimes eminate from previous questions - but not always. I hope they're not too heretical. I don't think it's heresy to ask questions - at least not if you don't already presume the answers to be heretical...

Why did Jesus have to die? Because we’re sinners and there was no other way out. Okay, so what? What is in it for God to wipe out our sins? Is it because God wants to be in relationship with us? Is it because God is jealous and wants us to be focused on him? Is it both?

What does sin do? It separates us from God. This means we cannot be in a right relationship with God. It also means we cannot be focused on God and thus we focus on other gods which makes God jealous.

Why did God create humans? Are we here because God has such an abundance of love that he needs to share it? Are we here because God is egotistical and needs or strongly desires someone to worship him? Is it both? Can it be both?

What is idolatry? It is the worship of something/someone other than God. It is also the love of something/someone other than God.

Is Christ’s death a result of love or idolatry? That is, did God send his Son to die to show us love so we will love him back? Or, did God send his Son to die to show us our sinfulness (mostly idolatry) and “shock” us into going back to him by doing something so seemingly absurd that we have to pay attention to God? Is it both? Can it be both?

Did God offer us salvation because he wants to spend eternity with us? Or did God offer us salvation because he knows we’re afraid of death and this is a way of giving us some type of hope so that we can avoid idolatry and keep our eyes focused on him (if it’s given as a gift, we should be free to focus on God rather than ourselves or others, right?)? Is it both? Can it be both? Is it something else?

Can God put his love for us first? If so, doesn’t this contradict 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.” If he does, put us first, does it mean he’s worshiping an idol? Doesn’t it make sense for God to put himself first? Doesn’t God really love himself first?

When it’s finally said and done, isn’t it really all about love? When it’s finally said and done, isn’t it really all about idolatry? When it’s finally said and done, isn’t it really about both?

Reformation Day & All Saints' Day

An observation. I had never thought of it before last week, but Reformation Day (Oct. 31) and All Saints' Day (Nov. 1) are explicably linked. Not only in their timing of one day apart, but in their meaning and significance for the church (and specifically Lutherans). The story goes that Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the Wittenburg church door on Oct. 31, 1517. These theses discussed, among other things, the nature of salvation, who is authorized to grant it, and what we do (if anything) to gain it. A key component of Luther's argument during the reformation and for Lutherans everywhere afterward, is simul justus et peccator (Latin for something like 'simultaneously justified and sinful'). This is the sinner/saint language many of us are familiar with. I had never before thought of how this theme from the reformation - the notion that all are both sinner and saint (or some close equivalent of that) - and the Holy Day recognizing all saints were so closely related. This holiday was designed to recognize those saints who didn't have a specific date associated with them for commemorations or feasts. But Luther's language changed the notion of a saint so that all people could be viewed in that light. We only recognize on November 1 those saints who have died the last year because of Luther's concerns which sparked the reformation on October 31. I don't know if it was divine providence, coincidence or Luther's intention that these two dates be located next to each other, but I do believe it is a rather remarkable occurance.

Another Judgment?

Okay, so I was thinking, what with this being the end of the church year and lots of talk about Jesus' coming (again) and the final judgment, why would we be judged again? Afterall, we believe that on the cross, we were all judged and found guilty (of our sins) and then through the resurrection we were given reprieve. But, we confess in the creeds that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead. Why is this final judgment necessary and what will we be judged on? So I thought some more, and the best I can come up with is this:
Judgment is about salvation, right? The only "power" we have in determining our salvation is to deny God's offer of it to us. According to Luther, we cannot by our own power come to God's gift of salvation. But, we can say 'No!' and turn our backs on it. So given this, I am wondering if the only thing to be judged on might be whether or not we've denied God's gift to us. Otherwise, why else would there be a necessity for a final judgment and a need for us to profess it in the creeds? Sins have already been judged and forgiven. What else is left regarding salvation? It seems to me that whether or not someone believes the promise and the gift is "accepted" (in so far as we can simply accept something by not denying it) is potentially the only thing left that might result in an eternal separation from God.
We cannot fully know what the final judgment will entail, but I suppose this is as good a guess as anything else I've heard. What do you think?

Lies, Damn Lies and...the Bible?

At our community ministerium prayer group today (this ministerium is a multi-faith group of pastors who engage weekly to bring prayer concerns from ourselves and our churches to each other for support), a discussion occurred in which the question was something like 'could people have existed before Genesis 1:1?' That is, we can deduce from the Bible that this would have happened about 6,000 years ago. So, could people have existed before that time? My first thought is, 'does it really matter?' I mean, if it is proved that creation didn't occur exactly as it is spelled out in the accounts of Genesis or that maybe the timeframes listed there are off even thousands of years, would that be enough to shatter our faith? In speaking for myself, I would say 'no.' As a Christian, my faith is dependent upon one thing: the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. As St. Paul writes in his first letter to the church at Corinth: "When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:1-5 NRSV)
I think this passage applies well to this discussion. Paul goes out of his way to explain that the primary thing for him, and furthermore the only thing he really knows, is Jesus Christ and him crucified. He does this so that their "faith might rest not on human wisdom..." What is human wisdom? I think it (partly) has something to do with the notion that we have it all figured out (or that we can have it all figured out). This pertains even to Biblical texts and the stories contained in Genesis. We assume that because something is written in the Bible that it must have happened that way - no questions asked. It also means that we look to the Bible and if something isn't there, we have to assume it didn't/can't/won't happen. We put our own understanding of something (our wisdom) above God's wisdom (Christ and him crucified) in which case it becomes idolatry - yes, the Bible can be an idol! (sounds like a good topic for another post).
It begs the question: what is the truth? Is it the Bible? I think a good theologian would say something like 'sort of' to that question. In John's Gospel, Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life" (14:6a). Jesus is the truth?! Yes, and the Bible speaks to that truth - but it ought not come before it. Therefore, if we understand Christ as the truth and that everything else is ancillary, it wouldn't necessarily matter if Genesis 1 occurred exactly as written. Besides, it seems to differ in many ways from Genesis 2, so how does that get reconciled? This is an instance, it seems to me, that you can't have two vastly different stories and claim them both as the one truth.
Does this mean the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 aren't important? By no means! These are accounts from people thousands of years ago based on how they understood the world and how it might have come to be. It does speak to God as creator and that God cares for creation and it sets the stage for original sin and how we have messed things up by our own wisdom and yearning for that wisdom to be like God's wisdom. So, they are important stories for us as Christians.
So, could people have existed before the time period we can estimate from Genesis 1 (6,000 years ago)? Maybe. If so, and we can learn about that, good for us! If not, no big deal. Either way, I don't think the result would be enough for me to have to give up on the creed that 'Jesus is Lord!'

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog! I am a Lutheran (ELCA) seminarian currently on internship in Western Iowa. Here I will from time to time present thoughts/ideas/ramblings on theological issues as they arise in my day-to-day life of learning and being. I've never had a blog and wasn't sure I would like to have one, but thought I'd give it a try anyway - I like challenges and am even beginning to enjoy trying new things (sometimes). Be sure to check back from time to time to see what is meandering through my mind. Oh, and leave comments! When I post a theological musing, it is intended to spark discussion.