Things that are Not Biblical That People Think are Biblical: Sodom was about Homosexuality

 

A minister was preaching to her congregation one Sunday and she told them that next week’s sermon was going to be based on Matthew 29 and she asked everyone to read Matthew 29.

The following Sunday she began her sermon with the question, “How many people read Matthew 29? Most of the people in the congregation raised their hands. She said, “Today’s sermon is about honesty; Matthew has only 28 chapters….”

I decided to do a blog serious on things that people think are

---

e

biblical, but really aren’t. I’m beginning with the Sodom and Gomorrah story. The story is, in and of itself, biblical. The narrative begins like this in Chapter 19.

¹ The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. ² He said, "Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the square." ³ But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. ⁴ But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ⁵ and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."

While the narrative refers to them later as ‘men,’ presuming these are male angels, the very start of the story begins by telling us who these characters are. They are of heavenly, not earthly origin according to the writer of Genesis.

Lot had extended the two of them hospitality and the men in town called them out with the intention of gang raping them. Lot’s family escapes because of a miracle by the angels, casting the town folks temporarily blind.

So, the gang rape of angels has turned into a proof text against homosexuality. A story about hospitality (and lack thereof) in a book filled with stories about hospitality is turned into a proof text against homosexuality. A story leading into another book, about God’s retribution on a nation (Egypt) that turned hospitality into slave-keeping is made into a proof text about homosexuality.

Jesus referred to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Gospel of Matthew:

⁵ These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, ⁶ but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ⁷ As you go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near.' ⁸ Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment. ⁹ Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, ¹⁰ no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food. ¹¹ Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. ¹² As you enter the house, greet it. ¹³ If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. ¹⁴ If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. ¹⁵ Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Take note of something. Jesus, in his reference to Sodom and Gomorrah was speaking in terms of the lack of hospitality and lack of welcoming apostles as being sinful.

Ah, but the word sodomy…

The word sodomy and the accompanying word sodomite (used in many translations of the Bible) do not show up until 395AD in a letter from St. Jerome to people. Jerome began using a ‘new’ Latin word at the time. The difficulty is that he did not articulate exactly what he meant. What is obvious, however, is that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about homosexuality. John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, does not define the Sodomites' sin as homosexual acts. Instead he prefers the social meaning of sodomy, reminding his readers that the Sodomites were "in the habit of vexing strangers," whereas Lot had offered them shelter and a meal.

We may use the word ‘sodomy’ all we want and while we may see it in the Bible or see the word ‘sodomite’ in the Bible, these are words that did not exist when the Bible was actually written. One would be hard pressed to say that the original texts said, on this subject, what many people state they say.

Not long ago I was listening to the pastor of a megachurch. He was preaching on the evils of same sex relationships. He made two points that were, frankly absurd.

The first one could be used on Saturday Night Live. It was that funny. Seriously, I don’t mean to mock, but I understood why I was required to major in Philosophy for seminary and how logic comes into play. He said that one of the leading causes of same sex relationships was experimentation. He even said it with a straight face. What he seemed to be missing, however, is that gay people experiment sexually and usually begin their experimentation in heterosexual relationships. The percentage of gay people who have engaged in opposite sex behavior is way higher than the percentage of straight people who have engaged in same sex behavior. His ‘experimentation’ theory was absurd.

What got me really rankled, however, was that he said, “Let’s face it, Sodom and Gomorrah was about homosexuality.”

I do not find this particular statement even remotely amusing.

The ‘men’ in the story, we are told, are of angelic origin.

The narrative is about a looming gang rape. Gang rape is an act of violence, it is not even remotely related to sexual love.

The gang rape of angels, in the context of Genesis, and in the interpretation of those who wrote it and read it, was a story telling us what happens to those who are welcoming of God’s people. Jesus very much saw it this way and we should as well. If we are going to read the Bible with any sort of faithfulness, we need to learn what it really says

Sodom and Gomorrah as a proof text is not about homosexuality. It never was and it shouldn’t be used in that manner.

Audio Sermon, September 7, 2014

 

Spiritual Narcissism

When Being Right Trumps Being Righteous

Text: Romans 13:8-14

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

September 7, 2014

 

Audio Sermon August 31st

 

Oy Vey

Texts: Psalm 26:1-8; Matthew 16:21-28

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

August 31, 2014

Audio Sermon August 24th

Ah, I’ve Always Wondered What the Church’s Job Was

Texts: Isaiah 51:1-6, Matthew 16:13-20

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

August 24, 2014

 

Audio Sermon August 10, 2014

 

The Language of God

Text: 1 Kings 19:9-18

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

August 10, 2014

 

 

3 Clergy who Need to Be Ignored

 

This week I read news stories about three clergy in the country and the amazing work they are doing to turn people away from God.

Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle was removed from Acts 29, a church planting network he helped to found. Mars Hill is really not only one church, but is now in five states with fifteen locations. He is an incredibly polarizing figure. He purchased his own books to get on best seller lists, and has been accused of plagiarism. Additionally, his misogyny is almost legendary in all bad ways.

There is one thing that stands out about Mark Driscoll, however. He’s mean.

John Hagee is the pastor of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Like Driscoll, a mega-church pastor. In a sermon recently he talked about how horrible poor people were and he distorted a Scripture passage to proof-text his point. He regularly speaks about how people who disagree with his opinions are counterfeit Christians and speaks regularly of the end times and delights in telling his listeners about the torment the ungodly people are going to experience.

There is one thing that stands out about John Hagee, however. He’s mean.

There is also Archbishop John Myers of Newark, New Jersey. In his time he has admonished priests who give Holy Communion to pro-choice parishioners and divorced Catholics who remarry without getting an annulment. Refused to let diocesan teachers attend a national meeting for Catholic educators because one of the speakers was known to favor ordination of women and fired a parochial school teacher for permitting a debate on ordination of women.

Supported the Cardinal Newman Society. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb. (since retired), one of its stalwarts, has threatened to excommunicate Catholics who belong to liberal church organizations such as Call to Action. He is currently adding on to an already huge retirement home and charging it to the Archdiocese of Newark. Despite the controversy surrounding this, he has not relented in this.

I know a good many people who know Myers and there is one thing that stands out about him. He’s mean. No one I know who actually has dealt with Myers has ever accused him of having a heart.

I know. Someone’s going to say I’m picking on ‘conservative’ clergy. These people may call themselves whatever they want, they’re just mean guys who have used Jesus and ideology to say and do mean things to people. There are people just as conservative as them who are good people, great people in fact. These guys are just plain mean.

When we are mean and say we are merely professing the truth in love or preaching the true Gospel, we are missing the point. Being mean and hateful and doing it in the name of Jesus is merely behaving badly and blaming it on God and that is shameful. What they are doing, and have done, is turn people AWAY from God. God is a God of love and love brings people together. Love is patient and kind. These guys are neither. It’s time we remind people that these are folks who may have had some good moments, but in their lust for power and glory have lost sight of the God who calls them to love. I hope their hearts can be melted. Meanwhile, they deserve to be ignored.

Audio Sermon August 3rd

 

Through Heaven’s Eyes

Text: Matthew 14:13-21

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

August 3, 2014

 

Praying

 

Praying

I find, especially as I get older, I like to pray. Actually, that’s sort of understating it. I pray because I need to pray. I crave prayer time.

That may sound weird or nerdy or something like that, but it’s become a part of my day and a part of my life. I tend to pray, at least once or twice a day the Liturgy of the Hours which primarily use Psalms.

I pray not because I have all the answers; I have very few answers.

I don’t pray to find out the answers; I pray to allow God’s way to intervene.

I don’t pray for people to get them to see it my way; I pray that I may have an open mind and heart in their presence.

I don’t pray because I am strong; I pray because I am weak.

I don’t pray because I’m so good; I pray because I grapple with my own humanity and weaknesses.

I don’t pray because God needs me to pray; I pray because I need to pray to God.

I don’t pray to come into God’s presence; I pray that I may be aware of God’s presence around me.

I don’t pray for a certain ideology to prevail or one to fail; I pray that people may actually grow up and listen to one another and work together.

I pray an awful lot for peace and for people I love and a lot of people I don’t know. I figure God knows them and that’s enough.

I don’t pray the Psalms because they are all good and uplifting; I pray because they are real and they capture the joy and sorrow, the bliss and pain of life. They are real.

I don’t pray with a lot of certainty; I pray with a lot of seeking and praying the Psalms forces me to seek and wonder. I often wonder about Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan. (Don’t ask, it’s a Psalm thing….)

I pray not because I have an abundance of time; I take the time to pray because I have an abundance of need.

Which reminds me…..time to pray.

Audio Sermon for July 27th

(Note:  This was not recorded live during the Worship Service)

NOTHING

Texts: Romans 8:31-39; Matthew 13:31-33

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

July 27, 2014

One Small Reason I Need to Have Faith

 

The most recent Gallup Poll has the Congressional approval rating at 15%, approve, 80% disapprove, and 5% have no opinion. President Obama’s approval rating is just about 43%, which is pretty low for a President. Ironically, even though 80% of the people in the country disapprove of Congress right now, the vast majority of those running for re-election, will, in fact, be re-elected. People are not happy with their elected officials.

As a person who lives in a market with all Kentucky television stations we are being bombarded with ads from Alison Lundergan Grimes and Mitch McConnell, both of whom are running for Senator McConnell’s current seat. Fact checkers are having a field day with the television ads as virtually nothing that has appeared on television has thus far been even remotely true. The election will be won or lost on advertising and falsehoods. It makes me understand the 15% approval rating a little more. God bless us with our freedom of speech. I wish people would concentrate more on responsibility with their speech!

But these are the least of the issues facing the world right now. In Israel there is endless carnage in Gaza. In the Ukraine there is still carnage and the specter of a civilian plane shot down. Thousands of children are fleeing violence in Central America, coming to the United States and no one has a clue as to how to deal with this.

Then, of course, I go on Facebook and see all sorts of mean comments and articles. Sigh.

The world does not seem like a happy place any longer. I also recently read that people are 40% less empathetic than they were in the 1980’s. I’m not sure how one measures that, but that didn’t sound good to me.

It’s all rather depressing.

This is why I have faith in God and why I pray. Hope in the things of this world is, in a word, hopeless. When the Great Depression came about Herbert Hoover, who was an expert in disasters and was an incredibly good person, believed the goodness and compassion of people would rise up and people would help one another. People would share food and companies would hire as many people as they could even if profits had to go down for a while. He had great faith in human beings and his faith was crushed. He was often called heartless and blamed for people’s suffering and that was unfair. He cared deeply but found himself completely disillusioned with humanity.

The reason I love the Psalms is they remind us that the world is always a troubled place and cruelty exists; they also remind us that God hears us and listens to us and loves us through this. That’s why I have faith in God.

Audio Sermon, July 20, 2014

The Lord is here.

True Love

Text: 1 Corinthians 13

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

July 20, 2014

 

Audio Sermon July 6, 2014

 

The Yoke’s On Us

Text: Matthew 11:25-30

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

July 6, 2014

 

 

Audio Sermon for June 29, 2014

Why Grace is so Difficult

Texts: Romans 6:12-23; Matthew 10:40-42

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

June 29, 2014

 

Audio Sermon, June 22, 2014

 

We Are Known and Loved

Texts: Psalm 139:1-17; Micah 6:7-8

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

June 22, 2014

Father’s Day Sermon June 15, 2014

 

The Greatest Job. Ever.

Texts: Psalm 8; 2 Corinthians 13:11-13

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

June 15, 2014

Audio Sermon June 8, 2014

 

They Are Filled with New Wine!

Acts 2:1-8, 12-13

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

June 8, 2014

 

Sermon Title: June 1, 2014

 

That They May All Be One

Text: John 17:1-11

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

June 1, 2014

 

 

Audio Sermon May 25, 2014

 

In Him We Live and Move and Have Our Very Being

Text: Acts 17:22-32

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

May 25, 2014

Rugged Individualism in Church?

 

President Herbert Hoover coined the phrase, “rugged individualism.” Poor Herbert Hoover was the President when the Great Depression began. Try as he would, and he really did try, he attempted to pull the nation out of the abyss. He was actually a very capable and compassionate man, but nothing he did was able to lift the country. He saw the great hope in the rugged individualism of the people in the nation and credited that imagery for building the nation.

Politically this is a great debate. One could say with some sense that the Republican Party is based, in part, on the premise of “rugged individualism.” Some could say that the Democratic Party is built on the premise of “It takes a village.” We could make political arguments for both and there is merit and virtue in both of these perspectives. I’m not writing about politics, however.

In recent years the phrase rugged individualism has shown up more in churches. I hear often about people and their personal salvation and their personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I am not going to downplay the role of salvation or relationships with Jesus Christ. I will not and cannot diminish that in the least. I worry, however, about the increasing use of the word ‘personal’ in terms of Christianity.

The word only shows up four times in the Bible with three of the times being used in Judith as an adjective. Here are the three verses where it appears:

Judith 12
¹⁰ On the fourth day Holofernes held a banquet for his personal attendants only, and did not invite any of his officers.

¹¹ He said to Bagoas, the eunuch who had charge of his personal affairs, "Go and persuade the Hebrew woman who is in your care to join us and to eat and drink with us.

Judith 14:13

¹³ They came to Holofernes' tent and said to the steward in charge of all his personal affairs, "Wake up our lord, for the slaves have been so bold as to come down against us to give battle, to their utter destruction."

The only other time it appears and is used in something other than this particular kind of direct adjective is on Proverbs:

Proverbs 18:2
² A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion.

One word can be used to describe this passage from Proverbs: Ouch.

So, in expressing my personal opinion I may not be taking pleasure in understanding and may, in fact, be a fool. Okay, I get that.

There is a reason ‘personal’ and ‘individualism’ is not dwelled on in the Bible. It’s not a concept or a part of Judaism or Christianity. Judaism and Christianity are built around the concept of community. Within Judaism there is virtually no sense of personal relationships with God or personal thoughts about Worship. None. Zero. Judaism is a communal religion.

The reality is that while there is a little sense of individualism in Christianity, it’s a LITTLE sense. Christianity is very much built on its Jewish heritage and follows in the same path of community.

Jesus called apostles and disciples together into a community.

The concept of ‘church’ was built on a community of believers. Baptism was not done in a secret place, but in front of others. The breaking of the bread was not done solitude but with a community of believers. The words ‘Communion’ and “Community” derive from the same root for a very particular meaning.

Monasteries are often the quietest places that Christianity is practiced and lived out and most of the monasteries follow the Rule of St. Benedict. Benedict placed great emphasis, in his rule, on the value and virtue of community. Monks may spend a lot of time being quiet but they also spend a great deal of time together. They pray alone but they mostly pray together. Together. If you join the Marines they teach you the importance and the virtue of the Corps. Marines are brothers and sisters to each other to the max. Monks have no sense of individualism or sense of personal because they are part of a monastic family. It is ‘trained’ out of them, much in the same way it’s trained out of Marines. (Marines and monks might find it odd that I’m linking them but this is actually an accurate linkage; what they do, however, is vastly different.)
Which brings me back to Herbert Hoover. The phrase, to me, has some merit in society as does the whole concept of village. To me, it takes both great individualists and villages to build a nation and I think over the years we have done that. It takes both and requires both.

In God’s church, however, while I would promote personal prayer and study, I am a great advocate for community. To me, Christianity is, by definition, a communal endeavor. We simply do not live lives of faith as well as we can when we try and do so as rugged individualists on a personal endeavor. From a theological perspective, the Bible advocates community over personal in a big way.

We are called into a community of believers for a reason and that reason is that it is God who has called us together.

Rotten Fruit and Good Fruit

I’ve been thinking about rotten fruit.

As much as I like Facebook the more time I venture into this world of social media, the more I find that appalls me. It actually is beginning to offend me to the core of my being. It’s becoming more and more like a pile of rotten fruit.

There is a meanness in the air that just looms over everything and that meanness tends to lead us in the direction of that which is rotten.

I read about Michelle Obama speaking at a high school graduation. What an incredible thing! The First Lady of the United States was going to a high school to speak. Of course, this whole thing was bashed. Who did she think she was? The tirade went on and on with very little respect to the fact that she’s the First Lady.

Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to speak at Rutgers University. She is currently a professor at Stanford University and was the Secretary of State under President George W. Bush. Controversial? Sure. Brilliant? Yes. Was it an honor for Rutgers that such a high profile person was going to address them? Absolutely! She pulled out because of the backlash she was receiving. There was a tremendous lack of respect.

One of the major news stories has been kidnapped and missing girls from Nigeria. Rush Limbaugh decided to mock this. Jon Stewart, in turn, mocked Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter mocked the story and was, in turn, mocked by others. All of this great hilarity took place over missing and kidnapped girls. Did any one of these people give one iota of thought to the indecency of being, ahem, funny, about this? Are the hearts and souls of our society so incredibly cold and empty that we find this remotely entertaining?

 

Donald Sterling, the owner of the Clippers obviously made truly awful comments. He decided to go on Anderson Cooper and ‘apologize,’ but he really never got around to that claiming he was set up and furthering his vile toward Magic Johnson. A few weeks ago very few people knew who this man was and, frankly, most of us wish we didn’t. Columnist Kathleen Parker wrote an insightful article on the subject and broached the subject of privacy. Bill Maher, who himself loves to plunge into being indecent toward others, skewered her column in a vicious fashion. He also distorted her intent but he got laughs and ratings so…….

At this years White House Correspondents Dinner Joel McHale must’ve read from some sort of “tips for lazy comedians” manual. His premise seemed to be to make fat jokes, mostly at the expense of Chris Christie. So funny and cruel was he.

And now Karl Rove is going on television and telling the world that Hillary Clinton has brain damage. Of course, pundits are picking this up and are just filled with hilarity and cruelty about this as well. Of course, people are now mocking Karl Rove. It’s all funny and cruel.

This is not an exhaustive list. These are just some things I’ve been observing of late and, frankly, it is very distressing. It’s actually beyond distressing, it has become repulsive.

This is a problem because we tolerate it. We even embrace it. People on the left love Bill Maher because he mocks people on the right; people on the right love Rush Limbaugh because he mocks people on the left. We are very tolerant, even joyous, when people mock those we may not agree with or even dislike. The joy of hating others has become the new American sport.

The problem is, embracing it and even tolerating it is part of the problem. When we use Facebook and Twitter to pass on the cruelty, and we’ve all been guilty of this, myself very much included, we also share the guilt.

Jesus says something incredibly inconvenient in the Sermon on the Mount:

¹³ "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. ¹⁴ For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it. ¹⁵ "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷ In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Matthew 7:13-18

The whole ‘good fruit’ and ‘bad fruit’ imagery has hit me between the eyes. Sharing rotten fruit is sharing rotten fruit. Being a false prophet is not just what we say, but the spirit of what we say. If our hearts are cold and cruel we are false prophets. We cannot help ourselves. It is only when we choose that which is noble and good that we become truly prophetic and truly bear good fruit.

As for me, I’m going to try and be light in the darkness. For me, it’s time to pass on good fruit and express that which is noble and good. I know I won’t be perfect at it, but I’m certainly going to try.

Holy Listeners

 

I was reading this morning and the author, Joan Chittister, used a remarkable phrase: holy listener.

We live in a chatty, speaking culture more than we do a listening culture. People on TALK radio, talk. That sounds obvious, doesn’t it? They talk. Being on the radio there is nothing to see so someone has to be doing something and other than singing or playing an instrument, one would expect them to talk.

Some of them take some phone calls but most of the phone calls they take are from fans who largely agree with them. This gives the talker the opportunity to expand on their own point of view and they do it over and over again. Rarely do they take time to listen.

On television it’s much the same way. Even interviewers now seem to think that a good interview comes as the result of the interviewer talking more than the interviewee. The hope, I would imagine, is if you, as the interviewer talk long enough in trying to pose a question to really stump the interviewee, you’ll get a great interview. Of course, one of the best interviews of late was Anderson Cooper interviewing Donald Sterling. Cooper BRILLIANTLY sat quietly and let Sterling talk and talk and talk and before you knew it, Sterling had dug himself into a far, far deeper hole than he began with. Anderson Cooper did something unusual. He listened.

Then there is holy listening. Often people define prayer as talking to God. We place ourselves in a spot of attempting to acknowledge God’s presence around us and we talk and talk and talk. Whether we actually felt God’s presence is often not part of the equation. We talked. We often talk about what we need to God.

We sometimes use the Bible to ‘listen’ with a sense that we will read something and that will enable us to listen to God. This is a great opportunity but all too often instead of reading the Bible to listen, we talk right through it. We find passages we like and we preach to ourselves on how we were right about something the entire time. We read the Bible to affirm our position; which means we probably didn’t bother to listen.

Holy listening is taking the time to be quiet and listen to other people. They may have something to say we had not thought of. Holy listening is reading Scripture and discovering what is there and allowing the Word to speak to us and, Heaven forbid, challenge us. It invites us to learn and discover more about God, not just we thought we knew.

Holy listening is taking the time to listen to other people. To REALLY listen to other people. To listen to their words instead of composing our response. To take the time to digest what someone else is saying instead of assuring our point is made.

I’d like to say I’m good at this. I wish I was. To me, this holy listening is something I need to work on. The phrase provoked my own thinking because it challenged me.

Take the time to quiet down and listen and allow that listening to become holy. Let’s try to become holy listeners.

Audio of Sermon from Sunday, April 27th

 

The Apostle Called Us

Texts: Acts 4:32-35, John 20:19-31

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

April 27, 2014

 

Easter Sunday Audio Sermon

 

He Came Back

Texts: Mark 16:1-8

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

April 20, 2014

 

There Has to be More to Life Than This

 

Recently David Letterman announced that he is going to retire. David Letterman has had a very long and successful career on CBS late at night. Previous to that he followed the Tonight Show that chose Jay Leno over him. Both Mr. Leno and Mr. Letterman had great careers. David Letterman is in his late 60’s and his ratings are beginning to drop. After a great career he is stepping down. Good for him.

CBS has named Stephen Colbert of the Comedy Channel’s “The Colbert Report” as his replacement. Mr. Colbert’s show is done, with him in character, as a addled right-winged commentator. The show is, of course, a complete satire and has been based on Mr. Colbert playing a role. He has since announced that he will not do “Late Night” in character as, obviously, the show would not work.

This shall be interesting. His competition is Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon, both of whom are excellent. For Stephen Colbert this is an opportunity of a lifetime and, frankly a high risk moment for his career. Will this work out?

I find it a high risk move by CBS because Colbert has built a career on being in character. We shall see if he has the range and the appeal to be himself and conduct interviews and actually be funny and entertaining as himself. I, for one, would have chosen Tina Fey who, I think, is one of the most brilliant comedic minds out there. I also think a woman in that time slot would have changed the dynamics of late night television. Additionally, I find Ms. Fey to be hilarious whereas I have never found Mr. Colbert to be all that entertaining. That’s just my opinion. CBS has been the number one network in terms of entertainment and they have never asked me my opinion so, obviously, they are smarter at this than I am.

Lately Rush Limbaugh indicated this seemed to be the end of civilization as we know it and Bill O’Reilly is also incensed that this is a left-winged political move by CBS to influence the country. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I feel badly for them. I am not joking and I am not saying this satirically or in any sense of being mean spirited toward these two men. I feel badly for them. The Late Show is a late night comedy show and Stephen Colbert is a comedian. These late night shows have a relatively small demographic because of the time they are on. Some people probably record them, but many fall asleep with these folks playing in the background. People watch these shows to laugh or to see their favorite actors and actresses appear on them.

My thought is that there has to be more to life than worrying about politics and what influences people. When we are worrying about the political influence of late night shows geared toward comedy we are worrying about politics too much. I strongly suspect that of Stephen Colbert made his show mostly about political satire it would fail miserably. It would have little to do with how people thought or felt, but mostly about people not really being interested in the subject. People watch these shows to laugh and see popular entertainers and to help them fall asleep.

So I feel badly for these guys. They are looking for conspiracies behind every corner and worrying about, frankly, very minute issues. Colbert will succeed or fail based on his ability to by funny and interview guests. He has major competition. Jimmy Kimmel is great and, frankly, Jimmy Fallon is a genius. His range of talent astonishes me.

As for me, I’m tired of all the political infighting in the nation. Anyone who can give us a few good laughs, especially at ourselves, is refreshing. In terms of political intrigue and infighting, there has to be more to life than this.

Good Friday: A Day We NEED to Acknowledge

 

So, here it is. I’ve been offended beyond words this year. It’s been taking place every year but this year it’s gotten to me. Churches are having Easter Worship Services on Good Friday. On the day when Christianity commemorates the crucifixion and death of Jesus, some churches are going to sing “Alleluia” and celebrate Jesus’ resurrection. While we wait until Sunday to celebrate Jesus’ triumph over death and the grace, they’re skipping the death and the grave part and going to celebrate Easter on the day Jesus died.

This should not be confused with churches that have Saturday Night Easter Vigils. Easter Vigils are a long tradition and take place after sundown on Saturday night which makes sense. In Jewish tradition Sunday started at sundown on Saturday night and so celebrating Easter after dark is not inconsistent with Christianity. But celebrating Easter on Good Friday is a whole other story.

My favorite poet of all time was a 17^th century Anglican priest named John Donne. Donne’s poetry was a mixture of profound religious poetry which as being an Anglican priest, was not inconsistent with his being. His secular poetry was actually often a bit risqué and funny. I loved his cleverness and his plays on words. Anyone who knows me well knows I LOVE to play with words.

His greatest poem, to me, was Good Friday, 1613, Riding Westward. I’m including it at the end lest you want to read it. He writes of riding westward when he should be looking to the east. His word:

This day, when my soul's form bends to the East.
There I should see a Sun by rising set,
And by that setting endless day beget.
But that Christ on His cross did rise and fall,
Sin had eternally benighted all.
Yet dare I almost be glad, I do not see
That spectacle of too much weight for me

His soul’s form was bending toward the east, but the rest of him was riding to the west.

Good Friday inspires this. Most of us, if we are honest, want to turn west and not look. The cross is horrible.

The cross is horrible. Crucifying someone was dreadful and awful. Jesus’ death was a horrible death. We cannot make light of this.

Over the centuries we have attempted to soften the blow as much as we can.

Pontius Pilate has often been portrayed as a decent man who was caught in God’s great cosmic drama. He, the only person in Jerusalem who could actually order this kind of execution, washes his hands in a bogus attempt to say he had no responsibility. Pilate, who was historically brutal and bloodthirsty, was guilty of executing an innocent man. No amount of water was going to clear him of this.

Judas betrayed Jesus for money. We often like to say that he too was an innocent pawn in God’s great cosmic plan. The reality is that Jesus was not difficult to find. The Romans did not need Judas but they found great pleasure in turning one of Jesus’ own. Judas recognizing his own treachery hanged himself.

Many people to not attend Worship on Good Friday. We love Easter and there is much to love about Easter. It speaks of Jesus’ triumph over death and the grave. Easter teaches us that Good Friday can be overcome. The horror of Good Friday brings us to the joy of Easter. Only death can bring about resurrection. To live forever we must die. For Jesus to come back, he had to depart. For Jesus to live again, he had to die and the day of his death was Good Friday.

Good Friday reminds us that Jesus was betrayed. It reminds us that Jesus was arrested and that he was denied. It reminds us that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life,” and the world killed Him. Is this harsh? Yes, it is very harsh but it is also very real. Jesus came into our midst and we killed him. Most of us, if we are brutally honest with ourselves, would have either been outside in the mob screaming for blood or staying home and pretending the events were not taking place. Like Donne, we’d have our faces pointing westward.

In one of the four Suffering Servant Songs in Isaiah 50, the suffering servant says, “I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting. ⁷ The Lord God helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame; ⁸ he who vindicates me is near. Who will contend with me? Let us stand up together.” Who will contend with me? Let us stand up together!

Take note, in the Gospels, who contents with Jesus, who stands with him. There is nary a soul…

One of the roles of the Christian Church is to tell the story and retell the story over and over again. It’s is our job to invite people to turn and look eastward. It is our job to at least make sure we acknowledge that Easter does not come without Good Friday. Most of us would love to ignore this day, it is a dreadful day. It is a day when the guilt of what humanity did to God’s Son is exposed for the world to see.

Tragically, and obscenely, some churches are choosing to celebrate Easter that day. To me, it’s downright obscene. It crushes my spirit, it crushes my soul. Has Christianity turned so much into ‘feel good’ that we can no longer recognize that to walk in the light requires a journey into the darkness. Has Christianity become so much about feeling good that we should not take time to acknowledge our failures and our faults as a collective people?

May God forgive us.

GOOD-FRIDAY, 1613, RIDING WESTWARD.
by John Donne

LET man's soul be a sphere, and then, in this,
Th' intelligence that moves, devotion is ;
And as the other spheres, by being grown
Subject to foreign motion, lose their own,
And being by others hurried every day,
Scarce in a year their natural form obey ;
Pleasure or business, so, our souls admit
For their first mover, and are whirl'd by it.
Hence is't, that I am carried towards the west,
This day, when my soul's form bends to the East.
There I should see a Sun by rising set,
And by that setting endless day beget.
But that Christ on His cross did rise and fall,
Sin had eternally benighted all.
Yet dare I almost be glad, I do not see
That spectacle of too much weight for me.
Who sees Gods face, that is self-life, must die ;
What a death were it then to see God die ?
It made His own lieutenant, Nature, shrink,
It made His footstool crack, and the sun wink.
Could I behold those hands, which span the poles
And tune all spheres at once, pierced with those holes ?
Could I behold that endless height, which is
Zenith to us and our antipodes,
Humbled below us ? or that blood, which is
The seat of all our soul's, if not of His,
Made dirt of dust, or that flesh which was worn
By God for His apparel, ragg'd and torn ?
If on these things I durst not look, durst I
On His distressed Mother cast mine eye,
Who was God's partner here, and furnish'd thus
Half of that sacrifice which ransom'd us ?
Though these things as I ride be from mine eye,
They're present yet unto my memory,
For that looks towards them ; and Thou look'st towards me,
O Saviour, as Thou hang'st upon the tree.
I turn my back to thee but to receive
Corrections till Thy mercies bid Thee leave.
O think me worth Thine anger, punish me,
Burn off my rust, and my deformity ;
Restore Thine image, so much, by Thy grace,
That Thou mayst know me, and I'll turn my face.

Audio Sermon Palm Sunday, 2014

So, Who is This Guy?

Texts Isaiah 50:4-9; Matthew 2:1-11

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

April 13, 2014

(While the sermon appears to cut off, it really doesn’t.  The editing was a bit tight at the end but this is a complete sermon.)

Jesus’ Wife?

 

News reports are out and a looming question this year is: Did Jesus have a wife?

A controversial papyrus scrap making that suggestion dates to the fourth through eighth century A.D., seems to have been verified that it dates back that long, thus making this a fragment of a document that existed in early Christianity.

This fragment is not new but the scientific verification does appear to be new. There are screams of forgery but I’m thinking that the document can easily date back to that time period----which actually doesn’t make it that big a deal in the realm of theological thought.

We know that there were numerous ‘gospels’ written in early Christianity. The Gnostics wrote gospels and people who attempted to discredit Jesus wrote gospels. It was not until around the 4^th century when early Christianity determined the Canon of the New Testament and chose four Gospels to have been humanly written and inspired by God. Those Gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are part of the modern New Testament and considered to be Gospel by all of Christianity. We know next to nothing about the authors, but the early church determined these four, and only these four, were inspired. Other gospels were either destroyed or not reproduced. Most of what we have of the Bible came to us from monks carefully inscribing manuscripts. They would not have used precious time to replicate non-canonical books and so most of these manuscripts just rotted away in the sands of time.

Every so often remnants of one shows up and a lot of fuss is made. While scientifically and theologically interesting, these really do not impact the faith and history of Christianity.

Interestingly enough, speculation on the marital status of Jesus isn’t that big a deal. Some say that because the Gospels never mention a spouse it means he was not married. However, a 30 Jewish man who was not married would have been very atypical and scholars suggest that Jesus NOT been married it would have been a major thing to report. The end result? We have no idea.

Many have suggested over the centuries that Mary Magdalene may have been Jesus’ spouse. While there has often been speculation that she was a prostitute, one thing we can say for sure is that she was not a prostitute. All serious religious scholars agree on this point as does the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. If Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, nor were her sins identified as 'sins of the flesh,’ why do so many people view Mary Magdalene as the sexy, 'fallen woman?'

It began as a shameful lie, invented by Pope Gregory I in 597 C.E., in which he combined three separate women from the New Testament into one. He combined Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and a woman who is not named but is referred to as a 'sinner.' It has been suggested that Gregory may have been trying to demean her memory so has to keep women down. Others speculate he might have been theologically ignorant----which I doubt. In any case, his bogus assertion has remained a part of Christian lore, though in absolute fairness the Roman Catholic Church and the vast majority of viable Christian scholars do not say this any longer.

What was she to Jesus? A close friend? A great disciple? Spouse?

The answer is we really cannot say for sure. The Gospels do not tell us she and Jesus were married and we have to live with the fact that this is an eternal mystery. We can speculate all we want but we need to realize that no matter what we conclude, it’s speculation.

So, this fragment was found. Big deal? Historically sure, but it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t know. There exist fragments that say all sorts of things and they will be found. They are interesting but they are not going to rock Christianity. If they do rock our faith, perhaps we need to developing thicker skin.

A Marvelously Insidious Word

 

I always marvel at language. Anyone who knows me knows that I love to play with words. I’m a notorious punster who delights in hearing groans from a particularly juicy and cheesy pun. A great pun brings about not so much a laugh, but a huge groan.

Words matter and some words are actually pretty insidious in scope. We think of words like ‘hate’ and can see it is insidious. We can use ‘bad’ words and refer to them as insidious. There’s also the word ‘phlegm’ which is just about the weirdest words in the English language. I’m not referring to any of these words, however. A marvelously insidious word people often use is the word ‘but.’

Recently in a Facebook forum made up of alumni from my college, a very small, now defunct Roman Catholic Seminary College in upstate New York, there was a conversation about a church organist who was fired when it was learned that he was married to a same sex partner. I indicated that I loved my denomination, the United Church of Christ. I wrote about us welcoming everyone, etc. One person in the forum responded, “And that is what (his denomination) does, as well………….But……..” There it was, the word ‘but.’ “Everyone is welcome in my church……………but.” The translation for the people on the receiving end of that ‘but’ is that they are not welcome.

It really doesn’t matter how large we place the letters, how well we sing welcoming songs, and announce that people are welcome. If we use the word ‘but’ in the sentence, they are not welcome.

“We welcome the role of women in leadership……………………..but.” The translation is that women are not really in leadership positions. In churches this is especially maddening. On Easter we will all read from the Gospels telling us that the first real message of Christianity, “I have seen the Lord,” pronounced by women, doesn’t count as ‘preaching.’ Because St. Paul once referred to an obscure group of women in an obscure place who were creating problems and he wrote to the church’s leadership to silence these women in the church, people have proclaimed women cannot speak in church. They, of course, ignore the reality that the first people to proclaim the Christian Gospel, “I have seen the Lord,” were, in fact women. Women are welcome in leadership……but.

We welcome children in our church and what them to participate………but, not yet.

It goes further than church, however.

If someone says, “I love you……..but,” it’s pretty ominous. It either means they don’t really love you or they are going to place some major conditions on that love.

If someone says, “I’m sorry……but,” they are not really sorry. They are now rationalizing.

What makes the word ‘but’ so insidious is that it comes at the end of a wonderful statement. It’s the ultimate bait and switch. “You are wonderful………but.’ “You are my dearest friend……but.”

I was struck by this yesterday. In the middle of a heartfelt conversation one person decided to drop his bit ‘but’ in the middle of a caring discussion. He used a lot of good words of really respecting everyone…..but.

It’s a good reminder to me. When I say something, if I’m adding the word ‘but’ to my statement, I’m not really saying what I set out to say. For me, I’m going to watch my language and try and rid myself of using this marvelously insidious word in such a manner.

Audio Sermon for April 6, 2014

 

Come and See: Jesus

Texts John 11:1-45

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

April 6, 2014

 

Audio Sermon March 23

 

Come and See: Hospitality as Spirituality

Texts Genesis 18:1-18; Acts 16:13-15

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

March 16, 2014

Fred Phelps is Near Death

 

Fred Phelps is near death. In case you never heard of Fred Phelps, he’s the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church. The church is located in Topeka, Kansas and is an independent Baptist Church that sees itself as part of the primitive Baptist tradition. Most people who are Baptist separate themselves greatly from the activities of Westboro even if there are elements they agree with. The website of the church says it all: www.godhatesfags.com.

Westboro has become famous, or, perhaps better said, infamous, for picketing funerals of high profile people and picketing the funerals of soldiers who died in combat. They see these deaths as proof that God has come to hate the United States. They are anti-gay, anti-Jewish, etc. Whereas many churches, or hopefully most churches peak about God’s love, they are the only church website I’ve ever encountered that has a list called: Bible Verses About The Hatred Of God.

Mr. Phelps is now near death.

My one thought on this subject is this. Let’s be charitable. Mr. Phelps was not a man of great charity. I do not say that to be judgmental, it’s merely stating a pretty obvious fact. The name of his church’s website does not speak of charity. The ‘hatred’ list does not speak of charity. His sermons did not speak of charity. The picketing of funerals did not speak of charity. Frankly, the word ‘hate,’ over and over again did not speak of charity. I suspect that Fred Phelps would not welcome people speaking his name and using ‘charity’ in the same sentence. It was not who he was or what he was about.

He, in so many ways, mortified those of us who attempt to live in the way of Christ. When we speak of a God of love, what Mr. Phelps said about God, seemed to contradict that. So many people were hurt and personally devastated by how he chose to go about life and how the mission of Westboro Baptist Church was lived out.

It is not a time for mocking or even pious platitudes. I have one prayer for Fred Phelps. My prayer is a simple one. I want him to be in God’s presence and I want Mr. Phelps to be loved by God and to see, learn, and understand that God loves all of us, no matter what. To me, love always wins out and my prayer for Mr. Phelps is that, in death and in God’s presence, he sees, feels, embraces, and delights in God’s love. One day, I hope we all do.

Audio Sermon March 16, 2014

 

Come and See: How to Invite People

Texts: Exodus 17:1-7; Romans 4:1-5

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

March 16, 2014

 

Audio Sermon Plus Moment of Concern March 9, 2014

 

Come and See: From Welcoming to Inviting

Texts: Genesis 2:15-19 ; John 1:35-42

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

March 9, 2014

 

 

Moment of Concern shared by J. R. Stuart

Link to the video mentioned in the sermon

Audio Sermon March 2, 2014

 

 

Just One Thing

Text: Matthew 17:1-9

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

March 2, 2014

Click the graphic to listen to the sermon;   Link to video clip is HERE.

Praying for our Nation and the World

 

In watching the news I'm distressed over the wars and conflicts around the world. The Ukraine is in a dangerous spot. I think there exists a great potential for Russia to step in and seize control. There is rioting in Venezuela. North Korea has been exposed as possibly the cruelest nation on the planet. Syria is in the midst of a horrible civil war. Iraq is unraveling and Afghanistan is largely unraveled and our troops are supposed to vacate the country by the end of the year. While I understood the first Iraq war, I never understood the second one. I understood the initial incursion into Afghanistan but I never did understand why we have stayed for so long. This has now been played out with two very different Presidents.

People often look to the United States, and we look at ourselves as the great super power that is supposed to do something. Tragically, we have lost a significant number of amazing young men and women who died in the service of our nation and have seen thousands of others devastated by wounds. As we watch Iraq devolve and recognize that Afghanistan will never not devolve, I grieve over this loss of life.

I do not believe President Obama has any desire to go to war and even if he did, the Congress would never support him. Both houses of the Congress have become a place of "Whoop, whoop, whoop! Nyuk, nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk," more than anything else. For me, I'm praying that the peace of God which passes all understanding impacts the hearts and minds of people around the world. This killing must come to an end sometime. Far, far, far too many people in the world have died----and ultimately I'm wondering what exactly so many people have actually died for.

Audio Sermon February 23, 2014

Finding Joy in a Discordant Fashion

Texts: Leviticus 19:1-2; 9-18; Matthew 5:38-48

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

February 23, 2014

 

 

Full Communion Discussions

 

The United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada are in discussions to enter full communion with one another. At present, The United Church of Christ has a full communion with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a Formula of Agreement with the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Reformed Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and a "Kirchengemeinshaft" with the Union of Evangelical Churches in Germany (UEK).

The partnership with the United Church of Christ would be a first for United Church of Canada. The Rev. Michael Blair, executive minister of Church Mission for the United Church of Canada, said after the resolution was approved in July that it was "a first for us because we work in partnership with many denominations, but no formal relationships like this resolution would produce."

Since entering into the full communion agreement with the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, there has been a rich partnership between the two denominations. At my own church my colleague in ministry is an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ and has been a joy to work with. It is a reminder of Jesus’ great prayer for all to be one, as it is the foundational motto of the United Church of Christ in 1957, “That they may all be one.”

The United Church of Christ is a denomination that came as the result of the merger between the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Churches in 1957. The two predecessor denominations came as the result of mergers as well. The idea of ecumenism is well ingrained within the United Church of Christ and this border crossing venture into full communion with the United Church of Canada furthers this mission.

I wish we didn’t need to have these kind of discussions. We are all the Body of Christ, or, perhaps better said, we are all supposed to be the Body of Christ. We are, after 2000 years of Christianity a church divided. Sadly, we are a church badly divided.

Who is to fault? In a way we all lay claim to this.

For example, when I see a group from Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals or having a website entitled, www.godhatesfags.com, I want no part of them. Frankly, I am embarrassed they use the word ‘church’ to state what they are.

When I see many megachurches preaching the prosperity Gospel, if you believe in Jesus you will be blessed with great riches, I recoil. That is not and has never been the teaching of Jesus Christ. No matter how many random scripture passages you string together to proof text, that is not the Gospel of Christ and it never will be.

When I see churches prevent people from receiving Holy Communion I recoil at this as well. It’s the Lord’s Supper, not ours to pick and choose who we want to participate or not.

We divide over some things we see as really big things. What age should a person be Baptized and how should we do it? Do we use wine or grape juice at Holy Communion? What exactly is it when we are taking Holy Communion? Is it really Jesus? It is a symbol? When all is said and done, does any of it really matter? There is a part of me that God may actually be rather amused by the fact that our theological opinions actually matter this much. Maybe the problem is that we think more of God’s church than we actually do about God.

Do all of these things matter? They do. As I said, there are things that matter to me greatly.

Ultimately it makes me feel really good that the United Church of Christ and the United Church of Canada are talking about entering into full communion with one another. I have been a United Church of Christ minister for over 30 years and I’m proud to be a part of a denomination that takes Jesus’ prayer of all being one seriously. I’m proud to be a part of a denomination that says, ‘no matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here,’ and really means it. I’m proud that when we invite everyone to God’s Table, we really mean everyone, not just the people who agree with us. I’m happy we are doing this with the United Church of Canada.

I look forward to the day, however, when we really all are one and these kinds of conversations are no longer necessary.

Spare Me the Apologetics

 

Sometimes, it seems for personal torture, I read blogs of people of a variety of theological perspectives. Many are good and many are awful. It strikes me that the ones that are ‘apologetics’ are among the worse. Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections. Most of them are done poorly and are essentially making arguments as to why that person and his or her tradition is right and the others are wrong.

I was just reading one the other day. I will leave the writer’s tradition out of this as its pretty irrelevant. He is well educated and a seminary student who has mastered the fine art of pious platitude sharing and a belief that his tradition is right and the other traditions are wrong. His essential instrument is to pick and choose portions of other traditions and make them caricatures for him to pick apart. It’s the class ‘straw man’ argument. The student is studying theology and philosophy and just seems to delight in using some of the newly learned concepts and applying them, rather poorly I might add, to make his point.

I say this recognizing that many people do this. Like many people who delve into apologetics so gleefully, straw men and paper tigers are mandatory.

He most recently decided to delve into the ever delightful topic of trying to rationally determine if people outside of his tradition can go to Heaven. He makes a long argument using some theological terms that aren’t really part of the discussion until he makes them a part of his conversation. Ultimately he comes to the conclusion that his tradition and Jesus are pretty much interchangeable and that ultimately there are people who go to Heaven even though they weren’t a part of his tradition. Except, in a brilliant stroke of logic, he determines they actually WERE a part of his tradition but didn’t know it.

Let me exhale here and suggest that I really need to stop reading people who take a stab at apologetics. I mean, seriously….

Okay, back to my post.

This blog post is actually 14 double spaced pages and in those 14 double spaced pages he wanders from hither to yon and never once uses the word ‘grace.’ Not once. A central word, a central theme of the New Testament is never mentioned. Not once. Lost in the pious platitudes and philosophical and theological terms aptly misapplied was the word ‘grace.’

This is what happens when we decide to dance with apologetics. Classically Christianity has dealt nicely with ‘didache’ (teaching) and ‘kerygma’ (proclamation). Those two things are adequate. We really do not need to defend ourselves from people who disagree with us. Christian and how we practice it is a choice people make. It is not an argument to be defended, it is a choice to walk on a faith journey. Instead of intellectually or philosophically trying to defend our choice, we need to simply teach what we believe (learning it first helps!) and proclaim what we believe. No more is really necessary.

And for those who believe they have to assert why people need to belong to their particular tradition or denomination to go to Heaven I have a request. Please get over yourselves. You are doing no one a favor with this silliness.

Thank you.

Sermon Audio 2/16/14

 

 

Choosing Life

Texts: Deuteronomy 30:15-20 Matthew 5:21-26

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

February 16, 2014

(Click picture for sermon)

Why I Didn’t Watch the Debate

 

I chose not to watch the debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. Why? There really wasn’t a debate. Ken Ham is arguing that the universe we live in is 6000 years old. It isn’t. We know the earth we live on is billions of years old. We have overwhelming fossil evidence. The age of our planet is not really subject to debate at this level. Maybe a 100 million here or a billion there, but going from billions to 6000? No.

Bill Ham is bringing us to the world of Fred, Wilma, and Dino. Dinosaurs and people did not inhabit the earth together. I was a small child at the Natural History Museum in New York City seeing the fossils of ancient dinosaurs. I knew that people and these creatures did not inhabit the earth simultaneously. That is not an opinion. It’s well documented science that Mr. Ham denies.

I can be incredibly cynical and say that Mr. Ham has $35,000,000 reasons to deny this. He has invested a large amount of money in a museum that is dedicated to his perspective that the universe is 6000 years old. He claims that he is advocating his Christian faith and belief in the Bible. Sadly, very sadly, he’s actually doing great damage to Christianity and to people approaching the Bible.

The universe is at least billions of years old. Scientists have demonstrated why this is true and when I encounter facts I accept them. They have also demonstrated things like gravity and personal experience has told me, when I drop something and it hits my foot, that gravity exists. I have tripped far too many times in my life to be happy about it and I have never once, tripped UP. I always fall down. Always. When people drop trash out the window it never hangs there in the air or goes up. Gravity is a fact in the same way the dating of the universe is a fact.

Mr. Ham made this debate seem like it was a debate between the Christian faith and science and that he, Ken Ham, had to defend Christianity. In fact, I dare so, he did more to discredit Christianity than he did to defend it. He made it appear that Christianity does not believe in science and that all Christians, all REAL Christians, agree with him.

I believe I am a real Christian. I am very imperfect at my faith. I question things. I sin. I wrestle with all sorts of things with my faith, but, at the end of the day, I am a Christian. I also read the Bible, find God’s Word in the Bible, and even preach from it. I actually really love the Bible. I love it enough to not take everything in it literally.

In Genesis between the first and second chapter, there is an obvious change of authors and two quite different creation stories. The two authors tell different stories and actually have different names for God. For people who read Hebrew, the difference is very pronounced. If you don’t, I’d recommend the New Jerusalem Bible translation as it uses the Hebrew names for God. The change of authors is quite pronounced and visible. I love both authors and both of them are trying, theologically, to explain the world around them.

The first author speaks of creation rolling out over seven days and the second author speaks about human imperfection. They were theological narratives that attempted to explain what the people of the era had no way of explaining. They were written in a response to other ancient writings by a people who had a faith in a God they were trying to understand. Whereas everyone else saw creation and the universe as something flawed and ugly, and coming from ugly things, these writers saw beauty and goodness. They shared with faith and they wrote about it.

It was not science. It was never suggested to be science and the people of Judaism have always known that and through most of Christianity people knew that. In the 13^th century, Thomas Aquinas articulated that quite well. He knew the creation narrative as not a story of science, but a theological narrative.

Do I believe God created the universe? Yes.

6000 years ago in seven 24 hour days? No.

Do I believe in evolution? I sure do, as I believe God is a creating God who created and set things in motion and things remain in motion. To me, Ken Ham’s view of creation is static and I do not believe in a static God!

I do not believe in a static God….

Those words, to me, help define my view of creation. I see God as one who created and is creating and who is not static. I love the passage from the United Church of Christ Statement of Faith that reads, “God calls the worlds into being, creates humankind in the divine image, and sets before us the ways of life and death.” I love the premise of “God calls.” It is active. It is present.

Ken Ham, to me, is anti-science but he believes in a God who is static and limited. God did it and it’s done. To me, it’s not done. God lives. God breathes. God creates. God speaks. God is alive and well.

For me, there was no reason to watch the debate. One person advocated science and I have no problem seeing God in science. One person advocated a static God and I do not believe in a static God. Period.

Audio Sermon February 9, 2014

 

The Law of Christ

Texts: 1 Corinthians 2:1-12

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

February 9, 2014

Click graphic for sermon

Audio Sermon February 2, 2014

 

What is Good?

Texts: Micah 6:6-8; Matthew 5:1-12

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

February 2, 2014

 

(Click graphic for the sermon)

Audio Sermon January 26, 2014

 

Paul’s Church Primer

Texts: 1 Corinthians 1:10-18

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

January 26, 2014

 

Audio Sermon January 19, 2014

 

Come and See

Texts: 1 Corinthians 1:1-9; John 1:29-41

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

January 19, 2014

 

Audio Sermon for January 12, 2014

 

Why Baptism is Such a Big Deal

Texts: Isaiah 42:1-9, Matthew 3:13-17

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

January 12, 2014

 

Audio Sermon January 5, 2014

 

A Bit of Sarx; a Bit of Logos

Text: John 1:1-14

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

January 5, 2014

 

https://app.box.com/shared/static/t8yqg6x0veffuzvrcvb9.mp3

Audio Sermon 12/29/13

 

Of Bullies and Saviors

Text: Matthew 2:13-23

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

December 29, 2013

 

Why I, as a Christian, Found Phil Robertson’s Comments to be Offensive

 

I have to confess. I was a fan of Duck Dynasty. I watched it and found it funny. To me, it’s sort of a cross between The Beverly Hillbillies and The Three Stooges. I also saw Willie as something of a Jacob trying to run a major business with the rest of the family being a bunch of Esaus. And, yes, I liked the family coming together and having grace before the meal. I appreciated the fact that they were obviously people of faith but did not use the show as a harsh bully pulpit in reference to people they would disagree.

I know that Phil Robertson wanted the show to be more overtly religious. A&E was being cautious. It seemed that they believed that for the show to maintain its appeal to a wide span of people, people like me, for example, they had to keep it toned down. Mr. Robertson said a lot of harsh things about A&E but he remained with the show. Between the Robertson family and A&E this was a $500,000,000.00 dollar adventure. Mr. Robertson, is struck me, enjoyed the money and so he remained on the show. I’m fine with that.

I don’t know enough about Phil Robertson to say what kind of a person he is. He is something of a curmudgeon on the show but it’s a show and he’s playing a character that may or may not be based very much in reality. In reference to his wife, Kay, on the show, he makes a lot of references to getting some good loving from her and that she’s a good cook. In real life they’ve had some trials and tribulations but are together and appear to be strong in their commitment to one another.

There was a lot to like, for me, about Duck Dynasty. While my world is very different from their world, they seemed to be a very decent group of people who loved each other, had a sense of humor, and were a people of great faith. Best of all, in a day and age when so many people have demonstrated a type of mean spirited with their faith, they were not.

People who know Phi Robertson well say he’s not a bigot and he is very honest when he says he really doesn’t judge people and that he loves everyone. Perhaps this is so. Mr. Robertson may, in fact, be a wonderful man.

His recent interview offended me as a Christian.

There were a bunch of people who began to talk about his 1^st Amendment right. Please.

The 1^st Amendment to the Constitution reads thus:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

For this to have been an issue, Congress would have had to create a law prohibiting the statements that Phil Robertson made and the President would have had to sign the bill. The law would then be appealed and the Supreme Court would have to uphold the law. If you believe that either branch of the Congress would pass this, the President would sign it, and the Supreme Court would uphold it, you are sadly and tragically mistaken. Phil Robertson was free to say what he said without worry of arrest.

Was he free to say it in terms of being a character on an A&E show? Television networks do have a right to oust people who say offensive things. Martin Bashir stated something dreadfully offensive about Sarah Palin and lost his job for it. Did he have a right to say what he said? Legally, yes. Professionally, what he said was repulsive and unprofessional and losing his job was a natural consequence of what he said. I am not a fan of Sarah Palin but what he said was beyond offensive and he paid the price for it.

What Phil Robertson said was legal. A&E’s response was legal. They chose to suspend him for, it seems, two hours or so. There was $500,000,000.00 on the table between the Robertson family and A&E. With that much money on the table it should surprise no one that a speedy resolution was sure to follow. A&E reinstated him. The Robertson family is going to stay. A& E is willing to overlook statements; the Robertson family is willing to overlook the A&E reaction. The decisions were made and the resolution was created because of love. They all love the almighty dollar enough to overlook everything.

Many people in Christianity have stepped forward to defend Phil Robertson for defending traditional Christian values. I am offended because he did not do so.

Here are a couple of things he said:

"It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying?"

Human sexuality is complex. Sexual orientation is complex. People making lifelong commitments to one another is complex. Boiling everything down, as a man, to the choice of where one wants to place one’s self is not the central point of life and relationships and even of sexuality.

He is basing his statement, in part, based on a premise that sexual orientation is not an orientation but a preference. Whenever I hear people use the phrase ‘sexual preference’ in lieu of sexual orientation, I know we are having a problem. Whenever I hear the phrase ‘gay lifestyle,’ I know we are having a problem. People do not choose sexual orientation any more than they choose their own gender or eye color.

Secondly, Robertson said this:

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

Mr. Robertson is giving, what appears to be a glancing, personal, paraphrase of a passage in 1 Corinthians 6. His reference is wildly out of context and even more wildly a personal paraphrase.

Again, he shows a remarkable indifference to sexual orientation and goes further. He seems to be indicating that homosexual behavior can lead to things such as bestiality. A consensual sexual relationship between two adults who are loving and have made a lifetime commitment to one another is equated to bestiality. It’s okay because he’s merely stating traditional Christian values. Seriously? We have to defend him because he’s a good Christian and takes the Bible as inspired. Seriously? It’s Biblical and if you don’t believe this you are picking and choosing what you believe. Seriously?

Funny thing is that I see a lot of churches that say other churches pick and choose, pick and choose. I’ll give a very simple example. Many churches deny women the right to preach because it is Biblical and they are not going to deny the Bible. (They actually DO deny the Bible because the first Christian message was that Jesus had been raised from the dead and this message was preached by, ahem, women….)

But going back to my point. Many churches do not allow women to preach because it says women are not supposed to preach in the writings of St. Paul. I’ve sat in churches where this is so and I’ve sat next to women listening to sermons and bowing their heads in prayer and their heads were uncovered. Most churches ignore that one, even the churches that choose to not allow women to preach.

So, taking Paul out of context, paraphrasing him, and stating this is traditional Christian doctrine is a good thing?

Here is why I’m offended by Phil Robertson’s comments. People are taking him seriously. People, Christians, are defending him saying he is promoting traditional Christian values. In doing so, we are turning our back on people and, frankly, spitting on them and treating them like they are children of a lesser deity.

Phil Robertson equated the loving relationship two gay people have with one another to bestiality. He delved into theological ‘truth’ by talking about how much more vaginas have to offer than anuses and assured us all this is what traditional Christianity is.

He demeaned people because of their sexual orientation. I know straight people, gay people, and bisexual people. They are friends who I love. They Worship God with me. They share blood with me. Their lives and my life is intertwined and I am greatly blessed by them. It is not because they are gay. It is not in spite of the fact they are gay. They are people I love. Period. End of story. He demeaned people I know and love and he demeaned really, really fine people who have demonstrated the love of Christ to other people over and over again.

Phil Robertson has told us that he has baptized a large number of people and brought a lot of people to Christ. That’s nice. I’ve baptized a lot of people as well. It’s a pretty easy thing to do.

The great challenge as Christians isn’t always bringing people to Christ, but bringing Christ to people. Did his comments bring the peace of God which passes all understanding to anyone? Did his comments bring the words of Paul that tell us that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ to anyone?

What offended me, as a Christian about Phil Robertson’s words were that he demeaned people and frankly, attempted to take Christ away from people. He did so for good reasons, however. He thinks vaginas have a lot more to offer him than an anus does.

Phil Robertson, in my opinion, has just devastated the efforts of so many people trying to preach, teach, and promote the love of God to people’s lives. Instead of promoting Christianity, he just invited people to stay in bed on Sunday morning or read the paper or watch television. He did nothing to promote the goodness of Jesus to anyone.

Ultimately this will do him no harm. The show is popular and so A&E wants to keep it on the air because it is making them a lot of money. The Robertson family will remain on the air because it is making them a lot of money.

Off to the side of the road are people who were told, once again, they are children of a lesser deity.

Off to the side of the road are so many Christians diligently and faithfully attempting to bring the love of Christ to people who just watched their efforts shattered.

Off to the side of the road are so many good things so many Christians have done, their efforts overshadowed by a man who sees vaginas having more to offer him than anuses.

Phil Robertson is being promoted as a great Christian these days. Many Christians have lined up behind him to celebrate his upholding of what they call their traditional values. He got their backing and he’s making a lot of money. Meanwhile, people will see all Christians like Phil Robertson and say, “I’m done with church.”

As for me, I’m going to try and continue to bring Christ to people.

And I’m no longer going to watch Duck Dynasty.

Audio Sermon December 22, 2013

 

God with Us

Texts: Romans 1:1-7; Matthew 1:18-25

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

December 22, 2013

 

Audio Sermon December 8, 2013

 

The Day of the Lord

Texts: Isaiah 11:1-10; Matthew 3:1-12

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

December 8, 2013

Click here for the sermon.

Sermon Audio December 1; First Sunday of Advent

War on Christmas? Good! We Need One!

Text: Matthew 24:36-44

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

December 1, 2013

 

Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789

 

This is a marvelous proclamation for a day of thanks made by our first President in 1789.  In it is a nobility of purpose, of faith, of a common cause that has been mostly lost to us.

Thanksgiving Proclamation

Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington

Sermon for Sunday November 24th

Untitled Sermon About our Pilgrim Worship

Text:  John 6:25-35

 

Audio Sermon November 10, 2013

Surprising Gifts

Text: Thessalonians 2:13-17

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

November 10, 2013