Monday, February 24, 2014

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.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

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

 

 

Finding Joy

Monday, February 17, 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.

Sunday, February 16, 2014

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 whoface 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)

chooselife

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

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 flintdenies.

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 13th 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.

Monday, February 10, 2014

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

The Law of Christ

Sunday, February 02, 2014

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)

Micah

Monday, January 27, 2014

Audio Sermon January 26, 2014

 

Pauls Church Primer

Texts: 1 Corinthians 1:10-18

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

January 26, 2014

 

speakeraaa

Sunday, January 19, 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

 

speaker

Monday, January 13, 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

 

speaker[3]

Tuesday, January 07, 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

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Audio Sermon 12/29/13

 

Of Bullies and Saviors

Text: Matthew 2:13-23

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

December 29, 2013

 

speaker

Monday, December 30, 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 1st Amendment right. Please.

The 1st 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.

Monday, December 23, 2013

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

 

speaker

Tuesday, December 10, 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.

Sunday, December 01, 2013

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

 

Wednesday, November 27, 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

 

Monday, November 11, 2013

Audio Sermon November 10, 2013

Surprising Gifts

Text: Thessalonians 2:13-17

Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo

November 10, 2013