January 05, 2004

the sermon

Here is the sermon, guys. Thanks for the feedback from the last post.

Megan: I may very well be very Catholic in some things. I would not deny that. Baptists come from somewhere. We ride the fence between Quakerism and Catholicism. Ha! I love this mess.

Today is my first day on the job, so I am blogging. That figures. Actually, I am on my way to the regional offices to drop off some paperwork. Then I will hang out and wait to hear if I need to visit one of our congregation today. We have a member who is 96 and is going in for surgery. Yep, she is that old and that strong. I may be making a hospital visit today.

If you want to read AKMA's sermon, go here.
If you wish to read Jane Ellen's sermon, go here.

Also, my friends at Seabury begin the General Ordination Exam. Urf. Pray for all!

Epiphany, 2004


Has anyone else here seen The Lord of the Rings films? I hope so. They are great movies.

I have seen the third movie now two times. I assume I will see it again and probably in the theatre, too. Who knows how many times I will watch it on video or DVD. I am already looking forward to the extended version. I have seen the two preceding films several times each. I have even read and reread the books over the last twenty years. I love these stories. They are epic in scope. They speak of hope and despair. They are tales of overcoming impossible odds to defeat an evil threatening to destroy everything.

I don�t know about you guys, but I love this stuff.

What makes these films so popular? What is it about these stories that draw people? Is it simply a very astute marketing scheme? I am sure that has something to do with it, but this story has been popular in America for almost 50 years. There is something to this story of hobbits, elves, the Nazgul (undead kings of ages long past), dragons, orcs and talking trees. I have been struggling to figure out what it is.

Is it the drama?
Is it the fantastic creatures?
Is it that Tolkein simply spins a good yarn and I am drawn to that?

It is probably all three. Listen to this passage from the book The Return of the King. p. 125

In rode the Lord of the Nazg�l. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazg�l, under the archway that no enemy ever yet passed, and all fled before his face. All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath D�nen. �You cannot enter here,� said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. �Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!� The black rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter. �Old fool!� he said. �Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!� And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade. Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn. And as if in answer there came from far away another note. Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin�s sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.

Wow.

This is amazing. I do not know how many of you have seen the films or read the books, but this moment is one of my favorites. When things are at their darkest, there is always the miraculous. Tolkien was not afraid of miracles. He was not afraid to grab the reigns of his own tale and allow the impossible to happen. The story is full of moments like these. The movie adaptations are no different in this respect. Every time you think that the good guys are down for the count a miracle happens. There would be elven archers�scores of them coming to the aid of a doomed army. In the passage I read to you we have a cavalry of thousands of the fiercest horsemen in all of Middle Earth appearing at the last minute to stem the tide of battle. There is a living forest that moves from one part of the countryside to another just to help out in the Battle of Helms Deep. Tolkien even employs giant eagles that appear just in the nick of time to turn the tide of another battle.

As implausible as this seems, Tolkien makes it all work. I find that he so quickly draws me into the story that I accept all of it. Sure! Why not? Giant eagles? That�s great! Wahoo! Where can I get one? This is great! I just love it.

Now, a lot of people want to say that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a Christian allegory. There is even a book on the Theology of Tolkien. I can see where they are coming from. I can see the ideas of death and resurrection. Hope is a consistent theme. Again, in the passage I read, he employs a cock crowing to signal hope. In scripture, it may signal Peter�s defeat, but we know it signals Christ�s victory in death as well. The devil will be cast down. What appears foolish is, in reality, the deepest truth.

I think, however, that Tolkien was not writing such an allegory. He was a scholar of lore who was trying to create another mythical world simply in order to create the elvish language, a language that has never existed. They are great stories, but they are not a Christian allegory.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea. Tolkien was Christian. He and C.S. Lewis were close friends. They debated theology and shared their stories and a love of lore and myth. However, Tolkein was shaped by his Christian beliefs and I think that we may need to pay attention to what he is showing us about ourselves through his tales.

It may be true to say that we are more readily drawn to the fantastic than to the ordinary. Some of us would rather read about the slaying of thousands of orcs at the hands of mythical knights, rooting them on all the way then to deal with the issues that plague our own world. We would rather escape. We would rather hear a tale where evil is something plain to discern and good triumphs in the end. I think Tolkien knew this. I do not think that he held it against us. It is human nature to seek solace. It is human nature to want a break from all that plagues us. It is normal to want the good guys to win.

But, brothers and sisters, today is the day we celebrate Epiphany, the day that the three wise men, the Kings of Orient, follow a star, visit an evil king and find God incarnate as a small boy child. They have dreamed dreams. They have dared dangerous roads. Prophecies are brought to the fore. This is a mythic tale of its own. I think that the author of Matthew shares this story with us for several reasons. One is that he knows that human beings are drawn to the epic tale. This is a part of the life of Christ that evokes the epic.

Yet, Matthew is not spinning a tale to entertain us. Matthew wants to tell us something about Christ and what it means to be Christian. What draws the three wise men? Is it a star? Is it a prophesy? This may be what initially grabs their attention. But where they lay their gifts, where they bow and kneel is before a baby boy in swaddling clothes. This is a cooing, crying baby boy who hungers for his mother�s breast. This is God. There is no greater miracle. There are no number of giant eagles that can equal this miracle, for this child is the salvation of all creation. There is no greater epic. The Lord of the Rings pales in comparison. Matthew wants us to know that this child is God.

All divinity and all humanity are enshrouded in this: all joy and all pain.

So, what I want to know is this: does this epic, this incarnation grab our attention in the way that Tolkien�s epic does? Should it?

Certainly slick marketing is successful at getting the attention of the masses. Maybe we should try that. We have all the elements of an epic story. We have wizards, prophecies and an evil empire. We have a child in danger, a young mother and her brave husband. There is war and terror. To be completely honest, I get frustrated sometimes because I perceive that we are more excited by tales like Tolkien�s than Matthew�s. But Matthew and Tolkien are not telling the same type of story, are they? I am not certain that it is right to even compare the two. Perhaps Matthew�s tale should not attract us in the way that Tolkien�s does.

The difference between Tolkien and Matthew is this: Matthew is telling us a true story that redefines all of creation. Tolkien, no matter how much Christianity he may or may not include in his story, is not telling us something real. It is an escape. It is entertainment. No matter how much of human endeavor may be illustrated, Tolkien�s Middle Earth is a place where we can go to hide from the world. Matthew offers no such escape.

Matthew brings God into the world. This is the truth about Christ. This is Emmanuel. This is how God is with us. He is born in the same manner as the rest of us. There is doubt, mystery and suffering all around. There is love, joy and complete self-giving. When we read about the Christ child, we should also be thinking about baptism, the last supper and the resurrection of Christ. This birth foreshadows all of the ministry of Jesus. Every encounter that Jesus has with the people of Israel, with the poor, the ill, the sinner and the powerful, whether miraculous or ordinary, is wrapped up in the child Christ. Every encounter with God lies with Christ in swaddling clothes. We in our identity with Christ, through our encounters with him, lie with Christ in swaddling clothes.

This is why we cannot sell Matthew�s story like we sell a movie because scripture takes us into the world. It leaves us as vulnerable as the infant Christ. It is no escape from the world. It is meeting the world head on.

This is the truth about Christian life as well. Today we witnessed the baptism of a new believer. We have heard the confession of faith. We know the promises of rebirth and renewal through Christ. These promises are true promises. They are not empty. But they are promises with a purpose. Our renewal is a sign of the renewal of the world through Christ. Yes, it can bring solace and great joy. Nevertheless, it is also a reminder to us of the ministry of Christ. It draws us closer to the world so that we can proclaim God�s great gift of love, God�s desire to be in the world with all creation.

Again, baptism is no escape from the world. This is the opposite of escape. This is an embrace.

So too it is with the table that we celebrate today. Here is another quote from Tolkien.


�Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament�there you will find romance, glory, honor, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: death: by the divine paradox, that which ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained or take on that complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, that [everyone�s] heart desires.�

Tolkien would have made an irregular Baptist to be certain, but he does illuminate the truth of the Gospel for us and the reason why we gather at this meal. It may contain all that makes for an epic and yet it is more than a story. It is more than an epic. It is truth. It is truth that lands us firmly in the world, vulnerable and weak, desperate and joyful and clinging to the promise of God�s love for all.

Christian life is no escape. Tolkien�s story, no matter how much I may love it, and I do love it, is not the truth. As we observe this day of Epiphany, as we pray and think upon the gifts the magi bore to the infant Jesus, let us enter instead that epic. Let us allow it to transform our lives so that we, like Christ Jesus, may embrace the world in vulnerable love.

Amen.

Posted by tripp at January 5, 2004 10:25 AM
Comments

Cool. I understand this one.
I went to a church where the minister always
used The Peanuts in his sermons. I love the Peanuts, especially Snoopy. They were some of
the most helpful and comforting sermons to me.

Posted by: Teresa Wimmer at January 5, 2004 11:45 AM

Concerning the "thing" at hand, that is the Eucharist, how exactly can you be Catholic about that and still be a Baptist?

(This is me calling you on another cop-out, my love.)

Last I checked the Roman Catholics believed that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ, and the Baptists repudiated that belief absolutely. Now, things may have changed since last I checked. It's been a while. If they have, do let me know.

But if they haven't, then isn't it pretty natural that Tolkien's feelings about the Eucharist would be different than the feelings you observe in your Baptist flock? They're feelings about *completely different things.* Capisci?

Posted by: Megan at January 5, 2004 09:19 PM

Hmm...

You see it is like this: Baptist believe that there is no authority other than the individual believer him/herself that can decide faith or theology. So...I can think or believe what I want. If I wish to think or believe in a Catholic manner and remain Baptist, I am free to do so. It is the great Baptist Copout.

Lucky me.

Now, where Baptists typically stand is that the priest cannot make mojo happen. Thus, he cannot stand up there and say "This here is Jesus because I called the Spirit to make it so." That is the major difference. Jesus is present somehow. The Spirit is involved somehow. Their presense and involvemnt is simply not dictated by our saying or doing a specific thing. That we say or do is mandated by Christ. Thus we have "ordinances" and not "sacraments."

The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy says a similar thing. The Roman Catholic Church no longer teaches transubstantiation. Who knew? They still have the "real presense," but no longer transubstantiation.

Many contemporary Baptist theologians have been taking a more "Catholic" stance beacuse they believe that it was a mistake to go the route of Zwingli and his ilk (go here). He is the one who suggested that Jesus could not be in two places at once. Since he is at the right hand of God, then he cannot be in the wine or bread. The earliest Baptists had no trouble at all with the language of "sacrament" and took a more Calvinist line which allows for mystery and presense.

Another option, as a Baptist, is to say that I am dependant upon Christ for my salvation. This is a pretty typical Baptist view. Thus, I have a personal relationship with him. So, Jesus says "come to the table." It is a mandate (Do this in remembrance of me.). I can do this mindlessly or I can actually participate in a deeper way. This is a choice that no one can dictate for me. However, as a pastor, I relaize the benefits of attempting to bring oneself to the table because Jesus and the Spirit are there. I think it is right to preach on it. I cannot control whether anyone does, but I surely can suggest it.

Posted by: Tripp at January 6, 2004 09:45 AM

It's interesting to see the Baptist party line go so close to the Unitarian Universalist practice. I rarely think of the two churches in the same sentence. :)

What's the difference between "real presence" and transubstantiation?

Posted by: Megan at January 6, 2004 11:04 AM

The similarity you see is has its roots in congregationalism. This is what drives some of my more Orthodox or Catholic friends nuts.

Your second point:

It is a philosophical distinction that I still have trouble with.

Transawhatsit: Really, this is the body and blood...no, really. Flesh and blood. It is no longer in any way bread and wine. That is a happy illusion...or something like that.

"real presense" (note: even the Methodists hold this": Jesus said he would be here. Where could he be? "This is my body." He said so. Why is it still bread? Hey! Maybe it isn't! Maybe he is really present in the bread and the wine.

Ah...mystery.

Posted by: Tripp at January 6, 2004 03:16 PM

Alas, I do not understand what you have written. Try again?

Posted by: Megan at January 6, 2004 08:50 PM

Here is an answer a wee less punchy...

Trans: This depends upon the idea that Jesus is present in the flesh. So, bread and wine are physically changed.

R.P.: This suggests that Jesus is present, but how this happens is a mystery. Clearly bread is bread and wine is wine. But since Jesus said that the bread was his body and wine was his blood, then that settles it. They are. How? We really do not know.

I think this summs it up. The second is dependant upon mystery. The first, I think, is a pseudo-scientific 15th Century mess of an idea. The Vatican chucked it officially in the 20th Century.

Posted by: Tripp at January 7, 2004 09:39 AM