Edited Text of Pastor Ray’s message on February 16, 2014

“We’re A Classy Organization!”  1 Corinthians 11:17-34

What class are you?  Upper, Upper Middle, Middle, Working Class, Lower?  We even define an Underclass–people who are no longer connected to the normal support systems such as employment, housing and even public aid.  According to a 2012 Gallup survey, a large majority of Americans define themselves as Middle Class.  But Class in America is nebulous since it is a self-definition and self-perception in relationship to others.  Besides, who wants to self-identify as “low class”?  Often, class identity is related to levels of education, profession or job choice, ethnicity and race.  But most often it is determined by wealth.  Historically, Class and privilege go hand in hand.  If you’ve seen the movie “Titanic”, you will remember the defined boundaries of class.  One may go down the decks (if one so inexplicably chooses), but never up and there are locked gates to remind you of your class.  The higher one’s class, the more rights and privileges one enjoys.  The higher one’s class, the more access one has to participation in corporate life and all the benefits participation affords.  The higher one’s class, the more power one has to set the rules for full participation.

In the US Constitution, we say that all men are created equal and that all men have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But equality has never been equally distributed.  Initially, it was reserved for white males property owners.  African Americans were 3/4 of a man.  Women didn’t count.  And it has taken long battles to expand the definition of equality.  Less than 100 years ago, women finally got the right to vote, and women have come a long way (Baby!).  But women still don’t have the economic security that men enjoy.  Lass than 50 years ago, African Americans were included in the right to vote, but despite the election of an African American to the presidency, they continue to face economic and social marginalization.  “Equality” has never been a given and class and economic status continue to determine where one lives, what job one does, where one shops, what one wears, what one eats, what kind of education one’s children receive and what one considers “possible” for the future. In a supposedly “equal” America, we have a very unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity which results in very unequal health, housing, education—virtually every aspect of life.

Class is not a new idea.  According to James Jeffers, author of The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, Roman society was extremely stratified with very clear “class” lines that could not be crossed. You were born into a specific class of people and you likely died the same class. “The Romans evaluated a person’s status based on whether the person was a citizen or a foreigner, patron or client, free or slave, ethnic Roman/Latin or not, voluntary ally or conquered enemy, male or female, and married or unmarried” (p. 182).

In Rome, one literally wore their class. In high school, I took 2 years of Latin—don’t ask me why.  In that class, I learned two things.  First, I learned the phrase of Julius Caesar, “Veni, Vidi, Vici.”   The second thing I learned was how to wear a toga—basically a sheet wrapped around the body that had to be held up by one arm.  I had to wear one for a day to be initiated into “Latin Club.”  It was quite embarrassing because if I didn’t hold it up exactly right, I could end up…um…bare assed.  Besides learning to hold up my toga, I learned that only male citizens of Rome could wear a toga.  (Women wore Stolas.) The toga identified one’s class.  In addition, not all togas were created equal.  Togas with 2 thin purple stripes down the sides (purple was the “power color” of the day) were reserved for the “equestrian class”.  These were not horse owners, but men of “noble birth”.  A wide purple stripe down the middle of the toga was reserved for the senatorial class—the ruling class.  Class within a class.  Upper middle, Lower middle…we understand the concept.

If you were not a citizen, you were likely a freedman—a former slave (and you got to wear a simple tunic–without colors.  Freedmen could never become citizens and remained dependent upon a “Patron”—the head of the household.  You were the “client”—basically hired help.  You became a member of the household (which gave you some security—a place to live and some income).  But in exchange for the security, the client lost all privileges and was under the control of the paterfamilias (the father of the household).

If you were not a freedman, you were likely a slave.  The slave class had no rights whatsoever and was considered property. The best they could ever hope for was to be given their freedom so they could become a “freedman.”  Unlike slavery in the US, it was not race based, and often took the form of indentured servitude.

Women were a subset in each class.  In Rome, citizen women had the right to divorce their husbands, but not much else.  It was a male-dominated society.  In everything, pater potestas was the order of things—the power of the father.  Even adult married men with children were under the power of their fathers or grandfathers until his death.

Benefits of being in the “toga” class included getting the best seats at shows, entitlement to bigger portions and better quality portions of food or wine than the lower classes, and greater access to courts and justice. Virtually all social interaction was shaped by this hierarchy of caste and class. For instance, if a patron had guests for dinner, it was common for guests of high class to be served more and better food and drink than others sitting at the table of less social standing.  If you weren’t part of the “toga” class, you would likely be served the leftovers (or the crumbs) in a separate location after all the guests had been served to their fill.  All this was as natural as breathing.  It was the way the world worked. It was just accepted practice.

So let’s go to church in Corinth.  The First Century church met in a home—probably the home of a patron.  The church likely included everyone who was part of the household—the “clients” and the slaves–and the guests of the patron.  The weekly “church service” probably included a meal that concluded with the Lord’s Supper.  So far, no problem.  But there is a problem in the church that has been reported to Paul.  Not everyone was being given access to the meal!  The social stratification that was so “normal” was shaping the practice of the church.  When the Lord’s Supper was being served, the ‘haves’ were getting gorged and drunk and the “have nots” got the crumbs that were left on the plate.

While this way of behaving might have been “normal” in the culture of Corinth, for Paul it was completely unacceptable.  His response, “What am I supposed to say? Do you want me to praise you? Well, I certainly will not praise you for this! 

Why is Paul so incensed by the behavior of the upper class?  Because their behavior toward the poor is a complete mockery of the work of Jesus’s death remembered at the Lord’s table and of the new community God had created through the baptism of the Spirit.   Paul reminds them in 1 Corinthians 12:13,  “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.  The Lord’s Supper was intended to demonstrate the unity of the church. “Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.” (I Corinthians 10:17) The inequality being practiced in the assembly at Corinth during the Lord’s Supper was a denial of that unity.  Whatever was “normal” outside the church was not to be replicated inside the church, the Body of Christ.  The church at Corinth had turned the Lord’s Supper into an occasion to exhibit social distinctions and claim higher “approval” from God based on their class.   As a result, their assembly was doing more harm than good.

To maintain the social class structure within the way the church organizes itself and practices its communal life is an affront to Christ and an affront to the brothers and sisters who have been mistreated and humiliated.  To marginalize those of lower economic or social status is to bring shame to Christ and act as one who betrays Christ.  Eating the Lord’s Supper while maintaining the inequities is eating in a manner that is unworthy of the Lord.  It is to fail to discern the body of Christ.  The church in Corinth has continued to structure itself along the same lines as the caste system of Greco-Roman society.  And they are eating and drinking judgment on themselves.

The Church we were never meant to be practices the social hierarchy of the culture. God wants the church to be a place of equality where the lines of class and caste are completely eliminated.  Whatever you are on the outside should no longer make a difference on the inside.  It should be revolutionary.

Wow!  I never heard this growing up in the church.  The “words of communion” were lifted out of this passage so I always thought that the commands about self-examination and taking communion unworthily were about introspection about my personal sins.  Taking communion without first doing a self-assessment related to my wickedness was a dangerous thing.  It might lead to sickness or even death.  The self-examination that Paul commands is about assessing how the church treats those who do not have the privileges of the upper class.  To celebrate a class based Lord’s supper to to eat in an unworthy manner.  The church is unhealthy because of inequitable relationships within the church. The church is dying because the poor have been humiliated.  The church is dying because the church has maintained the divisions of social class.

The solution?  First, eat at home!  In other words, don’t bring your social biases and structure into the assembly and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.  And secondly, wait for one another.  The word “wait for” can also mean “welcome” or “include”.  In other words, make sure that you eat with those who have been marginalized.

It’s a good thing we’ve learned from Corinth!  We’ve got celebration of the Lord’s Supper down.  We all get a little piece of bread and a little shot of juice.  All about the same size–tiny.  Then, we all eat it and drink it at the same time.  And we all go home hungry.

But are we really that different from Corinth?  If we look deeper than the logistics of communion, the church in America has a long history of marginalization and unequal treatment based upon class or status.   We have Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists because of slavery.  We have churches we perceive for the wealthy and churches we perceive for the poor.  “High Church” and “Low Church” often refers as much to class as it does to liturgical structure.  We still make distinctions and we still practice those distinctions in the life of the church.  We have denominations that ordain women and other that refuse based on an restrictive view of women’s spiritual capacity–a view Jesus never shared.  We have churches that are open and affirming and those who “hate fags” based on a restrictive view of gender and sexuality–a view the early church never shared since those of undefined sexuality–eunuchs–were fully included in the life of the church. In making the distinctions, we continue to fail to “discern the body of Christ.”

I can hear Paul saying to the 21st century church:  “What am I supposed to say? Do you want me to praise you? Well, I certainly will not praise you for this! 

What is the solution for us?  “Eat at home!”  Check your biases and class consciousness at the church door.  Whatever is ‘normal’ outside the church MUST be ‘abnormal’ inside the church.  Don’t bring your preconceptions of class (either your own or other’s) into the assembly of the church because it is incompatible with the unity of the body of Christ.  “Wait for each other.”   If we are going to preach the “one-ness” of God’s people where in Christ there is no male or female, no Jew or Gentile, no slave or free, no rich or poor, no gay or straight, no black or white, etc, then we must practice a radical welcome and a radical inclusion that gives the full rights and privileges of being members of the household of God to everyone who calls on the name of the Lord, irrespective of their caste or class or status.  Otherwise, we will remain the church that we were never meant to be.  Class dismissed.

Text of Pastor Ray’s message on February 9, 2014

“Food Fight!” 1 Corinthians 8:1-13

Food, glorious food!  We love our food.  Years ago, Kimball Church had a reputation for enjoying their food and eating—a lot.  We had some amazing cooks and it always seemed that we were having potluck meals or special dinners to prepare and eat.  The eating tradition continues.  We still have great cooks and I look forward to potluck meals.

We all need to eat.  It is basic to human survival.  So one would think that food would be the last thing human beings would fight about.  Long before the current controversies about ‘organic’ vs. ‘non-organic’ or “GMOs” vs. “non-GMOs” or “farm raised” vs. “wild caught” or the foie gras debacle or the “transfat bans”, there have been food fights that usually center around the statement: “Here’s what you cannot eat.”   Every culture seems to have its delicacies that others find disgusting.  “How can you eat that?” is a question I’ve asked more than once—most recently at a restaurant that served raw quail eggs atop raw oysters.  I don’t like my eggs over easy, so I could not bring myself to try raw eggs.  It looked disgusting.  Religious traditions also have their rules and regulations around food.  Maybe it all goes back to that little situation involving a piece of fruit that Eve took from a banned tree and gave to Adam.  Though it is not recorded in Scripture, I’m sure the first couple had a “food fight” after being banished from Eden.

Food gets quite a bit of space in the Old Testament Law.  The dietary laws give strict guidelines about what God’s people can and cannot eat.  The list of dirty foods includes pork rinds and lobster tail.  And good observant Jewish boys and girls never eat bacon double cheeseburgers.

While God permitted the eating of meat after the flood, God seems to lean vegetarian.  Daniel and his friends—God’s good guys—were given the finest cuisine in Babylon, but they rejected it, choosing instead a vegetarian diet of vegetables and water.  Everyone expected them to wither away.  But after a few months, Daniel and his friends were found to be in better physical and mental shape then their carnivore peers.  Vegetarians love that story.

Because of the strict Old Testament dietary laws, it is not surprising that food caused a stir in the New Testament church.  I’m sure the Gentile converts were relieved when the gospel of Mark recorded Jesus’ statement that it is not what goes into one’s mouth that defiles a person.  Mark added the interpretative statement, “In saying this, Jesus declared all food clean.”  (Mark 7:19)  “Whew!  There.  Jesus has given us the definitive word.  I don’t have to change my diet.  I can still enjoy my blood sausage and bacon. ” You would think that Jesus’ words would end the food fights.  It didn’t.

Food continued to be an issue in the early church as evidenced by the Scriptures we read today from Romans 14:14ff and 1 Corinthians 8:1-13.  Some Christians ate meat, others were vegetarian.  Some Christians maintained the OT dietary laws.  Others openly ate pork and shell fish.  Some Christians imbibed in alcoholic beverages.  Others abstained.  And each group looked at the other group suspiciously.  Those without any dietary restrictions were viewed with suspicion by those who observed some boundaries.  They were undisciplined and unspiritual.  Those with restrictions were viewed with the same suspicion.  They were weak brothers and sisters with overly sensitive consciences who needed to loosen up a little.

Nowhere was the fight over food more pronounced than in Corinth.  And the fight was over whether Christians should eat the meat that had been sacrificed in the pagan temple rituals or eat at the temple.  Now it is important to consider that in Corinth and other Roman cities, the temple was the main slaughterhouse.  Worship included making an animal sacrifice to the gods, barbecuing a portion of it for the gods and the priests (they got the prime cuts) and then enjoying the rest of it with other worshipers in a feast.  Going to temple was a little like us going out to a restaurant with our friends.  Purchasing meat was tricky too.  Large amounts of the temple sacrifices were not eaten and were sold in the meat markets located next door to the temples.  One never knew if the meat on sale had been a part of the temple sacrifices that day or not.  Some Gentile Christians who had come out of pagan religion had trouble eating meat because they couldn’t verify where it had come from.  They could not separate the act of eating from the act of pagan worship.  Their weak consciences did not allow them to enjoy a nice steak dinner with their friends because it was too much like returning to idolatry.  Other Gentile Christians didn’t have a problem and continued to eat meat and some may have continued to join their friends and relatives for a nice dinner out at the temple.  So there was a question:  Is it alright to eat the meat sacrificed to idols?  Food Fight!

Before Paul answered the question, he addressed a deeper attitudinal issue at the heart of the food fight–the Corinthian’s emphasis on gnosis (knowledge) and exousia (rights/freedom) to guide behavior rather than love.  Knowledge and freedom was being placed in higher importance than relationship and connection to one another within the body of Christ.

“We all possess knowledge,” they said.  Paul cautioned them: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.”  The old adage is true: The more you think you know, the less you really know.  And Paul says, in essence, that their lack of love indicates that their knowledge is incomplete.  Knowledge is not the correct basis for the decision about food; love is.

So what about the food?  Those who had no trouble with eating the meat offered to idols based their decision on the knowledge that the idols are not really gods at all and there is only one true God.  So the food offered to idols is no different than any other food.  “We can eat the food because we know the sacrifice is meaningless.”  Logical.  True.  Theologically correct.  In one of the most powerful theological statements in Paul’s letters, he affirmed, “there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”  BUT….  “not everyone possesses this knowledge.”  There are still many people who have come out of paganism that still think of the idol as having a reality.  For them, eating the food offered to idols is a return to pagan religion.  And their faith in Christ is compromised as a result.

Knowledge may lead to freedom and the “right” to eat, but that does not make eating right.  Love supersedes that knowledge.  Love for the other person–demonstrated by concern for their spiritual well-being–should lead us to give up our “rights” and limiting our “freedom” in order to build them up and protect them in circumstances where they may feel vulnerable.   Knowledge does not give anyone the “right” to be destructive of others.   If continuing to demand the “right” to eat food offered to pagan gods because of their superior knowledge led to the faith of others being destroyed and leading them into sin against their conscience, then it is better not to eat.  Again, Love supersedes knowledge.  Love supersedes freedom.

Placing knowledge at the top of our values demeans those who do not share our knowledge and we live in denial of our unity in Christ.  The “weak” Christian is our brother or sister.  We are a community, and as a community we take care of one another and sacrifice for one another to ensure that everyone progresses in their walk with Christ.  And we recognize that not everyone is at the same place in the journey.  An “us” and “them” mentality ultimately destroys the body of Christ.   An attitude that says “I’ll do whatever I have the right to do,” is antithetical to Christian community.  Love is patient.  Love is not arrogant.  Love always protects.  Love sacrifices.  That is the model of Christ, who though he was in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be held on to.  No, Jesus took on the role of a servant, giving himself up for us all in death.  (Philippians 2:6) Jesus did not come to be served (demanding that his “rights” take priority) but to serve (giving up his “rights” for the sake of others).  

As Paul reminds the Philippians, “Have this attitude that was also in Christ Jesus.”  We are to humbly look out for the interest of others.  If my freedom leads another believer to compromise their walk with Christ, then it is good to limit my freedom for their sake.  True knowledge of Christ will lead us to the love that gives up.

The church God wants us to become is a church that places community and love for each person–no matter how “strong” or how “weak”–as its highest values.

Text of Pastor Ray’s message on February 2, 2014

“Anything Goes?”  1 Corinthians 5:1-8; 6:9-20

In 1934, Cole Porter wrote clever lyrics that documented changing mores and behaviors around sexual expression called “Anything Goes.”  While the tone of the song communicates uncertainty about the changes in attitudes and standards, the reality is that the change is a tidal wave that cannot really be stopped so you might as well not fight it.  In Porter’s words…

“The world has gone mad today,

And good’s bad today,

And black’s white today,

And day’s night today,

When most guys today

That women prize today

Are just silly gigolos

And though I’m not a great romancer

I know that I’m bound to answer

When you propose,

‘Anything goes’.”

Here we are 80 years later.  Attitudes have continued to shift and now we have ‘sexting’, ‘twerking’ and adult content of every conceivable sort available 24/7 in the privacy of our homes via internet.  There are few boundaries around sexual expression left.   We live in a day when, indeed, anything goes.  What will 2094–80 years into our future–look like?  If we continue the direction we’re headed, God knows, everything goes!

We are not the first society be sex-crazed.  Ancient Greece and Rome had their own “anything goes” attitude toward sexuality—at least for men.  A 2010 exhibit at the Cycladic Museum in Athens presented everyday objects from ancient Greece that were covered in sexually explicit art—cups, saucers, plates, vases, lamps, jewelry.  Adult content was always accessible to men in ancient Greece, even without the internet.  Sexual expression was built into the routines and rituals of daily life–including religious worship.  Men were encouraged to have wives for legitimate children and mistresses for pleasure.  Sexual activity between men was seen as healthy for relationships within society.  And the philosopher Plato discussed the merits of sexual expression between men and adolescent boys in his dialogue, “Symposium”.

The Greek city of Corinth, where Paul established the church, was also sex oriented.  Built at the crossroads of trade and commerce, thousands of people passed through daily.  Dominating the city was one of the largest temples built for the worship of Aphrodite, the goddess of love and fertility.  It is said that the temple housed over 1000 temple prostitutes who would welcome worshipers beneath the “fornus”–an arched area at the entrance of the temple.  (It is from the “fornus” that we derive the word, “fornication” which originally meant “prostitution”)  Through ritual sex with the temple prostitute, it was believed that the man would become united with–and thereby empowered by–Aphrodite.  Corinth was also the site of the Isthmian athletic games second only to the Olympics.  Training centers were scattered throughout the city, and sexual activity was often part of the training.

Despite having come to faith in Christ, the predominately Gentile congregation remained embedded in a sex-saturated culture and the cultural attitudes toward sexual expression walked through the church doors.  And the church didn’t seem to see it as a problem.  In fact, according to commentator Gordon Fee, the church even developed a slogan to express it’s tolerance–a slogan that Paul quotes times in 1 Corinthians 6:12.  “All things are lawful.”  It was almost a church tag line:  The Church At Corinth: Where You Can Do Anything You Want.”   No limits, no boundaries, no judgment.  Anything goes.

Evidently, not everyone in the church was comfortable with the libertine attitudes and reported to Paul several “concerning situations” that had arisen in the church.  According to the reports, a man in the church was having an open ongoing affair with his father’s wife.  (1 Corinthians 5:off)  This would have definitely been offensive to Jews who were members of the church in Corinth. Leviticus 18, which lists taboo sexual partnerships, prohibited such a relationship.  But it was also considered taboo in Greek society (yes, Greeks had their boundaries too) because an affair with the wife of one’s father dishonored the father.  With so many opportunities in Greek and Roman culture to express your sexuality outside the home, taking your father’s wife was seen as an act of hostility toward your father.  We see the same thing in the act of Absalom having open sex with his father, David’s, concubines after his successful coup (see 2 Samuel 16).  A second “situation” involved men from the church visiting Aphrodite’s temple prostitutes (1 Corinthians 6:12ff).

And the church did nothing.  In fact, the church boasted about it.  Incestuous relationships in the church—not a problem.   Visiting temple prostitutes—not a problem.  This is the church of “All things are lawful for me.”  But upon hearing these reports, Paul was horrified and issued corrective action and corrective theology.

In both situations, bad theology led to bad ethics and bad behavior.  The church had allowed pagan religions and pagan philosophies and practices to influence their thinking and the results were a distortion of the gospel of Christ who came make things new.

• First, the church had a distorted theology of spiritual freedom in Christ.  Paul dealt with this in other churches as well (see Galatians 5).  The argument went something like this:  Christ has set us from the law, therefore all things are now lawful.  The Mosaic laws restricting ones diet no longer apply–enjoy that bacon cheeseburger.  The Mosaic laws regarding sacrifices no longer apply.  The Mosaic laws about circumcision no longer apply.  We are not under law, but under grace.  Therefore, there is nothing unlawful. Paul’s theology is that we are free, but we are not to use our freedom as a license to indulge the sin nature.  We are free, but never lawless.  We are free, but never released from the royal law of love.
• Second, the church had a distorted theology of the body.  By their logic, limits on the body were moot because the body itself was nothing but a container for the Spirit. Their logic is expressed another slogan, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both” so what does it matter what kind of food we eat?  And what is true of food is also true of all other bodily appetites.  Sex for the body and the body for sex, and God will destroy them both, so what does it matter?  This mirrored Greek philosophy that separated the physical from the spiritual.  In Platonic thought, the spiritual was of higher reality than the physical, so the physical world was inconsequential.  Paul’s view of the body was much different. Here is Paul’s theology of the body:  Our bodies (not just our souls) have been redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, our bodies will one day be raised by God’s power.  Our bodies were made for the Lord.  Therefore, how we use our body matters.
• Finally, the church at Corinth had a distorted understanding of the nature of the church.  Paul uses two images to correct their understanding. First, the church is a new batch of unleavened dough.  Paul uses the Jewish practice of getting rid of the leaven at Passover to make his point.  Yeast was very uncommon in that day.  Bread was leavened using something similar to a sourdough starter, so each loaf was made from the previous dough.  Over time, the starter could become contaminated with bacteria and ineffective.  The Jews got rid of the old starter at Passover.  Paul applies this to the church.  Through the sacrifice of Christ, the church has been made a new batch of dough.  But by tolerating and encouraging behavior that is part of the old nature, the church has been contaminated.  Paul gives a corrective:  Get rid of the old leaven (deal with the incest and the arrogance) so that you can be in practice what you are in spiritual reality.  Allowing the situation to continue only infects the church and makes its witness of Christ as the transformer of all things ineffective.  The second image Paul uses for the church is that we are members of Christ united with him in spirit.  While that is their spiritual reality, their tolerance of fornication denies that reality.  To unite with a temple prostitute, becoming one with her in body, was to become united with the diety she represented.  This was way beyond just having sex.  This was the equivalent of joining Christ to the idol.  Our bodies are not meant for false gods but for the Lord.  Uniting with a temple prostitute is a denial of our union with Christ.   Paul gives a corrective:  Flee fornication (prohibit participation in temple prostitution) so you can be united with Christ in practice as well as spiritual reality.

Implicit in Paul’s directives is a call to the church to change  their relationship to the broader culture and mindset.  Rather than mirroring the culture’s standards or even lowering the bar further (as in the situation of incest) the church must maintain a higher standard of conduct.  To the Romans, Paul wrote: “Don’t be conformed any longer to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind so that you may know God good and perfect will.”  And “give your bodies to God as a living sacrifice.”  (Romans 12:1-2)  Our sexual ethics must be different from the culture that tolerates and encourages “anything goes.”  Paul is not giving them a sexual rulebook (that would be no different from the Law), but he is guiding them to a lifestyle that raises relationships (love does no harm to a neighbor–therefore love fulfills the law–Romans 13:10) and recognizes the sacredness of the body (use the body as an instrument of justice–Romans 6:13).  Sexual expression that diminishes another’s personhood (objectification) or coerces (oppression) is NOT acceptable for members of the body of Christ–even if anything goes in the broader culture.  And idolatry is definitely out of the question.

But it goes beyond sex.  In all areas, the standards of ethics and behavior of the church must be different enough to challenge the standards of the culture.  The economic culture of our day has an “anything goes” attitude about business ethics, putting the bottom line at the top of the agenda.  The church needs to reflect higher standards, putting people above profit.  The corporate culture of our day gives lip service to preservation of life and creation.  The church needs to reflect higher standards toward care of the earth. The political culture of our day is built on a foundation of pay to play and corruption.  The church needs to reflect higher standards that promote policies that protect the least powerful not favoring those with wealth and power.   The practices of the church must reflect the new ways of the Kingdom—both personally and corporately.  Otherwise, we lose our voice and our power to witness to Christ and the Kingdom.  If we allow “anything goes”, everything goes—including our witness to the transformative work of Christ. 

We see this dynamic clearly in the scandal in the Roman Catholic Church regarding pedophile priests.  The church turning a blind eye to the problem, tolerating it and allowing it to continue by simply shifting priests from parish to parish.  The result: a diminished witness for Christ that is still impacting the church.  It has taken radical action from the top to get rid of this infectious leaven.  The rest of the contemporary church needs to learn from the scandal.

These are difficult topics, granted.  But the church needs to raise the issue and begin the dialogue so we can truly be the church that we were meant to be–a holy church that has obeyed the word of God, ‘come out from them and be separate.’ (2 Corinthians 6:17)

Where have you seen the mores and ethics of the culture seep into the church in a way that has been harmful to the church’s witness? 

Evaluate your own “separateness” from the standards of our culture.  Where do you sense that you have “gone to bed” with the world?  What radical action might you need to take to become in practice what God has made you in Christ?

Text of Pastor Ray’s message on January 26

“Pastoral Personality Contest”  1 Corinthians 1:9-18

We live in a culture obsessed with celebrity.  Most news broadcasts include as much celebrity gossip as “real” local, national and global news.  It is not surprising that celebrity culture has seeped into the ways that we think about church and church leadership.  You don’t have hang out with Christians very long until you learn about celebrity pastors–the ones who serve megachurches, write best-selling books, have their own television shows and look like movie stars.  Celebrity pastors don’t necessarily like their celebrity status.  In fact, most are probably uncomfortable with it.  That doesn’t change the reality that people have elevated them and used their name to establish their own personal spiritual credentials.  “I follow (fill int he blank)” isn’t uncommon–especially in this era of blogs and Facebook and podcasts.

However, pastoral celebrities are nothing new.  In every era of the church, there have been popular leaders who have inspired followers.  Revivalism produced Billy Sunday, D. L. Moody and Charles Finney.  The First Great Awakening produced Jonathon Edwards, George Whitfield and John Wesley.  The Reformation produced John Calvin and Martin Luther.  Go back even further and you’ll meet celebrity Simeon Stylites–an ascetic  who became so popular that he ended up living for 47 years on top of a 9 foot column in part to avoid the crowds who came to hear his wisdom.  Even emperors of the Holy Roman Empire came to visit Simeon at his pillar.  So it is not surprising that pastoral popularity is first issue that Paul addressed in his letter to the church at Corinth.

“I follow Paul,” some said.  Paul was the founding pastor of the church after all.  “I follow Cephas (aka: Peter),” said others.  Peter was the leader of the apostles after all and he was given the keys to the kingdom and he preached the first sermon on Pentecost that resulted in 2000 conversions.  “I follow Apollos,” said others.  Apollos was the most eloquent of speakers and confounded the opposition with his wisdom.  He had an impressive grasp of the Scriptures and he had been pastor a Corinth for a period of time.  You might be thinking, “So the people in Corinth had their favorite pastors.  We all have preferences for styles and personalities.  What’s the problem?”

The problem is not that people preferred one leader/speaker over another.   The problem lies in an attitude of arrogance.  Beneath the identification of favorite spiritual leader was a belief that they had a deeper spirituality than the others.  In essence, each one is saying, “Because I follow so and so, I am more spiritual than you are.”  Spiritual pride leads to divisions.  The focus has shifted from the mission of the church that we accomplish together to the evaluating one another’s spirituality.   Even those who say, “I follow Christ” are falling into the same spiritual pride–pretending they are above everyone else.   By identifying themselves with a leader, they fail to see themselves as “members of one another in the body of Christ.”  An “I’m right and you’re wrong” attitude has destroyed their fellowship.   Paul, rightly points out that such “divisions” are antithetical to their claim of being spiritual.  By emphasizing allegiance to a leader and determining their fellowship along those lines, they are demonstrating their spiritual immaturity—not their godly wisdom.

Instead of this “personality factionalism” what is Paul’s desire?   I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

Unity is Paul’s call.  This does not mean uniformity that we will all have the same opinion about every subject.  Even in a small group, people have a variety of opinions about things.  Paul is not advocating for drone mentality—that does nothing to advance our understanding of God, Christ and the mission of the church.  Disagreement can be actually help us grow in our understanding of God–if we’re in honest dialogue with one another.  Paul is advocating a higher focus than personality and celebrity culture and a majoring in the majors—in particular the good news of the kingdom expressed in the death and resurrection of Christ.  But we cannot accomplish the mission of God when we are intent on lording our deeper spirituality over those around us.  

What is true within the local cells of the body of Christ is also true in the larger context of the church.  The global church is divided by denominationalism, theology, polity.  Baptists don’t play with Pentecostals, Evangelicals don’t play with Mainlines.  Fundamentalists don’t play with Roman Catholics.  We’ve divided ourselves up–in essence saying, “I follow (fill in the blank).” And in our refusal to speak to one another, let alone work together, we have weakened the Church’s ability to be a witness of the Kingdom.

It may not be possible to eliminate all the walls that separate us, but it is possible to knock some doorways through them so that we can listen to one another, learn from one another, and work together on issues that are of great importance to all of us.  Kimball Avenue Church has learned this first hand.  Our participation in the Logan Square Ecumenical Alliance (made up of Methodists, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, Catholics and others) has strengthened us.  We’ve learned about God’s heart, gotten different perspectives on Scripture and addressed Kingdom issues in our community that demand a larger voice than just one church.  And in the process, we’ve acknowledged our unity as followers of Christ.  We are indeed one in the Spirit.  In the essential of the person and work of Christ we are in agreement.  In the non-essentials, we give liberty.  In all things, we uphold charity.

Has your church affiliation ever gotten in the way of the work of the Kingdom of God?  If so, how?

When have you felt prideful on the basis of who you follow or your church affiliation?  How did your attitude affect your relationships with people who were different from you?

How “ecumenical” are you personally?  What about your church?  How can you promote “ecumenism” among your church peers?

Reflections in Epiphany by Bruce Ray, Pastor

Epiphany means “manifestation” or “revelation” and refers to the manifestation of Jesus as the Son of God and light of the world.  So today, we celebrate the visit of the magi and the fulfillment of God’s promise to send light into the darkness of the world.

I have always found the story of the magi fascinating.  As foreigners, the magi had little knowledge of God, yet they are the ones that receive the message.  Literally, the heavens declare the glory of God to them and they understand, leading them on a quest to discover the truth.  The insiders—the teachers in Jerusalem—can quote the Scriptures, but have no inclination to investigate.  It is a complete reversal of who is living in light and who is living in darkness. Knowledge of the light does not necessarily lead to walking in the light.  The magi, with limited knowledge, make the original star trek.

The story reveals God’s readiness to extend the boundaries of God’s kingdom beyond the borders of Israel.  Suddenly, the outsiders are the insiders.  The light of God is for all nations, not just a chosen few.  And God is ready to speak their language—the language of the stars—to ensure that they are included.  We could all learn a lesson from that.

I also find it fascinating that the magi go to Jerusalem initially to seek out the one that is born King of the Jews.  They go where one would naturally go—to the headquarters of the ruling family.  They assume—as most of us do—that if anything of great importance is going to take place, it will commence at the center of power.  They discover something else.  Their compass is off by nine miles.  The ruler that will shepherd the God’s people comes out of Bethlehem—a small town whose only claim to fame is the birthplace of David, another unlikely King.

God seldom works through the existing structures of power.  In fact, most of the time, God is set against the powers that be.  Herod is an impostor King, controlled by the Roman Empire and doing its bidding.  Herod represents the interests of Rome and the interests of self-serving power.  In the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, God is doing nothing less than announcing the removal of the existing powers in favor of a new structure that is founded in humility and righteousness.  God is ordering social life (the function of government) according to a new rubric.  In the words of Isaiah, “unto us a child is born…and the government will be upon his shoulders…and of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end.”  God’s new true king will judge with righteousness; justice will be the foundation of his throne.  The kingdom will not begin in Rome or in Jerusalem, the seats of power, exerting itself over people in domination.  The movement toward God’s kingdom will begin from below, in Bethlehem, building from a new foundation.

How frequently people go to the capitol or city hall, thinking that answers will be found there.  How frequently we think that existing power structures will be the source of our help and salvation.  How frequently we buy into the notion that having the right person in office will make all the difference.  It doesn’t matter whose sitting in the chair if the chair is broken.  The existing structures of power are only concerned with one thing—keeping the power.  Herod, as we know, was not interested in the welfare of the people.  Herod was more than willing to massacre children to ensure a continuation of his power.  We need to shift our compass.  True north is not Jerusalem or Rome (or Washington or any other center of power).  True north is Bethlehem and the Christ child.  From Christ, we are able to orient ourselves toward God’s ways.

Finally, the magi are faced with a dilemma.  They have been instructed by Herod to return to Jerusalem after finding the child.  But in a dream, they are instructed to return home a different direction.  A choice must be made.  Whose instructions will they follow?  And what are the ramifications of the choice?  Ultimately, it is a question of allegiance.  Which king will we follow?

Return to Jerusalem will make Herod happy though the consequences of that are unknown.  After all, the dream is a warning.  Leave by a different route and you make Herod your enemy.  Neither option seems appealing.  Will the magi be true to their convictions and beliefs that this child is the rightful king (exit a different way) or will they be motivated by the desire to preserve good personal and national relations with Herod (return to Jerusalem)?

They choose to live by the conviction that the One revealed in the stars is indeed the One who should be given homage and obeyed.  They chose to recognize the True King by refusing to obey the dictates of the impostor king.  They choose whom they will follow.

In many respects, we are also faced with the same choice.  Will we following the King of Kings or the impostors that set themselves up against the principles of the Kingdom?  Which king will be enthroned in our lives?  Will we be enlightened by the “Light of the World”, or will we return to darkness because it is easier and better for self-preservation.  The impostors can punish those who do not obey their commands.  Innocents die.  We will remain outsiders to their privileges.  We will be perceived as troublemakers.

It has been more than 20 centuries since the magi made their decision, but the way they went is still the way to go.  Just as they were not taken in with the deception of Herod, we also can resist the deceptions of the many Herods of this world—those people who seek power, who cling to power, who worship power and expect us to live according to their plan.  And in so doing, we expose them for what they are—empty shells—and we reveal the fullness of the glory of God in Christ.

Choose your king.

Christmas Commentary by Bruce Ray, Pastor

There is a war on Christmas, but it’s not the one you think.  Sure, there are the annual lawsuits over nativities on public property or the public school bans on Christmas Carols or the battles over greetings (do you say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays”?)  But these skirmishes are not the real war on Christmas.  The real war on Christmas is a war on the values and principles of Christ.

The announcement of the birth of Christ is an announcement of seismic change in the order of things.  In the context of Empire, Caesar Augustus, Syrian Governor Quirinius and King Herod, a new leader is born in the city of David—A Savior, who is Christ, the Lord.  Christmas is the birth of hope in the midst of oppressive circumstances where the poor are subjugated, ethnic minorities are forced from their homes to register with the government, and there is the constant threat of the sword for those who do not comply.  Christmas is the flicker of the light of God’s kingdom dawning after an eon of darkness.  Christmas is a statement of God’s return to the world to bring deliverance.  The birth of Christ threatens the status quo because Christ is the One who ushers in God’s kingdom—the kingdom where no one is homeless or hungry; where no one is sick or poor; where there is no division between male and female or slave and free; where strangers are welcomed and prisoners are set free; where wars are a thing of the past and violence ceases.  “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders.”

Which brings me to the War on Christmas.  If Christmas represents a transformed order in the world and threatens the status quo, then those who benefit from the status quo will fight it and seek to stop it.  The war on Christmas is a war against compassion and justice for the poor.  It is a war against the common good.  It is a war against the very things the kingdom promises.  And it is waged in order to maintain the status quo where the few benefit at the expense of the many. 

I see the war on Christmas in the reduction of SNAP benefits to millions of families, maintaining the status quo of hunger.  I see the war on Christmas in the fight against the Affordable Care Act, maintaining the status quo of sickness.  I see the war on Christmas in the systematic destruction of Public Housing in Chicago, maintaining the status quo of housing insecurity and homelessness.  I see the war on Christmas in the battles against raising the minimum wage, maintaining the status quo of poverty.   I see the war on Christmas in “get tough on crime” policies that incarcerate Americans at unprecedented rates and in the denial of basic rights to those who have been imprisoned and “paid their debt to society.”  I see the war on Christmas in the break up of families through deportation and the unwillingness to fix a broken immigration policy.  I see the war on Christmas in the continued drumbeats of those who call for the use of lethal force and war to bring peace to the earth. 

Will Christmas be defeated?  Sometimes, it would seem that way.    Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote in the midst of the Civil War—a war fought over the status quo of slavery,

I heard the bells on Christmas Day, Their old familiar carols play,
 And wild and sweet the words repeat
 Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head:
“There is no peace on earth,” I said,
 “For hate is strong and mocks the song
 Of peace on earth, good will to men.”



Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
 The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
 With peace on earth, good will to men.”



Till, ringing singing, on its way,
 The world revolved from night to day,
 A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
 Of peace on earth, good will to men!

Christmas will not be defeated!  Christ the Savior is born.  Not even Jesus’ death could stop the advance of the Kingdom of God.  And the resurrection reminds us that the Kingdom will continue to advance until every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord.  In spite of the battles that are waged to preserve the status quo, God is not dead, nor doth he sleep.  Rejoice!  Rejoice!  Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel!   Light will prevail over this current darkness.  Like a tiny bit of yeast worked into the dough of a Christmas Stollen, the kingdom of heaven will produce transformation in the world.

Christmas is not a time to get into the holy huddle or to hide in pious isolation. It is time to shout with Mary: “The Mighty One has done great things!”  It is time to shout with the angels:  “Glory to God in the highest!  Shalom on earth.”  It is time to shout with the prophets:  “To us a child is born; to us a son is given!  And of his government and of peace there will be no end!”  It is time to shout with the saints of the past and present:  “Joy to the world!  The Lord is Come!”  It is time to go tell it on the mountain that Jesus Christ is born.  It is time to march in the light of God.

It is time to remember, in the words of Maltbie Babcock’s great hymn, “This is my father’s world, O let me ne’er forget that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.  This is my father’s world, the battle is not done!  Jesus, who died, shall be satisfied, and earth and heaven be one.”

So Rejoice.  Celebrate.  Give Gifts.  Sing and Dance.  Shout.  “Emmanuel!  God IS with us!”

The Chicago Tribune reported today that thousands of families that were given “right to return” vouchers when they were forced to move due to CHA’s Plan For Transformation have been taken off the list now that few of the promised units have been built.  Many Lathrop Homes residents have been impacted.  Read more….

http://eeditionmobile.chicagotribune.com/Olive/Tablet/ChicagoTribune/SharedArticle.aspx?href=CTC%2F2013%2F09%2F19&id=Ar00101

Thoughts by Pastor Bruce Ray

Today, I received an unsolicited email announcing the creation of a new Christian television network.  I’m omitting the name of the network so I can’t be accused of promoting something I know little about.  What caught my attention was the following: 

“Our ultimate goal is to provide a powerful new Christian entertainment option for the world while also helping to grow churches like yours.  We’ve been blessed with a great response so far and are on track to reach 1 million viewers this month.  I wanted to let you know that we’ve recently launched our Sermon Spotlight show, which features 20 to 30 different sermon clips from across the country on each episode.  This is a free way to get national exposure for your church and help get your message out.”

Thank you, Pope Francis, for speaking truth to power and for calling us all to prayer for a negotiated settlement in Syria.  In his address on September 1, the Pope unequivocally condemned the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, but also strongly expressed opposition to the military response proposed by the US and France.  He raised his voice and declared, “War brings on war! Violence brings on violence.”  Amen!  That is why we are joining our brothers and sisters at the Logan Square Eagle monument (Milwaukee and Kedzie) on September 11, at 7:00 pm to pray for peace in Syria and to pray that our national leaders will pursue a response that does not result in more destruction and loss of life.  We invite everyone who desires and pursues peace to join us.

For more on Pope Francis’ address, follow the link.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/pope-francis-peace-syria-september-7_n_3860417.html