"Don't Laugh at Me"
Sunday is "Rally Day" at the church and is a time for our church to "kick off" our fall schedule of classes and programs.
I thought it might be good to look at some of the ways in which all of us are hurt. People make fun of our children and it can have a devastating influence on their lives. In a way that is no less devastating we, adults, are laughed at by people who are unkind and hurtful.
The sermon "Don't Laugh at Me" is inspired by a song I hear on a CD by the Acoustic Eidolon. Hanna and Joe Scott live in Berthoud, Colorado. These two talented musicians have given a number of concerts in this area but they travel all over the world.
"Don't Laugh at Me" tells about the little girl with braces, and the little boy who is always chosen last. It's about the homeless man we will not look "eye to eye" and all the people who are thought to be a little "different".
The song reminds us that we are all imperfect people and it points to a time when we will "all have perfect wings".
When have people laughed at you? How did you deal with it?
If you have thoughts on this subject write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Friday's thoughts
Here is where the Labor Day weekend sermon is at present:
Three points on the subject "what's in a day's work?"
1. We work doing what is necessary. The best work we have is work we know needs to be done. Sometimes we are the only ones to do it. It may be trivial or menial but it needs to be done and we are willing to do it.
2. We work doing what comes naturally. The way we work and the way we get things done is an expression of our personality. No one works the way we do. No one performs the task with the unique talent we have in the manner of the way we do it.
3. We work doing what is necessary and we do what we do in what comes naturally knowing it may have a visibility that is national. What if everyone knew what we did and how we did it? What if our little effort became a national concern? Would we be validated by it? Would it be something that would make us proud? As improbable as that might be it could happen and we should be prepared for it to happen. It brings a level of humility and caution to the work we do.
It's all in a day's work.
What are your thoughts about this? What is all in your day's work? Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Three points on the subject "what's in a day's work?"
1. We work doing what is necessary. The best work we have is work we know needs to be done. Sometimes we are the only ones to do it. It may be trivial or menial but it needs to be done and we are willing to do it.
2. We work doing what comes naturally. The way we work and the way we get things done is an expression of our personality. No one works the way we do. No one performs the task with the unique talent we have in the manner of the way we do it.
3. We work doing what is necessary and we do what we do in what comes naturally knowing it may have a visibility that is national. What if everyone knew what we did and how we did it? What if our little effort became a national concern? Would we be validated by it? Would it be something that would make us proud? As improbable as that might be it could happen and we should be prepared for it to happen. It brings a level of humility and caution to the work we do.
It's all in a day's work.
What are your thoughts about this? What is all in your day's work? Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday's thoughts
"It's All In a Day's Work"
The third chapter of Exodus begins rather innocently. It simply says, "Now Moses was keeping the flock for his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God."
I wonder how many of us have "keeping the flock for his father-in-law" type of jobs? How many of us are doing jobs that aren't very important in our eyes and we aren't paid much for doing them?
It could be construction or deconstruction. It could be teaching students who really don't want to learn, or being a student and having a teacher who really doesn't know how to teach and yet we have to have the degree to get the job we want.
It could be that our job is washing dishes or vacuuming a carpet. It doesn't matter what our job; it's our attitude about it.
We find ourselves doing what is necessary, and like Moses, it is in that context that we find ourselves in front of a burning bush. And, like Moses, we call out, "Here am I."
We all do what is necessary and then we are subject to a mystery beyond our expectation.
It's all in a day's work.
What work have you done that seemed routine and then you realize how wonderful it was and what great things happen in the midst of it?
I would like to hear from you about this as we approach Labor Day weekend. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to your email.
Charles Schuster
The third chapter of Exodus begins rather innocently. It simply says, "Now Moses was keeping the flock for his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God."
I wonder how many of us have "keeping the flock for his father-in-law" type of jobs? How many of us are doing jobs that aren't very important in our eyes and we aren't paid much for doing them?
It could be construction or deconstruction. It could be teaching students who really don't want to learn, or being a student and having a teacher who really doesn't know how to teach and yet we have to have the degree to get the job we want.
It could be that our job is washing dishes or vacuuming a carpet. It doesn't matter what our job; it's our attitude about it.
We find ourselves doing what is necessary, and like Moses, it is in that context that we find ourselves in front of a burning bush. And, like Moses, we call out, "Here am I."
We all do what is necessary and then we are subject to a mystery beyond our expectation.
It's all in a day's work.
What work have you done that seemed routine and then you realize how wonderful it was and what great things happen in the midst of it?
I would like to hear from you about this as we approach Labor Day weekend. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to your email.
Charles Schuster
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Monday's thoughts
"It's All in a Day's Work"
The sermon for Sunday, August 31st will have us take a look at the work we do and why we do it. There is a Sufi poet Rumi who makes he connection between work and nothingness as he points out hat the worker seeks out what needs to be working; we work at what needs work.
He writes:
"I've said before that every craftsman searches for what's not there to practice his craft.
A builder looks for the rotten hole where the roof caved in.
A water-carrier picks up the empty pot.
A carpenter stops at the house with no door.
Workers rush toward some hint of emptiness which they then start to fill. Their hope, though, is for emptiness, so don't think you must avoid it. It contains what you need.
Dear soul, if you were not friends with the vast nothing inside, why would you always be casting your net into it, and waiting so patiently?
This invisible ocean has given you such abundance, but still you call it, 'death,' that which provides you sustenance and work."
Work is what draws from us our need to confront the nothingness. It is not about the compensation or the appreciation for a job well done. It's deeper than that. It has to do with who we are and why we have been put here on his earth.
What is your work and how is it different from your job? What do you and I really do for a living? How does our work make, for us, a life?
I am interested to know what you do and why you do it. I would appreciate your insights on this. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your thoughts click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
The sermon for Sunday, August 31st will have us take a look at the work we do and why we do it. There is a Sufi poet Rumi who makes he connection between work and nothingness as he points out hat the worker seeks out what needs to be working; we work at what needs work.
He writes:
"I've said before that every craftsman searches for what's not there to practice his craft.
A builder looks for the rotten hole where the roof caved in.
A water-carrier picks up the empty pot.
A carpenter stops at the house with no door.
Workers rush toward some hint of emptiness which they then start to fill. Their hope, though, is for emptiness, so don't think you must avoid it. It contains what you need.
Dear soul, if you were not friends with the vast nothing inside, why would you always be casting your net into it, and waiting so patiently?
This invisible ocean has given you such abundance, but still you call it, 'death,' that which provides you sustenance and work."
Work is what draws from us our need to confront the nothingness. It is not about the compensation or the appreciation for a job well done. It's deeper than that. It has to do with who we are and why we have been put here on his earth.
What is your work and how is it different from your job? What do you and I really do for a living? How does our work make, for us, a life?
I am interested to know what you do and why you do it. I would appreciate your insights on this. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your thoughts click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 22, 2008
Friday's thoughts
The sermon comes down to this;
It attempts to look at some of the ways we look at God that are helpful and some of the ways we think of God that don't represent our best thinking or our best spirituality.
Faith in God is not a requirement or a precursor of merit. Faith in God is a resource. It is a dimension of life that gives us meaning in the good times and hope in the bad times.
Sometimes we have tended to think of God in the following ways:
1. Sometimes our God is too small. Our God is too small when our personal God becomes private; when we imagine God as a force who will punish us when we are wrong and will help us find justice when others are wrong. God, is personal, but not private. When we think God is "my God" and forget that God is the God of all people, then, God is too small.
2. Sometimes our God is too big. God is too big when our awesome God becomes an abstraction. When we fail to see God present in the world; when we fail to understand that God is in search of us; when we over-think God and God becomes a concept; an idea, and not a supportive presence, then, our God is too big.
When God is just right;
When the world seems right and we can stand with awe and reverence in an attitude of wonder and joy God is an awesome God.
When our world is falling apart and nothing seems right we experience the personal interaction of a God whose supportive presence will enable us to withstand the worst of the world and life when it comes, then, we know the personal God.
God becomes a resource in life helping us to celebrate the good times and survive the hard times and we need God for both.
Have there been hard times when you needed God? Have there been moments of exaltation when you were filled with reverent wonder?
I'd love to hear from you.
Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net
Or click on the box below to send the message to me and allow others to see it as well.
Charles
It attempts to look at some of the ways we look at God that are helpful and some of the ways we think of God that don't represent our best thinking or our best spirituality.
Faith in God is not a requirement or a precursor of merit. Faith in God is a resource. It is a dimension of life that gives us meaning in the good times and hope in the bad times.
Sometimes we have tended to think of God in the following ways:
1. Sometimes our God is too small. Our God is too small when our personal God becomes private; when we imagine God as a force who will punish us when we are wrong and will help us find justice when others are wrong. God, is personal, but not private. When we think God is "my God" and forget that God is the God of all people, then, God is too small.
2. Sometimes our God is too big. God is too big when our awesome God becomes an abstraction. When we fail to see God present in the world; when we fail to understand that God is in search of us; when we over-think God and God becomes a concept; an idea, and not a supportive presence, then, our God is too big.
When God is just right;
When the world seems right and we can stand with awe and reverence in an attitude of wonder and joy God is an awesome God.
When our world is falling apart and nothing seems right we experience the personal interaction of a God whose supportive presence will enable us to withstand the worst of the world and life when it comes, then, we know the personal God.
God becomes a resource in life helping us to celebrate the good times and survive the hard times and we need God for both.
Have there been hard times when you needed God? Have there been moments of exaltation when you were filled with reverent wonder?
I'd love to hear from you.
Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net
Or click on the box below to send the message to me and allow others to see it as well.
Charles
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Wednesday's thoughts
What are the implications for the idea that "God is in search for us?"
Heschel claims the idea of the divine search for the human relationship is threatened throughout the bible. It begins in Genesis in the creation story when Adam and Eve, having eaten the forbidden fruit and having realized their nakedness, hide from God. God inters the scene by asking the question, "Where are you?"
The prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures ask that question on God's behalf. Where are God's people? What have they done? Where have they gone?
The Psalms carry the same message of the Divine search for humankind and the longing God has to be in relationship with us.
The New Testament picks up on this same theme. We find God so loving the world that God sends "his only begotten Son". It is the love of God that dominates the scripture not the power of God.
One of the implications for the idea that God is in search for us is the understanding that "Our God is too big". Our idea of the power of God and the might of God are so large we find we cannot relate to it.
If our God is too big we can be in awe of God but not follow God. We can worship God but not understand the relationship with God.
Heschel provides an alternative that helps us be able to understand God's power in a new way. The power of God is love. The aim of God is to be related to us.
Maybe our God is too big.
Maybe our understanding of our power and potential is too small.
God is in search of us. Is that an idea that we can learn from? Does it make sense in terms of our understanding of God?
What do you think?
If you have ideas write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your ideas click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles
Heschel claims the idea of the divine search for the human relationship is threatened throughout the bible. It begins in Genesis in the creation story when Adam and Eve, having eaten the forbidden fruit and having realized their nakedness, hide from God. God inters the scene by asking the question, "Where are you?"
The prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures ask that question on God's behalf. Where are God's people? What have they done? Where have they gone?
The Psalms carry the same message of the Divine search for humankind and the longing God has to be in relationship with us.
The New Testament picks up on this same theme. We find God so loving the world that God sends "his only begotten Son". It is the love of God that dominates the scripture not the power of God.
One of the implications for the idea that God is in search for us is the understanding that "Our God is too big". Our idea of the power of God and the might of God are so large we find we cannot relate to it.
If our God is too big we can be in awe of God but not follow God. We can worship God but not understand the relationship with God.
Heschel provides an alternative that helps us be able to understand God's power in a new way. The power of God is love. The aim of God is to be related to us.
Maybe our God is too big.
Maybe our understanding of our power and potential is too small.
God is in search of us. Is that an idea that we can learn from? Does it make sense in terms of our understanding of God?
What do you think?
If you have ideas write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your ideas click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Monday's thoughts
The sermon for Sunday, August 24th:
Abraham Heschel was the subject of my doctoral work at Iliff School of Theology. I was introduced to Heschel by Rabbi Bernard Eisenman who was the Rabbi at Radoff Shalom in Denver. He presented Heschel's ideas to an adult church school class when I was the Youth Pastor at Christ United Methodist Church in Denver. After I finished my doctoral work the temple asked me to come a preach at one of their services using Heschel as the source of the sermon.
Paul Tillich taught classes with Heschel in New York. Tillich once said, "Abraham Heschel (a Jewish theologian) is the most Christian person I know."
The one idea Heschel held that I have heard or read nowhere else is the idea that "God is in search of us". Heschel feels that is what the Bible is about. It isn't so much about the people of Israel, and in the New Testament, it is not so much about the worship of Jesus. It is a chronicle of the interaction between humanity and God in which God has created a world in which God feels alien.
Heschel feels it is our task to invite God into the world and to make a world in which God would feel at home.
Heschel's theology provides a strong ethical element. The imperative is upon us to build a world in which God is comfortable being present, and that means working to create a world in which we are uncomfortable as we struggle to make room for God.
Heschel also notes the importance of realizing the absence of God. We cannot assume God is present to us, and the best we can do is be prepared for the presence of God when God is with us. He points to some of the Psalms as examples of the notation of the absence of God.
I think Heschel has give the world an immeasurable gift. I look forward to the sermon as a chance to introduce the congregation to something that is very special.
Have you ever thought about God's absence?
What are the implications of working in the world to make the world a place wherein God is comfortable?
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your responses click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Abraham Heschel was the subject of my doctoral work at Iliff School of Theology. I was introduced to Heschel by Rabbi Bernard Eisenman who was the Rabbi at Radoff Shalom in Denver. He presented Heschel's ideas to an adult church school class when I was the Youth Pastor at Christ United Methodist Church in Denver. After I finished my doctoral work the temple asked me to come a preach at one of their services using Heschel as the source of the sermon.
Paul Tillich taught classes with Heschel in New York. Tillich once said, "Abraham Heschel (a Jewish theologian) is the most Christian person I know."
The one idea Heschel held that I have heard or read nowhere else is the idea that "God is in search of us". Heschel feels that is what the Bible is about. It isn't so much about the people of Israel, and in the New Testament, it is not so much about the worship of Jesus. It is a chronicle of the interaction between humanity and God in which God has created a world in which God feels alien.
Heschel feels it is our task to invite God into the world and to make a world in which God would feel at home.
Heschel's theology provides a strong ethical element. The imperative is upon us to build a world in which God is comfortable being present, and that means working to create a world in which we are uncomfortable as we struggle to make room for God.
Heschel also notes the importance of realizing the absence of God. We cannot assume God is present to us, and the best we can do is be prepared for the presence of God when God is with us. He points to some of the Psalms as examples of the notation of the absence of God.
I think Heschel has give the world an immeasurable gift. I look forward to the sermon as a chance to introduce the congregation to something that is very special.
Have you ever thought about God's absence?
What are the implications of working in the world to make the world a place wherein God is comfortable?
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your responses click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 15, 2008
Friday's thoughts
Alfred North Whitehead is a Process Theologian. He sees God in the matrix of the natural world. He believes God is the call to adventure. He is convinced God is a part of the world that is helping us move toward a better world, and part of the forces that are at work in our lives helping us move toward becoming better people.
I am suggesting that Whitehead followed three forces in his life:
1. He followed the logic of the mind. He thought religion ought to be informed by reason. He was taken by the structures of the natural world; the intricate patterns in the universe; the working out of predictable equations. He followed the logic of the mind and he thought religion need not be opposed to science. He thought science had much to teach religion.
2. He followed the language of the heart. He understood that logic and reason have limits and we have to listen to the whisperings of love and the mystery of life as we almost, but not quite, know it.
3. He followed the luring of the dream. He believed something is acting on us and calling us to do something or to become something. He thought this was found in the vision of things as they could be or in the imperative of things as they should be. He thought every human being has an opportunity to participate in the creative process.
It seems to me that Whitehead, as he was being influenced by the logic of the mind, the language of the heart, and the luring of the dream was being informed and directed by God. God is found in logic, in love, and in visions of the future.
This theology appeals to me. It is something that makes sense to me. It can understand it and yet it is beyond my understanding.
What strengths or weaknesses do you see in this? If you have thoughts about it write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing for others to read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles
I am suggesting that Whitehead followed three forces in his life:
1. He followed the logic of the mind. He thought religion ought to be informed by reason. He was taken by the structures of the natural world; the intricate patterns in the universe; the working out of predictable equations. He followed the logic of the mind and he thought religion need not be opposed to science. He thought science had much to teach religion.
2. He followed the language of the heart. He understood that logic and reason have limits and we have to listen to the whisperings of love and the mystery of life as we almost, but not quite, know it.
3. He followed the luring of the dream. He believed something is acting on us and calling us to do something or to become something. He thought this was found in the vision of things as they could be or in the imperative of things as they should be. He thought every human being has an opportunity to participate in the creative process.
It seems to me that Whitehead, as he was being influenced by the logic of the mind, the language of the heart, and the luring of the dream was being informed and directed by God. God is found in logic, in love, and in visions of the future.
This theology appeals to me. It is something that makes sense to me. It can understand it and yet it is beyond my understanding.
What strengths or weaknesses do you see in this? If you have thoughts about it write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing for others to read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Wednesday's thoughts
The sermons for Sunday August 17Th presents the ideas of Process Theologian Alfred North Whitehead. The following is a brief introduction of his ideas:
So much theology presents us with an image or idea of God that is difficult to follow and difficult to apply. It's impossible to believe in a God whose nature is beyond what we can grasp with our logic. If, for example, we are told that God's will is such that everything that happens conforms to it, how can we believe in a God who would bring about human suffering or death? Is it God's will that our loved ones die? Does God bring about death? Illness? Misfortune?
Does God make the good things that happen to us come about? When we are given a good medical report after a medical crisis, was it God's will that we were healed? What about the person in the hospital bed beside us who didn't have the same good fortune?
Whitehead sees God in the matrix of relationships that make up the universe as we know it. He believes God is not a being who is supernaturally above us. He sees God as a part of the natural world and is part of life was we experience it. He believes God is in the process that is moving toward a distant point of coming together of all things and it is generated by the power of love. God does not control us nor does God exercise coercive power over us. We can resist the process/God or we can strive to line up our lives with it. We can be part of the process of goodness and love.
Whitehead believes Jesus is the example of what the process is moving toward. He represents the concern for the outcast; the attention given to the least of these; the identification of the Kingdom of God with the spirit of a child; and the reign of God in the healing of a troubled heart.
God is not a power over us; but a presence with us and within us. God is not a "holy other" but a "wholeness having become aware of itself".
How do we experience God?
In the spirit of adventure that is what life can become
In the interactive relationships that make life worth living
In the working together with others to make the world what it can become
In the passing flux of temporal things
In the rendering to the common good some degree of eternal greatness
Whitehead's ideas can be liberating and exciting and can help make the reality of God active in our lives. We can come to see our faith in a whole new way.
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your thoughts click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
So much theology presents us with an image or idea of God that is difficult to follow and difficult to apply. It's impossible to believe in a God whose nature is beyond what we can grasp with our logic. If, for example, we are told that God's will is such that everything that happens conforms to it, how can we believe in a God who would bring about human suffering or death? Is it God's will that our loved ones die? Does God bring about death? Illness? Misfortune?
Does God make the good things that happen to us come about? When we are given a good medical report after a medical crisis, was it God's will that we were healed? What about the person in the hospital bed beside us who didn't have the same good fortune?
Whitehead sees God in the matrix of relationships that make up the universe as we know it. He believes God is not a being who is supernaturally above us. He sees God as a part of the natural world and is part of life was we experience it. He believes God is in the process that is moving toward a distant point of coming together of all things and it is generated by the power of love. God does not control us nor does God exercise coercive power over us. We can resist the process/God or we can strive to line up our lives with it. We can be part of the process of goodness and love.
Whitehead believes Jesus is the example of what the process is moving toward. He represents the concern for the outcast; the attention given to the least of these; the identification of the Kingdom of God with the spirit of a child; and the reign of God in the healing of a troubled heart.
God is not a power over us; but a presence with us and within us. God is not a "holy other" but a "wholeness having become aware of itself".
How do we experience God?
In the spirit of adventure that is what life can become
In the interactive relationships that make life worth living
In the working together with others to make the world what it can become
In the passing flux of temporal things
In the rendering to the common good some degree of eternal greatness
Whitehead's ideas can be liberating and exciting and can help make the reality of God active in our lives. We can come to see our faith in a whole new way.
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your thoughts click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Monday's thoughts
The sermon for Sunday, August 17Th will focus the Process Theologian Alfred North Whitehead. Whitehead was a mathematician until he was in his 80's. He began to think beyond his discipline to try to determine how the universe was put together. He came to a new understanding of God.
Whitehead believed that God has two basic nature. There was the primordial nature of God and that is the creator aspect of God. That is the creative force that put the universe together and set up the laws of nature. Secondly, he believed that God has a consequent nature. The consequent nature of God is that part of God that is in the matrix of creation in an ongoing basis.
Whitehead finds God in the natural processes of life and in the midst of the world as we know it. God, for Whitehead, is not a distant creator but an ever present part of creation itself.
He believes everything is part of everything else. He didn't know about DNA because that was not something that was understood when Whitehead lived, but his theology would have grasped the idea of DNA as a part of the fabric of God. Just as the DNA that is the signature substance of a person and every part of that person has the same DNA so God is the DNA of which we each possess the same. We have the same DNA of God; God is the DNA in the human species and in all of the universe. He called this "actual entity" and he believes that God is the ultimate "actual entity" but that each of us is a part of the "actual entity".
In other words we are part of God and God is part of us. The universe and all of creation is not something "other than" the God who created it, and God is not something "other than" the very substance of creation.
One of my favorite Whitehead quotes will be the basis upon which the sermon is written. Whitehead wrote, "That religion will prosper that can render to the common good some degree of eternal greatness." What I plan to explore is the "eternal greatness" we are rendering to the common good.
Whitehead is not an easy theologian to understand. His terms and idioms require a separate dictionary. He invents words if he cannot find words that fit what he's trying to say. His understanding of God is completely unconventional and, I am sure, I won't be able to do much in a 20 minute sermon beyond giving a superficial introduction. I would like the opportunity to teach a class on Whitehead here. Maybe that can happen if there are people interested in learning more about Process Theology and this Process Theologian.
If you have questions or thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your ideas click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Whitehead believed that God has two basic nature. There was the primordial nature of God and that is the creator aspect of God. That is the creative force that put the universe together and set up the laws of nature. Secondly, he believed that God has a consequent nature. The consequent nature of God is that part of God that is in the matrix of creation in an ongoing basis.
Whitehead finds God in the natural processes of life and in the midst of the world as we know it. God, for Whitehead, is not a distant creator but an ever present part of creation itself.
He believes everything is part of everything else. He didn't know about DNA because that was not something that was understood when Whitehead lived, but his theology would have grasped the idea of DNA as a part of the fabric of God. Just as the DNA that is the signature substance of a person and every part of that person has the same DNA so God is the DNA of which we each possess the same. We have the same DNA of God; God is the DNA in the human species and in all of the universe. He called this "actual entity" and he believes that God is the ultimate "actual entity" but that each of us is a part of the "actual entity".
In other words we are part of God and God is part of us. The universe and all of creation is not something "other than" the God who created it, and God is not something "other than" the very substance of creation.
One of my favorite Whitehead quotes will be the basis upon which the sermon is written. Whitehead wrote, "That religion will prosper that can render to the common good some degree of eternal greatness." What I plan to explore is the "eternal greatness" we are rendering to the common good.
Whitehead is not an easy theologian to understand. His terms and idioms require a separate dictionary. He invents words if he cannot find words that fit what he's trying to say. His understanding of God is completely unconventional and, I am sure, I won't be able to do much in a 20 minute sermon beyond giving a superficial introduction. I would like the opportunity to teach a class on Whitehead here. Maybe that can happen if there are people interested in learning more about Process Theology and this Process Theologian.
If you have questions or thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your ideas click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 8, 2008
Friday's thoughts
There has to be a way our theology addresses life when it becomes absurd. There has to be some way our faith speaks to the worst that happens such as:
1. The birth of a baby with severe birth defects
2. The tragic shooting in a church in Tennessee
3. The lightening strike that killed two doctoral students just after they turned in their dissertations.
4. The strange confluence of circumstances that makes it possible for good people who have so little to lose it while mean people seem to be rewarded for their unscrupulous behavior.
5. The randomness of the world
6. The holocaust
7. The Columbine shootings
Some believe the primary human drive is the "will to power". Power won't answer the question of the absurd. I am suggesting two responses to the absurd. The question is raise by Nietzsche and, frankly, he is suspicious that religion has nothing to say about it. In fact, Nietzsche is convinced religion makes dealing with the absurd worse because it doesn't provide real answers; it gives easy answers and those answers aren't really answers.
I am suggesting two things;
a. Life is too serious to be taken casually. God is present as we search for meaning and we can find meaning in our suffering and in the absurd.
b. Life is too important to be taken seriously. God is present as we search for humor and perspective in the midst of the randomness.
The most important gift the Christian faith gives us is meaning and humor. God is to be found in the midst of that.
What do you think? How do you think religion addresses the absurd in life? Is it humor that religions provides? Is it meaning? Is there something else?
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
1. The birth of a baby with severe birth defects
2. The tragic shooting in a church in Tennessee
3. The lightening strike that killed two doctoral students just after they turned in their dissertations.
4. The strange confluence of circumstances that makes it possible for good people who have so little to lose it while mean people seem to be rewarded for their unscrupulous behavior.
5. The randomness of the world
6. The holocaust
7. The Columbine shootings
Some believe the primary human drive is the "will to power". Power won't answer the question of the absurd. I am suggesting two responses to the absurd. The question is raise by Nietzsche and, frankly, he is suspicious that religion has nothing to say about it. In fact, Nietzsche is convinced religion makes dealing with the absurd worse because it doesn't provide real answers; it gives easy answers and those answers aren't really answers.
I am suggesting two things;
a. Life is too serious to be taken casually. God is present as we search for meaning and we can find meaning in our suffering and in the absurd.
b. Life is too important to be taken seriously. God is present as we search for humor and perspective in the midst of the randomness.
The most important gift the Christian faith gives us is meaning and humor. God is to be found in the midst of that.
What do you think? How do you think religion addresses the absurd in life? Is it humor that religions provides? Is it meaning? Is there something else?
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Wednesday's thoughts
People may want to raise the question concerning the wisdom of doing a sermon and employing Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas. Nietzsche is an aggressive atheist who has little use for the Christian faith. He grew up in the church and he rejects the teachings of the church. The church he knew was the Lutheran Church of his grandparents and his father. He is the son of a preacher who has had his problems with the orthodoxy of the church. He has a problem with having people submit to an all-powerful God. He has problems with the church if it advocates passiveness and humility. He thinks it is unnatural to think of giving ourselves to others. Altruism is the worst form of tyranny for him.
He believes the Christian Church has perpetuated a great sin on humankind. The church has offered a doctrine of weakness and the net result of all of this is a stifling of the creative spirit.
He does not believe in God. He thinks God is necessary for a person to life a full life.
The reason I have pursued this sermon is simply I believe Nietzche's perspective is helpful for those times that reflect extreme absurdity. Conventional thinking will not address the kind of times in which random acts of violence take innocent people. It will not address those times in which there are many more questions than answers. It will not work in times of extreme injustice.
Nietzsche offers us an existentialist perspective that reminds us of the importance of finding purpose and meaning. He invites us to look carefully at what we have been given and to work within the given and to trust the creativity we have within us.
If we have a "why" to live for we can endure any "how". If we have a purpose and if we see our lives moving in a direction we can bear the detours that come along the way.
We have the ability to overcome the absurdity if we are able to find the humor in it and if we are able to find meaning in it.
I think Nietzsche has given us a valuable tool. The sermon this Sunday will promote those points in Nietzsche's thinking I find helpful. It will not deal with the problematic areas.
Can you imagine a world in which Nietzshe's view is helpful. If you have thought on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you would be willing to allow others to see your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
He believes the Christian Church has perpetuated a great sin on humankind. The church has offered a doctrine of weakness and the net result of all of this is a stifling of the creative spirit.
He does not believe in God. He thinks God is necessary for a person to life a full life.
The reason I have pursued this sermon is simply I believe Nietzche's perspective is helpful for those times that reflect extreme absurdity. Conventional thinking will not address the kind of times in which random acts of violence take innocent people. It will not address those times in which there are many more questions than answers. It will not work in times of extreme injustice.
Nietzsche offers us an existentialist perspective that reminds us of the importance of finding purpose and meaning. He invites us to look carefully at what we have been given and to work within the given and to trust the creativity we have within us.
If we have a "why" to live for we can endure any "how". If we have a purpose and if we see our lives moving in a direction we can bear the detours that come along the way.
We have the ability to overcome the absurdity if we are able to find the humor in it and if we are able to find meaning in it.
I think Nietzsche has given us a valuable tool. The sermon this Sunday will promote those points in Nietzsche's thinking I find helpful. It will not deal with the problematic areas.
Can you imagine a world in which Nietzshe's view is helpful. If you have thought on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you would be willing to allow others to see your response click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Monday's thoughts
Beginning Sunday, August 10th I'm going to do a four part series on important theologians.
August 10th Friedrich Nietzsche " Do We have a Why To Live For?"
August 17th Alfred North Whitehead "What Do We Render To the Common Good?"
August 24th Abraham Joshua Heschel "Will God's Search For Us Be Rewarded?"
August 31st Salley McFague "Does God Have Gender?"
Each of these theologians have been important in the development of my thinking. Each of them has contributed something that helps me find hope and meaning and I consider it a privilege to share that with you in the sermons in August.
Nietzsche was the first to say, "God is dead". He felt our belief in God has inhibited our progress as a human race. He also had a dim view of Christianity. He believed, "Christian morality, which identified goodness with meekness and servility, is the prime culprit in creating a cultural climate that thwarts the drive for excellence and self-realization."
Of course, in some ways I disagree with Nietzsche. However, I think he is correct in his conviction that we need to take a look at what and how we believe in God. And I think most people agree there are ways in which the Christian faith is interpreted that do inhibit creativity and the drive for excellence.
I will take some exception to Nietzsche but I plan to mine his thinking to get in touch with the positive contributions he can make to our understanding of God and the Christian faith. Some of what he writes has little validity to me and no relevance. Like most atheists he has come to disbelieve in a God that I, too, find incompatible and not useful.
I hope it will be an interesting series of sermons and I especially hope you will find the sermon this coming Sunday thought provoking.
If you have some thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net, If you are willing to have others read your responses click on the box below. I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
August 10th Friedrich Nietzsche " Do We have a Why To Live For?"
August 17th Alfred North Whitehead "What Do We Render To the Common Good?"
August 24th Abraham Joshua Heschel "Will God's Search For Us Be Rewarded?"
August 31st Salley McFague "Does God Have Gender?"
Each of these theologians have been important in the development of my thinking. Each of them has contributed something that helps me find hope and meaning and I consider it a privilege to share that with you in the sermons in August.
Nietzsche was the first to say, "God is dead". He felt our belief in God has inhibited our progress as a human race. He also had a dim view of Christianity. He believed, "Christian morality, which identified goodness with meekness and servility, is the prime culprit in creating a cultural climate that thwarts the drive for excellence and self-realization."
Of course, in some ways I disagree with Nietzsche. However, I think he is correct in his conviction that we need to take a look at what and how we believe in God. And I think most people agree there are ways in which the Christian faith is interpreted that do inhibit creativity and the drive for excellence.
I will take some exception to Nietzsche but I plan to mine his thinking to get in touch with the positive contributions he can make to our understanding of God and the Christian faith. Some of what he writes has little validity to me and no relevance. Like most atheists he has come to disbelieve in a God that I, too, find incompatible and not useful.
I hope it will be an interesting series of sermons and I especially hope you will find the sermon this coming Sunday thought provoking.
If you have some thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net, If you are willing to have others read your responses click on the box below. I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 1, 2008
Friday's thoughts
Sometimes these sermons come together easily and sometimes they don't. This sermon hasn't formed in a way that pleases me at this point, but it's only Friday. There is still time.
I am struck by several aspects of the text which is Matthew 14:13-21. This is the story of Jesus going to a lonely place and being followed by the crowd. He tells them to sit down and asks his disciples to feed them. I saw this as a "communion" story. I thought about this episode in terms of the Last Supper.
I have come to several conclusions:
1. In the lonely places of life we are invited to celebrate. If we can celebrate life in the lonely places we can celebrate life anywhere. We never quite know what is happening while it is happening because there are things happening beyond our ability to know them. Sometimes because they are so close to us and we can not see it. Sometimes because they are so dramatic that we look in the wrong direction or see the lesser thing while missing the greater thing. Meaning happens in every moment and we have to be alert to it.
2. Communion happens when we turn each present moment into a sacrament and that begins with an approach to life that sees every moment as filled with meaning.
3. Communion happens when we look at the future as a time in which there are loose ends and, in the loose ends, we begin to discover linkages.
If there is meaning in every moment and linkage in every loose end we are in the mode of celebrating no matter where we are and no matter what is happening to us.
Right now this sermon is a script of loose ends. It needs organizational and spiritual direction. If you have thoughts on this please write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the congregation click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles
I am struck by several aspects of the text which is Matthew 14:13-21. This is the story of Jesus going to a lonely place and being followed by the crowd. He tells them to sit down and asks his disciples to feed them. I saw this as a "communion" story. I thought about this episode in terms of the Last Supper.
I have come to several conclusions:
1. In the lonely places of life we are invited to celebrate. If we can celebrate life in the lonely places we can celebrate life anywhere. We never quite know what is happening while it is happening because there are things happening beyond our ability to know them. Sometimes because they are so close to us and we can not see it. Sometimes because they are so dramatic that we look in the wrong direction or see the lesser thing while missing the greater thing. Meaning happens in every moment and we have to be alert to it.
2. Communion happens when we turn each present moment into a sacrament and that begins with an approach to life that sees every moment as filled with meaning.
3. Communion happens when we look at the future as a time in which there are loose ends and, in the loose ends, we begin to discover linkages.
If there is meaning in every moment and linkage in every loose end we are in the mode of celebrating no matter where we are and no matter what is happening to us.
Right now this sermon is a script of loose ends. It needs organizational and spiritual direction. If you have thoughts on this please write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the congregation click on the box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
