What is the most important job in the world? How do we measure the work we do?
I want to write a sermon for any of us who have lost our jobs. I want to have us look at what we do and why we do it if we haven't lost our jobs.
Why do we do what we do and how do we get along after what we are supposed to do we can no longer do?
The sermon will look at aspects of our work:
1. We each have a profession. We are, all of us, professionals. Maybe it is that we clean floors or wash windows. Perhaps our job involves driving a car or a truck or a bus. Maybe we are professional teachers; in the classroom; in the boardroom; in the aisles at the grocery store, but we teach even when we are not aware of it.
Maybe our job as a parent is bringing up a child to be a socialized and productive adult.
2. There is compensation for the work we do. There has to be compensation because no one works for free. Maybe the compensation is the satisfaction that we have done a good job. Maybe the compensation is the result of the influence we see we have had on other people. Maybe the compensation is the salary they pay us and the things we can do with it.
3. The pension is a part of our work and it causes us to ask what our job does for us personally. What kind of person are we becoming because of the work we do?
We may have lost our employment but we never lose our job as long as we know what our job really is. We will never lose our profession, our compensation, or our pension if we consider that we are "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world".
What is your profession?
What is your payment?
What is your pension?
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have readers of the blog read your thoughts click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Monday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
Sermon for Labor Day Weekend
"The One Think That Matters"
The sermon will try to help us focus our lives around what we do, why we do it, and how we can find ourselves through work and play.
Sometimes we can get overboard on the importance of our work and sometimes we can lose track of how important it really is.
Labor Day weekend is a time to reflect upon what we do and why and how that is an expression of the essence of who we are. But when our identity is tied up in our work we will have to ask ourselves, "Who are we when our work is done?"
What is the best job you ever had?
What is the worst?
When did you feel most fulfilled in our work?
When did you begin to see your work was overtaking your life?
These are great questions and I'd like to hear from you.
If you have thoughts on this subject write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
"The One Think That Matters"
The sermon will try to help us focus our lives around what we do, why we do it, and how we can find ourselves through work and play.
Sometimes we can get overboard on the importance of our work and sometimes we can lose track of how important it really is.
Labor Day weekend is a time to reflect upon what we do and why and how that is an expression of the essence of who we are. But when our identity is tied up in our work we will have to ask ourselves, "Who are we when our work is done?"
What is the best job you ever had?
What is the worst?
When did you feel most fulfilled in our work?
When did you begin to see your work was overtaking your life?
These are great questions and I'd like to hear from you.
If you have thoughts on this subject write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 26, 2011
Friday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
When I think of the Gospel of John I am struck by image of Jesus that is provided that comes to us in extreme forms.
I have always been aware that John gives us a Jesus who is quick to talk about how he is the "way" the "truth" the "light of the world". I have always been aware of the strong and declarative Jesus who talked to people with a high degree of certainty. He was portrayed as one who seemed to know what other people never knew and he said things other people never thought.
There was that about Jesus that was confronting in John's Gospel and that is presented to us in such extreme fashion that there is a hard aspect to his presence.
But the more I think about it there is another side to Jesus as we find him in John's Gospel. He is also the one who offers sympathy to his disciples before his death on the cross. He tells them not to let their hearts be troubled nor to be afraid. He tells them he will send a Paraclete; a "comforter' to be with them.
There is a soft side to Jesus in the Gospel of John as well as the hard side. He is both confront er and comforter.
John was the last of the Gospels written. It was written 60 years after the crucifixion. It was written after the early church had realized Jesus was not returning as a judge at the end of time or the Parousia and the Christian believers had to get on with their lives.
The Gospel presents a contrasting image of Jesus and that is probably the way it is. He was more complex that we are thinking and John gives us a reason to think of Jesus in such a way that we cannot pin him down to our presuppositions. He was more than we thought.
Do you relate to "Jesus the confronter" as much as "Jesus the comforter"?
What do you think? If you have some ideas about this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have other read your thoughts click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
I have always been aware that John gives us a Jesus who is quick to talk about how he is the "way" the "truth" the "light of the world". I have always been aware of the strong and declarative Jesus who talked to people with a high degree of certainty. He was portrayed as one who seemed to know what other people never knew and he said things other people never thought.
There was that about Jesus that was confronting in John's Gospel and that is presented to us in such extreme fashion that there is a hard aspect to his presence.
But the more I think about it there is another side to Jesus as we find him in John's Gospel. He is also the one who offers sympathy to his disciples before his death on the cross. He tells them not to let their hearts be troubled nor to be afraid. He tells them he will send a Paraclete; a "comforter' to be with them.
There is a soft side to Jesus in the Gospel of John as well as the hard side. He is both confront er and comforter.
John was the last of the Gospels written. It was written 60 years after the crucifixion. It was written after the early church had realized Jesus was not returning as a judge at the end of time or the Parousia and the Christian believers had to get on with their lives.
The Gospel presents a contrasting image of Jesus and that is probably the way it is. He was more complex that we are thinking and John gives us a reason to think of Jesus in such a way that we cannot pin him down to our presuppositions. He was more than we thought.
Do you relate to "Jesus the confronter" as much as "Jesus the comforter"?
What do you think? If you have some ideas about this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have other read your thoughts click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Wednesday's reflection on Sunday's sermon
The Gospel of John presents us with a very strong Jesus and that wraps us around the psychology, the theology, and the politics of Christianity. It is strong and not for the faint hearted.
The psychology of Jesus
The dialogues in the Gospel are almost, rude. Jesus is telling people, "Get up and walk", "feed my sheep", "I am the light of the world." This is not a diplomatic Jesus who seems to want to know what people think. This is a strong willed, confident Jesus who is quick to say what needs to be said regardless of the result and most of the time he is talking past the people in conversation with him.
The theology of Jesus
The images of John give us a sense that Jesus and the Word are one and the same; that the creator and the created are one. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to God but by him. Jesus and God are parts of the same substance. Jesus' theology in John's Gospel is bold and unapologetic.
The politics of Jesus
The confrontations of Jesus in John's Gospel are also abrupt. There is something in him that does not back away from the imperative to be his followers. He washes the disciples feet at the last supper (only in John's Gospel) and he commands his followers to be servants.
The politics, the theology, and the psychology of Jesus present some things that are exciting but a little frightening.
I don't think Jesus was really as John depicts him. What do you think?
If you have alternative ideas I am happy to read them. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with others click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
The psychology of Jesus
The dialogues in the Gospel are almost, rude. Jesus is telling people, "Get up and walk", "feed my sheep", "I am the light of the world." This is not a diplomatic Jesus who seems to want to know what people think. This is a strong willed, confident Jesus who is quick to say what needs to be said regardless of the result and most of the time he is talking past the people in conversation with him.
The theology of Jesus
The images of John give us a sense that Jesus and the Word are one and the same; that the creator and the created are one. Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to God but by him. Jesus and God are parts of the same substance. Jesus' theology in John's Gospel is bold and unapologetic.
The politics of Jesus
The confrontations of Jesus in John's Gospel are also abrupt. There is something in him that does not back away from the imperative to be his followers. He washes the disciples feet at the last supper (only in John's Gospel) and he commands his followers to be servants.
The politics, the theology, and the psychology of Jesus present some things that are exciting but a little frightening.
I don't think Jesus was really as John depicts him. What do you think?
If you have alternative ideas I am happy to read them. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with others click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Monday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
Sermon for Sunday, August 28th
The final Gospel that will focus the sermon is the Gospel of John. It was written at least 70 years after Jesus' death on the cross and it was not influenced by any of the other gospels. It stands alone.
John gives us Jesus who is bold and clear about who he is and what he is about with his life. He speaks with certainty saying such things as "I am the way the truth and the life" and "nobody comes to God but by me."
John was written at a time when the Christian movement was not threatened by Rome and it was a time of relative peace except for the fact that other religions and movements had their messiahs with stories and legends about who they were and what they were capable of doing. John had to present us with a very strong Jesus who was able to be as bold and sure of himself as John made him seem.
We have a great deal to learn from the Gospel of John. We learn about the strength of faith and the power of God. We learn about the boldness of the Christian Community and the persuasive power of words.
We learn about the meaning of Logos; the Word. We learn that the Word was before the world was and there was a truth about the faith the predated Jesus.
We contrast that with John's view that nobody comes to God but by Christ and how God so loved the world that God have this only Son.
The conflict in John's Gospel is important. Is John telling us that there is a truth that existed prior to Jesus' appearance on earth and therefore the truth transcends Jesus? Is John telling us that the only path to the truth is through Jesus and all other paths will not lead to eternal life?
It's an interesting problem because both impulses are in the Gospel of John.
What do you think?
I'd love to hear from you. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net if you have some thoughts on this. If you are willing to have your ideas shared with the congregation click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to your responses.
Charles Schuster
The final Gospel that will focus the sermon is the Gospel of John. It was written at least 70 years after Jesus' death on the cross and it was not influenced by any of the other gospels. It stands alone.
John gives us Jesus who is bold and clear about who he is and what he is about with his life. He speaks with certainty saying such things as "I am the way the truth and the life" and "nobody comes to God but by me."
John was written at a time when the Christian movement was not threatened by Rome and it was a time of relative peace except for the fact that other religions and movements had their messiahs with stories and legends about who they were and what they were capable of doing. John had to present us with a very strong Jesus who was able to be as bold and sure of himself as John made him seem.
We have a great deal to learn from the Gospel of John. We learn about the strength of faith and the power of God. We learn about the boldness of the Christian Community and the persuasive power of words.
We learn about the meaning of Logos; the Word. We learn that the Word was before the world was and there was a truth about the faith the predated Jesus.
We contrast that with John's view that nobody comes to God but by Christ and how God so loved the world that God have this only Son.
The conflict in John's Gospel is important. Is John telling us that there is a truth that existed prior to Jesus' appearance on earth and therefore the truth transcends Jesus? Is John telling us that the only path to the truth is through Jesus and all other paths will not lead to eternal life?
It's an interesting problem because both impulses are in the Gospel of John.
What do you think?
I'd love to hear from you. Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net if you have some thoughts on this. If you are willing to have your ideas shared with the congregation click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to your responses.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 19, 2011
Friday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
The Gospel of Mark lifts up for us some features about Jesus that none of the other Gospels seem to understand. Our grasp of who Jesus was would be limited were it not for this wonderful, first document that gave us the story of his life.
There is some question in my mind whether there would have been a church or a future for Christianity had it not been for Mark's Gospel.
From the texts I have come to see two aspects of Mark's "Jesus" that speak to us.
First of all I think it tells us we may not know what were are doing but we are on a path and it has a destination and the destination is good; it leads to the eternal. If we don't know what we're doing we can keep our "eyes on the prize" and we can endure the hard times because we know something good awaits us. Mark believes the crucifixion, which was a humiliating event, was prelude to the resurrection and it was part of a plan.
We might question whether there are these kinds of "plans" for life, but religion is more an attitude than an answer and we can learn to trust life wherever it leads us to take us some place where we can bear our burdens and suffer our trials with confidence that God is with us.
Secondly, Mark speaks of a Jesus who tried to make changes in the world and when it appeared he had failed he actually had achieved his goal. Albert Schweitzer said it this way, "Here comes Jesus and in the knowledge that He is the coming Son of Man he lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refused to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then it does turn; crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the eschatological conditions, He had destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think of Himself as the spiritual ruled of human kind and to bend history to His purpose, is hanging upon it still. That is His victory and His reign."
We do more than we know we do as he did more than it looked he did. He shifted the "wheel of the world" just slightly and it can make all the difference in the world.
When we wonder what have we done with our lives we can take comfort in the fact that we have done more than we know and we are not called upon to do great things but little things that will result in greatness.
Do you ever feel lost on the path? Is there a destination to your life?
Do you ever sense you aren't accomplishing much with your life? Is there more you are doing than you realize?
If you have thoughts on these questions email me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with others on the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
If you would like a rough draft of the sermon let me know and I will send it to you by email.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
There is some question in my mind whether there would have been a church or a future for Christianity had it not been for Mark's Gospel.
From the texts I have come to see two aspects of Mark's "Jesus" that speak to us.
First of all I think it tells us we may not know what were are doing but we are on a path and it has a destination and the destination is good; it leads to the eternal. If we don't know what we're doing we can keep our "eyes on the prize" and we can endure the hard times because we know something good awaits us. Mark believes the crucifixion, which was a humiliating event, was prelude to the resurrection and it was part of a plan.
We might question whether there are these kinds of "plans" for life, but religion is more an attitude than an answer and we can learn to trust life wherever it leads us to take us some place where we can bear our burdens and suffer our trials with confidence that God is with us.
Secondly, Mark speaks of a Jesus who tried to make changes in the world and when it appeared he had failed he actually had achieved his goal. Albert Schweitzer said it this way, "Here comes Jesus and in the knowledge that He is the coming Son of Man he lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refused to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then it does turn; crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the eschatological conditions, He had destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the mangled body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think of Himself as the spiritual ruled of human kind and to bend history to His purpose, is hanging upon it still. That is His victory and His reign."
We do more than we know we do as he did more than it looked he did. He shifted the "wheel of the world" just slightly and it can make all the difference in the world.
When we wonder what have we done with our lives we can take comfort in the fact that we have done more than we know and we are not called upon to do great things but little things that will result in greatness.
Do you ever feel lost on the path? Is there a destination to your life?
Do you ever sense you aren't accomplishing much with your life? Is there more you are doing than you realize?
If you have thoughts on these questions email me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with others on the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
If you would like a rough draft of the sermon let me know and I will send it to you by email.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Wednesday's reflection on Sunday's sermon
The Gospel of Mark was written in a particularly difficult time in history. It was written after the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. The Romans were reacting to several insurrections led by Jewish militant leaders. The Romans effort to establish order was driven by the fear of total chaos and they weren't too concerned whether a person was a Jew or a Christian at that point in time. They considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism and treated the Christians with equal impunity.
The writer of Mark put together the first narrative on the life of Jesus. It was a brilliant piece of writing when you consider there was nothing before it. The presentation of Jesus was clear and attempted to present Jesus as someone who was not engaged in any kind of military struggle. The Jesus of Mark was one who went to his death not entirely sure what his mission on earth was about but thinking about the resurrection as the outcome of the crucifixion. In other words the writer had to answer two questions:
1. Was Jesus and were the followers of Jesus in any way compliant in the uprisings that were happening in the Jewish world against the power of Rome. The answer was clearly, "no".
2. If Jesus was the Messiah how do you explain the fact that he was treated as a common criminal and put to death on a cross? The answer, again, is clear. Jesus had to die. It was part of the plan that led to the resurrection. The events were scripted and were carried out as they should have been.
Do you think Jesus' death was necessary or tragic? Do you think it had to be that way or was a terrible mistake made by people who really, "didn't know what they were doing?"
Do you have thoughts on this subject? Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your thoughts click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
The writer of Mark put together the first narrative on the life of Jesus. It was a brilliant piece of writing when you consider there was nothing before it. The presentation of Jesus was clear and attempted to present Jesus as someone who was not engaged in any kind of military struggle. The Jesus of Mark was one who went to his death not entirely sure what his mission on earth was about but thinking about the resurrection as the outcome of the crucifixion. In other words the writer had to answer two questions:
1. Was Jesus and were the followers of Jesus in any way compliant in the uprisings that were happening in the Jewish world against the power of Rome. The answer was clearly, "no".
2. If Jesus was the Messiah how do you explain the fact that he was treated as a common criminal and put to death on a cross? The answer, again, is clear. Jesus had to die. It was part of the plan that led to the resurrection. The events were scripted and were carried out as they should have been.
Do you think Jesus' death was necessary or tragic? Do you think it had to be that way or was a terrible mistake made by people who really, "didn't know what they were doing?"
Do you have thoughts on this subject? Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to have others read your thoughts click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Monday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
The Gospel of Mark will be the focus of the sermon next Sunday, August 21st.
This is what we know about the Gospel of Mark.
It was written about 70 AD or about 40 years after Jesus' death on the cross. It was written at the time the Romans had become aggressive and had destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem.
Mark was the first Gospel written and it was the first narrative story of Jesus ' life and teaching. Mark saw Jesus as unsure of himself and of his mission.
When the disciples made claims about him he invoke them to secrecy. He proposed a Jesus who was no threat to the state.
He suggested that the Romans were not enemies of the Christian Church and that the Christian fellowship was not a part of the Jewish faith. At the end of Mark it is the Roman soldier who claims Jesus as the Son of God.
The writers of Matthew and Luke had the Gospel of Mark and they rewrote portions of it and cast it into a new meaning through their interpretation. For example, Mark wrote that Jesus was crucified and it was a part of a plan. Matthew and Luke had a different view of that; feeling that the arrest was contrived, the charges were false, and Judas was a villain.
In Mark's Gospel Jesus is unclear of his role. He was unsure what he was put on this earth to do.
Do you think he knew? Do you think he understood his responsibility of he just kind of fell into it?
Do you like the Gospel of Mark; giving us a timid Jesus who wondered the earth looking for his position in life?
What do you think? Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
This is what we know about the Gospel of Mark.
It was written about 70 AD or about 40 years after Jesus' death on the cross. It was written at the time the Romans had become aggressive and had destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem.
Mark was the first Gospel written and it was the first narrative story of Jesus ' life and teaching. Mark saw Jesus as unsure of himself and of his mission.
When the disciples made claims about him he invoke them to secrecy. He proposed a Jesus who was no threat to the state.
He suggested that the Romans were not enemies of the Christian Church and that the Christian fellowship was not a part of the Jewish faith. At the end of Mark it is the Roman soldier who claims Jesus as the Son of God.
The writers of Matthew and Luke had the Gospel of Mark and they rewrote portions of it and cast it into a new meaning through their interpretation. For example, Mark wrote that Jesus was crucified and it was a part of a plan. Matthew and Luke had a different view of that; feeling that the arrest was contrived, the charges were false, and Judas was a villain.
In Mark's Gospel Jesus is unclear of his role. He was unsure what he was put on this earth to do.
Do you think he knew? Do you think he understood his responsibility of he just kind of fell into it?
Do you like the Gospel of Mark; giving us a timid Jesus who wondered the earth looking for his position in life?
What do you think? Write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 12, 2011
Friday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
There are three concerns about religious people that always need to be addressed and the Gospel of Matthew helps us address them. They are as follows:
1. Religious institutions aren't what they ought to be. Sometimes religion does more harm than good. Sometimes you might think it would be best for humanity if there were not churches. Wars and killing and general societal problems are often made worse by the religious institutions that seems to make things worse and often justify bad behavior.
Matthew tells us the church is of God and it will withstand the gates of hell. Matthew implies a permanence to the church but I think the Gospel writer is implying an imperative to the church suggesting that "if" the church is of God it will prevail. If it is not it will not prevail.
2. Moderate religious people are so timid they allow the extremists to hold their positions that actually hurt people. Therefore, moderate religious people are accomplice to the dangerous extremists.
If you look at the Gospel as implied in Matthew you see that we are given imperatives and that our job is not to sit back but rather to get up and take our stand and often we must take our stand against the extremists who are giving us a bad name.
3. So much religion is myth and therefore beyond belief. For example, did Jesus rise from death or did the disciples steal the corpse. Matthew tells us the rumor, to that effect, is false. Beyond that we have to say that mystery is one of the most important aspects of life and it is the unexplained that inspires us. We don't have to accept the unreasonable to realize that some of the most important truths in life are beyond reason.
How would you answer the challenge to religion or the church posed by many who are critics?
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
1. Religious institutions aren't what they ought to be. Sometimes religion does more harm than good. Sometimes you might think it would be best for humanity if there were not churches. Wars and killing and general societal problems are often made worse by the religious institutions that seems to make things worse and often justify bad behavior.
Matthew tells us the church is of God and it will withstand the gates of hell. Matthew implies a permanence to the church but I think the Gospel writer is implying an imperative to the church suggesting that "if" the church is of God it will prevail. If it is not it will not prevail.
2. Moderate religious people are so timid they allow the extremists to hold their positions that actually hurt people. Therefore, moderate religious people are accomplice to the dangerous extremists.
If you look at the Gospel as implied in Matthew you see that we are given imperatives and that our job is not to sit back but rather to get up and take our stand and often we must take our stand against the extremists who are giving us a bad name.
3. So much religion is myth and therefore beyond belief. For example, did Jesus rise from death or did the disciples steal the corpse. Matthew tells us the rumor, to that effect, is false. Beyond that we have to say that mystery is one of the most important aspects of life and it is the unexplained that inspires us. We don't have to accept the unreasonable to realize that some of the most important truths in life are beyond reason.
How would you answer the challenge to religion or the church posed by many who are critics?
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Wednesday's reflection on Sunday's sermon
The sermon Sunday will be a response to an opinion piece in the Coloradoan this past week. The article was written by Richard Kaplan. This is a summary of what he said:
"Time after time, religion stands out front as the variable most apparent, be it 911 or Norway this summer. While by 2011 'faith-based' religion should have been relegated to the bookshelves as mythology, it continues to permeate our politics, lead public debate and fuel division...As ingrained as faith-based religions are in the questionably evolving human experience, they are not simply the innocuous and beloved traditions that make holidays worth celebrating. They are responsible for the death of our children and only serve to stand in the way of progress and prosperity...
The argument that extremists do not represent the whole and therefore moderates don't share responsibility for their actions is a cop out. It's an exhausted defense. It is the moderates that allow for the extremists through shared ideology. The moderates embrace what is convenient and abandon what is not...
The only difference between moderates and extremists is that moderates make excuses for their coreligionists while fundamentalists have the courage of their obsolete convictions. Moderates should have the courage to discard these out-of-date belief systems as a whole relegating them to the mythology section of the bookshelf."
Richard Kaplan has something for us to think about. How do we respond? Is religion obsolete? Does it need to be put back as mythology -- I think he implies that it is untrue?
Is religion dangerous and do moderates and extremists basically say the same thing and perpetuate the same problem?
The sermon will attempt to answer this.
That do you think? If you have some defense to the charges Richard has offered write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
These are important questions.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
"Time after time, religion stands out front as the variable most apparent, be it 911 or Norway this summer. While by 2011 'faith-based' religion should have been relegated to the bookshelves as mythology, it continues to permeate our politics, lead public debate and fuel division...As ingrained as faith-based religions are in the questionably evolving human experience, they are not simply the innocuous and beloved traditions that make holidays worth celebrating. They are responsible for the death of our children and only serve to stand in the way of progress and prosperity...
The argument that extremists do not represent the whole and therefore moderates don't share responsibility for their actions is a cop out. It's an exhausted defense. It is the moderates that allow for the extremists through shared ideology. The moderates embrace what is convenient and abandon what is not...
The only difference between moderates and extremists is that moderates make excuses for their coreligionists while fundamentalists have the courage of their obsolete convictions. Moderates should have the courage to discard these out-of-date belief systems as a whole relegating them to the mythology section of the bookshelf."
Richard Kaplan has something for us to think about. How do we respond? Is religion obsolete? Does it need to be put back as mythology -- I think he implies that it is untrue?
Is religion dangerous and do moderates and extremists basically say the same thing and perpetuate the same problem?
The sermon will attempt to answer this.
That do you think? If you have some defense to the charges Richard has offered write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below.
These are important questions.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Monday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
The Gospel of Matthew
The way the Gospel of Matthew is put together is as follows.
Matthew had the Gospel of Mark and rewrote it.
Matthew had sayings of Jesus that people shared with each other (it's called Q)
Matthew has some stories no one else had such as the birth narrative in Bethlehem and the Magi who came to see baby Jesus.
Matthew was probably written by a committee so there isn't just one author. Matthew was interested to show how the church was built and the Gospel has Jesus speaking of "The Kingdom of God". That became a phrase that led to the concept that became the institution.
Because of Matthew's emphasis on Church the people who put the New Testament together put Matthew first. It is the church's Gospel.
The image of Jesus in Matthew is that of a teacher. Jesus is like the new Moses. He went to the Mount and brought the "beatitudes" like Moses went up to the mountain and brought the 10 Commandments.
Like Moses who came out of Egypt, when Mary and Joseph heard that Herod was trying to kill children two years and younger they fled to Egypt and when Herod died the Holy Family came out of Egypt (as Moses had) and traveled back to Bethlehem.
This Gospel positions Jesus as a Royal figure, unlike Luke who saw Jesus as a person who was open to common people.
The Gospel was written about the same time Luke was written and I put that date at 85 AD (50 years after Jesus' death on the cross).
It is an interesting thing to look at the Gospels in a comparative way. They do not portray Jesus in the same manner and often contradict each other.
Which is your favorite Gospel; Matthew or Luke? Maybe it's Mark or John. I really don't care for the image of Jesus in the Gospel of John; he seems almost arrogant.
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below. I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
The way the Gospel of Matthew is put together is as follows.
Matthew had the Gospel of Mark and rewrote it.
Matthew had sayings of Jesus that people shared with each other (it's called Q)
Matthew has some stories no one else had such as the birth narrative in Bethlehem and the Magi who came to see baby Jesus.
Matthew was probably written by a committee so there isn't just one author. Matthew was interested to show how the church was built and the Gospel has Jesus speaking of "The Kingdom of God". That became a phrase that led to the concept that became the institution.
Because of Matthew's emphasis on Church the people who put the New Testament together put Matthew first. It is the church's Gospel.
The image of Jesus in Matthew is that of a teacher. Jesus is like the new Moses. He went to the Mount and brought the "beatitudes" like Moses went up to the mountain and brought the 10 Commandments.
Like Moses who came out of Egypt, when Mary and Joseph heard that Herod was trying to kill children two years and younger they fled to Egypt and when Herod died the Holy Family came out of Egypt (as Moses had) and traveled back to Bethlehem.
This Gospel positions Jesus as a Royal figure, unlike Luke who saw Jesus as a person who was open to common people.
The Gospel was written about the same time Luke was written and I put that date at 85 AD (50 years after Jesus' death on the cross).
It is an interesting thing to look at the Gospels in a comparative way. They do not portray Jesus in the same manner and often contradict each other.
Which is your favorite Gospel; Matthew or Luke? Maybe it's Mark or John. I really don't care for the image of Jesus in the Gospel of John; he seems almost arrogant.
If you have thoughts on this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of the blog click on the 'comments' box below. I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Friday, August 5, 2011
Friday's thoughts on Sunday's sermon
There are important themes in the Gospel of Luke we shouldn't overlook. Two of them involve Jesus' birth and Jesus' Last Supper.
The fact that Luke begins his Gospel with the name Theophilus. Why does Luke write his Gospel to Theophilus?
The birth story of Luke is a story of how the Christ Child was attended by common ordinary shepherd who came to pay him homage. The common and ordinary people were the one who were attendant to Jesus and the Christian faith, according to Luke, was open to those considered outsiders. There was an inclusiveness to this writer as he portrayed Jesus in a unique way.
The Last Supper in Luke's Gospel raises another important theme for Luke. First of all the writer wants us to know that the Risen Christ is still visible and is visible in two ways. We see the Risen Christ in the stranger on the road and when the stranger explains the Biblical truth and in the breaking of the bread. Communion happens to us when we welcome strangers and when we understand ancient truth as relevant in new ways and in the breaking of the bread.
Luke believed in the importance of the sacramental meal and he believed that all were invited to is. Life is a banquet and Christ is present.
He wrote to Theophilus. They Theophilus? The word means "lover of God". He wrote to all of us who love God.
If you have thoughts about this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you would like a rough draft of the sermon I am pleased to email it to you. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of this blog click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
The fact that Luke begins his Gospel with the name Theophilus. Why does Luke write his Gospel to Theophilus?
The birth story of Luke is a story of how the Christ Child was attended by common ordinary shepherd who came to pay him homage. The common and ordinary people were the one who were attendant to Jesus and the Christian faith, according to Luke, was open to those considered outsiders. There was an inclusiveness to this writer as he portrayed Jesus in a unique way.
The Last Supper in Luke's Gospel raises another important theme for Luke. First of all the writer wants us to know that the Risen Christ is still visible and is visible in two ways. We see the Risen Christ in the stranger on the road and when the stranger explains the Biblical truth and in the breaking of the bread. Communion happens to us when we welcome strangers and when we understand ancient truth as relevant in new ways and in the breaking of the bread.
Luke believed in the importance of the sacramental meal and he believed that all were invited to is. Life is a banquet and Christ is present.
He wrote to Theophilus. They Theophilus? The word means "lover of God". He wrote to all of us who love God.
If you have thoughts about this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you would like a rough draft of the sermon I am pleased to email it to you. If you are willing to share your thoughts with the readers of this blog click on the 'comments' box below.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Wednesday's reflection on Sunday's sermon
Any sermon on the Gospel of Luke has to take into account the portrait of Jesus Luke uniquely presents. For Luke Jesus was born in Bethlehem and then Mary and Joseph travel with him back to Bethlehem.
For Luke Jesus was one who related to common ordinary people and who was able to reach into the lives of the outcast and the unnoticed in society.
For Luke it was stories like the Road to Emmaus that symbolizes one of the central themes of the Gospel. You have the Risen Christ appearing to some of the disciples on the road and they are visiting with him and don't know who he is.
The Risen Christ explains to them the meaning of the scripture and then the stranger serves them bread. The disciples who don't know who he is until they think about how he showed up as a stranger on the road and how he broke the bread just as Jesus had done at the table when they met for the last Supper.
The story awakens us to the importance of three things:
1. Pay attention to the stranger; that's the form Christ will take in our day
2. Listen to people who have unique ways of helping us understand scripture because there is more to it than we know. There are levels of depth we often never reach. There are people who can help us see what we often miss.
3. They knew him in the breaking of the bread. We will always want to pay attention to the sacrament. As United Methodists we do not believe the bread is actually the body of Christ. We see the bread and the cup as symbolic of the New Covenant and the body of Christ. They remind us of him and call us to join him at the table.
If you have thoughts about this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with others click on the 'comments' box below. I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
For Luke Jesus was one who related to common ordinary people and who was able to reach into the lives of the outcast and the unnoticed in society.
For Luke it was stories like the Road to Emmaus that symbolizes one of the central themes of the Gospel. You have the Risen Christ appearing to some of the disciples on the road and they are visiting with him and don't know who he is.
The Risen Christ explains to them the meaning of the scripture and then the stranger serves them bread. The disciples who don't know who he is until they think about how he showed up as a stranger on the road and how he broke the bread just as Jesus had done at the table when they met for the last Supper.
The story awakens us to the importance of three things:
1. Pay attention to the stranger; that's the form Christ will take in our day
2. Listen to people who have unique ways of helping us understand scripture because there is more to it than we know. There are levels of depth we often never reach. There are people who can help us see what we often miss.
3. They knew him in the breaking of the bread. We will always want to pay attention to the sacrament. As United Methodists we do not believe the bread is actually the body of Christ. We see the bread and the cup as symbolic of the New Covenant and the body of Christ. They remind us of him and call us to join him at the table.
If you have thoughts about this write me at charlesschuster@fcfumc.net. If you are willing to share your thoughts with others click on the 'comments' box below. I look forward to hearing from you.
Charles Schuster
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
