But, the Bible says...

 

Luke 13:10-17
 
¹⁰ On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, ¹¹ and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all.  ¹² When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.”  ¹³ Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. ¹⁴ Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”  ¹⁵ The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?  ¹⁶ Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”  ¹⁷ When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.
 
I could spend a lot of time reflecting on the modern world’s approach to the quasi-Sabbath.  Christians worship on Sunday, the “first day of the week,” the day in which Jesus rose from the tomb.  The historic church transferred a lot of Sabbath sentiment from the Old Testament to its current practice.  But, in the strictest sense, anyone who treats Saturday (the seventh day) as a regular day or a recreational day and then spends all day Sunday in church is still a Sabbath-breaker.  There is no way around it.  So, as I look at this passage from Luke as it informs our faith practice, the calendar considerations are inconsequential.
 
Some might say that Jesus coincidentally encountered this woman and healed her, and that Sabbath had nothing to do with it.  That is naïve.  The observation that the synagogue leader makes abut six days to work and the Sabbath to rest is spot-on.  If Jesus hadn’t come across this unfortunate woman, he would have found some other deed of mercy to perform.  He is obviously intentional in this work.  Luke prepares us for that in his opening words.  He begins, “On the Sabath…”  There is not reason to include that if it is not important to the narrative. 
 
And look at what Jesus does.  He addresses a woman, a stranger, in public, which in itself is counter to Jewish direction.  He touches her, which is again a taboo.  Then, he speaks his word of power and heals her.  This is not a tale about calendar.  It is a declaration that love trumps law. 
 
Yes, this healing act is intentional.  Yes, it is premeditated.  Yes, Jesus goes into this act with his eyes wide open, appreciating its consequences.
 
I see Bible-thumping conservatives cherry-picking from a handful of out-of-context verses and using those isolated lines to say, “Look at them (not us); they, THEY are sinners and enemies of God and people who have no place among us!”  At this point you can pick your cause, because haters use these passages like Legos, popping one cause out of the base and snapping another in place.
 
Jesus says, “No.”  This woman may not be a leader of the synagogue, but she is a daughter of Abraham.  That gives her a place in the realm of the redeemed, the community of those made whole by the grace of Jesus Christ.  Jesus held no truck with people who drew lines and erected fences.  He says to the children of Abraham – literal and spiritual – “I have a place for you.”
 
People counter, “Yeah, but… how about people who…?” and Jesus says, “Everybody.”  “But how about folks that…?” “Everybody.”  When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated.
 
Now, there are folks in today’s world who have built up a thick enough skin so that they are pretty difficult to humiliate.  They make an idol of their hate and intolerance.  Jesus caused this woman to stand up straight.  The first thing she did, the FIRST thing she did, was praise God.  I don’t know how anyone can make their hatred more important than that.
 
The peace of the Lord be with you.

Monday morning coffee

 
Picture this scenario: a group of pastors is having coffee together on a Monday morning.  A Baptist minister says, “I woke up Sunday morning and found a note from my wife on the kitchen table.  She has left me and is putting divorce proceedings in motion.  I told my church officials about it and they replied, ‘Divorce, huh?  That’s rough.  We’ll need you out of the parsonage by the end of the week.’ ”  What am I going to do?  No Baptist church in the world will take on a divorced minister.
 
A congregational colleague says, “I feel for you, brother.  My people met me at the door of the church after service yesterday and said that they just didn’t like the cut of my jib.  I don’t know where I’m going to find another congregation.”  How do I go about finding another spot?
 
A third pastor adds, “My Finance Committee told me Sunday evening that times are tough.  They are going to have to cut my salary by a third.  I’m not getting any younger.  How am I going to set anything aside as a next egg on so much less money?”
 
They turn to the fourth member of the group – a United Methodist – and say, “How about you, Brother?  How do you deal with these things?”
 
“Well,” replies the pastor, “I am a United Methodist.  While we don’t encourage divorce, in our church that doesn’t automatically disqualify a person from the ministry.  We also have guaranteed appointments for our fully-credentialed clergy.  If a congregation gets so dissatisfied with us that they demand our removal, we have another place to go.  And, we have a guaranteed minimum salary and fully-funded pensions for our preachers.”
 
There is quiet around the table for a few moments.  Then, simultaneously, the first three ask, “How do you get to BE a Methodist preacher?”
 
I wish I could say that this is fanciful.  But, the roster of United Methodist ministers is chock full of pastors who have come in from other denominations for reasons that have nothing to do with personal theology or the practice of mission and ministry.  They have found what they consider to be a secure spot for the rest of their active careers.  They are still Baptist or Congregational or whatever they used to be.  And, they preach and teach and administer the affairs of the church as if they were in their former communions.  They are (United) Methodist in name only.

And a lot of these wolves in sheep’s clothing have been at the forefront of the recent disaffiliation movement within The United Methodist Church (UMC).  I say this not out of speculation, but as a result of first-hand observation and conversation.  The church hasn’t properly vetted or suitably held these pastors accountable, but have been set them loose on congregations that were vulnerable to the self-serving leadership of these folks.
 
So, we have lost countless congregations, and maybe even multitudes of souls, due to the lack of vigilance on the part of our church.  We have diluted our Wesleyan heritage and our Methodist theology for the sake of administrative convenience.  How many disaffiliating congregations have been led down that path by pastors who did not grow up in the UMC? 
 
We have paid a terrible price for expediency.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

Another Communion Table

I understand that some might say that I am obsessing.   That is an observation that it is becoming harder and harder to dispute.  For those who haven't previously heard my rant(s), I have a huge issue with the above graphic.  It is the Communion Table located within a United Methodist church building in which I recently worshipped.  I once again recall the words of James F. White, a giant in the realm of United Methodist worship and in the worship reform movement in general:

        Show me a church that has an open Bible 

        on the Communion Table 

        and I'll show you a church that doesn't use either one.

This is beyond mere "style" or "preference."  The image above is no less than than an idolizing of a Bible.  I hesitate to us the word idolatry outright, but I would be greatly interested in a dialog with someone who claims that the label does not apply.  In recent posts dated July 14 and 16 I made my case.  But, I go to another church and see the same practice again.  I have to ask, "From what does this practice arise?"

Researching this practice is difficult, and one is hard-pressed to find any positive recommendations for this display.  There are some authorities that report that having a Bible on the Table is a Reformed practice, but a history of the custom is sketchy.  Within those communions there is currently more than a little  discussion concerning the idol-worship aspect of the practice, particularly as it relates to the impression it makes on non-Christians and those who are new to those churches.

My own belief is that it is a confusing method of appointing a sanctuary at best.  With an open mind, I ask, "What does a church say by doing this?"  Does the Table of the Lord become a display stand?  How is this particular Bible, removed from both lectern and pulpit, employed in worship?  What does this mean practically to worshipers who gather in the presence of this arrangement?

One of the worst of arguments falls under the heading of "Decoration."  Proponents would say, "Well, it just looks nice.  It's pretty.  It shows a respect for the Bible."  First, we DO NOT decorate our worship space.  Those things that appear throughout the room are appointments.  We "appoint" our sanctuaries.  That is not to say that these appointments might not also be attractive.  But they are not there because of their aesthetic value.  They serve -- individually and collectively -- to point the worshiper to God.  How does an open Bible propped up on a space that should be reserved for the Body and Blood of Christ fulfill that function?

And, I circle back to, "Where does this come from in the first place?"  I am afraid that in some churches it was a matter of someone desiring to place a memorial -- a memorial of their choosing -- in the sanctuary.  An open Bible out where everyone can see is a weekly reminder of the honoree and the giver.  Because the donor is influential or wealthy a Board of Trustees or pastor or worship committee or altar guild gives in to this travesty in the name of not making waves.  I'm sorry, but I see the spinelessness or ignorance of clergy as being a major factor.  (I have a separate rant reserved for that topic -- watch this space.)

In terms of the visual, the particular Bible can sit front-and-center and be a distraction.  But, what better optic than to have that same Bible on the lectern or pulpit and have the preacher/liturgist/lay reader physically open the book, turn to the desired place, and begin to read, concluding with, "This is the Word of the Lord!" ?

That's powerful.  That takes that copy of scripture out of the realm of the static and places it dynamically in the center of the worship assembly.

We have no way of establishing uniformity in the worship of The United Methodist Church.  There is no governing document or standard set of "best practices."  And even when our Book of Worship (or Book of Discipline!) makes a suggestion, churches and clergy feel free to ignore what they don't like, or don't understand, or what they think might ruffle some feathers.  The sign outside our buildings says "United Methodist Church," implying that our historical connection means something.  And it does somewhat when we are looking to find a new preacher or grudgingly pay our Connectional Giving.  But we have become stunningly congregational, with churches and clergy saying -- overtly or by implication -- "I'll do what I want to.  No one is going to tell me what to do."

And we end up with pictures like this.

The peace of the Lord be with you.