NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Apostle's Creed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apostle's Creed. Show all posts

27 March 2014

Sermon on earthly things, wombs and the resurrection of the dead 16MAR14

THIS is one of the best sermons explaining the Christian faith and our reason for believing what we do. The faith of things seen and unseen and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Listen to the podcast by clicking the link. From Rev Nadia Bolz-Weber, the Sarcastic Lutheran......


2014-03-16 NBW Sermon<—-click here to listen along.
When I first re-entered the Christian faith as an adult, I took a catechumenate class (like an adult confirmation program) at the Lutheran church Matthew and I attended.  This is where I learned about and fell in love with Lutheran theology. It just made sense to me. Mostly. Pastor Ross grew quickly accustomed to my raised hand in the back row as I waited to ask clarifying, and at times, belligerent questions.  The week he taught us about the Apostles’ creed, I remember finding the line I believe in the resurrection of the dead to be particularly difficult to believe. Given various states of decomposition not to mention cremation,  it hardly made sense that at some point human bodies would all rise from the earth. I couldn’t shake the image of it all looking like an end times Thriller video. Half decayed arms reaching through soil and zombie women in torn vintage dresses.
My mind couldn’t make and logical sense out of it so I was sure that this was something we didn’t really have to believe, given how a-rational it is.  So raising my hand from the back row, I said “Um, do we have to believe that actual bodies are going to rise from the dead, because that’s just crazy” Expecting him to say of course not, it’s really just a metaphor and was shocked when instead, Pastor Ross just looked at me and unapologetically said “yes, Nadia. Actual bodies”
I mention this because I kind of relate to Nicodemis from our Gospel reading.  It says that he was Pharisee – a studied man and a religious scholar -  who came to Jesus by night raising his hand from the darkness of the back row to ask him some clarifying, if belligerent questions.  See, Nicodemis was just trying to wrap his brain around this Jesus thing.  He was looking for some basic facts. And trying to apply his reasoning to what he was experiencing about Jesus, he too was finding it all a little crazy. Even to the point of saying one of the most dumb-ass things ever recorded in scripture.  Jesus said you have to be born anew, or born from above and literal minded, logical Nicodemis says to Jesus, what? like, go back into your mom’s womb.  It’s a graphic image we could all do without, and I can only imagine how this made everyone totally cringe when he said it.
But I feel for him.
Because in typical Jesus fashion he doesn’t really answer the question but says even more crazy sounding stuff like the wind blows where it chooses and that’s what being born of spirit is like and then some stuff about Moses lifting up snakes in the wilderness.
And exactly none of it is very helpful in providing some facts which our minds can make sense of.
Basically because the Gospel just isn’t like that.  There’s no reason for the church to lean toward anti-intellectualism but the thing is, The Gospel is not domesticatable enough for the mind to grasp.  It’s wilder than that. Like wind. It’s more beautiful and a-rational than reason alone can contain.  That’s why we need stuff and not just ideas. I’ve heard it said that Christianity isn’t spiritual (or, I would add, intellectual) it’s material.  You can’t even get started without a river, some bread and a jug of wine.
I understand Nicodemis’s desire for this all to make sense. I do. But instead of a religion revealed through philosophical constructs – easily reasoned out and understood, instead we get a God inconveniently revealed in people, and food and wine and water and bodies and pies and oil and beer. When God chose to come and take on human flesh and walk the earth and break bread with friends it was as though God was baptizing the material.  As though to say “stop looking for me in the heavens when you aren’t even close to understanding the majesty of a loaf of bread” or as Jesus puts it, if you can’t understand earthly things you’ll never understand heavenly things.
And understanding the heavenly within the earthly, the transcendent within the mundane, is not an intellectual logical, reason-based experience. You can’t make the gospel make sense by using your head.  You have to use your hands.  And eyes, and mouth, and ears and nose. Because the kingdom of heaven, as Jesus says, is At HAND, reach out and touch it, see it, eat it, feel it. In other words, take in the glory of God in the common, unexpected and totally crazy ways in which our Lord Jesus Christ still seems to be redeeming us.
The next time we see Nicodemis, later in John’s Gospel, he is trying to defend Jesus against his fellow Pharisees. Many want to kill Jesus, who’s still ranting nonstop about blood and bread and light and salvation, but Nicodemus, who clearly still doesn’t get it, says rather weakly that maybe they should give Jesus a hearing and learn the facts.
There won’t be any facts, of course, until the unavoidable fact of the cross. [1]Which is where, against all logic, we meet Nicodemus for the last time.
And we know he finally got it because when we meet him again in chapter 19 he is doing something crazy.  He is carrying 100# of oils and spices. He takes the broken and yet to be resurrected body of his Lord Jesus and he wraps it lovingly in myrrh and aloe and strips of cloth. It seems a pound or two of such things would have done the trick.  But instead, Nicodemis casts his crown of logic and philosophy at the foot of the cross of Jesus and instead picks up an embarrassingly extravagant amount of stuff…material, earthly, touchable, carry-able stuff and does what he can in the light of such love.  He got it.  Or maybe more accurately, it got him. We know this because carrying 100# of oils and spices around is just plain Gospel-crazy.
I’m not sure the Gospel makes sense though facts and philosophy, but I have seen it recently in the stack of pies Ruthie is carrying every time I see her. And in the burritos and cocktails Meg and MK carried into the ER when Kathleen busted her ankle. And in the Honey and lemons Pastor Brian carried over to my house last time I was sick.
Love combined with people and actual earthly stuff is the only way we really glimpse heaven sometimes.
So if you are here thinking this is crazy. Bread that is the body and wine that is the blood of Christ?  Forgiveness of sins? Water that combined with God’s word somehow brings us new life and wholeness? Loving enemies? Turning cheeks? You are right. It’s all pretty nuts. AND totally the most true thing I’ve ever heard or experienced. And best of all, it’s for you.  All of it. The oil and ashes and the bread and wine and pies and burritos and – all revealing the glory of God  – all revealing heavenly things among earthly things.
Now, that whole resurrection of the dead thing I struggled with 18 years ago in my confirmation class, still seems pretty nuts. But last Sunday, when Ellen and Bobbie Jo and myself lovingly touched the paraplegic, broken, and yet to be resurrected body of Amy Mack, when I gently traced the sign of the cross on her forehead –I couldn’t help but believe in the resurrection of her body. I couldn’t help but know that all flesh will be redeemed.  That the suffering in our bodies – due to injury or illness, paraplegia or physical abuse, aging or self-harm – that the promise of the resurrection of the dead is that somehow God is able to knit it all back together like God knit it together in our mother’s wombs to begin with.  Perhaps we do re-enter out mother’s wombs in so far as we return to where God put together limb to limb to begin with. Because, as we heard in our first reading, this is the God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
Somehow, for me, as I traced the sign of the cross on the cool forehead of our Amy, my fingers easily gliding over the oil to form the cross, I was taken back to 4 days earlier when I made the same sign on baby Willa’s head, on skin just hours old, with ashes. Remembering that we are God’s and to God we return And that 27 year old back row skeptic whose mind could not grasp the resurrection of the dead now could do nothing but hear Pastor Ross say, yes Nadia, actual bodies.
I believe. Help my unbelief.
This is the faith of Nicodemus, maybe like the faith of you and me, and it is in a God who saves us despite what we think we know. Who works despite our disbelief, beyond our best logical arguments, to bring the dead to life, call into existence that which does not yet exist, and to make all things, everywhere, new.[2]
Which is why for a couple millennia, Christians have gathered to say that crazy thing: we believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.



[1] These 3 sentences stolen from my friend Sara Miles (with permission)
[2] These 2 sentences stolen shamelessly from my friend Sara Miles (with permission).

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/2014/03/sermon-on-earthly-things-wombs-and-the-resurrection-of-the-dead/

15 August 2012

PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS, RELIGION AND THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST

I have been amazed by the way the right wing evangelical Christians have embraced mitt romney considering most evangelical Christian denominations do not consider the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints (better known to the rest of us as Mormons) as Christian, especially with all the questions about Pres Obama's true faith (Muslim or Christian????). These Christians recite the Apostle's Creed in church, and it clearly states "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary....." BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY, but Mormons don't believe in the virgin birth. It is a fundamental tenant of Christian faith, and Mormons do not believe it. In fact, in the Qur'an (Koran) the virgin birth of Jesus is recorded as such " Muslims believe that Jesus (called 'Isa in Arabic) was the son of Mary, and was conceived without the intervention of a human father. The Qur'an describes that an angel appeared to Mary, to announce to her the "gift of a holy son" (19:19). She was astonished at the news, and asked: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" (19:20). When the angel explained to her that she had been chosen for the service of God, and that God had ordained the matter, she devoutly submitted herself to His will." The rest of the story in the Qur'an is much different than in the Bible, and Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet but not the Savior. So what I want to know is why the different attitude about romney's faith and the false accusations about Pres Obama being a Muslim? I believe it is based not on religion at all, but is racism, pure and simple, and totally against true Christian teachings. 
For those who may be interested here is a more complete explanation of Mormon teaching about the virgin birth of Christ....

Was the LDS Jesus born of the virgin Mary?

by Matt Slick
The Bible teaches that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. This means that Mary had no sexual relations with any man prior to the birth of Jesus.
Likewise, the Mormon church also maintains that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.  However, there is quite an interesting array of Mormon authorities who have said some very interesting things about the relationship between God and Mary in regards to Jesus’ birth. Let’s take a look at some of them and see what we find:
Brigham Young, second prophet and president of the LDS church said,
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
Brigham Young also said, "Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).
Brigham Young said, "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, 1857, p. 218).
Joseph Fielding Smith, stated
"The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit," (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44, as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1884, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110, bookstore at 1358 South West Temple, 1982, p. 260).
Joseph Fielding Smith said, "They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! Neither does the Bible." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 19).
Bruce McConkie, who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated,
"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).
"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).
Heber C. Kimball who was a member of the first presidency said,
"In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it." (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211).
"The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband," (Deseret News, October 10, 1866, as cited in the book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, by Gerald and Sandra Tanner, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110, bookstore at 1350 South West Temple, 1982, p. 261).

What conclusions can we draw from the words of the leaders of the Mormon church regarding Jesus’ birth?

  1. It was the result of natural action, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
  2. Jesus was not begotten by the Holy Ghost," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51); (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 19).
  3. "The Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, 1857, p. 218).
  4. The birth was the result of natural action, (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
  5. "The Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit," (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44).
  6. "Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers," (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, 1966, p. 547).
  7. "There is nothing figurative about his [Jesus’] paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 742).
Remember, according to Mormon teaching the Holy Ghost is a male personage, a man. (Le Grand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Salt Lake City, 1956, p. 118; Heber C. Kimball, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 179).
The Father, who is God, is also in the form of a man (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3; and Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22).
Mary, of course, was a woman.
This is even more interesting when we realize that the Mormon church officially proclaims that Jesus was born of a virgin. For example, Bruce McConkie stated "Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 822.) That is fine.  Let them proclaim it.  But quite honestly, I fail to see how the Mormon people can assert that Mary remained a virgin in light of this evidence from their prophets and apostles. I see them saying two different things while backpedaling, trying to seem Christian.
Of course, this is my opinion and the Mormons who read this will accuse me of sensationalism.  But, I am simply pointing out what many of their official church leaders have said.  In the changing teachings of Mormonism, you never know what you'll find next.1

This article is also available in: Español
  • 1. Here is a list of the sources that were consulted for this article: (1) McConkie, Bruce R., Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979; (2)Richards, LeGrand, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1950; (3) Smith, Joseph Fielding, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954; (4) Tanner, Gerald and Sandra, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, P.O. Box 1854, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110; (5) Witte, Bob, Where Does it Say That?, no publisher or location.
  • http://carm.org/was-lds-jesus-born-of-virgin-mary