Holy Communion

On the radio show this morning, we discussed a news story I shared about certain Roman Catholic bishops continuing to advocate the denial of communion to pro-choice politicians and to those who vote for pro-choice candidates.

As I mentioned on the show, the progressive Protestant tradition's understanding of communion is very different from Roman Catholic teaching. As I understand it, Catholic doctrine stresses the real (or physical) presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist, while those in the Reformed and other Protestant traditions see Christ's presence in spiritual or symbolic terms. Additionally, in traditional Catholic teaching, communion is a sacrament that can help a person attain salvation; while in Protestant circles, communion as a sacrament can only help point to and remind us of the grace of God already present.

Now that we've got all those explanations over with, I can get to my real point, which again, comes from my progressive Protestant understanding. Communion is about community, a Christian community that the apostle Paul described as without labels: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). In 1 Corinthians, Paul also explicitly links this community in Christ with the Body of Christ (see 12:12-31, for example).

These understandings of Christian community lead me to believe that for Christ truly to be present--for communion to be truly holy--means that all must be welcome to partake. The universal welcome is exactly what makes communion holy. If any of God's children are barred from the communion table, then it no longer remains "holy" communion. Even Judas was allowed to come to the table at the Last Supper.

In some ways, this is a rather comfortable position for me to take, since the United Church of Christ (my denomination) is one of the mainline Protestant churches that has long practiced open communion. However, in many mainline churches, including UCC churches, this debate often gets played out alongside the question of confirmation; in other words, should pre-confirmation children be allowed to partake of the communion elements? The traditional stance usually claims that before confirmation, children don't understand communion. But if we restrict access to the Lord's Table to "understanding," that raises a whole host of other issues: what about folks with some kind of learning/mental disability--should they not be allowed to come to the Table, even if they don't "understand?" Another frequent argument centers on the fact that children are just kids; they're just not ready. Well, this one really misses the boat on what Jesus taught concerning children: "'Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs'" (Mark 10:13-16). Children clearly hold places of honor in Jesus' ministry.

The communion table should serve as the perfect model for Christian hospitality and as the ultimate metaphor for Christian ministry and mission. In short, Jesus welcomed all, and Christians are called to do the same. And "welcome" means a full welcome, and "all" really does mean all. That, for me, is at the heart of the Gospel.

-Pastor Chris

Sanctuary Movement

On our season premiere on Monday, we discussed the Sanctuary Movement. Later that same day, this news article came my way, so I thought I'd share it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_re_us/sanctuary_protest

Season Premiere coming soon!

The second season of the "Ask the Pastor" radio show will premiere on KSCR 93.5 FM, Benson on Monday, September 17 at 9am. Tune in, or better yet, call in!

That being said, what topics would you like to hear discussed this season?

Gospel Still Too Racey for TV

Some of you may remember that when the United Church of Christ launched its "Stillspeaking Initiative" at the end of 2004, the strategy included airing commercials on network TV. You may further remember that CBS and NBC rejected the first commercial as "too controversial," due to its brief depiction of two men holding hands. The second commercial, which aired in 2005, suffered much the same fate for similar reasons.

Naturally, the UCC decided to fight back and filed complaints and license-renewal challenges to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As of August 7 of this year, the FCC has simply dismissed the challenges.

You can read the story here: http://www.ucc.org/news/ucc-leaders-indignant-over.html?log-event=sp2f-view-item&nid=33700378

When the commercials were first rejected, I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper drawing the community's attention to the issue. This dismissal by the FCC has merely brought up the same issues again, but now without recourse.

The decision is extremely chilling. The so-called "liberal" media has banned these commercials because the message of Jesus that all are welcome remains too radical to show on television. What does this say about our contemporary society? Why is this message still so controversial?

And what's with the power of the corporate networks to make this kind of decision? The conservative and anti-Semitic Veggie Tales even has its own Saturday morning cartoon on NBC! It's a sad day when the FCC rules against free speech due to its "controversy." As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, "controversial" speech is exactly what the authors of the Bill of Rights had in mind when they included freedom of speech in the First Amendment.

It sounds more like it's freedom of speech for only the corporations. I thought the Supreme Court ruled that the public "owned" the airwaves, but according to the FCC, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. (I guess the false prophet-televangelists are the only ones with enough money to garner widespread media coverage.) Aaaargh.


Any thoughts?

The True Church

Apparently, Pope Benedict XVI is at it again. Yesterday, the Vatican released a document (approved by the Pope) that reaffirmed the official position that the Roman Catholic Church is not only the sole true Christian church, but the only sure path to heaven. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_re_eu/pope_other_christians)

As the article linked above notes, this is not a new position. Since at least 2000, this has been the official teaching of the Catholic Church, despite the progress the Second Vatican Council made in the 1960's in ecumenical (cooperation between Christian denominations) relationships.

Well, as a mainline Protestant pastor, you can guess that I disagree with this view, to say the least. I think it's absurd and awfully self-righteous for any institution (including my own beloved United Church of Christ) to claim that it possesses the only "true" legitimate anything. (Luckily the UCC, along with most mainline Protestant churches, do not make this claim.) I could go on and on about how this idea flies in the face of such concepts as Christian humility or loving neighbor as ourselves. Or about how making these kind of asinine claims is what leads to religious violence and persecution. (How many wars have been waged in the name of religion? Too many.)

But I don't want to hear my own voice today--I'd like to hear from some readers.


Questions to ponder:

Can a human institution ever claim to have the "one way" to God or salvation?

Is there such a thing as "one true church"?

Has the Roman Catholic Church actually moved backward since Vatican II, or simply "clarified" its position, as Benedict states?

When Jesus claims in the Gospel of John to be "the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me," does this lend support to the idea of a "one true church"? Does it mean that, if not a church, then at least a religion (i.e. Christianity) can claim a monopoly on truth?

What happens when multiple religious groups make such a claim? They can't all be right, so how do you decide which one is right?

If the Roman Catholic Church isn't the one true church, what would the true church look like?


Well, that's probably enough for our brains for today. Let's get some discussion going.

Until next time, this is Pastor Chris signing off.

General Synod and 50th Anniversary of the United Church of Christ

The big 50th anniversary of the merger between the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical & Reformed Church that created the United Church of Christ was celebrated from June 22 to 26 in Hartford, Connecticut, along with the UCC's 26th General Synod. I was fortunate enough to attend as a visitor.



There were many things of interest to comment on at this event. One of the highlights for most folks was the speech given by Bill Moyers. You can read it here: http://www.ucc.org/news/significant-speeches/moyers-challenges-ucc-drive.html.



One of the themes of the speech, along with many of the other speeches, was the hijacking of the Christian religion for the purposes of the political right. In short, many of the speakers (and I) believe that the language of Christian faith and piety have been taken over by politicians who have turned many of Jesus' meanings on their head.



For example, how can it be that the most vocal and recognized Christian groups in politics share a party alignment with those representing the interests of big-business corporations? Why is this same party most interested in giving the richest Americans a sizable tax break, while shifting more of the burden onto the lower classes (and taking away the public resources these folks need most)? Have they read what any of the Hebrew prophets had to say about economic power in society? Or what Jesus had to say about worldly riches?



And why do we have a President who is perhaps the most "professed" Christian president of recent years, but at the same time pursues policies that not only help the rich at the expense of the poor, but also continue to fail to welcome the stranger and alien, actively destroy God's creation, and--of course the big one--make war based on false claims? How can the religious right be on the same side as these priorities?



Or, as so many others have asked, WHAT BIBLE ARE THEY READING?



Let me know if you come up with any answers, or if you have good points to share on either side of the question of whether Christianity has truly been hijacked by the political right.



-Pastor Chris

Empire

On June 8-10, I attended the Annual Meeting of the Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ. The Minnesota Conference has a mission partnership with the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, and so a workshop was offered at the Annual Meeting that focused on updates concerning the partner church in the Philippines. I attended this workshop.

Since I came to the Minnesota Conference, I've become only surface-level familiar with what's going on with the Philippines in general, and with the UCC in the Philippines in particular. There are clearly people with much more knowledge about what's going on and who can better express the issues there. But the more I learn about this topic, the more appalled I am. This workshop was no exception.

Although we don't hear much about it in the media, the Philippines was originally intended to be the other "front" in the "War on Terror," in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq. Due to reported activity by Islamic extremists, U.S. money and aid (and perhaps combat troops?) have gone to the Filipino government to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, this aid is being used to accomplish widespread human rights and environmental abuses, including allowing powerful business interests to rape the land; and the detention (without charges, of course), torture, and assassination of many who have raised their voices in protest against these abuses and tactics.

Journalists, trade unionists, and religious leaders are particularly targeted. Moreover, although Roman Catholicism is the dominant religion in the country, UCC clergy and activists find themselves the victims of human rights violations (mostly "extra-judicial killings") more than any other denomination, by far.

When anyone suffers from human rights abuses, it should be an abomination to us as Christians, as people of faith, and as simply people. But even more so when our tax money as U.S. citizens goes to commit these horrible acts under the fear-inducing banner of the "War on Terror." As a pastor in the UCC (in the United States), I find it even more disheartening that the U.S. is helping to target and murder my fellow UCC sisters and brothers in the Philippines, in particular.

Church and state coming into conflict is no new thing for Christians to wrestle with. I am enraged over what our government is helping to do all over the world. I believe there are times (many, in fact) when our allegiance to the God we know in Jesus Christ cannot be reconciled with any kind of patriotic allegiance. In Nazi Germany, for example, when the Confessing Church (Nazi resistance) declared "Christ is Lord," it was in opposition to the claims Hitler and the State were making. That was also what "Christ is Lord" meant in the ancient Roman Empire in New Testament times. In the way that power and dominance is exercised across the globe, is the American Empire really all that different from the Empire of Rome? What are we called to do about it? At the workshop, they provided letter-writing and talking-point resources for contacting our representatives and senators. But somehow, it just doesn't seem to be enough. What else should we do?

Hell, I don't know...

The Trinity

In many liturgical churches, this past Sunday was observed as Trinity Sunday--a day to contemplate the doctrine of God as "Three-in-One." In my Trinity Sunday sermon, I suggested many reasons why believing in the Trinity shouldn't be viewed as essential for Christians. (There are many ways that God is named and described in the Bible besides as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the word trinity does not appear in scripture; the church's understanding of the Trinity took centuries to develop; disagreement over how the different members of the Trinity relate to each other contributed to the Schism between Western and Eastern churches in 1054; our monotheistic brothers and sisters in Judaism and Islam see belief in the Trinity as bordering on polytheism; etc.)



Admittedly, the vast majority of mainstream Christian denominations adhere to Trinitarian thought (including my own United Church of Christ). But, with all these reasons to question the Trinity as indispensable doctrine, do you think belief in the Trinity should be a must for Christians?



-Pastor Chris

Season Finale

As you may have heard this morning, today was the season finale of the "Ask the Pastor" radio show. Since our premier in September, we've dealt with many topics and questions of discussion. Which was your favorite?

Atheism

On the May 21 radio show, we tackled the topic of atheism, and more specifically, the writings of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. As I said on the show, I think these guys are right with most of their criticisms of religion. However, where I part ways with them comes when they characterize "moderates" simply as watered-down versions of "extremists." As I see it, liberal/modern/mainline Christian thought comes from a completely different place in understanding Jesus' teachings and scriptural interpretation than Pat Robertson or (the late) Jerry Falwell. When engaging with Christian scholars such as Marcus Borg or John Dominic Crossan or John Shelby Spong, I don't see how someone can claim that these thinkers are nothing more than less offensive versions of the fundamentalists. There is a clear-cut difference between these modes of thought, from beginning to end.

That being said, Harris and Dawkins provide important food for thought in arguing that religion is harmful. As much as we might want to jump up and down and yell that Robertson or Falwell doesn't speak for us, they are the names that are known in the media, and (like it or not) their voices are heard as the "Christian representatives." So, yes, I have much sympathy with atheism's rejection of religion--if Pat Robertson were an accurate representation of Christianity, I would be an atheist too.

-Pastor Chris

Cults

On the May 13 radio show, we discussed cults, attempting to address the question: what is a cult? As we mentioned, the word "cult" often brings to mind groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, Mormons, and others. However, I suggested that "cult" is an almost meaningless term, due to its frequent use in rhetoric as a label slapped onto any religious group we don't understand or don't like. On the other hand, there are also groups that I believe are harmful, more specifically destructive, doomsday groups like Heaven's Gate and the Solar Temple. (For a more detailed, well-researched discussion on cults, see http://www.religioustolerance.org/cultmenu.htm.)

In the end, I claimed that any group that expects you to suspend individual thought or suppress questions should be regarded with suspicion.

What do you think of this definition and warning?

Have you ever had any experience with so-called "cults"?

Do you think the word is useful in describing different religious groups?

How would you define "cult"?




Until next time, this is Pastor Chris signing off.