Mrs.JockEwing
01-27-2008, 08:00 PM
Invitational living is at the core of our gospel lesson today. I believe the story we have before us, Jesus inviting two sets of brothers to join him in his ministry, is a highly condensed version of what actually took place. The gospel portrays it as if one day, as Jesus happened to walk along the shore of a lake, he saw a set of brothers and called out to them, out of the blue, to follow him and they did. Likewise, the same scenario is repeated with another set of brothers, James and John. When I read this passage of scripture to my daughter this week, "Immediately James and John left the boat and their father, and followed him," she asked where the "Honor your father and mother" commandment fit into this story. She thought of poor old Dad, whose livelihood depended upon the assistance of his sons, and his circumstances once the boys left. I had never thought of this passage in that light and it was reassuring to this "aging father" to hear his daughter have concern about the circumstances of an aging parent. Makes me think I might even get a visit or two from my children while I’m in the nursing home in my twilight years.
I have a sense that the invitational story of Jesus with the two sets of brothers in our gospel lesson is a highly condensed version. No doubt Jesus knew Peter and Andrew, as well as James and John, for a good while. Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown, was an inland town in the territory of Galilee and was located about twenty miles from Capernaum, which laid on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Twenty miles was a pretty good distance in those days but Capernaum must have been a town that Jesus was familiar with because it is his base of operations when he starts his public ministry. In his twenties, Jesus might have gone to Capernaum to study in preparation for his ministry or he might have gone there to find work and he did so in the fishing industry. No doubt Jesus knew Peter and Andrew, James and John over a period of time and they spent many hours in the midst of fishing or studies talking about the current religious climate and the leadership in Jerusalem. As Jesus thought about how he could bring about a positive change, there were others like these two sets of brothers that wanted to help him when he was ready to move forward. The families of Peter and Andrew as well as James and John, including good old Dad, knew the day would come when they would join Jesus and his movement for change. It wasn’t a matter of if Jesus was going to challenge the establishment of his day but it was a matter of when. Therefore, it makes more sense to understand that Jesus’ invitation to the two sets of brothers was an anticipated event as opposed to an instantaneous occurrence.
Did the brothers, or others that responded likewise in the upcoming year, fully realize what was entailed in the invitation that Jesus provided? To some extent they did. They understood that he wanted to breathe a fresh spirit into their faith that impacted so many aspects of their life. But later reactions would indicate that they did not realize that this effort would call his life and their lives into jeopardy. Today, when people respond to the invitation to join St. Luke United Methodist Church do they understand all that membership entails in this particular limb in the Body of Christ? If Pastor Mike and I have done our jobs in presenting information during orientation sessions, then most persons positively responding to the invitation to join the membership of this church understand what it is to faithfully participate with their prayers, presence, gifts, and service. In addition, the theological contexts within which our membership vows are carried out are clearly understood as well.
Occasionally the theological context needs clarification by persons who are actively participating in the ministry of our church. Such was the case for a member who wrote me earlier this month. Let me read an e-mail from an active member, who joined the church in the last two years that requested some clarification regarding the St. Luke theological orientation. It reads:
"Pastor Scott,
"In reference to your sermon of December 30th, we left with several questions running through our minds. Last Sunday we picked up a copy of the sermon text to verify if what we thought we heard was right.
"I have very limited knowledge of the bible, so please excuse me for sounding ignorant at times. I do have, however, very strong beliefs that I was raised with and that I have counted on throughout my life. After hearing the sermon of December 30th, it left me with questions that I thought I should run by you.
"On the third page of your December 30th sermon you spoke of the traditional understanding of Jesus as Savior in terms of the afterlife status: "either he is our Savior so we can go to heaven or he is not, which lands us in hell". You also, later on, spoke of hell as a "concept" that we should drop. Didn’t John Wesley believe in a hell? The Bible speaks of hell in many places. Does St. Luke believe today that there is no hell?
"You also referred numerous times to the books in the bible as being written by "the author." Are not the authors the men who wrote the books and for which the books were named? All over in the bible it states: "and God said." Didn’t God use these men (Luke, John, Mathew, etc…) as his instruments to write the books? Are not these the words of God?
"Does St. Luke believe that: "all of humanity" will go to heaven with or without trusting the Lord as their savior first? What is St. Luke’s interpretation of Salvation and such references to God as: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Does St. Luke have a "Statement of Faith" that would plainly clarify our beliefs? They seem to be so ever changing.
"Scott, I’m guessing that others out there may also have similar questions and would also appreciate a re-explanation of some of the points made in your December 30th sermon in the up coming weeks.
"As always, your guidance is greatly appreciated!
"Sincerely yours,
---- (I have left the signature anonymous)"
I liked this e-mail because it was sincere and wrote with a warm heart and inquiring mind. I also like the correspondence because it was signed. Sometimes I receive letters or e-mails, that are oftentimes mean-spirited, that are unsigned. I do not fully read, much less give thought to, letters that are unsigned. But I deeply appreciate thoughtful and signed correspondence. I lift up my responses to this e-mail in a sermon just in case there might be "others out there that may also have similar questions." In addition, I place my sermons in the literature racks and on our web site (www.stlukeumc.com) so persons can double check what I say and how it fits in with their thought system.
Let me break down the e-mail into parts and respond to each. In my response I will hopefully provide some insight on what I understand that an invitation to St. Luke membership encompasses from a theological perspective. The e-mail reads "I have very limited knowledge of the bible, so please excuse me for sounding ignorant at times." Peter Gomes, minister at the Memorial Chapel at Harvard Divinity School comments on the common situation of persons having a nodding acquaintance with the bible. Rev. Gomes states "One of the more embarrassing social situations, upon which even Miss Manners and other arbiters of social etiquette have failed to provide a useful strategy, is one in which you have more than a nodding acquaintance with someone. At the point of introduction you got the person’s name, forgot it, asked it again, and forgot it again. Meanwhile you go on meeting this person, chatting and being chatted with, but you have clearly passed beyond the point where you can ask for the name again. It is easy enough to maintain the façade of friendship until that awful moment comes when you are required to introduce your nameless friend to a third party. What to do? I have seen artful evasions such as ‘Surely you two know each other?’ followed by a discreet withdrawal while they got on with the job themselves, leaving you unexposed. Another stratagem is to avoid the risk of introduction altogether by declaring emphatically, ‘Ah! Here’s my old friend!’ What we should know, pretend that we know, and wish that we knew, we don’t. Worse still, we do not know, without risk of embarrassment, how to ask about what we need to know."
He goes on to say, "This, I suggest, is the way it is with so many people and the bible. … It is awkward to concede you don’t know very much about the bible, given its cultural prominence, and it is difficult to figure out how to get reintroduced without conceding your illiteracy." … This nodding acquaintance is true for most even though "Poll after poll continues to find the bible atop every best-seller list."* As a pastor I enjoy it when persons know the basis stories of the bible. But if that is not the case, I am happy to share the biblical stories. In fact, I use a significant portion of my sermon time on sharing the biblical stories, how they came to be, and what they might mean to us today. Therefore, limited knowledge of the bible is not unusual. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke that would like to see how the words of old, from scripture, might provide insight and meaning to life today.
Yet, even if people don’t really know what is in the bible, many have opinion on how it was written. It is easier for me when someone does not think they have a good understanding of how the bible was written because the common understandings are usually far from that which I come to understand through my years of study.
Let me reference the letter again: "You also referred numerous times to the books in the bible as being written by ‘the author.’ Are not the authors, the men who wrote the books and for which the books were named?" In the case of the Old Testament prophets, I would give a qualified affirmative answer, in that, they were written by the prophet or a scribe of the prophet. In the case of the letters of Paul in the New Testament, once again, I can give an affirmative answer, most of the letters attributed by Paul were written by Paul. But then you get to books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the first five books of the bible, they are attributed to Moses but scholarship has clearly indicated that they were written by various authors centuries after Moses had died. Likewise, the gospels are popularly attributed to disciples of Jesus where, in fact, they were written under the name of one of the apostles. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who have a desire to hear what contemporary scholarship says about the composition of the bible and therefore how we might best understand it.
The letter asks further: "All over in the Bible it states: "and God said." Didn’t God use these men (Luke, John, Matthew, etc…) as his instruments to write the books? Are not these the words of God?" This is a very sensitive question since the response has large implications regarding the authority the bible holds in a person’s life. Here is my answer. The bible is and is not filled with the words of God. The authors, sometimes identified, sometimes anonymous and writing under surnames, shared their best understanding. Over the centuries some of those understandings have been rejected by the faithful, whereas some of the words continue to parallel our best understanding of God. I portray good bible reading as sifting through the words and finding the eternal nuggets of truth that continue to shine under the spotlight of contemporary knowledge. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who appreciate and respect the best insights of yesteryear regarding God and are willing to continue that process today as we discern new insights into the ways and nature of God.
Finally, two specific points from the letter. First, "On the third page of your December 30th sermon you spoke of the traditional understanding of Jesus as Savior in terms of the afterlife status: ‘either he is our Savior so we can go to heaven or he is not, which lands us in hell.’ You also, later on, spoke of hell as a ‘concept’ that we should drop. Didn’t John Wesley believe in a hell? The Bible speaks of hell in many places. Does St. Luke believe today that there is no hell?" Yes, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement in the Church of England in the 1700’s, believed in hell. What draws me to Methodism is not the many traditional beliefs that Wesley held, like hell, but his invitation to live a life filled with personal piety that is balanced with concern for the larger social issues of the day. Wesley encouraged his followers to maintain integrity in their personal life and to seek justice in the community of their neighborhood, city, nation and world. He modeled personal piety and an active striving for social justice and he understood those characteristics to reflect Judeo-Christian ideals. Yes, the bible does speak of hell in many places. Does St. Luke believe today that there is no hell? That is hard for me to answer because all of us together make up St. Luke. St. Luke does not have a belief statement that says yes or no regarding the existence of hell. As the Senior Pastor, I am understood to be the public face of St. Luke. Although I acknowledge that the bible refers to hell in many places, I am moved by the emerging biblical word regarding God’s grace, love, and compassion as well as the amazing stories I hear of God’s grace in people’s lives today. Personally, I am convinced that God’s grace does not allow for hell when all is said and done. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who want to talk about heaven, hell, and other sacred concepts and more importantly, converse about how we have arrived at our conclusions as we are honestly open to new understandings over the course of time.
The second specific item lifted up in the letter is "Does St. Luke believe that ‘all of humanity’ will go to heaven with or without trusting the Lord as their savior first? What is St. Luke’s interpretation of Salvation and such references to God as: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Does St. Luke have a ‘Statement of Faith’ that would plainly clarify our beliefs? They seem to be so ever changing." Once again, let me respond from my perspective, which is not to say that I do not respect the perspective of others at St. Luke that might differ from mine. Will all of humanity go to heaven with or without trusting the Lord, which I assume means Jesus, as their savior first? A couple of answers are needed in response to this question. First, heaven needs to be defined. I am happy to define heaven as being in God’s presence, in some positive fashion, after our physical death. I think any more detailed definition is merely guessing. I believe that any one, of any faith, that believes in God will experience heaven following death. Jesus certainly pointed to a path of salvation but others have as well. In addition, I believe all humanity will be in God’s presence, in some positive fashion, after physical death. I choose to believe that even the misled evil persons of this life will be consumed into God’s eternal grace. The natural question for the person holding the position I maintain is why should individuals be disciples of Jesus if it does not provide the exclusive "free pass" into heaven? The Christian lifestyle, spirit, and mindset is to be selected by individuals because of the meaning, depth, and reward that it brings to us during our days on earth, irrespective of what happens after our physical death. The Christian lifestyle is the cake and heaven is the frosting, we have our cake and eat it, too!
The e-mail also asks "What is St. Luke’s interpretation of Salvation and such references to God as: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?" The experience of Salvation that emerges from a faith perspective, Christian or otherwise, that is based upon positive motivation and devoid of fearful negative consequences, enables a person to:
- Mature to their fullest degree,
- Live in healthy and loving ways with others, and
- Allows for growth and revision of faith perspectives when new insights come to pass.
I will wait for another sermon to fully address the Christian understanding of God through the Trinitarian formula of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Suffice it to say, that when properly understood, the Trinity faith statement can be a useful reference for a healthy understanding of the nature of God. I would suggest that within the Trinitarian formula itself, we can see a transition occurring that Dr. Goff referred to last week as we see humanity initially as servants of God (Father/Creator) and then viewing humanity as partners with God (the Holy Spirit in our midst).
"Does St. Luke have a ‘Statement of Faith’ that would plainly clarify our beliefs? They seem to be so ever changing." No, St. Luke does not have a "Statement of Faith." But St. Luke publications note that we understand ourselves to be building upon the foundation of faith as contained in the bible and developed in history of the Christian church, particularly Methodism, over the centuries. Therefore, as we combine contemporary insights with our inherited faith foundation we find our understanding of God and the life of faith to be ever changing. Statements of Faith, at their best, evolve over time. I found one statement of faith in the files of St. Luke, developed either by Dr. Goff or a group he worked with, that I think is a fine statement but can be refined over time as well. Please read it with me.
A CONTEMPORARY STATEMENT OF BELIEF
I believe in God, eternally and dynamically interrelated with all that is past, present, and future.
I believe in creation as the expression of God, in which God and creativity are mysteriously and concretely interrelated.
I believe in Jesus, an historical person who experienced and interpreted a meaningful relationship with God.
I believe in human beings as an expression of God on the personal level, capable of growth in a mutually fulfilling relationship with God, with one another, and with all aspects of creation.
I believe that human life is an experience of fulfillment to the degree that it is lived in a harmonious manner with the expression of God in creation.
I believe that life should be an experience of growth in understanding and expression, with the highest value of expectation being "now," but with confidence in the process of creative evolvement for the future.
I believe the highest goal of achievement towards which the human family should strive, is a spirit of love demonstrated in reverence for God, respect for one another, and concern for all of creation.
Finally, the e-mail stated: "I do have very strong beliefs that I was raised with and that I have counted on throughout my life. After hearing the sermon of December 30th, it left me with questions that I thought I should run by you." Well, I too have very strong beliefs and I admire people with strong beliefs. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who want to periodically review their beliefs, and in the process either reaffirm them as is, or revise them, and therefore carry beliefs that can be counted on by both heart and mind today and into the future.
Matthew 4:12-23
http://www.stlukeumc.com/sermons.asp?year=02&serm=012702
I have a sense that the invitational story of Jesus with the two sets of brothers in our gospel lesson is a highly condensed version. No doubt Jesus knew Peter and Andrew, as well as James and John, for a good while. Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown, was an inland town in the territory of Galilee and was located about twenty miles from Capernaum, which laid on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Twenty miles was a pretty good distance in those days but Capernaum must have been a town that Jesus was familiar with because it is his base of operations when he starts his public ministry. In his twenties, Jesus might have gone to Capernaum to study in preparation for his ministry or he might have gone there to find work and he did so in the fishing industry. No doubt Jesus knew Peter and Andrew, James and John over a period of time and they spent many hours in the midst of fishing or studies talking about the current religious climate and the leadership in Jerusalem. As Jesus thought about how he could bring about a positive change, there were others like these two sets of brothers that wanted to help him when he was ready to move forward. The families of Peter and Andrew as well as James and John, including good old Dad, knew the day would come when they would join Jesus and his movement for change. It wasn’t a matter of if Jesus was going to challenge the establishment of his day but it was a matter of when. Therefore, it makes more sense to understand that Jesus’ invitation to the two sets of brothers was an anticipated event as opposed to an instantaneous occurrence.
Did the brothers, or others that responded likewise in the upcoming year, fully realize what was entailed in the invitation that Jesus provided? To some extent they did. They understood that he wanted to breathe a fresh spirit into their faith that impacted so many aspects of their life. But later reactions would indicate that they did not realize that this effort would call his life and their lives into jeopardy. Today, when people respond to the invitation to join St. Luke United Methodist Church do they understand all that membership entails in this particular limb in the Body of Christ? If Pastor Mike and I have done our jobs in presenting information during orientation sessions, then most persons positively responding to the invitation to join the membership of this church understand what it is to faithfully participate with their prayers, presence, gifts, and service. In addition, the theological contexts within which our membership vows are carried out are clearly understood as well.
Occasionally the theological context needs clarification by persons who are actively participating in the ministry of our church. Such was the case for a member who wrote me earlier this month. Let me read an e-mail from an active member, who joined the church in the last two years that requested some clarification regarding the St. Luke theological orientation. It reads:
"Pastor Scott,
"In reference to your sermon of December 30th, we left with several questions running through our minds. Last Sunday we picked up a copy of the sermon text to verify if what we thought we heard was right.
"I have very limited knowledge of the bible, so please excuse me for sounding ignorant at times. I do have, however, very strong beliefs that I was raised with and that I have counted on throughout my life. After hearing the sermon of December 30th, it left me with questions that I thought I should run by you.
"On the third page of your December 30th sermon you spoke of the traditional understanding of Jesus as Savior in terms of the afterlife status: "either he is our Savior so we can go to heaven or he is not, which lands us in hell". You also, later on, spoke of hell as a "concept" that we should drop. Didn’t John Wesley believe in a hell? The Bible speaks of hell in many places. Does St. Luke believe today that there is no hell?
"You also referred numerous times to the books in the bible as being written by "the author." Are not the authors the men who wrote the books and for which the books were named? All over in the bible it states: "and God said." Didn’t God use these men (Luke, John, Mathew, etc…) as his instruments to write the books? Are not these the words of God?
"Does St. Luke believe that: "all of humanity" will go to heaven with or without trusting the Lord as their savior first? What is St. Luke’s interpretation of Salvation and such references to God as: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Does St. Luke have a "Statement of Faith" that would plainly clarify our beliefs? They seem to be so ever changing.
"Scott, I’m guessing that others out there may also have similar questions and would also appreciate a re-explanation of some of the points made in your December 30th sermon in the up coming weeks.
"As always, your guidance is greatly appreciated!
"Sincerely yours,
---- (I have left the signature anonymous)"
I liked this e-mail because it was sincere and wrote with a warm heart and inquiring mind. I also like the correspondence because it was signed. Sometimes I receive letters or e-mails, that are oftentimes mean-spirited, that are unsigned. I do not fully read, much less give thought to, letters that are unsigned. But I deeply appreciate thoughtful and signed correspondence. I lift up my responses to this e-mail in a sermon just in case there might be "others out there that may also have similar questions." In addition, I place my sermons in the literature racks and on our web site (www.stlukeumc.com) so persons can double check what I say and how it fits in with their thought system.
Let me break down the e-mail into parts and respond to each. In my response I will hopefully provide some insight on what I understand that an invitation to St. Luke membership encompasses from a theological perspective. The e-mail reads "I have very limited knowledge of the bible, so please excuse me for sounding ignorant at times." Peter Gomes, minister at the Memorial Chapel at Harvard Divinity School comments on the common situation of persons having a nodding acquaintance with the bible. Rev. Gomes states "One of the more embarrassing social situations, upon which even Miss Manners and other arbiters of social etiquette have failed to provide a useful strategy, is one in which you have more than a nodding acquaintance with someone. At the point of introduction you got the person’s name, forgot it, asked it again, and forgot it again. Meanwhile you go on meeting this person, chatting and being chatted with, but you have clearly passed beyond the point where you can ask for the name again. It is easy enough to maintain the façade of friendship until that awful moment comes when you are required to introduce your nameless friend to a third party. What to do? I have seen artful evasions such as ‘Surely you two know each other?’ followed by a discreet withdrawal while they got on with the job themselves, leaving you unexposed. Another stratagem is to avoid the risk of introduction altogether by declaring emphatically, ‘Ah! Here’s my old friend!’ What we should know, pretend that we know, and wish that we knew, we don’t. Worse still, we do not know, without risk of embarrassment, how to ask about what we need to know."
He goes on to say, "This, I suggest, is the way it is with so many people and the bible. … It is awkward to concede you don’t know very much about the bible, given its cultural prominence, and it is difficult to figure out how to get reintroduced without conceding your illiteracy." … This nodding acquaintance is true for most even though "Poll after poll continues to find the bible atop every best-seller list."* As a pastor I enjoy it when persons know the basis stories of the bible. But if that is not the case, I am happy to share the biblical stories. In fact, I use a significant portion of my sermon time on sharing the biblical stories, how they came to be, and what they might mean to us today. Therefore, limited knowledge of the bible is not unusual. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke that would like to see how the words of old, from scripture, might provide insight and meaning to life today.
Yet, even if people don’t really know what is in the bible, many have opinion on how it was written. It is easier for me when someone does not think they have a good understanding of how the bible was written because the common understandings are usually far from that which I come to understand through my years of study.
Let me reference the letter again: "You also referred numerous times to the books in the bible as being written by ‘the author.’ Are not the authors, the men who wrote the books and for which the books were named?" In the case of the Old Testament prophets, I would give a qualified affirmative answer, in that, they were written by the prophet or a scribe of the prophet. In the case of the letters of Paul in the New Testament, once again, I can give an affirmative answer, most of the letters attributed by Paul were written by Paul. But then you get to books like Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, the first five books of the bible, they are attributed to Moses but scholarship has clearly indicated that they were written by various authors centuries after Moses had died. Likewise, the gospels are popularly attributed to disciples of Jesus where, in fact, they were written under the name of one of the apostles. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who have a desire to hear what contemporary scholarship says about the composition of the bible and therefore how we might best understand it.
The letter asks further: "All over in the Bible it states: "and God said." Didn’t God use these men (Luke, John, Matthew, etc…) as his instruments to write the books? Are not these the words of God?" This is a very sensitive question since the response has large implications regarding the authority the bible holds in a person’s life. Here is my answer. The bible is and is not filled with the words of God. The authors, sometimes identified, sometimes anonymous and writing under surnames, shared their best understanding. Over the centuries some of those understandings have been rejected by the faithful, whereas some of the words continue to parallel our best understanding of God. I portray good bible reading as sifting through the words and finding the eternal nuggets of truth that continue to shine under the spotlight of contemporary knowledge. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who appreciate and respect the best insights of yesteryear regarding God and are willing to continue that process today as we discern new insights into the ways and nature of God.
Finally, two specific points from the letter. First, "On the third page of your December 30th sermon you spoke of the traditional understanding of Jesus as Savior in terms of the afterlife status: ‘either he is our Savior so we can go to heaven or he is not, which lands us in hell.’ You also, later on, spoke of hell as a ‘concept’ that we should drop. Didn’t John Wesley believe in a hell? The Bible speaks of hell in many places. Does St. Luke believe today that there is no hell?" Yes, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement in the Church of England in the 1700’s, believed in hell. What draws me to Methodism is not the many traditional beliefs that Wesley held, like hell, but his invitation to live a life filled with personal piety that is balanced with concern for the larger social issues of the day. Wesley encouraged his followers to maintain integrity in their personal life and to seek justice in the community of their neighborhood, city, nation and world. He modeled personal piety and an active striving for social justice and he understood those characteristics to reflect Judeo-Christian ideals. Yes, the bible does speak of hell in many places. Does St. Luke believe today that there is no hell? That is hard for me to answer because all of us together make up St. Luke. St. Luke does not have a belief statement that says yes or no regarding the existence of hell. As the Senior Pastor, I am understood to be the public face of St. Luke. Although I acknowledge that the bible refers to hell in many places, I am moved by the emerging biblical word regarding God’s grace, love, and compassion as well as the amazing stories I hear of God’s grace in people’s lives today. Personally, I am convinced that God’s grace does not allow for hell when all is said and done. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who want to talk about heaven, hell, and other sacred concepts and more importantly, converse about how we have arrived at our conclusions as we are honestly open to new understandings over the course of time.
The second specific item lifted up in the letter is "Does St. Luke believe that ‘all of humanity’ will go to heaven with or without trusting the Lord as their savior first? What is St. Luke’s interpretation of Salvation and such references to God as: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? Does St. Luke have a ‘Statement of Faith’ that would plainly clarify our beliefs? They seem to be so ever changing." Once again, let me respond from my perspective, which is not to say that I do not respect the perspective of others at St. Luke that might differ from mine. Will all of humanity go to heaven with or without trusting the Lord, which I assume means Jesus, as their savior first? A couple of answers are needed in response to this question. First, heaven needs to be defined. I am happy to define heaven as being in God’s presence, in some positive fashion, after our physical death. I think any more detailed definition is merely guessing. I believe that any one, of any faith, that believes in God will experience heaven following death. Jesus certainly pointed to a path of salvation but others have as well. In addition, I believe all humanity will be in God’s presence, in some positive fashion, after physical death. I choose to believe that even the misled evil persons of this life will be consumed into God’s eternal grace. The natural question for the person holding the position I maintain is why should individuals be disciples of Jesus if it does not provide the exclusive "free pass" into heaven? The Christian lifestyle, spirit, and mindset is to be selected by individuals because of the meaning, depth, and reward that it brings to us during our days on earth, irrespective of what happens after our physical death. The Christian lifestyle is the cake and heaven is the frosting, we have our cake and eat it, too!
The e-mail also asks "What is St. Luke’s interpretation of Salvation and such references to God as: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?" The experience of Salvation that emerges from a faith perspective, Christian or otherwise, that is based upon positive motivation and devoid of fearful negative consequences, enables a person to:
- Mature to their fullest degree,
- Live in healthy and loving ways with others, and
- Allows for growth and revision of faith perspectives when new insights come to pass.
I will wait for another sermon to fully address the Christian understanding of God through the Trinitarian formula of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Suffice it to say, that when properly understood, the Trinity faith statement can be a useful reference for a healthy understanding of the nature of God. I would suggest that within the Trinitarian formula itself, we can see a transition occurring that Dr. Goff referred to last week as we see humanity initially as servants of God (Father/Creator) and then viewing humanity as partners with God (the Holy Spirit in our midst).
"Does St. Luke have a ‘Statement of Faith’ that would plainly clarify our beliefs? They seem to be so ever changing." No, St. Luke does not have a "Statement of Faith." But St. Luke publications note that we understand ourselves to be building upon the foundation of faith as contained in the bible and developed in history of the Christian church, particularly Methodism, over the centuries. Therefore, as we combine contemporary insights with our inherited faith foundation we find our understanding of God and the life of faith to be ever changing. Statements of Faith, at their best, evolve over time. I found one statement of faith in the files of St. Luke, developed either by Dr. Goff or a group he worked with, that I think is a fine statement but can be refined over time as well. Please read it with me.
A CONTEMPORARY STATEMENT OF BELIEF
I believe in God, eternally and dynamically interrelated with all that is past, present, and future.
I believe in creation as the expression of God, in which God and creativity are mysteriously and concretely interrelated.
I believe in Jesus, an historical person who experienced and interpreted a meaningful relationship with God.
I believe in human beings as an expression of God on the personal level, capable of growth in a mutually fulfilling relationship with God, with one another, and with all aspects of creation.
I believe that human life is an experience of fulfillment to the degree that it is lived in a harmonious manner with the expression of God in creation.
I believe that life should be an experience of growth in understanding and expression, with the highest value of expectation being "now," but with confidence in the process of creative evolvement for the future.
I believe the highest goal of achievement towards which the human family should strive, is a spirit of love demonstrated in reverence for God, respect for one another, and concern for all of creation.
Finally, the e-mail stated: "I do have very strong beliefs that I was raised with and that I have counted on throughout my life. After hearing the sermon of December 30th, it left me with questions that I thought I should run by you." Well, I too have very strong beliefs and I admire people with strong beliefs. I invite persons to become members of St. Luke who want to periodically review their beliefs, and in the process either reaffirm them as is, or revise them, and therefore carry beliefs that can be counted on by both heart and mind today and into the future.
Matthew 4:12-23
http://www.stlukeumc.com/sermons.asp?year=02&serm=012702