Friday, April 21, 2006
HOMILY AT THE EASTER VIGIL
So, I begin this evening with a confession. Sometimes when I have occasion to do premarital counseling with a couple who have come seeking an officiant at their wedding, I ask them to tell me why they love each other. Isn’t that ridiculous? They tell me of course various things they love about their chosen one—I love his sense of humor, I love the way she cares for others—I love her smile—I love the way he loves me. Whatever! But no one yet has told me why they love the other person.
The really important things in life are not that easy to explain. Really. Who can explain the whys of love. Who can even explain how you know that love is love?
In our Tuesday morning study group we have just finished reading a book by Desmond Tutu called, God has a Dream. This is a book that affirms that our world is not just a world where Jesus died, but it is a world where Jesus lives. It’s about the resurrection power of God at work. . . Our next study is of a book by Elaine Pagels called Beyond Belief. Cute huh? The juxtaposition of these two books summarizes the challenge and wonder of this night of all nights when we gather to celebrate the resurrection. God’s Dream. . .Beyond Belief.
If seeing is believing then its no wonder the resurrection is so often dis-believed. We have no details. It happened at night. No police report. No eye witness accounts. No video footage. Celsus an outside observer of Christianity long ago pointed out that everybody saw Jesus die, but “only a crazed woman and a few fanatics” saw him risen from the dead. And there are many today who can only agree. They might think Jesus a noble sort of fellow—a man of high ethics, a wisdom teacher—but they have to draw the line at resurrection—that is clearly beyond belief.
Whatever this story of the risen Jesus is about, it is about these women going to see the tomb where they expect in a reasonable sort of way to find death. Instead, they find themselves at the thin edge—that liminal place between this world and the other. Their eyes so attuned to seeing the expected—the utterly believable--are shocked open to catching a glimpse of the world beyond belief. The world that Desmond Tutu would say is the very real world of God’s dream.
People get “hung up” on these resurrection stories. I think perhaps because they apply reasonable expectations and rational thinking to them. They are seeking proof of the resurrection. They want proof of the world beyond belief.
Even in the earliest days of Christianity the followers of Christ moved around in this arena of the liminal seeing and believing different things. That’s one of Pagels points in her book. The folks who beheld Jesus saw differently. Their eyes tuned so well to the believable found the going more challenging when dealing with the unbelievable. Some saw Jesus as God incarnate, some followed him as a faithful Jew, some saw him as new humanity, some as the messiah, Some took his words at face value, others tripped over them into more ethereal spaces. There was room in these early days for varieties of understandings.
And then of course in the 4th century church leaders saw fit to try and define belief—and draw lines around the real Jesus. They did so in a way that left out a lot of folks who considered themselves followers of Jesus. Battles and even wars have been fought over these understandings.
And even today there are a good number of Christians who tell me that they are secret heretics. They have their doubts about certain aspects of the faith as it has been defined. (Even some priests fall into this category of Christian) Generally they feel like they need to keep those to themselves even though the consequences are probably no longer life-threatening. And then there are those followers of Christ who as Barbara Brown Taylor puts it have beheld Jesus and found their own eyesight so richly tuned that they can see glory everywhere they look—they find the divine not only at the ocean or on the mountaintops, but in a sweat lodge, or a mosque, or at the feet of Thich Nhat Hanh. I’ve met more than one Episcopalian who claims to be a Unitarian, Buddhist, Episcopalian.
Whatever truth there is in the resurrection, it is NOT to be found in any set of rational beliefs or explanations. We can’t prove the resurrection. We can’t. But we can live into it. We can participate in Christ’s risen life. The resurrection can be found in the lives of the faithful—whether heretics or not—who live in a world in which Christ not only died, but in which he lives.
This is a broken world, you and I know that only too well. “Were you there when they crucified my Lord”—“Oh, oh, yes,” we say. That we have seen. That we witness every day.
But, the great good news of this night is that brokenness and death even when it is just what we are expecting and looking for—brokenness and death do not have the final word. God’s dream of resurrection life is not some fantasy—rather it is alive and well, and in our midst. The divine energy is at work in us and among us and out there too. The church is the community that lives the dream—however imperfectly, however hesitatingly. We do it as we eat the meal, as we share the love, as we reach out to others, cross unbearable boundaries, speak words of truth not always welcomed, stand firm with the powerless, look at the world with the eyes of the heart. We do it as we support one another in our explorations of the thin edges of life where things are porous and godness pours thru.
At our best we gather as we have this night to let our memories, candles, colors, stories, songs, music, laughter, and dance carry us to the dream beyond belief.
It’s like trying to explain why you are in love with someone. There is nothing more real. Nothing more important. Nothing more difficult to describe or explain. Nothing more impossible to prove.
“Were you there when God raised him from the dead?” “Oh, oh, yes”. Sometimes, it causes me to tremble. tremble. tremble.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)






3 comments:
Lines and circles and more lines. Our world is all about drawing these in the sand and urging each other to cross it or stay on the other side. I do feel that we must at times take a stand for what is right and what is wrong. Do you think we must always move that line to emcompass everyone and every thought? No matter how wrong? I don't mean to sound critical but I'm trying to understand what sounds like philosophy of relativism. Or maybe universlism (sp).
I've been waiting to read some reply from the owner of this blog. I feel that Betty brought up a valid point and deserves some response. Maybe the point of your postings is to reprint your sermons? But, in reading your "About Me" you state ". . . a forum for discussion" Takes two, doesn't it?
Forgive me for not responding sooner. I am in process of becoming a blogger and confess that I haven't had much time for this recently. I will try to do better!
This sermon was preached at a service where I knew there would be a number of people from outside our congregation--in attendance because of the jazz component--so I made a deliberate effort to preach the Gospel inclusively, reaching out to those who for whatever reason have felt disaffected from or unwelcome at church.
I do see Jesus always crossing boundaries and reaching out to people with the Gospel. I see the early church dealing with issues of who to include and how. I see us still searching out the spirit's movement and call with regard to these same questions.
And while I would not agree that we have to encompass everyone and every thought--I do believe that everyone is a child of God and called into relationship with God. Clearly there are people who do not live lives very congruent with gospel values, and there are people with no interest in doing so. There are those who deny God's existence.
I am a Christian and Jesus Christ is absolutely central to my faith and my understanding of God. I would have to say though that in my experience "the church" often spends more time on judging people and rejecting them than on inviting them in to become a part of the faith community, to worship, and to serve and to meet the Christ and be transformed by his grace. I would rather err on the side of inclusion than on the side of exclusion. But I always try to hold on to the center. The Episcopal tradition would affirm that we find our unity in worship--at the table. And that has been my exprience. I trust the grace of the liturgy to work on us all who gather seeking God in Christ.
Post a Comment