Reformation Sunday
October 25, 2009
Patrick Preheim
Psalm 133; Ephesians 2:11-21
Vulgar Words
This morning many Lutheran and Protestant congregations are marking Reformation Sunday. I have two points to make about the Reformations of the church: 1) Reformations are a human response to God’s quest to make spirituality relevant; and 2) Reformations are not intended to be divisive. Let us pray. Eternal God, we give you thanks for the founders of your church and the reformers of the church. Give us the courage and wisdom of those who have gone before us that your Spirit’s work might be renewed in our generation. In your name we pray. Amen
I have a few verses of scripture with which I would like to begin the sermon. I have asked Alan Reece to help in the reading. Alan please come to the pulpit. The 3 verses Alan will read I find to be some of the most poetic, most beautiful, most theological powerful in the entire bible. (Alan reads John 1:1,3b-5 in Greek). Oh, that was nice. But Alan, I am concerned that most in the congregation did not understand a word you said. Can anyone summarize Alan’s scripture reading? Alan, could I ask you to read this scripture again, but this time in a more recent translation. (Alan reads John 1:1,3b-5 in Latin). While this translation is more modern than the Greek, I am not sure it helps us all that much. Thank you, Alan. (Alan returns to his seat). Alan read a portion of the first chapter of John’s Gospel. He read about the Word being with God and the Word being God. He read about this Word being the life of all people, and it shining in the darkness, and the darkness not overcoming it. This is poetic, beautiful, and powerful stuff. But what if we do not have the language skills to understand this good news? It is a travesty that for large segments of Christian history the words about the Word have been inaccessible because they have not been shared in the language of the people. What we need are vulgar words.
When we hear the term “vulgar” many of us probably think of “offensive”, “rude”
or “lacking refinement”. Another definition is “relating to the common
people”.
The
letters which comprise the New Testament were all written in Greek. It is
likely a number of the authors were more comfortable in Hebrew or Aramaic than
Greek, but they choose Greek because it was the common language of the Roman
Empire. They wanted all people to hear the Good News in a language they could
understand. At some point Latin became more wide spread in usage than Greek.
The early church responded by translating the Bible into Latin so that it would
be in the language of the people. They called this translation the Vulgate,
linguistically linked to vulgar, which I have already noted means common. It
was a translation so that the common people might understand, and it is from
this Bible that Alan read. In the early 1520s Martin Luther carried on the
tradition of bringing the Bible into the language of the people.
“While he was sequestered in the Wartburg Castle (1521–1522) Luther began to translate the New Testament into German in order to make it more accessible to all the people of the Holy Roman Empire...To help him in translating Luther would make forays into the nearby towns and markets to listen to people speak. He wanted to ensure their comprehension by a translation closest to their contemporary language usage. It was published in September 1522” (Wikipedia entry on the Luther Bible). The Bible became the German people's book in church, school, and home (History of the Christian Church, 8 vols., (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910), vol. 7, p. 30).
A reformation Spirit has continually pushed the institutional church to bring the good news to the people in a language they can understand. It was true of first century Palestine, fourth century Rome, 14th Century Europe, and 21st century Canada. Even though this part of Canada continues using the English language, many under the age of 50 have suffered a linguistic disconnect from the words many of we older folk use to describe God and Christ. I will give 3 reasons for this disconnect:
1. The language of science has been one contributing factor. Contrary to what some vocal church people say, the biblical accounts are not designed to comment on science or a historical timeline. The Bible tells us about God and how best to act in this world. The Biblical stories are the most compelling guides I know of, but they are neither science nor history. And contrary to what some vocal scientists say, scientific findings are not disproof of God. Science seeks to explain things and religion seeks to give events meaning. In this age of science and reason the church has been slow in re-translating the Bible and as a result some have stopped listening to the scriptures. Just last Sunday Mackenzie made reference to the conflict he experienced between science and theology, and if Mackenzie experienced it must be real. That takes me to 2nd observation about language.
2. I do not mean my comments about Mackenzie’s experience in a facetious way. Experience has become the primary source of truth and this is different than in previous generations. Experience is the dominant dialect in describing truth in this time and place. Things are not true because the Bible says them, or because the church says them, but because the “I” has seen it to be so. This shift requires a revamping of language. If we do not personalize our language as we describe the reality of God, we run the risk of becoming as obsolete as a Greek or Latin New Testament reading (and I think we all get the implications of this).
3. A third reason for a spiritual disconnect in our context has been the tone of speech used by Christians. The strident, judgemental, and crusading language must go. We have heard this absolutist rhetoric at evangelistic crusades, on the street corner, in door to door visits, and even in some oval offices. This type of religious language has, in fact, convinced many of us to privatize our faith and only grudgingly speak of God. Being silent in the land, however, is not God’s option. God through the Holy Spirit always seeks to bring the good news into the language of the people.
What then is the vernacular of the reformation underway? Among other things I believe our language will need to be personal; spiritual rather than historical; and conversational.
By way of example let us imagine you have gotten tickets to see the Rough Riders play in this year’s Grey Cup and have joined in a tailgate party. Caught up in the euphoria of watermelon and grilled ribs you let slip that you really missed being at your church that Sunday morning. Rather than ridicule you, the throng gathered around the roasting meat are curious and begin asking questions. “Church? Why do you go to church?” How shall we now proceed? I would answer the tailgating questions in a personal, spiritual, and in conversational way:
1. I would say, “personally, I think there is a God. There is just too much coincidence about our world for me to think otherwise. Not only that, but at times I do have a sense of God’s presence”. At this point they may ask the kind of church you attend. “I attend a Mennonite church”, I would say. “A Mennonite church?; aren’t they Amish, Hutterite, or from Utah?”. This kind of question is really spiritual rather than a historical in nature.
2. The spiritual: I would say, “No, Mennonites aren’t Mormon, Hutterite, or Amish; and Mennonites vary from congregation to congregation. We are Christian and try to follow the teachings of Jesus as closely as we can. Because Jesus lived and taught peace we try to be peacemakers. Jesus taught and lived a life of service, so we try to be generous with our time and money. I like my Mennonite church because they allow women to help lead and invite us all to use our talents. I feel like worship and time with them helps me be a better person. And, oh yes, the Sunday sermons are just awesome”. You see your words soaking into your tailgating companions. Now the time has come to let this become a conversation.
3. Conversational: I would ask them, “do any of you guys go to church?” If they do I would invite them to tell me what they value about their tradition and what concerns they have. If they don’t have a faith background I would ask a general question about their belief in God. Believe it or not, many people want to discuss God, but simply lack an opportunity. A few years ago a Seminary professor at Columbia Theological Seminary required graduating seniors to interview a stranger about his or her faith. The initial response of the class was resistance-- ““I couldn’t possibly speak with a stranger”. But after the assignment they reported with amazement that strangers were willing, even eager, to speak with them about their ideas of God” (Ben Campbell Johnson, Speaking of God, p.12). People do want conversation about God, faith, and doubt. The conversation must be steeped in great humility and listening.
This observation about humility and listening takes me to the second point I wanted to make this morning: reformations are intended to be renewals, not divisions. While it is Reformation Sunday in the Protestant Church year, a large part of me grieves that the Reformation happened. I long for unity. I wish we were simply Christian, rather than Mennonite Christians or Lutheran Christian. At the same time that I say these things I am certainly grateful for dimensions of the Reformation. I like reading my Bible in German or English rather than Latin. I really like the fact that pastors and priests are allowed to marry. I like it that my wife is allowed to preach and preside at communion. I like it that our Mennonite tradition assumes all Christians will make an effort to act like Christ and follow his teachings. It is good to know our communal values but also good to work towards reconciliation. I will conclude this morning with a brief word about our Ephesians text.
Ephesians ties together the evangelistic impulse of the Reformation and reconciliation. Tom Yoder-Neufeld maintains that this text makes them indivisible.
The one who is peace made peace through his death on the cross, and came announcing the gospel of peace. Enemies have thereby been reconciled with God and with each other. Together they have become part of God’s family. The church is not a collection of individuals, each with their own personal peace arrangement with God. The church is the familial community of reconciled enemies. If true to its Lord and its calling, the church is as such always a community on the lookout for walls to breach, for enemies to befriend...God’s home is never big enough; better yet, God’s family is never big enough. (Tom Yoder-Neufeld, Believer’s Bible Commentary on Ephesians, p. 134)
On this Reformation Sunday Ephesians 2 calls us to reach out both to the Catholic Church with whom we are not reconciled, and those of our communities who remain un-reconciled with God. In peace we are to extend ourselves backward and outward. May God grant us strength in breaking down the walls which keep Christians separate. And may God grant us wisdom in claiming a common language, vulgar words, for today which invite others over a wall and into the peace of Christ. Amen.
Patrick Preheim, co-pastor Nutana Park Mennonite Church