What are
your ideas of a priest, of a family, of marriage,
and a king?
Is your
idea of a priest the movie clergymen played years ago by Barry
Fitzgerald and Bing Crosby in films such as "Going My Way?" In fact, this film
idea of a priest has nothing to do with reality as it is or even should
be. And, negatively, in these days, to infuse the word "priest" with pedophile
or any other misconduct is equally inaccurate. If you want to know what a
priest is in the Episcopal Church, check the Prayer Book's ordination service
and the canons that stipulate the academic and personal preparation for
ordination; blend in an ordinary human being with strengths and weaknesses - a
"work in progress," - and you have a realistic idea of a priest!
Ideas
of "family" are being challenged. Most people have thought that "family" has
the form of a mother, father, and a suitable number of offspring and other
relatives. In recent decades there has been a gradual shift toward the
idea of a family as having many different forms - all having in common
genuine, mutual love as fundamental. That scares those who think that the
familiar "Ozzie and Harriet" form of a family is the only view. In
addition, it can be frightening for those living in combative or indifferent
relationships to realize that those relationships, without love, do not
constitute an authentic family. I joke about a relative from hell now and then.
This person was, on paper, a relative, but by my choice, not my family. Jesus
took it further when he declared the revolutionary idea that his family
was made up of those who did the will of God.
For
centuries, the worldwide idea of "marriage" has been between a man and a
woman. Traditionally, marriage is permanent and should endure, whether
combative, indifferent, or loving. For those who follow New Testament words to
the letter, all "divorce" - other than possibly for adultery - is immoral.
Built
into this idea of marriage is the production of children,
offspring being considered necessary to an authentic marriage. Even today in
the United States, loving couples who decide that they do not want to have
children are considered by many to be living in impaired marriages. Many
religious traditions require the possibility of pregnancy associated with every
sexual act prior to menopause. That, according to them, is what is God-given
and "natural."
However,
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has recently declared that marriage
between two men or two women is permissible under their State's Constitution.
Global reverberations are understandable. This ruling violates an idea
that has been around for a long time. It seems preposterous, even evil, to the
majority. For those who insist on the idea that a legitimate marriage
requires children, same-sex marriage is unthinkable.
About
2,000 years ago, a unique King was unrecognized by most men and women. Because
the people held to customary ideas of kingly behavior and achievements,
He was ridiculed; He just did not measure up. According to their ideas,
a real king would have an obvious kingdom, be wealthy, and well served. A true
king would never have allowed himself to be the situation described in this
evening's reading from the Gospel according to John. Yet, tonight, the eve of
the Last Sunday of the Church's liturgical year is also called the "Feast of
Christ the King." Here we have the time-honored idea of a King radically
challenged, a King who truly serves others with complete love.
Who
decreed all these perennial, traditional ideas? Who said that priests
should conform to movie images of clergy? Who declared that all families and
marriages must be forever defined in a particular way? Who stated that all
kings are to be served and possess worldly power and wealth?
I have
spent my vocation as a philosophy professor and clergyman trying to liberate
students and parishioners from becoming prisoners of fixed ideas.
Liberation from set ideas was a significant aspect of Jesus' own ministry. I
believe firmly that you and I should be open to the evolution of virtually
every cherished idea. History is on my side in this, because just about
every idea does undergo significant change. Some ideas totally
fail, because over time they prove to be detrimental to the human community.
Others unfold and take their place as beneficial, at least for a time, before
their next revision.
Next
Sunday we observe the beginning of the new liturgical year, the First Sunday of
Advent, a season of expectation and preparation. May I be so bold as to suggest
that among our preparations for Christmas, we reflect with care on those many
ideas that unnecessarily limit and imprison us? Continuing a theme of my
sermon of two weeks ago, may I recommend especially that we examine our
often-flawed ideas of the holiday season? May I further propose that we
review our ideas of the sentimentalized "Baby Jesus," such that we come
to acknowledge the New Testament Christ as no less than God's own King of
Kings?