This sermon, by itself, is pretty good. Fire could be a Matt 3:11 reference. Ironically the gist seems to be a transformation that comes after baptism, as if "God's love change me." Where this sermon is problematic is in what it doesn't say. Who is Jesus (only one reference)? What makes a person a saints? Why should we follow her exhortation?In context with 11/4 sermon & Oct. NPR interview, by what means is "this place we call home is meant to be a new heaven, a new earth, a holy city, a new Jerusalem." If Maranatha, then I'd agreed. If by our might and power, I'd have to take exception.
We do see a theme in both Saturday's sermon and Sunday's sermon that there is a distinct preoccupation with The Earth - not only in the content of her sermon, but in the symbolism of the service all the way to her vestments. She does seem to believe that our exile is out of Eden and that we can return to Eden - a place on Earth. It's unitarian theology missed with paganesque imagery. Her fire imagery has no fireplace and that is a real problem.
On in context to other published stuff, oh yeah. I just giving her credit for knowing how to craft a under-the-radar sermon. The 11/4 was more out in the open to what she's trying to communicate. This one was interesting in what it lacked.Guess I've seen this for a while from many "revisionist." When there is a wide audience, language used is more traditional. When more of a "hometown crowd," I've seen an openness to say what is their mind. Clearly we have been warned nearly 2000 years ago with "lead astray" passages. I'm seeing this as an implosion verses an explosion -- a culture reactive TEC instead of proactive -- who is leading whom?
I mean -- come on MDG aren't even an original idea, did the UN borrow from "The Great Society" or Irish rock stars. This stuff has a track record. In the 80's we had Hands Across America, Live Aid, Band Aid, Ramones Aid ...
The MDG's are only about Matthew 25, but then again, maybe doing what Jesus actually cared about is not what interests any of you. How true it is that the MDG's are not original. That is, my friends, a blessing. You can find it all in the bible.As for the vestments, a look into early Christian symbolism would serve you well. Our new PB is just being very traditional and extremely orthodox. Possibly you are simply too caught up in fighting a battle of today to know this.I pray this blog site is not proporting to be Christian, just the ramblings of some fearfilled people.
BabyBlue supports "ONE" and "Windsor" .The photo, published in the London Times online at Ruth Gledhill's blog, is BabyBlue illustrating a point during General Convention 2006. It's ONE and Windsor all the way. Still think the vestments are from the Haight circa 1970. We are old enough to remember the Haight in its heyday. Or as Dylan calls it, Hashbury. bb
Granted my Irish rocker I was thinking Bob Geldof, but then you'd have to follow this for years.Anon: Matt 25 is in context which recognizes something, human sin. The Great Society ended up needed reform then reformed again. I'm all about social justice, but in context of Scripture.MDG are great. However they are not the Gospel. Her 11/5 sermon still has a touch works theology, the 11/4 has a lot of works & unitarian theology." In the end I do believe all going to be a big YAWN from the culture. Haven't we seen this before, oh yeah Jeremiah 7 or 8 ...
Post a Comment