I tried to follow today's sermon... really. It was Liza and I have long been a booster and have appreciated her youthful energy. Kathleen and I rarely miss a "pub theology" gathering, led by Lisa and something she started to provide young men, particularly, an excuse to drink a beer and talk about morality and religion and to find community.
That never worked. There is a core group that averages 60-plus years old and consists of St. Luke's members who think of such gatherings as part of their preferred community. Shockingly, young men are not attracted to a Rock Bottom on a Wednesday at 6 p.m. to hang out.
At any rate, today the theme was "a Methodist constantly prays," one of five features of what being a Methodist means. This was the fourth of five Sundays in the series. She chose the Parable of the Unjust Judge, also called the Parable of the Persistent Widow, which is found in Luke 18:1–8. Jesus tells the story to teach His disciples that they must always pray and never lose heart.
The widow is, from one point of view, rather annoying and will not be put off. The "unjust judge" eventually gives in and gives her what she wants (smiting her enemy? throwing someone in prison? issuing a steep fine?... we don't know).
Leaving things unsaid, Jesus shifts to comparing a "just judge," i.e. God, to the unjust judge who does not fear God and cares little for others. The point seems clear to me: Look, if the unjust judge eventually answers prayers (or pleading or nagging), just think of how much quicker and better a just judge will act.
It's really a rather simple little story, one that a reasonable person could interpret as "don't give up in your request for vengeance... your continued pleading may eventually break down even the least sympathetic person."
Never give up.
But Liza got a bit lost in her ruminations on this parable and she never got close to helping us define what "constantly praying" might be. I could sense that she knew she hadn't gotten anywhere, and I'm sure our blank faces betrayed out own confusion. One friend came up to me after the service and immediately shared that she had sort of napped during the sermon. I was glad to hear a similar reaction to my own, and I mostly filed this sermon as another is a long series of sermons that did not start with a strong anecdote or "news peg," and then proceeded to become more and more confusing and convoluted.
There have been a very few occasions when I have emailed Liza about a particularly fine piece of rhetoric shared during a sermon. This will not prompt such a message.
Kathleen and I have been noticing that Liza has over the past few months seemed adrift in her sermons and even in her informal exchanges. The pub theology last week went nowhere (not helped by the acoustics of the restaurant and the tight seating), and Liza's prompt was basically "What is pub theology? And "what is public theology?"
Even among our little group of four at our table, we couldn't really hear one another and it was pointless for tables to report out, so to speak, to the larger group.
These pub theology gatherings have been happening for over a year and we are still trying to define what the heck we are doing? Liza doesn't know. Neither do I.
There's another one in September and we will be going. It's a new venue that may be better acoustically. Liza also teased that she had asked Janet Forbes, who was lead pastor from 2004-2016, to lead that one.
Probably a good time to hand things off to someone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment