The Lord's Prayer and the Padre Nuestro...addressing a problem

This past Sunday, we had a joyful celebration in worship.  We shared both Communion and Baptism, a message on generosity and giving in this politically charged season, and a big turn out.  The one piece that cast a shadow on the day was the sharing of the Lord’s Prayer.  Sharing the Lord’s Prayer and the Padre Nuestro, English and Spanish, has been integral to worship in my whole tenure at this church.

The shadow came in the expressions on some of the faces in the congregation as we began this most beloved prayer in Spanish.  I cannot read minds, only expressions, so I cannot say if the prayer was unwelcome, unwanted, or even offensive to the worshipping experience of some.  What I can measure is my own reaction, one of righteous indignation, anger, and a deserve to lash out.

This blog post comes from my process of reflection at my reaction.  What was that?  It is rare that I feel such a visceral desire to lash out, especially during the worship of our Living God, most especially when the service was one of great joy otherwise (despite being something of a ‘kitchen sink’ service).  It was a moment of selfish indulgence.

Why is there one splash of Spanish in our otherwise English service?  Is it a glaring example of tokenism?  No, it is something more fundamental to who we are and where we are.

We are in Perth Amboy, NJ, an immigrant city for 400+ years.  A boatload of Scottish Presbyterian immigrants came to these shores in the 1680’s and worshipped the Lord for delivering them to a new land.

The generations of immigrants now include growing numbers of Mexicans, Dominicans, and Peruvians-to name but a few.  The language of the community has shifted from a Gaelicized English through many others, to the varieties of Spanish spoken in these different lands.  One thing I have learned is that Spanish, like English, is not monolithic.  While not rising to the level of dialects, there are certainly regionalisms in the Spanish spoken in these various places.

Where are we?  In the midst of that diverse community.  What do we share?  This most joyous prayer that all hold in common.

Who we are is more fundamental.  We are a church of Jesus Christ, worshippers of God Almighty, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  We have the wonder of being a Pentecost church, located in the midst of many languages.  And who we are is a welcoming neighborhood in God’s Kingdom.  And while we may not have the blessings of the number of languages represented in Jerusalem for that Pentecost celebration, we are indeed richly blessed here in Perth Amboy.

And we invite everyone to the Lord’s house, inviting them to pray the prayer that our Lord Jesus taught us to pray, first in Spanish-for the community and the guests around us, and then in English-for the hosts who would welcome them in.

My prayer is that if people know who we are, they will enjoy the moment of welcome, and join us in reaching out.

Rev. Peter Hofstra 

A ‘kitchen sink’ service is one where we seem to throw in everything but…the kitchen sink…

Putting the Bible On Trial: Case #1

                If we were to treat the Bible to judicial scrutiny, as evidence in a courtroom, Mark 16 might be a very troubling passage for us.  Mark is the shortest and generally accepted as the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, both Matthew and Luke had it as a resource as they recorded their gospel accounts.  So, if the bible were to be ‘put on the stand’, Mark’s testimony, as the oldest, the ‘closest’ to Jesus, would carry particular weight. 

                The problem is that the Gospel seems to end at different spots, according to which of the oldest manuscripts are used.  The earliest end at a particular damning location, at the conclusion of verse 8.  It reads:

16When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. ²And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. ³They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”⁴When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. ⁵As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. ⁶But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” ⁸So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (italics added)

The problem is…no body, dead or alive.  The figure in white says Jesus is alive.  Jesus said he was going to rise, but the tomb is empty, and the women who came to embalm the body fled, saying nothing out of fear.  So, no body and no testimony ever given.

                This is the “Jesus Christ Superstar” ending.  If you watch the movie adaptation, it ends with the empty cross and the actors climbing onto a bus.  Jesus is crucified.  He said he would rise…but did he?  Did he arise?  Because there is an alternate ending.  The leadership who condemned him leaked the story that the disciples stole the body to create "false news" that Jesus was risen.  Those who wrote the play, as near as I can tell, are seeking to have the audience “decide for themselves”.

                Do you remember learning about the scientific method in school?  It begins with a hypothesis-a way to explain why something happens-that is then experimented upon to see if it holds up.  One of the tenets of the scientific method is that any hypothesis must have stated what will falsify it, what will prove it wrong.  It serves as a guide to the experimental data, to prove the hypothesis one way or the other. 

                And while believing in Jesus is a matter of faith, not of proof, the resurrection is the very measure by which our religion would be proven wrong.  Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 15: 13-14:

¹²Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; ¹⁴and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain.

It looks there were already challenges to the resurrection of Christ in the earliest church.  But Paul puts it bluntly.  If Christ is not raised, his proclamation is in vain and the faith of his readers is a lie.

                So when circumstances are created in which people are asked to ‘decide for themselves’ as to whether or not Jesus was raised from the dead, that is not a 'value neutral' inquiry.  They have a term for this in politics, the ‘push poll’.  The push poll is when someone calls up a voter under the pretense of asking a neutral question about the upcoming election, like “who will you vote for?”  But it is a pretense as the caller will couch the question in terms that favor one particular answer.  “Would you vote for candidate A, who has served his country in the military and in public service for the last 45 years or would you vote for candidate B, despite his never having served a day in uniform, and who has been alleged to have done….”

                Now, the verses that follow do speak of Jesus being alive, of coming to the women, and to the disciples.  But the “evidence” suggests these were added later, and they parallel the testimony given in the other gospels.  In a courtroom, this evidence could easily be discredited by a sharp lawyer, making fancy arguments about the primacy and the veracity of the most ancient witness.  And if the remainder of Mark is discredited, the implication is that the testimony of the other gospels is also suspect.

                This whole process begins with a reasonable premise, that we look at the bible with a discerning eye.  After all, it is the Holy Book of the Christian Faith, its authority derives from the divine.  But when someone or something is put on trial, it is NOT about discernment.  It is about reasonable doubt.  If a jury finds reasonable doubt, they should not convict.  If we read the bible and find reasonable doubt, we should not believe.  Apply that pattern of inquiry to the bible, wrap it up in the lie that this is simply looking at the bible with a ‘discerning eye’ and we are three quarters of the way to undercutting the most basic truth of our faith.

                How then should we look at this passage?  That is an EXCELLENT question, and one that we will take up in the next installment.