Isaiah, and, Wait, Christmas in the Old Testament?

          So as we come into the Season of Advent, our focus turns to the prophet Isaiah. What? Wait! Advent, Christmas, birth of Jesus, kind of a New Testament thing, not so much Old, right? Well…

          My personal devotional time has just come through the gospel of Luke, and there was a piece after the Lord’s resurrection that comes to mind. Two men are walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus. They are grieved and probably disappointed because their religious leader, Jesus, has been executed at the hands of the Romans. And despite the rumors, they are convinced he is dead.

          Till, if you know the story-or if you don't-Jesus shows up and walks along with them. Before they know its him, Jesus offers them a masterclass in Biblical interpretation. He opens up the Scriptures (at that moment, the Old Testament) and walks them through it; where they will find Jesus throughout.

          Sidebar: Having that little piece of the bible in mind, or the piece where, after his resurrection, Jesus does a masterclass with the entire cadre of disciples, opening up the Old Testament to them, it has realigned how I have read that much larger section of our Bible. The question I keep asking is ‘Where do I see Jesus here?’ It is illuminating, speculative at times, but illuminating.

          One of the greatest treasure hoards of “Pre-Jesus” biblical writing is to be found in the prophet Isaiah. It is from Isaiah that John the Baptist speaks when he comes to 'prepare the way of the Lord'. Jesus turns to Isaiah in the synagogue one day when he comes to teach and announces how those words are now fulfilled before the eyes of the attendees of the synagogue that Sabbath (and I will leave you to google that passage).

          And if your church does a “Lessons & Carols” service or something akin, lessons of the Bible about Christmas and beloved music between, Isaiah is going to figure rather prominently. We have four Sundays in Advent and Isaiah figures in them all. Two will reflect passages prophesying the birth of Jesus, one will prophesy the plan of God as Jesus has fulfilled it, and one will be our Lessons & Carols service, where we will share Isaiah passages in our readings for the Season.

          Isaiah is the longest prophet, 66 chapters worth. The reading guide is almost as long. A fanciful coincidence is that the Bible is also 66 books long, but I have yet to find a parallel to transcend to something more conspiratorial in my biblical interpretation.

          So we are not going to get to the whole book, we are barely going to scratch the surface, but even so, Isaiah is rich in the prophecies of the coming of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 

The British History Podcast, a consideration on 'magic' and 'faith'

          I am listening to “The British History Podcast”, offered by Jamie Jeffers. He is American raised and British born and I have very much enjoyed his take and telling of British history. I am still very early on in the cast, when he was talking about Dark Age Medicine.

          In the midst of this episode, he offered an explanation, or rather a clarification, that got me thinking. In addition to the physical treatments, the various herbs, concoctions, and dung (they really seemed hung up on dung), there was a huge magical component to the practice of medicine. Whether it was chanting or an amulet or where a particular component came from (lichen from a cross for example), there was more than simply the biological and chemical components that are the foundation of modern medicine.

          His clarification came for his Christian listeners. Jamie refers to the portions of the healing that are obviously beyond what modern medicine would practice to be “magic”. At issue is calling something like prayer or a blessing or the use of a cross to be ‘magic’. If I am understanding the situation, those objecting to his language define those practices of Christian origin to be ‘faith-based’, and not ‘magically-based’.

          As a pastor, I do understand that concern. Belief in God Almighty and the power our God provides is in contrast to magical practices that are understood to be of either ‘dark’ forces or some other supernatural origin. I have my own opinions about that. But this is a fair presentation from a faith-based point of view. But Jamie is taking a different point of view in the podcast.

          He is talking about Dark Age Medicine in contradistinction to current medicine. There are the commonalities of herbs with healing properties that are foundational to both ages of medical practice. Today, the herbs have a lot more complex names but their biological and chemical foundations are held in common.

          And I am fine with Jamie referring to the rest as ‘magic’. Maybe talking about the medical practices of the time invoking a ‘transcendent’ component would be more acceptable language. The healing practices of the Dark Ages reaching ‘beyond’ the immediate is a huge, if not the dominant, piece of the practice. That transcendent portion of the healing process is still integral to my belief today, as it is with every faith practice that I am familiar with beyond Christianity. The difference is what ends up in the medical text books.

            As we have come to understand how sickness and injury are from the 'natural' order of things, our medical and healing practices have followed. There is a scientific methodology to what we do. It does not mean that the this ‘magical’ or ‘transcendent’ component of healing has gone away. I believe it is not simply a piece of the Dark Age history in Britain, but it is universal across human experience. From a 'natural' point of view, the power of a positive mind and a calm spirit are both recognized for their contribution to success in medicine. 

            From a supernatural, a faith-based, perspective, I have seen faith-based practices accomplish some pretty amazing results. 

          Irrespective, if you have an interest in history or things British, give the podcast a listen.

Peter Hofstra

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever Spoilers Ahead

           Let me plunge right in. And I will say again SPOILERS!!!

          When Shuri took the heart shaped herb to become the new Black Panther, I was not surprised. I know that was the big secret of the film, but there was this question that always nagged at me to that moment: Supposing anyone could take the herb-even if only those exposed to vibranium-why wasn’t everyone in Wakanda so equipped?

          It was limited to the royal family, to a certain genetic line. Why? There are people far more imaginative than I who could explain that. But she was the obvious and the only choice (unless there were other branches of the royal family, which has not been indicated in canon).

          To indicate that something did not surprise me points to the possibility that something did surprise me. And something did take me completely by surprise. Killmonger showing up when she journeyed to the realm of the Ancestors. I do not know what I expected. The actor who played her father? Angela Basset? Some kind of CGI/cut up of previously unused material containing Chadwick Boseman? Maybe a final secret bit of filming he did before his death? Anything but him.

          For me, the power of that moment was how Killmonger was the ideal choice. It reinforced the detailed and realistic exploration of grief across that entire movie. This movie is as much a tribute to the memory of Chadwick Boseman as it is a next step in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, whose death touched the lives of so many of us.

          Shuri’s journey of grief into anger and revenge is certainly not a unique comic book theme. It is common enough to be a comic book trope. Consider the origin story of Batman for example. But Bruce Wayne was raised by Alfred. The influence for Shuri coming into the mantle of Black Panther was Killmonger.

          How many villain origins start from something terrible that happened that sent them down the wrong road? Something bad happened to me so I response by doing something bad it return. It is supposed to make the villain somewhere between misunderstood and sympathetic?

          And it came down to the climactic moment. The Black Panther was ready to kill Namor. Her vengeance would have been complete. She would have, in the words of Killmonger, ‘gotten the job done’. But unlike other Marvel movies, the grief was not concentrated in that finale. I am thinking of Iron Man 3, where Tony Stark watched Pepper fall to her apparent death. Grief concentrated into the shock of failure for Iron Man. We followed Shuri through her journey. We cried with her, we were angry with her, we found moments of strange peace and even humor before the grief washed back up.

          What would have been the villain’s end to this movie? The Black Panther executed vengeance on Namor. Then Shuri returned home and continued her work on the herb to allow it to work for all Wakandans (as all are exposed to vibranium). That, with vibranium technology, would have been a world-conquering combination.

          But at the end of a journey of grief, life comes back into focus. The notion of ‘closure’ is incorrect. Rather, the memories remain but the emotions return to a place where they are a part of life, instead of taking life over. That was symbolized in the ritual of burning the mourning garments. And the Easter egg, but I will leave that to be seen.

Peter Hofstra

Book of the Month Club: The Preaching Edition

          The Book of the Month Club, anybody remember those? They probably still exist out there. Books sent at a discount, whatever was currently hot? Could be top 40 (yes, I know that is music, not books), could be genre (sci-fi etc.), with the catalogues sent out? Stop the book shipping by a certain date or the assumption was that you wanted it.

          We of the Christian faith have a book that is a book of books. The Westminster Standards list sixty-six of them. Thankfully, our sister denominations with differing opinions do not count that as a division to be grasped.

          One of the great difficulties in being a pastor has been the inability to overcome the disconnect of Scriptural literacy from many of my parishioners. What? How do we get our parishioners to read their bibles? Many do, don’t get me wrong, but Biblical literacy, or at least familiarity, used to be a cultural presumption. We could make a literary reference to the Bible and assume that it was culturally known.

            But among the ordination requirements I have as a pastor is a Biblical literacy exam. The feeling in my gut is that all church members should be aces on that, not simply those seeking to be ordained (and there is a lot of struggle to pass that one).

          One of the fall backs has been to lean on the Sermon to be teaching as well as preaching. I agree with that in principle, but the weight on the ‘teaching’ in the balance has increased in my considerations as a preacher. There is a presupposition that in the portfolio of skills a minister brings to the church is the moniker of ‘teacher’.

          Let me draw a distinction here. There is the person who has a body of knowledge, of information, that it is to the benefit of the community to be shared and disseminated. Then there is a teacher. It is not the same thing. A subject area specialist is not, by any means, an automatic teacher of said subject area.

          I know this through various personal experiences. One has been the results of the programs in the lives of people in my church experience that I have “taught”. Another has been in reflecting on what I call my “teaching” style compared to actual, trained teachers who’ve been stuck trying to open my mind. Most importantly however is the experience I have gained in being married to a highly skilled professional teacher, whose expertise is not bound to subject matter at to learning expertise. What that means is my wife is in special education, and her responsibility is to bring the students outside the defined parameters of ‘normal’ to the knowledge base and learning capacity as those in the ‘mainstream’. 

            It is also very possible that 'teaching' is not the right word when seeking to build heart knowledge over and against head knowledge. But its the word we have.

          That’s just the background. The foreground of the ‘teaching’ by a preacher is the moment of the sermon. And in the context of a week, it is just a moment. Fifteen to thirty minutes on a Sunday morning out of a time of somewhere around an hour devoted to worship-not learning-to our God. There are different approaches to this.

          Most common in our denomination is the lectionary, a three-year cycle of biblical readings anchored on the synoptic gospels that draw out a huge cross section of Biblical texts. The synoptic gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They are related in structure and content in a way that is fundamentally different than John. There, teaching, a lesson on gospel structures, bored yet? But it is consistent and it provides a common platform for preaching not just across the PCUSA but among our sister churches and denominations.

          The lectionary is not mandated by the denomination. I have followed it at various times in my preaching career. It might very well be accurate to fault me for not following the discipline tightly enough. But it is a version of ‘book preaching’, which I have also done. Pick a book of the bible, start at chapter one, verse one, and march through to the last chapter, last verse. It certainly exposes the congregation to the long view of a book. But it is realistic to expect someone to put together the structural identity of a book of the bible after this long-term approach? Even if that structural component is built into the sermon? And then comes the problem of the sermon as a teaching moment versus a moment of worship.

          I have not even attempted to tackle the contrast and the connection between teaching and worship.

          Another way is topical preaching. When this system is abused, topics of preference to the pastor can lead the congregation to a particular point of view about the Bible. But when done with respect to the Bible and its contents, it can be effective. A sermon series on the question of Christian Stewardship is a fairly common topical series in the calendars of church. A sermon series developed on the Sermon on the Mount is another. Or a seasonal approach as a Lenten series on the miracles of Jesus.

          These are all intentional methods of preaching. Without an intentional plan, the danger that is often expressed is that the pastor will fall into a pattern of their preferred Scripture passages, so that a very select list of Biblical passages find expression over the career of a minister, thus the congregation is exposed to that select list, offering a limited window to what the Bible has to offer. Unfortunately, the ‘evidence’ for this danger is anecdotal, based on individual stories, without, in my experience, a pattern being sought as evidence.

          Regardless of that, the question of the sermon and teaching the bible is a difficult one. The ideal would be that a church has a robust service of worship and a robust, well-attended adult educational system in place. I have been learning in the faith for my entire life and I am nowhere near ‘done’. But that is not the reality of church today. There are learners in every congregation, don’t get me wrong.

I will joyfully give a shout out to Nelson Searcy and his integrated structure of church that lays down adult growth and learning from its foundation. That is not here.

So, the Book of the Month approach. Each month, a book of the Bible becomes the focus of preaching. Not the whole book, but selected passages. Against that preaching focus, a devotional reading guide is also provided. In this start up, the idea is to move back and forth between the Old and New Testaments. It is a challenge because of the sheer differences in size between various books. Philippians, for November, is 4 chapters. Isaiah, for December, is 66 chapters long.

Isaiah is certainly not a random choice for December but will provide a preaching focus on the Christmas prophecies contained within its pages. Where is it going? I don’t know. But it’s the Bible. It’s the Handbook of the faith. It is the foundational document of Jesus Christ. It is God’s gift to us. So we shall see.

Pastor Peter

A Pleasant Realization About Inclusivity

           It is a privilege for me to be able to include elements of the worship services that are provided to the denomination by the Presbyterian Outlook in our own worship services. We do not use all the elements, oftentimes rewriting the Call to Worship to reflect the Scripture of the day (which is not the lectionary). But the Confession, Prayers of the People, the call and response to the offering, those we use quite consistently.

          As do we use the response of faith. The majority of the time, these are drawn from the Confessions of the church, which are an excellent reminder of who we are and where we come from. This past Sunday, we used a selection from the Confession of 1967. Something struck me, not the theology, but the language.

          It was not inclusive, as we understand that today. I believe it was inclusive for the time, when the male pronoun and masculine lead were generally accepted as being inclusive, but that understanding has progressed. Being a historic document (and it causes a little pang of something that a document written in my lifetime is ‘historic’), it is understood that the language is also historic (or archaic). But this is often the case with reading the Bible as well, even in the most recent translations.

          I followed the written text for awhile, maybe halfway through. But then I found myself switching into an automatic mode (or subconscious if you like) of updating the language as we shared the text together. ‘Mankind’ became ‘humanity’ and so forth. That is where I was comfortable once again in my language of worship.

          The language of theology and church that I grew up with were male dominant. I came with a certain crankiness to accept inclusive language-deliberately gender neutral-as is practiced these days. It came from the belief and life experience that older practice of inclusivity built into male dominant language. I got it, in my mind, but the heart can be more fickle.

          Until the day I was reading some more conservative reformed theology (that in which I was raised) and the author made the argument that male gender-specific language was, in fact, proof of male exclusivity in the name of our faith to church leadership. Male dominant thinking was given theological weight in the grammatical construct of pronouns…

          That is where the knowledge of the heart synchronized with the head. I could argue from within about inclusiveness being a grammatical construct of inclusive language (I grew up with that). I did not believe there was that sinful streak of hierarchy built into the present-day understanding and expression of the theology on which I was raised.

          So as we spoke these words from the Confession together, the automatic updating began. If I could tolerate watching myself on the live feed, I would be tempted to go back and watch to see what could get picked up on our Youtube channel.

          What does this say about me? That I can, in fact, be taught? That being a life-long learner has deep implications about how the Body of Christ is defined? That sin can nest in the theological creativity of the most devout?

          I found myself reflecting on the need to fix this problem, to update the source material. Yes, to update C67. That was the intent of this morning’s post till I found out it has already been done by people with far more training and experience than myself. Years and years ago. For this I am very grateful.

          Makes me wonder about the rest of our confessional history. As with each generation (or two or three), we revisit the Bible in its original languages to make the best translations we can in the language and grammar of the day, I wonder if there is some work in our confessional history as well.

Pastor Peter

Developing a Four Fold Vision of Christian Life

          So I struggle as a person of faith. There is Jesus and the wonderful things that Jesus has done for the world. The truth of the New Testament is powerful in a world so in need of healing and a moral compass. I was raised in this stuff. That is the truth. But the struggle is the transition to how life then can be lived.

          In other words, here is what Jesus did, what Jesus said, what Jesus brought to us. How do I make it real in my life?

          Then Paul gives us almost a throw away line in his letter to the Philippians: “If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete…”

          There is a reading guide to Philippians in the November 1 posting to the blog that can provide more background in this letter.

          These four things clicked. There is something in Buddhism called the four-fold path, which I am not trying to connect or synchronize to Christianity, but which serves as a useful memory device (I am remembering it from Seminary and comparative religions classes).

          So, lets break out the four statements. "If there" implies to me the possibility that Paul is considering there may NOT be.

          If there is any encouragement in Christ.

          If there is any consolation from love.

          If there is any sharing in the Spirit.

          If there is any compassion and sympathy.

          “If there is”? That implies that Paul is not seeing it, that Paul is hoping for it, that Paul, in the grief and depression of the imprisoned situation that he is in, that he is questioning the basics of his faith.

          If there is encouragement in Christ… That cuts to the quick. Christ shall have dominion, over lands and sea. Christ, whose glory fills the sky. Christ, the true and only light. Jesus, who has promised that all who follow him, that where Jesus is in glory, there shall His servant be. These promises and assumptions are a sample of what we sing in worship to Jesus’ Name. The Name that Paul will assure us is raised, by God, above every Name.

          Obviously Paul believes in the encouragement of Christ. Philippians 2: 5-11 is arguably the defining description of Jesus as God and Human. He knows it in the words of the gifted Rabbinic teacher that he is, but seems like there is leakage of conviction in his heart. He’s looking for something in this among the Philippians.

          The amazing person that is Jesus, that much I get, good head knowledge, strong foundation to heart knowledge. But Paul gives us more, things that many people of faith will understand implicitly in the encouragement of Christ.

          Is there consolation in love? The biggest shaker to my faith these days is when I look around at what is called “Christianity” out there, and Christ is invoked, but there is a willful disconnect from love. If anything, the name and title of Jesus Christ is wielded in deliberate disregard for love. Oh, there is often some twisted rationalization that uses a crowbar to force “love” into every equation in which Christ is a factor. But that’s the same kind of lie that an abuser uses as their love ‘justification’ where they inflict pain on another ‘for their own good’. Or worse, ‘because the Bible says so’.

          Christ without love makes for the very worst kind of hypocrisy. There is also a disconnect for myself. That ability to love totally and completely.  Not quite there yet. There is a bit in the bible that God is love. That is the supportive piece when people say things like “see Jesus in the face of another”. It is to trigger the love of neighbor that we are called upon to go looking.

          Is there sharing of the Spirit? The reality of the Holy Spirit can be a hard one to wrap my heart around because I have biases against the more expressive forms of the outpouring of the Spirit. I am born and raised in the Frozen Chosen. The more enthusiastic outpourings of religious expression are not in my wheelhouse. So I lose something fundamental about the Spirit.

          The Spirit is the binding that holds the church together. The indwelling of Jesus is something Jesus promised in John 14, it is something we see developing as the early church develops in Acts. If I am to see the face of Jesus in every other person, as the leading edge of love for that person, I need to see the Spirit in the heart of those who are my community of faith. I say my community of faith because not everyone who attends a church is a “faithful” member when faith is defined as relationship to Jesus and not an attendance policy.

          The power of the Presbyterian system is in the committee. It is in the gathering of people in a room to decide and make policy. That rests on the sharing of the Spirit, that the Spirit’s voice speaks through the life and faith experiences of those gathered together. It’s how God’s inspiration works in the writing of the Bible.

          Is there any sympathy and compassion? I think that is what Paul is truly looking for in his trying circumstances. Is anybody there? Does anybody care? It is the most basic function of humanity to care for our fellow humans. To express the law of love of neighbor. The context of sympathy and compassion from with Christianity, as opposed to a world of sin, that is another consideration.

 

Peace, Pastor Peter

American Civics: The Ideal and the Reality Colliding

           Found myself considering Civics in my last post. What would American Civics look like right now? How could we, pun intended, avoid white-washing our history as a nation? Where might we even begin?

          How about an American truism and an American virtue? The truism is that ‘all humans are created equal’ and the virtue is that of personal and collective responsibility?

          The reality is that as we have progressed historically, the pool of ‘all’ who are created equal has expanded. Often the theory has expanded more rapidly than the reality, but it has expanded. Color, race, gender, ethnicity, how many other tangibles and intangibles have affected our definition of ‘all’?

          What is this virtue? A sense of responsibility? A sense that is ACTED upon? That is going to be a little more interesting. Responsibility to whom? To what?

          I believe that the first step is to accept responsibility for our past where we intentionally excluded others from ‘all’ in our consideration of equality. We need to accept responsibility for slavery, accept responsibility for events as what happened at Wounded Knee, for Japanese internment, for abuse aimed at perceived people of Chinese origin for Covid, and accept responsibility for the back drops to the Black Lives Matter and the Me Too movements.

          Yes, All Lives Matter, but we, as a nation, need to take responsibility for the reality that skin color is going to impact whose life matters MORE!

          I wonder if one of the pieces that stands in the way of our collective responsibility is the question of restitution. How much of the physical nation would we be morally responsible to ‘give back’ to someone else? To Mexico? To the First Nations (Canadian influence)? Would taking responsibility mean questioning France’s legitimacy in offering up the Louisiana Purchase? Or Russia offering up Alaska?

          What about matters of reparations? Like for slavery? I wonder how much of this kind of fear and uncertainty adds root to white supremacy movements? Whites were supreme when we did so many horrible and terrible things for White profit and advancement. Is there truly any way that we can accept responsibility and walk that back?

          Or maybe we fear that the truth will be that America is built on a house of cards, morally speaking.

          Or maybe we know that at present, there is only lip-service being paid to the notion that all are created equal and that a huge restructuring of our society, our economy, and our culture will need to happen to live into a reality that all are equal?

          Can’t say for sure. But for our Civics to be anything more than an idealized lie, we need to take seriously that all humans are created equal. And we need to take seriously our individual and national responsibility for when and where that did not happen and still doesn’t happen.

Election Day! Finished at Last.

           I tuned into NPR this morning, as is my initial habit, thinking that we are returning to the news of the world. It is Election Day! Campaign coverage is at an end. Until I remembered that there is something I like even less than campaign coverage. Election coverage.

          I know I should not dislike election coverage. I should love election coverage, champion election coverage, delight in the democratic process unfolding. But I don’t.

          That is because it feels like I am listening to who is going to save America against the excesses of the other side. Joe Biden is too old and senile. Donald Trump is too self-centered and greedy. And that is just the more polite rhetoric,

          Yes, these are midterms. No presidential election. But the rest of it flows from the top. The Sharks and the Jets are fighting over America. Not for America. Maybe if I really felt that the purpose of one party was more than just stopping the other, things would be different.

          As my media revelation has shown, you can probably tell that I am on the “left” of the political spectrum. But when Donald Trump was running for President, I understood the appeal. He was a political ‘outsider’ bringing in a new sensibility. Now, revealing some more of my political standing, President Trump has greatly increased my appreciation of the political ‘insider’, but that’s another story.

          The thing of it is, I want to be excited about our political process. I want the level of public debate in this country to be elevated. I do not want the elementary school recess name calling that I feel we have gotten instead. I think public civics is something that should be taught, not because we need to make America great again, but because it is the duty of every citizen to understand and live and support what makes America so great.

          If you have had the privilege of going to Disney World, to the World Showcase in Epcot, to the American Pavilion, have you listened to the sound track? Specifically “Golden Dream”, that Spotify credits to Randy Bright and Bob Moline. It is quaint, it is idyllic, it is naïve, but that’s what I want.

          I want those people who want me to vote for them up and down the ticket to tell me their dreams and aspirations for fulfilling that ‘golden dream’ in this country. That is going to be a very painful place to get to. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that ‘all men are created equal’.

          At the time, that meant ‘white’, that meant ‘landowning’ to a certain minimum. I know that we built this nation of the backs of so many others. But a Great Nation does not build a façade to hide its past. A Great Nation owns its past, outlives its past, and in each generation expands the foundation of freedom and equality and justice and the Dream so that it encompasses more and more and more people.

          I am a Christian living in a sinful world. I know we are not going to get it perfect, not until Jesus comes again. But I want elections to be about how we build the Dream, not how we have to keep others from tearing it down. Then maybe I will appreciate election coverage.

Thanksgiving First-Lest We Lose the Meaning of Christmas

           Somewhere on the celebration of All Saint’s Day (November 1), the seasons wax and wane. Christmas rises and Halloween descends. Tucked in between is Thanksgiving. It is a National holiday parked between the two religious holidays (that some would argue celebrate ‘opposing’ sides).

          I was moved to this when Lynn, my beloved wife, shared a hysterical video clip that showed Thanksgiving as the poor relations among the holidays getting ready to go for the fall (unlike Halloween and Christmas, it does not even have its own sports coat).

          And while Thanksgiving may not carry the pomp and circumstance of the fall and winter holidays, it is critically important to Christmas.  In the words of one of the great mystics of the Christmas canon of the silver screen, “there's a lot of bad 'isms' floatin' around this world, but one of the worst is commercialism. Make a buck, make a buck.”

          As a Christian cleric, it continues to concern me that the star at its rising (the star in the East) is always in danger of paling before the glow of extended shopping hours. And while it is my delight to invite anyone come worship with us at Christmas (in vr or rr-vitual reality or real-reality), there is a bigger promise at stake for this world so much in need.

The promise in Luke goes something like, ‘peace on earth, goodwill to all humanity’ (the translation has some latitude for interpretation). There is an added bit about it being reserved for those whom God favors. In my faith, we are all God’s children, therefore God’s favor rests upon us all. In my experience, ‘making the buck’ can drown out all other voices but its own.

Thus the renewed necessity of front-loading Christmas with Thanksgiving. At the front end, if we infuse Thanksgiving for all that we have, for all that we can offer, for all that we will receive, and all that we will experience, I believe we dance in the winter wonderland more often than dragging through the commercial crawl.

Does music move your soul? For me, the opening of Christmas comes after giving thanks. But for those whom music is a special blessing, how about a soft opening to the Season? Search “Count Your Blessings-White Christmas” on Youtube. It is not a bad anthem for giving thanks.

Rev. Peter Hofstra

Daily Readings for November and December

 Daily Readings: November and December 2022

Looking forward to the next two months, we are swinging into Paul’s letter to the Philippians and to the Prophet Isaiah. In November, we are going to consider gratitude, drawing on Paul’s letter. With Advent, we are moving to the season of preparation for Christmas, so we shall look into Isaiah for the wonderful prophecies looking forward to the birth of our Savior.

For the letter to the Philippians, we begin with the passage in Acts that outlines Paul’s visit to Philippi on his second missionary journey. We will then turn to the letter itself. I am grateful to the Harper Study Bible as the basis for the outline we shall use. Isaiah is a much longer book, some 66 chapters. Again, the outline in the Harper Study Bible shall serve as our basis for readings.

Readings for Philippians

Reading 1: Acts 16: 11-40  Paul’s adventures in Philippi. This gives us a flavor of the City and Paul’s experiences in it.

Reading 2: Philippians 1: 1-11  Paul opens with thanksgiving and the expression of his love for these people.

Reading 3: Philippians 1: 12-30  Paul speaks to his own circumstances, currently under arrest.

Reading 4: Philippians 2: 1-18  Considering who we are in Jesus.

Reading 5: Philippians 2: 19-30  New leadership introduced

Reading 6: Philippians 3: 1-4: 9  Paul reflects on his own experiences to speak of Christ.

Reading 7: Philippians 4: 10-23  Paul acknowledges the gift of the Philippians and closes his letter.

 Readings for Isaiah

Reading 1: Isaiah 1: 1-31  Rebellion and Restoration

Reading 2: Isaiah 2: 1-4:6  Punishment from God will lead to Future Glory

Reading 3: Isaiah 5: 1-20  Judgement against Judah for her Sins

Reading 4: Isaiah 6: 1-13  The call of Isaiah as God’s prophet

to be continued.

Pastor Peter Hofstra