/Sermons http://shalomcongregation.va.us.mennonite.net/Worship/Sermons en-us Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:17:07 GMT Caravel CMS RSS App 11-01-09 sermon http://shalomcongregation.va.us.mennonite.net/Worship/Sermons:=11-01-09 sermon@CB2
``Loving the Stranger''
Shalom Mennonite Congregation, Harrisonburg, VANovember 1, 2009
Emily North
Ruth 1:1-18

This year All Saints Day is today which gives us an opportunity to recall those who have been important in our faith tradition and in our personal lives. This holiday is not traditionally celebrated by Mennonites. In fact, there would be many Anabaptist and Mennonite saints who would roll over in their graves if they knew that we observe this day. Doing away with the veneration of saints was one part of the reformation. Our Anabaptist forbearers said the church should not encourage the worship of any human, dead or alive. Worship is for God alone. And like so many other rituals of the church it had become corrupt and a way to make money.

But holding up the stories of people who showed us God's way of love, peace, justice, and forgiveness is important to the formation of our faith. Their lives instruct us in how we might continue the story of God's presence and work in our world. So it's appropriate that we look at 2 lives that are part of our spiritual heritage. The story of Ruth and Naomi give us lessons on loyalty, openness and compassion to the stranger.

This morning we only heard part of Chapter 1 but I encourage you to read the whole book in one sitting. It is a quick read; only 4 short chapters. I want to give you a brief overview of the story because it will give a fuller understanding to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi. After Orpah decides to stay in Moab, Ruth and Naomi go back to Judah to live. The news of their arrival spreads and Naomi tells anyone who will listen what has happened and how bitter and angry she is because God has abandoned her. Ruth however, is more interested in finding food and she volunteers to go collect grain after harvesters have gone through the fields. Naomi agrees to this plan. The field happens to be owned by Boaz, a rich landowner who is a relative of Naomi's. Boaz comes to the fields that day, notices Ruth, finds out who she is and tells his hired hands to allow her to pick up as much grain as she likes. Boaz gives her food and water and promises to protect her. Ruth expresses her appreciation and gathers grain in his fields through the rest of the harvest. Naomi is overjoyed with this turn of events and praises God for being generous with her.

Now Naomi wants to help Ruth get married so her future will be secure. She and Ruth plan a way to attract Boaz's attention and desire. You really must read the interesting things that happened on the threshing floor between the two of them. When Boaz responds positively they must then negotiate the cultural norms so Boaz and Ruth can get married. Because Boaz is a relative there was some obligation for relatives to take care of widows of their family. It works as planned and Ruth and Boaz are wed. They soon have a son Obed. As Ruth offers Naomi her new baby, the women of Bethlehem say to Naomi: ``Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without next of kin; and may his name be renowned in Israel! He shall be your restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age; for your daughter in law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has borne him.'' The story concludes by naming the lineage between Ruth and Boaz and King David.

This beautiful story starts out with desperate need and want, but changes to hope and well-being. It is a story of loyalty and love. But to the ancient Jews it must have also been a disturbing and up-ending story because it put two people together who would not very likely love each other or even have anything to do with each other. And it shows that their beloved King David does not come from a pure line, but has foreign blood from his great great grandmother.
The book of Ruth was most likely written long after the actual events. While the setting is at the end of the time when the Judges ruled Israel and Judah, it was written for the Jews who were returning to Jerualem from exile hundreds of years later. At that time they would have been very concerned with how to regain their identity as a people. As they rebuilt their beloved Jerusalem they were aware of what it meant to be influenced by foreign governments and cultures and looked backed longingly to the days of King David when their identity as a people was much clearer.

So this story is a reminder that blood lines are not what define the purity of a people. Having the right parents does not necessarily make one faithful or a good Jew. But what can it mean for us? As residents of a so-called melting pot country, purity of blood lines does not carry the same weight socially or religiously. At the same time, there is a significance for us in the loyalty and compassion that Ruth and Naomi gave to each other despite their differences in culture and homeland. The many immigrants among us often have stories of hardship and need that are easily ignored. But one of the themes repeated in the Bible, in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament, is that the stranger, the hurting, and the oppressed are to be cared for and be treated justly. They are to be welcomed and brought into the center of the community.

If we look at the history of Moab and Israel we can see that this is an important part of this story of Ruth and Naomi. There are several places in the Bible where Moab is mentioned and usually it's not very positive. Moab is on the other side of the Dead Sea from Judah. In Genesis we learn that the remainder of Lot's family (who was Abraham's nephew) went to live in Moab after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. So while there is a connection between Moab and Judah it is somewhat negative. The Moabites in many ways were different than the people of Judah, they were influenced by the cultures and religions around them. In Dueteronomy, as laws were being set up, Jews were to not associate with the Moabites because they did not worship God as the Jews did. In a time when remaining pure as a people was important, the fears of being influenced by the Moabites put distance and judgment between them.

So although this story doesn't directly say anything bad about the Moabites it is unusual that Naomi ended up in Moab at all and strange that her sons would marry Moabite women. Given the situation then, it is not surprising that Naomi would entreat Ruth to stay in Moab. What kind of welcome would Ruth get in Judah coming from such a questionable people? And it is surprising that Ruth would choose to go to live among a people who would have contempt for her from the beginning.

As humans we bond with those we first see and often they look like us. We have traditions and rules about family and culture and religion that give our lives meaning and help us know where we belong. We know with whom to be friends, to fall in love, to form community. But in this story, hunger and poverty demand a different path if Ruth and Naomi are to survive. It is through this loyalty and love that goes beyond social convention and religious boundaries that not only enables Ruth and Naomi to survive but the Jews most beloved King David is a direct descendant from this outsider.

A few weeks ago our family went to Ohio for my step-grandmother, Anna Amstutz Sommer Amstutz's, funeral. She married my grandfather in the mid-80s, as I was finishing college. They both grew up in Kidron, OH, as their parents and grandparents had. They couldn't marry in Ohio legally because they were 2nd cousins. Fortunately, my family was living in Illinois where 2nd cousins could marry so they traveled out to Lombard and we had a big celebration of bringing these two families together.

Although Kidron is a small, safe Mennonite community, Anna had seen hard times in her life. Her husband died suddenly of a heart attack in his 50s, one of her sons in law committed suicide, and there were significant financial losses and problems along the way. She had to work hard to support her family. She had a large garden and she sold fabric in the local general store. Despite the small town nature of Kidron, Anna was a refined soul. She had a keen eye for beauty which was apparent in her house, her gardens and how she dressed. She had a love for and immense knowledge of the natural world that she shared generously.

About 10 years ago one of my cousins from Kidron, Dan, married a young woman from Canada named Shanti. She had been adopted into a Mennonite family as a baby from Bangladesh. She grew up in Montreal and then went to Goshen College where she met Dan. At Anna's funeral, Shanti, described the first time she met Anna, on the porch of her home in Kidron. In detail she recounted what Anna was wearing and the care and attention that Anna put into what she wore. It was nothing flamboyant or sophisticated but simply, beautifully, put together. From that moment, Shanti and Anna had a special bond. They grew to love and appreciate each other and they spent hours together when Shanti visited. Although Kidron has very little diversity and often has not been kind to outsiders, Shanti experienced a deep friendship and acceptance from Anna that denied the difference in age, experience, homeland, and color of skin.

I imagine that Ruth and Naomi's relationship was similar. That with some people what seem like insurmountable differences disappear when a bond of friendship has been formed.

For me, Naomi is the interesting character in the story. It is through her that we know the depth of despair and the heaviness of responsibility that immigrants experience as they find themselves strangers in a strange land. And it is through her character that we see the fullness of God's love and care for her and Ruth as they negotiate their way through customs and attitudes that make it difficult to care for themselves. Noami's resilience and ability to speak her truth especially speak out to me.

Naomi was resiliant. Although she was bitter and angry, she did not give up. She did not leave Ruth to fend for herself, she did not play the victim and act helpless, waiting for those who had power to save her. Often, Boaz is seen as sort of the savior of this story. And he certainly was the way that Ruth and Naomi got out of poverty but it wouldn't have happened if Naomi didn't invest in and empower Ruth to seek out Boaz's protection and love.

Naomi was willing to speak the truth of her heart and experience. She felt forsaken, abandonment by God and she spoke it, plainly. She did not put on a false front and act like everything would be okay. She also rejoiced as their lives turned around. When Ruth was able to find enough food to feed them both, Naomi praises God for not forsaking them.

What I noticed about Ruth is how she helped Naomi choose life. There were many differences between these 2 women: homeland, customs, religion, age. Despite these differences Ruth was able to be Naomi's compass. She was able to orient them both towards life. Even when Naomi was at her lowest, Ruth's response was to go find them some food. Despite Ruth seeing the worst side of Naomi she did not leave her. And Naomi responded in kind to Ruth. She taught Ruth her country's customs so that they both would live. Their loyalty to each other inspired a loyalty to life and to God.

Marge Piercy wrote a poem about Ruth and Naomi. She ends the poem with this stanza:

At the season of first fruits, we recall
two travellers, co-conspirators, scavengers
making do with leftovers and mill ends,
whose friendship was stronger than fear,
stronger than hunger, who walked together,
the road of shards, hands joined.

As we celebrate all saints day, we celebrate the lives of those who have been true to the call of God to choose lifein their circumstances, in their cultures, among their people. And we recognize those who have chosen life even when they have found themselves among strangers, in a strange land. May we be inspired by these people, and may we reach beyond our artificial borders to form bonds of compassion and loyalty.

 Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:59:40 GMT 10-11-09 sermon http://shalomcongregation.va.us.mennonite.net/Worship/Sermons:=10-11-09 sermon@CB2
``Empowered to be Vulnerable''
Shalom Mennonite Congregation, Harrisonburg, VAOctober 11, 2009
Emily North
Mark 10:2-16

The words empowered and vulnerable seem almost too opposite to be paired together, especially in our Western Culture. Our country is built on the idea of manifest destiny where people were given permission and encouraged to go out and take the land for themselves regardless of whom was there first. The aggressive and powerful are rewarded. We as a culture want to be known for our strength, not our vulnerabilities. The idea of survival of the fittest also feeds into this mentality. It is those who are strongest, most adaptable, that should survive. Those who are weak are meant to pass away to make room for those who can overcome disease and environmental changes. I wonder if this doesn't feed into our discomfort with healthcare reform. Do the weak and vulnerable really deserve good health care? Is it worth our nation's time and money to help those who are the sickest? And even if we display any sign of potential vulnerability we need to explain ourselves with strength. My daughter, Ruby, who is in 2nd grade, came home and told me about the boy who wore a pink t-shirt to school. On it was written, ``tough enough to wear pink''.

What in the world does Jesus' words about divorce and remarriage and his blessing the children have to do with having an empowered and vulnerable faith community, as my sermon title suggests? The first half of the text has mostly been used to forbid divorce and remarriage because it certainly seems that Jesus did. The second half of this text has inspired many paintings of Jesus holding squeaky-clean, laughing, white-children on his lap. They don't seem to belong to each other much less a sermon entitled ``empowered to be vulnerable.''

These two encounters that Jesus had are very powerful images and have had repercussions throughout Christian history. The church based its teaching and practice on divorce and remarriage largely on these verses. How can you refute these clear words coming from Jesus' mouth? It took the Mennonite church into the 1970s, and for some later, to come to a different teaching on divorce and remarriage; a much more compassionate teaching that acknowledges our failures and simultaneously upholds God's love and forgiveness that can heal our brokenness and bless us into new relationships.

Jesus welcoming children isn't such a stretch for us but I hope we can hold a more realistic picture of this scene and think about its implications. A board puzzle that I put together many times as a child was a picture of a robed Jesus, with long wavy hair and white skin, holding and was surrounded by plump, pink, smiling children. While it is no surprise that children were drawn to Jesus, we should also remember that adults and children came to Jesus who were sick in their bodies and souls. It probably wasn't so quiet, calm or clean as many paintings would suggest, and I would guess there weren't any white folks in that scene; Jesus or children.

It might be helpful if we take a step back from the details of this passage to see how these accounts relate to each other. As I read these two stories of Jesus being confronted by the Pharisees and blessing the children, I saw a larger theme that illuminates for us God's desire for our relationships in community. As in so many of Jesus' interactions, he saw our vulnerabilities not as rejectable failures, but as ways to enter more deeply into our humanity and bring us closer to the love that binds us together. What Jesus rejected in this passage was power that is misused, especially when it is used in the name of the law. Jesus sought to empower all people so that we can know our true humanity, our true vulnerabilities, and through them be compassionate people to all people.

So what was going on here when Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees? Scandal and questionable motives were not new even back in 1st Century Palestine. If you remember Jesus wasn't the first one to address divorce in his day. John the Baptist was beheaded because of his judgment against Herod for divorcing his wife and marrying his brothers' wife. I'm sure the Pharisees had that in the back of their mind as they confronted him. Was Jesus going to be John the Baptist, stirring up trouble for the Jewish political leaders that the Rome put in power?

At that time, divorce was allowed only if it was initiated by the husband. Over the centuries there had developed many legal reasons for divorce: some legitimate, some downright petty; anything from not bearing sons to burning a meal. At the time, it was rare if ever that a woman would initiate divorce because of how vulnerable it made her. A woman had no economic support if she was not married or living with her father. There also was a double standard between men and women concerning adultery. A woman could be stoned if she was caught in adultery because she was seen as the cause of it.

While Jesus' initial reaction was to cite the Mosaic Law, Jesus argued against the Pharisees understanding marriage strictly through the law. Jesus took the issue to a different level. He refers back then not to Moses but what was seen as God's original intention for familial relationships. Instead of talking about specific dos and don'ts of divorce, he talks about the intimate spiritual, physical and psychological connection that happens between 2 people. This kind of intimacy creates a sacred bond that is above and beyond any legal worth we put on it. It is God-given for the wellbeing of humanity.

Then Jesus speaks about this privately with the disciples. In Mark, when Jesus speaks to his disciples alone and especially in a house, it refers to specific teachings that related to the early church's experience. That is how Mark would highlight for his audience what they should pay attention to for their current situation. We can assume then that divorce and remarriage initiated by either a husband or wife had become an issue for the early church. So with the disciples privately, Jesus argues again, that it isn't the socially constructed, legal understanding that matters. In a marital relationship, when either couple asks for a divorce they're severing that sacred bond that has repercussions farther than they anticipate.

Jesus was empowering relationships to be more than legal contracts that are only binding on a social or legal level. And he challenged both partners to understand this bond as something sacred. Both partners should take responsibility for their relationship and to realize that the implications reach beyond the legal document. Children and even future partners are significantly impacted by past relationships and marriages. He was encouraging mutuality and responsibility in our most intimate partnerships.

Jesus' main concern was teaching and preaching God's desire to be in relationship with humanity. God's love crosses all boundaries and barriers that humans erect. God offers forgiveness and mercy to all people and asks us to do the same. The Pharisees and other religious leaders were preoccupied with the law because it gave clear definition for how to live, the dos and don'ts. They had become so legalistic and rigid that there was no room for mercy or compassion.

What impresses me most about Jesus' answer is that he calls us to something more. To the Pharisees he said, ``Because of your hardness of heart, Moses wrote that commandment for you.'' Jesus challenged them; they were capable of more than legal arguments, God calls us to something that is far more meaningful and fulfilling than following the letter of the law. But it requires a tremendous amount of inner strength and responsibility. Jesus was not empowering them and us to try to get whatever we want for ourselves, but enabling us to take ourselves and relationships to a level of mutuality and accountability. Relationships that are experienced not just on a legal or social level, but relationships that are spiritually, emotionally, and physically meaningful.

What makes this interchange all that more powerful is coupling Jesus' interaction with the Pharisees and his blessing the children. Mark puts this empowerment and responsibility in the context of God's desire not just for intimate relationships, but community relationships and the need to care for the vulnerable. Children and those with little power are to be valued. They are to be in the center of the community. We are to welcome them and care for them. They are to help us set the agenda for our priorities, both within and outside the community. Those who are the most vulnerable need us but also can teach us about and remind us of our own vulnerability.

Jesus empowers us and challenges us to greater responsibility for each other. Jesus calls us to see our deeper connection to people that have been present from the beginning of time, that is part of our DNA, and he empowers us to take responsibility for them. An important path to doing this is to recognize the vulnerable around us and to be ready to be vulnerable with each other. Jesus blessed the children, all of them; the cute and well-fed but also the sick, the meek and asks us to do the same. When we are empowered by God's love and mercy we can see that one of our primary tasks is to care for those around us, especially those who have less power.

This empowerment is not about only taking care of ourselves, or simply for the sake of having more power. This can so easily turn into greed and self centeredness. But instead this empowerment is so that we can in turn nurture, care for, and build up those who are most vulnerable. Too often, when we are empowered, we use this power to erect defenses and punish those who have hurt us. Or we use the power to lord it over others. Those who are vulnerable, as we once were, are ignored.

I am reminded of the man from Colorado Springs, David Works, was just in town, sharing his story about his 2 daughters being shot and killed at their church and his need to find a way to forgive and let go of his anger. No one would blame him if he harbored bitterness and hatred towards the gunman. No one would blame him if he used his power to punish anyone or anything that made his family vulnerable to such violence. But instead he chose the way of being vulnerable. He admitted his powerlessness to change what happened and that no amount of revenge or blame would make him feel better. Instead he chose the vulnerable road of forgiveness and love. And through it he has forged redemptive relationships with the family of the man who caused him so much pain and he is a powerful witness to a better way for our world.

How can we apply this to us in Harrisonburg and the Mennonite church? Where do we need to acknowledge how we are vulnerable? Where do we see or experience an unwillingness to protect the vulnerable? So much of racism, sexism and homophobia is about power.

Today, around our country and in churches, gays and lesbians are courageously letting their friends and families know the truth about themselves. They are revealing their sexual orientation without fully knowing what response they will receive. They are taking huge risks in being this vulnerable, but the only way they can do it is if they feel empowered to be authentic to those who care about them the most. I hope that if we ever receive such a revelation from someone we know or love, we can fully accept them and support their desire to be and live their whole selves.

It is so difficult for us to put our human connection ahead of our sense of entitlement and power with those different from us. We are so afraid of losing our perceived power, appearing weak and vulnerable. What would happen if the Mennonite Church gave over leadership and monetary decisions to the cultural and ethnic groups that are in the majority of our larger denomination? No longer would white, European men and women be making the decisions or deciding how we spend our money. What a huge step! What a great giving up of power and empowering of others.

And personally, can we show compassion to those we disagree with politically or theologically? Are we able to live in a little discomfort so that others who have less can gain some comfort. Can we lower our defenses so that children and those who are vulnerable feel safe with us? Are we willing to be empowered by others? How can we respond to the abuse of power? And especially, how can we support each other so that we have the strength to respond with empowered love?

Many of us, as we sign the covenant or formally join Shalom, talk about the tension we feel in joining a church. We have been acutely aware of the hurt and damage that has been done to people by the church. We have experienced it first hand or seen it done to others. Many times, people will talk about this discomfort but that somehow Shalom is different; it's a safe place, a community striving, though imperfectly, to be church in a way that is different than how we experienced church in the past. I am grateful for that too. Let us continue to experience and model a different use of power. Let's challenge and empower each other to know our strength is found in love. Let us be strong enough to be vulnerable. AMEN


 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:10:22 GMT 9-27-09 sermon http://shalomcongregation.va.us.mennonite.net/Worship/Sermons:=9-27-09 sermon@CB2
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:04:51 GMT 9-20-09 Signing the membership scroll http://shalomcongregation.va.us.mennonite.net/Worship/Sermons:=9-20-09 Signing the membership scroll@CB2 Why I Sign Shalom's Membership Scroll
 Ted GrimsrudSeptember 19, 2009
I didn't go back and check the records to be sure, but I think this is the tenth time I will sign Shalom's membership scroll. So it's kind of a momentous occasionand a chance to remind myself of my ideals. Let me list ten reasons why I sign the scroll.
I sign the scroll because I don't have to. In fact I can't think of any negative consequences for not signing. It's totally non-coercive. It's totally a choice. This is pretty much what I believe about the gospelit's an invitation, an opportunity, an expression of love, a response to being loved.
I sign the scroll because it is an external marker, a ``ritual'' if you will, that reminds me of my aspirations. It's a small way to make concrete and real the desire I have to love God and neighbor, to contribute to blessing all the families of the earth, to follow the Lamb wherever he goes.
I sign the scroll as a kind of re-enactment of the vows I made back now nearly forty years ago when I was baptized, nearly thirty years ago when I joined the Mennonite Church, and nearly twenty years ago when I was ordainedto give and receive counsel, to learn and to teach, to imitate the good modeling I encounter and to seek to be a good model myself.
I sign the scroll because I agree with my old friend Matthew who said that with all its faults, the church is one place in our society where people come together to confess that they don't want to be jerks. Even if we rarely if ever use those exact words, there is something about simply gathering together and singing the sings we sing, reading the scriptures we read, hearing the sermons we hear, doing the sharing we doall of these do reinforce the belief that we do want to be kind, compassionate people.
I sign the scroll because it carries with it a potential for friendship with people I want to be friends with.
I sign the scroll because it is a way publicly to say that I want to be in solidarity with others as they aspire to be faithful people. It is a step in offering encouragement and a willingness to help.
I sign the scroll because it is a way of expressing my desire to be part of the on-going conversation people within this community are having about faith and practice, belief and ethics, resistance to empire and cultivation of friendship with each other, those beyond our group, and the earth.
I sign the scroll because it involves, in my mind, a way formally of identifying with the Mennonite communityhere in our congregation, in Harrisonburg, in the Central District, in the Mennonite Church USA, and in the global Mennonite fellowship. I like the somewhat tenuous path Shalom has trod in its formal connection with the Mennonite world because that echoes my own patha path mostly of embracing my Mennonite identity but with bumps along the way.
I sign the scroll as an expression of my desire to contribute to the life of this congregationin line with the various commitments stated in our covenant statement. I like it that taking on these commitments does not feel coerced, and that we are given a lot of freedom to find the types of contributions that seem most suited for our gifts, interests, and capabilities.
Finally, I sign the scroll because Shalom is so unlike the sentiment expressed by Groucho Marx. He famously remarked that he would not want to be a member of a club that would accept him as a member. Well, maybe the best thing about Shalom is that it does want me as a memberand that means a lot.
 Kenton Brubaker - September 20, 2009
 A primary reason I am signing the Shalom covenant is because I see Shalom as a house of prayer, a praying community. My remarks this morning have been stimulated by two sources I have read in the past two weeks:
A review by Lisa Miller of Karen Armstrong's new book ``The Case for God'' in Sept 21 Newsweek, page 29, and Samuel E. Balentine's book ``Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: the drama of divine-human dialogue'', one of Shirley's seminary texts this semester.
Since I have been trained as a rational, scientific person and I live in a very secular society, I appreciated the reviewer's comments on ``The Case for God''.
``What the Greeks called logos and what they called mythos defined two different aspects of the world and our experience in it: the knowable and the unknowable. You can believe in both. The bridge between them, Armstrong submits… is practice ….genuine, difficult, repetitive practice, which over time gives the practitioner even the reasonable practitioner glimpses of the transcendent or the divine.''
``Most provocative is Armstrong's focus on practice on the activities that help a person engage with God: reading singing, chanting, meditating, praying, and so on. She has a special affinity for the mystics''. This takes me back to our noon meditations during Lent last year, when Emily opened and closed our time of silence with this sound. bell Perhaps we should always have this signal when we enter into prayer.
Many of our hymns are prayers. In a sense we experience the mystical when we are led in music in an unknown tongue such as Spanish, for me, when Melody or Jamie lead our music.
Now quoting directly from Armstrong:
``The point of religion was to live intensely and richly here and now. Religious people are ambitious….They tried to honor the ineffable mystery they sensed in each human being and create societies that honored the stranger, the alien, the poor, and the oppressed.''
Now a quotation from Balentine:
``…prayer is of itself an act of ministry. It is not just a preparatory ritual antecedent to real ministry. It is one of the principal means by which the church participates concretely as a co-worker with God in accomplishing the divine will for the world. Indeed, I submit that the church has no higher calling than to realize its commission to become a house of prayer.''
Balentine speaks of the change from the temple as a place of sacrifice to the synagogue as a house of prayer. Perhaps this reached a turning point when Jesus cleansed the temple and called for a house of prayer.
Balentine gives these two responsibilities of the church as a house of prayer:
 1.       To keep the community and world in God
 What would we consider the high point in our worship together. For Catholics it is the Eucharist, that mystical event when the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. For us at Shalom it could be the ``prayers of the people''. This is a time of keeping the community in God, whether prayers of lament, praise, or petition.
 2.       To keep God in the community and in the world.
 He sees the church at prayer as shaping the future of God. He quotes Heschel: To pray means to bring God back into the world….to expand [God]'s presence. [God] being immanent in the world depends on us.''
I am confident our times of prayer at Shalom can do this.
One of my favorite prayers is hymnal no. 76.
bell Je louerai l'Eternal, de tout mon coeur, je reconterai toutes tes merveilles, je chanterai ton nom. Je louerai l'Eternal de tout mon coeur, je ferai de toi le sujet de ma joie. Alleluia! bell
Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:00:08 GMT