Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

The essence of Christianity is that God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have
everlasting life.

I've wrestled with this question myself, Pat.

Stripped of all else, I believe the essence is a mystical or first-hand
experience, an encounter with the Living Christ.

I've not been able to reduce Christianity any further than this.  And
I've tried.

Peace,
Richard

>Stripped of all else, I believe the essence is a mystical or first-hand
>experience, an encounter with the Living Christ.

    Richard, that sounds an awful like the essence of Quakerism.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Hi Patricia:
    
    Certainly the virgin birth and the resurrection were of the utmost
    importance and a necessary ingredient to show the nature of Christ.
    
    A simple way to come to terms with the dilemna.
    
    1. Do you believe The Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?
    
    2. Do you believe that God can do things beyond our reason or
       scientific understanding?
    
    3. Very important: Do you believe the Hebrew Prophets gave a pin point
       accurate account of the foretelling of the Messiah?
    
    The virgin birth and resurrection play a major role in the essence of
    the answers to these questions.  They were a must, otherwise, he would
    have been one of the forty self proclaimed messiahs in Israel in those
    days!!
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack

Re:  568.0

  >Is a Virgin Birth and a Physical Resurrection the essence of the
  >religion.  Is the incarnation of God within Jesus 2000 the essence of the 
  >religion.

No.  It is one critical historical fact among many.  A relationship
with Jesus Christ as both Savior (through his death in payment for
your sins after living a sinless life Himself) and Lord (as master of 
your life in a master/slave relationship) is the essense of Christianity.

If Jesus was not born of a virgin or did not raise physically from the
dead, then we could still be saved.  However, those who deny that this
is what actually happen deny the authority of those who recorded these
events as well as the author (the Holy Spirit) as well as the inerrant
fulfillment of prophecy.
    
Collis

    Re: .4  
    
    <If Jesus was not born of a virgin nor resurrected, we could still be
    saved...
    
    It goes much deeper than countermanding the authority of the scriptures
    in our own minds Collis.  Had Jesus not done these things, he would not
    have fulfilled the prohecies not only of the Old Testament (See Isaiah
    7:14, The Psalms, but also Jesus himself when stating, "Destroy this temple
    and I will rebuild it in 12 days."  He would've been deemed a false
    prophet and subject to the death penalty as prescribed by the Mosaic
    law.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack  

    Re: last entry,  I meant to say "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild
    it in THREE days." not twelve obviously.  Point of this entry being
    that he would not have been the messiah had he not been born of a
    virgin or resurrected!
    
    Jack

I believe the physical resurrection to be very very important. Without it there
is not the same proof of the conquest of death. To deny it is to make the rest
of what Jesus said and did irrelavent in terms of salvation.

I believe that a relationship with Jesus is the essense of Christianity. However
that relationship is important only because Jesus *IS* God and *IS* alive.

		Alfred

Re:  .6

I noted the consequence of not fulfilling prophecy in my
first reply.

My point is that I believe God could have chosen any number of
ways to provide salvation for us.  Could he have chosen a way
which did not use a virgin or where the Holy Spirit didn't
overshadow a woman?  I believe so; I can't absolutely
guarantee it.  Could Jesus have risen from the dead in a spiritual
body instead of a physical body?  I believe so; I can't absolutely
guarantee it.

Now, given the plan that was revealed by God and his prophets
in Scripture and that was fulfilled and so recorded, obviously
these things did happen.  To deny them is to deny that God has
spoken to us correctly through His Spirit and His prophets as well
as to deny history.  I can understand why many people would have a
difficult time seperating the theoretical from the historical in
my reply and I think that this is what happened.

Collis

    
    
    
    The essence of christianity is " Do unto others as you would have them
    do to you."  I am not the first to say this :-) :-) :-)
    
    David

>    The essence of christianity is " Do unto others as you would have them
>    do to you."  I am not the first to say this :-) :-) :-)

And how is that different from Judaism?

re Note 568.12 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >    The essence of christianity is " Do unto others as you would have them
> >    do to you."  I am not the first to say this :-) :-) :-)
> 
> And how is that different from Judaism?
  
        Essentially, Biblical Christianity and Biblical Judaism
        don't differ -- they are both based upon extensive revelation
        by the same God.

        Obviously, there's a lot of difference in details!

        In fact, I would think this would be a valid test for whether
        something is of the essence of Christianity.

        Bob

> >    The essence of christianity is " Do unto others as you would have them
> >    do to you."  I am not the first to say this :-) :-) :-)

	Actually I think Jesus said that was the essence of the Law. Not quite
	the same thing.

			Alfred

    Actually, the Golden Rule as expressed by Jesus is probably a variant
    of a slightly different and probably older version that was formulated
    within Judaism.  This other Golden Rule urged people not to do unto
    others what they didn't want done to them.  Jesus's variant turned this
    inside out by making into a positive injunction rather than a negative
    prohibition.  One of the Deuterocanonical books in the Bible--might
    have been Tobit, I'm not sure--expresses this variant of the Golden
    Rule.  I don't know if Jesus himself invented his variant of the Golden
    Rule, or if he was passing along a variant that had already emerged.  I
    also don't know if modern Judaism considers Jesus's variant acceptable,
    but somehow it sticks in my mind that to this day it prefers the other
    variant.

    -- Mike

Jesus's "variant" was a word-for-word quotation of Leviticus 19:18b

	"You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

Along with "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with
all thy soul and with all thy mind" (the Shema Yisrael) from Exodus, on
these two commandments are based all the Law and the Prophets.

The essence of Christianity is in the fact of God's Incarnation, Death,
Resurrection, and Glorious Ascension, and the benefits provided unto us
by the same.

For by that, we are incorporated into the mystical Body of Christ, made
very members incorporate with him, and our human nature is taken into
heaven to reside with God for eternity.

/john

    Excuse me, but I wasn't referring to the "You shall love your neighbor
    as yourself" injunction.  I am quite aware that Jesus's command to
    love your neighbor is found in Leviticus.
    
    I was referring to the Golden Rule--"Do unto others".  The Golden Rule
    is *not* found in Leviticus 19:18.  However, a variant of it is found
    in one of the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Richard(and others)
    
    *Stripped of all else, I believe the essence is a mystical or first-hand
    experience, an encounter with the Living Christ.
    
    
    How is this encounter different than a mystical encounter with a
    living God who I may not name Christ, or a living Great Spirit.
    What makes the essentials of Christianity unique and different from say
    Native American spirituality or Judaism, or any other great religion
    with an encounter with a living God.
    
    I am quite sure that I do not believe the bible to be the inerrant word
    of God. I do not believe any of the bible stories as being literal
    truth.   I am impacted by Bishop Spong who says the real essence of
    Christianity is beyond the literal interpretation of the Bible stories.
    
    I am trying to understand what that may means to me and what it means in
    real life to some of you.
    
    
    love and peace
    
    
    

    Do you believe the encounter of Jonah and the big fish?  Jesus
    certainly did!
    
    Grace and Peace!
    
    Jack

    >How is this encounter different than a mystical encounter with a
    >living God who I may not name Christ, or a living Great Spirit.

    Well, Patricia, that is a good question, and all I can offer you is my
    own perspective, which may not be ideal for your question since I don't
    identify myself as a Christian.  My answer to your question is that
    there is no difference.  My view is that people of various religious
    can have a mystical encounter with the Ultimate--whether you name it
    the Great Spirit, Christ, or Buddha, or anything else.  What
    Christianity offers are unique myths, perspectives, traditions, and
    approaches to experience with the Ultimate.  If those myths,
    perspectives, traditions, and approaches are suitable for your own
    personality and spirituality, then Christianity is probably the best
    path for you to approach the Ultimate; if another approach is more
    suitable, then *that* is the more appropriate religion for you.

    Of all the world's religions, I feel closest to Christianity.  It feels
    most like home to me, probably because that is the religion I was
    raised in.  But, like you, I don't accept the doctrines of the virgin
    birth or the resurrection, and partially for that reason I personally
    don't choose to call myself a Christian.  Perhaps the more important
    reason, though, is that while I honor the historical Jesus and admire
    his ethical teachings as the foundation of my own ethical beliefs, I don't
    think of myself as "following" Christ per se.  Maybe it is just a
    matter of personal taste; it is something I am not comfortable with,
    and I understand that others with beliefs not unlike my own do identify
    themselves as Christians.  Perhaps it is a matter of self-identity as
    much as anything else.

    That doesn't really answer your question, though, about what
    constitutes the essence of the faith.  Even if it is not unique in
    offering a path to the Ultimate, it is unique in its body of myths,
    perspectives, and traditions.  Is it even possible to reduce any faith
    down to an "essence", or is trying to capture a faith in that way an
    elusive goal?

    -- Mike

>    Excuse me, but I wasn't referring to the "You shall love your neighbor
>    as yourself" injunction.  I am quite aware that Jesus's command to
>    love your neighbor is found in Leviticus.

This is what you wrote:

>    Actually, the Golden Rule as expressed by Jesus is probably a variant
>    of a slightly different and probably older version that was formulated
>    within Judaism.  This other Golden Rule urged people not to do unto
>    others what they didn't want done to them.  Jesus's variant turned this
>    inside out by making into a positive injunction rather than a negative
>    prohibition.

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" is the variation of "not to do unto
others what they didn't want done to them" that I am familiar with from the
Gospel.  Can you identify Jesus teaching any other variation?

Jesus Christ taught:

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
   all your mind.  (The First and Great Commandment, the Shema Yisrael, from
   Exodus)

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.  (The Second, Like unto the first, from
   Leviticus)

   (on the above two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets)

3. Love each other as I have loved you.  (the New Commandment)

4. Go into all the world and teach everything I have taught you, baptizing
   in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (the
   Great Commission).

All of his parables as well as the institution of his Church can be found
in these four basic teachings.

/john

    I am afraid you are confused.  The Golden Rule refers specifically to
    the injunction to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 
    This phrase is found in Matthew 7:12.  This is a kind of inverse
    variation on the Deuterocanonical injunction not to do to others what
    you would not have them do to you.  The two variants on the Golden Rule
    are similar, although some would argue that they differ subtly and yet
    importantly in implication.

    The phrase concerning loving your neighbor as yourself is not what is
    defined to as the Golden Rule.  You may argue if you wish that loving
    your neighbor as yourself implies the Golden Rule, or vice versa. 
    Certainly both of these injunctions are similar in intent and related
    in the sense that they express a positive and loving stance towards
    others.  But they are not the same phrase. I referred to the Golden
    Rule, and therefore was not referring to the phrase concerning loving
    your neighbors as yourself.  The Golden Rule itself as expressed by
    Jesus is an inverse version of the Deuterocanonical version of the
    Golden Rule. And some Jews have argued that the two variants of
    the Golden Rule *are* different in implication.

    -- Mike

Got me.  The inverse form was not quite as firmly stuck in my mind; the form
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (the direct quote of Leviticus)
is much more firmly implanted in my mind, having had it read to me many
hundreds of times.

So it appears that Jesus taught both

	"In everything do to others as you would have them do to you;
	 for this is the law and the prophets."  (Matthew 7:12)
and
	"`You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with
	 all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and
	 first commandment.  And a second is like it: `You shall love your
	 neighbor as yourself.'  On these two commandments hang all the
	 Law and the Prophets."  (Matthew 22:37...)

and in response to the question "Which commandment is the first of all?"

	"The first is, `Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is
	 One; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and
	 with all your soul and with all your mind, and with all your
	 strength.'  The second is this, `You shall love your neighbor
	 as yourself.'  There is no other commandment greater than
	 these."	(Mark 12:8...)

And he also accepted this same answer from a lawyer in Luke 10:27.  I'm not
sure whether it appears again in John.

So Jesus taught the Golden Rule in both forms, and it appears that he
considered them to be the same -- if you compare the two citations from
Matthew, where he says that both are "the law and the prophets".

/john

>    *Stripped of all else, I believe the essence is a mystical or first-hand
>    experience, an encounter with the Living Christ.
>    
>    How is this encounter different than a mystical encounter with a
>    living God who I may not name Christ, or a living Great Spirit.

The fact of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension.

>    What makes the essentials of Christianity unique and different from say
>    Native American spirituality or Judaism, or any other great religion
>    with an encounter with a living God.

Jesus, God and Man.
    
>    I am quite sure that I do not believe the bible to be the inerrant word
>    of God. I do not believe any of the bible stories as being literal
>    truth.   I am impacted by Bishop Spong who says the real essence of
>    Christianity is beyond the literal interpretation of the Bible stories.

The real essence of Christianity is in the Truth contained within the
Holy Scriptures.

The Bible is inerrant truth, not literal truth.

In our lives this means following Christ, as revealed in Holy Scripture and
Holy Tradition.

/john

    During my lunch hour I was trying to find the inverse formulation of
    the Golden Rule in the book of Tobit, but my cursory scanning was
    unable to find it.  It may be that I am looking in the wrong
    Deuterocanonical book--I'll double check when I have more time.  This
    inverse variant of the Golden Rule is also found, interestingly enough,
    in the Didache, an early Christian writing.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    Your note does help.  I have been reading an Anthology of the writings
    of Paul Tillich and I can really relate to his definition of God,
    Faith, and to his other writings.  I know the Christian Stories and am
    becoming more familiar with the Christian doctrines.   I have always
    looked at these stories and asked the question "are they real". 
    Today I am asking the question "what is reality". 
    
    I am learning to understand that a story can be a myth and the myth can be
    real.  If it reaches inside and grabs you and provides a paradigm for
    looking at life, then it is real. During this Christmas season I am
    enjoying the music and the images and the symbol of hope and joy and
    peace that surrounds the Nativity story.
    
    I guess as I really am able to accept that it is not real then at the same
    time I can accept that it is real.  I can call that faith.
    
    
    love and peace
    
    
    Patricia
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    I can appreciate where you are coming from, however, we need to learn
    to separate myth from reality regardless of how it makes us feel.
    
    To give an example, The apostle Paul says ...be not deceived, for even
    Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  The myth here makes me
    feel wonderful.  Some of my actions appear to be fulfilling and
    beautiful..but you know what?..Satan is a counterfeit.  He is in the
    business of taking something that is ugly and making it attractive to
    us.  That is the sad reality.  
    
    This is why we need to understand who Satan is.  He is not some
    fabricated character with a pitch fork and wart on his nose.  The Bible
    says he is a liar and deceiver and most importantly, HE IS A REAL PERSON!
    Jesus himself, known as the greatest teacher in the world believed this
    as he stated in John, "..for he was a murderer from the beginning, and
    speaks not the truth for their is no truth in him.  When he speaks a
    lie he speaks from his own nature for he is a liar and the father of
    lies."  John 8:44.
    
    Be careful of your feelings, they can deceive you at times!
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack

A SERMON PREACHED BY THE REV'D ANDREW C. MEAD AT THE CHURCH OF THE ADVENT
                   ADVENT SUNDAY  +  NOVEMBER 29, 1992
                    The Feast of Title and Dedication

Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour
you do not expect.				     St. Matthew 24:37-44

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

To dedicate a parish church to "The Advent" means to dedicate its life
to the whole mystery of Our Lord Jesus Christ's Coming.  Advent,
from the Latin noun "adventus", means "a coming" or even "a coming to
or towards", or "arrival."  In the case of the Gospel of Christ, such a
"coming" refers to Christ's entire Incarnation, life, ministry, sacrifice
and death, Resurrection and Ascension, and also to the "coming" of the
Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son at Pentecost.  Gathered all
together, these various comings constitute what is called the First
Advent of Jesus Christ.  All of them, in one way or another, receive some
mention in the Church's liturgical treatment of the Advent Season.

But as today's Gospel and collect [below] indicate, there is also Christ's
Second Advent, or His coming in glorious majesty to judge the living and
the dead: the final separation of good from evil, the consignment of the
devil and his minions to eternal death, and the inauguration of the New
Heaven and New Earth for the saints in the bliss of eternal life.  It is
a mystery including the General Resurrection of the Last Day, which we
profess in the creeds, and it is quite beyond all imagination and
language.  The Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse of St. John, provides
images of the Second Advent in prophecy and vision.  For myself, the
words of the great poet John Donne do very well, collecting the biblical
teaching:
		At the round earth's imagin'd corners, blow
		Your trumpets, Angels, and arise, arise
		From death, you numberless infinities
		Of souls, and to your scatter'd bodies go,
		All whom the flood did, and fire shall o'er throw,
		All from war, dearth, age, agues, tyrannies,
		Despair, law, chance, hath slain, and you whose eyes,
		Shall behold God, and never taste death's woe.
		(Holy Sonnets iv) "Oxford Book of Christian Verse" p. 86

When you get to know this great parish, get the feel of the spirit
of this splendid and odd church building (especially its disproportionate
height), and sense the authentic piety of the congregation over the
generations since 1844, you begin to understand the spirituality of our
"Advent" dedication.  This is a meeting place for expectant souls to
greet the God who has revealed Himself and come to His people in Jesus
Christ, who sends His Holy Spirit, and who calls us to be ready for the
Final Advent of His glorious Day.  Several years ago, I found myself
praying and writing down this prayer when I was interceding for the
Parish in private:

"Lo I come quickly," said the Lord.  "Amen, so be it Lord.  Come,
visit this house where we call upon thee.  And make Thine Advent here.
Even so, come Lord Jesus ... Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, I call
upon them to make Their Abode here with us, and to make Their Advent here
in this house.  May we heed God's Word and commandments and walk by His
Spirit.  Revive us again!  May the Holy Spirit prosper the intentions of
this holy place.  Even so, Amen.  Come, Lord Jesus."

The spiritual virtue and gift which is appropriate to a congregation,
and to an individual Christian, in the light of the mystery of the
Advent, is watchfulness.  Vigilance.  Alertness, together with what
the old writers called "sobriety."  Jesus speaks of it constantly in
the parables of the Coming of the Son of Man:  Watch, therefore!

It took the early Christians some time to come to terms with a
delay in Christ's coming.  They were tempted, as many have been since, to
set dates.  (We just passed one, October 28, 1992!)  But Christ said not
to do that.  The apostles said the same.  What they do say is that we do
not know the hour of Christ's coming any more than we know the hour of
our own death.

When you think of it, the hour of our own death and the hour of
Christ's coming are spiritually equivalent.  They are certain as
deadlines but unknown as dates.  As a deadline they are appointments with
our Creator, Saviour and Judge.  This is not bad news; it is good news;
in fact, it is one of the best parts of the Gospel.  For it means that
the appointment is with none other than the Jesus we meet by faith in the
pages of the gospels, in the preaching of the apostles and evangelists,
and in the witness of the saints.

So let us celebrate our great day, this beautiful Advent season,
and our parish's great feast of title.  Let us enjoy this lovely liturgy,
sing our heads off to the great Advent hymns, and above all, live as
children of the day -- watchful, joyful, keen, zealous and alert, knowing
that, with the passage of each day, we get closer and closer to our
wonderful appointment with the fullness of salvation.

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen

-----

First Sunday of Advent Gospel, Year A:  Matthew 24:37-44

Traditional Collect (Opening Prayer) for the First Sunday of Advent:

Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness,
and put upon us the armor of light, now in the time of this mortal life
in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in
the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge
both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through
him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, now
and for ever.  Amen.

James 1:27:  Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is
this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction,
[and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

    
    
    		Most of whats been entered here seems to have its basis in
    the Bible...while its a very *IMPORTANT* book and guide, I have to
    believe that its whats in your heart that counts.  After all God reads
    your heart and not your knowledge of the Bible.  Sure it says to "study
    to show yourself approved", but *REAL* salvation comes from the heart
    and not the mind.
    
    Dave

re .29

Be careful with that verse -- place it in the context of the rest of what
appears around it -- about faith and works being empty without each other,
-- and about really believing in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.

THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY IS JESUS.
  
From a Christmas card I received today:

  Where would we be without JESUS?

  He was born of a woman
    so that we could be born of God....
  
  He humbled Himself
    so that we could be lifted up...
  
  He became a servant
    so that we could be made heirs...
  
  He suffered rejection
    so that we could become His friends...
  
  He denied himself
    so that we could freely receive all things...
  
  He gave Himself
    so that He could bless us in every way!
  
  May Your Christmas And The New Year Know Every Blessing Of His Love

    Alfred,
    
    *I believe the physical resurrection to be very very important. Without
    *it there is not the same proof of the conquest of death. To deny it is to
    *make 
    
    *THE REST OF WHAT JESUS SAID AND DID IRRELAVENT IN TERMS OF SALVATION.
    
    
    So without the physical resurrection Christianity is irrelavent??
    
    
    Interesting.
    
    
    Patricia
    

>    *THE REST OF WHAT JESUS SAID AND DID IRRELAVENT IN TERMS OF SALVATION.
>    
>    
>    So without the physical resurrection Christianity is irrelavent??

	Not what I said at all. Why did you ignore the last four words of
	the sentence you quoted? There is much that Jesus said and did that
	is relevent and good without the physical resurection. However, that
	would just be the story of the life of a good man. Not salvation for
	the world.

			Alfred

    I guess I am intrigued by the answers here.
    
    - As I interpret the resonses, for the conservatives here the physical
      resurrection is the heart of the faith.  Although the life of Jesus
      offers much to instruct us, without the proof of his divinity as
      expressed in the resurrection we do not have Christianity. 
    
    - Richard states that Christianity is a mystical encounter with the
      living Christ.
    
    -Mikes offers a definition of Liberal Christianity that while he
    understands is not compelling enough for him to call himself a
    Christian.  That definition is a mystic encounter with a living God
    given form and meaning through biblical stories and myths.
    
    - George states that Christianity is loving one's neighbor and acting
      justly toward all.
    
    - Bob's definition is taking care of the poor and the oppressed and
    keeping oneself "uspoiled from the earth"
    
    - Daves definition recognizes the importance of the bible but
    identifies the state of the heart to be central.
    
    
    Forgive me if I misinterpreted anything here. I am trying hard to
    understand all this.  I can relate to all the definitions here other
    than the first group that requires an acceptance of a physical
    resurection.
    
    love and peace
    
    Patricia

    Alfred,
    
        I did not mean to misquote you.  I totally agree that there is much that
        Jesus said and did that is relevent and good without the physical
        resurection.  Many Unitarian Universalist Christians would define
        Jesus' life as the essence of Christianity.  I know you do not.
    
        I understand your statement to mean that salvation thru Jesus'
    death
        and physical resurection is the essence of Christianity.
    
    
        Patricia

Pat .34,

	I would like to add that while it seems there is great variety in
the responses in this string, I for one do not find error in any one of them.

	The essence of anything is the irreducible core, that which remains
when all embellishments are stripped away.  We simply may not all agree on what
is and what is not to be considered an embellishment.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 568.8 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> I believe the physical resurrection to be very very important. Without it there
> is not the same proof of the conquest of death. To deny it is to make the rest
> of what Jesus said and did irrelavent in terms of salvation.
  
        Alfred,

        I have a problem with the above because it implies the
        importance of having hard physical "proof" is close to the
        essence of Christianity.

        Perhaps the physical resurrection is the proof of Jesus'
        divinity and conquest of death, but where is the proof of
        that proof?  Hard physical evidence needs a solid chain from
        where we are to what is to be proved, it is not enough to say
        "A is true, therefore B is true" if we have little solid
        proof for A being true.

        Yes, I believe in the resurrection.  But I don't believe that
        the writings of non-eye-witnesses decades after the fact
        proves, in the physical sense, that Christ rose.

        I believe that God could have provided such proof if it were
        necessary, but it isn't.

        Bob

The importance of the Resurrection is not that it "proves" that Jesus is
divine.  After all, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and Elijah ascended
into heaven.

The importance of the Incarnation and Resurrection is that God took upon
himself human nature, lived among us, and took our human nature into heaven.

/john

If Christ was not physically raised from the dead, your
faith in Jesus is worthless and vain.

Why?

Well, for one reason, this is what God wrote through the
prophet Paul.  Look at 1 Cor 15:12-19 (and following):

  But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the
  dead, how can some of your say that there is no resurrection
  of the dead?  If there is no resurrection of the dead, then
  not even Christ has been raised.  And if Christ has been raised,
  our preaching is useless and so if your faith.  More than that,
  we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have
  testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.  But
  he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.  For
  if the dead are not raised, your faith is *futile*; you are *still*
  in your *sins*.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ
  are lost.  If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are
  to be pitied more than all men.  [emphasis mine]

Clear.  Concise.  Explicit.  The bodily resurrection of Christ
was essential.  Why?  Because

  1)  God prophesied it (all prophecies that God gives must come to
      pass or God is not who He claims)
  2)  This is the sign that *we too* will be raised from the dead.
      If Christ is not raised from the dead (indicating that He
      is not acceptable to God), then we who have sinned will not be
      raised from the dead either and will not have eternal life.
      This raising from the dead shows that Christ' sacrifice for
      us is acceptable to God as payment for your sins and mine.

This is why it is essential.  This one act is intricately tied into
Christ's death on the cross.  The death is meaningless if Christ is
then not raised from the dead.  The other half of the death is the
raising.  Without both halves, there is no release from sin.

Does this make it clearer?

Collis

        Yesterday on the evening network TV news I saw a story of a
        principal of a New York City school in a rough neighborhood
        who was recently killed in the crossfire of a drug battle
        while he was visiting a student in need (sorry I don't
        remember the details!).

        They interviewed member after member of the community who
        remembers the many small and heroic kindnesses he did to his
        students and their families.

        I have no doubt of what is the essence of Christianity.  This
        is what James was writing about.  This is what Jesus lived.

        May this love fill you this Christmas and may you pour it out
        all of your lives!

        Bob

>        I have no doubt of what is the essence of Christianity.  This
>        is what James was writing about.  This is what Jesus lived.

	Unless you are saying that noone but a Christian would live like
	this man did I don't see how you can say this is the essence of
	Christianity.

			Alfred

While that may be the essence of what a Christian is called to do or how a
Christian is to live his life, the essence of Christianity is not in good
works but in faith in Jesus Christ and His Birth, Death, Resurrection, and
Ascension.

From that faith all sorts of good works will flow.

/john

Note 568.43

>From that faith all sorts of good works will flow.

This is what I've been taught, but in reality I find this situation to be
the exception rather than the rule.

Peace,
Richard

>>From that faith all sorts of good works will flow.
>
>This is what I've been taught, but in reality I find this situation to be
>the exception rather than the rule.

	If the works don't follow the faith then is the faith really there?
	

			Alfred

Re:  568.45

  >If the works don't follow the faith then is the faith really there?
	
No.

C. James

    
    Patricia,
    
    What is the essence of Christianity?
    
    It is the fact that because of original sin mankind was condemned to
    eternal separation from God.  But God loved us and wanted to provide
    us a way back to him.  Jesus is that way.  The only way.  He was
    fully God born as a man.  He lived a sinless life, and was presented
    as the final unblemished firstborn sacrifice for the sin's of all
    mankind (including Buddha or any other man exalted as the "Ultimate.")
    He went to hell for us and broke the grasp of death and waits in
    heaven for those who believe in Him.
    
    That's the bare essence.  What's our responsibility?  To believe it
    and live your life changed because of it.  Having heard this, your
    responsibility is the same.  If you choose to instead follow a Great
    Spirit, it might comfort you now, but what will happen to you when
    you die?  Therein lies the difference.  A Christian will reign in
    Glory with Jesus, and a non-Christian will be tormented in hell with
    the Deceiver who has from the beginning of your life planned on
    destroying you and being your Master.  Satan desires to be like God,
    therefore he must have people to lord his power over.  And he does
    have power, but not Ultimate power.  When I die, he will never torment
    me again!  I will live in eternal peace.
    
    Jill

O come, O come, Emmanuel,               O come, thou Wisdom from on high,
And ransom captive Israel,		Who orderest all things mightily;
That mourns in lonely exile here,	To us the path of knowledge show,
Until the Son of God appear.		And teach us in her ways to go.

			Rejoice!  Rejoice!
			Emmanuel shall come to thee,
			O Israel.

O come, O come, thou Lord of might,	O come, thou Branch of Jesse's tree,
Who to thy tribes on Sinai's height	Free them from Satan's tyranny
In ancient times didst give the law,	That trust thy mighty power to save,
In cloud, and majesty, and awe.		And give them victory o'er the grave.

			Rejoice!  Rejoice!
			Emmanuel shall come to thee,
			O Israel.

O come, thou Key of David, come,	O come, thou Dayspring from on high,
And open wide our heavenly home;	And cheer us by thy drawing nigh;
Make safe the way that leads on high,	Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And close the path to misery.		And death's dark shadow put to flight.

			Rejoice!  Rejoice!
			Emmanuel shall come to thee,
			O Israel.

O come, Desire of nations, bind		O come, O come, Emmanuel,
In one the hearts of all mankind;	And ransom captive Israel,
Bid thou our sad divisions cease,	That mourns in lonely exile here
And be thyself our King of Peace.	Until the Son of God appear.

			Rejoice!  Rejoice!
			Emmanuel shall come to thee,
			O Israel.

    So back to the essence of Christianity.
    
    
    1.  Is there something uniques and special about Christianity that
    makes it different than other revelations or religions.
    
         - Belief in the Bible as the source of that revelation of course
            would make it different.
    
    	-  Belief in a mystical encounter with God, is a part of many
           Theistic religions.
    
    	-  Belief in Moral living and serving others is a universal
           religious ideal.
    
    	-  A spitual Respect for the myths and stories as outlined in the
           bible.  These have become part of secular Western Culture. 
    	
    2.  Does this uniqueness and specialness about Christianity require a 
        attitude of superiority to non-Christians religions?
    
    
    
    3.  How should Christians then participate in interfaith dialogue?
    
    
    

>    So back to the essence of Christianity.
>    
>    
>    1.  Is there something uniques and special about Christianity that
>    makes it different than other revelations or religions.

The one man who was God made Christianity different than any other religion.
    
     2.  Does this uniqueness and specialness about Christianity require a
        attitude of superiority to non-Christians religions?

God (Jesus) taught us that noone comes to the Father except by Him.  He also
told us to go into all the world and teach everyone what he taught.  Your
use of the word "superiority" is as loaded with negative meanings as your
use of the word "myth".
    
    3.  How should Christians then participate in interfaith dialogue?

It's very difficult with non-Christians, since there is nothing, absolutely
nothing, about Jesus which we may bargain away.

Interfaith dialogue with non-Christians will probably always be restricted
to working toward common goals in the secular world.

/john

	1 and 2 have been answered by me more then a little in this topic.
	3 appears to be the basis for a different topic.

			Alfred

    
    I don't believe the issue is "superiority" rather truth.  
    
    For example, Jesus is God, Buddha is not.  Jesus is God, Shiva is not.
    Jesus is God, Mohammed is not.  And so on.  Christianity is superior in
    that it is the truth while non-Christian religions hold its adherents
    in bondage to a lie, to fallacy, to error, to damnation.
    
    Since Christianity worships the only God that there is, all others are
    much worse than inferior.  Oh they contain shreds of truth but not THE
    TRUTH.  We're young yet, most of us.  Maybe we have to get older to
    fully appreciate eternal life.  Death is not so close (we think).
    
    jeff

Re:  568.49

  >1.  Is there something uniques and special about Christianity that
  >    makes it different than other revelations or religions.

Jesus.
    
  >2.  Does this uniqueness and specialness about Christianity require a 
  >    attitude of superiority to non-Christians religions?

Should one in the possession of truth feel superior to those who do
not have the truth?  I think not.  Blessed, yes.  Superior, no.
    
  >3.  How should Christians then participate in interfaith dialogue?

I'm all for talking to those of other beliefs (else I wouldn't be
here since clearly many here do not accept the prophet's claim of
salvation through Jesus' death on a cross).  As God's truth is
revealed, some will come to accept Jesus Christ as their personal
Lord and Savior and others will reject Him.

In non-salvation areas, there are often goals that Christians and
non-Christians can agree upon and work together on.  We do that at
Digital, for example, where Christians work side-by-side with 
non-Christians.  Promoting love and tolerance for those who reject Jesus
is a good goal as well, in my opinion.  We are to love those who
reject us.  Getting to know non-Christians better in whatever way can
be beneficial.  This is also the best way for them to recognize the
difference in us - for the Spirit of Christ reside in us.

Collis

    Patricia,
    
    >2.  Does this uniqueness and specialness about Christianity require a 
    >    attitude of superiority to non-Christians religions?
    
    I would say of course not.  Uniqueness doesn't necessarily imply
    superiority.  The attitude of superiority that we often find in
    Christianity is one of the problems with question 3, "How should
    Christians then participate in interfaith dialogue?"  As long as a
    faith believes that there is nothing of value and nothing that can be
    learned from other faiths, then a dialogue is probably impossible.

    I do think that an interfaith dialogue is possible if you believe that
    your faith represents the best representation of the final truth, but
    such a dialogue must still be respectful.  Since Vatican II, for
    example, the Roman Catholic Church has generally been somewhat more
    respectful of other faiths than conservative Protestant denominations. 
    Sincere and devout Moslems, for example, were specifically mentioned by
    Vatican II as being legitimate followers of God, even if they aren't
    considered to follow the truth that the Church claims to inherit;
    Vatican II says that Moslems are not necessarily denied salvation, for
    example.  This is the "anonymous Christian" approach to interfaith
    dialogue; it accepts that other religions are not illegitimate, but it
    does believe that its own understanding is truer for all people.  Hans
    K�ng has written some books with people of other faiths in which some
    interesting dialogue takes place.  I don't think that any dialogue from
    this perspective is possible unless you at least start from a position
    that there is something of value and something to be learned from other
    faiths, even if you do believe that your own faith is closest to the
    ultimate truth.  It is interesting to see how K�ng in his books tries
    to show how each faith can learn from one another.

    Another approach, which is more the way I view it, is expressed by the
    theologian John Hick.  I would recommend him strongly if you are
    interested in the question of interfaith dialogue--his book "God Has
    Many Names", for example.  That view looks at each of the various major
    religions as having some approach to the Ultimate, but doesn't claim
    that any one approach is superior to any other.

    -- Mike

>I don't lend much creedance ...

'Zat sumpin' certain native Americans do?

Note 568.50

>Interfaith dialogue with non-Christians will probably always be restricted
>to working toward common goals in the secular world.

At the official (church as authority) level, this is probably true.  But
personally, I don't lend much credence to the official level.

Peace,
Richard

    568.55 re-entered, spelling error corrected.
    
    Richard

Dear Friends in Christ,

It is always difficult to wrap our minds around the mystery of
God our Father taking on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ.
The whole universe changed when Jesus Christ was born.  We know
that God Almighty broke into the world and became fully human so
that we might become reunited to Him.  It is a great mystery,
though, and fills us with awe and wonder.  The Incarnation is the
greatest event in the history of the universe.

The odd thing is that after Jesus was born and Mary placed Him
gently in the manger, the world looked exactly the same.  If we
could have been there we would not have noticed any difference
between Jesus' birth and any other birth at that time.  We might
not have been privileged like the shepherds to hear the angel
direct us to the manger or to hear the multitude singing, "Glory
to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he
is pleased!"  The world looked the same, but the heavenly realm 
was not.  The heavenly realm was rejoicing, praising Him and was
opened to each and every one of us.

That is the good news at Christmas.  We now have the path for
our salvation in the world.  The path is Jesus Christ.  He will
lead us, if we follow His path, through the sin-sick world to new
life in heaven where He reigns with the Father and the Holy Ghost
world without end.

May you be given the grace of new hope and strength this Christmas
season to follow Him along His path.

With many Christmas blessings,

The Reverend Richard S. Bradford, SSC
Rector, The Parish of All Saints - Ashmont

    In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the
    Word was God.  ...  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

re Note 568.50 by COVERT::COVERT:

>     3.  How should Christians then participate in interfaith dialogue?
> 
> It's very difficult with non-Christians, since there is nothing, absolutely
> nothing, about Jesus which we may bargain away.
  
        I certainly wouldn't expect a Christian to "bargain away"
        anything about Jesus which that person believes to be true
        any more than I'd expect a Muslim to "bargain away" anything
        about Allah.

        That imposes little restriction on interfaith dialogue,
        however.

        Bob

From:	CRL::"[email protected]" "patrick john nugent jr" 28-DEC-1992 18:17:56.67
To:	Multiple recipients of list QUAKER-L <QUAKER-L%[email protected]>
CC:	
Subj:	Advent?

Friends,

Following is a sermon I delivered last year.  It has just been
published by the British Unitarian journal Faith and Freedom, Vol.
45 (1992), 87-90.  Since it is my first time "in print," my vanity
is swelling and I have decided to make bold to share it here.  I
hope folks find it interesting.

I should make one note: the sermon was delivered to a group of
Unitarian Universalists, whose code word for themselves is
"religious liberals."  In theory, this means anyone who struggles
for theological liberty and liberal values in religion, but often
I find UU's assume it applies mostly to themselves.  I like to
tease the UU's I work with and say (it's true, by the way) that I
am a unitarian and a universalist, but not a Unitarian
Universalist.  I use the term "religious liberals" or "liberals" or
similar words to establish the kinship I feel with these folks, to
establish some common ground upon which (sneaky me) I can talk a
little Christianity.                Advent: The Challenge for Liberals
                       Sermon Delivered at
                           Hull Chapel
                     First Unitarian Church
                             Chicago

                    Meadville/Lombard Vespers
                        13 December 1991

                        Patrick J. Nugent
                 57th Street Meeting of Friends
                      Chicago, Ilinois, USA

The following was delivered as a sermon to a group of Unitarian
Universalist seminarians at Meadville/Lombard Theological School.
The readings upon which the sermon is based are Isaiah 2:1~5;
Isaiah 11:1~10; and Matthew 24:39-44.  The occasion was the
community's last meeting for worship before the Christmas Holiday.

     These four weeks before Christmas are celebrated by the
liturgical churches as the season of Advent.  I would like to
explore with you tonight what Advent might mean for liberals.
     Advent is an odd season to be talking about in the context of
this community.  Usually Advent is understood as a preparation for
Christmas; yet I suspect that in this community there is more than
a little ambivalence about Christ, so spending four weeks preparing
for the anniversary of his birth might well be a doubtful project.
But I speak to you not just as a Christian, but also as a religious
liberal.  And my liberalism tells me that the best religious myths
in any culture probably have some meaning that we can all tap into.
This holds true for Advent, too.
     In the liturgical churches which celebrate Advent with a
little more religious gusto than Unitarian Universalists might,
there has been a shift in focus in the last twenty or so years.
They have reconsidered and revised their understanding of just what
Advent prepares for.  The theme of preparing for Christ~s birth
remains.  But, they ask, what does it mean to prepare for the birth
of someone who has already been born?  The purpose of Advent, the
consensus seems to be, is to prepare for the coming reign of God,
the reign of peace, justice, harmony, and goodness, a new heaven
and a new earth, that Christians expect, whether literally or
metaphorically.
     Advent then takes on a whole new meaning: it becomes a bold
expression of a profound faith that the world can indeed be
transformed: that the grief, the sorrow, the  oppression, the
exploitation of each other and of our earth that so characterize
our world are not the final reality.  Advent proclaims that we will
not be conquered by the dark forces of our world.  It holds out the
hope that the presence of the divine, which is both within us and
beyond us, gives us the resources for imagining and creating a new
world within the shell of the old.
     Tonight's readings from Isaiah, which come from the common
lectionary for the first and second Sundays of Advent, bear this
out.  They are not at all about Christmas, and the reading about
the ~shoot of Jesse~ is not at all about Jesus, when understood in
context.  Both readings are about the coming of a new order in
creation, both between human beings and within the created world.
And both stress the relief of oppression~the image of God judging
the cause of the poor evokes the practice of jurisprudence in
ancient Israel, where a person with a complaint approached a more
powerful person asking assistance in obtaining justice.  The word
~judge~ in these readings carries the connotation of a person who
hears one~s cause with sympathy and assists one in obtaining
justice.  A ~judge~ is a sympathetic advocate, not an arbiter of
guilt and punishment.
     A very familiar metaphor in these readings from Isaiah is
this: ~A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his
roots a bud shall blossom.~  Usually this is taken to refer to
Christ, but of course Isaiah knew nothing of Jesus of Nazareth.
The context of the reading is this: Judah and Israel, the Southern
and Northern Kingdoms, partly because of their greed, their
injustice, and their political intrigues, are faced with sure
destruction at the hand of the Assyrians.  Isaiah is telling the
king that, essentially, it~s all over.  Corrupt government which
rested upon the oppression of the poor, cooperation with ~evil
empires,~ and the accumulation of personal wealth for the king has
caused Judah to crumble from within.  In the passage which precedes
this reading, Isaiah has just told the king that God (through the
good offices of the Assyrians) will:

     Lop the boughs with terrifying power;
     The great height will be hewn down,
     And the lofty will be brought low;
     God will cut down the thickets of the forest with an ax,
     And Lebanon with its majestic trees will fall.
                                             (Is. 10:33~34)

Isaiah~s point is this: the nation has brought evil upon itself by
virtue of its own conduct.  Its greed, its exploitation, its
intrigue, its destructiveness towards its own people and its
neighbors cannot help but bring collapse and ruin.  But, says
Isaiah, even out of such self-imposed destruction, good may grow.
The wisdom which comes from suffering can bring renewal.  And the
hope for just, sensitive, attentive leadership springs eternal.
     I find this message compelling in a society which is choking
on its own waste, yet endeavoring to produce and consume ever more.
I find it frightening but all too real for a society which lives
off the labor and the poverty of much of the rest of the world.  I
find it prophetic for a society which values intrigue and
domination over justice and fair treatment for its own people and
its neighbors.  I, and I think we, need to hear both the warning
that Isaiah gives and the message of hope, renewal, and
transformation that is inherent in his message.  This hope, this
confidence in the possibility of a new world built in the ashes of
the old, is central to the meaning of Advent.  I think, too, that
it~s central to a liberal religious understanding of human life.
     But there is another element to Advent~one that is, perhaps,
a little more of a challenge to liberal religious sensibilities,
though I think it~s one that we can hear and appropriate
constructively.

     I grew up in a part of the country where just about the most
liberal group was the Southern Baptists, and then there were
Primitive Baptists and Maranatha Pentacostalists and so on; so I
regularly heard about the ~rapture~ an event which might overtake
us at any moment.  I can remember hoping that the rapture would
occur soon and that my best friend's mother would be taken and I
would be left.  Our third reading this evening is the classic text
which fundamentalists cite when going into rapture about the
rapture, and so people such as ourselves tend to be at best
skeptical.  But there's more to the reading than meets the eye.
     ~One will be taken, and the other left.~  ~The reign of God
comes like a thief in the night.~  Paul Tillich was fond of the
concept of kairos~that there comes in time a pregnant moment, full
of significance, a right time, the moment which is ripe for action,
the moment which must not be missed.
     The coming of such a moment, the pregnant time, is a breaking
forth of the divine in human experience.  This is what the reading
points to: when the divine breaks into human experience and creates
new possibilities for action, for the renewal of the world, that
breaking-in, that rupture, is very subtle.  Seeing it, preparing
for it, recognizing it, and seizing it for ourselves requires
spiritual discipline.  God is much more likely to come like a thief
in the night than like lightning on the road to Damascus.  Being
left behind is easy.  I think of the German theologians of the
thirties, people like Bonhoeffer and Niemoeller and Tillich, who
begged and pleaded with the pastors and the churches to recognize
that the moment for decisive witness to Christian faith had come.
Some were taken, some were left.
     The central belief of my own tradition, Quakerism, is relevant
to this.  Friends talk about the Inner Light~the notion that the
presence of the divine abides in each individual, and that each
person has direct access to the Spirit through the human heart,
without the mediation of clergy or liturgy or sacrament or
whatever.  But, paradoxically, the Inner Light, which can disclose
to us how we are called to act in establishing the ~peaceable
kingdom~ that Isaiah talked about, is a subtle thing~the ~still,
small voice~ that Elijah experienced.  Whatever access we have to
the presence of the divine is opened to us gradually, with much
silence, much attentiveness, much emptying ourselves of our
distractions and prejudices and inner noise.  Being aware of the
divine presence and coming to know the pregnant moment require
exquisite attentiveness.  In order to be a light in the world,
religious people need to ~mind the Light~ within, and learn how to
discern the subtle movements of divinity in ourselves and in human
society.
     Another facet of this pregnant moment, I think, has to do with
the character of the divine-human encounter as unexpected.  Here
the ~rapturists~ may be closer to the truth than we might expect.
There~s an element to our interaction with the divine, however we
may conceive of it, that is not in our control.  Liberals are
especially prone to believe that the work of the divine in the
world is totally dependent upon our work.  I don't entirely believe
that.  The reading from Matthew introduces us to the experience of
being seized by, or grasped by, the divine.  To some extent, the
divine is already present in our experience, and it~s up to us to
become more attuned to it.  But the divine, the numinous, also
enters our experience in ways we cannot predict or control or
anticipate.  C. S. Lewis wrote a book called Surprised by Joy. I
could probably also write one called ~surprised by terror.~  The
point is that all of our attempts to be attuned to the Light given
us cannot ever control our experience of the divine.  We may be
aware of the pregnant moment or we may miss it.  But we do not
provide it and we cannot create it.  To some extent, the pregnant
moment creates us, brings us into being, or perhaps into greater
being.
     Advent is a celebration of all these experiences rolled up
into one.  It celebrates and anticipates the new creation, the
renewal of human life and of our planet~a new heaven and a new
earth.  It trains us to await the new creation and the significant,
pregnant moments through which it is brought into being.  It
teaches us to be attuned to the creative presence of the divine in
our own persons, in human society, and in the earth.  It warns of
the consequences of missing the moment, of resisting the new
creation, of being so distracted from the divine Light that we
escape its grasp.  It lifts up for us the subtlety of God~s
movements.
     And it also prepares for Christmas, but a Christmas somewhat
different from the one celebrated in the temples of Marshall Field
or Macy's.  The clues that Christmas gives us about divinity have
much to do with the themes I have tried to draw out this evening.
Christmas provides us with a symbol of the divine dwelling in human
flesh: a baby, a refugee in an occupied territory, a homeless
family, an appearance by the divine recognized only by the most
marginal in society~shepherds~and by those whose lives have been
spent watching and waiting for the decisive moment~the wise, who
can see amid all the thousands and millions of competing,
distracting stars the one that really matters.
     Mary's own hymn at the birth of her child, as portrayed by the
writer of Luke~s gospel, draws together Isaiah~s hopes for a
renewed creation and a renewed human life, when oppression shall be
no more, where cruelty and exploitation are transcended quite
graphically, where a future of peace and of justice is set before
us and our children:

     My soul magnifies the Lord,
     And my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
     For God has regarded a handmaiden in her low estate;
     For behold, all generations shall call me blessed.
     For God who is mighty has done great things for me;
     Holy is God's name.
     God's mercy is on them that fear him from generation to
generation.
             God has showed strength of hand and has scattered the
proud in the imagination of their hearts.
             God has put down the mighty from their thrones, and
has exalted those of low degree.
             God has filled the hungry with good things, and the
rich have been sent empty away.
     God has helped Israel, his servant, in remembrance of his
mercy,
     As he spoke to our ancestors, to Abraham and his children for
ever.

                                                  ~Luke 1:46~55


Patrick Nugent
Quaker House
Chicago
[email protected]

    Mike,
    
    That was an excellent sermon.  Thank you for entering it.
    
    
    Patricia

>In the liturgical churches which celebrate Advent with a
>little more religious gusto than Unitarian Universalists might,
>there has been a shift in focus in the last twenty or so years.
>They have reconsidered and revised their understanding of just what
>Advent prepares for.

Looking at the liturgical readings that have been used for centuries I
see that the focus has always been on the second coming.

No change at all.

/john

    In reply 568.41 Patrick Daly is mentioned although not by name.  He was
    a devout Roman Catholic and he was murdered on December 17 in Brooklyn
    looking for a student who didn't go to school that day.

    The essence of Christianity is not that we see the spirit of Christ
    reflected in how he conducted his life, for that is an easy task.

    It is in that he saw everyone he encountered as a child of God even if
    he or she was abused, violent, or hateful.

    Patrick,
    
    Welcome back.
    
    I 100% agree with 568.66
    
    
    Patricia

A SERMON PREACHED BY THE REV'D ANDREW C. MEAD AT THE CHURCH OF THE ADVENT
       THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST  +  DECEMBER 25, 1992

Fear not; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall
be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a
Saviour which is Christ the Lord.			St. Luke 2:1-14

And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.
							St. John 1:1-14

In the Name of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

       In the Name of our gracious God and Saviour, I welcome you to this
celebration of His Birthday and to this church of His, the Parish of the
Advent.

       Tonight we read not one but two gospel accounts of the birth of
Jesus Christ.  The first, St. Luke's, you have just heard and is the most
familiar.  Even the Boston newspapers print it from time to time at
Christmas.  This is the historical account: the Blessed Virgin's
extraordinary pregnancy, the census by Caesar, the birth in a stable, the
shepherds and angels at the manger.  This is wonderful raw material for
nearly 2000 years of Christmas lore, of carols and customs, and rightly
so.

       The second gospel, or "Last Gospel" you will hear at the end of
tonight's Mass, the beginning of the gospel of St. John.  This, too, is
familiar, most especially to those who know that here is the explanation
of the Christmas story at its heart for here is the very core of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The explanation is, in one phrase, simply this:
That tiny baby, whose birth we celebrate, is not only a flesh and blood
human being.  He is God.  Let me say it again:  The Baby is Almighty God.

       Why did God do this?  Just because he loves us.  He knows we
cannot do without Him.  So He gave Himself to us completely, just for the
love of it.  And that's all there is to it.

       Every Tuesday night, the Parish of the Advent hosts a Community
Supper.  Anyone may come and eat who wishes.  Most of our guests are very
poor.  Many have severe problems.  We serve about 120 people on most
Tuesdays.  Some are Christians, some are not; some love the Church, some
do not.  But they are all needy, as you and I are needy, although we may
be needy in different ways.

       Last Tuesday was our Christmas Supper.  We had lasagna and a
special apple pie dessert, and we gave away sweaters to each person as he
or she left.  It was supposed to be a surprise, but word gets around
after eight years of sweaters.  I don't know if that was the reason, but
we were mobbed with 170 people, 50 over capacity.  Many had to wait for a
half an hour in the line at the door to eat.  Emotions, of course, run
high at Christmas for everyone; Christmas can be tough on people -
there's the winter solstice, it's God's official birthday into the world,
it's not an easy time!  We had two ambulance calls, there was a lot of
excitement, but we got through the dinner hour very well - a wonderful
kitchen crew and serving volunteers, a good-spirited cop - even an extra
padre - it was a wild, crazy, wonderful evening.  And everyone got a
sweater.

       One of our guests greeted me as he left (as many do).  He made a
little speech in which he said: "I've been coming to this dinner for
quite a while.  It's a wonderful thing," he said, gesturing to the
general scene with a big smile.  "It's quite unique," he continued, "and
I can't imagine why or how you keep it up."

       I laughed and said thanks and good night.  And he got me thinking.
In fact, he gave me my Christmas sermon.  We keep it up because of the
Lord Jesus.  The reason is the same reason He came in the first place,
the reason He went all the way to His cross.  We do it because He first
loved us, for the sheer love of it.  That's why we're here now.  That's
why there is a church at all:  For God so loved the world that He gave His
only Son.

       Have a joyous Christmas.

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

    RE: .68
    
    
    		Rev. Mead has my respect for initiating Christ's love 
    in a physical way.  What a wonderful way to honor and worship Christ.
    
    
    Dave