Installation Sermon for Rev. Susan Valiquette

by Rev. Sue Joiner, Senior Minister, First Congregational United Church of Christ, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Installation Sermon for Susan Valiquette 

November 7, 2021 

John 12:1-8 and John 11:44 

12 Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. 2 There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. 3 Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” 6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) 7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” 

We live our lives based on the stories we have been told and even more, the stories we tell ourselves over and over. I heard a story in college that continues to profoundly shape my theology. Wes Seeliger tells this story from his own childhood. It may or may not be a coincidence that the one who changes everything in this story is named Susan. Wes said,  

“Grandmother’s living room was large and dark.  She kept the shades down so her furniture wouldn’t fade.  One day in 1943, when I was five years old, I sat in the middle of her living room floor playing with my toy cars.  I had at least a hundred; fire trucks, buses, tractors, everything – even a hearse. 

‘For me, playing with cars was serious business and there was definitely a “right” way to do it.  The idea was to form a large circle of cars on the living room floor.  And the cars had to be evenly spaced.  Precision was of the essence. I placed my toy box in the middle of the floor.  Then, I took each car out of the box and began forming my circle.  I was very careful.  No two fire trucks could be together.  No two cars the same color could be together.  It was a tedious process, but I was a determined kid. 

When the circle was complete, I sat in the middle and admired my cars and my handiwork.  And since my grandmother never used the living room, my circle remained intact for days.  I returned time and time again to look at my cars and to make minor aesthetic adjustments. 

One morning I was sitting in the middle of my circle.  Peace and contentment bathed my five-year-old soul as I surveyed my almost perfect toy kingdom with everything in its proper order. 

Then came Susan.  Susan was my 3-year-old cousin, and she was a live wire.  Susan took one look at my precious circle of toys and charged.  My precious, tranquil circle was destroyed in an instant.  She kicked and threw my cars all over the room.  She was laughing and squealing – I was crying and screaming.  Grandmother dashed in to see who was being murdered. Grandmother told me later than I cried for two hours, and she had to rock me to sleep that night.  How can you sleep when your world has been destroyed? 

The next morning, I went into the living room to survey the damage.  I was about to begin the painful process of rebuilding when Grandmother told me that Susan was coming over, so I gave up in despair.  So, when my rambunctious little cousin arrived there was nothing to destroy. 

I met Susan at the door to try and avoid additional damage. Susan suggested that we take the cars outside.  What an idea!  I hadn’t thought of that.  But what if they get dirty?  What if one gets lost or broken?  It wasn’t my idea of playing cars, but I gave in.  I decided to risk taking my cars outside.  No use trying to build a circle with Susan around. We played outside all day.  We put real dirt in the dump truck.  We made ramps, forts, and tunnels.  I even let Susan talk me into crashing the cars together.  I had no idea playing cars could be so much fun.’ 

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that day in 1943.  I have listened to hundreds of sermons and Sunday school lessons.  I have read stacks of theology books.  And a seminary degree hangs on my wall. 

But I think Susan taught me all I really need to know about theology – SIN (unfaith) is sitting in the middle of our homemade universe; FAITH – is the courage and freedom to leave the dark, musty, familiar, living room and take what we love most into the great outdoors.” 

Susan, you know the literal truth of this story already. You find energy outside, and you make sure you get out as much as you can. It keeps you grounded, and I experience that when I hear you pray because I feel your connection to God. Is there something you love that you are called to carry into the great outdoors? 

Let’s be honest. The world is not always open to Susans. Susans come along and question how things have been done. Susans may suggest an extravagant alternative and that can be a threat. At the same time, it can be so beautiful. It is 2021 and the world still isn’t sure what to do with women in leadership. What a gift that First Church has been open and welcoming and loving with you. It is important for all of us to embrace your unique ministry here. 

No one knew what to do with Mary. She sat with Jesus instead of working in the kitchen. Here she takes very expensive perfume and pours it on Jesus’ feet. Note she doesn’t just use a drop or two, she empties the jar and then wipes his feet with her hair. Could she be any more embarrassing? Where is her sense of dignity? But Jesus saw her. He saw the ways she ministered from the depth of her being. She wasn’t trying to be someone else. She wasn’t trying to fit in to a mold that didn’t fit. In fact, she is used to criticism. She doesn’t let that stop her from ministering in the way that is authentically her.  

My concern about the stories we tell ourselves is that those stories may be the ones that keep us from being who we are at any given time. Susan, God called you to ministry. Today you are installed at First Church, and you all say a wholehearted yes to each other. My hope is that this covenant you make with one another will allow you to be who are as you serve this congregation. By doing so, you may all be surprised by the joy you find when you take what you love most into the great outdoors. 

I didn’t read the story from John that comes before Mary’s ministry to Jesus, but it is important. Mary and Martha’s brother has died. He has been in the tomb for four days and he smells. Jesus calls Lazarus out of the tomb and then he turns to the people gathered and gives them a simple instruction: “unbind him and let him go.” My friends, that is what we are here to do. My understanding is that you know this, First Church. You have a history of it. My prayer for you as a church is that these will be your guiding words in the days to come. Jesus did not turn to the ordained minister. He did not turn to the lay leader. He turned to the entire gathered community and called them to be the ones who would unbind Lazarus. It is what we do for each other. It is what we do for those who dare to walk through our doors or log on to see if they could possibly be welcome here because they have been told there is no place for them in God’s church. It is what we do for those who have sacrificed everything to step into this country, hoping to find freedom. It is what we do for those in recovery, for those who are housing insecure, for those who are struggling with mental health challenges.  

If we are going to unbind them and let them go, it will take all of us. This is not a job for a few volunteers or committee chairs. It will require the whole community to listen to one another and care for one another. It will mean decisions that are difficult. It will mean loss and sacrifice. It will take us into places that are scary and unknown and sometimes places where it seems there is only death. It is into those very places that Jesus calls us to make room for life.  

We are trying to be the church in difficult times. The pandemic has taken over five million lives. There have been more than 37,000 deaths to gun violence in the United States this year alone. Suicide is among the leading causes of death in our country. Our planet is dying before our own eyes. As we have made decisions over the last twenty months, we are not just talking about what we should do, we are asking “who could die if we do this?” Death is not hypothetical.  

We worship a God who teaches us again and again that death is not the last word. People are dying around us. God is not shielding us from death, but rather calling us to be the ones who will “practice resurrection” to use Wendell Berry’s words.  

God is at work in the world right now. God is breathing life into those places where this is no hope, where there is nothing but death. God is showing us a new way. As Kate Bowler says, “God can make things new with or without us. But God chooses to use us.” Be warned, we are going to be asked to get involved. God will remove the stones from places we believed were only death. Then we are called to step in and begin the process of unbinding. 

Wes Seeliger didn’t experience deep joy until he risked losing his precious cars. Susan taught him that life is to be lived out in the world and that means things will get dirty and broken along the way. But she showed him to live fully. 

Before he became a full-time poet, David Whyte tells about being stressed and feeling like he was in a dead-end. He met with Brother David Stendl-Rast and said, “Speak to me of exhaustion.”  [David Stendl-Rast] put his glass down for a moment and realized that David Whyte was absolutely exhausted.  David Stendl-Rast said, “You know, David, the antidote to exhaustion is not necessarily rest.”  And David Whyte repeated, “The antidote to exhaustion is not necessarily rest.  What is the antidote to exhaustion?”  He said, “The antidote to exhaustion is wholeheartedness.  This is the point where you have to take a full step into your métier (meh·tee·ay), into your future vocation, and wholeheartedly risk yourself in that world.” (https://gratefulness.org/dw-session-1-transcript/).   

In 2017, we took Kadhim Albumohammed into Sanctuary at First Congregational, Albuquerque. We did this with the support of the Southwest Conference, Bill Lyons, Ken Heintzelman, and Brendan Mahoney who flew to Albuquerque to talk with us about the legal implications of this decision. Kadhim was from Iraq. He worked for the U.S. military to teach them language and culture with the promise that they would take care of him. Instead, he received a letter to report for deportation. To be deported was guaranteed torture and death. He had betrayed his country and he would pay for it if he was sent home. In November that year, the Native American youth from the Rehoboth School in Gallup came to sing for worship. Afterward, they asked to hear Kadhim’s story. He spoke with them and then they asked him to stand in the middle of the sanctuary. They formed a circle around him and sang the words, “We are not alone.” When I hear these words, I am reminded that in the most difficult situations, God is with us.  

Susan, First Church friends, today you commit to ministry together and my prayer for all of you is to do so wholeheartedly, to ground yourself in a God who calls us to life and to know this work must be done together. God is with you. May you discover the fullness of God’s love as you practice resurrection in the days to come. 

Wait—what??

by Rev. Deb Worley

“I could ask the darkness to hide me
or the light around me to become night,
but even darkness is not dark for you,
and the night is as bright as the day….”

(Psalm 139:11-12)

Wait—what??

“I could ask the darkness to hide me
or the light around me to become night…”

I don’t know about you, but I tend to want the exact opposite–
generally, I want to get out of the darkness;
I’m eager for the night to become day,
for the darkness to turn to light…

Why was the psalmist wanting the darkness to hide him?
Why, if he was in the light, was he wanting that light to become dark? 

I can’t help but wonder if he was feeling ashamed of something–
ashamed, and wanting to hide away in the dark….

Or perhaps he was feeling depressed–
and wanting to keep others from seeing it….

Maybe he was feeling
unwanted, unworthy,
unlikable, unlovable–
and imagining 
that if he couldn’t see himself,
his feelings of wretchedness
would be similarly invisible….

Those kinds of feelings
can make us want to hide,
can make us afraid
of anyone looking too deeply into us,
can cause us to wish
that any light that happens to be shining on us
would magically turn to darkness,
suddenly turn to night….

Those kinds of feelings can cause us
to not want to be seen,
to feel ashamed to be known,
to feel unworthy of being loved….

Those kinds of feelings, I can imagine,
might lead us to want
to be hidden in the darkness,
to be hidden by the darkness….

“I could ask the darkness to hide me
or the light around me to become night…”

Hmmm…I think I get it….

And yet…
the psalmist realizes
that even in the darkness,
he won’t be hidden from God.
Even if the light turns to night,
God will still see him.

God will still see him,
and seeing him, God will love him. 

God will still see him–and his shame and depression–
and God will love him.

God will still see him–and his feelings of being unworthy and unlovable–
and God will love him.

The psalmist realizes that
no matter the darkness of the night,
no matter the darkness of his soul, 
the brightness of God’s love will shine on him still.
Period.

He need not fear the light,
he need not fear being seen,
he need not long to be hidden by the dark.

He is seen by God, and he is loved.
Period.

So it is for us.

May the peace of God be with us all.
Amen.
Deb

He makes me lie down

by Rev. Deb Worley

“The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.

He makes me lie down in green pastures….”

(Psalm 23:1-2)

“He makes me lie down…”

I have been struck by that phrase for years. In fact, I looked back last night at something I wrote in April 2017 about it, and it felt surprisingly relevant to our current COVID experience….

I’d like to share that reflection here. Here goes:

The 23rd psalm–such a familiar and beloved psalm: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want….”

Unlike many other familiar Biblical passages, it is, perhaps, a passage that remains most familiar to many people in the language of the King James Bible:

“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil,

For thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me….”

Even the rhythm of the words seems to bring comfort, in addition to the assurance that the words themselves convey! It’s a psalm of trust, a song of comfort, a declaration of quiet confidence in the power, the compassion, the benevolence, and the Goodness of God.

There’s one verse in particular, however, that is speaking to me as I read this psalm today. One part of one verse, in fact, that is calling me to deeper reflection:

“He makes me lie down in green pastures….” (Ps. 23:2a, NRSV)

“He makes me lie down in green pastures….”  What’s not to like? Lush, green pastures, with pillowy tufts of grass inviting me to lie down and rest. Lush, green pastures, ready and waiting for me to pause, sink down into them, and be rejuvenated.

Of course, God would want, would invite, me to lie down in such a place if God’s purpose was that my soul might be restored (cf. vs 2b)!

Would my soul be restored by, say, lying down in a barren, parched desert?  I don’t think so….

Would my soul be restored by resting in a crowded, noisy shopping mall?  Not so much….

Would my soul be restored if I tried to unwind in a foreign place where I don’t speak the language or understand the culture?  Not likely.

So God, in God’s infinite wisdom, would understandably invite me to stop, to rest, to lie down in a peaceful place, a comfortable place, a place of obvious restoration. God would invite me to lie down in green pastures….

But wait–that’s not actually what the psalm says–God doesn’t invite me to lie down in green pastures, as it turns out. The psalm says that God makes me lie down in green pastures….

Hmm….Why would I resist resting in a peaceful, comfortable, restorative place? Why would I have to be made to lie down in green pastures??

Today [mind you, this was April 30, 2017!], I find myself considering the idea of being made to lie down, of being forced to rest, of having no choice but to accept a period of inactivity and stillness–all of which seem to imply some sort of resistance, some degree of reluctance, some level of unwillingness on the part of, well, me….

Where might that resistance to “lie down” come from? Does it come from me not wanting to stop doing what I’m doing? Does it come because I’m afraid I won’t know who I am or what my purpose is if I stop doing what I’m doing?

Where might that reluctance to rest come from? Does it come from me being comfortable where I am? Does it come because the place where I’m being made to “lie down” seems somehow uncomfortable? 

Where might that unwillingness to be still come from? Does it come from a feeling that it’s not okay to not be active? Does it come from an impression that it’s a sign of laziness and/or selfishness, or something similarly unacceptable, to not be busy, or productive, or useful, all the time? 

Why would I resist resting in a peaceful, comfortable, restorative place?

Why would I have to be made to lie down in green pastures??

Maybe, from my perspective, the place where God wants me to “lie down,” to be still, doesn’t look like green pastures at all, but more like an empty, parched desert–lonely…uncomfortable…too quiet…devoid of water and life… Or maybe, from where I stand, my assigned place of inactivity appears more like a shopping mall–noisy…crowded…overflowing with too much stimulation…. Or maybe, the place that God knows will be “green pastures” for me feels for all the world like a foreign land–a place totally unknown, with practices I’m not familiar with and a language I don’t understand….

Perhaps it feels like God is forcing stillness and inactivity on me, that God is making me lie down, in a place that does not seem peaceful, that does not feel comfortable, that does not fit any notion I’ve ever had or could even ever imagine as being the least bit restorative to my burdened soul….

Yet here I am, being made to lie down in green pastures, so that my soul might be restored….

“Clearly, God, You don’t know what You are doing, if You think this 

[desert/shopping mall/foreign land…health crisis/job loss/loved one’s death…

whatever it is that forces us, reluctantly, into a period of inactivity and stillness…]

–is a green pasture!”


…or could it be that we don’t know what God is doing??…and that “this” is, in fact, in spite of what it may look and feel like to us, a place of green pastures, meant for the restoration of our souls??….

Amen.

And peace be with us all.
Deb

When there’s nothing good to thank God for

by Rev. Deb Worley

“Give thanks to the Lord because God is good,
because God’s faithful love lasts forever.”

(Psalm 118:1)

In reading this verse I was once again struck by my tendency to “give thanks to the Lord” not because God is good, but because of my perception that God is good to me. If I’m honest, I have to acknowledge that I want to “give thanks to the Lord” not because God’s love lasts forever, but because of my sense that somehow, that love has shined on me.

But what about when bad things happen? What about God feels absent? I confess that my default tendency in those moments is not to “give thanks to the Lord.” How can I thank God when there’s nothing good to thank God for?

And there it is–when it feels like “there’s nothing good to thank God for,” perhaps I’m missing the point of giving thanks. As a person of faith, I’m invited to give thanks to God because God is good, not because God does or doesn’t do good things for me. As a person of faith, I’m invited to give thanks to God because God’s love is bigger and broader and deeper and more eternal than anything else in my life–good or bad. 

As a person of faith, I’m invited to accept the invitation of the psalmist and give thanks to God because of who God is and how God loves. Period. 

And you are, too.

May it be so!
Deb

What does it mean to offer a sacrifice of praise?

by Rev. Deb Worley

“Praise the Lord!
Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament!
Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his surpassing greatness!…
Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord!”
(Psalm 150:1,2,6)

I’ve had the phrase “sacrifice of praise” stuck in my head for the last few days. I’m not sure where I saw it, or how it got there, but it’s been there, rolling around, forcing me to think about it. What does it mean, to offer a sacrifice of praise? Those two words don’t really seem to go together easily.

Doesn’t offering a sacrifice usually imply some sort of hardship? Doesn’t the idea of making a sacrifice generally include the understanding of doing something that’s not comfortable or easy, but in fact, is inconvenient, difficult, or even painful? And isn’t offering praise, on the other hand, the sharing of something good and encouraging and uplifting, the offering of which usually comes easily and willingly, and even naturally?

So why are we invited to “continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise”? (cf. Hebrews 13:15; emphasis mine).

People are struggling right now. And not just “right now,” but for close to a year. A year. For almost twelve months we have been living with the restrictions imposed by COVID-19–which I do not need to elaborate on; we all know them all too well. Of course, people were struggling before that, too; life was not all rainbows and roses pre-coronavirus.

But the COVID-related restrictions have made everyone’s struggles even greater.

People are struggling. People around the world and across the street. Our neighbors and co-workers, our educators and political leaders, our relatives and friends. You who are reading this, and I who am writing this. We are all struggling. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide, nothing to try to deny. I dare say it’s a fact of life in this season through which we are living.

And yet, we, as people of faith, now as always, are invited to praise God….

Suddenly, the idea of offering a sacrifice of praise makes sense. Right now, in the midst of these struggles, there may not be a lot that we want to say to God that is good and encouraging and uplifting. Right now, in the midst of these struggles, offering praise to God may not come easily or willingly or naturally. Right now, in the midst of these struggles, praising God is not necessarily easy or comfortable. Right now, in the midst of these struggles, I dare say that praising God may very well be difficult, or even painful.

And yet, we, as people of faith, now as always, are invited to praise God….

Perhaps it doesn’t come easily. Perhaps it doesn’t feel natural. Perhaps it’s even painful.

But maybe, just maybe, as people of faith, we can dig deep and offer a sacrifice of praise to God–praising God for God’s steadfast love and abiding presence if nothing else–right now, in the midst of these struggles.

Peace be with us all.
Deb

Thank God I Don’t Have a Demon…

by Rev. Deb Worley

“That evening, at sunset, they brought to [Jesus] all who were sick or possessed with demons….And he cured many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons….” (Mark 1:32, 34)

When I read passages like this in the Bible, I’m immediately grateful that I don’t have a demon. There are stories where someone has a demon who throws that person into the fire, or onto the ground; there are stories where someone with a demon is mute and another howls and cuts himself. In all of these stories, Jesus casts out the demons and restores their former “hosts” to wholeness; but still–I read them and feel very grateful that I don’t need that kind of healing from Jesus.

I’m especially thankful that I don’t have a demon that throws me into the fire–because this is where I’ve been spending a LOT of time in recent weeks:

But…as I think about it…I realize that there is something within me that can pull me away from wholeness, and forcefully.

There is no demon within me that pushes me to the ground…but there is, sometimes, something within me that does try to push me down–telling me things like I’m not good enough, I’m not capable enough, I don’t know enough….

Similarly, there is no unclean spirit within me that causes me to be mute…but there is, sometimes, something within me that influences me to be silent when I should speak up, that keeps me from speaking what I know to be true when that truth feels too uncomfortable or painful or risky….

As for cutting myself, there is no evil spirit within me that has led me to do that…but I have, at times, listened to something within me that has allowed me to chose to harm myself in other ways–by not addressing unhealthy relationships, for example, or by not listening to my own voice among all those I listen to for wisdom and guidance. 

I am more comfortable calling the “something within me” that puts me down, my “inner critic” instead of the voice of a demon, but it is similarly destructive. And while I’m more likely to think of those thoughts that try to silence me as coming from a place of fear and insecurity rather than an “unclean spirit,” couldn’t fear and insecurity be considered something similar?? And the variation on self-harm? Well, the voice within me that persuades me to not value myself appropriately could perhaps be considered an “evil spirit.”

Maybe I do have demons that need to be cast out by Jesus–demons within me that cause me to doubt my goodness and my capabilities, to doubt the truth that I know, to doubt my own wisdom and authority.

Maybe I do need Jesus to cast them out, so that there will be more space for a sense of my belovedness, and so that I can more fully trust God’s goodness and truth and wisdom within me.

Maybe I do need “that kind of healing” from Jesus….

Do you?

Heal us, Jesus!

Amen.

“Put a muzzle on it!”

Rev. Talitha Arnold, United Church of Santa Fe

As a pastor, I probably shouldn’t confess this, but I have a hard time with some of the stories the Bible tells about Jesus. His zapping a fig tree for not bearing fruit (when it wasn’t the season for figs) is one. (Mark 11:12-25) His chastising Martha for being busy in the kitchen is another. (Luke 10:38-42) How else was dinner going to get fixed?

These days—eleven months into the pandemic, economic upheaval, and virtual church—the story of Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4:35-41) is at the top of the list. According to Mark’s Gospel, one night Jesus decides he wants to get to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. Peter and the other fishermen-turned-disciples humor him and set sail. Before they reach shore, they get caught in a storm that threatens to swamp the boat and dump all of them into the drink.

But in the midst of the howling wind and crashing waves, Jesus calmly rebukes the storm. “Peace, be still,” he says, according to the King James Version. J.B. Phillips translates Jesus’ words as “hush now” and the Wycliffe Bible as “Wax dumb.” The Message translates Jesus’ command as “settle down,” as if Jesus were talking to an errant child, and not a raging storm that’s about to drown them all.

Given the myriad of storms that swirl around us—from the pandemic to economic upheaval to “alternate facts” to conspiracy plots—I need a Jesus who does more than say “hush now” or “settle down” to the howling winds. Speaking personally, on a day in which my computer was hacked, my dog figured out how to unlatch the back gate to get out, and a backlog of work swamps my desk, I need a Jesus who stands up to the chaos and pushes back at the waves of disruption, be they global or part of daily life.

Believe it or not, that’s the Jesus in this story. In the Gospel’s original Greek, he snarls at the screeching wind and crashing waves: “Put a muzzle on it!” That’s the literal translation of how this story was first told. It’s a far cry from the gentle, long-suffering Jesus of some later translations.

I find Jesus’ snarl to the wind and waves comforting. When the storms of life rage around us and within us, it’s good to remember that Jesus didn’t stay safe on the shore but was in the boat with Peter and the others that night—and is with us as well. When like those fishermen, we’re caught in storms we’re not sure we can weather, I’m glad for the One whose power can silence even the loudest clamor. When we can’t calm our own waves of doubt or quiet the inner howls of despair, I’m thankful for the One who can put a muzzle on it all.

Most of all, I’m thankful for the One whose voice we can still hear through such an ancient story that still offers new life. Perhaps you are, too.a

Blessings,
Talitha

P.S. Nizhoni came back 🙂

Inerrancy and Textualism

by Hailey Lyons

I can’t have been the only one holding their breath during the Supreme Court hearing on November 10 over the Affordable Care Act. California v Texas may decide that SCOTUS’ 2017 striking down of the financial penalties on the individual mandate clause means the individual mandate must go, and/or the entire ACA. While what we’ve heard since the hearing is positive – Roberts and Kavanaugh erring on the side of severability rather than dismissing the ACA entirely – there remains much work to do in order to win over the other conservative Justices. This includes Gorsuch and Barrett, two Justices who claim to be in the mold of Scalia as Textualists.

Part of my nervousness for this hearing is a direct result of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. While other op-eds and professional analysts have written tomes on her experience, judicial philosophy, and religious concerns, I want to keep the focus here on the connection between the Christian doctrine of Inerrancy and the legal doctrine of Textualism. There is a surprising amount of scholarship on the connection between the two, but in light of recent events I feel the need to bring it back into our minds.

Many of us in the UCC come from different denominations with vastly different understandings of the value and methods of interpretation that can be applied to Scripture. As I explored previously, the Methodist doctrine of Prima Scriptura and the Evangelical doctrine of Sola Scriptura are inextricably linked by the power arbiters of Scripture hold. However, the Evangelical doctrine of Inerrancy – or infallibility depending on your denomination – reigns supreme in the Christian Right denominations and many non-denominational churches. Inerrancy cements not just who holds the power to interpret Scripture but also several key, presuppositional points that have become the hallmark of Evangelicalism. This has not always been the case and is a rather recent phenomenon of the past hundred years of American Christianity.

Textualism largely originates with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who argues that the Constitution should be interpreted solely within itself – separated from socio-historical understandings and intentions. Within Textualism, sitting Justices Gorsuch and Barrett occupy vastly different approaches. Gorsuch has shown through his rulings thus far that he sticks rather strictly to the assumptions of Textualism, while Barrett copies Scalia’s wedding of Textualism to Strict Constructionism, a form of Originalism that’s deeply invested in the historical popular opinion at the time of the Constitution or law under consideration’s writing. While Scalia openly contradicted himself and rejected Strict Constructionism, both his legacy and Barrett’s judicial philosophy uphold it completely. Thus, there is an awkward relationship between rigidly understanding a text devoid of its time and context and attempting to understand public opinion of the time and context.

This is exactly how Inerrancy has evolved in Evangelical circles. Inerrancy often served in its early contexts as a way of providing ministers without education license to impose their own culture and context into Scripture itself. At the advent of Higher Criticism in Germany, Evangelicals were suspicious and terrified of its potential to wrench the interpretation of scripture out of their hands. However, through the decades leading to the rise of the Moral Majority and coming to the end of the 20th century, increasingly determined conservative takeovers of Evangelical institutions provided an awkward mix of Inerrancy and the Higher Criticism. In Reformed circles, Evangelicals use a form of exegesis that strives to combine portions of the Higher Criticism with Inerrancy while keeping Inerrancy at the top of the interpretive hierarchy and retaining interpretive power within authoritative bodies.

At its outset, Inerrancy and Textualism don’t seem particularly joined, but their evolution to form awkward relationships between the authority/interpretation of texts within strictly textual frameworks and authority/interpretation of texts within their socio-historical contexts provide a parallel body of study. The modern products of these relationships provide also provide a stunning parallel that cannot be ignored.

One of my focuses in my graduate program is Christian Nationalism within the Evangelical community, and the various ways it expresses itself. The dominant view of Christian Nationalism in Evangelicalism currently privileges a revisionist narrative of history that advocates America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles that would be in line with modern Evangelical theological positions. The less dominant view doesn’t believe America is a Christian nation, but instead places a revisionist narrative of biblical history that meets modern Evangelical theological positions anyways. Both embrace inerrancy, and appropriate history to that end.

Amy Coney Barrett did not join the Supreme Court without extreme concern and dispute. Much of this was rooted in her obvious intermixing of judiciary education at Notre Dame with her fringe Catholic views. More than any Justice to sit the bench in recent memory, there was no question that Barrett would not be able to separate her religious views from her judicial ones – despite her vociferous statements to the contrary. At issue are also – as a Strict Constructionist – her religious views providing a revisionist view of American history that is more likely to steer her judicial philosophy hard to the right side of the political spectrum.

In both cases, history is only relevant in that it suits the whims of the textual interpretations imposed on it by authorities. When understood this way, there is no difference beyond the semantical one between Inerrancy and Textualism. Perhaps this is why so many Evangelicals and political conservatives have come together on judicial appointments and policy positions in recent decades. Rather than easily dismissing Evangelicals’ fanaticism on women’s autonomy and heteronormativity, we should understand it through this lens – one that demands supreme control of interpretations of texts and history itself in order to control the present and future.

“Prima Scriptura” and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral

by Hailey Lyons

  1. Scripture – Prima Scriptura
  2. Tradition – Teachings and History of the Church
  3. Reason – Informed Interpretation of Scripture and Common Sense
  4. Experience – Personal Interaction and Narrative

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral holds a special place in my heart. While I was still struggling to understand how to accept my identity, I came across it as a way of broadening theology beyond Sola Scriptura. The expression of the Quadrilateral I encountered emphasized Experience as a way of overcoming dominant scriptural interpretations where Reason and Tradition could not.

It is saddening to see that this expression doesn’t fully extend to our Methodist siblings. In a heated fight over the fate of LGBT members and clergy, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral has become the grounds on which the United Methodist Church divides. A stunted version of the Quadrilateral places outsized importance in Prima Scriptura and undervaluing Experience, denying our LGBT Methodist siblings the right of marriage and service in clergy.

I can’t emphasize enough just how heartbreaking such a fight is. The Quadrilateral has been the primary theological tool for training and teaching in the UMC for generations now, and it has wrought much good alongside the bad. Again, it was the theological bridge for me to accept my identity and move towards a more inclusive faith. It is by no means the ultimate model for theological study, but it was never intended to be. The fact that it has been taken to be so only further problematizes its use. Ridding the Quadrilateral of Experience isn’t the root problem, as dangerous as that’s proving to be.

The Quadrilateral’s hierarchy is the root problem.

Prima Scriptura is in principle not the same as Sola Scriptura. Prima Scriptura places scripture at the forefront of the Quadrilateral, while normally allowing Tradition, Reason, and Experience to be lenses of interpretation. Sola Scriptura deifies the Bible itself, placing it over and against interpretations Evangelical theologians and church leaders disagree with. Such a doctrine makes it easier to promote only one, authoritative interpretation of scripture and enforce inerrancy. Anyone utilizing the Wesleyan Quadrilateral would do well to understand the difference between the two and ensure neither they nor their ecclesial family cross into Sola Scriptura.

And yet Prima Scriptura already restricts the other elements of the Quadrilateral, influencing them into behaving circularly rather than collectively. When such occurs, in spite of being named a Quadrilateral, Outler’s theology reverts to the authoritarian Sola Scriptura. The checks and balances of the Quadrilateral become a mockery of theological study. We can strive as much as possible to create change within the system, but eventually we have to realize the problem is the system itself. Prima Scriptura has proven too tantalizing an opportunity for those who would do others harm.

What is the solution to the problem of Prima Scriptura? Many of our Methodist siblings have been better able to effectuate the checks and balances I mentioned earlier, keeping Experience in the Quadrilateral and coming to places of inclusion and progressiveness. But it still doesn’t solve the root problem, only postponing the discussion for another day.

There are two potential solutions: reform the Quadrilateral and make its elements coequal, or abolish it. Neither solution solves the divide in the UMC, but they offer hope for greater reform.

Reforming the Quadrilateral is a softer transition, but that doesn’t mean an easier one. It might create wider ground for discussion and disagreement, and might push congregations, conferences, and seminaries further towards inclusion. There is still much the Quadrilateral might offer in the way of orienting theology in a postmodern world, with an intersectional quality that allows for inward critiques. And yet, it would be irresponsible to ignore the tremendous difficulties Quadrilateral reformers have already faced in upholding Experience, much less creating a more equalized Quadrilateral. The results have been painful to say the least.

Abolishing the Quadrilateral cuts the conversation entirely in what may amount more to scorched earth than a clean break. It has the chance to fragment theological discourse from the academy down to local church bible studies and prayer meetings. But perhaps this raises the opportunity for new theologies to be written and implemented.

Any time Christian doctrine is reduced to so heavy an emphasis on scripture that it drowns out the collective experiences, traditions, and reasoning of individuals, it becomes a system of oppression and domination. This is made infinitely harder when the system upholds oppression and domination at its founding. Such an idea isn’t unique to Christianity, either.

Prima Scriptura must go, and with it the Quadrilateral.

Partnerships and Partings

by John Indermark

Acts 15:36-41

Partnerships. First there had been Peter and John in Jerusalem. Now came Barnabas and Saul in Antioch and points beyond. Heat forges bonds of metal and relationship. Barnabas took the heat of standing by Saul in Jerusalem when no other would, no doubt deepening their ties to one another. When Jerusalem commissioned Barnabas to the church at Antioch, Barnabas soon after traveled to Tarsus to find Saul that he might assist in the work at Antioch (Acts 11:19-26). Later, the pair would undertake a missionary journey to Cyprus.  

Two critical developments transform their partnership during this latter journey. What had heretofore been “Barnabas and Saul” (13:2) now became “Paul and his companions” (13:13). The text does not explain the reversal of billing, but the focus of Acts clearly shifts to Paul-no-longer-Saul. Secondly, almost as a footnote in the same verse introducing this new order, a minor companion named John Mark separated from the entourage in Pamphylia. 

Partnerships work in delicate balances, whether among friends or in businesses. . . or within churches. Regarding Paul and Barnabas: should a reversal in the order of names signal a change in the relationship? Not necessarily. Should the departure of a “junior partner” influence the workings of the seniors? Not always. It is to be underscored that neither of these occurrences, in their initial unfolding, caused Acts to explicitly note the partnership had changed.

Yet within two chapters, the partnership ends. Acts traces the cause to the footnoted departure of John Mark. A new journey awaited, a journey determined by Paul’s unilateral declaration (15:36). Barnabas desired to take John Mark with them, a desire squashed by Paul’s unilateral veto (15:38). Paul, apparently, now came first in more than name order. Disagreement deepens. The partnership dissolves. Barnabas and Saul, Paul and Barnabas, were no more. Great things done by these two would never be done in tandem again. They parted.

Before we trot out funeral dirges and mourners for a tragic ending, consider the fresh beginnings unleashed – not by Paul, but Barnabas. Barnabas, once again, risked his own reputation for the sake of a maligned colleague. Just as he had with Saul/Paul before, Barnabas gives John Mark another chance. By the gracious act of Barnabas, failure in the church in one instance is not hopelessly relegated to a lifelong imposition of disgrace and disuse. 

Truth be told, Barnabas surpassed Paul in this episode through re-enacting Jesus’ own tendency toward ministries of rehabilitation: a ministry that commissioned as apostles the very ones who had deserted him (Matthew 26:56); a ministry that founded a church upon the very one who denied knowing Jesus in a spate of curses. (Mark 14:71); a ministry of second chances.

Even the split that sends Barnabas and John Mark in one direction and Paul and Silas in another contributes positively to the church’s expansion. Where before one missionary partnership set out to declare the gospel of Jesus Christ, now two sets of partners fan out to do the same, potentially doubling the territory to be covered and the persons to be encountered.

So, to put this in a larger and contemporary frame: are denominational schisms to be sought? No. Are divisive church conflicts among its always-abundant cache of clashing personalities and vigorously-held theologies to be encouraged? No. But the parting of Barnabas with Paul for the sake of John Mark does reveal God’s ability to bring fresh beginnings out of seeming dead-ends. In the final analysis, it is not our successes or failures at church unity that manage God’s purposes. It is the other way around. Barnabas risked giving Saul a chance, then John Mark a second chance. And God used Barnabas’ risks. So it can be for us. May potential endings to what has been not preclude us from risking for the sake of what could be.