RSS Feed

Wear heels. Dig them in.

Two weeks ago, I got an email from our campus Roman Catholic ministry inviting me to their weekly speaker series.  This week, they were hosting a speaker from San Diego, a woman who had started her own affiliate of the National Organization for Marriage.  She would be speaking on “Re-defining Marriage: How Same-Sex Marriage threatens Religious Liberty for all of us.” *

Oh joy.
My immediate reaction was confusion.  The Lutherans, and the United Christian Ministry were also invited, and all of us had had the “come to Jesus” conversation of progressive Christians with the other Christian ministries on campus over the summer.  This boiled down to:  Lookit!  Be nice to the gay kids, and if you find that you can’t pull this off, then send them to us, and we’ll do it for you, and save face for you.  If you can’t one of the Allies, then at least be Switzerland, for crying out loud.
But, clearly, the Catholics were not being all Swiss about this issue this week.  So what was I called to do in this moment?
There’s a case to be made for staying away. I could plead ecumenical unity, I could listen to the voice of my Paranoid!Bishop in my ear, asking why I was stirring up things again**, I could point out that it’s not like the Catholics had ever done anything to me personally (lately), and we’re all the church, and the church should stick together!
And sure.  Ecumenical unity is fine (though long gone) as is avoiding any theoretical confrontation with the bishop.  They are perfectly nice sorts of things.
But right now, the sorts of things this woman was saying is passing as mainstream Christian thought in much of the country, and I have not elected her my spokesperson.
So I went.
I went, and I sat towards the back in my collar, and my “I’m wearing a grown-up, respectable suit!” suit, and heels. (I had been invited, after all.)  I informed my students of what was happening, and asked if they wanted to join me.  Because they are uniformly awesome, they turned out in force, and asked if they could make t-shirts for the occasion.
I sat in the back and listened quietly and peaceably, while taking incredibly sarcastic notes.  The speaker basically achieved the perfect storm of right-wing social theory.  Marriage is for the sole purpose of creating and nurturing children.  Biological ties only create a family, and these ties cannot and should not be broken.  (This really surprised me–I don’t believe I’ve ever heard someone advocate against adoption the way she did, although she allowed it in ‘special circumstances.’)  Birth control is evil, as is gender neutral language, economic equality between the sexes, and the ‘blurring of gender roles.’  The Obama Administration is apparently out to get religious people, in its requirement that everyone (except churches and other religious institutions) have to provide birth control coverage to employees cost-free.  (The nerve!  Asking women to decide for themselves whether to purchase it or not!)
So she was very thorough.  She even threw in a condemnation of the estate tax (because I think it’s a rule at this point for speaking publicly as a conservative.)
But then came the Q&A.
The questions were pretty benign.  There was really mild pushback from the students, but none that she appeared to hear.
Then I got the mike.
I pointed out that really, her main problem seemed to be with the Kim Kardashians and the Britney Spears of the world: straight people who were extremely bad at marriage.  People who abused their kids and each other, people who were trapped in the cycle of addiction, people who were unfaithful, people who were unable or unwilling to be good parents, people who got married in elaborate weddings then divorced 72 days later, etc.
And none of those things applied to the committed gay couples I knew, people who were lined up, knocking down the doors of my church, asking to make public vows of fidelity and love to each other–the sort of thing my church preached was the sacramental self-sacrificial love that marriage signified.
And since that was the case, then why on earth not encourage these people to get married?
Well, she said, looking stormy.  Marriage isn’t about love.  It’s about children.  There are lots of different sorts of love, and lots of different sorts of relationships, but marriage is about producing and caring for children.
(……..Honestly.  I got nothing.)
That’s pretty much where it ended.
After it was over, several students unaffiliated with Canterbury came up to me and said how glad they were that I had asked my question.  The Catholic priest at the Newman Center came over, and said he was glad I had spoken up.  “I was waiting for someone to introduce the concept of real people into her speech.”
No kidding.
Look.
Theology always, ALWAYS involves real people.  Theology is never without consequences, and never exists in a bubble.
Stand in public, and proclaim that “marriage is about children, and not love” and immediately, you have sent the message that people who cannot have children, or choose not to, are not really married.
Stand up and say that biology, and not the courts, create a family, and now you’ve started casting doubt on the legitimacy of people who were adopted.  (Which, really, for a conservative Catholic– is quite a mind bender.)
And each time you say stuff like that, you’ve told people that there is something wrong with them.  You’ve told them that for some reason they may not be able to control, God is angry with them. God is seriously displeased with huge swaths of the population. “Horrible people!” God evidently says “Why can’t they live up to these impossible and unachievable standards that exist out here in the ether?”
By virtue of the Incarnation, if there is one thing in the cosmos God is concerned about, it’s actual people.  Not theories, not pretty dreams about what people should be, but actual, honest-to-Jesus, people.  People as they lived, and died, and celebrated and suffered.
Jesus called actual people to be disciples.  Peter, if you’ll note, was a complete doofus, albeit well-meaning, for much of his life.  Paul contradicted himself enough to rival a pretzel.  There were enough rough-and-tumble arguments in the nascent church to bring succor to the current watchers of the HoB/D listserv and England’s General Synod.  I’m not even going to go into the rumors and issues around the women Jesus hung around with.
The point is, he hung around with people.  Actual people.
His teaching served them; people weren’t meant to serve it.  (Wait, that sounds awfully familiar.)
The Spirit works through people.  Woe betide us when we stop paying attention.
*I’m not linking to her site.  You can Google “The Ruth Institute” if you want, but I’m not inclined to give this lady any more site views than she already has.  Aside from the many (MANY) issues I have with her espoused (ha!) policy positions, the irony is more than I can stand.  Their logo is virtually identical to that of Greendale Community College, of “Community” fame.  Really, I’ve not entirely written off the notion that we were all being punked.
**This is a song in my head now.  It is sung to the tune of “You’re making things up again, Arnold” from “The Book of Mormon.”  It is very catchy.  And features hobbits.  And Yoda.

Don’t be a gum-ball dispenser.

The Gospel of Mark is somewhat difficult to preach on.  The writer/storyteller of Mark was not given to detail.  You get the impression that s/he was in some enormous hurry, and couldn’t be bothered to tell you what anyone was feeling, or why they were inclined to do what they were doing.  It happened–that was enough.  (And then, IMMEDIATELY, something else is happening.)

So we get a pericope like this week.  Aside from my discomfort with Peter’s mother-in-law’s first action, post-miracle: begin to cook for a party (Because of course it is!), I felt like the story was somewhat of a rehash of what came before.  He heals people!  He proclaims things!  People are impressed!  And on we go at a breakneck pace.

Sometimes, the only thing to do in cases such as these is to consult with others.  For this, God has gifted the postmodern-day preacher with social media, which overfloweth with sermon fodder round-about Saturday night.  Also, you should count yourself as extremely lucky if you have fantastic friends (like I do) who listen to your incoherent ideas, and nod understandingly, and kindly offer their own (much better) ideas.

Seriously, what did the actual olden-day circuit-riders do when they were stuck for ideas?!

February 5, 2012

Epiphany 5, Year B

Mark 1:29-39

 

Stephen Colbert is a comedian.  He has a TV show, in which he inhabits the persona of a narcissistic pundit, basically all the worst traits of the media talking heads cast into sharp relief, and rolled into a single person.

 

It’s a funny show, it’s popular, his book sold well.  Most people would consider that a career well accomplished.  And then he decided to create a SuperPac for the 2012 election.  So far, said PAC has raised over a million dollars, made generous offers in the SC newspapers to both the Republicans and Democrats to sponsor their primaries, suggesting it would be not unlike the Doritos Fiesta Bowl, and run several very surreal campaign ads, including one that declared Mitt Romney was a serial killer, because if corporations are people, how many has he killed in his time at Bain Capital?!

For about a year, Colbert has basically been playing with the intricacies of campaign finance law on late night TV, something normally left to lawyers, and which has resulted in lots of confusion, and some anger, among actual media people.   And all of this ends up revealing several things– SuperPACs can do just about anything they want, satire did not cease to be potent after Jonathan Swift, and at this point, your average young adult in Colbert’s audience now has a better grasp of campaign finance law than the average American does.  Turns out, the comedy serves a purpose.

 

Jesus, by this point in Mark’s Gospel, has been healing all over the place.  He healed the man with the unclean spirit in the synagogue, as we heard last week, and so now, having finished with that, he heads home to Peter’s house, where he heals his mother-in-law. And then most of the town.  He’s on a roll.

But then, he up and quits.  Why?

 

Aside from being well- deserving of a break, at this point in the narrative, Jesus also needs a pause to regroup.  To refocus on his mission.  Which was not just healing sick people, although that was a part of it.  His mission was bigger, more inclusive than that.

 

For first-century Palestinians, healing was great!  But lots of people could heal.  It’s not like they had regularized medicine to any great degree– healing and cures tended to occur somewhat spontaneously and regularly, since the expected course of events was: you got sick, and that was the end of you.  Healers were a dime-a-dozen.

 

So were charismatic preachers.  So were political figures.  The crowd outside the door was used to people like that.  and it was perfectly content to have Jesus stay there in Capernaum, dispensing healings and miracles like a really awesome gumball machine.

 

But Jesus decides to leave.  Because for Jesus, the important part is not the healings themselves, the important part is what the healings point towards.  What the miracles signify.

 

These healings aren’t meant just to prop up life the way it was– -they signify a world that is beginning to be profoundly changed.  The healings of Jesus point to the ultimate reality where all creation is reconnected with God.  Where the signs of our brokenness, our failings disappear.  A reality where all humanity, all creation is redeemed, and functioning as a whole.  A holy creation, in harmony with itself and it’s creator.

Because the individual Healings are great, I have no doubt but that the people really appreciate it, but healings are only part.  They’re like signposts,  breadcrumbs.  They’re too small.  Jesus’s job wasnt to be the next magic worker in the Galilee, healing the comparatively few people who wandered by.  It was ultimately, to heal the whole world.

 

And we see this starting even in the story– Peter’s mother in law, once healed, gets up and serves them.  Aside from my immediate thought that the poor woman had just escaped death, and she couldn’t get a moments peace out of the kitchen? She sets a pattern that the other recipients of healing will follow.  Out of her healing comes caring for those around her.  She becomes an icon of a reality where all are cared for, as she feeds those who come to her.

 

Ultimately, we have to take over and play our part in holy creation.  We who claim to have knowingly received the healing love of God have to become similar icons of this new reality, where all are fed, all are welcomed, all are loved, and all creation is made whole. This is what we promised, right, at our baptism– will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?  Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

 

But so often, we too, get stuck in the ‘gumball dispenser” mode.  We perform the modern day- nonJesusy equivalent of individual healings,both as individuals and as a church.  We tell ourselves that the way it has been is the way it always has been, and always should be, Amen.  We tell ourselves that telling the truth  isn’t nice, and God wants us to be nice, above all else.  And we devote ourselves to the time honored work of making everyone like us, or at least, not publicly hate us.

 

And there is again, some value to this. It does  make a lot of people happy!  It’s safe!  Sometimes, it’s even helpful!  But is it what we are actually called to do?  Or are we still just performing for whoever wanders by our door, and not pointing to our wider message, not living our new reality.

 

Because we’re meant to be tiny little  outposts of God’s new world, each of us, and all of us together.   And this is a calling that will, at times, require us to be seen as not nice, and will confuse and befuddle people and may even make them angry.   But we’re called to live and proclaim the wide message of God’s redeeming work in the world to everyone, even if that gets us in trouble sometimes.  We’re meant to play our part in the drama of creation,and recreation that God is working out in the world, with our individual talents and strengths, and quirks and weaknesses, and foibles.  Each of us.   All of us.

 

Jesus can heal people.  You and I have proclaiming to do.

 Amen.

Behold, I am tweeting a new thing!

As an elected deputy to General Convention 2012, I get to partake in an interesting exercise in in-box management known as the HoB/D listserv.  It’s an email listserv open to all deputies, bishops, and diocesan and Church Center staff (I think).

Thus, many, many people are on this email list.  Collectively, General Convention is the second-largest democratic body in the world.  (India’s parliament is no.1.  We’re no. 2.  T-shirts are on order.)
The conversations are great to read, but like many things in these here interwebz, people who read only, and do not post, greatly outnumber those who do post.  So most conversations get skewed pretty fast, in my opinion, towards the same few voices who protest.
This week, news broke into general consciousness that several people had been live-tweeting the recent Executive Council meeting.  This wasn’t news to those of us on Twitter.  But evidently, it’s news to people who aren’t on Twitter, and someone on Exec Council raised a (similarly public) objection.
So for the past two days now, a heated conversation has been flowing forth on the HoB/D listserv on the appropriateness of Twitter in meetings.
I should like to point out the following things:
1.) TWO DAYS.  This has been a conversation for TWO DAYS.  If the argument is that Twitter distracts from the business at hand, then I doubt you’re making that argument any more cogent by continuing to press it for TWO WHOLE DAYS.
Ahem.
 2.) I’m unclear on how tweeting reports of what’s happening is more distracting than taking private notes.  And I’m extremely hesitant to launch a blanket accusation of inattention against all committee secretaries.  Who would like to go there?  Line up, please.
But most importantly!
3.)  The argument I keep hearing repeated against Twitter as a source of information is that of bias.  Which is entirely true.  Twitter reports are biased.  It’s one person, or one group of people expressing their take on things.
Right.  And now I’d like to introduce you to Rupert Murdoch.
The thing is, this is not at all different from the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Times or Fox News.  Or the biases involved in books out of Intervarsity Press or Zondervan. All media is biased.  There is no such thing as non-biased media.  (Just like there’s no such thing as a impartial narrator. The Great Gatsby should have taught us that.)
The difference is that with Twitter, as with the new social media, there’s a little picture beside the words, with the person’s name, so that you know exactly who’s perspective you’re getting.  And with one click, you can get as many different perspectives on the same topic as you want. Presto!  Instant variety, instant perspective shift–if you want it.
Of course, that means that no one person/thing has control over the flow of information.  Which can be tricky. Information flowing all over the place means that leaders have to justify themselves and their decisions, and explain things so convincingly that people consciously support them.  Power suddenly becomes diffuse.
It’s worth pointing out that it wasn’t until the development of Guttenberg’s printing press that the Vatican invented the imprimatur: an official blessing that allowed the book to be printed and read.  In 2010, imprimaturs started being applied to iPhone apps as well.
There are ways around this new, diffuse power structure we’re moving into.  But they aren’t good ways.  And they aren’t Episcopal ways.  One of our strengths has been our giant, colorfully democratic method of governance.  Now is not the time to sacrifice that.

No One Is Alone

There are some things you experience, and you immediately think, “Yea, and verily! This shall be a sermon!”  (And then, you immediately vow to stop watching so much Downton Abbey, because it’s making you talk funny.)

For me, Into the Woods was one of those experiences, and I’m only amazed it took me ten (!) years to write a sermon about it.

Here is the sermon:

January 29, 2012

Epiphany 4, Year B

Mark 1:21-28

The musical “Into the Woods” tells the familiar fairy tale stories of

Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel and her prince, Jack and his

beanstalk, and a baker in search of a child. All mixed together and put to

Sonheim’s music. Everyone pursues their wishes into the woods, crossing

paths as they go, their stories faithfully narrated by a trusty narrator, until,

as expected, everyone gets their happily ever after ending.

And hooray! Everyone sings and dances as they celebrate the fairy-tale

truism that the good have been rewarded, the naughty have been

punished, and those who sought their wishes have gotten what they

wanted, and the story is over.

The only hint that this might not actually be the end of the story, is the sight

of a beanstalk rising up into the sky, a figure of a giant descending, and the

narrator shouting, “to be continued!” as the curtain falls.

On the end of act 1.

Apparently, this was not enough of a hint for one preview audience, and this group

of senior citizens departed, all excited over this delightful, but short, new

show they had seen, before the director chased them to the parking lot and

brought them back so they could see the second Act.

Which is where it really gets good. The first act is about familiar stories of

getting what you want: the second act is about the consequences to

everything and everyone around you when you get what you want.

And that’s the part that we have the most trouble dealing with. Whether it’s

fairy tales, politics, sports, or whatever it is, we have a hard time

comprehending that the world is constructed like a pond, and actions ripple

outward– they don’t stay magically confined to one person or place. Throw

a rock into the pond, and the ripples extend on and on. The consequences

ripple out in all directions. You, me, rock, pond, water…

The world, as it turns out, is profoundly interconnected.

And so, when Jesus comes along, and starts talking to demons, like in

Mark tonight, remember that rock thrown in the water, and remember the

beanstalk rising in the sky. Because the reality that the world is in fact

interconnected and intertwined is something we tend to struggle with on a

good day, never mind when we are also trying to wrap our heads around

the good vs. evil stuff.

Jesus has come into Capernaum, which is sort of his home base in the

Galilee. He heads into the synagogue and starts teaching. In response to

his teaching, a man who is described as “demon-infected” comes in, and

the demons start yelling at Jesus.

“what have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to

destroy us? I know who you are– the son of the Most High.”

Its this weird quirk in Mark that the demons always recognize Jesus, when

no one else does, and also that Jesus himself really doesn’t want people to

know who he is– it’s the messianic secret.

It’s also this weird quirk, that upon recognizing him, the demon asks “Are

you here to destroy us?”

Now, there are a lot of ways to parse these stories of exorcisms in the

gospels. First century schizophrenia, some sort of mental illness, actual

demonic possession, or an elaborate metaphor that the writer of Mark

thinks is instructive. All of those explanations Work, sort of, more or less,

but as is usually the case when you start worrying about factual accuracy

over truth in story, they miss the big picture. All tree bark, and no woods.

But ultimately, there are two things at work here– big picture. The idea that

evil exists, and that evil is systemic, and can’t be so easily isolated.

And we know that evil exists. I doubt hearing me say that is a surprise to

anyone. Evil exists when people are made to suffer, when humans are

abused, when the goodness of creation is destroyed and shamed, when

the hope that is born in each of us is snuffed out by what we experience.

Evil exists– evil is what works against the will of God for a good and whole

creation.

And that’s tricky, because that’s not something that can be personified,

isolated, and easily eliminated. Hitler was evil, but Hitler didn’t pull off the

Holocaust by himself. Slavery was evil, but who, particularly, should we

blame for that? The slave owners, or the rest of the country who bought

the goods produced by the slaves so cheaply?

Whenever we start to believe that we can destroy all evil, just utterly

destroy this one person, group of people, this one idea, and it will all be

fine, and we’ll all be safe forever, then we have forgotten that the line between good

and evil runs not between people, not between political parties, or

ideologies, but straight through every human heart. And Jesus alone is in

charge of all that.

And in fact, that’s not what Jesus did. Jesus in these stories, confronts the

demons. He names them, he calls them what they are– evil that afflicts the

creatures of God.

But he always heals the person. These are as much healing stories as

they are exorcisms. Jesus always sees the child of God within and

redeems it.

Because ultimately, no evil is so bad that it can withstand God. No evil is

so bad that it cannot be redeemed by Christ. The demons always lose.

Always. They always get cast out in the end.

When we call out the evil we see, when we confront it, we are taking part in

the work of God that’s already been accomplished and done.

So no, we are never able to save the world, we’re never able to destroy all

evil, but we don’t have to– God’s done that bit. All we have to do is shine

the light of Christ.

And when we do that, as small as it may seem, and as insignificant as it

may feel, we’ve begun to participate in God’s own story in the world.  And nothing on heaven and nothing on earth, changes the way that story ends.

Amen.

And for good measure–  the song referenced in the title:

Inconceivable

If my geeky brain serves correctly, there was an old form of preaching in Judaism wherein a rabbi would take the given text for the day, which was somewhere in the Torah, and begin his sermon somewhere entirely different, on a totally random verse elsewhere in the Tanakah.  Like if the assigned text was the calling of Abram into covenant with YHWH, you would start out by quoting something off the wall, like Proverbs 5:15 “Drink water from your own cistern; and fresh water from your own well.”

And from there, you’d basically leap-frog via associations both linguistic and theological through the scriptures until you arrived at the assigned verse for the day.  The farther away your starting point was, and the more associations you made, and the more verses you included, the more brilliant a preacher you were considered to be by the congregation.

I’m not about to try this out anytime soon (any more than I’m about to improvise jazz singing in the pulpit.  Other people’s art forms, as much as they might impress me, generally just make me look like a crazy person if I attempt them, especially out of context.)  But there’s something about the exuberance of the enterprise that I enjoy.  I like the idea that nothing at all, is off limits in preaching, and that we should silence the voice in our heads which pipes and says “Are you allowed to talk about THAT in a sermon?!”

To that end, I offer the following YouTube clip, for all things are better when performed by Legos:

And here is the sermon:

January 22, 2012

3 Epiphany, Year B

Mark 1: 14-20

In the movie, “The Princess Bride”, the villianous mastermind Vizzini kidnaps the princess Buttercup, with the help of the master swordsman Inigo Montoya and the giant Fezzig.  As they are escaping on their ship, Vizzini declares any chances that they shall be caught ‘inconceivable.’  And yet, as they continue to head for a neighboring country and safety, the pursing ship begins to catch up with them.  “Inconceivable” declares Vizzini!  Then Buttercup dives overboard, in a desperate desire to escape.  “Inconceivable!”  cries Vizzini!  Finally, upon reaching land, the band of miscreants ascend straight up the cliffs with their captured princess, only to be pursued again by the captain of the other ship.  Again, Vizzini pronounces this turn of events “Inconceivable!”  Inigo Montoya turns to him.  “You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.”

As Christians in 2012, we come quite a bit after those who first constructed the language of our faith–about 2,012 years after, to be exact.  Words like “repent!”, “grace”, “believe”, “faith” all started out meaning one specific thing, with specific connotations and allusions built in, and now, to us, they mean something different.  They sound different.

And this isn’t a bad thing.  It’s an effect of time, and Time, as Jesus points in the gospel, is not apart from the workings of God.  Time builds up, Time accrues for us down the line of history, and those of us who come after the earlier disciples and generations before have a lot more of this linear history to sort through–some helpful, some not as helpful.  But all of it there.

And so, when Jesus appears, after the arrest of John the Baptist, in today’s gospel, declaring that the Time has been fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near, so we should Repent, and believe the Good news….what is it that we hear, today in 2012?

Whatever it was they heard back then, evidently it was enough to inspire all these fisherfolk to immediately abandon their promising careers on the sea, their families, their homes, and tramp around in the wilderness after Jesus.  It was enough to make them get up and change their lives.  This declaration of “the time has been fulfilled, repent and believe the good news.” was some sort of freeing magic.

But for us today, sitting on the opposite end of the timeline….. Well, for me at least, it doesn’t seem that motivating, that inspiring.  It doesn’t sound like the sort of message that prompts all of Mark’s gospel– it sounds like a rather good bumper sticker on someone else’s car, or the title of a pamphlet someone would stick under my door.  Not something that’s going to motivate me to head anywhere at all.

Maybe the weight of time has squashed the message a bit.  Or maybe these words don’t mean what we’ve come to think they mean– all bumper sticker slogans and catch phrases.

And if that’s the case, then we should find a better way of explaining ourselves.  We should find some new words. Because if all we have to tell our story is advertising catch-phrases off the TV and slogans stolen from radio talk shows, then no one is going to be leaving their nets anywhere.  So maybe we need some new words.

Ok.  Let’s take a swing at that.

“the time has been fulfilled.  The kingdom of God has come near, repent and believe the good news.”

For starters, “time” has two words in Greek.  Chronos, which is the linear sort of historical time that I’ve been talking about so far.  The sort of time where I can tell you that this service will probably take up 1 hour of your time– the very mundane sort of time marching forward.  But Jesus is talking about kairos, which is the sort of time in which God operates.  Time which isn’t on a line, that sort of thing we experience through our memory, or in our imagination, when past becomes present and merges into the future.  Time that bends and shifts depending on what is happening.  That’s what has been fulfilled.

The realm in which God works, where God is actually fully in charge, the kairos, has now broken through into our mundane timeline.  The kingdom of God, where the poor are taken care of, the outcast are welcomed, the sick are healed, the lame leap for joy, the oppressed set free, is emerging in our own world.

So we should do what?

“repent” has started to become associated with guilt, and shame, and feeling very bad about oneself.  Repent literally means turn around, to go back.  It’s an action, not a feeling.  It’s not a command to feel something, it’s a command to do something.  It’s a command to come back.  Come back home.

Come back home, and believe in the good news of what God is doing.  Participate in the emerging world that God is creating, right before our eyes.  Participate in the good news of a world made whole, where all are cared for, all are welcomed, all are loved, all are fed.  Because it’s starting right now, in the actions and person of this guy, Jesus, and you, you personally, are needed.

Imagine what would happen if we took that message into the streets.  Imagine what would happen if we went far and wide, proclaiming that God had jumped into our boring, broken, unfair world in order to make it whole, just and loving, and that everyone’s talents were needed in this new project.  If we really proclaimed that message, and backed it up with how we lived, how many people could stay in their boats then?

Could anyone stay as they had been before? If we really lived out the call?

Inconceivable.