Showing posts with label Robert Sevensky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Sevensky. Show all posts

Sunday, July 26, 2026

The Ninth Sunday after Pentecost, Proper 12, July 26, 2026

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Robert Leo Sevensky, OHC

The Ninth Sunday after Pentecost, July 26, 2026

Last Sunday, Brother Ephrem spoke to us about the hero’s journey, that archetypal tale which becomes a pattern for human life. He used this to illustrate the story of Jacob as well as that of Odysseus, a story of leaving home, having adventures, facing challenges, and making one’s way back, chastened and—let’s hope--a little more mature and wiser.  And we understand that this is not peculiar to Jacob or Odysseus but touches each of us. This hero myth or story is one of many models or genres that speak more generally to our human condition. There is, for example, the story of the descent into the underworld or the search for a hidden treasure or the story of a flood such as we find in the Gilgamesh Epic or that of Noah and the ark, a story of universal destruction and restoration.   


Today’s Scripture readings present us with yet more stories or symbolic lessons, messages of faith and pathways to wisdom.  There are five—count them—parables of the Kingdom in today’s brief Gospel passage.  And one folk tale…that of Solomon and his dream.  In any event, it strikes me as a folk tale.


Folk tales or, in their more condensed form, proverbs seem designed not to offer us the shape of the whole pattern of our lives but rather focus on one or two practical pieces of advice for successful living.  And every culture has them, shared with children, often quite humorous, and sometimes even bawdy.  We all know them and have been exposed to them in collections such as Grimm’s fairy tales. They are a primary tool of socialization in any society or culture.


One folktale that appears in many shapes is the tale of The Three Wishes.  And like any good folk tale it can be endlessly elaborated on though it is easily summarized. In its classic form—and with a nod to Wikipedia—it tells the story of a poor woodcutter and his wife who are struggling to make ends meet. One day the woodcutter finds the perfect tree to harvest, and just as he begins to do it a fairy or wood nymph appears and begs him not to chop down her home. In returns, she promises to grant him three wishes and he agrees. The woodcutter returns home, and as he talks with his wife about what happened, he realizes he's very hungry and without thinking he wishes for a sausage to eat. And suddenly a hot sausage appears at the table. His wife, furious that he's wasted a wish, speaks to him in anger.  And he responds in kind: “I wish this sausage was stuffed up your nose.” And as if by magic, there it is. The couple now need to decide what to do with their one remaining wish. They could be rich, they could be powerful, they could be fruitful, but alas, the sausage would still be hanging from the wife's nose. So, they decide to use their third and final wish to remove the sausage from her face.


What's the moral of the story? What do we learn from it? Maybe we learn to take our time, to not be hasty, to not act out of unexamined desires or uncontrolled emotions.  Maybe we learn that greed is not the way to go forward in life. Or maybe we learn that who we are or what we have right now is enough.


It seems to me that the story of Solomon that we hear in our first reading has something of the character of a folktale with its own moral. God appears to Solomon in a dream and says, “Ask what I should give you.” And though he is given one, not three, wishes he is faced with the difficult question of what he should ask for, what he desires. Solomon, of course, the paradigm of the wise ruler, does not ask for long life or riches or the life of his enemies but rather for, and I quote, “understanding to discern what is right.”  But my hunch is that the other things surely went through his mind. Why not ask for long life? Why not ask for riches? Why not ask for the life of his enemies? But what Solomon does request is in fact quite bigger.  In effect, he is asking for the skill to live a life which is at once meaningful and productive. And as we hear from the reading, God grants him the other things which he set aside for the sake of this larger purpose, namely that of being a wise ruler for his people. Indeed, God promises that he shall be the wisest of all mortals ever!


If this is a folktale, is there a moral? What lesson can we learn? It’s easy to draw the wrong conclusion from these stories. Perhaps you have heard it said: be careful what you wish for or be careful what you ask for or even--and deeply mistaken--be careful what you pray for.  


On the contrary, I’d like to suggest that it is well worth thinking about what it is we want or desire. It is worth naming. It is even worth praying for. Because in the very process of wanting or desiring and in examining and engaging and not censoring those desires or longings they may be refined and reshaped in ways that serve both our own true good and God's greater glory. Befriending our desires, as one writer puts it, or heeding our deepest longings and giving them space to be transformed and sharpened or perhaps even sublimated or abandoned, is a profound spiritual practice and a necessary one. Saint Augustine of Hippo who lived in the late 4th and early 5th centuries was the great saint of desire and delight and love. He knew firsthand the depths of human desires and admittedly did not always navigate them well. But he came to recognize that the only adequate object or goal of our desires is God. He is famous for teaching: “Our hearts are restless, oh God, until they rest in you.”


This saying sometimes frightens people. Does loving God with all our heart mean we can have no other loves? No. Rather Augustine talks about the right ordering of loves.  As he says: “…everybody loves but the question is, what is the object of their love.”   His advice is to examine our loves—all our loves, all our longings, all our desires—and look for what they are honestly moving deep, deep within us before the face of God.


Augustine continues: “So, am I telling you to give up loving? Not at all! If you love nothing you will become lazy dead lifeless creatures. Love, by all means; but take care what it is you love.”


This is good advice for the 5th century and for any century, especially when we realize that what we are being invited to is not the suppression of our desires but the deepening of our desires, getting more and not less in touch with them, naming them, focusing on them and even fanning them.  And in this Saint Paul tells us, the spirit helps us with sighs and groans too deep for words. It is this wordless prayer, this interior groaning, which is arena of the deepening and cherishing, the purifying and right ordering of our desires. Cherishing our deepest desires, we enter into relationship with them, and they become educated, reformed, expanded, transfigured, more adequate, all embracing and simpler.


I believe this happened with Solomon and maybe with the woodsman and his wife and their sausage.  Because this is the mystery of sanctification. We come to know ourselves.  And we come to know God, to love what God loves. We come to desire what God commands, we come to long for what God envisions and to love what God intends. And in that is our happiness, that is delight, that is freedom and that is becoming who we are.


And the moral, the lesson of this fairy tale? Don't be too worried about what you wish for or what you desire or what you ask for or long for on the inside, or what you pray for. Your very open, honest, prayerful engagement with these desires allows them to be transmuted by God’s love into something beautiful… something beautiful for you and me and something beautiful for God. 


And by the way, what do you want God to give you today?

Sunday, May 24, 2026

The Day of Pentecost, May 24, 2026

 Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Robert Leo Sevensky, OHC

The Day of Pentecost, May 24, 2026

The spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.


The Book of Common Prayer tells us that there are seven principal feasts observed in our church. Traditionally and by common consensus Easter, the feast of the Resurrection of our Lord, is the principal festival of the church year—the feast of feasts, if you will—but next in dignity is today's feast, that of Pentecost. It is the day that closes out the long Easter cycle that we began more than ninety days ago on Ash Wednesday. And it's a great feast…isn't it? Well, let’s be honest: for most of us, it's not.


A recent article in the [UK] Church Times was titled: “In the Parish: why is Pentecost undervalued?”  The author, Sally Welch, begins by saying that Pentecost as a festival made very little impact on her as a child. Then fast forwarding to young parenthood, she notes: 

…I was startled one Sunday by the appearance of jumpers and scarves of vivid scarlet making a strange contrast to the duns and heathers of the rest of the church going outfits. “It’s Pentecost!” crowed an over-enthusiastic curate. “We celebrate by wearing red!”  This was my first introduction—a congregation-wide wardrobe malfunction—to one of the major feast days of the Christian Church. 

I think we've all had such experiences, some rather more unfortunate than the wardrobe malfunction that Ms. Welch refers to. I've seen red streamers, felt banners with multicolored butterflies or silver doves, sheet cakes celebrating the birthday of the church, very large puppets, birds—preferably white—set free though usually not venturing very far, the gospel proclaimed in assorted languages, and various other liturgical actions, all well-intentioned perhaps but faintly embarrassing, at least to me.  My favorite story is from my parish in Harrisburg PA where one year the children were all given helium-filled red balloons. Inevitably several escaped and got tangled in the overhead fans where they remained dangling throughout the hot summer and into autumn, limp and spent and altogether a rather sad memorial of a distant feast.


Why is it so hard to celebrate Pentecost in a way that engages us at a deep level? Partly of course it has to do with the very subject matter, which in this case is the very figure of the Holy Spirit. What do we make of this Holy Spirit? Who is this Spirit and what is its nature and its job description and how does it fit into the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Happily, next Sunday is Trinity Sunday, and I'm confident that our preacher will unfold this mystery for us once and for all. But today we are asked or invited or forced to reflect on this a bit...perhaps in anticipation of next Sunday’s great reveal. 


One of the reasons it is so hard for us to wrap our hearts and minds around this feast is that there is not just one Scriptural story pointing to the outpouring of the Spirit, however we might understand her, but several. We are all familiar of course with the account from the Book of Acts which takes pride of place. And what a story it is. Ten days ago, we celebrated the Ascension where, as Jesus departs from his friends he tells them to wait for the promised gift of the Spirit. And they wait for ten days praying together and likely getting a little antsy. And suddenly the Spirit is poured out upon them--tongues of fire resting on their heads, people speaking in languages that were understood by others without benefit of Google Translate, new energy, new direction, renewed purpose and a novel way of being in the world, a way that would become known as Christian. It's all very exciting, even if it doesn't make you want to wave a red streamer.


But there is another story, one of several, which also speaks of the outpouring of this mysterious Spirit.  We heard this morning the Evangelist John offer us a rather different account. In his version, there's no waiting fifty days.  It's Easter day in the early evening and the disciples are gathered in Jerusalem in fear and confusion, with locked doors and locked hearts when suddenly Jesus is there with them. In a model of succinctness but with marvelous energy, Jesus twice greets his disciples with the word “Peace.”  He shows them his wounded hands and side as if to confirm his identity. And he breathes on them.  (I think most of you are aware that in both Hebrew and Greek, the word for breath is the same as the word for spirit, so there’s a lot at play here.) And then Jesus doesn’t simply invite them, but commands them: “Receive the Holy Spirit.”  And he sends them out to be agents of forgiveness and reconciliation in an unforgiving and alienated and alienating world.


These two stories are quite different, but they are not contradictory. In some ways they complement each other deeply. And which are we celebrating today…God breathing God’s spirit again into the clay that is Adam and you and me?  God overthrowing the linguistic confusion and pride of the Tower of Babel? I hope both, and perhaps many others as well.  We can have it both ways. Yet the question remains: who is this Spirit of which both stories speak?


Consider for a minute the possibility of looking at the wind or at breath. In a sense we can never do that except perhaps with very sophisticated scientific instruments or under certain unusual circumstances. In everyday life we don't look directly at wind or breath. At best what we look at are the effects of the wind and breath. We notice the fluttering of leaves on a tree or waves moving over grasslands or clouds scudding across the skies.  Perhaps we feel a cooling caress on our cheeks or hear a fierce howling.  Sometimes it’s the destructive effect of forceful winds uprooting trees or driving wildfires.  Or the mysterious scent of distant flowers or a decaying carcass or whatever. It's the wind, the air, the breath that brings us these. But it is not given for us to see the wind. We know it by its effects. I believe it is the same with the Holy Spirit.  As Jesus says in another context: “You will know them by their fruits.”


The spirit of God, the spirit of Jesus, that which/whom we call the Holy Spirit can't be apprehended directly, but we can see it and experience its effects. We see it in creative work around us. We see it in surprising reconciliation between and within people. We come to know it in a thousand little acts of love which punctuate world and our lives. And we celebrate it in the experience of human solidarity. St. Paul in that wonderful passage from his Letter to the Galatians offers a list of the fruits of the Spirit, extensive but by no means exhaustive:  love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.  Paul adds: “Against such things there is no law.”  No indeed.  See these and while we are not directly seeing the Spirit, we are seeing the Spirit’s footprints. Become these, and we become Spirit bearers whatever our faith or family or lack thereof. 


We can’t, I’m afraid, define the Spirit or reduce Spirit to a concept or a category.  But we can rest assured that whenever and wherever God’s spirit is loosed upon the world, if these signs are present, there is God.  And we can be equally certain that God’s spirit does not act by anger, hatred, ignorance, rudeness, envy, exploitation, indignity or a multitude of other sad and destructive attitudes, habits or works which oppose and frustrate the Spirit of the living God.


On Pentecost, I often think of my experience as a child growing up in a Polish religious tradition. And among Poles, as among almost all the Slavic peoples, Pentecost is not much about red vestments. In fact, in Polish the name of the feast is Nieziela Zielone, that is to say, Green Sunday. And on that morning—terribly ecologically unsound but what did we know back then? —whole birch trees were cut down and set up at the doors of the church and around the altar and the pulpit. There was no mistaking it:  Pentecost was and is above all else a feast of life, a feast of new creation, a festival of new birth. Yes, this Slavic custom likely points back to a pre-Christian agricultural festival.  So, I might add, do the Jewish festivals of Passover and Shavous, the latter otherwise known as Pentecost among Greek-speaking Jews. It is a folk custom that speaks with an insight that begs to be emphasized. And that is that the Spirit of God, however we understand Spirit, is all about life, abundant life, fullness of life. And that God is on the side of life always: yesterday, today and forever.


Some of you may remember our late brother Roy Parker whose calligraphy was so beautifully done and so popular, and none more so than his simple work that quotes Irenaeus of Lyon, a second-century Bishop. It says simply: “The glory of God is the human person fully alive.” That, my friends, is Pentecost today and tomorrow. 


But remember there is a second line to this epigram from Bishop Irenaeus which is equally important: “…and that life consists in beholding God.”


May we each today catch some glimpse of God or God’s footprints, in the power and agency of the life-giving Spirit.  


And now, friends, perhaps it is time to pick up those red streamers and party.  Amen.

Sunday, March 29, 2026

The Sunday of the Passion/Palm Sunday, March 29, 2026

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Robert Leo Sevensky, OHC

The Sunday of the Passion/Palm Sunday, March 29, 2026

We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you, because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.  Amen.

As a self-confessed liturgy nerd and a closeted anglophile, my eyes were glued to my computer screen this past Wednesday as I watched the installation service of the Most Reverend and Right Honorable Dame Sarah Elisabeth Mullally as the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury. It was a deeply beautiful and moving service, filled with joy and tenderness. And of course, with glorious music and Anglican pomp and ceremony.  But for me the most touching point came at the very beginning when the new Archbishop was welcomed at the West door of the Cathedral.

Three children from a nearby school met her there saying:  We greet you in the name of Christ. Who are you and why do you request entry?

The archbishop replied: I am Sarah, a servant of Jesus Christ, and I come as one seeking the grace of God, to travel with you in his service together.

The children then asked:  Why have you been sent to us?

The archbishop again:  I am sent as Archbishop to serve you, to proclaim the love of Christ and with you to worship and love him with heart and soul, mind and strength.

Then the children asked: How do you come among us and with what confidence?

And the archbishop simply said:  I come knowing nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified, and in weakness and fear and in much trembling.

The children then invited her and us saying:  Let us then humble ourselves before God and together seek his mercy and strength.

“I come knowing nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” These are, of course, words echoing those of Saint Paul, and if we are to be servants of Jesus Christ, they need to be our words as well. But these are not easy words. They are perhaps the most difficult words in scripture, especially for us contemporary folk.

Recently the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts developed a revised service for Palm Sunday, a revision allowed as well in this Diocese of New York. The revised service changes the focus totally to the triumphal entry of our Lord into Jerusalem and moves the reading of the Passion narrative to the very end of the service…indeed, to after the service. And it makes the reading of the Passion narrative entirely optional. The intention behind this change is not unworthy. It recognizes that our Passion narratives, each different from the other, have often been used or misused to promote anti-Judaism. And it provides a pastoral note explaining the reasoning behind this change, a pastoral note worth reading aloud:

“On Palm Sunday it is a tradition to proclaim the passion narrative so that Jesus Christ’s love for all is made clear. Over time, this narrative has been used to promote anti-Judaism. The responsibility for the suffering and death of Jesus Christ cannot be attributed, in either preaching or teaching, indiscriminately to all Jews of that time, nor to Jews today. The Jewish people should not be referred to or represented as rejected or cursed by God, as this claim cannot be found in Scripture. Christians must remember that Jesus, his mother Mary, and his early disciples were Jewish. We must affirm the long-standing teaching of the church that Jesus Christ entered into suffering and death by his own free will as a sign of God’s saving and reconciling love to the world.”

I get it. We know that it wasn't accidental that Jews in Central and Eastern Europe and elsewhere felt the need to be especially vigilant and perhaps invisible during the Christian Holy Week when pogroms and other forms of anti-Jewish violence became more common. But I do wonder whether avoiding these difficult texts, these Passion narratives, is the best way to engage them. Could there be other reasons operating here? Dean Andrew McGowan of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, reminds us: “…we actually have no immediate access to the events of Holy Week other than via these texts. Other versions of this story we offer will be our creations and mirror our sensibilities.”

Could it be that our sensibilities include a real desire to avoid or forget the cross in all its scandal? Are we any different from those mentioned by Saint Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians who find the cross a scandal, a folly and an embarrassment? The Reverend Vincent Pizzuto, a theology professor and pastor of Saint Columba’s Episcopal Church in, of all places Marin County, argues that this may be the deep truth about us. And not just us but American Christians generally.   What the American church wants today, he says, is spiritual uplift, divine intimacy, ‘emotion devotion’--but please, God, not the cross. Anything but the cross. He continues: “Don't we, after all, secretly find all that gibberish about sin, divine wrath, judgment, suffering, sacrifice just foolishness from a bygone age? Vestiges of an archaic (even barbaric) worldview from which all of us undoubtedly bear some collective moral responsibility to unshackle the church in favor of a more enlightened values not centered on the cross but sanitized of it?”  He quotes the famous line from Richard Niebuhr’s 1959 book The Kingdom of God in America: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”  I doubt that Niebuhr, as wise as he was, could have foreseen churches which leap over Good Friday or who exalt a so-called ‘creation spirituality’ which has no place for the cross.

The cross is a scandal precisely because it holds up a mirror to the human heart. And, as Father Pizzuto says: “… what the cross will reveal with ruthless honesty is that the line between good and evil is never between us and them, but traverses straight through every human heart."

I'm not saying that we are more church-y or advanced because we read Matthew’s Passion narrative here this morning. It's easy even here, maybe especially here, to glide over the historicity and nitty gritty of it and make it a piece of light opera. Nor are we more advanced if we have a nicely developed theology of the cross, because in truth there are many theologies of the cross. Just as each of the gospel narratives of the Passion has its own theology of the cross--today in Matthew the cross is presented as fulfillment of prophecy, on Friday when we hear John's Passion we encounter a theology of the cross as glorification. There is no one theological explanation of how the great act of Godly love that we celebrate this Great and Holy Week leads to life and light and hope. Certainly not— forgive me—a literal substitutionary theory of the atonement.  There will always be questions and divergences about the meaning of the cross, but not about its power to transcend time and help us see ourselves and our present world in its light, transforming that world and being ourselves transformed through it and by it, and being liberated and saved by its mysterious Truth.

Then the children asked:  How do you come among us and with what confidence?”

And the Archbishop replied: “I come knowing nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified, and in weakness and fear and much trembling.”

We must all come this way, or else we shall never arrive at all.

Amen.

Sources:

McGowan, Andrew. “The Passions of our Lord Jesus Christ—March 24, 2026”  https://abmcg.substack.com/p/the-passions-of-our-lord-jesus-christ

Pizzuto, Vincent. “Passion Sunday—April 13, 2025”  https://www.vincentpizzuto.org/post/the-overture

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

The Presentation of our Lord, transferred, February 3, 2026

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Robert Leo Sevensky, OHC

The Presentation of our Lord, transferred, February 3, 2026

Senex puerum portabat: puer autem senem regebat: quem virgo peperit, et post partum virgo permansit: ipsum quem genuit, adoravit. 


It was in the early 1970s, probably 1972, that I first heard these words. They were sung to a setting written by the great Renaissance composer and court musician William Byrd (1540-1623) at the Church of the Advent in Boston on the Feast of the Presentation. I was captivated by the music, a motet that weaved in and out with its various lines and finally resolving. It was stunning. But even more captivating for me were the words themselves:


An old man held up a child

yet the child upheld [or ruled] the man. 

The child the Virgin bore while yet remaining a virgin, 

this child she had borne, she adored.


The text itself is an ancient antiphon for First Vespers of today’s feast as well as part of the gradual chant at the mass. It comes to us from a sermon of Saint Augustine. And it is pure poetry.  


Spanning centuries, the medieval mind delighted in words and dwelt in them in a way that it is almost impossible for us now, overwhelmed as we are by words and images and music and noise and false news and social media. As LP Hartley famously reminds us, "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there." And in that different country, that other world, words were scarcer and were attended to with greater attention and even greater receptivity and creativity. So it is with this motet, this antiphon. There is a palpable delight in the juxtapositions and the surprising paradoxes that are articulated. An old man holds a child, yet that child upholds the old man, and not just the old man but the entire universe. The Virgin bears a child yet remains a virgin and adores the one who made her though she had given him birth. It's more than just clever word play. It points rather to the astounding power of God to shape and reshape our minds and our hearts to see in new and more faithful ways. That may be the truth of Lectio Divina, a practice which I find so elusive. That may also be the truth of poetry which I find equally elusive. It is the realization that what appears at first sight is not the whole story; it's not even the true story. Something more mysterious and profound is going on. It is, if you will, mysticism in verbal form.  And it takes time to unfold.


Some years ago, we simplified our 1976 Monastic Breviary, and this Feast of the Presentation was drastically revised. The antiphons, which were always notoriously difficult to sing, were eliminated. But it’s worth listening once again to the poetic truths they embody and to consider the invitations, they offer us to enter into the mysterious and archetypal depths of this feast.


So, the antiphon on the Magnificat of First Vespers: 

“O wonderful interchange! The creator of mankind, taking upon him a living body, deigned to be born of a virgin, and proceeding forth as man, without seed, has made us partakers of his divinity.”

Chew on that for a while!

Or the antiphon on the Benedictus:

“When you were marvelously born of a virgin, then were the scriptures fulfilled; you came down like rain into a fleece of wool, to bring salvation to all mankind: we praise you, O our God.”

Can you imagine a better prayer, a holier acclamation?

Or my favorite, the antiphon on the Magnificat at Second Vespers:


“In the bush, which Moses saw unconsumed, we acknowledge the preservation of your glorious virginity; holy mother of God, intercede for your children.”


Mary, the Burning Bush!


Today's feast marks the conclusion of the Nativity or Christmas cycle, a cycle largely based on the infancy narrative of Saint Luke’s gospel, those first two chapters of Luke which shape both our popular devotion and our theology. Most of us admit that these chapters are not historical in the way we understand that term today. They are, if you will, legends or great mythic narratives which point beyond themselves not to historical details—though they are there too—but to profound theological, doctrinal, and dogmatic understandings. They are all about God with us, Emmanuel, the Holy One pitching a tent and dwelling among us in the person of Jesus and in the Spirit's power. And in this way, they bring us to a more adequate expression of the truth and not its diminishment.


But to understand these events celebrated today, dwelling in scriptural texts such Simeon’s canticle Nunc Dimittis that we sing each night at Compline or in these wonderfully poetic antiphons which come to us from over a millennia ago, we need to let go, at least provisionally, our need for logical certitude and historical accuracy and inhabit for a time the realm of the poet or artist or artisan or mystic. 


 And so today we walk with Mary and Joseph and the Baby into the Temple. We meet Anna the prophetess. We watch Simeon, aged though he is, pick up the Child just as we carried burning candles in procession. We listen to Simeon’s song. We hear of a sword piercing a mother's heart. And with journey with the family as they get on with their lives, as best they can, moving to Nazareth and making a home there…a home fit for a King.


An old man held up a child, but the child upheld the man. So, it is with us. The child whom the woman bore while remaining a virgin, this child she adored. So must we, so must we.  Saint Augustine says: “Simeon, the old man, bore Christ the Child; Christ ruled the old age of Simeon... Christ was born, and at the old age of the world the desire of the old man was fulfilled. He who found a world broken with age came to an ancient man.”   And still, he comes to us today.


I close with a quote from a contemporary Jesuit writer, Joseph Koczera:


“The old man carried the child, but the child ruled the old man. Borrowed from his sermon of Saint Augustine, this verse pithily sums up Simeon’s place in the history of salvation. It may seem strange to think of a tiny infant “ruling” over anyone, yet it was the expectation of the Messiah's coming that served to order and govern Simeon’s life. We all have our hopes for the future, and we may find that our lives are governed by expectation. What is the consolation that we await, and what do we hope to see or encounter before we make our own Nunc Dimittis?” 


Good question.  Happy feast.

And if you get the chance today, listen on YouTube or Spotify to Byrd’s motet Senex Puerum portabat or one of the other settings of it by Tomas Luis de Victoria or Giovanni Palestrina.  You won’t regret it.    

Sunday, November 23, 2025

The Last Sunday after Pentecost, Christ the King, Proper 29 C, November 23, 2025

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Robert Leo Sevensky, OHC

The Last Sunday after Pentecost, Christ the King, November 23, 2025

This past Wednesday, the New York Times published an article titled “How Two Times Reporters Cover Christianity in a Polarized America.”  It was an interview by Patrick Healy with two journalists from the New York Times whose beat is religion, Elizabeth Dias and Ruth Graham. In one of her responses Ms. Dias commented: “I remember talking to one Christian man in politics earlier this year who was explaining to me that while, yes, he sees America as a democracy, he also ultimately sees it as a democracy inside a monarchy where Jesus is king.”   What should we make of such a statement by a politician, a statement likely shared by a significant segment of the American population? How do we talk about kings in our religious discourse and in our Christian message given our recent history of No Kings demonstrations and the frankly ambiguous evaluation of kingship in both the Old and New Testaments? Is there any place at all for talk of kings or sovereigns or empires?


I struggle with this. It's undeniable that God, the Holy One, is described as king and sovereign and universal ruler and judge throughout the long history of the Bible. It's also undeniable that of the hundreds and hundreds of references to kings and rulers and sovereigns, many--perhaps the majority--refer to bad kings and rulers and sovereigns: evil tyrants, oppressors, tribalists or nationalists, dictators, autocrats, men (almost always men!) who were violent, vindictive, selfish and deeply, deeply flawed. It seems that references to good kings are scarce, and even these are not without their own ambiguity. Think of David: a mighty king who obtained his wife by having her husband killed in battle. Think of Solomon: wise perhaps but somewhat profligate. Did he really need to build that large a temple in Jerusalem and at the cost, no doubt, of enslaved or indentured people? Jesus, too, is called king, both in scripture and certainly in the spiritual tradition of Christian worship and prayer. But what does that mean exactly? For all its triumphalism, today's feast invites us to struggle with this language and this imagery…language and imagery which can be both comforting and dangerous.


An historical footnote. Today's feast is exactly one hundred years old. Pope Pius XI created it in 1925 to counter a growing secularism and certain developments in the world political  theater. There was the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia and the beginnings of the fascist movement in Italy under Mussolini as well as various radical labor movements and a looming political settlement that was going to deprive the Vatican of the papal states which once covered most of central Italy, reducing its land holdings to a mere 121 acres in the center of Rome, the so-called State of the Vatican City.  Against these developments and others, the Pope instituted this feast as a reminder that the only real and ultimate power is that of God in Christ…though with the implication, I think, that it was the Vatican which was at the center of that power. The feast or observance was originally observed on the last Sunday of October until it was transferred in 1970 to the last Sunday after Pentecost, the Sunday next before Advent, which means the last Sunday of the Christian year. In an amazing ecumenical development, the readings that went along with the feast included in a new three-year cycle of readings—the so-called Comon Lectionary—were adopted by many Christian bodies including  Anglican churches as well as Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist and others. And with the readings came the feast. Some would say that our own current political situation in this country and throughout the world reflects the same chaos and fears that Pope Pius XI addressed one hundred years ago. I certainly share that view, at least to some extent. But again, we must ask ourselves: what is a king, a sovereign, an emperor? And can we honestly speak of God in Christ in such terms?


When I think of a king or sovereign or emperor, I think of someone  who has uninhibited, absolute power and who enjoys a lifetime appointment or tenure and who has control over large numbers of people and resources. And they are often people who wear strange apparel:  crowns and ermine robes. And they carry scepters and orbs and wear swords. As a child I was fascinated by such things. I remember looking at an old issue of the National Geographic Magazine that covered the coronation of Queen Elizabeth the Second in 1953. Wow, I thought. This is great. The recent coronation of her son, however, I found more than  little embarrassing with symbols and ceremonies that no longer spoke to me or to our age. But those are extras really. Let’s face it: kingship, sovereignty, imperial majesty is all about power. And most of the royal rulers of Europe and elsewhere no longer exercise such power. But others do…or hope to.


Today's readings for this Feast of Christ the King offer us a radically different vision of kingship. In today’s gospel passage from St. Luke, we are invited to see the kingship of Jesus in all his glory, though not seated on a throne, or carrying orb and scepter, or wearing fine robes and certainly not a sword or saber. Rather we see the fullness of the kingship or reign of Jesus exercised from pulpit of the cross. And what is that exercise? It is nothing less than forgiveness. In Luke's gospel that we hear today, Jesus prays, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."  And to the criminal who asks Jesus to remember him, he says: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” And the final word is not that Jesus but that of a centurion who saw what had taken place. He praised God and said, “Certainly this man was innocent.”


If today we acknowledge Jesus as king or sovereign or ruler, it can’t be a kingship of this world, as Jesus says in St. John's passion narrative, but one which is characterized by mercy, forgiveness, a reaching out to others even in our own pain, and like that centurion, witnessing to the injustices of our world. And in the power of that witness praising God and changing our lives to become more and more agents of mercy, forgiveness, and compassion.  Just like our Savior. Just like our King. Just like Jesus.


In the second half of Lent, as we approach Holy Week, we begin our morning worship by saying or singing the invitatory: “Christ is reigning from the tree; Come let us worship.” This is the kingship of Christ. It’s not the entirety of it of course, but it is at the center, and it marks and interprets all the other images of the kingship of Christ, the sovereignty of Christ: Christ the Judge, Christ the Truth, Christ the Shepherd, Christ the Governor, Christ the victor, Christ the Lord. It is this Christ that is captured in the famous 13th century prayer of Saint Richard of Chichester which many years ago memorably became part of the musical Godspell. Saint Richard prayed: 

Thanks be to thee, my Lord Jesus Christ,
for all the benefits thou hast given me,
for all the pains and insults thou hast borne for me.
O most merciful redeemer, friend and brother,
may I know [see] thee more clearly,
love thee more dearly,
and follow thee more nearly, day by day.
Amen.

“O most merciful redeemer, friend and brother.”  That, for me, is Christ our King. And perhaps that is enough.

Christ is reigning from the tree. Come let us adore him. 

Amen.

Sunday, July 6, 2025

The Fourth Sunday after Pentecost, July 6, 2025

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Robert Leo Sevensky, OHC

The Fourth Sunday after Pentecost, July 6, 2025

I find myself drawn to the story of Naaman, the commander of the army of the King of Aram, that we heard in this morning’s Old Testament lesson from the Second Book of Kings. It's not often that we read from this book, partly because it's largely a history of battles. But it does contain the wonderful cycle of stories about Elisha, the heir to the prophet Elijah. And those stories, like those surrounding Elijah, have become models or prototypes for the lives of other holy people, particularly the saints and most especially for the life of Saint Benedict which we read in the Dialogues of Gregory the Great. It's hard to take them seriously at times, at least not as history as we understand it, but they are stories that tell us about the power of God to transform lives even through the actions of some wild and difficult people, of whom Elisha is one. I must remind myself that, whatever Elisha’s prophetic powers and ministry, he's not someone to be messed with. Let’s not forget the story of Elisha (2 Kings 2:23-24) who was being mocked by a group of boys because he was bald. Elisha simply calls two she-bears to attack and maul the boys…forty-two in all. That'll teach them to mock a prophet! Yes, Elisha is not someone to be treated lightly. And maybe neither is God. 

The story of Naaman as we have it is quite touching. Naaman is a great man, a great military leader and a Gentile. And apparently an idolater, as were all the Arameans. And we hear that he has developed leprosy. This is not what we today understand as leprosy, but rather a skin condition which renders him unclean and perhaps considered cursed. As the story develops, Naaman hears of a prophet in Samaria who could cure him of his skin disease. After a little palaver about political misunderstandings between Naaman and the king of Israel, Naaman goes to meet Elisha. Alas, he doesn't even get that far. Elisha sends a messenger to him and tells him to go wash in the river Jordan seven times and his flesh will be restored and he would be clean. Then things get interesting. Naaman is a very great man. A particularly important man. He is used to being, and expects to be, treated with attention and great care. And he's not at all happy about being dismissed by the prophet for refusing to see him in person. As he says: “I thought that for me he would surely come out and stand and call upon the name of the Lord his God, and would wave his hand over the spot and cure the leprosy!” Why wash in the Jordan river when Naaman had perfectly good rivers in Damascus? So, as the scripture tells us, “He turned and went away in a rage.” But his servants approached him—I would imagine very gingerly—and  suggested that had the prophet asked him to do something quite difficult, would he not have done it? Why not do something as simple as wash in the Jordan and be clean? To his great credit, Naaman overcame his anger and his hurt pride and washed in the Jordan and was cleansed. The scripture tells us: “His flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.


The story doesn’t end there and is well worth reading in its entirety. But what we read today tells us, or at least tells me, something important about faith and about life. And that is that our faith, our religion, our spirituality is perhaps something quite simpler than we usually imagine.

Not everybody is religiously obsessive or overly scrupulous. But I certainly was when I was young and probably am still to an uncomfortable extent. And my hunch is that I'm not alone in this. As a young boy, for example, I used to worry as I prayed to the Father or to the Son,  that the Holy Ghost might be a little unhappy with me because I wasn't giving Him/Her/It enough attention. I often worried about getting it right, doing it right, believing aright and sometimes even acting aright. I was on the lookout for new devotions, new paths of prayer, novel approaches to what we now term spirituality. Let me be clear: none of these concerns is bad in and of itself, though they did drive me to get a graduate degree in the philosophy of religion so that I could figure out what was indeed right and correct and therefore do it, be it, or have it as if it were some kind of possession. And I don't regret that, at least not totally. But like Naaman, I often thought that there had to be more to it, that there had to be the calling on the name of the Lord and the waving of the hands before the desired effect. But over the years I’ve come to think that maybe it's much simpler than all that. At least at its core.

It appears that all traditions at some point try to summarize the deep truth out of which they've grown. Christianity certainly has, and it should not be lost on us. If fifty years ago you had come to an Episcopal service of Holy Communion you would have heard, Sunday after Sunday, the summary of the law:

Hear what our Lord Jesus saith: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 22:37-40

There you have it. Is it enough? Yes and no. This is only the starting point, and it takes a lifetime or perhaps an eternity to unpack it, embrace it and in a sense become it, live it, be it. But if this is all you knew, it would be enough.

The Christian tradition is filled with such gems of spiritual wisdom:  “God is love.” “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”  “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved.” Or as we heard today in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: “Bear one another's burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the law of Christ.”  These are all touchstones of our Christian path. 

And not it’s just the Christian tradition that has such summaries. The Jewish tradition, for example, is rich with stories and tales and homely advice. One of the earliest stories paralleling Jesus’ two great commandments is that of Rabbi Hillel the Elder who lived roughly around the time of Jesus:  The story goes:

A non-Jew once came before Rabbi Shammai with a curious demand. He wanted Shammai to teach him the entire Torah while the non-Jew stood on one foot. Knowing the impossibility of such a thing, Shammai rejected him. The questioner then took his request to Rabbi Hillel the Elder. Hillel gently told him, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah, and the rest is its commentary. Now go and study.”

We see clearly that this summary of the law, if you will, is not an end but a beginning to be unpacked and understood and lived. “Now go and study,” concludes Rabbi Hillel. The work is just beginning, but my, what a great starting point.

In our day we might call these sayings or summaries ‘memes’ or memory devices which set us on the right road. That certainly is one of the functions of the creed that we will recite together after I finish. This year we are celebrating the seventeen hundredth anniversary of the Nicene Creed, at least in its first iteration. People often roll their eyes when we come to the creed and say they don't believe it, or they don't get it or that they can't truthfully say it. I've been there at times, but I now find the creed a precious gift to us not as a final and complete statement but, like the summary of the law given us by Jesus or the ethical teachings of Hillel, a starting point for a process that goes deeper and the deeper into the realm of the Spirit and into that process of transformation or metamorphosis that we call redemption and sanctification and wholeness.

A few weeks ago, I posted on my Facebook page an excerpt from an essay by our friend Father Martin Smith. In an article he wrote some years ago for the Washington DC diocesan newspaper, he articulates four ways of understanding or approaching what a creed might mean for us today. He likens the creed first to an entrance ticket. Originally created to summarize for converts what kind of drama baptism was going to let them into, reciting the creed admitted them to the drama. But it wasn’t the drama itself, it was just the entrance ticket. The real drama is here and now.

Second, it has been, as it were, a coin or currency of the Christian family for seventeen centuries. If for no other reason, we should honor this coin or currency passed down to us, one which has held together a disparate family across time and space and cultures and of which we too are part. 

Thirdly, Martin tells us that the creed is like the table of contents in a book of poetry. It is a list of first lines, but no one line is a whole poem in itself. For that we must dig deeper and do some hard work. And that again is the work of a lifetime, as both Rabbi Jesus and Rabbi Hillel tell us. 

Finally, Martin reminds us that the creed is a song. It is a song of God's love and of God's compassion and actions and of God's intention to bind us together as one in the face of much evil and ill will in us and around us. It is a song of resistance. And it is above all a love song. How we need such a song of loving resistance today. I used to attend a church in Boston where we always sang the creed on Sundays to a wonderful plainsong melody. We can't do that right now. But we can monotone it as is often done with the Apostle’s Creed. And since it's summer and since it's the Creed’s seventeen hundredth birthday, why don't we? So please turn in your Holy Eucharist booklets to page 2 for the text and stand. Let us to confess our hope, our faith, our love story, and our resistance in the words of the ancient creed as we sing it…and feel free to add whatever harmonies you like: 

We believe in one God…

Sunday, May 11, 2025

The Fourth Sunday of Easter, May 11, 2025

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Robert Leo Sevensky, OHC

The Fourth Sunday of Easter, May 11, 2025
  • Acts 9:36-43
  • Revelation 7:9-17
  • John 10:22-30

I'm afraid I have three sermons to preach this morning, so I'll try to make them short.

First, today is Good Shepherd Sunday. Every year on the Fourth Sunday of Easter we hear one or another passage from John’s Gospel and the beautiful collect or prayer reminding us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd of God's people. Truthfully, however, I know little, if anything, about sheep or shepherds. I worked one summer on a dairy farm, but it turns out that cows are rather different than sheep. And many years ago, I spent several weeks in New Zealand where it is said that there are four million people and forty million sheep. That struck me as just about the right ratio. But beyond that I have nothing to say except that we all need to be guided and protected, and in Christ Jesus God is both that director and defender.

Second, today is Mother's Day…and I know a little bit more about mothers than I do about sheep or shepherds. In fact, we all know something about mothers and mothering and nurturing even if we are not mothers in the literal sense of the term. Some years ago, I was preaching on Mother's Day and the first lesson from the Acts of the Apostles was about the Ethiopian eunuch. Later that day I was talking to my sister and mentioned this and said how odd it was that we should have a reading about a eunuch on Mother's Day. She paused for a moment and then said: “He had a mother too.” We all have a mother, whether we knew her or not, whether she was a ‘good’ mother or not, whether we had her for only a few hours or for many decades. Some of us here today are in fact mothers, whether our offspring are living or departed this life. And we honor you today. Your mothering is an embodied symbol of the nurturing and sustaining love of God. It reminds us that God is as much mother as father, as Lady Julian of Norwich and others have taught us. So happy Mother's Day to you all who are mothers. And happy Mother's Day to those of us who are the offspring of a mother, which is all of us. However complex, we like that eunuch each had a mother, and we hold her now, living or departed, in our prayers.

My third sermon for this morning has to do with memory and memorization. Memory is a central feature of the spiritual life, at least as we have received it and practice it in the Western faith traditions. So much of the Jewish roots of our lineage revolve around  remembering a history, factual or somewhat fanciful, and passing on that memory to those who come after us. It is a memory of creation and of waywardness, of enslavement and deliverance, of folly and wisdom, of getting lost and of being found again and again. In our Christian message we are reminded and urged to remember who we are and whose we are, never forgetting the great love of God who has brought us, and continues to bring us, to newness of life. Our very act of worship here this morning in this Eucharist is summarized at the pivotal point of our liturgy when we hear once again the words of our Lord: Do this in memory of me. Do this as a remembrance. Do not forget. 

Memory is strange and complex and rarely straightforward. But it is necessary. It is one of our central faculties, as the medieval philosophers called it, one of the central capabilities that makes us human. Yes, we can distort our memories, we can even remember things that never happened, but this doesn't lessen the fact that memory is important. We know how tragic the loss of memory is to those afflicted with neurological disorders such as dementia. Perhaps it's not an accident that for decades it was the practice in this monastery for each brother, upon entering the Chapel in the morning, to kneel and pray the Suscipe,  a prayer that begins: "Take, O Lord, and receive my entire liberty, my memory, my understanding, and my whole will. All that I am and all that I have, Thou hast given me; and I now give it back to Thee, to be disposed of according to Thy good pleasure.”  Our memory, our understanding, our will-- along with our emotions and our entire embodied being—are great gifts of the Creator and need to be nurtured and guided and used.

And one of the ways that our memory can be nurtured is through memorization. In his book Why We Remember (NY: Random House, 2024) the neuroscientist Charan Ranganath makes the point that the mind is more than memorization. He says:  “The human brain  is not a memorization machine; it is a thinking machine.”  True. But memorization is one of the tools that can help us to think in the broadest sense of that term to enter deeply into realities both scientific and spiritual, and to use our whole brain and our whole person.

I am thinking of memorizing today because of the psalm appointed for today which is the 23rd Psalm. Many of you probably know it verbatim. Somewhere along the way I memorized it in the King James Version: “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters; he restoreth my soul….” And because I have it memorized, it's available to me at a deep level which I can revisit and explore, as it were, new levels of meaning. There is a kind of muscular memory or embodied consciousness in memorized texts which reaches beyond reading or listening and beyond ordinary linear thinking or rationality. Perhaps it was for this reason, and not just because manuscripts were expensive and in short supply, that early monastics were expected to memorize at least the entire psalter, all 150 psalms. 

There has been something of a revival of memorization. My old friend Jay Parini, a scholar and author and expert on Robert Frost recently published a book titled Robert Frost. Sixteen Poems to Learn by Heart (Library of America, 2024). He notes:  “….memorization makes a poem part of our inner lives. Once committed to memory a poem is available to us for recall at any time--and the occasions for remembering it will make themselves known to us. It isn't something we have to work at.”  And last week the New York Times initiated a weeklong series of articles titled The Poetry Challenge which aimed to lead the reader into memorizing a poem by the early 20th century poet Edna Saint Vincent Mallay. I must confess I haven't had much success with memorizing either Robert Frost or the poem by Mallay, but I hasten to add that as an adolescent I did memorize a poem by her that began with these words: “Listen children, your father is dead.” I know that sounds grim, but it was an amazing poem. And it still lives in me. I’m sure every brother here can attest that the constant exposure to the Scriptures results eventually in a place where an image or phrase or passage from our sacred texts appears within us as if by magic and at just the right time. And as my friend Jay says, without our having to work at it. 

So my third sermon this morning is simply an invitation to you and to me to develop our memory through memorization. Yes, it can be a poem by Robert Frost or TS Eliot. It can be a Psalm or the Beatitudes or some other passage of Scripture. All of you already know some of them beginning with the Lord's Prayer. It can even be doggerel. In addition to memorizing Milton’s “On his Blindness” and Poe’s “The Raven” (parts of it now sadly lost) and several soliloquies from Shakespeare, I glory in and enjoy reciting a poem from Mad Magazine circa 1957 that began: ‘I think that I shall never hear a poem as lovely as a beer.”  I'll spare you the rest. See me later if you’d like to hear more.

“Remember your creator in the days of your youth,” says Ecclesiastes. “Do this in memory of me,” says our Lord. And above all, remember to call your mother today if she's still around. And, whether alive or departed, let's offer a prayer for her wherever she may be. Perhaps the Hail Mail? 

Amen.