A Brief Architectural History

This Saturday, St. John’s will be included in the Charlestown Preservation Society’s House Tour. A group of us will be welcoming neighbors starting at 1pm on Saturday. I’m out of town at a church meeting on Thursday, so haven’t written something for News & Notes, but I thought it would be fun to share with you the “Brief Architectural History” we’ll be handing out to visitors, along with a few photos.

The Church is the people, not the building—but the building’s quite nice, too, and it is an incredible gift to have received such a beautiful place in which to worship from the generations before us. (Many thanks to the generations of Building Committees in particular, and especially for those who prepared the history below!)


The congregation of St John’s was established in 1840, on the eve of Charlestown’s mid-1840s building and population boom. The cornerstone for the church was laid on 5 May 1841, on what was then called Bow Street (formerly Crooked Lane), the outermost part of Town Hill; the nave was consecrated in November of that same year. That the new church was ready within six months after breaking ground reveals the success of a staggeringly impressive construction schedule and how much easier it is to construct a building that does not require electricity, heat or water. The front façade of dark ashlar granite with crenellated tower and the tall, pointed arch windows are typical of the Early Gothic Revival style, a British import popular at that time in Eastern Massachusetts. The architect responsible for design was Richard Bond, who also designed Lewis Wharf in Boston and Gore Hall at Harvard College, a building which was torn down and replaced by the Widener Library, but whose image still graces the seal of the City of Cambridge.

The original design of the church’s interior was distinctly “low church”: warm browns, golds and terra cotta on the walls, galleries on all three sides, with organ in the rear, box pews, diamond-shaped clear glass in all the windows and only a small slightly raised sanctuary which contained two chairs, a lectern and a communion table. The two chairs are still in use today.

I’ve always loved the inscription on the baptismal font:
“From the Children of St. John’s, Easter 1845.”

In 1876-77, extensive alterations were made by architect A.C. Martin and included the arches one sees here today, which at that time were heavily decorated as was the border of the stained glass window and paneling behind the altar; there was also a decorative stencil along the top of the wainscot in the nave. The box pews remained, only to leave around 1910-11, when the wood floor of quarter-sawn oak was installed. The window over the altar is the only figured memorial window in a church in Charlestown, and is dedicated to the memory of Peter and Sara Hubbell. Peter was a long time Senior Warden of the church, a brick manufacturer who lived on Monument Square and built 1-2 Laurel Street. It was Peter Hubbell who in 1856 donated the 3,000 pound bell which still hangs in the tower and is rung by the congregation’s children every Sunday (with a little help from the adults). The window is the work of noted artisan W. J. McPherson. The stained glass on the sides of the church were produced by Kelley and Holland.

In addition to the bell and the window, the Hubbells can lay claim to another central part of our lives: Mrs. Hubbell donated the communion silver we use every week in memory of her husband, who was, as the inscription notes, Senior Warden of the parish for twenty-three years (!).

In 1998, the parish made a significant exterior restoration, including new copper roof flashing and selective slate replacement, repointing and cleaning of the granite and brick. This followed the installation of the “new” 1873 Odell tracker organ, which was bought from a church in Old Saybrook, Connecticut and fit into its space at St John’s perfectly. In 2003, with grants from Historic Boston and others, lighting for the church steeple was installed. More recently, the altar area and railings were reworked so that the original altar could be brought into the center of the platform; the step up to the altar was considerably widened and hand rails installed. In doing this work, two shoes were found in a wall cavity, a tradition of the time; however, what was unique about these shoes was that one was a man’s shoe and the other a woman’s. Pictures were taken, an article appeared in the bridge, and then the shoes were put back into the wall. The nave was also repainted at this time, in neutrals, but the narthex (entry) repainting was done in one of the historic colors and the stenciling on the wainscot was reproduced.

It is significant to note that for over a century the parish was served by only three priests. The Reverend Thomas R. Lambert served from 1856-1883; the Reverend Philo W. Sprague served from 1884-1923 (at which time he became rector emeritus), and then the Reverend Wolcott Cutler, who served from 1924-1959. The Reverend Mr. Cutler left a lasting legacy in his work to preserve Charlestown’s historic neighborhood and in his slide collection of Charlestown scenes and people, which is available for viewing through the Boston Public Library. Mr. Cutler is also primarily responsible for the Forest Garden behind the Church and Parish House, which is currently undergoing accessibility improvements funded by a Community Preservation Act grant

Today, St. John’s remains a vibrant parish church, open for worship every Sunday at 10am. The Parish House hosts community groups including the Charlestown Coalition’s Turn It Around, Jr. youth group, the Charlestown Community Cares Clothes Closet, addiction recovery meetings, and more.

Making Many Mistakes

Making Many Mistakes

 
 
00:00 / 11:56
 
1X
 

Sermon — September 15, 2024

The Rev. Greg Johnston

Lectionary Readings

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters,
for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (James 3:1) Amen.

James’s warning seems both funny and appropriate today, as we plan to bless our students and educators, to offer prayers for those who learn and, perhaps especially, for those who teach. Classes, after all, have begun, from kindergarten all the way through college. Our Sunday School classes will begin next week. Our Thursday-morning group is already underway. We’re making plans for possible confirmations later this spring. And of course, every Sunday includes a moment of teaching right here, during the sermon.

James may be writing mostly about the kind of teaching we encounter in church. He’s warning his readers about the dangers of the preacher’s untameable tongue, about the higher bar that’s set for theological ramblings from the pulpit than casual conversation among friends. We entrust clergy with an uninterrupted fifteen minutes a week, and we have the power to do great good and/or great evil, depending on what we say, to be sure. But teaching isn’t just something I do, or something teachers do. It’s something we all do.

Every day of all our lives, every one of us is demonstrating something to the people around us. Every word we say models what is it to live a kind and loving life to the people around us. Or it doesn’t.  And if what James has to say is true for all of us, because we are all subject to the power of the tongue.

The bit in a horse’s mouth is tiny, James say, compared to the huge body of the horse; (3:3) a rudder is small, and yet it can turn the whole ship. (3:4) A small flame can start a forest fire, he says, and you better believe that the tongue is a fire. (3:5-6)

You may already know this to be true. If you’ve ever hurt the feelings of someone you love by saying something you shouldn’t—has this ever happened to you?—then you know what James means when he says, “From the same mouth come blessing and cursing.” And you can probably agree when he says, “My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so!” (3:10)

And yet, as James says, “All of us make many mistakes.” (3:2)


Our Gospel reading proves the point. It’s incredibly easy to say something wrong, even if most of what you say is right.

Jesus is walking with his disciples through the villages near Caesarea Philippi, thirty miles or so north of their home base in Galilee. And he asks the disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” They tell him there’s a rumor going around that Jesus is John the Baptist, returned from the dead to take vengeance on Herod and finish the work of repentance he began. Others say something even grander, that Jesus is Elijah, who had been taken up into heaven in a chariot of fire a thousand years before, and who was supposed to return before the Messiah came. Others are little more down to earth: he’s a prophet, and that’s reason enough to follow him.

“But who do you say that I am?” Jesus asks. And the disciples are silent. Maybe they’ve been listening to James. Maybe they’re afraid to make a mistake. All of the disciples are silent except one. Peter answers him, simply, “You are the Messiah.” (Mark 8:29) And while Jesus warns them not to tell anyone, (8:30) Peter is right. For now.

And Jesus begins to explain what being the Messiah means. What he says might seem familiar to us, because we already know how the story unfolds. But it’s shocking to them. Yes, Jesus is the Messiah, the anointed one of God. But he hasn’t come to resurrect the royal line of David and set up a new kingdom here on earth. He’s here for something else. This Messiah is going to suffer, and be rejected, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And I get the sense that Peter is so outraged by the first half of all that that he doesn’t even hear the end. He’s so upset about the failure and suffering of Christ that he doesn’t even hear the part about the resurrection. Peter takes Jesus aside and starts to rebuke him: Bad, Jesus! No! (8:32) But Jesus turns it right back around: “Get behind me, Satan!” (8:33)

Poor Peter. This is why nobody else wanted to raise their hand in class.

Of course, Jesus isn’t rebuking Peter because his answer was wrong. Jesus is the Messiah. He’s rebuking the temptation that Peter offers. And this makes sense based on who “Satan” is in the Bible: Satan is the accuser, the tempter, the one who afflicted Job to see if he would curse God, the who enticed Jesus with food during his wilderness to tempt him during his fast. Here, Peter is the tempter, the one who tries to lure Jesus away from the hard road toward the easy path. Surely, if he’s the Messiah, he doesn’t need to suffer. Surely he doesn’t need to die. But Peter’s temptation doesn’t undermine Jesus’ courage. It doesn’t turn him away from sacrificing himself to save us all. He rebukes Peter for his mistake, and then he explains: If you want to follow me, don’t try to tempt me away from a difficult life. If you want to follow me, then follow me along that same road. Take up your cross, he says. Make your own choice to sacrifice something for the good of someone else.


Words matter. But actions matter even more. Following Jesus isn’t just going to be a matter of saying, “You are the Messiah.” It’s going to take a willingness to give something up for love.

I wonder what that might mean for you. I wonder what it might mean to “take up your cross.” It doesn’t mean what it meant for Jesus. It doesn’t mean that you need to endure violence or pain at the hands of another person. You don’t, and you shouldn’t. But it means something. It means that if you want to follow Jesus—if you want to walk in love, as he loved us—You’re going to need to give up whatever is hindering your ability to love. And I can’t tell you what that is, for you. But there’s a chance that you already know, and it’s just that taking up your cross is hard.

And that’s the bad news, or the challenging invitation, for today.

But there’s good news, too, and it’s as much a part of this letter and this story as the rest. “All of us make many mistakes,” says James, the Brother of Jesus, Bishop of Jerusalem. Not “all of you,” but “all of us,” who teach. And yet his very words, his very teachings, still stand, two thousand years later, a part of the Bible’s canonical text. “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Peter seems to say to Jesus, the Son of God. “You’re wrong about what the Messiah is supposed to do,” he tells the Messiah. This isn’t the high priest or the Roman governor, a Pharisee or Sadducee—this is Peter, who used to be Simon except that Jesus named him Peter, which means “Rock” in Greek, because he is the rock on whom Jesus will build the church. I love to point out from time to time how wrong or foolish Peter can be. Not because I want to put him down, but because it’s an incredible symbol of God’s forgiveness and grace that a person who is so imperfect, a person who makes so many mistakes, can still become the chosen and beloved instrument of God’s work in the world.

And so can you, you beloved, imperfect, child of God. Unless you are, as James says, a perfect person, you have made and you will make many mistakes in this life, including and especially with your tongue, with the words that come out of your mouth. But mistakes are not forever. Mistakes can be forgiven. The bit that turns the horse one way, can turn it back the other. The rudder can turn the ship to starboard as easily as to port. Mistakes can be forgiven, and mistakes can be corrected. And in a life which sometimes feels like it’s full of tests—whether we’re in school or out of it—it’s good news to remember that the one who’s grading you loves you so much that he took up his cross and laid his life for you. Amen.

Harvest

I don’t have much to say, today, by way of a message “From the Rector,” but I wanted to share one small, potentially-illuminating fact about the season we’re entering, which we often call “Fall,” sometimes “Autumn,” and in our quainter or more whimsical states of mind perhaps even “Harvest,” as in the “Harvest Fair.” (I don’t think much has been harvested in Charlestown in the last 180 years, but it’s a nice bit of marketing.) Specifically, a fun fact about the season’s name.

“Fall” is in fact the most recent of the names, dating only—only!—to the 1660s, an abbreviation of the poetic “fall of the leaf.” “Autumn” had been around from the 14th century or so, a borrowing from Latin via French at a time when much English vocabulary was being borrowed into English from French. “Harvest” was the oldest name for the season after summer and before winter. In fact, in Old and Middle English “Harvest” referred primarily to the season, and only secondarily the gathering of crops. (So perhaps our “Harvest Fair” is really just a “Fall Fair” after all, without any urban farming implied!)

And yet the word “harvest” itself comes in turn from an ancient Indo-European root that means, of course, “to gather or pluck.” So “Harvest” was an action before it was a season before it was an action again, and there’s no season more suitable for such a cycling of meanings than Autumn, when the leaves fall from the trees and become mulch, and the cycle of life and growth turns toward death and rebirth again. Everything new becomes old, and everything old becomes new again in time.

And yet time is not, as has been pessimistically said, a “flat circle,” in which we do the same things time and time again, without change or growth or decline. Time is a spiral, in one direction or another. Our language grows, and where our ancestors had one word we have three, for better or for worse. Seasons pass, and the trees don’t simply shed their leaves—they grow, or die, but they never remain unchanged.

Nor do we! As the cycles of your life begin again this fall—as schools reopen, and choirs begin, and all the September shifts of life take place—I wonder which direction God’s inviting you to grow.

Thoughts and Prayers

Thoughts and Prayers

 
 
00:00 / 14:12
 
1X
 

Sermon — September 8, 2024

The Rev. Greg Johnston

Lectionary Readings

After Wednesday’s mass shooting at Apalachee High School in Barrow County, Georgia, our political leaders restarted their recurring theological debate over the effectiveness of prayer and its importance relative to action in the face of the crisis of gun violence in America. I’m a little disturbed to admit that on before the shooting, on Tuesday afternoon, I spent some time with our reading from the Epistle of James and then sat down and wrote most of a sermon about the connection between early Christian debates over faith and works and the modern American debate over the use of the phrase “thoughts and prayers.” On Tuesday, it seemed like a decent way to connect the Bible to the real problems of our world. By Wednesday, I just felt sad, because the need for public figures to offer such thoughts and prayers over and over again is sad.

But here we are in church. And so I do want to begin not by offering my thoughts and prayers in the abstract, but by actually praying…

You’ve probably never heard a politician stand up at a campaign rally and declare, “Faith without works is dead!” (James 2:17) But the debate over “thoughts and prayers” pretty closely follows this other, theological debate over the relationship between two sorts of things that we sometimes shorthand by calling them “faith” and “works”. In both cases, it’s easy for things to become overly-abstracted into phrases like “justification by grace through faith” or “Second Amendment rights.” What I love about James is that he makes things very concrete. “If your brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill’… What is the good of that?” (James 2:16) When you see someone cold and hungry and offer them a prayer for warmth instead of your spare coat, are you “loving your neighbor as yourself?” (Jame 2:15–16) James’s answer is simple: no, you’re not. Faith alone, without work—prayer, alone, without action—is dead.

James lists food and warmth. We might add safety to the list, and we might ask in James’s words: If a person offers prayers for our children to be safe, but does not use the power they have to make them safer, “what is the good of that?” (James 2:17)


I want to step back and provide some of the theological context for this debate over faith and works, words and action. It’s a debate that began in the early Church with the apostles James and Paul, was picked back up in Martin Luther’s criticism of the late-medieval Catholic Church, and has continued to the present day.

Indeed, you’ll sometimes hear James’s “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” countered with the words of the apostle Paul, when he writes, in his Letter to the Galatians, that “a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 2:16) This is part of Paul’s broader understanding of salvation. The requirements of the law are so strict, the burden of the law is so great, Paul suggests, that none of us can fulfill it. If God is going to judge us on how precisely we’ve followed God’s commandments, then we’re all in some serious trouble. But there’s good news, Paul says; we are “justified,” we are restored to right relationship with God, not because we’ve fulfilled every point of the law perfectly, but because we’ve put our faith in Christ. It’s Jesus who has fulfilled the law on our behalf; only Christ the King, Paul reply to James, can truly fulfill “the royal law of love.”

Of course, It’s easy to see how you could take this much too far. If we are justified by faith, and not by works, then why do good things at all? If we are all sinners in need of redemption, then we can excuse any amount of bad behavior, so long as the person later says that they repent. If we’re free from the law and we depend only on God’s grace, then why does it matter whether we act? God’s in charge. Paul himself rejects this misunderstanding. But it’s clear that many people took his wrods this way.

Paul is really writing against people who claim that Gentile converts to Christianity need to adopt all of the law, including practices of circumcision and kosher food regulations that essentially mean that they must first convert to Judaism in order to become Christian. James is really writing people who think they need to keep none of the law, not even to feed and clothe their neighbors. If they’d just sat down, you might think, they could’ve worked this out. And in fact, they did. Paul and James and Peter and John met up in Jerusalem, and they agreed that Gentile converts didn’t have to follow the whole body of Jewish law, as long as Paul and his followers agreed to remember the poor, and so it was: faith and works exist in a balance, although we’ve been arguing about the balance ever since.


Our tradition offers us a beautiful image for this relationship, right there in the Historical Documents section of your Prayer Book, in Article XII of the 39 Articles. These articles are the classic formulation of the Reformation-era faith of the Church of England, and while they don’t always capture our own lives of faith perfectly well, they’re full of little gems. Article XII says, “Albeit that Good Works… cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment… yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by its fruit.”

Elizabethan theological prose is not always easy to parse by ear, so let me explain. Our good works alone, the Article admits, cannot atone for sin. We cannot, by working hard enough, earn our way into God’s good graces. (And so God comes down, in Christ, to bridge that gap instead.)

Nevertheless, the Article continues with a very English kind of reasonableness. The good things we do are “pleasing and acceptable to God.” And more than that. They’re not just nice to have, they spring “necessarily” from a true and lively Faith. There is no stark conflict between “faith” and “works”; when a person is filled with faith, it inevitably bubbles up out of them in good works, such that that you can actually know a “lively Faith” by good works, just as you can know a living tree from its good fruit. And this is what it means that “faith, if it has no works, is dead.” Just as the lack of fruit on a tree might be evidence that the tree isn’t thriving, the lack of love and kindness might be evidence that your faith is dying. In a strange way, praying for something to happen and refusing to make it happen shows a kind of lack of faith; a lack of faith that God might answer your prayers through you.

There’s only one person for whom faith and works are the same, and it’s Jesus. Only for Jesus, the Word-made-flesh, are words the same as deeds. Only Jesus can say “you may go—the demon has left your daughter,” and simply make that true. (Mark 7:29) Only Jesus can simply say, “‘Ephphatha,’ that is, ‘Be opened,’” and open someone’s ears. (Mark 7:34) For Jesus, prayer is the complete action; for the rest of us, prayer is only the beginning.


So here’s your homework for today.

In a few minutes, we will offer our thoughts and prayers. We’ll pray for the Church and for the world in ways general and specific. We’ll pray “for the peace of the world,” and for specific nations engaged in war. We’ll pray for “the welfare of the holy Church of God,” and for people we know and love who are unwell. We’ll pray for the widowed and orphans, for the poor and the oppressed. And our prayers are good. Our prayers are worthwhile. But none of us is Jesus. None of us can just say “Ephphatha” and make it so.

So I want to invite you to pick one prayer that you’re going to turn into a deed; one part of your faith, from which a good work will spring. Pick one of the politicians we pray for today, and write them a letter about something that you care deeply about. Or pick one person on the prayer list, who you know well or not as well, and give them a call.

Not because God will condemn you if you don’t. Not because you will be justified by works of the law if you do. But simply because if our prayers are genuine, they should not end in our hearts, but should move us to do something with our hands. Because if we truly believe God is answering our prayers, we need to be ready to accept that we might be part of the answer.

All Mixed Up

These last few weeks have been late summer the way it should be. Highs in the 70s, with the humidity just right, perfect for a last trip to the pool or the beach; lows in the 60s for perfect sleeping weather with the windows open all night. Colors saturated beyond all belief in my favorite combination of green leaves, blue skies, and red bricks in the shade on a sunny day, colors you can’t capture in a photo on a screen. Quiet sidewalks and empty pews as half the city tries to squeeze one more weekend of fun out of the summer.

The State of Maine isn’t the only place that can lay claim to the phrase “the way life should be.” Not these few weeks.

But not everything is as perfect as it seems. The leaves on the tree next to my desk are already beginning to turn, a sign of stress after a hot, dry summer. The joy of the last game of pick-up baseball being played in the park comes along with the sinking feeling I remember all too well of a school year about to begin. Our late-summer peace is troubled by news of war and violence, and all the anxieties of yet another election year.

This combination of flourishing and stress, of bitter and sweet, may not be “the way life should be.” But it’s certainly the way life is. And as it is with the world around us, so it is with the world inside us. Life is always both good and imperfect. And we are also always both good and imperfect. It’s a part of the human condition that the writer Dave Zahl calls “mixedness.”

When we misunderstand this reality, it has the potential to lead us to despair. Some of us crush ourselves with perfection, thinking that we’re supposed to be all beauty and no mess, that we should be able to do the right things and say the right things all the time, never making a mistake and never failing, and we find ourselves drowned in shame if we slip up. Others think we really are that great, unwilling or unable to see our rougher edges and our darker sides, and we expect the people around us to be perfect as well. A few of us might suffer from the opposite: We only see our failings and our struggles, and refuse to acknowledge the ways in which we’re good. Any of these imbalanced paths can only lead to despair.

But if we embrace the unfortunate truth of life’s “mixedness” and our own, it has the power to set us free. If you’re reading this, I am almost sure that you are mostly trying to be good. I am absolutely sure that you are imperfect. So am I. So is everyone else in your life. (And everyone else in mine!)

I can’t speak for you, I guess, but the more I come to grips with this, the better I feel. I find it easier to take the pressure of myself when I remember that my best efforts will inevitably be imperfect. I find it easier to love other people when I remember that theirs will, too. The more this truth sinks in, the more I find myself set free: free from my anxiety about my own small imperfections, free from my anger at everyone else’s minor failing, free to embrace and enjoy the good things I find all around me, knowing that they aren’t ruined by the bad.

This may not be the way life should be, but it’s certainly the way life is. And—seeing us exactly as we are, and knowing us more deeply than we know ourselves—God has chosen to love us, and to offer us a thousand small reminders of that love.