Thoughts going in, Sunday Jan 1st

15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about." 16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told. 21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

As we mark time in our secular lives, January 1st marks the start of a new year; new beginnings, new possibilities, etc. On the church's calendar, however, it's been the "new year" since the first Sunday of Advent. January 1st has a completely different role--marking the 8th day since the birth of Christ.

Of course it's all relative. Most people know that it's extremely unlikely that Jesus was really born on December 25th--hence also the unlikelihood that he was really circumcised and named on January 1st. All of this is a little bit beside the point, given that the Church merely uses these days/dates to commemorate events she knows to be true. Bottom line: regardless of the exact date, Jesus **was circumcised and named; it was in accordance with Torah; and it did happen on the 8th day, whenever that was.

And so we refer to the day as the festival of the Holy Name. As such it's hooked to a particular calendar day, Jan 1st, and so it's a matter of how the cookie crumbled that this year January 1st happens to be a Sunday. Yet, since it has, this Sunday we will turn our attention to the key phrase of the passage: he was NAMED JESUS, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

WHAT'S IN A NAME? This rhetorical question is posed by Juliet in Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet." She goes on to say "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;" Juliet's point seems to be that what really matters is what something IS, not what it's called. After all, Romeo bore the name "Montague".... a name accursed by Juliet's Capulet family. Yet, Juliet did not hold Romeo's name against him; indeed, Juliet saw that Romeo was something other than his name.

So what.... well, in a way this illustrates the REVERSE of Jesus' name and its importance. Because while Juliet may dismiss Romeo's name as not being crucial to WHO HE IS as a person, the Bible takes the exact opposite approach to the name of Jesus.

In Luke 1 the angel Gabriel said to Mary: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." Put another way, the angel said the child must be called Jesus (Yeshua, meaning The Lord Saves) precisely because he is the Son of the Most High, and the Most High SAVES; precisely because he will sit on the throne of David, and the one who sits on that throne SAVES. And he will reign forever, and his kingdom will have no end, precisely because THERE WILL BE NO END TO HIS SAVING WORK.

In other words, the answer to the question "what's in a name" when asked regarding JESUS..... is....EVERYTHING!

cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday Dec 11th

John 1: 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 19 Now this was John's testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Messiah." 21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No." 22 Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself ?" 23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' " 24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" 26 "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. 27 He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." 28 This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

This Sunday marks the THIRD week in our Advent journey, and there are some fairly neat things going on this week. First, while some may find it a little confusing, I want to mention that the gospel reading we have for this week includes portions of the HISTORIC gospel of the day. What I mean is, for several hundred years the church was on a 1-year series of readings, but since the 1960s we've been on a 3-year series. It's generally thought that the 3-year series is superior because it allows for more of the Bible to be read in the worship services of the church. Regardless, the gospel for the old 1-year series for the 3rd Sunday of Advent was John 1:19-23...and in year B of the 3-year series (our present year) the gospel selection is quite similar.

Ok, great. What else? Well, since the gospel reading is about the same, it's interesting to look back at some of those themes and markers that were present in the old 1-year series. For instance, the collect of the day: Incline thine ear to our prayers we beseech thee, O Lord; and enlighten the darkness of our minds by the grace of thy visitation. Who livest, etc. Concerning the historic collects of Advent, the 3rd week's was the only departure from the "stir up" collects.

Ok, again, great... what else? Well, this is also "pink candle" Sunday. The kids are usually pretty quick to notice that one of the candles in the Advent wreath is a different color from the rest. Pink. Why pink? Well, it makes the day stand out among the rest. It was called Gaudete Sunday--again, from the old series--because the introit of the day was taken from Philippians where St. Paul begins: Gaudete in Domino semper...or in the English REJOICE in the Lord always. So, Gaudete Sunday was REJOICE SUNDAY. Why rejoice? Because the somewhat penitential season of Advent is now HALF OVER. There's a light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. We're almost there.

But to build on this a little... it's not a "rejoice because this unpleasant experience is almost over" sort of thing. It is rather a matter of rejoicing over our present circumstance as well.

Back to the gospel reading, John makes an interesting statement in vss 26-27. He says: I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. Let that one percolate in your mind for a bit. According to the scene in this gospel, John the Baptist is addressing a whole group of people; Jesus is among them right now; this very day, but they don't realize it and they don't recognize him for who he is. Enlighten the darkness of our minds...the old collect says.

It's a sad fact of our sinful state that the Lord could be standing right in front of us and we'd miss him because our minds are so darkened with other stuff that we either don't care or just aren't looking for him. Thankfully God has not left us helpless. The original forerunner, John the Baptist, was sent... in the spirit of Elijah & Isaiah and all the prophets of old. And today we have God's word which is "living and powerful, sharper than any 2-edged sword" to point the way for us.

This Advent may we be reminded to LOOK FOR CHRIST in all of the areas he's told us he can be found: among the poor and needy; with children; with the sick and dying; in the Divine Service, the worship life of the Church; in his Word the Bible, and in the holy sacraments. HE'S THERE among us, just as he was standing there among the crowd that day on the banks of the Jordan. And let us REJOICE at the fact that 2000 years has already gone by, the end of all things is closer now than ever. He could return today! REJOICE!

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday Nov 20th

Eph 1:19 That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he [God] exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that can be invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

This Sunday marks the end of the Church year, and does so with another ‘thematic’ approach: “Christ the King.” The best write-up I’ve ever encountered on this feast comes from the Roman Catholic “Days of the Lord” series. This very thorough treatment is a bit long to quote here, so instead I’ll quote the statement found in the 2002 Year A Sundays/Seasons book:

“Christ the King” is a johnny-come-lately to the schedule of festivals and observances on the church calendar. It has neither the biblical warrant of Easter nor the antiquity of the forty days of Lent. Christ the King Sunday I the invention of a 20^th century Pope, Pius XI. Yet Christ the King Sunday is on the calendars of all of the Protestant churches that keep a church calendar. No doubt the appeal of the day is rooted in the need Pius XI saw in 1925. Europe was still reeling from World War I, and economic uncertainty abounded. People were bending the knee and doing obeisance to human saviors and political parties that promised to rescue them. Religion was increasingly relegated to the private sphere. In response to this, Pius XI called for an annual Sunday feast day to assert the kingship of our Savior. The observance of Christ the King proclaimed that no earthly ruler or power is LORD. The day proclaimed Jesus is king not only of our hearts and our private moments and personal salvation, but of all time and space.

With this in mind, even though the gospel reading of the day is the JUDGMENT scene of the separation of the sheep & goats, I like these verses from the day’s second reading in Ephesians as the basis for our meditation.

One of the things that really stands out to me in this passage is the tense of the verbs. Everything that St. Paul is talking about has ALREADY HAPPENED. Very often we as Christians tend to think of ourselves as “left behind” and alone in the enemy territory of the world. Jesus **WILL come again to judge the living & the dead, but right now it’s a free-for-all & it’s all just spinning out of control. This passage from Ephesians begs to differ. Jesus is already reigning: (a) by the power of God, vs 19; and (b) over every possible earthly rule, power or authority, vs 20.

The problem right now is that Jesus’ reign does not represent the ONLY power in the world. And this brings us to a profound irony: one would think that if the Christians simply banded together and DEFEATED all of the other powers in a military pre-emptive strike…and forcibly Christianized the entire world, that this would somehow make the reign of Christ more visible, real, and good. It wouldn’t. Every example of ‘ChristenDOM’ history has ever known has been a corrupt perversion of the reign of Christ. Clearly the thing to do is LET HIM REIGN HIS WAY.

How is that? Well, we need to remember what he said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” He’s not the type of king, and his kingdom isn’t the type of kingdom that uses the world’s regular tools. His kingdom isn’t based on the power of the sword, but rather on the power of the Gospel. If the church has a call to mission in furthering Christ’s kingdom, it is NOT to pick up the sword and conquer the earthly powers in his name, it is rather to pick up the GOSPEL and conquer the world with the LOVE of Christ. American Christianity in particular seems to have largely forgotten this.

The other thing that stands out to me from this text is the use of the word POWER. As the biblical exegetes frequently note, in the Greek the word is ‘dunamis’…it’s the word we get our “dynamite” from. Paul says that it’s this dynamite power of God that raised Jesus from the dead that has seated him at God’s right hand and declared him ruler of all. But it’s also the same power that has worked in our lives via baptism; and empowers us to live godly lives. In short, the POWER that raised Christ & made him King over all is the same POWER that drives the Gospel and will ultimately ensure its victory.

cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sun Nov 13th

Matthew 25:14 "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 "After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.' 21 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 22 "The man with two bags of gold also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.' 23 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 24 "Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.' 26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28 " 'Take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For those who have will be given more, and they will have an abundance. As for those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

So, having completed our side-stops of Reformation Sunday and All Saints Sunday, we're now back in the Gospel of Matthew, and back with another parable.

On first glance, this parable would appear to be fortuitous as we (and so many other churches) steam toward "STEWARDSHIP SUNDAY".... always traditionally held around Thanksgiving week. As a brief aside, the topic of why have a stewardship drive in Autumn was recently raised at the circuit conference I attend. The consensus from our more seasoned clergy was that it all went back to Harvest. It really wasn't that long ago when the ebb and flow of personal economies for most people had a LOT to do with where they stood at the harvest time of year...and so it was that time of year when they felt most-able to pledge whatever for the Church. Fair enough.

And then comes this reading about the Master/Lord who gives "talents" (the original word in the text) to his servants...which sounds like a term right out of the time/treasure/talent stewardship motif, and the passage seems to fit like a glove for a stewardship sermon.

Let's PRO/CON that idea:

PROs:

-- vs 14 The Master entrusted his wealth to them. We sing it well in the old hymn of the church: "all things come OF THEE, O Lord, and OF THINE OWN have we given thee. The easiest thing in the world for us is to FORGET that all of our blessings come from God. Too often we credit ourselves, our work ethic, or foresight, our training, our moral living, etc. etc. etc. as reasons why we're not in the same dire financial/economic straits as others. This is PRIDE; arrogance; and an offense even against the 1st commandment. In this parable the servants have NOTHING that has not been entrusted to them by their master.

-- vs 15 The Master entrusts his good gifts to us equitably, but not evenly...which makes sense. He gives: each according to his ability. In other words, Jesus doesn't expect MORE out of us than what he already knows we're capable of. This fits very nicely with the typical stewardship motif. FAITHFULNESS, not miracle-working, is all the Lord requires.

--vs 15b The Master/Lord leaves for a protracted period of time; Then he went on his journey. Stewardship is about faithfulness in the INTERIM. It's also about TURNS. During his earthly ministry it was Jesus' turn to be the focal point. Now that he has ascended into heaven--but not yet returned--it is the turn of his faithful ones to minister on his behalf; it is their turn to demonstrate their commitment to his teaching; it is their turn to, simply, demonstrate their commitment.

--vs 16 There is a job to do, there is work to be done, as a matter of FAITHFULNESS. vs 16 says the 1st servant put the talents/bags of gold to work; by implication, the second servant also did. Very often this is a part of The Faith that we forget. Christianity, however, is NOT A PHILOSOPHY. It's not a set of principles that we adopt at the cognitive level. It is first and foremost A PRACTICE; a WAY OF LIFE; A DISCIPLINE; AN ORDER; An example of the difference I'm attempting to make, goes like this: (a) there are LOTS of hobbyists out there who can tell you anything you want to know about Army history; battles won & lost; historical data on weapons & development, etc. etc. etc. And then there are (b) people who PUT ON THE UNIFORM and serve. In baptism we are given the uniform....and the assumption is that we will keep it on & serve a lifetime enlistment.

--vs 19 We will have to give an account to Christ one day as to how we appropriated the time/treasure/talent he blessed us with. After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. In the creeds we talk about how he will come again to judge the living and the dead. There are multiple aspects to Christ's judgment, however. There is the judgment of whether we are in The Faith; Have we accepted or rejected the Gospel? That is obviously the most important question of judgment. But it's not the only one. There's also the question of discipleship/faithfulness. How and to what extent did we demonstrate our faithfulness to Christ's kingdom as opposed to the kingdom of this world? In a lot of ways it's a simple question of mathematics. You should be able to show it on a balance sheet. What's the difference between a believer and an unbeliever? The believer's balance sheet should clearly reflect the DIVERSION of his/her time/talent/treasure toward the Kingdom of God.

So....

Wow. It's a slam dunk. This passage is clearly all about stewardship & is tailor-made for stewardship time of year. Except.... there is a fairly major CON to be considered:

CON:

-- vs 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Probably the biggest 'con' for the argument that this is a strict time/talent/treasures stewardship passage is found in the JUDGMENT scene of the person who didn't multiply the Master/Lord's money. In other words, if in the parable the Master/Lord = Jesus; the servants = Christians and the bags of gold = time/treasure/talents that Christ gives to all based on abilities, then the parable ends with someone LOSING HIS SALVATION and being CONDEMNED TO HELL because he didn't pledge as much as he could've on Stewardship Sunday... or because he didn't volunteer to help put up the church's Christmas lights; or because he didn't volunteer to sing in the choir.

Now of course SOME might think that's just the sort of 'shot in the arm' a good stewardship drive needs! Threaten people with hell fire & damnation in order to motivate them to give. How 'bout a little FIRE, Scarecrow?!? And while it might be nice at one level to have the 'benefits' of more "dedicated" people around, and perhaps a smaller deficit in the treasurer's report, this particular exposition of the text does serious harm to the GOSPEL. And there are PLENTY of plain-language portions of the Bible that teach and repeat that the Gospel of salvation is offered FREELY. Condemnation is based on rejection of Jesus Christ, and that alone.

In that sense, my thoughts about this passage going in would have to conclude that the third servant is not condemned because of his lack of generous pledging to the church; because of his poor or mis-management of his time/treasure/talents.

It is, however, still a matter of "stewardship"... if you look at it a certain way.

One of the reasons the TNIV uses "bags of gold" rather than the older/traditional unit of 'talents' is that it wants to impress upon us THE IMMENSE VALUE of the stuff in the story that the Master has given out. Either these "servants" in the text are the equivalent of 'treasury secretaries' for local potentiates, or the parable is using immense hyperbole. Scholars tell us that ONE Talent was the equivalent of 20yrs labor for the basic day-laborer receiving 1 denarius a day. Hence, the ONE talent, TWO talents, and FIVE talents distributed by the master are immense sums. Sometimes the point of a bible story in using immense or hyperbolic sums is to illustrate that, in reality, the thing under discussion is....in the words of our Mastercard commercials: PRICELESS.

What if...

What if the "TALENTS" apportioned to each servant according to their 'abilities' is rather a metaphor for GRACE/SALVATION? Grace is grace, but our need for it is not uniform. Some most certainly need more than others--which accounts for the varying amount given. Continuing on, the first two servants RESPOND to the grace given them by PRACTICING THEIR FAITH; by doing those things that now come most natural to them. But not the third servant; That servant is not interested in RESPONDING to what has been given; that servant is not interested in PRACTICING what has been given. Instead, he buries it in the ground AND WALKS AWAY. OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND.

This accounts for the severe judgment that awaits him, for as I always say, there is NO GOSPEL behind door #2.

And in the end, this also brings the question of "stewardship" down to its most important question.... what will you do with the grace of the Gospel that has been given you?

cheers,

TM