Thoughts going in, Sunday November 24th

Luke 23:33-43: When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. [[ ³⁴Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."]] And they cast lots to divide his clothing. ³⁵And the people stood by, watching; but the leaders scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah of God, his chosen one!" ³⁶The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine, ³⁷and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!" ³⁸There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews." ³⁹One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" ⁴⁰But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." ⁴²Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." ⁴³He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

            This Sunday marks our congregation's 55th anniversary of mission and ministry in Elk Grove Village, IL. I won't be preaching this Sunday, yet I did want to offer some thoughts for my weekly blog.    

            The mood is changing. This Sunday marks the end of the liturgical year--the church's year of grace. The next two weeks in a row concentrate on Christ's power and majesty...beginning with this Sunday's celebration of "Christ the King," and then looking forward to the first Sunday of Advent with the eschatological return of Christ to judge the living and the dead. Regarding Christ the King Sunday, the Sundays and Seasons resource says:       

           

            Hoping to celebrate the lordship of Christ in a world of increasingly secular and non-        Christian empires, Pope Pius XI inaugurated in 1925 a Sunday dedicated to Christ as             King. Originally Roman Catholics celebrated Christ the King on the last Sunday in             October, to precede the feast of All Saints, yet also to counter the Protestant celebration    of the Reformation. When the Roman Catholics proposed the three-year lectionary after      the Second Vatican Council, Christ the King was moved to the final Sunday of the         liturgical year. The Revised Common Lectionary has retained the festival. Its emphasis    on the eschatological majesty of Christ leads well into Advent. This passage is        particularly appropriate for the celebration of the reign of Christ. The Roman authorities            claim that they have executed the purported king of the Jews, and the thief asks Jesus for    entrance into his kingdom. Christ is king when he reigns from the cross, forgiving our sins.

That last part is probably the best: Christ is king when he reigns from the cross, forgiving our sins. To be "remembered" when Jesus comes into his kingdom is to be welcomed into the presence of holiness, even though we're not holy; to be embraced by the arms of perfection, even though we're not perfect.

            There's much more that can be added to this. While we do not live in a monarchy, we do live in a land of the 'privileged.' In spite of our national mythos of equality for all, we all know that there are "special rules for special-born." The privileged class doesn't have to wait in line; the privileged class doesn't have to worry about their healthcare; the privileged class doesn't have to be concerned about the mundane things that bother most people. They're above it all. They're allowed to enjoy the happy existence of life lived entirely for self. This describes the reality of yesterday's monarchs. They too could live life entirely for self. In the old testament when King David lusted after Bathsheba, had an affair with her, and then sent her husband Uriah on a suicide mission, ALL of that was able to come together because David was king. Many other examples could be cited. And so when in Luke's narrative we read these words directed at Jesus: If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself! (v37) Something very powerful is happening. The words of the soldiers echo the words of all humanity. WE KNOW what kings do. They look out, primarily, for themselves. They live in the best houses; they eat the tastiest food; they have the nicest stereos and the biggest flatscreen TVs. **IF he is a king, OF COURSE he would save himself; OF COURSE he would put his own interests first; OF COURSE this mockery will cease and desist right now.

            But that's not what happens.... not because Jesus isn't a king... but because he's not a king like WE WOULD BE. Instead of saving himself, Jesus ascends the throne of forgiveness known as the cross and ushers in salvation for the unworthy. Instead of saving himself and retiring to his country estate in the sky, he willingly flings the doors to that estate wide open and lets the rabble of sinful humanity come in.

            In the end, that's what being king means to him.

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in Sunday Nov 17th

Luke 21:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down." 7 "Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?" 8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away." 10 Then he said to them: "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven. 12 "But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

            This Sunday's reading is, to me, one of the more fascinating passages from Luke's gospel. There are layers of nuance involved. For us, when we read it, we are essentially in the same place as Luke's original readers. We are historically downstream from the events being described. It would be like reading a story set in 1999, about an intelligence officer's prediction that the Twin Towers would be destroyed in a terrorist attack. At this point we'd already know that the prediction came true.

            As I've read commentaries and the thoughts of others on this passage, one of the things that seems relevant to mention is the fact that there is often a lot of "us/them" thinking assigned to the event of the Temple's destruction. Us/them thinking goes like this... "Well, since they (the Jews) rejected the Messiah and specifically rejected the fulfillment of their own religion, God in turn has rejected them. The proof for this is that he allowed their great Temple to be destroyed." Incidentally, the Gospel of Luke offers proof enough of this viewpoint in chapter 13--the account of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem prior to his entry. At one point he says: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate (v 35, KJV). It's a fascinating verse. On the lips of Jesus and from his perspective in roughly 33AD, their 'house' (Temple) could only have been 'desolate' in a prophetic sense. A more correct way of uttering that statement would've been behold, your house WILL BE left unto you desolate. But in the Greek, from Luke's pen, the tense isn't future; it's present.

            However, there are two (at least) problems with us/them thinking when it comes to the destruction of the temple. Problem #1 is the fact that it was not that simple that the Temple belonged to "the Jews" and "the Christians" weren't interested in it or effected by its destruction. The book of Acts (also written by Luke) depicts the early Jewish Christians spending a great deal of time in the Temple. If the Temple were meaningless, such Acts passages leave us with many questions. It's not that there wouldn't eventually be a hard break between Judaism and Christianity, it's just that it's very doubtful that such a break would've been a fate accompli by the time of Luke's writing (circa 80 AD). In other words, the last image in the world we should have is that of 1st century Christians being unconcerned that the Temple was destroyed. It would be far likelier that this would be a great sadness for them.

            Problem #2 regarding us/them thinking is that it is ALWAYS dangerous when used with a "theology of glory." Theology of glory is a term that means... God likes my team better than your team, and he shows it by helping my team win all of the time. It would be a theology of glory, therefore, to look at the events of 70 AD and the Temple's destruction and say: "Well, this is clear proof that God has rejected the Jews and now his favor rests on the Christians." And by the way, the reason I'm being so adamant on this point is that anyone who bothers to study history will know that an us/them theology of glory argument was PRECISELY the argument that upstart Muslims made to conquered Christians in the Middle East during the Medieval period. Muslim conquerors did not, for the most part, force Christians to convert, but they frequently tried appealing to this logic: "Obviously God/Allah is with us and not with you because we won."  [See the book "In the Shadow of the Mosque," by Sidney Griffith]

            In other words, one of the things we should take from this passage is the unfortunate fact that SOMETIMES our temples fall, but that doesn't necessarily mean that God is judging us. It is, to be sure, a time to REFLECT. In the case of 1st c. Judaism, the Christian perspective will always be that he came unto his own and his own received him not. We are always called to reflect to ensure that we are in the faith. But beyond that, the call is to stand firm (v19). Temples are, after all, manmade structures.

            We live in an age that some are labeling "post-Christian." The talking heads routinely label Christianity as irrelevant, superstitious, or at the very least passé.  I will debate with anyone the notion that our country was ever, officially, a "Christian country." That is a misreading of historical facts. It is true, however, that for many generations we lived in a country that had a broadly shared ethos that was highly compatible with the Christian religion. One could even say that a 'temple' of sorts was constructed during this time... the temple of our 'mythic christian country.' Well, to whatever extent that may have been true, it seems pretty clear that that temple is now in ruins. So what? Does that mean Christianity is a hoax? Does that mean that Jesus didn't really die for the sins of the world? Does that mean that we should just chuck the whole thing and become agnostic rationalists? Not at all. Our man made temple lies in ruins, but verse 19 is still verse 19: STAND FIRM.

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday Nov 10th

Luke 20:27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. 28 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?" 34 Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.

            I've never been a fan of the Soaps, and I don't believe I've ever watched this particular show, but the title "One life to live" comes to mind when I consider this passage about Jesus vs the Sadducees. We don't need to get real hungup on who/what the Sadducees were all about, but for the sake of rounding things out I'll mention a couple of quick details. The Sadducees were the religious/social elite; comprised primarily of well-to-do priestly families. They were entirely focused on the Temple in Jerusalem, and so we only find them in Jerusalem in the biblical stories. Under the watchful eye of Rome, they constituted the ruling class. Not a few people suspected a certain degree of collusion between the Sadducees and Rome. Regardless, they appeared to be the so-called 1% capable of prospering regardless of who was "in charge."

            Religiously they were minimalists. The Jewish historian Jospehus echoes the New Testament in saying that the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection. For them, this life constituted all the heaven (or hell) a person had coming. And for them, this life wasn't too bad.

            And so we have this encounter with Jesus and the Sadducees. Now, of course the encounter doesn't happen in a vacuum. Jesus has been in the temple area for a day or 2. He has made his 'triumphal entry' into Jerusalem. He has 'cleansed' the temple. From that point onward ALL of the religious authorities have been looking for a way either to entrap him into committing an offense (and thus arrest him) or discredit him in the minds of his followers (and thus nullify him). In chapter 20 of Luke's gospel the jousting match begins in vss 1 & 2: 1 One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. 2 "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?" Not long afterward Jesus tells the parable of the tenants, which is obviously directed at the religious leadership. Luke follows that up with vs 19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.  This, then, is the context of the Sadducees question. It is to discredit and nullify Jesus as a bringer of good news.

            As I consider this text, it strikes me that these things persist to this day. There is still no shortage of those who would seek to discredit or nullify Jesus as a bringer of good news. There is still no shortage of those who would say we have one life to life... and that's here and now. And in our more rational moments, that may seem like the most sensible approach. After all, we have no ironclad proof of anything else. After all, it's not as though we've been to the other side and then come back to tell others about it. In a vacuum, the position of the Sadducees seems fairly well reasoned. But then Jesus reminds us that life isn't lived in a vacuum. HE MENTIONS NAMES: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All of a sudden there's CONTEXT. These are names that all of his hearers would know. These are names that all of his hearers would consider important ancestors; important family members. We all have names like that. For me, those names are Clinton, Marion, Richard, Gene, Gladys, and Ralph. These are my immediate ancestors. This is the context I'm immediately vested in. And so when Jesus says in vs 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive... I WANT to believe him. I want to CLING to that idea. I WANT him to be right & the Sadducees to be wrong. I WANT this hope to hold on to. And I rejoice that there is more than one life to live.

Cheers,

TM