Lent 3, February 28th 2016, thoughts going in

Now there were some present on that occasion who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 He answered them, “Do you think these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered these things? 3 No, I tell you! But unless you repent, you will all perish as well! 4 Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower in Siloam fell on them, do you think they were worse offenders than all the others who live in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you! But unless you repent you will all perish as well!” 6 Then Jesus told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. 7 So he said to the worker who tended the vineyard, ‘For three years now, I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and each time I inspect it I find none. Cut it down! Why should it continue to deplete the soil?’ 8 But the worker answered him, ‘Sir, leave it alone this year too, until I dig around it and put fertilizer on it. 9 Then if it bears fruit next year, very well, but if not, you can cut it down.’” (Luke 13:1-9)

This Sunday's gospel reading presents several challenges. First, what does the story of the pilgrim-worshipers mowed down by the Roman governor Pilate...evidently in the very act of worship... have to do with a group of people who died evidently in a freak accident when a tower fell over on them? Second what do either of these stories have to do with the parable Jesus tells about the fruitless fig tree? And then there are sub-questions about the symbolism within the parable. Is the landowner God? Is the care-taker who begs for another year Jesus? Are each of *us symbolized by the fig tree, or was it a national symbol for Israel? In other words, was this a prophetic parable that Jesus told regarding the fate of national Israel (like the statement "your house is left to you desolate" from last week's gospel)? And if it is a national/prophetic parable, what significance could it possibly have for proclamation to us in our day? And then finally, what does ANY OF THIS have to do with Lent?

            Let's deal with the question of whether this is a national/prophetic parable first. Even if it was, by the time Luke relates it to his audience, it's a past tense event. In other words, most scholars date Luke a good ten or more years AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem. Any reader of this Gospel would be able to say "it's too late." Israel has already perished. And yet Luke includes the passage anyway. That tells me that the evangelist was inspired to see this passage as having TIMELESS significance to all generations.

            Next, let's look at the relationship between the two events and the parable. Here it's good to remember how it is that Jesus usually uses parables. He usually uses them as TEACHING TOOLS; teaching tools that do 2 things. First, they clear up misconceptions on the part of those around him, and second, they explain the (often 'aha way') God is at work in the life of the world. So if we start there, then it becomes safe to assume that the parable SOMEHOW encompasses BOTH of the earlier stories... those murdered by Pilate and those who are killed in a freak accident. [btw, when Jesus says in vs 3 (and 5) unless you repent, you too will all perish, he doesn't mean that they will DIE if they don't repent. They will all obviously die. The Greek word is 'apollumi.' It is used in a theological sense: to be LOST; ultimately; eternally; forever]

            So, putting it all together... the point that Jesus is correcting on the part of the crowd is that bad things do not happen necessarily to bad people. God was not making a 'commentary' on the righteousness of those who were mowed down in the act of worship; nor were those who died in a freak accident being 'judged' by God. Jesus is stating that NEITHER scenario says anything about God. Rather, both indicate the fact that we live in a chaotic/random world.

            But because we live in a chaotic/random world, there is a teaching moment--hence the parable. To perish... to be eternally lost... is a real possibility. One must repent and produce the fruits of repentance in THIS LIFE. That's the point of the 'year of grace' for the fruitless fig tree. So long as we're still on this side of the ground, sucking air, we are in our 'year of grace.' The landowner isn't God... with the gardener being Jesus... as one commentator points out, that sounds more like the 'god' of the heretic Marcion...who just can't wait to chop people down. The landowner is, rather, simply 'mortality'.... or if you prefer... a personification of 'the way things are' in this world; a personification of random/chaos who may at any moment come up to a tree and say "times up." In that sense, the gardener is God's grace; a personification of the Gospel message that envelopes lives with the hopeful expectation of being embraced, and hence, producing fruit. Either way the fig tree will die eventually but the point is to produce fruit while here.

            This, then, is what makes the passage so Lenten-applicable. Recognizing the random/chaotic nature of life; recognizing that repentance and acceptance of the Gospel are what's called for; and recognizing that we are now in our 'year of grace,' but none of us knows how long this year will last.

Cheers,

T.M.

Lent 2, February 21st 2016, thoughts going in

At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” 32 And he said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. 33 Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.’ 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 35 Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’ (Luke 13:31-35)

            Lent is often a confusing time for people in terms of the Lectionary readings. There is so much 'out-of-sequence' stuff going on. It actually begins even before Lent as we merrily skip over the wilderness experience immediately following Jesus' baptism in Epiphany. This is done purposely/liturgically so as to be able to backtrack and pick up the wilderness experience on the first Sunday of Lent. Then for the second Sunday (year C) we go to the end of Luke 13, but next week we'll be at the start of Luke 13.  The point is that Lent is much more interested about certain THEMES than it is about an exact sequence of events. It is helpful to remember that the underlying purpose of Lent is PREPARATION ....either for baptism or for renewal of baptismal vows. In that sense Christians need to be keenly aware of the CALLING behind those vows and the mission involved with living the Christian life.

            THERE WILL BE OPPOSITION. That point is painfully obvious in week 1 of Lent as we see Jesus confronted by Satan. Opposition in week 1 is about several things; it's about personal and personalized temptation; temptation to turn back or nullify one's new life in Christ. But it's also about IDENTITY. Satan begins his temptations with the questioning statement "**IF you are the son of God..." And so many times we the baptized can relate, as the accusation rings in our ears "you call yourself a Christian?!...HA! AS IF God would call you His child."

            And now in week 2 of Lent other opposition is detailed. To begin with there are the Pharisees in vs 31 who come to warn Jesus. We the readers have a real problem here because we do not know if they are on Jesus' side or not. Just because someone delivers a warning doesn't mean they're truly on your side. Further complicating matters is that in the Luke/Acts narrative, the Pharisees are sometimes cited as either full converts or at the very least not unsympathetic to Jesus and his followers. The absolute 'bad guys' in Luke/Acts are the High Priest(ly) families/power brokers. The lesson here is that part of the Christian life means that such ambiguities should be expected. Some will attempt to silence the Gospel's witness, and we may not exactly know their motives.

            There are other interesting tidbits to hold up. In the face of this danger of Herod's desire/wish to kill Jesus, he MUST (Gk dei) press on. Theologians like to call this the DIVINE IMPERATIVE. In other words, it's not just that Jesus had a schedule to keep; it's not simply that he felt duty-bound to continue on. This is a 'dei.' It's a MUST from the perspective of God's divine will, and Jesus, the perfect/obedient son of God follows his Father's will.

            The lament over Jerusalem is also interesting--especially from Luke's narrative perspective. The reader could think it odd that Jesus weeps over Jerusalem and states in vs 34 , how often I would have gathered your children together... As some point out, Jesus hasn't been to Jerusalem in his messianic mission yet. There are two ways to approach this. One is to hear the words as the voice of God who, for generations and generations sent prophets and pleaded with "Jerusalem" (aka his people in general). Another option would be to emphasize the word 'children.' Jesus' entire ministry up to this point could be seen as an attempt to reach the 'children' of Jerusalem. And as much as modern theology wants to play down any whiff of anti-Semitism (a pursuit I'm in happy agreement with generally), there's really no way to get around the idea that when Jesus says behold your 'house' is left to you desolate, he's referring to the Temple's destruction in 70AD (some 40yrs hence).

            There's an interesting thing with animal symbolism going on here as well.  Herod (and the forces aligned against Christ) is portrayed as a fox (or perhaps jackal). Christ is portrayed as a hen desirous to gather her brood under her wings. In a rock-paper-scissors scenario, fox pretty much beats hen all of the time. But down on the farm fox also has no trouble running down & gobbling up chicks. The point of the metaphor isn't that the hen beats the fox; it's that the chicks get to LIVE; they are SAVED because the hen sacrifices herself.

            Putting it all together, Jesus is fully informed about what lies ahead. He MUST go to Jerusalem; it's the divine will. This will be a place of death for him, as Jerusalem is the place that kills its prophets. But his won't be a pointless/meaningless death. His is the death that SAVES. And so he presses on. For us, the point is to celebrate the salvation won and to follow the example of PRESSING ON in the face of opposition.

cheers,

TM

Lent 1, February 14th 2016, thoughts going in

Luke 4:1 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, 2 where for forty days he endured temptations from the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were completed, he was famished. 3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone.’” 5 Then the devil led him up to a high place and showed him in a flash all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “To you I will grant this whole realm—and the glory that goes along with it, for it has been relinquished to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish. 7 So then, if you will worship me, all this will be yours.” 8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’” 9 Then the devil brought him to Jerusalem, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10 for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’ 11 and ‘with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” 12 Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.’” 13 So when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until a more opportune time. 14 Then Jesus, in the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee, and news about him spread throughout the surrounding countryside.

For the first Sunday of Lent it's, of course, very traditional to begin with Jesus in the wilderness. This is a rich passage that takes on much more meaning than is simply implied in the narrative due to the Lenten themes at work.

            Here are a few general observations: This event happens directly on the heels of Jesus' baptism. And while Jesus is full of the Holy Spirit (a positive sounding description), it was nonetheless the same Spirit who led him out into the wilderness where for forty days he was tempted by the Devil. The flow of the text indicates that temptation was ongoing throughout the forty-day period, but we only get to listen in on the conversation at the end of the forty days ...where it says and at the end of them he became hungry. While it is not explicitly stated, the narrative gives every indication that this 'testing' (ekpeirazo) was the whole point of being led out into the wilderness in the first place. Several questions result from this: (a) is God the sort of God who throws his loved ones under the bus like that? (b) If 'testing' were required, why go all the way out in the middle of nowhere, surely Satan could've tested Jesus in Capernaum or Nazareth?

            In response to the first question... it doesn't always fit neatly into modern theologies, but it must be admitted that the Bible presents God as regularly 'testing' his followers. This is especially true of the Patriarchs in the Old Testament. The million dollar question that usually follows is whether or not such 'tests of faith' are likely to be thrown our way--with the follow-up observation usually being "I SURE HOPE NOT!" I think a helpful image for us when we think like that is to remember what life as a toddler is like. Anyone who's had kids knows that they don't usually go right from crawling to running. There's an intermediate step of cruising around in a 'walker.' It helps them get the hang of the whole walking upright thing. But parents know they can't keep their kid in a walker. S/he has to be taken out & given a chance to try it on their own. For the young child it's a faith issue. Yes the walker is being taken away. Yes this seems a bit scary & wobbly. Yes, you may even fall down and go boom,...but mom & dad are right there. It will be ok. In many ways I think tests in the Bible can be seen in a similar way.

            In the case of Jesus, of course part of what's going on is the presentation of Jesus as perfectly holy and victorious. Often times we talk about how "the devil is tempting us," when in reality it's just our old inner sinful nature that's having its way. Jesus, on the other hand, was oppressed by the Devil face-to-face and emerged victorious.

            As far as the matter of being out in the wilderness for this temptation experience, it seems to me that this is a way of setting the bar higher. Jesus is alone; completely without any other resources. He has only his relationship with the Heavenly Father... and of course The Word to see him through. Luke's Gospel is not as overt as Matthew's in comparing Jesus as the faithful son in the Wilderness vs OT Israel's unfaithfulness, but the underlying implications remain: God's OT "son" the Children of Israel failed their test, God's ultimate Son passed his. (See Deuteronomy chapters 6-8 for background)

            One of the things about this narrative that has always struck me as very pertinent for believers of all ages is that Jesus did battle with Satan under the same limitations you and I face. He did not call an army of angels to his defense. He did not throw lightening bolts at Satan. He didn't even engage in lengthy rationalizations. He simply responded to every temptation with GOD'S WORD. Thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee. In that sense, Jesus provides for us the ultimate usable example of how to confront our own 'tempter'...whether it's Satan, or just our old sinful nature.

Cheers,

T.M.

Transfiguration Sunday, February 7th 2016, thoughts going in

Luke 9:28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31 appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." (He did not know what he was saying.) 34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him." 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.

            As can be readily gathered from the text, this Sunday is Transfiguration Sunday. For the preacher, it's the sort of Sunday that is on the one hand quite easy in terms of planning, and on the other hand entails some difficulty.

            It is easy in the sense that one needn't spend much time mulling over which text to preach on. It's obvious. Transfiguration Sunday means preaching on the Gospel text, even for those who don't already observe the custom of regular Gospel-text sermons. A lot can also be made at the "atmospheric level." We are getting ready to say goodbye to the Sundays after Epiphany. In a few short days Ash Wednesday will be here and we will be in Lent. That is a major mood change. Liturgically, having a Sunday with a set theme like Transfiguration Sunday functions as a 'bridge' between the two seasons and their vast differences in terms of focus.

            The tricky part is that the story is so familiar. We hit it every year as we pass from Epiphany Sundays to Lent. Even on the three year lectionary with the built in differences between the individual Gospels, the nuts and bolts of the story are always the same: Jesus, Peter, James and John are on the mountain. Jesus is joined by Moses and Elijah. They're conversing, but the exact content of their discussion is not revealed. Jesus is 'altered' in some way in his appearance. Peter wants to build 3 'booths'... one for each of the holy figures. The voice says this is my beloved son, etc. In the end, nine out of ten times the sermon becomes something about "mountain top experiences" and how they're sure nice when they happen, but they can't be preserved; there's work to get on with down off that mountain. That's even the flow of one of the most beloved hymns of the hymnal "Tis Good Lord to be Here."

            One somewhat interesting approach is to come at each of the Gospel versions within the context of their own sitz em leben ... the circumstances surrounding the context of their writing. In the case of Luke--an extremely Gentile-friendly Gospel--it has been noted by boatloads of scholars that a primary concern of Luke's Gospel is to show the Empire that the message of Jesus of Nazareth is not a threat. Jesus and his disciples may have started out as Palestinian Jews, but unlike the Zealots and young rabble rousers of mid 60s AD Palestine, they did not preach open revolt against Rome. Furthermore, many pious Jews accepted Jesus and his kingdom not of this world, but the Jewish leadership as a whole did not. In terms of continued relevance in God's unfolding plan for the world, therefore, a Judaism without Jesus, would be no longer relevant. (very politically incorrect to say these days, but that is most certainly the point of much of the New Testament narrative).

            And so with this in mind, what does one find when approaching Luke's Transfiguration account? We find Jesus atop a mountain with two of the Old Testament's greatest mountain top heroes, Moses (Mt. Sinai) and Elijah (Mt. Carmel). Moses talked to God face to face and received the Torah from him. Moses was the hand-picked captain to lead the Exodus of God's people from slavery to redemption (note: they were not led from slavery to freedom; they switched masters from evil/oppressive Pharaoh to their Redeemer loving/gracious Yahweh). And then Elijah atop his mountain exercised perfect faith/obedience to Yahweh; vastly outnumbered... and with everyone against him from the king on down (remember Ahab and Jezebel?) Elijah prayed fire down from heaven and then slew the false prophets of Baal. In terms of MOUNTAIN TOP HEROES, they didn't get any better than Moses & Elijah. In terms of collecting "hero trading cards" everyone would want a Moses & Elijah card. They were the Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig of the Old Testament.

            So what does that mean for Luke? Here are these two great figures of Israelite lore standing WITH JESUS. They're talking with him, but they are not arguing or jousting with him like the Pharisees; they're not clamoring for his death like the Chief Priest and Sanhedrin; and they're not shouting "crucify him, crucify him" like the unruly Jerusalem mob. They are there to 'endorse' him; they are there to say, in effect, your mountain top experience, especially your eventual one atop Mt. Calvary, will eclipse ours. What ours was about was a mere shadow of what you're here to do.

            And as the story unfolds, it's nice that Peter would like to build a booth for all three--Moses, Elijah, and Jesus--but in the end such honorific thinking mistakenly puts all three on the same footing. Two things set that record straight: the heavenly voice commands that we listen to the beloved son; listen to him as perfect expositor of EVERYTHING that Moses and Elijah were about, but listen to him alone (not the other rabbis, not the tradition of the elders, etc. etc.). The other salient matter is that in the end, Moses and Elijah disappear, leaving only Christ. This is not to say that the Old Testament is no longer relevant, but it is to say that the whole epoch has its culmination and fulfillment in Christ. There is no such thing as a legitimate understanding of Moses & Elijah apart from Jesus.

            One last observation on the command listen to him. Typically we like to listen to winners. Listen to General Patton because he's a battle-hardened winner. Listen to George Halas because he's a winner. Listen to EF Hutton because he's a winner. As disciples of Jesus, we are told to listen to the one who preached forgiveness, not retribution; listen to the one who said pray for our enemies; listen to the one who said we can't serve two masters, God and money; listen to the one who willingly left his mountain top of glory for a mountain top of universal service for others. It sorta redefines God's view of 'winning.'

Cheers,

TM