Just a brief note here to mention a neat discovery I've made.
Actually, it's nothing new.
I've been seeing things about "itunes U" here & there for some time, but have never looked into it--until now.
I'm a HUGE fan of continuing education.
Those who know me know that I routinely take self-directed continuing education retreats at least once a year. I'd love to do something more formalized in terms of more academic studies, but the reality is that there's just no time for it while serving fulltime as a parish pastor.
Well, in my opinion, the next best thing would be the ability to audit classes. Auditing them for free would also be wonderful. Add to that the ability to audit them for free according to *my busy schedule, and you've got the closest thing to perfect that one could find. Enter itunes U.
I've just begun looking at everything they have to offer, but it appears to be a HUGE (and growing!) selection. These are free and downloadable directly to itunes on your computer (mac or pc) where you can either listen directly (or view--as some of these are videocasts), **OR** load them onto your ipod and listen on the move.
I **think** this is going to be a lot of fun.
I'm beginning with a set of lectures from Brown University entitled "From Israel to Jew (a series on the history of Jews & Judaism in Antiquity)," given by Professor Michael Satlow.
Much of this is, of course, 'review' for me--but I enjoy this scholar's perspective.
So, if continuing education is your thang.....and if you're busy and like free things, I'd encourage you to have a look at itunes U!
Cheers,
TM
Monday, February 21, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Thoughts going in, Sunday Feb 20th
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Continuing with Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount....
The topic now is that of RETRIBUTION....REVENGE....COMEUPPANCE.
To begin, it might be helpful to understand where the concept of “eye for eye” came from. From the OT book of Exodus, chapter 21 we read:
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The setting was the very loosely amalgamated tribes of Israel during their nomadic/wandering days. During this time “the law,” as such was enforced as a matter of multi-clan agreement. Clan loyalties ran high and superseded everything else. Because of this, it is very easy to imagine scenarios where disputes could get out of hand and easily degenerate into blood feuds—a veritable ancient “Hatfields & McCoys” type scenario. The point of Exodus 21 was to put CONSTRAINTS on retribution—and everyone agreed to these constraints. Hence, if in a fight person A blinded person B, person A would or should never have to worry about person B’s family seeking him out and killing him. This is a very early example of the maxim that “the punishment should fit the crime.” Ideally, then, given the proper implementation of Exodus 21, wholeness and balance are restored to the community. Justice in the matter of these personal wrongs is done.
And then Jesus comes along.
And in a few brief sentences, Jesus tells his disciples that they don’t need to practice Exodus 21 anymore in order to have wholeness and balance in the NEW COMMUNITY that Jesus is establishing.
Now, at first it sure looks like what Jesus is counseling is that his followers should just be the world’s doormats. “Just let everyone walk all over you” is how it appears at first glance. But this is where we need to keep two things in mind: FIRST, Christ’s examples here have to do with personal insults and quarrels, not with criminal acts. The way one commentator puts it: “Christ is here not counseling a soft HEAD, but a soft heart….the slap in the face mentioned in vs 39 is intended as an affront, not a felonious assault. These counsels contain no prohibition against calling the police for being assaulted, only against harboring hatred in the heart as a result of it.”
SECOND, in the words of NT Wright, we need to remember that the sermon on the mount—this section included—is not “good advice,” but “good news!” In other words, WHO is it that ultimately turns the other cheek? WHO is it that ultimately has given both his shirt and coat off his back? WHO is it that ultimately has walked with us not just one mile or two, but every mile? Of course, the answer to all of those questions and more is Jesus our Savior! This passage, as well as all of the rest of the sermon on the mount is DESCRIPTIVE of the Christ-shaped life led by Jesus………FOR US.
Cheers,
TM
Continuing with Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount....
The topic now is that of RETRIBUTION....REVENGE....COMEUPPANCE.
To begin, it might be helpful to understand where the concept of “eye for eye” came from. From the OT book of Exodus, chapter 21 we read:
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
The setting was the very loosely amalgamated tribes of Israel during their nomadic/wandering days. During this time “the law,” as such was enforced as a matter of multi-clan agreement. Clan loyalties ran high and superseded everything else. Because of this, it is very easy to imagine scenarios where disputes could get out of hand and easily degenerate into blood feuds—a veritable ancient “Hatfields & McCoys” type scenario. The point of Exodus 21 was to put CONSTRAINTS on retribution—and everyone agreed to these constraints. Hence, if in a fight person A blinded person B, person A would or should never have to worry about person B’s family seeking him out and killing him. This is a very early example of the maxim that “the punishment should fit the crime.” Ideally, then, given the proper implementation of Exodus 21, wholeness and balance are restored to the community. Justice in the matter of these personal wrongs is done.
And then Jesus comes along.
And in a few brief sentences, Jesus tells his disciples that they don’t need to practice Exodus 21 anymore in order to have wholeness and balance in the NEW COMMUNITY that Jesus is establishing.
Now, at first it sure looks like what Jesus is counseling is that his followers should just be the world’s doormats. “Just let everyone walk all over you” is how it appears at first glance. But this is where we need to keep two things in mind: FIRST, Christ’s examples here have to do with personal insults and quarrels, not with criminal acts. The way one commentator puts it: “Christ is here not counseling a soft HEAD, but a soft heart….the slap in the face mentioned in vs 39 is intended as an affront, not a felonious assault. These counsels contain no prohibition against calling the police for being assaulted, only against harboring hatred in the heart as a result of it.”
SECOND, in the words of NT Wright, we need to remember that the sermon on the mount—this section included—is not “good advice,” but “good news!” In other words, WHO is it that ultimately turns the other cheek? WHO is it that ultimately has given both his shirt and coat off his back? WHO is it that ultimately has walked with us not just one mile or two, but every mile? Of course, the answer to all of those questions and more is Jesus our Savior! This passage, as well as all of the rest of the sermon on the mount is DESCRIPTIVE of the Christ-shaped life led by Jesus………FOR US.
Cheers,
TM
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Thoughts going in, Sunday Feb 13th
21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. 23 "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to that person; then come and offer your gift. 25 "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. 33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.' 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Continuing with the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus now begins talking about individual issues/commands.
To begin with, two things pop out at me right away from this passage. The first is that Jesus (and by extension The Church) calls us to support the IDEAL godly life. We talk a lot about grace, forgiveness, and the fact that God is the God of “second chances.” This is good. Wonderful. In our sinful condition, we need this to be true, otherwise we would despair. However, just because God is the God of second chances doesn’t mean that God has thrown in the towel on the ideal. This is probably most clearly illustrated in our day by what Jesus has to say on divorce.
In our day divorce has become so widespread that—with the exception of Roman Catholics and a few others—it seems hardly even considered to be a sin anymore. It’s just one of life’s little hickups along the way. We trade in our vehicles all the time, so now we also trade in our spouses. This attitude may make life seem easier, but it’s difficult to reconcile with what Jesus says in Matthew 5. Without demonizing either party (or both) in a modern divorce scenario, I think it is safe to say that if SIN=BROKENNESS, then divorce is the **result of sin. Certainly there were broken dreams, broken expectations, broken hopes and broken promises along the way—to say nothing of other potential examples of brokenness. The point I’m trying to make is that it is still possible (even commanded) to apply Jesus’ ideal view about marriage/divorce to our setting today EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN DIVORCED. The ideal is expressed by Jesus. Perhaps that didn’t work out for you the first time. We are, after all, broken people tainted by the brokenness of sin. Regardless, the call then is to devote yourself to the ideal of making the second marriage (or third, etc.) work. In other words, the fact that God is the God of second chances does NOT negate the fact that we are called to support God’s ideal …and not trivialize that which God has declared to be very important.
The second thing that pops out at me in this passage is very similar to the first, and that is that there is both a LETTER and a SPIRIT of the law, and God is much more concerned about the SPIRIT of the law—as that’s a matter of the heart.
This comes out most clearly in what Jesus has to say about murder/anger and adultery/lust. The point that Jesus is making here is that God is not fooled by mere outward compliance to the rules. I may THINK that I can be a “good Christian” AND nurse a hateful grudge against someone else, but Jesus corrects that thinking. Just as murder is the ultimate breaking of a relationship, hatred is relationship-killing, and Jesus came to HEAL BROKEN RELATIONSHIPS (first between us & God, and second, between each other). Just as adultery most often breaks the marital relationship, lust burning in the heart breaks the bond of affection that should exist between spouses.
In the end, this is much more than simply a compliance issue. This is not God, the Big Brother, telling us that in addition to expecting full compliance to the rules He also constitutes the Divine Thought Police. Rather, what he is saying is that we cannot be WHOLE individuals by mere outward compliance. Wholeness comes when the outward compliance emanates from a CHANGED HEART; a heart that doesn’t want to commit adultery because it’s not lusting; a heart that would never condone murder because it has hatred under control.
cheers,
TM
Continuing with the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus now begins talking about individual issues/commands.
To begin with, two things pop out at me right away from this passage. The first is that Jesus (and by extension The Church) calls us to support the IDEAL godly life. We talk a lot about grace, forgiveness, and the fact that God is the God of “second chances.” This is good. Wonderful. In our sinful condition, we need this to be true, otherwise we would despair. However, just because God is the God of second chances doesn’t mean that God has thrown in the towel on the ideal. This is probably most clearly illustrated in our day by what Jesus has to say on divorce.
In our day divorce has become so widespread that—with the exception of Roman Catholics and a few others—it seems hardly even considered to be a sin anymore. It’s just one of life’s little hickups along the way. We trade in our vehicles all the time, so now we also trade in our spouses. This attitude may make life seem easier, but it’s difficult to reconcile with what Jesus says in Matthew 5. Without demonizing either party (or both) in a modern divorce scenario, I think it is safe to say that if SIN=BROKENNESS, then divorce is the **result of sin. Certainly there were broken dreams, broken expectations, broken hopes and broken promises along the way—to say nothing of other potential examples of brokenness. The point I’m trying to make is that it is still possible (even commanded) to apply Jesus’ ideal view about marriage/divorce to our setting today EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN DIVORCED. The ideal is expressed by Jesus. Perhaps that didn’t work out for you the first time. We are, after all, broken people tainted by the brokenness of sin. Regardless, the call then is to devote yourself to the ideal of making the second marriage (or third, etc.) work. In other words, the fact that God is the God of second chances does NOT negate the fact that we are called to support God’s ideal …and not trivialize that which God has declared to be very important.
The second thing that pops out at me in this passage is very similar to the first, and that is that there is both a LETTER and a SPIRIT of the law, and God is much more concerned about the SPIRIT of the law—as that’s a matter of the heart.
This comes out most clearly in what Jesus has to say about murder/anger and adultery/lust. The point that Jesus is making here is that God is not fooled by mere outward compliance to the rules. I may THINK that I can be a “good Christian” AND nurse a hateful grudge against someone else, but Jesus corrects that thinking. Just as murder is the ultimate breaking of a relationship, hatred is relationship-killing, and Jesus came to HEAL BROKEN RELATIONSHIPS (first between us & God, and second, between each other). Just as adultery most often breaks the marital relationship, lust burning in the heart breaks the bond of affection that should exist between spouses.
In the end, this is much more than simply a compliance issue. This is not God, the Big Brother, telling us that in addition to expecting full compliance to the rules He also constitutes the Divine Thought Police. Rather, what he is saying is that we cannot be WHOLE individuals by mere outward compliance. Wholeness comes when the outward compliance emanates from a CHANGED HEART; a heart that doesn’t want to commit adultery because it’s not lusting; a heart that would never condone murder because it has hatred under control.
cheers,
TM
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Thoughts going in, Sunday Jan 30th
Matthew 5:1 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them. 3 He said: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Well, there’s certainly a LOT swirling around in my mind as this Sunday approaches and we begin an extended series in the “Sermon on the Mount.” The first thing that should be mentioned is a word or two about Matthew’s organizational approach to his Gospel.
Few people realize that the Gospels are *not pure chronological ‘news reports’ of the life & times of Jesus. This becomes evident whenever we try to ‘harmonize’ the Gospels with each other (a fruitless task). These are first century ‘evangelions,’ not 21st century investigative journalistic endeavors. Each Gospel writer was inspired to tell the Jesus story, but each one did so with his own distinct style and flair. In Matthew’s case, it is well-established that he divided his material/story into MAJOR DISCOURSES, each ending with an identically phrased ‘finale statement.’ As there are five such discourses—and given the Jewish ‘flavoring’ of Matthew’s Gospel—more than one expert has suggested that Matthew saw his Gospel as the Church’s Torah (the Jewish Torah consists of 5 books, Genesis—Deuteronomy).
Which brings me to my next point. When it comes to the Torah, whether Jewish or Christian, the old Lutheran concept of law/gospel distinction does not apply. Law/gospel distinction is both a hermeneutic (a lens through which texts are interpreted) and a tool for sermon development. It works very well. Many, many passages of the Bible can be approached with the law/gospel lens. One asks what are God’s demands being addressed in the passage? That’s the law—which we, as poor miserable sinners, fail to meet perfectly. What then is the solution? The solution is God’s free gift of salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord—the gospel. That is all well and good for many passages of Scripture. However, there are times when the law/gospel distinction actually gets in the way and muddies the waters.
This is true when it comes to the *demands of the Gospel, for instance. In law/gospel distinction, it is the *law that carries demands; the gospel is all God’s free gift. Yet, we realize from our reading of the Bible that the Gospel has demands: “*BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved,” is a perfect example. It’s a gospel message with the demand/command to believe. It’s a monkey-wrench in the law/gospel distinction approach.
There’s also another one, having to do with the Torah. Whether one uses the term Torah, or Law of Moses, or any other term, there is a tendency among most Christians to think of these texts as **LAW** in the law/gospel context; in other words, as containing ALL DEMANDS, with no gospel. All of those “thou shalt nots...” tend to support this view. And yet, this was certainly NOT old testament Israel’s way of seeing their own texts, or for that matter, their relationship with God.
Consider Psalm 1—a very relevant passage considering its stylistic relationship to our text in Matthew. It begins: 1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. A casual reading of verse 2 makes this hypothetical ‘man’ of the psalm sound quite boring. All he does is sit around & read the rules; all he does is read God’s ‘village ordinances’ from sun-up to sundown. Here’s a better translation of the text: 1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord, And in His Torah he meditates day and night. What’s the difference? The difference is this: the Torah is *more than just the ‘thou shalt nots,’ it’s the whole story of redemption from the Old Testament perspective. It tells the story of God’s loving embrace of Abraham and his descendants; of God’s covenant faithfulness to them in leading them out of bondage, through the Red Sea, preserving them in the wilderness, and then bringing them to the Promised Land. The Torah is the story of salvation. YES, it contains demands (law), but there is also MUCH gospel to be found therein.
That finally brings me to this Sunday’s text from Matthew’s Gospel, and the question: is it ‘law or gospel?’ The answer is yes. This is Matthew’s Torah. Jesus has gone through the waters of baptism, been sustained in the wilderness of temptation, and now ascends the mountain just as Moses did. And from there, the voice of God echoes just as it did at Sinai; the voice of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. What follows are nine ‘beatitudes’ (from the Latin, for blessing).
So, "who are those blessed by God?" In Jesus' day, it would seem that the few, the 1% of the population that constituted the ruling class, the landed gentry were the ones blessed by God. After all, they lived in wealth and comfort. In contrast to this, the various schools of the Pharisees developed a spirituality around hyper ritual observance. In this way, adherents could consider themselves blessed by God even if they weren't wealthy. Jesus alone, however, turns the whole question upside down so as to include the lowest of the low. Who are the most blessed? Who is most highly esteemed by God?. 'The poor, the mourner, the meek, and the one who hungers for righteousness, etc;' of course this is Jesus HIMSELF. He is all of those things to perfection; and he is *most blessed of God. But the point is, we are TOO when this life of Christ shines forth in our lives.
Cheers,
TM
Well, there’s certainly a LOT swirling around in my mind as this Sunday approaches and we begin an extended series in the “Sermon on the Mount.” The first thing that should be mentioned is a word or two about Matthew’s organizational approach to his Gospel.
Few people realize that the Gospels are *not pure chronological ‘news reports’ of the life & times of Jesus. This becomes evident whenever we try to ‘harmonize’ the Gospels with each other (a fruitless task). These are first century ‘evangelions,’ not 21st century investigative journalistic endeavors. Each Gospel writer was inspired to tell the Jesus story, but each one did so with his own distinct style and flair. In Matthew’s case, it is well-established that he divided his material/story into MAJOR DISCOURSES, each ending with an identically phrased ‘finale statement.’ As there are five such discourses—and given the Jewish ‘flavoring’ of Matthew’s Gospel—more than one expert has suggested that Matthew saw his Gospel as the Church’s Torah (the Jewish Torah consists of 5 books, Genesis—Deuteronomy).
Which brings me to my next point. When it comes to the Torah, whether Jewish or Christian, the old Lutheran concept of law/gospel distinction does not apply. Law/gospel distinction is both a hermeneutic (a lens through which texts are interpreted) and a tool for sermon development. It works very well. Many, many passages of the Bible can be approached with the law/gospel lens. One asks what are God’s demands being addressed in the passage? That’s the law—which we, as poor miserable sinners, fail to meet perfectly. What then is the solution? The solution is God’s free gift of salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord—the gospel. That is all well and good for many passages of Scripture. However, there are times when the law/gospel distinction actually gets in the way and muddies the waters.
This is true when it comes to the *demands of the Gospel, for instance. In law/gospel distinction, it is the *law that carries demands; the gospel is all God’s free gift. Yet, we realize from our reading of the Bible that the Gospel has demands: “*BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved,” is a perfect example. It’s a gospel message with the demand/command to believe. It’s a monkey-wrench in the law/gospel distinction approach.
There’s also another one, having to do with the Torah. Whether one uses the term Torah, or Law of Moses, or any other term, there is a tendency among most Christians to think of these texts as **LAW** in the law/gospel context; in other words, as containing ALL DEMANDS, with no gospel. All of those “thou shalt nots...” tend to support this view. And yet, this was certainly NOT old testament Israel’s way of seeing their own texts, or for that matter, their relationship with God.
Consider Psalm 1—a very relevant passage considering its stylistic relationship to our text in Matthew. It begins: 1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. A casual reading of verse 2 makes this hypothetical ‘man’ of the psalm sound quite boring. All he does is sit around & read the rules; all he does is read God’s ‘village ordinances’ from sun-up to sundown. Here’s a better translation of the text: 1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord, And in His Torah he meditates day and night. What’s the difference? The difference is this: the Torah is *more than just the ‘thou shalt nots,’ it’s the whole story of redemption from the Old Testament perspective. It tells the story of God’s loving embrace of Abraham and his descendants; of God’s covenant faithfulness to them in leading them out of bondage, through the Red Sea, preserving them in the wilderness, and then bringing them to the Promised Land. The Torah is the story of salvation. YES, it contains demands (law), but there is also MUCH gospel to be found therein.
That finally brings me to this Sunday’s text from Matthew’s Gospel, and the question: is it ‘law or gospel?’ The answer is yes. This is Matthew’s Torah. Jesus has gone through the waters of baptism, been sustained in the wilderness of temptation, and now ascends the mountain just as Moses did. And from there, the voice of God echoes just as it did at Sinai; the voice of God in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. What follows are nine ‘beatitudes’ (from the Latin, for blessing).
So, "who are those blessed by God?" In Jesus' day, it would seem that the few, the 1% of the population that constituted the ruling class, the landed gentry were the ones blessed by God. After all, they lived in wealth and comfort. In contrast to this, the various schools of the Pharisees developed a spirituality around hyper ritual observance. In this way, adherents could consider themselves blessed by God even if they weren't wealthy. Jesus alone, however, turns the whole question upside down so as to include the lowest of the low. Who are the most blessed? Who is most highly esteemed by God?. 'The poor, the mourner, the meek, and the one who hungers for righteousness, etc;' of course this is Jesus HIMSELF. He is all of those things to perfection; and he is *most blessed of God. But the point is, we are TOO when this life of Christ shines forth in our lives.
Cheers,
TM
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Thoughts going in, Sun Jan 23rd
12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali-- 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah: 15 "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-- 16 the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned." 17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."18 As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19 "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will send you out to fish for people." 20 At once they left their nets and followed him. 21 Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, 22 and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him. 23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. 24 News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them. 25 Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.
There are actually several things going on in this passage, but in **general terms, it could be said that the passage as a whole is the inauguration--or beginning--of Jesus' earthly ministry. SOME chronological details are omitted, for instance, the temptation scenes. Those will resurface on the first Sunday of Lent. Another way to look at this passages is from that of the perspective of "light." With Epiphany being about Jesus as the "light of the world," this passage illustrates that Light going out into the world.
Beyond those initial remarks, the passage breaks into sections. Vss 12-17 have to do with the establishment of Capernaum as 'home base' for Jesus' activity. As the text informs us, this is Galilee.....the north country. It's difficult to figure out the Galilee of Jesus' day. On the one hand, it was considered the 'hinterland' by those of Judea and especially Jerusalem. Its history is that of having only been Judaized in recent memory. Given this, their religious 'pedigree' was suspect by the religious establishment. This would come up later when in John 7:41 some thought Jesus was the Messiah, while others pointed out that the Messiah couldn't (in their thinking) come from Galilee. Yet on the other hand, even though Galilee seems to have come late to the Jewish religion, they were among the most willing to revolt and take up arms against Rome. Galilee at the time of Jesus was a seedbed of Zealotry. It is thus within this context....a context of having one's religious credentials suspect on the one hand, and being religiously motivated to revolt on the other hand, that Jesus appears. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. Of course as many of the Gospel accounts point out, part of Jesus' struggle up north was the constant thought on the part of some that he would be the NEW LEADER of their revolt activities.
Vss 18-20 are about the call of the first disciples. People are usually perplexed with the IMMEDIACY of the response of these guys. After all, they are busy (and successful) tradesmen....and this wandering rabbi walks up & says "follow me" and that's all it takes? Most bible scholars read between the lines and find a lot of room for "pre-call" dialog between Jesus & his followers. This may very well be the case--but I would simply point out that this question doesn't seem to bother Matthew. From Matthew's perspective and the telling of his story, he seems very comfortable with the idea that the divine call of the Son of God is really **that influential; that it causes them to stop in their tracks, put down their nets, and begin following Jesus.
Then, finally, vss 23-25 are about the programmatic ministry of Jesus in Galilee. He is a teacher/healer who teaches in the synagogues, and who attracts a large following from all over the area.
Points to ponder: As I attempt to connect this reading to who/where we are today, I would note that as Jesus begins his public ministry, he issues two commands: “Repent” and “Come after me.” The gospel suggests that both repentance and following Jesus are ways of walking in the light....THE WAY to walk in the light, more precisely. And when we walk in the light, we SEE and are a PART of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is neither earthly realm (yet) nor distant place (only). The kingdom of heaven is present in our response to Jesus. The kingdom of heaven is ANYWHERE God is active, ruling in grace & mercy through the presence of his Son Jesus.
This week, as is often the case, is a week of CONTRASTS: darkness vs light; repenting vs not repenting; following Jesus vs following something else.
cheers,
TM
There are actually several things going on in this passage, but in **general terms, it could be said that the passage as a whole is the inauguration--or beginning--of Jesus' earthly ministry. SOME chronological details are omitted, for instance, the temptation scenes. Those will resurface on the first Sunday of Lent. Another way to look at this passages is from that of the perspective of "light." With Epiphany being about Jesus as the "light of the world," this passage illustrates that Light going out into the world.
Beyond those initial remarks, the passage breaks into sections. Vss 12-17 have to do with the establishment of Capernaum as 'home base' for Jesus' activity. As the text informs us, this is Galilee.....the north country. It's difficult to figure out the Galilee of Jesus' day. On the one hand, it was considered the 'hinterland' by those of Judea and especially Jerusalem. Its history is that of having only been Judaized in recent memory. Given this, their religious 'pedigree' was suspect by the religious establishment. This would come up later when in John 7:41 some thought Jesus was the Messiah, while others pointed out that the Messiah couldn't (in their thinking) come from Galilee. Yet on the other hand, even though Galilee seems to have come late to the Jewish religion, they were among the most willing to revolt and take up arms against Rome. Galilee at the time of Jesus was a seedbed of Zealotry. It is thus within this context....a context of having one's religious credentials suspect on the one hand, and being religiously motivated to revolt on the other hand, that Jesus appears. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. Of course as many of the Gospel accounts point out, part of Jesus' struggle up north was the constant thought on the part of some that he would be the NEW LEADER of their revolt activities.
Vss 18-20 are about the call of the first disciples. People are usually perplexed with the IMMEDIACY of the response of these guys. After all, they are busy (and successful) tradesmen....and this wandering rabbi walks up & says "follow me" and that's all it takes? Most bible scholars read between the lines and find a lot of room for "pre-call" dialog between Jesus & his followers. This may very well be the case--but I would simply point out that this question doesn't seem to bother Matthew. From Matthew's perspective and the telling of his story, he seems very comfortable with the idea that the divine call of the Son of God is really **that influential; that it causes them to stop in their tracks, put down their nets, and begin following Jesus.
Then, finally, vss 23-25 are about the programmatic ministry of Jesus in Galilee. He is a teacher/healer who teaches in the synagogues, and who attracts a large following from all over the area.
Points to ponder: As I attempt to connect this reading to who/where we are today, I would note that as Jesus begins his public ministry, he issues two commands: “Repent” and “Come after me.” The gospel suggests that both repentance and following Jesus are ways of walking in the light....THE WAY to walk in the light, more precisely. And when we walk in the light, we SEE and are a PART of the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is neither earthly realm (yet) nor distant place (only). The kingdom of heaven is present in our response to Jesus. The kingdom of heaven is ANYWHERE God is active, ruling in grace & mercy through the presence of his Son Jesus.
This week, as is often the case, is a week of CONTRASTS: darkness vs light; repenting vs not repenting; following Jesus vs following something else.
cheers,
TM
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Thoughts going in, Sun Jan 16th
John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.'34 I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One." 35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" 37 When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means "Teacher"), "where are you staying?" 39 "Come," he replied, "and you will see." So they went and saw where he was staying, and they spent that day with him. It was about four in the afternoon. 40 Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas"(which, when translated, is Peter ).
John's Gospel is SO WEIRD!
We saw this on the 2nd Sunday after Christmas when we looked at John's version of the Christmas story. His version didn't take place in Bethlehem, it didn't have choirs of angels or magi traveling from afar. His Christmas story began before creation--before the foundations of the world were laid. Well, now that it's time to talk about the baptism of Jesus, John's at it again. He dances around the topic; from the narrative it can be clearly deduced that Jesus *has been baptized...but John does not actually include this detail. It almost seems like an oversight. Another way to put it might be that John is so interested in ensuring that he unpacks the *meaning of the events, that he sometimes chooses not to include the mundane *details of the event in question.
"Lamb of God." This is obviously an important saying--both for John the Baptist in the narrative, and for the writer of John's gospel. He mentions the phrase twice! Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi are the words from the Latin Mass--Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. As an interesting side note it's fun to see how this phrase has been used liturgically. In the western rite as inherited by the Lutheran Church, this phrase is sung/chanted **after** the words of institution. What this means is that it is a hymn to Christ, specifically, Christ **PRESENT** in the communion elements of the bread and the wine. In the Lutheran faith tradition there has never been any doubt or controversy about the *reality of Christ's presence in the communion elements. It is not a *physical reality; scientific study/testing will not reveal it. It is, rather, a *mystical reality; a *sacramental reality. But when we hop from the continent over to England during reformation times, we find a different story. The first English liturgy as found in Archbishop Cranmer's prayerbook of 1549 places the Agnus Dei in its normal position--as a hymn sung to Christ *following the words of institution. The Church of England, however, was in a state of flux during these years. With the death of the unpredictable Henry VIII the crown was now held by the sickly boy-king Edward VI. The protestant movement in England was taking more and more of a radical turn. In the end, Cranmer's first prayerbook was seen as too compromising; too supportive of the old "Romish" religion. And so, in 1552, a revision was produced. Without saying specifically *why, ....the Agnus Dei was simply....gone. Given that the revised prayerbook--in other places--takes pains to distance itself from belief in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, one can see that continued use of the Agnus Dei in that old context ...wouldn't work.
There are so many other things that could be mentioned. There's the *reality of Christ's designation of sacrificial lamb from the very beginning. These days we occasionally struggle with the image of a loving/fatherly 'god' who would demand a blood sacrifice....& then engage in sacrificing his own son. I can't help but think that at least a part of our squeamishness is based on a insufficient appraisal of the human condition. We're squeamish at the idea; we (or at least some of us) are even morally outraged at the idea. But this is because we don't fully understand the human condition. In the 1998 movie Armageddon, an astroid the size of Texas is headed directly toward earth. As the film's title implies, the resulting collision will spell THE END of everything. There's no sugar-coating the possibilities; there is no possibility for cooler, more rational minds to prevail. The situation really is **that bad. So, given this reality, a last-ditch desperate plan is hatched. The world's best deep core drilling team is sent up to try to nuke the asteroid before it gets here. There's only one problem....**someone** has to stay behind to trigger the nuke. That someone will die; that someone will sacrifice himself for everyone else. We can pontificate about how tragic it is.....or the luck of the draw that unfortunately picked this one man who was uniquely qualified to be there in the first place.....but at the end of the day the *reality is that either he dies or the whole world dies. The point is that sometimes the REALITY is such that sacrifice cannot be avoided. And *understanding that reality makes the objections sound a bit hollow. In the movie the people of earth may have been sorry that Bruce Willis had to die in the process, but they were sure glad he did. His sacrifice meant everything to them. People of faith who understand the sacrifice of Jesus feel the same way. Even so, the parallels eventually break down. After all, Bruce did a noble/magnanimous thing, but in the end the asteroid conquered him. In the case of Jesus, death could not hold him. His RIGHTEOUSNESS was stronger than death itself. Death, theologically, draws its power from sin. Yet, he was the sinLESS lamb of God. This made it impossible for him to stay dead.
The last little thing that comes to my mind as I work through this passage is the *evangelism that's going on--or at the very least, the POINTING to Christ that's occurring. (36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"). Thinking liturgically again, I'm reminded of one of the optional phrases used in the liturgy. After consecration, the one presiding at the altar holds the wafer & the chalice up high and says: "THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD who takes away our sins; happy are we who are called to this Eucharist." John the Baptist seemed DETERMINED to make sure that everyone within hearing distance heard him proclaim that THAT MAN OVER THERE was their savior; that HE, specifically, was the one. This remains our evangelistic call to this day......to continually point out to all who will hear that THAT MAN OVER THERE, JESUS OF NAZARETH is their Savior; but there's more. He is **FOUND** in the holy meal. We embrace him by faith, but faith is given something to cling to--tangible realities known as sacraments. These days people talk about having "Jesus in their heart." It's a colloquial way of referring to the reality of an active faith in the Savior. But the old Fathers of the Church called Holy Communion "the medicine of immortality" precisely because they saw it as having Jesus not only in their 'hearts,' but in their whole BODIES.
Cheers,
TM
John's Gospel is SO WEIRD!
We saw this on the 2nd Sunday after Christmas when we looked at John's version of the Christmas story. His version didn't take place in Bethlehem, it didn't have choirs of angels or magi traveling from afar. His Christmas story began before creation--before the foundations of the world were laid. Well, now that it's time to talk about the baptism of Jesus, John's at it again. He dances around the topic; from the narrative it can be clearly deduced that Jesus *has been baptized...but John does not actually include this detail. It almost seems like an oversight. Another way to put it might be that John is so interested in ensuring that he unpacks the *meaning of the events, that he sometimes chooses not to include the mundane *details of the event in question.
"Lamb of God." This is obviously an important saying--both for John the Baptist in the narrative, and for the writer of John's gospel. He mentions the phrase twice! Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi are the words from the Latin Mass--Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. As an interesting side note it's fun to see how this phrase has been used liturgically. In the western rite as inherited by the Lutheran Church, this phrase is sung/chanted **after** the words of institution. What this means is that it is a hymn to Christ, specifically, Christ **PRESENT** in the communion elements of the bread and the wine. In the Lutheran faith tradition there has never been any doubt or controversy about the *reality of Christ's presence in the communion elements. It is not a *physical reality; scientific study/testing will not reveal it. It is, rather, a *mystical reality; a *sacramental reality. But when we hop from the continent over to England during reformation times, we find a different story. The first English liturgy as found in Archbishop Cranmer's prayerbook of 1549 places the Agnus Dei in its normal position--as a hymn sung to Christ *following the words of institution. The Church of England, however, was in a state of flux during these years. With the death of the unpredictable Henry VIII the crown was now held by the sickly boy-king Edward VI. The protestant movement in England was taking more and more of a radical turn. In the end, Cranmer's first prayerbook was seen as too compromising; too supportive of the old "Romish" religion. And so, in 1552, a revision was produced. Without saying specifically *why, ....the Agnus Dei was simply....gone. Given that the revised prayerbook--in other places--takes pains to distance itself from belief in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, one can see that continued use of the Agnus Dei in that old context ...wouldn't work.
There are so many other things that could be mentioned. There's the *reality of Christ's designation of sacrificial lamb from the very beginning. These days we occasionally struggle with the image of a loving/fatherly 'god' who would demand a blood sacrifice....& then engage in sacrificing his own son. I can't help but think that at least a part of our squeamishness is based on a insufficient appraisal of the human condition. We're squeamish at the idea; we (or at least some of us) are even morally outraged at the idea. But this is because we don't fully understand the human condition. In the 1998 movie Armageddon, an astroid the size of Texas is headed directly toward earth. As the film's title implies, the resulting collision will spell THE END of everything. There's no sugar-coating the possibilities; there is no possibility for cooler, more rational minds to prevail. The situation really is **that bad. So, given this reality, a last-ditch desperate plan is hatched. The world's best deep core drilling team is sent up to try to nuke the asteroid before it gets here. There's only one problem....**someone** has to stay behind to trigger the nuke. That someone will die; that someone will sacrifice himself for everyone else. We can pontificate about how tragic it is.....or the luck of the draw that unfortunately picked this one man who was uniquely qualified to be there in the first place.....but at the end of the day the *reality is that either he dies or the whole world dies. The point is that sometimes the REALITY is such that sacrifice cannot be avoided. And *understanding that reality makes the objections sound a bit hollow. In the movie the people of earth may have been sorry that Bruce Willis had to die in the process, but they were sure glad he did. His sacrifice meant everything to them. People of faith who understand the sacrifice of Jesus feel the same way. Even so, the parallels eventually break down. After all, Bruce did a noble/magnanimous thing, but in the end the asteroid conquered him. In the case of Jesus, death could not hold him. His RIGHTEOUSNESS was stronger than death itself. Death, theologically, draws its power from sin. Yet, he was the sinLESS lamb of God. This made it impossible for him to stay dead.
The last little thing that comes to my mind as I work through this passage is the *evangelism that's going on--or at the very least, the POINTING to Christ that's occurring. (36 When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"). Thinking liturgically again, I'm reminded of one of the optional phrases used in the liturgy. After consecration, the one presiding at the altar holds the wafer & the chalice up high and says: "THIS IS THE LAMB OF GOD who takes away our sins; happy are we who are called to this Eucharist." John the Baptist seemed DETERMINED to make sure that everyone within hearing distance heard him proclaim that THAT MAN OVER THERE was their savior; that HE, specifically, was the one. This remains our evangelistic call to this day......to continually point out to all who will hear that THAT MAN OVER THERE, JESUS OF NAZARETH is their Savior; but there's more. He is **FOUND** in the holy meal. We embrace him by faith, but faith is given something to cling to--tangible realities known as sacraments. These days people talk about having "Jesus in their heart." It's a colloquial way of referring to the reality of an active faith in the Savior. But the old Fathers of the Church called Holy Communion "the medicine of immortality" precisely because they saw it as having Jesus not only in their 'hearts,' but in their whole BODIES.
Cheers,
TM
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Thoughts going in, Sun Jan 9th
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented. 16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
Most people are unaware of the fact that the celebration of Epiphany (a word which simply means "to shine forth"), January 6th, predates the observance of Christmas in the history of the church. Indeed, Epiphany *was…for all intents and purposes…the celebration of Christmas. Originally, it seems, there was a tendency to lump the BIRTH of Jesus together with other important manifestations of Divine power/presence, such as the *star guiding the Magi; the *baptism of Christ (where the voice from heaven declares him to be the beloved son of God); and the first *miracle at the wedding feast of Cana. Only later was Christ’s birth actually broken off from these other events and given its own special day as Christmas, or more properly, the Feast of the Nativity.
Following this, Epiphany continued on with its 3-fold thematic emphasis of the Magi, the Baptism of Christ, and the first public miracle. In time, the Baptism of Christ began to stand out in importance and it was given its own Sunday on the liturgical calendar—the first Sunday after Epiphany.
There are MANY side-questions that could occupy our attention from this text—not the least of which would be the question of the MODE of John’s baptism. And, the question of proper mode of baptism (immersion, pouring, sprinkling) continues to divide the church to this day. The scriptures do not really provide a bullet-proof description of mode, yet we do know that the Jewish “mikvah” (a tank, of sorts, used for personal ritual cleansing) was big enough for complete immersion. Also, texts such as this one from Matthew (“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he WENT UP out of the water”) seem to indicate deep-water baptisms (ergo, immersions). For that matter, the oldest catechetical instruction of the church, The Didache, commends that if possible baptisms should be performed by immersion in fresh flowing rivers.
Having said all of this, one could wonder *WHY it is that Lutherans don’t immerse. And it really has nothing to do with the fact that we baptize infants—as the majority of the Eastern Christians practice infant immersion in their baptismal ceremonies.
In fact, Lutheran theology has no objection to baptism by immersion for all of the reasons already mentioned. HOWEVER, Lutheran theology also believes in taking a stand against those who say—without warrant—that it HAS TO BE THAT WAY. From Reformation times onward there has been a segment of Protestantism DEMANDING the mode of immersion to the exclusion of all other modes, and stating that other modes are *invalid. In the face of that false position, Lutherans have tended to favor pouring as a means of publicly confessing that so long as one uses water and applies it in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the question of mode is not important.
Getting back on track with the text, the million dollar question is “what’s going on here?” Regardless of mode, WHY does the Son of God feel it necessary to be baptized? Regardless of one’s faith tradition, baptism is seen as something that applies to sinful humanity. Jesus, surely, is not PART of sinful humanity…..is he?
I’m reminded of the stories of the “Freedom Riders” of the early 1960s civil rights struggle. These were northern civil rights activists that rode interstate buses into the segregated southern United States to
challenge local laws or customs that enforced segregation on buses. The Freedom Rides, and the violent reactions they provoked, bolstered the credibility of the American Civil Rights Movement and called national attention to the violent disregard for the law that was used to enforce segregation in the southern United States. Riders were arrested for trespassing, unlawful assembly, and violating state and local Jim Crow laws, along with other alleged offenses. These *outsiders from the North were expressing *solidarity with those suffering racial discrimination in the South. It wasn’t their world, but they entered into that world for the purpose of effecting change. They walked the proverbial mile in the other man’s shoes.
In the baptism of Christ, Jesus goes from being God’s beloved Son as mere matter of fact, to God’s beloved Son in terms of duty and destiny. By being baptized by John that day, Jesus signed up to be THE FREEDOM RIDER of all time and for all humanity. It wasn’t his world….it was a world of darkness, sin and ungodliness; Yet, out of love for those languishing under such conditions, he entered into that world for the purpose of effecting change. In his baptism, Jesus enters into solidarity with the entire human race and agrees to be The Christ, The Savior. How does the Father react to this? He states for all to hear: This is my beloved son in whom I am well-pleased; well-pleased because the Freedom Ride has begun.
cheers,
TM
Most people are unaware of the fact that the celebration of Epiphany (a word which simply means "to shine forth"), January 6th, predates the observance of Christmas in the history of the church. Indeed, Epiphany *was…for all intents and purposes…the celebration of Christmas. Originally, it seems, there was a tendency to lump the BIRTH of Jesus together with other important manifestations of Divine power/presence, such as the *star guiding the Magi; the *baptism of Christ (where the voice from heaven declares him to be the beloved son of God); and the first *miracle at the wedding feast of Cana. Only later was Christ’s birth actually broken off from these other events and given its own special day as Christmas, or more properly, the Feast of the Nativity.
Following this, Epiphany continued on with its 3-fold thematic emphasis of the Magi, the Baptism of Christ, and the first public miracle. In time, the Baptism of Christ began to stand out in importance and it was given its own Sunday on the liturgical calendar—the first Sunday after Epiphany.
There are MANY side-questions that could occupy our attention from this text—not the least of which would be the question of the MODE of John’s baptism. And, the question of proper mode of baptism (immersion, pouring, sprinkling) continues to divide the church to this day. The scriptures do not really provide a bullet-proof description of mode, yet we do know that the Jewish “mikvah” (a tank, of sorts, used for personal ritual cleansing) was big enough for complete immersion. Also, texts such as this one from Matthew (“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he WENT UP out of the water”) seem to indicate deep-water baptisms (ergo, immersions). For that matter, the oldest catechetical instruction of the church, The Didache, commends that if possible baptisms should be performed by immersion in fresh flowing rivers.
Having said all of this, one could wonder *WHY it is that Lutherans don’t immerse. And it really has nothing to do with the fact that we baptize infants—as the majority of the Eastern Christians practice infant immersion in their baptismal ceremonies.
In fact, Lutheran theology has no objection to baptism by immersion for all of the reasons already mentioned. HOWEVER, Lutheran theology also believes in taking a stand against those who say—without warrant—that it HAS TO BE THAT WAY. From Reformation times onward there has been a segment of Protestantism DEMANDING the mode of immersion to the exclusion of all other modes, and stating that other modes are *invalid. In the face of that false position, Lutherans have tended to favor pouring as a means of publicly confessing that so long as one uses water and applies it in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the question of mode is not important.
Getting back on track with the text, the million dollar question is “what’s going on here?” Regardless of mode, WHY does the Son of God feel it necessary to be baptized? Regardless of one’s faith tradition, baptism is seen as something that applies to sinful humanity. Jesus, surely, is not PART of sinful humanity…..is he?
I’m reminded of the stories of the “Freedom Riders” of the early 1960s civil rights struggle. These were northern civil rights activists that rode interstate buses into the segregated southern United States to
challenge local laws or customs that enforced segregation on buses. The Freedom Rides, and the violent reactions they provoked, bolstered the credibility of the American Civil Rights Movement and called national attention to the violent disregard for the law that was used to enforce segregation in the southern United States. Riders were arrested for trespassing, unlawful assembly, and violating state and local Jim Crow laws, along with other alleged offenses. These *outsiders from the North were expressing *solidarity with those suffering racial discrimination in the South. It wasn’t their world, but they entered into that world for the purpose of effecting change. They walked the proverbial mile in the other man’s shoes.
In the baptism of Christ, Jesus goes from being God’s beloved Son as mere matter of fact, to God’s beloved Son in terms of duty and destiny. By being baptized by John that day, Jesus signed up to be THE FREEDOM RIDER of all time and for all humanity. It wasn’t his world….it was a world of darkness, sin and ungodliness; Yet, out of love for those languishing under such conditions, he entered into that world for the purpose of effecting change. In his baptism, Jesus enters into solidarity with the entire human race and agrees to be The Christ, The Savior. How does the Father react to this? He states for all to hear: This is my beloved son in whom I am well-pleased; well-pleased because the Freedom Ride has begun.
cheers,
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
