Easter Sunday, March 27th 2016, thoughts going in

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they [the women] came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they went in, they did not find the body. 4 While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. 5 The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. 6 Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, 7 that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” 8 Then they remembered his words, 9 and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. 10 Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. 12 But Peter got up and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; then he went home, amazed at what had happened. (Luke 24:1-12).

            As has been noted before, this is "Year C" of the lectionary cycle which means that our primary Gospel readings are taken from Luke. This being the case, this Easter Sunday we are directed to consider Luke's resurrection narrative from chapter 24.

            As any casual study of the Gospels reveals, certain stories contain elements of nuance and variance not found in other versions of the same story. This has led to no small amount of consternation on the part of some, and outright mockery on the part of others. In times past a great deal of energy was expended on attempts to 'harmonize' the stories so as to make them more "believable." Were the two men in white "angels?" If so, why doesn't Luke just call them that? Was there one angel is per Matthew's gospel or two men in white as per Luke's? For those who *desperately need the stories to harmonize, I guess I'd direct our attention to vs 11 in this text: But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. As several commentators point out the English term "idle tale" comes from the Greek leros. This is the *only place in the Bible where this word occurs, but it's found in ancient Greek medical literature. It's used to describe the ranting of a person suffering from delirium! In other words, you have three named women and an unknown number of other women who were also part of the group in the tomb, and they come running back to the Apostles... all talking at once... and all talking about something that seems like complete nonsense. It seems obvious that a detail or two is going to fall through the cracks in one oral tradition and get picked up in another. The true point of harmony in the stories is that THE TOMB IS EMPTY. He is not here, but is risen (v5).

            During the whole "Easter season" we'll have ample opportunity to explore the various 'so what's' of the resurrection of Jesus, but just from this text several important factors deserve our attention:

            1. The shattering of death's permanence. The worst part about death is that it seems so invincible. It robs us of our friends and loved ones (sometimes cruelly, and always too soon), and like all bullies it seems to mock us in our sorrow. As the narrative begins in chapter 24, death is everywhere. It's in the spices the women have--as they have them for one and only one reason, the ritual anointing of the dead as practiced by Jewish custom; it's in the coordinates of their 'gps,' as they're headed for a tomb, and tombs are for dead people. But when they get there, they don't find death. God has started something NEW. And this new thing is defeated death. And like the ripples that happen when a rock is dropped in a pond, this new thing of defeated death refuses to stay put. It spreads. It gets shared; talked about; and believed.

            2. The inclusivity of the Gospel. The first people who get the good news of the resurrection of Jesus are women. In our modern western society where women hold high office and positions of authority all around us, it's often easy to forget that the first century world of the Bible was a very male-dominated society. Yet in this story we see that in a very real way, the 'apostles' to the Apostles were society's 2nd class citizens...women. And even though their story was initially dismissed, the narrator affirms the validity of their story. Their story is true--whether it's believed or not. Their story is worth sharing, whether it's believed or not. Even though we live in a time that is far different from the 1st century Greco-Roman world, many of us still know what it feels like to be marginalized...whether because of our age, sex, income, level of education, or other factors. The women of this story are examples for us. They didn't let their 'status' silence their testimony.

            3. The piqued curiosity of Peter. Peter is one of the great 'larger than life' figures of the Gospels. He's obviously singled out by Jesus for a leadership role (he's given the title "Rock," and is always listed first in the named group); and at times, Peter lives up to his potential. He boldly proclaims Jesus as Messiah/Christ in Luke 9, but then falls terribly by denying Jesus three times in chapter 22. Of all of the members of the group, Peter has every reason to wallow in depression and self-pity at this point. When his master was on the ropes, Peter disowned him. But now in this chapter, we see the beginnings of a renewed Peter. The women seem to be babbling nonsense in vs 11, to such an extent that they did not believe them. The "they" on the one hand seems all-inclusive of everyone listening, perhaps even including Peter. AND YET... Peter's curiosity was piqued enough to go and see.

            I think very often we set our expectations WAY too high within the Church. We do something nice for someone, or manage to drum up enough courage to share our faith with the expectation--or at least the hope--that now they'll get baptized and volunteer to serve on a board... or at the very least show up every Sunday. It's hard to know exactly what was in Peter's mind when he left the house that morning. Sticking strictly to the text, it seems safest to assume that at least at first he was dominated by unbelief. But he was at least prompted to go and have a look for himself. And in time... he grew into the "Rock" that Jesus always knew he could be.

            For those of little or wavering faith, the message is always the invitation of the women. Yes, it seems like babbled nonsense. Of course. People die and usually stay dead. There's no reason why that shouldn't also pertain to Jesus. And yet the tomb was empty, as Jesus himself said it would be. The message of the Church has been the same as the women for 2,000 years. Come and see for yourself.

Cheers,

T.M.

Palm/Passion Sunday, March 20th 2016, thoughts going in

So regarding this Sunday, some might ask.... WHICH is it, Palm Sunday or Passion Sunday? Well... it's both. There's a tension here and the tension is ON PURPOSE. We're meant to hear the story again about how fickle the crowds were who one day shout blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord... and just a few short days later shout crucify him, crucify him. We're meant to see in the crowd's fickleness all of the many times we've said we we're a Christian... we've said we believe... and then without skipping a beat have said or done something entirely contrary to God's will. We're meant to see ourselves in the crowd.

            With that in mind, I'm especially intrigued with the way that long passion narrative ends: 18 But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!”19 (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) 20 Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

22 For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”23 But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. 24 So Pilate decided to grant their demand. 25 He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

            As I explained in a recent bible study class, the old Sunday school thing about Jesus being crucified with 2 "thieves" isn't quite right (the old KJV unfortunately used that term). Of course there *were thieves in the first century Greco-Roman world, just as there are today. As a matter of fact, a recent Sunday Gospel reading informed us to as much. In John chapter 12 after Mary of Bethany broke open the jar of expensive perfume and anointed Jesus' feet, Judas objected and said the jar should've been sold and the proceeds given to the poor. Judas had rightly calculated that the stuff was worth a lot of money--300 denarii, or about a year's wages for a day-laborer. And then John says this: He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief (12:6). And that word "thief" in the English is kleptes in the Greek. It's where we get our word kleptomaniac from. As you would think, a kleptes is someone who takes what doesn't belong to them; he skims from the profits; he sneaks in and steals your tv set while you're at your kid's ballgame. That's a kleptes.

            And while Rome wasn't exactly known for their leniency when it came to law and order, they didn't just crucify *everyone who was guilty of any crime. Crucifixion was hard work; and it was brutal. And in order for it to do its job in terms of being a 'deterrent,' it had to be reserved for certain crimes. Thanks to the slave revolt of Spartacus (73-71BC), simply being a runaway slave was punishable not only by death, but death by crucifixion. Beyond this, the primary purpose of crucifixion was to punish those who were guilty of high crimes/treason against the state. Being an insurrectionist; a brigand; stealing, plundering, killing and upsetting Rome's social order--and getting caught--THESE were the things that got you crucified. In the Greek the word for such guys is lestes. That's who the two guys were crucified with Jesus. That's what Barabbas was.

            Going into this long, but familiar reading, I'm struck by the fact that there was always going to be three crucifixions that day. The only question was going to be, who would be on that center cross? And in keeping with the 'tension' of the day, we find layers and layers of tension in the reading. In an almost ironic twist, the name of the insurrectionist that is eventually released is Barabbas. In Aramaic, the name literally means "son [bar] of the father [abbas]." Son-of-the-father is taken off the cross so that the one and only begotten Son of the Heavenly Father can take it up.

            And the last little bit of tension, it says in vs 25 Pilate released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus... to their will. It is true that at that moment, it was "their will" that Jesus be crucified. It was their will to reject and kill the "Lord of glory," as Paul says in 2Corinthians. And in that moment of rejection when their will carries the day, all of humanity must stand condemned. There is none righteous, no not one. Each of us in our way would have asked for Barabbas that day. And yet we cannot escape the one last bit of tensions. Since the 9th chapter of Luke, Jesus had set his face to Jerusalem. He could've stopped anywhere along the line. He could have defended himself at his trial with the ruling council. He could've defended himself in Pilate's presence. Instead, he let it all happen exactly the way he did because it was also HIS WILL that it happen.  As we enter Palm/Passion Sunday and Holy Week, we do so overwhelmed by the love of the Savior who would do such a thing for us!

Cheers,

T.M.

Lent 5, March 13th 2016, thoughts going in

Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

            "Signs of life in the valley of the shadow of death"... or something like that. That's the 'theme' that's sorta floating around in my head regarding this passage.

            It's so brief, and yet as is typically the case in the Gospel of John, it's so packed with meaning. Let's begin by breaking it down:

            Vs 1: Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. As John informs us, Lazarus is the ultimate dead man walking. This chapter begins still very heavily laden with all that had gone on in the previous chapter when Lazarus was raised from the dead. Some extremely important details include: (1) The fact that this sign was causing many people to believe. Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him (11:45) (2) The impact this sign was having on the ruling religious elite and their attitudes about Jesus: 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life. 54 Therefore Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the people of Judea (11:46-47, 53-54). In fact as the story continues to unfold in chapter 12, even Lazarus will find his life in jeopardy: So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11 for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and believing in him (12:10-11). In other words, this is no normal meal. This is the church of Christ meeting in the face of opposition. It is the source and message of life meeting in the shadow of death.

            Vs 2: Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. Lazarus is now mentioned, by name, a 2nd time. Martha, who serves, is only mentioned once. Even Mary who makes this extraordinary act of devotion is only mentioned by name once. Judas, the betrayer, is only mentioned by name once. Lazarus is mentioned by name twice. John writes his gospel about 2,000 years before 'emoticons' are invented, yet I can't help but think that's how he's using Lazarus in this passage. DEATH is all around them. Jesus himself can no longer move about freely without being arrested. John himself will tell us all about his eventual arrest and cruel death. Readers the 2nd time through will know this is coming. And yet in the midst of all of this DEATH sits Lazarus... a living breathing emoticon of LIFE. By the very presence of Lazarus, the reader is cued to think back... to Jesus' own words: No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again (10:18).

            Vs 3: Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. The details of this verse are probably the most difficult. First, we have to hook vs 3 to vs 7. This is where Jesus give his own interpretation (and hence the correct one) of the act. The problem with vs 12 is that the Greek is obscure and the NIV attempts to iron it out. A more literal translation of vs 12 would read: Leave her; in order that for the day of my burial preparation she has kept this. St. Paul sorta says something similar in 1Corinthians 11:26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Paul's phrase is chocked with irony. How can one who is dead come? The obvious answer is that he did not stay dead. In that sense, Mary's act is laden with sacramental symbolism. It occurs while at table; it is a proclamation that the Lord fully intends to die; taking it a step further, we even see 'all sorts' gathered at table... the Lord of the Church, those who have died in the faith (symbolized by Lazarus), the faithful here (symbolized by Mary and Martha), and even the hypocrites (symbolized by Judas).

            Vss 4-6 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. Judas has very few speaking parts in the scriptures, but he is always depicted as (a) a hypocrite and (b) the tool of Satan. As the tool of Satan, his words must be so-interpreted. Hence, even a good-sounding thing is tainted. This is the ultimate weapon of Satan--a weapon we saw used in the temptation narrative back in week 1. If you're the son of God, don't starve yourself out here before you have a chance to die for the sins of the world, turn these stones to bread. If you're the son of God, jump off this pinnacle... God won't let anything happen to his anointed, and surely people will see this sign and believe it. If you're the son of God, put me first in your life and I'll ensure the whole world becomes Christian. In other words, as John says, giving to the poor isn't the problem; the problem is Judas and his motivations.

            Vss 7-8: Leave her; in order that for the day of my burial preparation she has kept this. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.” Of all of the things I wish Jesus hadn't said (there's a few), vs 8 is right up there. *NOT because there's anything wrong with Jesus' statement, but because of how it has been misused all of these years. You will always have the poor has so often been interpreted as a defeatist excuse not to bother. If you have a problem, and that problem can never be solved, then it is human instinct not to bother trying. This is NOT what Jesus said. In fact, he is summarizing the Torah (Deut. 15:11) There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land. Note the implication. The *goal isn't to solve the problem; it's unsolvable. The *goal is to be a faithful part of God's activity for the poor. To be the never-ending count-balance to this never-ending problem.

            What's it all mean? For us the important part is to separate the acts/statements from the people. What Mary did was extoled by Jesus because of Mary's heart. She lavished an immensely expensive gift on him (in this culture 1 denarius was a day's wage for the working class, so do the math, this jar of perfume cost a year's wages). Could it have been saved? Of course. Could it have funded ministry to the poor? Of course. But Mary with a pure heart chose to lavish it on Jesus. In a moment it was gone--but Jesus received her gift. On the other hand, Jesus doesn't deny the point that Judas is making. Just the opposite--he affirms the Torah's admonition that the poor will always require the efforts of the faithful. But as John tells us, that's not what Judas is really about. In other words, the rebuke of Judas isn't for what he says, it's for the thought behind it.

            It's a complex passage, but in the end it boils down to a simple principle. The life of faith is about attitudes and motivation. You can direct all of your efforts to faithful servanthood like Martha. With a heart of faith, this is accepted. You can direct your efforts to internal symbols of great and expensive beauty, like Mary. With a heart of faith, this is accepted. You can even follow Torah's ideal that the faithful have a continuous call to help with a continuous problem. With a heart of faith, this too is accepted. What is unacceptable is any of the above coupled to a faithless heart.

Cheers,

T.M.

Lent 4, March 6th 2016, thoughts going in

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” 3 Then Jesus told them this parable “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. 13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living.14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. 17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. 21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. 25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ 28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’ 31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

            For the 4th Sunday of Lent (Year C) we turn our attention to one of the most well known, and usually beloved, passages of all of Scripture, the so-called Parable of the Prodigal Son. The paragraph heading in the NIV translation calls it the "Parable of the lost son" which actually fits better with the rest of chapter 15. This parable, after all, is rightly understood within the context of the other two parables of the chapter. It begins with the fact that the Pharisees are murmuring (KJV translation) that proper boundaries aren't being maintained; Jesus is consorting with the riff-raff....the despised classes of people.

            A sidenote comment... while I typically prefer the more up-to-date translations such as the NIV, every now and then I have to admit that a sacrifice gets made in the process of updating. The KJV pretty consistently translates the Hebrew 'tluwnah' (see Exodus 16:8) and the Greek 'diagogguzo' (see above, Luke 15:2) as MURMUR. Other translations, however, seem to bounce around. Sometimes it's grumble, or complain, or mutter, etc. etc. And while I will grant that often times the context can introduce different nuances of the word, there is a THEOLOGY behind the fact that it's really only one word that's being used (well, one in Hebrew & one in Greek). The point is this... the theology behind the word is that God is doing something gracious in the midst of people and the response is to murmur! In the case of the wilderness wandering, God was graciously sustaining the lives of his people in the middle of nowhere. Their murmuring was all about not desiring to live by the gracious hand of God; they preferred self-reliance, even if it meant returning to Egypt and enslavement. In the case of Luke 15 the murmuring is even more intense. God in the flesh has come; Like the story of divine visitation with Adam in the cool of the day in the garden, God has come down in Jesus of Nazareth, with a gracious desire to be with all of his children--even the marginalized ones. And this elicits MURMURING on the part of the legalists.

            In response Jesus tells 3 consecutive parables: The Lost Sheep; The Lost Coin; and The Lost Son. In all 3 great efforts, great love, and great GRACE are shown. Taken as a group, the Parable of the Lost Son stands out, however. Regarding the Lost Sheep, the shepherd calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost !' (v6) Regarding the Lost Coin, the woman calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost! (v9). While the text doesn't say one way or the other, the flow of the story seems to indicate that friends and neighbors DO REJOICE with the shepherd and the woman. But the trilogy takes a turn in the story of the lost son where the invitation to come in and rejoice is refused: The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him (v28).

            It is at the refusal of the older son to rejoice with the father that we come full circle to the murmuring of the Pharisees. God is allowed to be loving, but not too loving; gracious but not too gracious; merciful, but not too merciful. It strikes me that as common as this story has become to the collective Christian consciousness, we need to KEEP HEARING IT. It is a great sadness that "Church people" are known primarily for being judgmental, vengeful, hateful, narrow-minded bigots. Many Christians would be just as scandalized and murmur just as loudly today if Jesus were seen consorting with today's version of tax collectors and sinners. How can we continue "ignoring our Heavenly Father's pleading?"

Cheers,

T.M.