Thoughts going in, Sunday June 3rd

Romans 8:12-17

12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. 14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, ""Abba," Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

            The above constitutes the Epistle reading for this Sunday, Trinity Sunday. My hunch is that it was chosen due to the fact that upon close inspection we find all three Persons of the Trinity:  The Father (vs 15), the Son [Christ] (vs 17) and the Spirit (vs 14 etc.).

            I have always found the preaching task of Trinity Sunday to be somewhat difficult. As a "topic," the point seems to be purely dogmatic. We set a Sunday aside on the church year to celebrate the fact that we have not devolved into ancient heresy; we are [still] Trinitarian in our faith and faith-life. Which is to say, we still believe in the "God-ness" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; we still believe in the distinction of the Persons... they haven't been confused... but we also, with our Jewish ancestors of the faith, retain belief in the "oneness" of God. All of this as per the Athanasian Creed. That's nice... but it's sorta hard to preach. It becomes even more difficult to preach when one attempts to take one (or more) of the readings--each of which have their own context already--and form-fit them into proof texts for the "Trinity theme" of the day.

            Of the 3 readings, I find myself most drawn to Romans 8. Anytime we approach a text from Paul, I'm convinced that it is extremely important that we keep Paul's main agenda constantly in mind. Paul's main agenda was to construct a united messianic community of Jews + Gentiles around the atoning sacrifice and resurrected life of the Messiah (Jesus of Nazareth). Faithful living, hence, is "Jewish" in that it worships the one true God as revealed to the Patriarchs and Prophets; it is also "Jewish" because it is life in the Messiah. Furthermore, it is "Jewish" in that the ethical morality of this one true God is considered the standard. However, this life in Paul's community(ies) of faith is also "Gentile." This is most precisely seen by the fact that the "badge" of membership in the community is FAITH [in the Messiah] and the presence of the Holy Spirit [individually and communally]. This is radically different in two ways:  (1) marks of ethnicity such as circumcision and ceremonial/dietary restrictions etc. no longer have their former meaning and are not required; and (2) there is no male/female distinction in one's standing before God (Gal 3:28)--FAITH and the SPIRIT being given equally and without distinction to both men and women.

            In that sense, a NEW AGE has dawned; a NEW CREATION has occurred. Paul's "new creation" lingo is so often limited to a personal encounter/change. Taking nothing away from that concept, it is important to remember that there is also a corporate work of new creation. The New People Of God, Jew & Gentile alike, united in faith around God's Messiah.

            In his letters, Paul the Jewish Pharisee/Rabbi continues to use the old(er) Jewish stories and metaphors because some of his hearers are of course Jewish, but also because those of Gentile persuasion, with coaching, can come to see and appreciate a universal application from those stories/metaphors. Hence, one need not be of Jewish descent in order to appreciate the language of bondage/slavery from vs 15 and reflect on the Egyptian slavery experience of the Jewish narrative. Paul is also using the typical rabbinic method of discussing his topic in "two ways" lingo. There is a way of life and a way of death; there is a way of freedom and a way of bondage; there is a way of slavery and a way of adoption-to-sonhood. There is the life of being heirs with Christ and the life of nothingness.

            What I find fascinating in this passage is that for Paul the opposite of "adoption" isn't "abandonment"....a word we might have chosen; it is, rather, slavery. Wanting nothing to do with God and His family; choosing a life apart from God; living outside of God's grace is not, therefore, a neutral decision. It's slavery. This concept is full of irony and continues to tap into the story of the Israelites of old, who.... whenever faith was required.... immediately pined away for the "good old days" of their life of Egyptian servitude. Life in the Spirit requires faith, but in Paul's terminology, this is the life of adoption; the life of being joint heirs with Christ.

            If there's a final Trinitarian angle here, it is probably to mention that God is not Holy Trinity in abstract; God is not just a clump of complex deity. ALL OF GOD'S BEING--Father, Son and Holy Spirit long to be in relationship with us His adopted children!

Cheers,

 TM

speaking of missing sermons...

For those who really watch this space for thoughts going into an upcoming Sunday and who then catch my podcast, just a note to say that there won't be anything this week either. This weekend (May 27th) officially starts the 'Summer vacation season' for me personally. I'll be in Michigan over the long weekend for a family reunion.

Check back for some thoughts leading into Trinity Sunday, June 3rd.

Cheers,

TM

Missing sermon, May 20th

Well, this happens every now and then...
Sadly the batteries died in my DVR Sunday morning and I didn't realize it until the end of the service. No sermon was recorded.  Sorry.
Also, I will be on vacation over the Memorial Day weekend with a guest pastor substituting for me in my absence.
I'll be back--and hopefully with a sermon--same time, same place, Sunday June 3rd.


TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday May 20th

Transition is in the air...
This week—whether the Sunday readings are taken from Ascension Day (Thurs the 2nd, 40 days after Easter) or the 7th Sunday of Easter, it is obvious that we’re almost done with the Easter Season and preparing to go somewhere else.

Like many congregations, we will spend this Sunday contemplating the Ascension of Jesus. It would be easy to turn this into a dogma lesson. The Ascension is fairly important to the creedal tradition of the Church. The Nicene Creed states: 

On the third day he rose again 
in accordance with the Scriptures; 
he ascended into heaven 
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. 
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, 
and his kingdom will have no end. 

In the Apostle’s Creed we find the words: 

He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come again to judge the living and the dead...

Whereupon we learn that at Christ’s Ascension he was given all power, dominion and authority by the Father (sitting at God’s “right hand” is not a ‘place,’ but rather a ‘status’). This power, dominion & authority doesn’t mean that it’s the ascended Jesus causing tornadoes in Missouri, but rather that HIS GOSPEL KINGDOM will be established—literally, come hell or high water. Nothing can stop it. It will happen. 

It is also from this passage of the creed (and the day’s reading from Acts, specifically vs 11) that we get the dogma of the RETURN of Christ. Current and past wacky preachers have always ended up with egg on their face when they try to predict the precise date of the return of Jesus. The words from this Acts passage: It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority” seem to be some of the most forgotten words in the Bible. And yet, the fact that Jesus really will come again.... and this is a truth the Church has always believed.

But beyond the dogma, what are we to take from this passage?
One of my favorite Charlie Brown clips shows him sitting slouched in front of the tv. On the tv, the voice of a little boy is saying, "Shane! Come back, come back!!" Charlie Brown glumly responds: "I've seen this movie a dozen times... and he *never comes back." It would be easy for the disciples that day, and US today, to have the same glum attitude about the Ascension. Jesus is gone and we're on our own. Forever. But that's not it at all. Jesus is *ascended--not gone. There's a huge difference. And, when the work of the Gospel is complete--unlike the scenario with 'Shane'--He **will return. In the meantime, it's our turn. The mission of one man has been handed on to us: men, women, boys, girls, rich, poor, young & old.

Thoughts going in, Sunday May 13th

John 15:9 "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because servants do not know their master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other. (TNIV)

This Sunday's Gospel reading is a direct continuation from last week's. Last week we saw the first 8 verses from John 15 talked about Christ the true vine, and his disciples as branches. We also saw that the only imperative, the only 'command,' within those 8 verses was to REMAIN.

Building on this, we see now two commands in this section. First, "REMAIN," again, this time not only remaining "in Christ," but specifically in the his love (v.9), which is a reflection of the Father's love (v.10). Second, love each other.

Ironically, the first command probably sounds easier than the second. After all, if God hasn't done anything too bad to us lately (like let a tornado destroy our house, etc.) we can probably drum up something close to a generic love of God. After all, he provides the air we breathe, the rain and sunshine that allows crops to grow, and it's just sorta easy for people raised in the Church to have a "benevolent dictator" view of God. Occasionally he seems capricious, but if nothing bad has happened to us lately, he seems ok most of the time.

But what about "each other?" It seems that the more I've immersed myself in church work, the more I have sadly come upon the truth that very often Christians not only aren't characterized for their love of God's creation, or their love of for un-churched humanity, ..... they're not even characterized by their love for EACH OTHER. Indeed, often they're not even characterized by their general "like" for each other! How can this be? When the Bible has SO MUCH to say about love, how can people who claim to be interested in adhering to the Bible's teaching, fall so short?

Very likely there are enough aspects to answering that question to fill an entire book, but two things suggest themselves to me right off the bat. First, Jesus says in John 13:35 "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have LOVE for each other." If that's true, then it's probably safe to say that the reverse is also true. Something along the lines of, "By this nobody will be able to figure out that you are my disciples if you have no love for each other." Hence, while some may find the 'handywork' of the forces of evil most prevalent in wars, disease, destruction of our environment, etc., it's very safe to say that such forces are also fast at work in an anti-evangelistic crusade to blunt and silence the message of Christ in the world--and what better way to accomplish this than to turn Christians into an angry, hateful, bickering mob of fanatics who not only hate the world, but hate each other?

The second thing that comes to mind in terms of falling short of the Bible's concept of reflecting the love of Christ (and hence his Father) has to do with the true meaning of biblical love. Vs 13 is that very well-known passage: Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. The great thing about this verse is that it turns our attention away from the 'emotional' side of love. Some people, after all, ARE difficult to like even if they are Christians. But in vs 13, we come upon a different concept: the idea of love = dedication to others; love = not living solely for oneself; love = living one's life with devoted to the needs of the community of friends [fellow Christians first, followed by an ever-widening circle of all creation].

cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday April 29th

John 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it 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. This command I received from my Father."

            On the 3-year lectionary the 4th Sunday of Easter, every year, is designated "Good Shepherd Sunday." The particulars of the readings vary, but the theme remains the same. This year (Year B) the Gospel selection begins as the Good Shepherd discourse is already underway.

            As many commentators point out, it's a bit difficult for us in the hustle/bustle of 21st century suburban life to fully grasp all of the nuances of this discourse and the examples of 1st century agrarian living. Shepherds...sheep... wolves... we can sorta get it, but these are not things that we encounter on a daily basis. If Jesus were speaking to us today in the western burbs of Chicago, one wonders if he'd use precisely the same lingo. Maybe he'd say something a little different, like... "I am the Good life-coach,".... or "I am the good family counselor" ... or something of that nature.

            Regardless, it wouldn't be too long before we'd begin to understand that the statement as uttered by Jesus reflects TRUE NEED on our part. One inescapable fact about being a sheep is that a SHEPHERD IS NEEDED. People do not seek out "life coaches" or counselors unless there is a pressing NEED. In other words, there's not much point in even beginning to examine the Good Shepherd discourse if we don't begin with the idea that Jesus is there, and precisely embraces the identity he does, out of loving recognition of OUR IMMENSE NEED. How does that make you feel?

            But wait, there's more. I recently read an account of the horrific scandal-ridden administration of President Warren G. Harding. It's almost laughable how today's sound-bite political pundits throw around accusations of scandal--whether of President Obama, or his predecessor, President Bush. You want to hear about scandal? You want to hear about unbridled greed and corruption in high office? Study the Harding administration. Not that President Harding was directly responsible per se. Many think that he was a hapless dupe who surrounded himself with "loyal friends" who, like foxes, proceeded to ravage the henhouse. Regardless, the point is that at some level we can all relate to being taken advantage of; we can all relate to being at the point of NEED, and, instead of being helped, we were ravaged.

            In this and so many other ways, Jesus proves to be the exception. Jesus isn't the fake shepherd, nor is he the hired hand. He is the "good" shepherd... and by "good," much more is meant than simply competent at the job. Good means the IDEAL; the shepherd of all shepherds; the shepherd par excellence! Why? Because he lays his life down for the sheep (us). It's easy to imagine the crucified Christ at this juncture--as after all, he literally died for the sheep. But a dead shepherd is no more use to the sheep than fake shepherd, a hired hand, or no shepherd at all. And so this line must be seen as encompassing MORE than simply a willingness to die. It is more to be understood as an identity embraced. He is the good shepherd precisely because he willingly and lovingly WANTS TO BE! (Think in terms of Philippians 2 Who, being in very nature God, Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, etc.)

            Lastly, his role as the good shepherd isn't something that's consigned to the pages of history past. Just how "ideal" could the ideally good shepherd be .... for us.... if he's not around anymore? What makes this passage such a great EASTER PASSAGE is the present tense of it all. Jesus could, in all truthfulness, say: I am the Good Shepherd two thousand years ago. Today, NO PASTOR, least of all me, would say that Jesus **was the Good Shepherd. He himself, our RISEN SAVIOR, still utters those words in present tense:  I **am** the Good Shepherd.

Cheers

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday April 22

Well, it's been a while since I've blogged my 'thoughts going in.' Passion Sunday, Easter Sunday etc., are such that their themes etc. just seemed not to need any help from me. Then last week was the preschool's easter program, so again, not much for me to say. So.... finally.... here I am again with some thoughts going in:

Luke 24: 36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself ! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. 44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

I love NT Wright's comments on the resurrection of Jesus. He talks about how 'natural' it would be to have post-death sightings of a person in this 1st century culture. No big deal. Whether or not the sightings were legitimate, **belief in them was common enough. As with old castles in Victorian England, evidently 1st century Palestine was the perfect setting for a ghost story. Yet, as Wright points out, there's an important distinction (or two) between a good ghost story and what the disciples claim to have seen. For one, when a person claimed to have seen the ghost of a dead relative, or whoever, there was no denial of the fact that the person was physically dead. In other words, the exclamation was, "I saw his ghost!" not, "he's alive!" Indeed, the presence of his ghost was as good as any proof that the person really was dead.

The other distinction Wright mentions is that even should there be post-death sightings of a person's ghost in this culture, such phenomena constituted no substituted for the physical; life in the physical world goes on. For Wright--a creedal Christian who does battle among the school of skeptics--it is highly significant that the early Jesus movement (a) not only continued on after the death of Jesus, but (b) did so without appointing a new "leader." In other words, even if people were having occasional 'visitations' by the ghost of the dead man Jesus, in order for the movement to continue on and continue its vibrancy, surely they would need a new leader; a new messiah to take the place of the fallen one. And yet no new messiah was ever proclaimed. Wright's conclusion is that the disciples were not claiming to have seen the ghost of Jesus. They were claiming what's written in this Sunday's gospel in Luke 24. That Jesus was alive. And not just alive in the resuscitated sense, but alive in some new/different don't-fully-know-how-to-explain-it sense.

For us... I know that it is common to envy those first disciples. They got to see the risen Jesus and we have not. But it's important to remember that they were not entirely sure of what it was they were seeing. There was clearly something less-familiar ... something other ... something mystical about him than what they had experienced prior to his crucifixion. I see this as a 'leveling' aspect. Perhaps he has not physically appeared at our dinner tables lately, but the mystical ways in which we experience the risen Jesus (in the sacraments, through the Word, in prayer, in the acts of kindness of others, in solidarity with the poor & suffering, etc.) are pretty close to what those first disciples experienced. Often there are more questions than answers; the experience is fleeting; it's entirely on his terms. And then he's gone before we know it, and we're left trying to make sense of it and integrate it into our faith life.

And then he tells the little group that they're to be "witnesses of these things." They're to give testimony about it. But how? How do you testify about something you don't understand, something that's never happened before, something that most people aren't going to believe (or better yet, will believe that YOU'RE CRAZY for saying it)? He doesn't say. The irony is that in 2000 years of church history it hasn't really mattered too much. In the end Jesus wasn't asking them to testify to something they couldn't explain or make up answers to difficult questions. He was really only asking them to testify about what they experienced. In our own day/age I think we over-complicate "witnessing." Instead of trying to memorize a sales pitch, or a certain number of 'spiritual truths,' or a string of verses from Romans, why not just give testimony as to how we have experienced Jesus? After all, if we are people of faith, we HAVE EXPERIENCED him in our lives... and there is NO OTHER JESUS to experience than the RISEN ONE!

He is risen! He is risen indeed, alleluia!

Cheers

TM