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.

Lent 3, February 28th 2016, thoughts going in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

T.M.

Lent 2, February 21st 2016, thoughts going in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cheers,

TM

Lent 1, February 14th 2016, thoughts going in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

T.M.