From Anne Tyler's novel, "Back When We Were Growing Up." An old man, widowed many years, is speaking.
"'People imagine that missing a loved one works kind of like missing cigarettes,' he said. 'The first day is really hard but the next day is less hard and so forth, easier and easier the longer you go on. But instead it's like missing water. Every day, you notice the person's absence more.'"
I like her writing. I like writers who nail the human situation.
Oh, if we're "friends" on Facebook you may have seen this -- I posted it there, too.
I want to talk about religion with people who aren't afraid to think; with doubters, questioners, and those some Christians call unbelievers . . . as well as those Christians call believers.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Where Should This Blog Go?
Clearly, I haven't gotten back to this blog in a while.
Do any of you have ideas what you would like to see here? I like the idea of doing this blog but . . . there's that discipline thing of sitting down and doing it.
Anyone still reading this? Anyone have an opinion -- David, if you've signed in to look at this, what do you think?
Do any of you have ideas what you would like to see here? I like the idea of doing this blog but . . . there's that discipline thing of sitting down and doing it.
Anyone still reading this? Anyone have an opinion -- David, if you've signed in to look at this, what do you think?
Friday, June 17, 2011
Thinking
I have not abandoned this blog, nor my intention to do Bible study that makes me think, and you, too.
In my profile I say, "I am trying to figure out what it means to be retired. I do not solicit advice."
Okay, now I'm soliciting advice. It was the right time for me to stop doing what I had been my work. But what I am to be . . . to do . . . at this point? THAT is the question.
If you are retired what sort of adjustments have you made? There's just so much golf I can play -- in part because it ain't cheap and in part because I'm not that good and can only take so much frustration.
At this point I feel somewhat at loose ends.
I guess it's the age old question, "What to do until Messiah comes?" What to do until a new order is revealed?
If anyone has opinions, I'll read them.
Oh, BTW -- I think the name of this blog is too cumbersome. You who actually read this -- you know the intent of the blog (I hope). Any suggestions for a shorter name?
In my profile I say, "I am trying to figure out what it means to be retired. I do not solicit advice."
Okay, now I'm soliciting advice. It was the right time for me to stop doing what I had been my work. But what I am to be . . . to do . . . at this point? THAT is the question.
If you are retired what sort of adjustments have you made? There's just so much golf I can play -- in part because it ain't cheap and in part because I'm not that good and can only take so much frustration.
At this point I feel somewhat at loose ends.
I guess it's the age old question, "What to do until Messiah comes?" What to do until a new order is revealed?
If anyone has opinions, I'll read them.
Oh, BTW -- I think the name of this blog is too cumbersome. You who actually read this -- you know the intent of the blog (I hope). Any suggestions for a shorter name?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
I'm BBBBbbbaaaaaccccckkkkk!
It's been over three weeks since I posted anything. I've been gone from home 3 weeks. This was John and Judy's big adventure.
We went to Port Sulfur, Plaquamines Parish, Louisiana to work on building houses in the post-Katrina world down there. So this blog will be some reflections on . . . mission trips? being missional? how about what happens when you give of yourself for others.
We Americans have very short term memories. While Hurricane Katrina has become an icon for terrible disaster, most of us have moved on, other disasters have taken the media space, and thoughts of what it's like living in the area of the hurricane have faded from our view. The hurricane was 5 1/2 years ago.
The rebuilding mission in Biloxi that focused on help for the poor, aged, and disabled has drawn to a close. But out of that hurricane and the Biloxi experience a Fuller Center for Disaster Building was born. These Fuller Centers were spawned from Habitat for Humanity by Millard Fuller, Habitat founder. But it was, alas, out of a split in philosophy between Mr Fuller and the other Habitat leadership. Such things happen.
Fuller Centers' missions are to help rebuild or build anew with those whose homes have been destroyed in disasters. It is a different mission than Habitat and has different requirements than Habitat.
The Fuller Center we worked with came out of post-Katrina, Biloxi, MS. Since that time it has worked in two other hurricane disaster areas in Texas. We reconnected with them when the operation moved to Southern Louisiana to continue working on post-Katrina rebuilds.
If you ever have the chance to directly, hands-on help people whose lives have been up-ended by disaster, do it.
I am not able to explain nor describe what it does for you when you give of yourself in this way. You have to experience it, and then it won't need explanation, you will know it in your heart.
I will put it in this Biblical perspective. St James says in Chapter 2:
Martin Luther had major problems with the theology in the Epistle of James. Luther was reacting against a church that required demonstration of works and obedience as a proof of salvation. He was quite adamant that what we do doesn't same us, only believing in the work of God in Christ can do that.
But this is not the issue for James. He is dealing with people who seem to believe that "faith" is holding to a set of beliefs, a set of doctrines about God that can be held outside of a living relationship with God that leads to a changed relationship with ourselves and the world (people) around us.
It's as though the people with whom James is dealing are saying, "I believe (have faith) that Jesus saved me. That's all I need. I can go on as before because now I have it." Having right doctrine does not save us. Right doctrine merely describes what a living faith has discovered and lives out. Does that make sense?
My friend and fellow Pastor, Joe Medley, says, "Doctrine limits, Faith frees." Doctrine describes how believers experienced God coming to them and changing them.
The Pentecost power of the Holy Spirit on the believers in the upper room and the conversion of 3,000 people who listened to their testimony that day is a faith experience. Describing how the Holy Spirit worked on that day or what the nature of a Pentecostal experience is -- that's doctrine.
I could probably put disaster relief work into doctrinal terms. But it is describing a live experience of the Holy Spirit in dead words.
To take the love that God pours out on you and give it away -- disaster relief work is one way to do that -- is a living and breathing experience of the Holy Spirit that transcends all the Sunday School lessons about God, all the moving experiences of a well preached sermon about living out faith.
Actually being on the ground and attaching plywood sheathing under someone's house is only one way of being part of this sort of faith experience.
On this trip three churches gave about $2,200 of support money for the trip. Individuals give small to large gifts that added to that amount. This, too, is a sharing of the gospel.
This got word-ier than I intended. Faith-works is the perfect marriage of belief in God's work and actions that come out of that belief that may not have occurred otherwise.
Seeing, hearing of another human being in suffering about which you can do something, and to do it is what St James says is the fullness of the Jesus experience -- Christian faith.
That's still the experience 5 1/2 years after Katrina. That's still the experience on my 5th or 6th trip to swing a hammer of those who were devastated.
I recommend it.
We went to Port Sulfur, Plaquamines Parish, Louisiana to work on building houses in the post-Katrina world down there. So this blog will be some reflections on . . . mission trips? being missional? how about what happens when you give of yourself for others.
We Americans have very short term memories. While Hurricane Katrina has become an icon for terrible disaster, most of us have moved on, other disasters have taken the media space, and thoughts of what it's like living in the area of the hurricane have faded from our view. The hurricane was 5 1/2 years ago.
The rebuilding mission in Biloxi that focused on help for the poor, aged, and disabled has drawn to a close. But out of that hurricane and the Biloxi experience a Fuller Center for Disaster Building was born. These Fuller Centers were spawned from Habitat for Humanity by Millard Fuller, Habitat founder. But it was, alas, out of a split in philosophy between Mr Fuller and the other Habitat leadership. Such things happen.
Fuller Centers' missions are to help rebuild or build anew with those whose homes have been destroyed in disasters. It is a different mission than Habitat and has different requirements than Habitat.
The Fuller Center we worked with came out of post-Katrina, Biloxi, MS. Since that time it has worked in two other hurricane disaster areas in Texas. We reconnected with them when the operation moved to Southern Louisiana to continue working on post-Katrina rebuilds.
If you ever have the chance to directly, hands-on help people whose lives have been up-ended by disaster, do it.
I am not able to explain nor describe what it does for you when you give of yourself in this way. You have to experience it, and then it won't need explanation, you will know it in your heart.
I will put it in this Biblical perspective. St James says in Chapter 2:
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
. . . 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.(NIV)
Martin Luther had major problems with the theology in the Epistle of James. Luther was reacting against a church that required demonstration of works and obedience as a proof of salvation. He was quite adamant that what we do doesn't same us, only believing in the work of God in Christ can do that.
But this is not the issue for James. He is dealing with people who seem to believe that "faith" is holding to a set of beliefs, a set of doctrines about God that can be held outside of a living relationship with God that leads to a changed relationship with ourselves and the world (people) around us.
It's as though the people with whom James is dealing are saying, "I believe (have faith) that Jesus saved me. That's all I need. I can go on as before because now I have it." Having right doctrine does not save us. Right doctrine merely describes what a living faith has discovered and lives out. Does that make sense?
My friend and fellow Pastor, Joe Medley, says, "Doctrine limits, Faith frees." Doctrine describes how believers experienced God coming to them and changing them.
The Pentecost power of the Holy Spirit on the believers in the upper room and the conversion of 3,000 people who listened to their testimony that day is a faith experience. Describing how the Holy Spirit worked on that day or what the nature of a Pentecostal experience is -- that's doctrine.
I could probably put disaster relief work into doctrinal terms. But it is describing a live experience of the Holy Spirit in dead words.
To take the love that God pours out on you and give it away -- disaster relief work is one way to do that -- is a living and breathing experience of the Holy Spirit that transcends all the Sunday School lessons about God, all the moving experiences of a well preached sermon about living out faith.
Actually being on the ground and attaching plywood sheathing under someone's house is only one way of being part of this sort of faith experience.
On this trip three churches gave about $2,200 of support money for the trip. Individuals give small to large gifts that added to that amount. This, too, is a sharing of the gospel.
This got word-ier than I intended. Faith-works is the perfect marriage of belief in God's work and actions that come out of that belief that may not have occurred otherwise.
Seeing, hearing of another human being in suffering about which you can do something, and to do it is what St James says is the fullness of the Jesus experience -- Christian faith.
That's still the experience 5 1/2 years after Katrina. That's still the experience on my 5th or 6th trip to swing a hammer of those who were devastated.
I recommend it.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
I Once Was Blind But Now I See John 9:1-7 The Miracle part 1.
Okay, follow these two sentences:
Here is the second installment on John 9. It comes after "The Miracle part 2," which is really the third installment, because I published that first but this is really the first part of the second section I'm writing on John 9. Got it?
In an earlier blog I said that the Gospels are made up, primarily, of narratives (talking about something someone said or did) and discourses (someone talking, usually Jesus.)
This little section, vss 1-7 is both. It is a narrative/discourse. By including the short discourse between Jesus and the disciples about sin and grace (see "The Miracle part 2 for this) St. John sets the scene for what will follow this healing miracle.
The miracle itself is pretty standard Gospel fare, it seems to me. I don't put down the miracles of Jesus in the least. Healing people, stilling storms, raising dead people in the least are . . . miraculous!
But in most of the Gospels the miracles stand by themselves as acts of mercy and grace. That's what you would see with this miracle if John would not have included "the rest of the story" about what happens to the man after he is healed. I THINK this is the only instance in which the life of the healed person is followed after the fact. If I'm in error about this, please respond to this blog so we can all learn a little more. Oops, I think you could argue that the healing of the cripple on the Sabbath (John 5, see below) might fit this description. But this story is the academy award winner.
Jesus comes to die and rise to save the world from sin, death, and the power of the devil. But he is also a man who existed in his time and lived with what went on around him as he made his way to the cross and empty tomb. I'd go a step further and say that the miracles he does are consistent, tangible signs of the graciousness of God. As Jesus saves us all from evil, he also saves individuals along the way from the evil that specifically inflicts their lives.
Lepers, doomed to a life of exile and decline, are restored to community and to their families. Parents who have lost a child see him and her raised from death. A mad man who terrifies a whole community is found sitting peacefully at Jesus' feet. These, it seems to me, are all visible signs of the realm of God among us.
Nothing else in John 9 can occur unless a poor, blind-from-birth beggar has his sight restored. That is an actual event that becomes a living metaphor for spiritual blindness that can either be healed or not healed, depending on how one accepts what Jesus is willing to do.
So, here is the base line of the story. Jesus sees a blind beggar. In this miracle Jesus doesn't even ask the fellow if he wants to be healed. He makes a solution from his spit and dirt, and tells the man to wash at the pool of Siloam. The man does as he is told and goes home . . . seeing.
A few points about the miracle.
Dear readers, I don't know when I will move into the story section of John 9. I'm leaving to build houses in Southern Louisiana soon and don't know if I'll have the time or energy to write Bible investigations. But I will do my best to get back to this. John 9 is a great section of Scripture, and I look forward to walking through it with you. Here is a map of Jerusalem that identifies the Pool of Siloam and a picture of the excavation. The photo was taken in 1937.
Here is the second installment on John 9. It comes after "The Miracle part 2," which is really the third installment, because I published that first but this is really the first part of the second section I'm writing on John 9. Got it?
In an earlier blog I said that the Gospels are made up, primarily, of narratives (talking about something someone said or did) and discourses (someone talking, usually Jesus.)
This little section, vss 1-7 is both. It is a narrative/discourse. By including the short discourse between Jesus and the disciples about sin and grace (see "The Miracle part 2 for this) St. John sets the scene for what will follow this healing miracle.
The miracle itself is pretty standard Gospel fare, it seems to me. I don't put down the miracles of Jesus in the least. Healing people, stilling storms, raising dead people in the least are . . . miraculous!
But in most of the Gospels the miracles stand by themselves as acts of mercy and grace. That's what you would see with this miracle if John would not have included "the rest of the story" about what happens to the man after he is healed. I THINK this is the only instance in which the life of the healed person is followed after the fact. If I'm in error about this, please respond to this blog so we can all learn a little more. Oops, I think you could argue that the healing of the cripple on the Sabbath (John 5, see below) might fit this description. But this story is the academy award winner.
Jesus comes to die and rise to save the world from sin, death, and the power of the devil. But he is also a man who existed in his time and lived with what went on around him as he made his way to the cross and empty tomb. I'd go a step further and say that the miracles he does are consistent, tangible signs of the graciousness of God. As Jesus saves us all from evil, he also saves individuals along the way from the evil that specifically inflicts their lives.
Lepers, doomed to a life of exile and decline, are restored to community and to their families. Parents who have lost a child see him and her raised from death. A mad man who terrifies a whole community is found sitting peacefully at Jesus' feet. These, it seems to me, are all visible signs of the realm of God among us.
Nothing else in John 9 can occur unless a poor, blind-from-birth beggar has his sight restored. That is an actual event that becomes a living metaphor for spiritual blindness that can either be healed or not healed, depending on how one accepts what Jesus is willing to do.
So, here is the base line of the story. Jesus sees a blind beggar. In this miracle Jesus doesn't even ask the fellow if he wants to be healed. He makes a solution from his spit and dirt, and tells the man to wash at the pool of Siloam. The man does as he is told and goes home . . . seeing.
A few points about the miracle.
- I understand that healers (Jesus is not the only one with this charismatic grace) often used a solution of their saliva and dirt, applying it to the body part to be healed. I've heard some pretty wild theories that seem to be based on Jesus doing things that had never been done before. This does not seem to be the case. If you follow the story, HOW Jesus healed the man seems not to be a question for this fellow. THAT he was healed is his source of joy. See Mark 7:31-37 and Mark 8:22-26 for other instances where Jesus uses his spit in healing.
- The Pool of Siloam may be mentioned in other healing miracles. John 5:1-17 tells of a cripple by a pool of Bethesda. This pool is identified as being outside Jerusalem. Those who search for such sites puts the Pool of Siloam as being outside the city walls. It may be that these are the same pool. You can see a map of Jerusalem and a photo of the Pool following this blog. Whatever the case, there is a connection between washing and healing in both of these miracles.
- We should point out that in the John 9 miracle the man has a part. He is given instructions that will lead to a new life. Jesus tells him, "Do this and you will live -- go wash in the pool." I suggest that it is no different for our spiritual well-being. We believe baptism is given as a physical sign that God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, has washed us and made us well. At the very end of Matthew Jesus commands the church (including parents and families) to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus sees this as an important, physical act between those who believe in him and God for the healing of the soul. We come to Communion to receive a physical manifestation of the body and blood of Jesus -- we obey and receive the full grace and forgiveness of God in the process.
Dear readers, I don't know when I will move into the story section of John 9. I'm leaving to build houses in Southern Louisiana soon and don't know if I'll have the time or energy to write Bible investigations. But I will do my best to get back to this. John 9 is a great section of Scripture, and I look forward to walking through it with you. Here is a map of Jerusalem that identifies the Pool of Siloam and a picture of the excavation. The photo was taken in 1937.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
I Once Was Blind But Now I See John 9:1-7 The Miracle part 2. Sin and Grace
This was to be the third installment of the work on John 9. But I've been out of town and am getting ready for another project. So this will have to suffice.
Have you ever known someone whose intimate relationship was destroyed because that person cheated on his/her spouse or lover? Have you ever just shaken your head in disgust and thought, "Well, if you're going to do the crime, you gotta do the time? S/he's just getting the fruits of the folly."
It's quite possible you did this with the news of the killing of Osama bin Ladan. He got what he deserved. He sewed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Cause and effect. If you do wrong you will pay for it. If you do right you will be rewarded. In Bible study circles this is called Deuteronomic theology, as in the 5th book of the Bible, Deuteronomy. Especially in Deuteronomy the major theme is blessings and curses. God says, "If my people will obey the commands I give this day I will bless them and they will prosper in the land. But if they disobey my commands I will turn my face and they will live with adversity."
There is sense to this theology. You can see it played out in life. Cause and effect. If you smoke you are much more likely to have all sorts of cancers, heart disease, and other fatal lung diseases. If you drink and drive your likelihood of serious or fatal accidents rises exponentially. But it has its limits. We begin getting into trouble when we begin assigning who is good and bad on the basis of our observations of others based solely on deuteronomic theology. It has not served our nation well.
The Pilgrims, the Puritans gave this heritage to America. They believed some were destined to be God's people (specifically themselves) and were blessed by God, while others were destined to NOT be God's people and were cursed by God. It was the basis of the American philosophy of Manifest Destiny. It was great justification for genocide against the Indians that were there before us.
Our fore-bearers found it convenient to identify those in their own community who were the chosen or un-chosen of God. If your land grew good crops it was clear that you were blessed by God and deserved to be wealthy. If you had poorly producing land then you were cursed by God and deserved to be poor. What was overlooked, of course, was that some already the "haves", and were among those who got to choose land first. So those who had less to start with or ended up with the poor plots of ground really never had a chance.
What was nice for the "haves" was that they had justification for not helping the "have-nots." After all, who were they to question God's choices. If your neighbor had continually failing crops why should you help him? You could even tell yourself it was not your place to meddle with God's choice! If you're neighbor would get right with God he wouldn't be in that fix, right?
This theme of justifying the rich and condemning the poor has played out on the American political scene ever since. Ronald Reagan, a very savvy politician, won lots and lots of votes by demonizing the poor as frauds and thieves at the public trough. It was politically applied Deuteronomic theology. And it worked. Under President Reagan the rich got significant government support and got richer while most of the rest of America either stayed where they were or got poorer. Should you question this, talk to some of the young family farmers who lost the family farm during the manufactured "farm crisis" of the mid-1980's.
What does this have to do with John 9:1-7?
"As [Jesus] went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:1-2
This man is poor. Because he is blind he can't work. He is forced into a life of beggary and poverty, living on the cast-offs of his community. The deuteronomic theology of the day could see that clearly this man was cursed by God to this life. Is it his fault or his parents fault? Implicit in the question is that it is certainly not their fault, and if not their fault, then not their responsibility to do anything about. (You could justifiably challenge that statement, but it would lead to another subject, off-topic.)
In the deuteronomic system "who sinned" is a nice question for seminary students (the disciples) to ask of their professor (Jesus.)
But Jesus turns it upside down . . . again. He regularly challenged the wisdom of day. "Neither sinned. This happened so the work of God might be displayed in his life." John 9:3
A man is forced to live like this so God's glory can be shown? Did God make this man blind so Jesus could do a healing trick? Doesn't that sound mean . . . at the least? What kind of a God behaves like that?
"You miss the point." That is what Jesus says to the disciples, to us as his learners.
There is night and there is day. There is darkness and there is light. Move it out of esoteric conversations about what came first or who deserves what and start with this: Is existence in our lives a struggle, groping in the dark to find a way to life that is not fearful but secure? Yes. Does life have on-going components of struggle, adversity and loss? Yes. Does this occur regardless of whether we would like it not to? Yes.
In the prelude to this miracle Jesus changes the conversation from whether this guy's parents did a naughty or he was being punished for something he did in-vitro. Jesus says that the blindness in the world -- physical and spiritual -- is the reason why God became flesh among us. God came to us to confront and dispel the darkness in which we live.
We cannot overcome the dark of this life on our own. Even if our whole lives are wonderful there will come a moment when the darkness of death rolls over us. The facts are that none of our lives ARE just wonderful. To quote the bumper sticker on the battered '92 Plymouth, driven by people who appear to have been battered by life, "Shit Happens." Sorry to be so indelicate, but it's an accurate descriptor, isn't it?
As Jesus gazes at this man who wouldn't have even been able to drive that battered old Plymouth, he says, "I came to do something about THIS darkness but also so that all of you can have new eyes to see the vistas that God intends to be in your lives. I come to heal the blindness of your sight and the blindness of your soul."
Jesus declares, "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Carl Jung, the eminent theoretical Psychiatrist, called our darkness the shadow side. Jesus comes to cast out this darkness.
Jesus moves from theory to practice. He steps out of the classroom, steps into this mans life and heals him. It begins the rest of the story that will move the conversation from the physical to the metaphysical. If someone who is supposed to be blind because he is God-cursed gets sight from God, can it be that those who think they are God-blessed have the taint of darkness within them? and if that is true then the "righteous" have an equal need for healing from God as the "unrighteous," right?
Therein lies the rest of the story. Stay tuned.
Have you ever known someone whose intimate relationship was destroyed because that person cheated on his/her spouse or lover? Have you ever just shaken your head in disgust and thought, "Well, if you're going to do the crime, you gotta do the time? S/he's just getting the fruits of the folly."
It's quite possible you did this with the news of the killing of Osama bin Ladan. He got what he deserved. He sewed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
Cause and effect. If you do wrong you will pay for it. If you do right you will be rewarded. In Bible study circles this is called Deuteronomic theology, as in the 5th book of the Bible, Deuteronomy. Especially in Deuteronomy the major theme is blessings and curses. God says, "If my people will obey the commands I give this day I will bless them and they will prosper in the land. But if they disobey my commands I will turn my face and they will live with adversity."
There is sense to this theology. You can see it played out in life. Cause and effect. If you smoke you are much more likely to have all sorts of cancers, heart disease, and other fatal lung diseases. If you drink and drive your likelihood of serious or fatal accidents rises exponentially. But it has its limits. We begin getting into trouble when we begin assigning who is good and bad on the basis of our observations of others based solely on deuteronomic theology. It has not served our nation well.
The Pilgrims, the Puritans gave this heritage to America. They believed some were destined to be God's people (specifically themselves) and were blessed by God, while others were destined to NOT be God's people and were cursed by God. It was the basis of the American philosophy of Manifest Destiny. It was great justification for genocide against the Indians that were there before us.
Our fore-bearers found it convenient to identify those in their own community who were the chosen or un-chosen of God. If your land grew good crops it was clear that you were blessed by God and deserved to be wealthy. If you had poorly producing land then you were cursed by God and deserved to be poor. What was overlooked, of course, was that some already the "haves", and were among those who got to choose land first. So those who had less to start with or ended up with the poor plots of ground really never had a chance.
What was nice for the "haves" was that they had justification for not helping the "have-nots." After all, who were they to question God's choices. If your neighbor had continually failing crops why should you help him? You could even tell yourself it was not your place to meddle with God's choice! If you're neighbor would get right with God he wouldn't be in that fix, right?
This theme of justifying the rich and condemning the poor has played out on the American political scene ever since. Ronald Reagan, a very savvy politician, won lots and lots of votes by demonizing the poor as frauds and thieves at the public trough. It was politically applied Deuteronomic theology. And it worked. Under President Reagan the rich got significant government support and got richer while most of the rest of America either stayed where they were or got poorer. Should you question this, talk to some of the young family farmers who lost the family farm during the manufactured "farm crisis" of the mid-1980's.
What does this have to do with John 9:1-7?
"As [Jesus] went along he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" John 9:1-2
This man is poor. Because he is blind he can't work. He is forced into a life of beggary and poverty, living on the cast-offs of his community. The deuteronomic theology of the day could see that clearly this man was cursed by God to this life. Is it his fault or his parents fault? Implicit in the question is that it is certainly not their fault, and if not their fault, then not their responsibility to do anything about. (You could justifiably challenge that statement, but it would lead to another subject, off-topic.)
In the deuteronomic system "who sinned" is a nice question for seminary students (the disciples) to ask of their professor (Jesus.)
But Jesus turns it upside down . . . again. He regularly challenged the wisdom of day. "Neither sinned. This happened so the work of God might be displayed in his life." John 9:3
A man is forced to live like this so God's glory can be shown? Did God make this man blind so Jesus could do a healing trick? Doesn't that sound mean . . . at the least? What kind of a God behaves like that?
"You miss the point." That is what Jesus says to the disciples, to us as his learners.
There is night and there is day. There is darkness and there is light. Move it out of esoteric conversations about what came first or who deserves what and start with this: Is existence in our lives a struggle, groping in the dark to find a way to life that is not fearful but secure? Yes. Does life have on-going components of struggle, adversity and loss? Yes. Does this occur regardless of whether we would like it not to? Yes.
In the prelude to this miracle Jesus changes the conversation from whether this guy's parents did a naughty or he was being punished for something he did in-vitro. Jesus says that the blindness in the world -- physical and spiritual -- is the reason why God became flesh among us. God came to us to confront and dispel the darkness in which we live.
We cannot overcome the dark of this life on our own. Even if our whole lives are wonderful there will come a moment when the darkness of death rolls over us. The facts are that none of our lives ARE just wonderful. To quote the bumper sticker on the battered '92 Plymouth, driven by people who appear to have been battered by life, "Shit Happens." Sorry to be so indelicate, but it's an accurate descriptor, isn't it?
As Jesus gazes at this man who wouldn't have even been able to drive that battered old Plymouth, he says, "I came to do something about THIS darkness but also so that all of you can have new eyes to see the vistas that God intends to be in your lives. I come to heal the blindness of your sight and the blindness of your soul."
Jesus declares, "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Carl Jung, the eminent theoretical Psychiatrist, called our darkness the shadow side. Jesus comes to cast out this darkness.
Jesus moves from theory to practice. He steps out of the classroom, steps into this mans life and heals him. It begins the rest of the story that will move the conversation from the physical to the metaphysical. If someone who is supposed to be blind because he is God-cursed gets sight from God, can it be that those who think they are God-blessed have the taint of darkness within them? and if that is true then the "righteous" have an equal need for healing from God as the "unrighteous," right?
Therein lies the rest of the story. Stay tuned.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
"I Once Was Blind But Now I See." John 9, Introduction.
We're going to be in John 9 for a while.
The story of Jesus is told in the Gospels by narrative (stories) and discourse (speeches, monologues.) The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) is a discourse, as is the final discourse of Jesus in John 14-17. The meeting of Jesus and Nicodemus that we just finished is a narrative -- a story in which God is revealed through the interaction and dialogue that takes place.
John 9 is narrative. It is, I believe, the longest story in the Gospels. If you know that to be inaccurate, please post which Gospel story is longer.
Where the narrative between Jesus and Nicodemus is almost more discourse -- Jesus does a lot of expounding -- the healing of the blind man in John 9 is pure and simple a well-told story with a real punch at the end. Jesus has a small part in the introduction and the miracle of healing, and a short piece at the end. The drama and comedy take place with him off-stage. If you like short stories this one is akin to an O. Henry short story, in my opinion.
There are sections to this story and subsections within the main part. Were I a more sequential fellow I'd lay that outline before you now. Too bad! I'm not. But we will step through those sequences on our way. Maybe one of you who IS more sequential could outline it for us and post it when we get through with the chapter. That would be nice. If you do this, you will get extra credit towards your grade at the end of the quarter.
You may want to read through the whole story to ground yourself, then read through each section as we cover it. That way you've seen the whole as we focus on the parts.
Have I written that John always writes at two levels? If so, it bears repeating. For instance the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana, John 2, first section. At face value it's a nice story about Jesus going to friends' wedding and making sure they have enough wine. But, it's also his first miracle and John puts it there (no other Gospel records it) to make a declaration about the purpose of Jesus coming.
Think about it . . . TWELVE jugs of water for JEWISH CEREMONIAL CLEANSING become the TWELVE jugs of the BEST WINE anyone has tasted -- when the best wine should have come first.
That's enough for today. If you want to prepare for the next blog, at least read John 9:1-8.
The story of Jesus is told in the Gospels by narrative (stories) and discourse (speeches, monologues.) The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) is a discourse, as is the final discourse of Jesus in John 14-17. The meeting of Jesus and Nicodemus that we just finished is a narrative -- a story in which God is revealed through the interaction and dialogue that takes place.
John 9 is narrative. It is, I believe, the longest story in the Gospels. If you know that to be inaccurate, please post which Gospel story is longer.
Where the narrative between Jesus and Nicodemus is almost more discourse -- Jesus does a lot of expounding -- the healing of the blind man in John 9 is pure and simple a well-told story with a real punch at the end. Jesus has a small part in the introduction and the miracle of healing, and a short piece at the end. The drama and comedy take place with him off-stage. If you like short stories this one is akin to an O. Henry short story, in my opinion.
There are sections to this story and subsections within the main part. Were I a more sequential fellow I'd lay that outline before you now. Too bad! I'm not. But we will step through those sequences on our way. Maybe one of you who IS more sequential could outline it for us and post it when we get through with the chapter. That would be nice. If you do this, you will get extra credit towards your grade at the end of the quarter.
You may want to read through the whole story to ground yourself, then read through each section as we cover it. That way you've seen the whole as we focus on the parts.
Have I written that John always writes at two levels? If so, it bears repeating. For instance the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana, John 2, first section. At face value it's a nice story about Jesus going to friends' wedding and making sure they have enough wine. But, it's also his first miracle and John puts it there (no other Gospel records it) to make a declaration about the purpose of Jesus coming.
Think about it . . . TWELVE jugs of water for JEWISH CEREMONIAL CLEANSING become the TWELVE jugs of the BEST WINE anyone has tasted -- when the best wine should have come first.
Where does the number 12 pop up in both the Old Testament and around Jesus?
What is the qualitative difference between drinking hand-washing water and having a wonderful glass of top quality wine?
See what I mean about the two levels? So . . . enjoy the surface level of John 9, it's a well told story. A person condemned to a life of beggary due to congenital blindness is given sight and freed from his darkness. But look for themes we have already spoken about and the deeper levels in the story. Think about the man's condition -- blindness, the inability to see. Have you ever known anyone who refused to see what was right in front of them? We are again confronted with the Johanine theme of light and darkness.If you didn't know, wedding feasts are a metaphor through-out Scripture for the coming of the realm of God to us.
That's enough for today. If you want to prepare for the next blog, at least read John 9:1-8.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Credit
Much of the basis of my comments about John 3 are based on work that Dr. Lane McGaughy, Professor Emeritus of Willamette University did. I took a quarter of Greek from him about 5 years ago. He spent much of a class period with the Greek in John 3. It made a lasting impression on me.
He also provided the Greek for me when I set out to write the 4 blog pieces on John 3.
Thank you, Lane.
He also provided the Greek for me when I set out to write the 4 blog pieces on John 3.
Thank you, Lane.
"I Have Decided To Follow Jesus, No Turning Back" (Gospel Song) John 3:17-18
Remember that in John 3 we are looking at key dual meaning words that Jesus speaks to take us to a deeper relationship with Him and with the Godhead. The fourth and final word of John 3 is krinae.
John 3:17-18
Read the two translations below. Krinae is translated "judge" or "condemn," it is the word we will talk about today.
The first is from Young's Literal Translation, Ed. 1. (Young's seeks to translate the Greek as closely as possible into English. It is not particularly readable, but a good look at word meanings.)
There is a third way to translate this word, but let's stick with the two before us for now.
Do you hear a difference in meaning between "judge" and "condemn?" Can you be judged and not condemned? Yes. Can you be condemned without judgment? I'd have to say no. "Condemn" has a harsher connotation, don't you think?
So at this first level of word usage what is the difference? The more literal meaning would be that God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world. This is different than being sent into the world with the purpose being to pronounce and carry out condemnation. This is less harsh than a condemnation. But, Jesus says, he didn't come even to pass judgment!
I hear Jesus saying that God didn't send him into the world to even pass a guilty or not guilty verdict. Jesus is not about legal decisions but saving lives.
He doesn't have to judge the world -- implied in coming to save us is that there is already a judgment and it has been against us. We have to be saved from some sort of sentence or punishment only if it has been judged that we are going to be punished.
It seems to me the curse of humanity is that we are turned in on ourselves -- selfish, self-centered -- every bit as much as as we are open and sharing with each other. The classic Christian word for this seemingly natural condition is "sin." Whether you particularly want that Christian notion or not, I hope you will agree with me that there exists in each of us this seemingly inbred condition of selfishness.
Our self-centeredness leads to all sorts of pain. "Me and mine first," causes everything from hurt feelings and being excluded to World Wars, genocides, and the rattling of nuclear weapons between nations.
I hear Jesus saying that we do not need to be judged as selfish, we need to be saved from it, and that is exactly why he came -- why God sent him. "God sent his son into the world not to judge it, but that the world might be saved through him."
So . . . at level one, Jn 3:17 -- The world passes judgment on itself. We are stuck in our condition. Jesus has come to save us from ourselves. God didn't have to send him to judge us. In other words, the purpose of Jesus is gracious, not legalistic.
Before Jesus we are stuck in our self-centeredness. There is only one road that we can travel. No matter how hard or how often we succeed in being open and self-less, we fall back into "me first."
Jesus is God's "fork in the road." What Jesus does is to open another path to us, a path on which there is another option. That's what Jesus says in 3:18 -- whoever believes in Jesus is not judged (even though judgment has been passed before he comes.) With the coming of Jesus there are two options:
There is yet another way to read these two verses. Krinae also means "decide," as well as "judge." This gives us another possibility in relating to him beyond "judgment" and/or "condemnation."
"God did not send his son into the world to "decide" about it -- "decide" what to do about it -- but to save it (us) from the way it has already been "decided" about us from our natural selfishness."
"Whoever believes in him (I take that to mean whoever accepts Jesus and Jesus' words and actions as hope in a hopeless world) it has no longer been decided that s/he is trapped in the hopelessness of the world."
But there is a dark side to this, too. Where there is choice there are alternatives. Jesus is directly confronting Nicodemus with the alternatives. Decide I am your hope, or decide to trust in yourself. But, if you decide to trust in yourself - in the way of the world - you are stuck in the world and have missed out on the endless possibility of full life that Jesus comes to save us to.
Lutheran Christians get nervous about "deciding" for or against Jesus and salvation because we are adamant that God does the deciding and the granting of salvation. I don't dispute this premise. I think Jesus is pretty clear about that in John 3:17: God sent Jesus to do the saving of us because we can't do it of our own choice.
But John 3:18 seems pretty clear that when Jesus comes with healing and salvation of our sin-infested hearts we are faced with a decision for or against the gift God offers -- Jesus and life or ourselves and death. I think that with which Lutherans are uncomfortable is the notion that we are the ones who make the first offer to God - I want you in my life. We're uncomfortable with that because it implies that we have more control then Jesus talks about in verse 17.
It has already been decided that we can't save ourselves or climb up to heaven to "ask God into our lives." But the purpose of Jesus (verse 18) is to stand before us with a confrontation of choice -- chose life or death. Chose me or chose yourself.
At that point we do have a choice. Jesus, as you stand in front of me and offer yourself I jump at the chance to be yours. I know too much about myself. I'm just not that good. I'm just not that trustworthy. And, as much as I like the rest of you, either are you.
John 3:17-18
Read the two translations below. Krinae is translated "judge" or "condemn," it is the word we will talk about today.
The first is from Young's Literal Translation, Ed. 1. (Young's seeks to translate the Greek as closely as possible into English. It is not particularly readable, but a good look at word meanings.)
17For God did not send His Son to the world that he may judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him;The second is the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), a popular current translation.
18he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
17“Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.Krinae. Young's Literal translates it "judge." The NRSV, the original Revised Standard, the King James and others translate krinae as "condemned."
18Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
There is a third way to translate this word, but let's stick with the two before us for now.
Do you hear a difference in meaning between "judge" and "condemn?" Can you be judged and not condemned? Yes. Can you be condemned without judgment? I'd have to say no. "Condemn" has a harsher connotation, don't you think?
So at this first level of word usage what is the difference? The more literal meaning would be that God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world. This is different than being sent into the world with the purpose being to pronounce and carry out condemnation. This is less harsh than a condemnation. But, Jesus says, he didn't come even to pass judgment!
I hear Jesus saying that God didn't send him into the world to even pass a guilty or not guilty verdict. Jesus is not about legal decisions but saving lives.
He doesn't have to judge the world -- implied in coming to save us is that there is already a judgment and it has been against us. We have to be saved from some sort of sentence or punishment only if it has been judged that we are going to be punished.
It seems to me the curse of humanity is that we are turned in on ourselves -- selfish, self-centered -- every bit as much as as we are open and sharing with each other. The classic Christian word for this seemingly natural condition is "sin." Whether you particularly want that Christian notion or not, I hope you will agree with me that there exists in each of us this seemingly inbred condition of selfishness.
Our self-centeredness leads to all sorts of pain. "Me and mine first," causes everything from hurt feelings and being excluded to World Wars, genocides, and the rattling of nuclear weapons between nations.
I hear Jesus saying that we do not need to be judged as selfish, we need to be saved from it, and that is exactly why he came -- why God sent him. "God sent his son into the world not to judge it, but that the world might be saved through him."
So . . . at level one, Jn 3:17 -- The world passes judgment on itself. We are stuck in our condition. Jesus has come to save us from ourselves. God didn't have to send him to judge us. In other words, the purpose of Jesus is gracious, not legalistic.
Before Jesus we are stuck in our self-centeredness. There is only one road that we can travel. No matter how hard or how often we succeed in being open and self-less, we fall back into "me first."
Jesus is God's "fork in the road." What Jesus does is to open another path to us, a path on which there is another option. That's what Jesus says in 3:18 -- whoever believes in Jesus is not judged (even though judgment has been passed before he comes.) With the coming of Jesus there are two options:
- continue to live in the strife filled world of self-centered competition and loss.
- hold onto Jesus (believe) and receive a life that is full and fulfilled - a life of boundless possibility.
There is yet another way to read these two verses. Krinae also means "decide," as well as "judge." This gives us another possibility in relating to him beyond "judgment" and/or "condemnation."
"God did not send his son into the world to "decide" about it -- "decide" what to do about it -- but to save it (us) from the way it has already been "decided" about us from our natural selfishness."
"Whoever believes in him (I take that to mean whoever accepts Jesus and Jesus' words and actions as hope in a hopeless world) it has no longer been decided that s/he is trapped in the hopelessness of the world."
But there is a dark side to this, too. Where there is choice there are alternatives. Jesus is directly confronting Nicodemus with the alternatives. Decide I am your hope, or decide to trust in yourself. But, if you decide to trust in yourself - in the way of the world - you are stuck in the world and have missed out on the endless possibility of full life that Jesus comes to save us to.
Lutheran Christians get nervous about "deciding" for or against Jesus and salvation because we are adamant that God does the deciding and the granting of salvation. I don't dispute this premise. I think Jesus is pretty clear about that in John 3:17: God sent Jesus to do the saving of us because we can't do it of our own choice.
But John 3:18 seems pretty clear that when Jesus comes with healing and salvation of our sin-infested hearts we are faced with a decision for or against the gift God offers -- Jesus and life or ourselves and death. I think that with which Lutherans are uncomfortable is the notion that we are the ones who make the first offer to God - I want you in my life. We're uncomfortable with that because it implies that we have more control then Jesus talks about in verse 17.
It has already been decided that we can't save ourselves or climb up to heaven to "ask God into our lives." But the purpose of Jesus (verse 18) is to stand before us with a confrontation of choice -- chose life or death. Chose me or chose yourself.
At that point we do have a choice. Jesus, as you stand in front of me and offer yourself I jump at the chance to be yours. I know too much about myself. I'm just not that good. I'm just not that trustworthy. And, as much as I like the rest of you, either are you.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
"He Is Exalted, The King Is Exalted..." (Twila Paris Song)
More double words from John 3! And . . . on reading Scripture.
Take a look at Jesus' admonition to Nicodemus in Jn 3:10-15, emphasis on 13-15. How does your translation read, "Just as Moses lifted up . . ." and "so the Son of Man must be lifted up..."?
The Greek word is upsosain. It means to be lifted up as the text is translated, but it also means to be exalted. Listen to the way those two meanings intertwine.
In this section of John 3 St. John records Jesus "playing" with words around who has ascended into heaven (only the Son of Man) -- who has been "lifted up to heaven," and the "lifting up" of the bronze snake by Moses (Numbers 21:8-9) and how Jesus will be "lifted up"/exalted.
I have to take a moment to talk about reading Scripture. The writer of 2nd Timothy says of the Old Testament,
I think it is the latter and not the former. One of the consistencies of God that I see in history -- including God in our lives -- is that through the broken-ness of our lives God moves us back towards God, or, maybe forward towards God. Can we put aside this foolish notion that the people of the Book were somehow larger than we are; somehow more faithful than us?
People who encounter God in their lives hear/see/experience what God is doing and relate it in the clearest way they know how to those around them. That's the basis of sharing God with each other -- sometimes called evangelism.
Let me lay down a provenance -- a line of ownership from God to us through Scripture.
Back to John 3: 13-15.
Jesus is revealing his mission in this small section. John is recording his vision of the work of Messiah as he perceived it. This word play of "lifted up" and "exalted" is a key to this.
In the Numbers 21 story the Hebrew sinners will be saved from a plague of fiery serpents. Moses is commanded to make a bronze serpent and "lift it up" onto a pole. Whoever looks on the bronze serpent will be saved . . . whoever "lifts up their eyes" to the serpent, whoever "exalts" the serpent will be saved.
Jesus takes that historical/religious event and uses it as a metaphor for his mission. He is to be "lifted up" so that those who "lift up" their eyes to him may be saved. This is, of course, Jesus revealing that he must be "lifted up" on a stake -- a cross. He must be crucified. BUT . . . here is where St. John differs with the Synoptic Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In the Synoptics the passion of the Christ -- betrayal, trial, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus, is a horror story that seems to happen to him, out of his control.
But John sees Jesus very much in control through-out the passion. The key word in this John 3 section that tells us about this is upsosain. Jesus is "lifted up" but his lifting up "exalts" God. Jesus is exalted in fulfilling his purpose, which he willingly goes to, knows of before-hand, and moves through aware and in control of every step.
One clear example of what I propose is in the Garden scene where Jesus is arrested. (John 18:1-6) John tells a story of that night none of the others record. It is a demonstration of who Jesus truly is and what power he controls. He asks his arresters who they are looking for. They say, "Jesus of Nazareth." He says, (Latin) "Ego ami." "I am he." Simple enough on the surface.
The literal translation is, "I AM." (The "he" comes from the Latin masculine form, 1st person, singular.) When God is recruiting Moses to save the Jews from Egyptian slavery Moses asks God to tell Moses God's name. God gives a non-reply "YAHWEH." This is not a name, but a description. The word means . . . Ego ami -- I am. (It could be in any tense - I am, I was, I will be.) God tells Moses that Moses cannot handle the power of God's name. He is to be satisfied that the One who calls him simple "is." Those who come to arrest Jesus are bowled over by the power of "I AM."
Perhaps you think I'm stretching the point, connecting a simple question and answer, "Who are you looking for?" "Jesus of Nazareth." "I am he.", to this monumental moment in the calling of Moses. Well, don't argue with me, argue with St. John. Only he, of all the Gospel writers, records that when the soldiers heard "Ego ami -- I AM" "... they drew back and fell to the ground."
Why? Because Jesus pushed them? No, because Jesus is the upsosain, the exalted/upsosain One who will be lifted up/upsosained so that who ever lifts up/upsosains their eyes to him may be saved.
Aren't words and their usage fabulous? What depth St. John brings to the understanding of Jesus and his place as the One of God for us!
Take a look at Jesus' admonition to Nicodemus in Jn 3:10-15, emphasis on 13-15. How does your translation read, "Just as Moses lifted up . . ." and "so the Son of Man must be lifted up..."?
The Greek word is upsosain. It means to be lifted up as the text is translated, but it also means to be exalted. Listen to the way those two meanings intertwine.
In this section of John 3 St. John records Jesus "playing" with words around who has ascended into heaven (only the Son of Man) -- who has been "lifted up to heaven," and the "lifting up" of the bronze snake by Moses (Numbers 21:8-9) and how Jesus will be "lifted up"/exalted.
I have to take a moment to talk about reading Scripture. The writer of 2nd Timothy says of the Old Testament,
What does that mean? That the Holy Spirit bodily took over the writer and "auto-wrote" what we receive? Or could it be, like with us, that the Holy Spirit works through the thinking and actions of believers to reveal to us what is needed to be known about God, us, and our relationships?"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, . . ." 2 Tim 3:1
I think it is the latter and not the former. One of the consistencies of God that I see in history -- including God in our lives -- is that through the broken-ness of our lives God moves us back towards God, or, maybe forward towards God. Can we put aside this foolish notion that the people of the Book were somehow larger than we are; somehow more faithful than us?
People who encounter God in their lives hear/see/experience what God is doing and relate it in the clearest way they know how to those around them. That's the basis of sharing God with each other -- sometimes called evangelism.
Let me lay down a provenance -- a line of ownership from God to us through Scripture.
- Jesus lived, worked, died, rose from death, and returned to God. Here is a most direct contact from God to us through Jesus.
- There were about 150 people who consistently followed Jesus. This includes the 12 disciples who will become Apostles, of which three are the inner circle -- Peter, James, and John. These 150 people witnessed what Jesus said and did.
- Each of the Gospel writers heard the stories of Jesus. Some of them saw this first hand. Others (i.e. Luke) heard the stories from this cadre of followers and passed it on to their readers.
- Each witness experiences Jesus through the filters and needs of his/her own life. Each Gospel writer who hears a witness speak experiences God and records it through the filter of his own life, experiences, and needs for God in his life.
- Each Gospel writer is writing TO someone. The Gospels are not an English class essay assignment. It is a Pastor/Evangelist proclaiming the mighty acts of God to a people who desire/need to grow closer to God, told in a way that they can hear it the best.
Jesus is revealing his mission in this small section. John is recording his vision of the work of Messiah as he perceived it. This word play of "lifted up" and "exalted" is a key to this.
In the Numbers 21 story the Hebrew sinners will be saved from a plague of fiery serpents. Moses is commanded to make a bronze serpent and "lift it up" onto a pole. Whoever looks on the bronze serpent will be saved . . . whoever "lifts up their eyes" to the serpent, whoever "exalts" the serpent will be saved.
Jesus takes that historical/religious event and uses it as a metaphor for his mission. He is to be "lifted up" so that those who "lift up" their eyes to him may be saved. This is, of course, Jesus revealing that he must be "lifted up" on a stake -- a cross. He must be crucified. BUT . . . here is where St. John differs with the Synoptic Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In the Synoptics the passion of the Christ -- betrayal, trial, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus, is a horror story that seems to happen to him, out of his control.
But John sees Jesus very much in control through-out the passion. The key word in this John 3 section that tells us about this is upsosain. Jesus is "lifted up" but his lifting up "exalts" God. Jesus is exalted in fulfilling his purpose, which he willingly goes to, knows of before-hand, and moves through aware and in control of every step.
One clear example of what I propose is in the Garden scene where Jesus is arrested. (John 18:1-6) John tells a story of that night none of the others record. It is a demonstration of who Jesus truly is and what power he controls. He asks his arresters who they are looking for. They say, "Jesus of Nazareth." He says, (Latin) "Ego ami." "I am he." Simple enough on the surface.
The literal translation is, "I AM." (The "he" comes from the Latin masculine form, 1st person, singular.) When God is recruiting Moses to save the Jews from Egyptian slavery Moses asks God to tell Moses God's name. God gives a non-reply "YAHWEH." This is not a name, but a description. The word means . . . Ego ami -- I am. (It could be in any tense - I am, I was, I will be.) God tells Moses that Moses cannot handle the power of God's name. He is to be satisfied that the One who calls him simple "is." Those who come to arrest Jesus are bowled over by the power of "I AM."
Perhaps you think I'm stretching the point, connecting a simple question and answer, "Who are you looking for?" "Jesus of Nazareth." "I am he.", to this monumental moment in the calling of Moses. Well, don't argue with me, argue with St. John. Only he, of all the Gospel writers, records that when the soldiers heard "Ego ami -- I AM" "... they drew back and fell to the ground."
Why? Because Jesus pushed them? No, because Jesus is the upsosain, the exalted/upsosain One who will be lifted up/upsosained so that who ever lifts up/upsosains their eyes to him may be saved.
Aren't words and their usage fabulous? What depth St. John brings to the understanding of Jesus and his place as the One of God for us!
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Honor your Father and Mother
Today was my mother's birthday. She would have been 89 had she not died after a freak accident that left her a quadriplegic. She died on her 62nd wedding anniversary, May 16, 2003. She was an extraordinary person.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you. Ex 20:12 c.f. Deut. 8:18, Mt 15:4, Mk 7:10, Eph 6:2
She was born and raised in New York City. Her father was an insurance agent and died suddenly when she was 10. My grandmother remarried a minor political player in the New York City Democratic Party. She graduated from high school and married my father at 19. She didn't attend college -- in her era that was normal. Yet she was an incredibly well read, cultured woman.
There was always music in our home, classical, popular, some jazz. My mother was an early fan of MTV. She was not above horrifying her children by dancing around the living room to music. It was from her that I developed my love for classical music.
Her love of music sticks in my mind today because Beethoven's 6th Symphony was playing on the Portland classical station as I drove around town. It was the first piece of classical music that I really studied. We had the album. I read all the notes on the symphony. When ever I hear that piece I am back in the living room of our house on Brown Drive in Clairmont, California, sitting on the living room floor as the piece is flowing around me, hunched over the album studying the meaning of each of the movements.
Thanks for the gift of music, mom.
Thinking of my mother today, listening to the Pastoral, the words of the 4th Commandment, quoted above, came to my mind. Honor your Father and Mother that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth..
Perhaps there is a dark side to that commandment. If we don't honor our parents they can make our life unduly short. I've heard more than one mother say, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out, too."
Honoring is different than obeying. It's different than agreeing. It's different than letting your parents run your life when you become an adult.
I think it is about respect. It is about acknowledging that they have given us the gift of life. If for no other reason, that should be sufficient to receive honor.
The late Leo Buscaglia, in his book "Living, Loving, and Learning," Wrote about a woman who came to him for counseling. She had a horrible life as a child. Her parents were not nice nor good people and she bore the scars of their dysfunction. As the woman developed some health she became angrier and angrier at how she had been treated as a child. She railed at Buscaglia, "How can I love such people as that? I wish they were dead."
While Buscaglia didn't try to excuse their evil behaviors he told her that she was just discovering how precious she was as a living human being. If there was no other reason to honor her parents, that was an important one. It didn't mean she had to forget, or be best chums or put herself in harms way, but she could give them their due respect (honor) for the gift of life. He told her that her development as a caring human being would be stifled if she was unable to let go of her anger and her past with her parents. He told her that she would never be able to love completely if she had the anger and resentment toward her parents hanging around her soul like an anchor.
Honor your Father and your Mother, that it may be well with you.
Most of us had pretty good parents. I had a couple of great ones. They were flawed. But they loved each other and they loved their four children as equally as any parent can. They gave us the gift of life and they filled our lives with the gift of love, the gift of faith, the love of family, and music, and theater, and . . . on and on and on.
So, today, kind reader, join me in a tribute to my mother. I love you, mom. And I miss you terribly. Happy Birthday.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
"The Answer Is Blowin' In the Wind." John 3:4-8
Have you ever talked to someone and it felt like you might as well be speaking a foreign language because what you said and what was heard was, apparently, totally different? Those of you who have teens (or remember being a teen) have certainly had this experience.
THAT'S what's going on in John 3.
Jesus sounds like he is just a little frustrated with Nicodemus when he says, in verse 10: "You are Israel's teacher and do you not understand these things?" He goes on to vent his frustration with Nic's denseness in the verses that follow.
The last post spoke about Jesus talking about being born "anoden", "from above." But Nic hears the other interpretation, born "again" and he is stuck in "duh" mode. "How can a man enter his mother's womb when he is an adult?"
The next two level word Jesus uses in trying to get through to Nic is "pneuma." You probably know this word, pneumatic tire, pneumonia. The Greek word means "wind" and "spirit."
Nic asks how a man can be physically born again. Jesus replies that it is a spiritual thing. John records Jesus speaking this two level word and Nic, seeemingly, hearing it on one level. I suggest you have your Bible open to vss 5-8 so you can see how Jesus bounces between the two uses of this word in that section -- as I've written it below.
I think this is a much more provocative statement than we give it credit. By this time in history Judaism is a stable, doctrinal system of laws and practices. It does NOT "blow wherever it pleases" and, contrary to what Jesus says, the Jews could tell "where it [God's presence and command] comes from and where it is going."
Jesus confronts the whole belief system in these statements. He is saying that God can do what God well pleases in spite of the system the Jews believed God had handed them centuries and millennia previous. No wonder Nicodemus is confused!
NOW, before we get all smug about how foolish Nic is as opposed to US, who know Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world think about what Jesus is saying. God's Spirit -- the Wind of God among us -- will blow where ever the Spirit chooses. WE do not know where it comes from or where it is going but we can hear its sound -- we can perceive the presence, the effect of the wind blowing around/through us.
These two sections (born and Spirit blowing) of this Scriptural episode pick up the theme John sets out in the prologue to the Gospel -- Chapter 1.
I will go the next step and say that Christianity should be careful it doesn't fall into the same trap Nic and the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day did and assume, because we have such a clear revelation and covenant from God that it is the only revelation God can give and that we, alone, have the only real truth about how God comes to God's creation. I hasten to say that Jesus IS the Good News of God, Jesus does bring forgiveness of sins, life with God, and healing for our hearts in his life, death, and resurrection. Of these things I have no doubt. But I do not believe it is the only way God has revealed God's self to the world, the only way God's breathe has been breathed/blown on God's creation.
I know this borders on Christian heresy, sort of in the same way what Jesus said to Nicodemus bordered on Jewish heresy. But I don't think I can back away from it. "The Spirit blows where ever it pleases." We are certainly people who have been graced to perceive the presence and effect of this Spirit blowing around and through us. Praise God for that! Where we have to be careful is to avoid becoming smug, to avoid beginning to think that we are the only keepers of the Wind of God. Having received this astounding revelation of God in the work of Jesus the Savior we dare never think that we can lock up the totality of God's presence in our own Christian wind-tunnel.
Isn't that religious smugness and conviction that only WE have the true/complete revelation of God the source of great suffering and death in the world? Is that sort of behavior by religions consistent with the work of God's Word become Flesh to which we cling as Savior?
Nicodemus will mull over Jesus' conversation with him as Nic comes to Jesus in the dark. It will change him. His comfortable assumptions will be sufficiently challenged to the point that he steps out of his comfortable doctrinal Judaism, which he has been teaching, to let the Spirit move him through the work of Jesus to a new level of relationship with God . . . and through that change to a new relationship with a world that had been closed to him before God blows through his life.
Should we not expect God to do the same with us when God blows gently in our ear, or knocks us off our feet with a hurricane force? It's a little scary to think about, isn't it? Maybe it's the same fear Nicodemus experienced as he came to Jesus in the dark and began moving into the light . . . where the spirit was blowing him.
THAT'S what's going on in John 3.
Jesus sounds like he is just a little frustrated with Nicodemus when he says, in verse 10: "You are Israel's teacher and do you not understand these things?" He goes on to vent his frustration with Nic's denseness in the verses that follow.
The last post spoke about Jesus talking about being born "anoden", "from above." But Nic hears the other interpretation, born "again" and he is stuck in "duh" mode. "How can a man enter his mother's womb when he is an adult?"
The next two level word Jesus uses in trying to get through to Nic is "pneuma." You probably know this word, pneumatic tire, pneumonia. The Greek word means "wind" and "spirit."
Nic asks how a man can be physically born again. Jesus replies that it is a spiritual thing. John records Jesus speaking this two level word and Nic, seeemingly, hearing it on one level. I suggest you have your Bible open to vss 5-8 so you can see how Jesus bounces between the two uses of this word in that section -- as I've written it below.
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the pneuma/wind/spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh [Editor's Note: anoden as being born again] but the pneuma/wind/spirit gives birth to pneuma/wind/spirit. [Ed. Note: "but if this is a spiritual matter -- being born from above -- God does it."]
"Flesh give birth to flesh, but the pneuma/wind/spirit gives birth to pneuma/wind/spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born anoden/from above.' The wind/spirit blows wherever it please. You hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the wind/spirit."
I think this is a much more provocative statement than we give it credit. By this time in history Judaism is a stable, doctrinal system of laws and practices. It does NOT "blow wherever it pleases" and, contrary to what Jesus says, the Jews could tell "where it [God's presence and command] comes from and where it is going."
Jesus confronts the whole belief system in these statements. He is saying that God can do what God well pleases in spite of the system the Jews believed God had handed them centuries and millennia previous. No wonder Nicodemus is confused!
NOW, before we get all smug about how foolish Nic is as opposed to US, who know Jesus is the Son of God and Savior of the world think about what Jesus is saying. God's Spirit -- the Wind of God among us -- will blow where ever the Spirit chooses. WE do not know where it comes from or where it is going but we can hear its sound -- we can perceive the presence, the effect of the wind blowing around/through us.
These two sections (born and Spirit blowing) of this Scriptural episode pick up the theme John sets out in the prologue to the Gospel -- Chapter 1.
"...his own did not recognize [receive] him. But to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God -- children born not of natural descent, NOR OF HUMAN DECISION or a husband's will, but born of God." Jn 1:11b-13 [Born again/from above -- my notation.]This "receiving him . . . believing in [him] his name" goes far beyond ascribing to a set of doctrinal beliefs or systematic theological assertions about God. It is no less than staking our lives on Jesus being the revelation of God in that moment of history; that Jesus is what God wants us to know about God and us.
I will go the next step and say that Christianity should be careful it doesn't fall into the same trap Nic and the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day did and assume, because we have such a clear revelation and covenant from God that it is the only revelation God can give and that we, alone, have the only real truth about how God comes to God's creation. I hasten to say that Jesus IS the Good News of God, Jesus does bring forgiveness of sins, life with God, and healing for our hearts in his life, death, and resurrection. Of these things I have no doubt. But I do not believe it is the only way God has revealed God's self to the world, the only way God's breathe has been breathed/blown on God's creation.
I know this borders on Christian heresy, sort of in the same way what Jesus said to Nicodemus bordered on Jewish heresy. But I don't think I can back away from it. "The Spirit blows where ever it pleases." We are certainly people who have been graced to perceive the presence and effect of this Spirit blowing around and through us. Praise God for that! Where we have to be careful is to avoid becoming smug, to avoid beginning to think that we are the only keepers of the Wind of God. Having received this astounding revelation of God in the work of Jesus the Savior we dare never think that we can lock up the totality of God's presence in our own Christian wind-tunnel.
Isn't that religious smugness and conviction that only WE have the true/complete revelation of God the source of great suffering and death in the world? Is that sort of behavior by religions consistent with the work of God's Word become Flesh to which we cling as Savior?
Nicodemus will mull over Jesus' conversation with him as Nic comes to Jesus in the dark. It will change him. His comfortable assumptions will be sufficiently challenged to the point that he steps out of his comfortable doctrinal Judaism, which he has been teaching, to let the Spirit move him through the work of Jesus to a new level of relationship with God . . . and through that change to a new relationship with a world that had been closed to him before God blows through his life.
Should we not expect God to do the same with us when God blows gently in our ear, or knocks us off our feet with a hurricane force? It's a little scary to think about, isn't it? Maybe it's the same fear Nicodemus experienced as he came to Jesus in the dark and began moving into the light . . . where the spirit was blowing him.
Monday, March 21, 2011
You must be born again
John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.""Born again," the Greek word anoden, is the first of four puns -- double entendrez -- that are used in John 3 between Jesus and Nicodemus. The word is a contraction of the words "from" and "above." Jesus uses anoden that way. Nicodemus hears it as "born again." This whole story is about a man in the dark not understanding what it means when he hears about light.
Nicodemus has come to Jesus at night. He comes in the dark for he is still spiritually in the dark. He wants to talk to Jesus rabbi to rabbi (see vss 1-2). Instead of acknowledging Nic's query about Jesus' status Jesus makes this somewhat astounding reply. It almost sounds like a non sequitur.
I think this is one of the most misunderstood, misused verses of Scripture. Many understand it to mean I have to accept Jesus as my personal Savior to demonstrate that I have been born again. Many understand it to mean that if I can't point to a time and place where I can demonstrate that this "born again" experience has happened then it probably hasn't happened. The message seems to be that I am supposed to do something in order to be born again.
Nic understood it to mean he had to do something, too. He asks, "Can someone be born when he is old? Surely he can't enter his mother's womb a second time." (vs 4) In other words, "How in the world can I do something to be born into God's kingdom?"
Jesus points him to the other use of the word. Rebirth is by water and the Spirit. It's only when the Spirit has acted that one can be born again.
Now, here is an interesting thought. We are born again -- born from above -- by the Spirit bringing us to life. What a great example of the feminine side of God! The Holy Spirit is our spiritual birth-mother.What is certain in this section, in my opinion, is that any borning again that gets done in us is not done by us but by the work of God. Isn't that what the whole Jesus event is about? "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." John 1:13. God sends Jesus because it's clear we can't/won't save ourselves. God acts first.
We are born again, from above when the Spirit enters our hearts. It is then that we can declare, "My Lord and my God," about the Savior. Just like with our first birth, we are first born, then we learn to perceive what is around us and learn to speak and declare. So also with faith. God bears us as his (her) own. It is in our realizing that we are a child of God that we begin to rejoice, because we begin to realize what a family of God we have been born into.
The classic interpretation of verse 5, "...no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit," is that this is the work of baptism -- a Jewish rite of purification -- with the powerful addition of the Holy Spirit, the One who makes us pure where the old rituals could only represent our purification. So Martin Luther, in his small catechism explanation of Baptism says, "It is not the water indeed that does [great things], but the word of God which is in and with the water , and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. . . . But with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit . . . "
Or to put it as simply as Jesus did, "You must be born from above . . . by water and the Spirit . . . to enter into the kingdom of God." It is God who gifts us this life. It is we who are called to live a life a gratitude.
Famous St. John Three: From Darkness to Light
What I like about being retired and doing this blog is I don't have to force myself to follow any pre-determined path, even when I selected one myself!
I meant to follow the Gospel of Matthew this year, but I find my attention being redirected. That means, "wandering."
The Intern at Holy Cross in Salem preached on John 3 Sunday and it's my latest fascination.
John 3 is one of the best known chapters of the Bible. John 3:16 is one of the best known verses of the Bible -- you may have seen some person holding the poster "John 3:16" at sporting events. If 3:16 is one of the best known, then John 3:3 is right next to it. Look these up if you want to see what I will talk about later.
I want to look closely at the sections of this chapter, as it IS a pivotal turning point in John's telling of the story of Jesus, Savior of the world. There's MUCH about God and us to be mined in this chapter, so we may be looking at it for some time. (Unless I get distracted, er, I mean, redirected somewhere else.)
___________________________
". . . he came to him at night . . ." John 3:1b
I understand faith through stories. So I understand Scripture through listening to and analyzing the stories as literature.
What themes does the author repeat again and again? Are there key words s/he uses? Is there a time-line, and if so, to what does it lead? That's what analyzing story is all about.
St. John saw light and darkness as a metaphor for good and evil, God and Satan, knowing and unknowing. Jn 1:5: "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it."
Why does John take up the papyrus space to note that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night? I don't think it's some casual remark. I think John is talking about the condition in which Nicodemus exists when he comes to Jesus. He is a man in the dark. He comes curious but unknowing that Jesus is the light of the World, that Jesus is the One who brings the fullest and eternal experience of life.
Nicodemus shows up in John's Gospel three times.
John 3;
John 7:50 ff;
John 19:38-42
Read these and see if you think there is a progression in the life of Nicodemus from night to day, dark to light.
_________________________________________
Where Nicodemus begins
Perhaps THE BEST NEWS of the Gospel of Jesus is that God meets us where we are. As good as that is, God never leaves us where we are, but moves us to where we will be better off -- closer to God. The bad news (or so it seems at the time) is that we are often not ready or are unwilling to leave what we have always known for where Jesus knows we need to be. The best news is that Jesus is very patient with us.
That's the Nicodemus story. That's my story. I'm guessing that's your story, too.
Nicodemus thinks he understands God, thinks he is a man of God and a nurturer of the faith -- that faith being Judaism and the keeping of Torah, what we call "law." He IS those things. They simply are not all there is, although he assumes they are.
Nicodemus is a Pharisee. Pharisees were not Priests, they were intentionally religious lay people. Pharisees were to Priests what very active, vocal Christians are to Pastors. Pharisees knew their Bible, studied their religion, studiously applied the Bible to their lives, and rigorously applies Biblical doctrine to the lives of those around them. It is not stretching the point to see they were the Taliban of their day. Pharisees were Rabbis. Rabbis were teachers. They taught how others were to understand and keep the Jewish faith. They became the religious leaders of Judaism.
Side note:
Jesus is the Savior. He comes to honestly tell us that we are law breakers, not law keepers. And he comes to tell us how much God loves us in spite of that. He comes to offer himself as the One who will take us to God where the law keeps us away.
God saves us from religiously self-righteous folk who, mistakenly, believe that they are on a higher plain than others because they have cleaned up their act enough to be ahead of the rest of us. That's where Pharisees were.
So Nicodemus, the Pharisee/rabbi, comes to Jesus, whom he recognizes as a peer. It is a rabbi talking to a rabbi -- peer to peer. "Professor," said the professor to the professor, "let's talk about your teaching and methodology so we can see if we are of the same school of thought." That's what Nicodemus set out to do with Jesus.
But he is living in the dark. He comes in the dark. And, whoa, Jesse (as my friend Becky Seibel says) he is about to be blinded by light . . . and he won't quite know what to do with it.
Here's the point I'd like to leave with you from this writing: God is so much more vast than we can ever perceive. When our religion gets too comfortable we have stuffed God in a mason jar. But God doesn't stay there. God breaks out of our glass cages. God is constantly calling us out of our darkness into God's purer light.
We usually don't simply give in, though. We want to stay where we are. It's comfortable. It's familiar. We have control over it. We are Nicodemus in the dark. The good news of the whole Nicodemus story in John is that though we come to Jesus in the dark it is not the end of the story. Like Nicodemus, what Jesus has to say to us sometimes takes time for us to accept and understand.
The good news of Jesus work is that Jesus will wait for us to come around, to figure it out, to answer His call to follow. Are you ready to come to Jesus in your darkness? Are you willing to risk not knowing but being given the chance to step into the light God has for you?
I meant to follow the Gospel of Matthew this year, but I find my attention being redirected. That means, "wandering."
The Intern at Holy Cross in Salem preached on John 3 Sunday and it's my latest fascination.
John 3 is one of the best known chapters of the Bible. John 3:16 is one of the best known verses of the Bible -- you may have seen some person holding the poster "John 3:16" at sporting events. If 3:16 is one of the best known, then John 3:3 is right next to it. Look these up if you want to see what I will talk about later.
I want to look closely at the sections of this chapter, as it IS a pivotal turning point in John's telling of the story of Jesus, Savior of the world. There's MUCH about God and us to be mined in this chapter, so we may be looking at it for some time. (Unless I get distracted, er, I mean, redirected somewhere else.)
___________________________
". . . he came to him at night . . ." John 3:1b
I understand faith through stories. So I understand Scripture through listening to and analyzing the stories as literature.
What themes does the author repeat again and again? Are there key words s/he uses? Is there a time-line, and if so, to what does it lead? That's what analyzing story is all about.
St. John saw light and darkness as a metaphor for good and evil, God and Satan, knowing and unknowing. Jn 1:5: "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it."
Why does John take up the papyrus space to note that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night? I don't think it's some casual remark. I think John is talking about the condition in which Nicodemus exists when he comes to Jesus. He is a man in the dark. He comes curious but unknowing that Jesus is the light of the World, that Jesus is the One who brings the fullest and eternal experience of life.
Nicodemus shows up in John's Gospel three times.
John 3;
John 7:50 ff;
John 19:38-42
Read these and see if you think there is a progression in the life of Nicodemus from night to day, dark to light.
_________________________________________
Where Nicodemus begins
Perhaps THE BEST NEWS of the Gospel of Jesus is that God meets us where we are. As good as that is, God never leaves us where we are, but moves us to where we will be better off -- closer to God. The bad news (or so it seems at the time) is that we are often not ready or are unwilling to leave what we have always known for where Jesus knows we need to be. The best news is that Jesus is very patient with us.
That's the Nicodemus story. That's my story. I'm guessing that's your story, too.
Nicodemus thinks he understands God, thinks he is a man of God and a nurturer of the faith -- that faith being Judaism and the keeping of Torah, what we call "law." He IS those things. They simply are not all there is, although he assumes they are.
Nicodemus is a Pharisee. Pharisees were not Priests, they were intentionally religious lay people. Pharisees were to Priests what very active, vocal Christians are to Pastors. Pharisees knew their Bible, studied their religion, studiously applied the Bible to their lives, and rigorously applies Biblical doctrine to the lives of those around them. It is not stretching the point to see they were the Taliban of their day. Pharisees were Rabbis. Rabbis were teachers. They taught how others were to understand and keep the Jewish faith. They became the religious leaders of Judaism.
Side note:
Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. (about 40 years after Jesus had left earth.) The temple was gone. The priests had no place to priest in. Judaism needs a new religious focus and leadership because there is no place to make the required sacrifices and no one to make them. The cult of the Pharisees becomes that new leadership and direction. They become in Judaism what we now call, Rabbis. The revelation of God and relationship to God shifts from a place, Jerusalem Temple, and a physical practice, the sacrificial system for almost every condition of life, to a portable body of knowledge -- their Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament -- and the religious leaders are now teachers (rabbis) who explain and interpret this revelation of God to the people so the people can live out right relationship with God and each other.
Jesus is the Savior. He comes to honestly tell us that we are law breakers, not law keepers. And he comes to tell us how much God loves us in spite of that. He comes to offer himself as the One who will take us to God where the law keeps us away.
God saves us from religiously self-righteous folk who, mistakenly, believe that they are on a higher plain than others because they have cleaned up their act enough to be ahead of the rest of us. That's where Pharisees were.
So Nicodemus, the Pharisee/rabbi, comes to Jesus, whom he recognizes as a peer. It is a rabbi talking to a rabbi -- peer to peer. "Professor," said the professor to the professor, "let's talk about your teaching and methodology so we can see if we are of the same school of thought." That's what Nicodemus set out to do with Jesus.
But he is living in the dark. He comes in the dark. And, whoa, Jesse (as my friend Becky Seibel says) he is about to be blinded by light . . . and he won't quite know what to do with it.
Here's the point I'd like to leave with you from this writing: God is so much more vast than we can ever perceive. When our religion gets too comfortable we have stuffed God in a mason jar. But God doesn't stay there. God breaks out of our glass cages. God is constantly calling us out of our darkness into God's purer light.
We usually don't simply give in, though. We want to stay where we are. It's comfortable. It's familiar. We have control over it. We are Nicodemus in the dark. The good news of the whole Nicodemus story in John is that though we come to Jesus in the dark it is not the end of the story. Like Nicodemus, what Jesus has to say to us sometimes takes time for us to accept and understand.
The good news of Jesus work is that Jesus will wait for us to come around, to figure it out, to answer His call to follow. Are you ready to come to Jesus in your darkness? Are you willing to risk not knowing but being given the chance to step into the light God has for you?
Monday, March 14, 2011
Skipping To St. John for a Day
It's my blog. I've never been strong on consistency (so say my sequential friends.) So I want to skip from reading St. Matthew's gospel to a section of John's gospel telling.
Being retired for a whole two weeks one thing I'm finding is time to just plain muse about stuff.
A friend emailed me and asked, "Do you feel guilty about not going to work."
To which I responded emphatically, "NO!"
To which she re-responded, "Couldn't you just feel a LITTLE guilty?" (The answer is still, "no.")
That little conversationette has been on my mind. My work was done. It was time for me to go and for the next God experience to unfold in my former parish.
I think I understand what she was saying underneath the questions. "Don't you miss us?" "I like you and you like me, why can't you stay a little longer." (That means, "until I think you're ready to go.")
As that's been banging around my head this little section of John's resurrection narrative came to me. Mary Magdalene went to Jesus' tomb (other gospels have more women there) and found it empty. She runs and tells two of Jesus' followers (disciples) the body must have been stolen. Peter and a disciple who is called either the beloved disciple or simply the other run to the tomb, see it as she described with the grave clothes neatly folded -- signs that it was not a snatch and grab body theft. They do not understand what's happening.
Then comes this section in which Mary Magdalene sees Jesus -- the first appearance of the risen Christ according to John. The section of this story that has bemused me is when Mary, rapt in joy and adoration, tries to hold on to him. He says,
In other words, God has a plan. Jesus is the center post as Christians hear God speak. But Jesus is not the entire plan. Even Jesus, as the clear revelation of what God wants us to know, is only part of the plan.
Mary wanted to hang on to the Jesus she knew, even though he was now changed -- in a very different state. (I'd call rising from the dead after a brutal murder a very different state, wouldn't you?)
Jesus says it's time to see what God has in store for you next, that you can trust God HAS something in store for you at the uneasy change points in life and if is for good, not evil.
As Jesus has done, so believers (like me) try to learn and follow.
Jesus work included being a friend of people no one else was interested in. Jesus helped people in their crisis moments. I hope that is what I have done as a Pastor.
I'm sure Mary felt somewhat like my friend, "How can you leave us? Don't you feel guilty about not going to work?"
Jesus answer to her is my answer to my friend, "No. How can I feel guilty about accomplishing what I have been sent to do? You may think I should stay, but the BOSS says it's time to go. The BOSS really does know what's best."
Jesus answer to her is my answer to my friend, "No. How can I feel guilty about leaving when I know with absolute assurance that God still has a plan for you and will send the next installment of what is needed for you (for a congregation, for any of us facing unasked for change in our lives) to become fuller what God has created you to be?"
I do not feel guilty about quitting. It was time. God has a plan and my part, with that group of seekers was done. With the time change last Sunday and most churches having relatively early services I missed church Sunday for the first time in a LONG LONG time and I don't feel guilty about that, either.
Well, okay, I feel a little guilty about that part.
Pax vobiscum!
Being retired for a whole two weeks one thing I'm finding is time to just plain muse about stuff.
A friend emailed me and asked, "Do you feel guilty about not going to work."
To which I responded emphatically, "NO!"
To which she re-responded, "Couldn't you just feel a LITTLE guilty?" (The answer is still, "no.")
That little conversationette has been on my mind. My work was done. It was time for me to go and for the next God experience to unfold in my former parish.
I think I understand what she was saying underneath the questions. "Don't you miss us?" "I like you and you like me, why can't you stay a little longer." (That means, "until I think you're ready to go.")
As that's been banging around my head this little section of John's resurrection narrative came to me. Mary Magdalene went to Jesus' tomb (other gospels have more women there) and found it empty. She runs and tells two of Jesus' followers (disciples) the body must have been stolen. Peter and a disciple who is called either the beloved disciple or simply the other run to the tomb, see it as she described with the grave clothes neatly folded -- signs that it was not a snatch and grab body theft. They do not understand what's happening.
Then comes this section in which Mary Magdalene sees Jesus -- the first appearance of the risen Christ according to John. The section of this story that has bemused me is when Mary, rapt in joy and adoration, tries to hold on to him. He says,
"Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father . . . ." Jn 20: 17I think the conversation with my friend has helped me understand this resurrection piece. Jesus told the disciples what was going to happen to him -- about his death and resurrection. They didn't believe him, but now it has happened. One of the things that he told them, and John makes a point of it, is that he has to leave because he has done what he was sent to do and God has another who is coming to be with them. For ease of language we say it is the Holy Spirit. The Greek is a complex word that can mean, guide, comforter, counselor, teacher.
In other words, God has a plan. Jesus is the center post as Christians hear God speak. But Jesus is not the entire plan. Even Jesus, as the clear revelation of what God wants us to know, is only part of the plan.
Mary wanted to hang on to the Jesus she knew, even though he was now changed -- in a very different state. (I'd call rising from the dead after a brutal murder a very different state, wouldn't you?)
Jesus says it's time to see what God has in store for you next, that you can trust God HAS something in store for you at the uneasy change points in life and if is for good, not evil.
As Jesus has done, so believers (like me) try to learn and follow.
Jesus work included being a friend of people no one else was interested in. Jesus helped people in their crisis moments. I hope that is what I have done as a Pastor.
I'm sure Mary felt somewhat like my friend, "How can you leave us? Don't you feel guilty about not going to work?"
Jesus answer to her is my answer to my friend, "No. How can I feel guilty about accomplishing what I have been sent to do? You may think I should stay, but the BOSS says it's time to go. The BOSS really does know what's best."
Jesus answer to her is my answer to my friend, "No. How can I feel guilty about leaving when I know with absolute assurance that God still has a plan for you and will send the next installment of what is needed for you (for a congregation, for any of us facing unasked for change in our lives) to become fuller what God has created you to be?"
I do not feel guilty about quitting. It was time. God has a plan and my part, with that group of seekers was done. With the time change last Sunday and most churches having relatively early services I missed church Sunday for the first time in a LONG LONG time and I don't feel guilty about that, either.
Well, okay, I feel a little guilty about that part.
Pax vobiscum!
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Lead us not into temptation
The Temptation of Jesus -- Matthew 4:1-11 (Mk 1:12-13; Lk 4:1-13)
Judy and I have been reading Lenten devotions written by revered Christian Henri Nouwen, a Roman Catholic Priest and profound speaker of the faith.
Sunday's devotion is on Jesus' temptation. First, the story. We pick it up just prior to the temptations.
Jesus has just had a fabulous . . . conversion experience? . . . ordination? . . . affirmation from God? at his baptism. I think it was all of those things. It is where John the Baptist begins handing off the ministry to Jesus. It is where Jesus accepts the mission before him. It is where God publicly declares Jesus, "my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." If you look at the previous blog entry you will find these same words spoken at the Transfiguration, just before Jesus goes to his final days and fulfillment of mission that is set out at his baptism.
Immediately after this tip-top spiritual experience the Spirit drives Jesus out into the wilderness and he experiences three temptations. There is some variance in the Gospels about which came when -- we will stick with Matthew's telling.
Regardless of my deep respect for Father Nouwen I think he did not tie Sunday's devotion to the text. His devotion focuses on God declaring Jesus "beloved son," and conferring that same status on us who are joined to Christ in our baptisms. But then he digresses from the text.
He calls us to resist the temptation to think ill of ourselves, to listen to the world that would tear us down. I have no issue with this as devotion. It is a valid call to believers to see ourselves as God sees us -- forgiven, and called to a place in God's mission.
But that isn't the temptation Jesus faced. Having just been touched by God and commissioned for mission the question becomes, "How shall I carry out what God has called me to do?" I think the temptation is to think too HIGHLY of himself, rather than not highly enough.
And you better believe Satan is right there with advice.
As it is for Jesus in these temptations, so it is for us. "Choose this day whom you will serve." Joshua says to the Israelites' before they enter the promised land. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Yes.
One more note, patient reader.
The temptation of Jesus can legitimately be seen as what other religions call such things as "vision quests." It is a common rite of passage in many cultures that when one comes to a crucial moment in his/her life that calls for the acceptance of a new role or life-direction the person goes out, by themselves, in a wild and lonely place to confront their demons and seek their God. It is a place where our faithfulness is tested and where God's faithfulness is found . . . for those who will face such trials as Jesus did:
Wild and lonely places can be found in the midst of a busy city or busy life. It is about going inside ourselves and listening to the demons AND the voice of God. It is about not being afraid to seek God in the thorny and painful events of life.
Lent is a great time to do such deep thinking and contemplation. God guide us in our wilderness treks.
Judy and I have been reading Lenten devotions written by revered Christian Henri Nouwen, a Roman Catholic Priest and profound speaker of the faith.
Sunday's devotion is on Jesus' temptation. First, the story. We pick it up just prior to the temptations.
Jesus has just had a fabulous . . . conversion experience? . . . ordination? . . . affirmation from God? at his baptism. I think it was all of those things. It is where John the Baptist begins handing off the ministry to Jesus. It is where Jesus accepts the mission before him. It is where God publicly declares Jesus, "my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." If you look at the previous blog entry you will find these same words spoken at the Transfiguration, just before Jesus goes to his final days and fulfillment of mission that is set out at his baptism.
Immediately after this tip-top spiritual experience the Spirit drives Jesus out into the wilderness and he experiences three temptations. There is some variance in the Gospels about which came when -- we will stick with Matthew's telling.
- "You're hungry. Satisfy your physical needs miraculously. Turn these stones to bread." It is the temptation to ignore what God is calling Jesus to do and to focus instead on meeting physical wants, needs, and desires.
- "Be a biblical fundamentalist. The Bible says God will protect you no matter what, so throw yourself off this high building (temple wall) and prove God will protect you." It is the temptation to not THINK about what God says, but to follow blindly when someone wraps themselves in the Bible and demands that we should follow, regardless of common sense. Or, as Jesus says it, "You shall not tempt the Lord your God," which I would paraphrase, "don't be stupid and expect God to intervene."
- "You can have all the power you need in the short-term to control whatever you want if you are willing to give me your soul in the long-run." At this point Jesus dismisses Satan, "Begone!" and declares his course, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve." He later declares this to be the greatest commandment.
Regardless of my deep respect for Father Nouwen I think he did not tie Sunday's devotion to the text. His devotion focuses on God declaring Jesus "beloved son," and conferring that same status on us who are joined to Christ in our baptisms. But then he digresses from the text.
He calls us to resist the temptation to think ill of ourselves, to listen to the world that would tear us down. I have no issue with this as devotion. It is a valid call to believers to see ourselves as God sees us -- forgiven, and called to a place in God's mission.
But that isn't the temptation Jesus faced. Having just been touched by God and commissioned for mission the question becomes, "How shall I carry out what God has called me to do?" I think the temptation is to think too HIGHLY of himself, rather than not highly enough.
And you better believe Satan is right there with advice.
- "Get their attention by giving them free food. Show them what a great miracle worker you are." While it looks good on the surface Jesus rejects it. "It's not about me. It's not about what I look like, it's what God speaks to us about our lives." Just the opposite of what Father Nouwen says, the temptation is to see himself as the center of it all instead of God being the center.
- "Don't you believe the Bible?" Boy, this is the hot-button temptation for me. How often in my life have I heard people try and coerce or beat up others with Bible verses. "The Bible says THIS. (They don't even says "I believe the Bible says this!) If you don't believe that way, or you live differently you are wrong, bad, a non-believer, or, at the least not as good a believer as I." Jesus doesn't fall for it. Elsewhere in the Gospels he declares the greatest commandment is to love God with all our hearts, MINDS, souls and strengths. And his answer, "Don't tempt the Lord your God," is good advice to us -- Don't do blatantly stupid things just because someone claims God said to. That's what all those poor souls did who fell for Jim Jones. They drank the poisoned cool-aide and died.
- "I have the power. You can short-circuit living out what God has planned for you and be able to do ANYTHING you want . . . in God's name, of course . . . if you give yourself to me." How sad it is that the church has fallen for this temptation over and over again. It is important to note that Satan is not lying about his ability. Satan DOES have the power to give power over the realms of this world and all their glory (status, wealth, power.) But Jesus rebuffs Satan with the essential truth and purpose of his mission: We do not live for this life only. The power of this realm is small compared to the power of God's realm and the life Jesus comes to give us. "Worship and serve God only!"
As it is for Jesus in these temptations, so it is for us. "Choose this day whom you will serve." Joshua says to the Israelites' before they enter the promised land. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Yes.
One more note, patient reader.
The temptation of Jesus can legitimately be seen as what other religions call such things as "vision quests." It is a common rite of passage in many cultures that when one comes to a crucial moment in his/her life that calls for the acceptance of a new role or life-direction the person goes out, by themselves, in a wild and lonely place to confront their demons and seek their God. It is a place where our faithfulness is tested and where God's faithfulness is found . . . for those who will face such trials as Jesus did:
- We do not live by bread alone, but by what God speaks.
- Use the mind that God has given you and don't be duped by religious hucksters.
- For all the glitter that easy answers provide, only God and God's power endures forever.
Wild and lonely places can be found in the midst of a busy city or busy life. It is about going inside ourselves and listening to the demons AND the voice of God. It is about not being afraid to seek God in the thorny and painful events of life.
Lent is a great time to do such deep thinking and contemplation. God guide us in our wilderness treks.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Transfiguration: But WAIT! There's MORE!
Last Sunday the Transfiguration of Jesus ended Epiphany, the season that looks for the light of God coming into the world, and ushered in Lent, the season of descent into darkness and death in Jesus' crucifixion. As we are in Matthew, the story is told by him in Chapter 17: 1-8. The story is told in Luke and Mark, also. Not in John, but the reason for that is for another blog.
The story is that Jesus takes his closest students (disciples), Peter, James, and John up a mountain. They see his being, his"figure" changed, thus the name of the event -- Trans (changed) -figuration (figure or being).
But WAIT! There's MORE!
Two others who were not there appear -- Moses and Elijah of Old Testament fame! They converse with Jesus.
The disciples are awestruck and rather afraid.
But WAIT! There's MORE!
Suddenly they are wrapped in a cloud and a voice booms out, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." It is the same voice that speaks when Jesus is baptized. It is the voice of YAHWEH verifying who Jesus is and what is to be done with him.
The disciples go from awestruck and rather afraid to terrified. I mean, it's one thing to have a vision of the two greatest Biblical figures of their Bible appear, but the voice of God, God's self? They may have had to change their pants. They go from falling on their faces in respect to digging for China out of fear.
But WAIT! There's MORE!
Suddenly, Jesus comes over the touches them and . . .
And . . .
Everything is normal. It's the same old Jesus in his travel-worn robes telling them, "Come on. It's time to go down the mountain and continue to Jerusalem -- to my death and resurrection."
Well.
What is so "But WAIT! There's MORE!" about that?
Matthew and Mark, and to some degree, Luke all write it's "But WAIT! There's MORE!." But you and I don't see what they're trying to say because translation committees want us to make sense out of verse 8 so they translate it something like the Jerusalem Bible translation: "And when they raised their eyes they saw no one but only Jesus."
A word to word translation is more like, "They saw NO ONE, NO/NOT THE LEAST, himself (Jesus) ALONE/ONLY."
So what's so "But WAIT!" about that? It will probably be "all Greek to you." It has to do with a difference between Greek and English grammar.
Remember how your English teacher taught you that a double negative equals a positive in English? "I don't want no more guff" really means "I want more guff."
In Greek, which has no punctuation like periods or,in this case, exclamation points, the piling on of the same word or expression means that what is being said is more important.
You will sometimes read that Jesus says, "Truly I say unto you . . ." In the Greek that is usually TWO "truly-s." The King James Version translates as such, "Verily, verily I say unto you . . ." It means to the reader, "PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S COMING NEXT!"
So, back to Mt 17:8 and why "But WAIT!." In this little verse the Gospel writers have no less than THREE emphasis words about what the disciples see at the end of this extraordinary spiritual event. "PAY attention to this!" "PAY ATTENTION to this!" "PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!"
"They saw NO ONE, NO/NOT THE LEAST, himself ALONE/ONLY."
Do you get what they're trying to say?
So, "No more WAIT! There is no MORE!" Here is Jesus with us and that's all that we need.
The story is that Jesus takes his closest students (disciples), Peter, James, and John up a mountain. They see his being, his"figure" changed, thus the name of the event -- Trans (changed) -figuration (figure or being).
But WAIT! There's MORE!
Two others who were not there appear -- Moses and Elijah of Old Testament fame! They converse with Jesus.
The disciples are awestruck and rather afraid.
But WAIT! There's MORE!
Suddenly they are wrapped in a cloud and a voice booms out, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." It is the same voice that speaks when Jesus is baptized. It is the voice of YAHWEH verifying who Jesus is and what is to be done with him.
The disciples go from awestruck and rather afraid to terrified. I mean, it's one thing to have a vision of the two greatest Biblical figures of their Bible appear, but the voice of God, God's self? They may have had to change their pants. They go from falling on their faces in respect to digging for China out of fear.
But WAIT! There's MORE!
Suddenly, Jesus comes over the touches them and . . .
And . . .
Everything is normal. It's the same old Jesus in his travel-worn robes telling them, "Come on. It's time to go down the mountain and continue to Jerusalem -- to my death and resurrection."
Well.
What is so "But WAIT! There's MORE!" about that?
Matthew and Mark, and to some degree, Luke all write it's "But WAIT! There's MORE!." But you and I don't see what they're trying to say because translation committees want us to make sense out of verse 8 so they translate it something like the Jerusalem Bible translation: "And when they raised their eyes they saw no one but only Jesus."
A word to word translation is more like, "They saw NO ONE, NO/NOT THE LEAST, himself (Jesus) ALONE/ONLY."
So what's so "But WAIT!" about that? It will probably be "all Greek to you." It has to do with a difference between Greek and English grammar.
Remember how your English teacher taught you that a double negative equals a positive in English? "I don't want no more guff" really means "I want more guff."
In Greek, which has no punctuation like periods or,in this case, exclamation points, the piling on of the same word or expression means that what is being said is more important.
You will sometimes read that Jesus says, "Truly I say unto you . . ." In the Greek that is usually TWO "truly-s." The King James Version translates as such, "Verily, verily I say unto you . . ." It means to the reader, "PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT'S COMING NEXT!"
So, back to Mt 17:8 and why "But WAIT!." In this little verse the Gospel writers have no less than THREE emphasis words about what the disciples see at the end of this extraordinary spiritual event. "PAY attention to this!" "PAY ATTENTION to this!" "PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!"
"They saw NO ONE, NO/NOT THE LEAST, himself ALONE/ONLY."
Do you get what they're trying to say?
- You can have all the revelation you want out of Scripture -- Moses represents the Torah/Law and Elijah represents the Prophets -- our Old Testament, THE Bible for Matthew's readers.
- You can even have the mystical, disembodied voice of YAHWEH witnessing about Jesus.
- But it is Jesus who is the one of God who is the center and source of all that is needed and given for the believer to receive the Kingdom of Heaven, to be with God, to be saved from sin, death, and the power of the devil. Jesus -- no one, no/not the least, himself alone.
So, "No more WAIT! There is no MORE!" Here is Jesus with us and that's all that we need.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Sermon on the Mount -- More than a legal rant
What to take away from today's blog:
At the end of every Gospel reading in my Lutheran worship tradition the reader says, "The Gospel (good news) of the Lord." and the congregation responds, "Thanks be to God." I've always thought it ironically funny to say that after reading parts of the Sermon on the Mount - Matthew chapters 5-7.
"If your eye offends you, pluck it out."
"Not one tiny mark of the Law will change until it is all accomplished."
"Any one who doesn't keep the Law and teaches others the same will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven."
"You have heard it said 'You shall not commit murder" but I say to you ... anyone who calls his brother or sister 'You fool' will be in danger of hell fire."
"The Good News (?) of the Lord."
"Thanks be to God?"
But the Sermon on the Mount also has one of the most beloved sections of the New Testament, Matt.5:1-12, called the Beatitudes.
On the one hand Jesus is pounding us for our sinfulness and inability to do what we should, on the other hand he lauds those who live lives of goodness. Who the heck are those people compared to the rest of us who, according to the rest of what Jesus says, are a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels?
I suggest this is not an "either/or" situation but a "both/and." We are, as Martin Luther once wrote, "at the same time justified and sinful." We can be peacemakers and still really hate someone . . . right?
But how do we put together a comprehensive, understandable way of reading these very disparate portions of Scripture?
You who are English majors can help us here with some literary interpretive techniques! Remember those concepts of "theme" and "context?"
I think sometimes we so exalt Scripture that we cut it up into little pieces and give homage to snippets as though each were a Gospel in itself. When that happens we end up with competing theology wars -- We will cry, "But Jesus said . . ," and then you can choose a Bible verse that suits your conviction. For example
What happened to me this year as I read Matthew (as I'm reading Matthew) is that I applied this idea of whole book theme to what I was reading and I began to have a whole new appreciation for Matthew.
We already talked about Jesus making a very different mission statement than John the Baptist, even though they both say, "Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is all around you." Jesus is declaring that we should turn to him because when we seek him the Kingdom of Heaven is all around us because Jesus is the bringer of the Kingdom.
Applying this statement of theme to the Sermon on the Mount, then, Jesus begins by talking about true religion and those who practice it. And the Beatitudes lay out this beautiful list of people living life out of their hearts. There is no legalism in Mt 5:3-12, there are only people living their lives out of their hearts for themselves, those around them, and for the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no doctrinal boundary mentioned. Both Jews and Gentiles can be peacemakers. Both doctrinal Christians and atheists can be pure in heart. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian, and Ghandi, a Hindu were men murdered for being seekers of righteousness is unrighteous realms.
I think it's important to remember that Jesus is talking to people who are practicing Jews and Matthew is writing to practicing Jews who believe Jesus is THE Messiah and are trying to work out how that fits into the whole Jewish system of Law keeping.
The Sermon on the Mount, then, is a seminal statement of Jesus ministry, stating that living as a God person is living out of the heart -- the Beatitudes. And just to underline that Jesus then systematically interprets the Law (Torah) by the spirit of the Law instead of a more rigid courtroom discussion and application of the law as a way of stripping away anyone's pretense to being right with God on his or her own merit.
The message so far?
What the heck does Jesus mean when he says,
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
What is "poor in spirit?"
By the way . . . I've been underwhelmed by your responses to this blog. Am I wasting my time here?
- "Turn to me (Jesus), because where I am you will be in the Kingdom of Heaven.
- Live your life from the heart, even though you will fail in keeping all the law.
- You will only succeed in doing #2 as you continue to do #1.
At the end of every Gospel reading in my Lutheran worship tradition the reader says, "The Gospel (good news) of the Lord." and the congregation responds, "Thanks be to God." I've always thought it ironically funny to say that after reading parts of the Sermon on the Mount - Matthew chapters 5-7.
"If your eye offends you, pluck it out."
"Not one tiny mark of the Law will change until it is all accomplished."
"Any one who doesn't keep the Law and teaches others the same will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven."
"You have heard it said 'You shall not commit murder" but I say to you ... anyone who calls his brother or sister 'You fool' will be in danger of hell fire."
"The Good News (?) of the Lord."
"Thanks be to God?"
But the Sermon on the Mount also has one of the most beloved sections of the New Testament, Matt.5:1-12, called the Beatitudes.
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.
The Beatitudes
He said: 3 “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. (New International Version)
On the one hand Jesus is pounding us for our sinfulness and inability to do what we should, on the other hand he lauds those who live lives of goodness. Who the heck are those people compared to the rest of us who, according to the rest of what Jesus says, are a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels?
I suggest this is not an "either/or" situation but a "both/and." We are, as Martin Luther once wrote, "at the same time justified and sinful." We can be peacemakers and still really hate someone . . . right?
But how do we put together a comprehensive, understandable way of reading these very disparate portions of Scripture?
You who are English majors can help us here with some literary interpretive techniques! Remember those concepts of "theme" and "context?"
I think sometimes we so exalt Scripture that we cut it up into little pieces and give homage to snippets as though each were a Gospel in itself. When that happens we end up with competing theology wars -- We will cry, "But Jesus said . . ," and then you can choose a Bible verse that suits your conviction. For example
"We must feed the hungry!" (“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mt 19:21)
or "We don't have to feed the hungry!" ("The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want." Mk 14:7)
What happened to me this year as I read Matthew (as I'm reading Matthew) is that I applied this idea of whole book theme to what I was reading and I began to have a whole new appreciation for Matthew.
We already talked about Jesus making a very different mission statement than John the Baptist, even though they both say, "Repent. The Kingdom of Heaven is all around you." Jesus is declaring that we should turn to him because when we seek him the Kingdom of Heaven is all around us because Jesus is the bringer of the Kingdom.
Applying this statement of theme to the Sermon on the Mount, then, Jesus begins by talking about true religion and those who practice it. And the Beatitudes lay out this beautiful list of people living life out of their hearts. There is no legalism in Mt 5:3-12, there are only people living their lives out of their hearts for themselves, those around them, and for the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no doctrinal boundary mentioned. Both Jews and Gentiles can be peacemakers. Both doctrinal Christians and atheists can be pure in heart. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian, and Ghandi, a Hindu were men murdered for being seekers of righteousness is unrighteous realms.
I think it's important to remember that Jesus is talking to people who are practicing Jews and Matthew is writing to practicing Jews who believe Jesus is THE Messiah and are trying to work out how that fits into the whole Jewish system of Law keeping.
The Sermon on the Mount, then, is a seminal statement of Jesus ministry, stating that living as a God person is living out of the heart -- the Beatitudes. And just to underline that Jesus then systematically interprets the Law (Torah) by the spirit of the Law instead of a more rigid courtroom discussion and application of the law as a way of stripping away anyone's pretense to being right with God on his or her own merit.
The message so far?
- "Turn to me, because where I am you will be in the Kingdom of Heaven.
- Live your life from the heart, even though you will fail in keeping all the law.
- You will only succeed in doing #2 as you continue to do #1.
What the heck does Jesus mean when he says,
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
What is "poor in spirit?"
By the way . . . I've been underwhelmed by your responses to this blog. Am I wasting my time here?
Friday, March 4, 2011
Advice and Early Matthew
So far I've learned that it's important to:
Today I want to point out the identical statements of John the Baptist and Jesus at the start of their respective ministries.
It might help to read the sections I'm talking about -- Mt 3: 1-12, emphasis on his opening statement, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (RSV) Instead of "at hand," other versions say "close at hand" (Jerusalem Bible); "is upon you" (New English Bible): "is near" (NIV).
If you read the following verses you get a pretty clear picture of John as what we would call a hellfire and damnation preacher. His was a baptism for the repentance of sins (vs 6), the confession of such a requirement for the baptism. This is consistent with the Jewish rite of baptism. It was not uncommon to be baptized many times. It was one part of the ritual of being cleansed from some infraction of the Torah (Law -- capital "L") that had caused one to become unclean. For instance, anyone handling blood became ritually unclean, including butchers and women at the end of their menstrual cycle, anyone who had commerce with "unclean people" -- lepers or gentiles.
John seems to have a more focused baptism than the one in the Torah. John's baptism requires only confession as adequate to receive this rite of cleansing as an outward sign of having "repented" of specific sins. (To repent means to turn.)
John's message is harsh. He predicts a harsh Messiah who will clean house -- sweep the chaff from the threshing floor and burn it with unquenchable fire.
Now take a look at Matthew 4:12-17 with emphasis on vs 12. Here is Jesus making his mission statement. It is identical to John's! "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is [near, upon you, at hand, etc.]."
I believe that these identical statements lay the groundwork for the ministry of Jesus as it follows in Matthew's gospel. By repeating verbatim the cry of John Jesus is doing one of two things:
Jesus says (and I take apart the sentence) "Repent -- turn from what burdens you -- not only sin, but the burden of being unable to bear the demands of the Law and turn to ME -- for the Kingdom of Heaven is upon you." What Jesus is saying is, "The Kingdom of Heaven is all around you where I am. I am the bringer of the Kingdom. To be near me, to listen to me, to be touched by me, is to be in the Kingdom." I hear him saying, "Turn to me, turn away from that which is of darkness, for where I am there is where the Kingdom of Heaven is."
The next step is to compare my interpretation to the Sermon on the Mount.
Maybe I'll leave that for the next post -- it's past 6:30 p.m. and I haven't had dinner yet.
I suggest that you read through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) -- ponder them. As you read each, try to picture in your mind what the condition that Jesus poses is. What does it mean to be "poor in spirit?" I welcome your comments on this. Pick out your fav of the Beatitudes and post it. We'll talk about this well known section of Scripture as the key to understanding the rest of what Jesus lays out in the Sermon in the next post.
Pax vobiscum!
- remember the name of the blog when people ask me. I may have to change the name; and
- remember what my sign-in and password are.
Today I want to point out the identical statements of John the Baptist and Jesus at the start of their respective ministries.
It might help to read the sections I'm talking about -- Mt 3: 1-12, emphasis on his opening statement, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (RSV) Instead of "at hand," other versions say "close at hand" (Jerusalem Bible); "is upon you" (New English Bible): "is near" (NIV).
If you read the following verses you get a pretty clear picture of John as what we would call a hellfire and damnation preacher. His was a baptism for the repentance of sins (vs 6), the confession of such a requirement for the baptism. This is consistent with the Jewish rite of baptism. It was not uncommon to be baptized many times. It was one part of the ritual of being cleansed from some infraction of the Torah (Law -- capital "L") that had caused one to become unclean. For instance, anyone handling blood became ritually unclean, including butchers and women at the end of their menstrual cycle, anyone who had commerce with "unclean people" -- lepers or gentiles.
John seems to have a more focused baptism than the one in the Torah. John's baptism requires only confession as adequate to receive this rite of cleansing as an outward sign of having "repented" of specific sins. (To repent means to turn.)
John's message is harsh. He predicts a harsh Messiah who will clean house -- sweep the chaff from the threshing floor and burn it with unquenchable fire.
Now take a look at Matthew 4:12-17 with emphasis on vs 12. Here is Jesus making his mission statement. It is identical to John's! "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is [near, upon you, at hand, etc.]."
I believe that these identical statements lay the groundwork for the ministry of Jesus as it follows in Matthew's gospel. By repeating verbatim the cry of John Jesus is doing one of two things:
- He is saying that John was right and people better get right with God or be left behind. (Hum, that sorta sounds like an infamous book series by a fundamentalist novelist.) If you read into the Sermon on the Mount -- Chapters 5-7 -- you can certainly make an argument for this premise. Jesus spends most of the sermon systematically stripping away anyway pretense his listeners have to righteousness or the ability to keep the Law that God demands. I think that in order to draw this conclusion you have to read the Sermon on the Mount by skipping over the Beatitudes -- Jesus opening lines of the sermon, Mt 5:1-12. I don't hold to this first interpretation.
- Jesus is saying that he may be starting where John left off, but his presence brings with it a new age that has not been seen in the old interpretation of righteousness and relationship with God. My reasoning is based on taking apart his saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is upon you." I like that reading - all are appropriate translations of the Greek. It is further based on the opening of the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus says (and I take apart the sentence) "Repent -- turn from what burdens you -- not only sin, but the burden of being unable to bear the demands of the Law and turn to ME -- for the Kingdom of Heaven is upon you." What Jesus is saying is, "The Kingdom of Heaven is all around you where I am. I am the bringer of the Kingdom. To be near me, to listen to me, to be touched by me, is to be in the Kingdom." I hear him saying, "Turn to me, turn away from that which is of darkness, for where I am there is where the Kingdom of Heaven is."
The next step is to compare my interpretation to the Sermon on the Mount.
Maybe I'll leave that for the next post -- it's past 6:30 p.m. and I haven't had dinner yet.
I suggest that you read through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) -- ponder them. As you read each, try to picture in your mind what the condition that Jesus poses is. What does it mean to be "poor in spirit?" I welcome your comments on this. Pick out your fav of the Beatitudes and post it. We'll talk about this well known section of Scripture as the key to understanding the rest of what Jesus lays out in the Sermon in the next post.
Pax vobiscum!
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Initial thoughts on Matthew
Matthew seems to be writing to urban, learned Jews -- probably Christian Jews. He uses more references to the Jewish Bible (our Old Testament -- the only Bible they had in MT's day) than any of the other Gospel writer.
If he's writing to Jews who are not yet Christians I would argue that the "proof texting" is his way of trying to evangelize them.
If they are Jewish Christians he is joining them in answering the questions of the converted: "We know that Jesus is Lord, and we are still Jews. How do we line up the Jesus we know with our Bible's words about who the Messiah will be?"
My sense is that some of his proof texting is a little thin -- perhaps we will find those sections as we wind our way through the gospel.
I'm probably going to skip the birth narrative in Mt because I feel like it (grin -- it is my blog) other than to point out that he tells the story and aligns Jesus with Joseph of David's line. One more proof of his deep Jewish-ness.
It's past noon now on Saturday 4 (Thursday for those of you not retired,) so I think I'll wrap it up and move on to . . . well, it won't be making sure the bulletin is ready to go, and it won't be going to choir at 7. So far I'm feeling pretty good by defining retirement by what I don't have to do. (oh yeah.)
If he's writing to Jews who are not yet Christians I would argue that the "proof texting" is his way of trying to evangelize them.
If they are Jewish Christians he is joining them in answering the questions of the converted: "We know that Jesus is Lord, and we are still Jews. How do we line up the Jesus we know with our Bible's words about who the Messiah will be?"
My sense is that some of his proof texting is a little thin -- perhaps we will find those sections as we wind our way through the gospel.
I'm probably going to skip the birth narrative in Mt because I feel like it (grin -- it is my blog) other than to point out that he tells the story and aligns Jesus with Joseph of David's line. One more proof of his deep Jewish-ness.
It's past noon now on Saturday 4 (Thursday for those of you not retired,) so I think I'll wrap it up and move on to . . . well, it won't be making sure the bulletin is ready to go, and it won't be going to choir at 7. So far I'm feeling pretty good by defining retirement by what I don't have to do. (oh yeah.)
Hello, What this is about.
I've just retired from the Lutheran ministry. What I liked best in ministry was a free-wheeling Bible class. I'm not afraid of thoughtful arguments but have no time for biblical literalists, those of the inerrant and infallible school of thought who allow no opposing views.
My last bible class -- we studied Titus -- suggested I do this blog. I've been thinking about blogging through St. Matthew's Gospel, as it is the Gospel being used during 2010/11 in churches that have a lectionary cycle.
I'd like to promise that I'll blog every day, but know I won't. I would like to do this as a spiritual/intellectual exercise.
You are welcome to be part of this conversation. But if you are offensive . . . by my definition . . . I will ban you from the blog. What I consider offensive is pretty well defined in the first paragraph.
My last bible class -- we studied Titus -- suggested I do this blog. I've been thinking about blogging through St. Matthew's Gospel, as it is the Gospel being used during 2010/11 in churches that have a lectionary cycle.
I'd like to promise that I'll blog every day, but know I won't. I would like to do this as a spiritual/intellectual exercise.
You are welcome to be part of this conversation. But if you are offensive . . . by my definition . . . I will ban you from the blog. What I consider offensive is pretty well defined in the first paragraph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)