Homily
I am home from church this Sunday morning. J and the girls are there, but I am forsaking the assembly for some physical recovery.
I took my coffee on the front porch, sat on the swing and hoped for a reprieve from our vicious mosquitoes. Our neighborly lizard, Ally, leapt from the railing to a column and inflated her red chin, and I was already sweating.
After Face the Nation, I decided to eschew the televised preachers for some devotional time. The “denominational” folks don’t mind televising their whole services, but the Restorationists generally prefer pre-recorded, studio productions, usually with fake plants in the background. Our guy this morning started out, my friends, with a kind word about differing interpretations of a scripture. He said, if we disagree, it does not mean that either of us are being dishonest or intentionally sinful, but we might well both be wrong. Thus, we should study it, study some more and study some more, presumably until we both agree that we have it right. My friends, that’s a hard teaching and puts an awful lot of confidence in our capacity for discerning the mystery and revelation of the Creator.
Instead of hearing our good brother out, I took a Bible to the porch to let the Lord preach to me instead. The mosquitoes stayed away as I read the Sermon on the Mount. Frankly, I doubt our brother on television this morning. I don’t think we can study it enough to reach a common, full discernment, but I wish him well.
Rhetorically, the Beatitudes were a great way to lead, because I imagine the people enjoyed the truths, relaxed in the sun, sat back and felt pretty good, especially when he praised and identified them as salt and light. He had them where He wanted them.
Next comes this business about fulfilling the Law and some pretty heavy instruction on anger, lust and judgment. “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,” but I say to myself, at least they’re in! Then, He replies to me, “I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Discouraging, that. “It is better for you to lose one part of your body that for the whole body to go into hell.” I imagine that they had forgotten the Beatitudes by then. They are evil, and they know it. I am evil, and I know it. Dear Lord.
He raises the stakes: “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” That’s some useful life application right there.
He said this after admonishing the disciples to love their enemies, to pray for their persecuters, to love those who do not love them, to greet strangers. Why? Because He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Just before that he says not to resist the evil person who would strike them and take their things. Instead, “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
If this is perfection, then I wonder if we can extrapolate a bit of discernment into the mystery after all. If this is how the Lord described the Father’s perfection, then may we conclude that God loves His enemies, His persecuters? That He does not resist the evil person who would strike Him and take His things, but that He gives to those who ask? Does He greet the evil strangers, give to the evil people, feed the evil folks who anger, lust and judge?
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
When he finished preaching, the people were amazed because he taught as one who had authority, not like their teachers of the law. Being a teacher of the law, I can appreciate that.
“What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
I took my coffee on the front porch, sat on the swing and hoped for a reprieve from our vicious mosquitoes. Our neighborly lizard, Ally, leapt from the railing to a column and inflated her red chin, and I was already sweating.
After Face the Nation, I decided to eschew the televised preachers for some devotional time. The “denominational” folks don’t mind televising their whole services, but the Restorationists generally prefer pre-recorded, studio productions, usually with fake plants in the background. Our guy this morning started out, my friends, with a kind word about differing interpretations of a scripture. He said, if we disagree, it does not mean that either of us are being dishonest or intentionally sinful, but we might well both be wrong. Thus, we should study it, study some more and study some more, presumably until we both agree that we have it right. My friends, that’s a hard teaching and puts an awful lot of confidence in our capacity for discerning the mystery and revelation of the Creator.
Instead of hearing our good brother out, I took a Bible to the porch to let the Lord preach to me instead. The mosquitoes stayed away as I read the Sermon on the Mount. Frankly, I doubt our brother on television this morning. I don’t think we can study it enough to reach a common, full discernment, but I wish him well.
Rhetorically, the Beatitudes were a great way to lead, because I imagine the people enjoyed the truths, relaxed in the sun, sat back and felt pretty good, especially when he praised and identified them as salt and light. He had them where He wanted them.
Next comes this business about fulfilling the Law and some pretty heavy instruction on anger, lust and judgment. “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,” but I say to myself, at least they’re in! Then, He replies to me, “I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Discouraging, that. “It is better for you to lose one part of your body that for the whole body to go into hell.” I imagine that they had forgotten the Beatitudes by then. They are evil, and they know it. I am evil, and I know it. Dear Lord.
He raises the stakes: “Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.” That’s some useful life application right there.
He said this after admonishing the disciples to love their enemies, to pray for their persecuters, to love those who do not love them, to greet strangers. Why? Because He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Just before that he says not to resist the evil person who would strike them and take their things. Instead, “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
If this is perfection, then I wonder if we can extrapolate a bit of discernment into the mystery after all. If this is how the Lord described the Father’s perfection, then may we conclude that God loves His enemies, His persecuters? That He does not resist the evil person who would strike Him and take His things, but that He gives to those who ask? Does He greet the evil strangers, give to the evil people, feed the evil folks who anger, lust and judge?
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
When he finished preaching, the people were amazed because he taught as one who had authority, not like their teachers of the law. Being a teacher of the law, I can appreciate that.
“What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
posted by JRB at 11:13 AM
19 Comments:
That's a mighty fine homily.
I wish more preachers would, you know, actually read from the Bible rather than spouting their own opinions about Oprah being "the most dangerous woman in America."
Yeah, I had a really good morning...
Fort Bible must have an awesome youth group.
This morning of reading, praying and writing about it was a gift of redemption and worship. I was not with the community, but the quiet, devoted time was a surprising rich moment in communion
Jesus sure could preach.
3 more years...
3 more years...
3 more years...
Makes sense to me:
Those who ask, receive.
Those who do not ask, do not receive.
p.s. I hear that strong pain meds make every experience slightly more filling ;)
I love these posts highlight the very struggle of the problem with such straightforward irony! One the one hand, it seems to make sense: ask, receive; don't ask, don't. But we all have experienced ourselves and know others who have experienced the painful reality of the asking and not receiving. Difficult. Very difficult.
The interpretive history of the Sermon on the Mount highlights the very problem that you've raised with our TV evangelizing brother's idea on interpretation, JRB. There are a lot of different ways Jesus' homily has been read, each based on some very serious interpretive assumptions and presuppositions. Depending on your starting place, you will come to very different readings on the passage. You can assume, with some like Luther, that the primary purpose of the passage wasn't to be literal, but to convict us of our sin and need for grace. This leads to the thought that the sermon is nice, powerful, but disconnected from real life because it can't be embodied.
On the other hand, you've got the Anabaptist approach, which has taken this text as a foundation for the way in which they live life together in the world: practicing radical social justice, creative nonviolence, and the search for peace as a city on a hill.
I'm not seeking to advocate one or the other of these positions here (there are in fact several other ways the SoM has been interpreted too), but just highlighting the way the very text that encountered you on Sunday serves as a serious test case for our TV brother's conclusions on interpretation.
Thanks for the thoughts here, but especially for reminding us that the text continues to encounter us as individuals and communities in ways that challenge and confound our comfortable interpretations and "masteries" of the text.
It's pretty simple if you know whom you're asking, why you're asking, when to ask, how to ask and what to ask for. You also might need to know where the door is or what a door is in the first place, if you live outside.
Good thing, that the Father knows what we need before we ask for it. I didn't quote that part in the post, but it's in there when he discusses godly, short, private, humble prayer.
Also, today has enough trouble of its own.
I suspect that there is a good reason that Jesus first called what was essentially a cadre of mostly uneducated, blue collar type men to join him as his early apostles.
After all, the "thinking" classes of the day--Pharisees and Sadducees in particular--kept letting their own intellectual ideas define their faith. Too much chatter, too much opining, too much analysis.
Today, that still seems to hold true. The uneducated, poor Togolese man often has mountains of more wisdom than the successful, well-educated Westerner because the African gentleman generally engages in less opining than we are prone to do.
Indeed, I've pretty much stopped reading religious magazines, websites, and other third-party Christian media because the opinions of men (myself certainly included) often lead to entirely foreign places than a simple reading of God's word would typically deliver.
Following Christ was never intended to be difficult to define, opine, or interpret.
Challenging to conform to? Yes, certainly.
But, intellectually difficult, no way.
The Fishermen confirm just the same.
The Fishermen, bless their hearts, never understood Christ until after the resurrection, probably not until the Spirit graced them at Pentacost. Their understanding required supernatural guidance despite the clarity and evidence before their very eyes. Christ defies our expectations.
My favorite gospel dad says, “I believe, Lord. Help me with my unbelief,” and Jesus honors his honesty. He confirmed the man's belief in a Messiah, then went and died on a cross. That's a hard teaching.
I’m still pondering baptism for the dead, the Nephilim, Jesus’ use of the feminine to personify wisdom, Uzzah’s execution, astrology in Luke, Sheol and Hell, and, you know, Revelation, among other things like free-will and election. Also, Jesus preaches in Matthew 25 about judgment and condemnation, but the metrics seem strange. He does not provide five steps to the Jewish crowd, and the saved didn’t even know why they were saved. Paul says in Romans that all are given over to sin so that God may have mercy on them all. Then again, my Greek and Hebrew aren't that strong.
Also, is Oprah really the most dangerous woman in America?
The mystery is beautiful, and I am grateful for it. The mystery is a gift of grace. The conflict, tension and problems are holy, intentional and given so that we may seek, learn and need the Spirit.
Scripture is hard, and its Author intended it to be. He defies our expectations all along the way, and The Way.
He loves us, bless our hearts.
You keep pondering all that. Maybe you can do a presentation on your results.
In the interim, I'm focusing on trying to share the simple truth to as many people as possible--whether by words or action:
I am a sinner. As God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ is my sin-remover. Without His ultimate sacrifice, I would have forever remained a sinner.
IMO, debates about things like Nephilim and feminine/masculine terminology (in the same way that debates about typical CoC stuff do the same) only serve to cloud the simple, life-saving truth of Jesus.
I follow simply.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chad,
On the one hand, you are correct. We are to follow simply.
On the other hand, we are called to continue to recall and struggle with the implications of our belief and what we follow. In Luke 24, Jesus interprets, literally "does hermeneutics," for the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. We are called to continue that process of reading Scripture and struggling to make sense of it together, as we see the emerging church doing in Acts. The early church continued to remember the words of Jesus and struggle through the implications of what God was doing in the world through the inbreaking Spirit. (Take the struggle of this process in Acts 10-15 as an example.)
These are things that must be done together as a community of people seeking to understand and live the call of God. On the one hand, the reign of God is simple, yes. On the other, it is incredibly difficult.
If we want to honor the God and Father of our Lord Jesus and the Christian Scriptures, we must work together as a community of people to make sense of it in light of our world and God's ongoing action in it. It seems obvious from the four canonical gospels and the differences between them that the four authors and their communities were doing that very thing. They were reflecting on their experience of God and the ongoing implications for their communities, both in the simple and in the difficult things. ("Let the reader understand!" Mk 13:14) For us not to do likewise is a disservice to God, the universal church, and our local communities of faith.
May God be with us all as we continue to "strive side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel." May we faith seek understanding and our lives be changed because of it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
BTW, Chad, the overwhelming communal language in Scripture (if only we had a good translation that used "y'all") is a constant reminder to us that this journey of faith is one we don't and can't do in isolation. We are brought together into one body, bound to one another by virtue of our shared baptism into Christ. We are constantly working this out together.
Because of that, I want to thank you for your reminder that faith is only partly about belief and much more about faithfulness and obedience, about a way of living life in the world. I hope that we can help offer the other side of that, which says that what we think and believe can change the way we live for the better, if it doesn't stay in the confines of our minds.
Our practice changes our belief and our belief changes our practices. This symbiosis is vital for the life of discipleship. Thanks for the reminder that we follow and that is what guides our quest for understanding!
May God bless you as you journey with folks like my good friends, the B's there in Montgomery! I know that the kingdom of God will be blessed because of the way you all struggle together to live out the story of Jesus in and before a watching world! Grace and peace to all of you.
Thanks for your comments, Eric.
Based on my experiences, most of the arguments (for all sides of the Christian spectrum) have arisen as we humans have begun debating more than the basics.
Yeah, sure, some of the non-basics are important to individuals so I don't mean to be dismissive. But, whether one cup or two is used or whether Jesus used masculine/feminine/andrygonous terminology, while possibly interesting topics to discuss while drinking coffee, are often superflouous to the truth that Jesus brought.
Now, I haven't always felt this way. I, too, used to love the debates of it all.
But, ever since my brother and his young family have entered the Togolese mission field full-time, I have learned more in these 2+ years than my previous 34.
At the top of that learning list is the reality that Jesus brought a simple message to all of mankind.
One that can be understood in all the detail needed by the very least and very most educated.
One that a poor, illiterate Togolese subsistence farmer can understand just as well as me.
Sure, some of Jesus' teachings (or at least how they were recorded) seem intellectually challenging. I still can't figure out this whole "abomination of desolation" thing.
But, ultimately, I don't believe that one has to in order to receive the fullness of Christ.
The Apostle John (one of the early uneducated) very beautifully describes the powerfully simple salvation of Christ.
Nephilim means no more to my salvation that whatever it might mean to the poorest of West Africans.
"The kingdom of God has come near." Powerful, simply, profound, complex. This message that Jesus brought continues to encounter us wherever we are, whatever counter kingdoms we find ourselves living in, and whatever other lords are vying for our allegiance.
I'm glad that your brother is there working with the Kabiye alongside our friends the Millers and previously the Ries family. Such incredible people!
Since you shared some personal reflection, permit me to do so too. I have grown the most when I've been inspired through my study and communal reflection to learn something more about God that challenges me to live differently. I've grown when I've discovered that each question I strive so fervently to answer with others only opens the door to ten other questions. Those experiences drive me to follow Jesus more wholeheartedly and to live in the mystery of God more fully.
Now, two of the times when I've grown the most were when I was spent time in Uganda and Thailand while in seminary. While I was there, I saw the way the missionaries had to work to do just what the early evangelists did: understand the world and culture they were communicating in and make Jesus' simple message of "the kingdom of God is near" meet the lives of the people there. I remember sitting in a village in Uganda, watching the missionary deftly describe the way the people there viewed the world, the spirits, the ancestors, and the Creator God (a distant and malevolent force).
In that context, the western interpretation of the gospel as a means of dealing with personal guilt over sin wasn't the one that was most powerful. The missionary, knowing the depth and breadth of the ways Scripture talks about the kingdom of God and the work of God in Christ, didn't choose to focus on that aspect of the story. There, the way they needed to understand what God had done was from Paul in Romans and, especially, Colossians. They needed to hear that God has conquered the enslaving powers that held them captive and in fear. That the creator God was not distant and not malevolent but near and good, working on their behalf.
The beauty of the simple message of Jesus and the breadth of Scripture is that it is so simple that it opens itself to a wealth of interpretations and implications. These aren't just matters for coffee shop dialog (though I love that when it's transformative) but matters about gospel coming and breaking into peoples' lives.
While I would definitely agree an argument over one or more cups could primarily be divisive if the focus is on the number and not the fact that we are drawn together to Christ and to one another while sharing bread and wine, I would say that matter about the feminine nature of wisdom in the OT and Spirit in the new could be more important than just a debate or healthy dialog. (I don't like 'debate' because that does carry with it the connotation of being divisive. Dialog is more community centered and about working through tough things together.)
Why? I have had conversations with several girls who struggle to connect with the sole portrayal of a male God that we often describe in our churches. They have experienced little good from men (fathers, boyfriends, husbands, abusers, rapists) and struggle to connect with a domineering male God figure that to them reinforces some of what they think is wrong in society. (Now, I am not saying that I agree or disagree with their perception. I am just stating that it is their particular experience of and reflection on reality.)
For them, seeing the way that God is described in feminine terms through Woman Wisdom in Proverbs or the Spirit in the NT or as the one who "gives birth to Israel" in the OT is liberating and can free them to be disciples of God again.
So, some of this is important if we want to help others give a good hearing to the gospel.
Just some thoughts.
Obviously, this is a big issue and we've got too much going on here to have a full and healthy dialog. This is one of the limitations of e-communication. I wish that we could all (Mike, JRB, Chad, me, others out there who are reading but not contributing through postings) sit, pray, dive into the transforming text of Scripture and exhort one another to reflect deeply on our own lives and our own calling in the faith. Unfortunately, that can't be done right now. I regret that deeply.
Just some thoughts. I am, regretfully, going to have to bow out of this conversation at this point. I don't have a cushy teacher of the law job and must get back to work! :-) I pray that we can all continue to find life together in Christ and all have the same way of thinking, feeling, and acting as we saw modeled in Christ Jesus (Phil 2:5).
Thanks again for the discussion. Sorry it was disembodied and not somatic. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of us!"
Argh! This whole convo's got my mind a runnin'. I can't turn it off! AHHHHHHHH! :-)
One quick question. Chad suggested in essence that "arguments arise when we debate more than the basics." In Philippians, Paul calls the church to share the mind of Christ in their community. Now, we know that this doesn't mean that they have to line up on all matters of doctrine. Paul is calling them to comport themselves as Christ did, to think, feel, and act like Christ did in the hymn of Phil 2:6-11.
Here's my question: Is it possible to be in a community where we engage in discussion and dialog on things beyond the basics in a way that drives us to be more committed disciples or is that an impossibility? How can we cultivate that type of community that will be able to disagree on disputable matters but live together peacefully?
(Since I rarely agree with myself, I am trying to find a way to have a healthy community in my own body! :-) )
Thanks for all of the dialog that started from JRB's simple reflection on the incredibly profound homily in the Sermon on the Mount. There's much that's been said and much left unsaid due to the confines of time and space, but I appreciate the dialog. We must remain open to hear clearly what the other person is saying, not what we want to think they are saying, and I think we've started to do that some here. May God give us the humility to do it more both in our communities and in our e-dialogs!
Query from Eric: "Is it possible to be in a community where we engage in discussion and dialog on things beyond the basics in a way that drives us to be more committed disciples or is that an impossibility?"
I certainly believe that an in-depth, constructive dialogue is possible. For that matter, I personally enjoy many such conversations.
However, my general wariness of them is three-fold:
1. There are many people (though not especially so in most of the U.S.) that have not even been shared the basic truth of Christ. Spending time digging into deeper matters may well distract from our finite time in sharing the basics. Again, this is more true in other parts of the world as most Americans have at least been exposed to Christ (even if they have rejected Him).
2. This one ties into the first concern but with a different focus. That is, the Word gives us all some very basic assignments: help the poor, orphans, widows (widowers?), and other disenfranchised or suffering. Fufilling this practical yet powerful instruction takes time.
Meaning that time spent discussing Nephilim or the abomination of desolation or "what Revelation really means" eats up time which could be otherwise used to support the above basic instructions.
3. Finally, these difficult topics lend themselves to numerous different--often irreconciable--conclusions that are not prone to resolution (usually, I've found they are more prone to "let's agree to disagree" resolutions). This is probably because the typical person engaging in such intellectual discussions themself is strong in their conviction.
From my experience, such dialogue rarely resolves the issue in a consensus way.
So, ultimately, this is why I find such intellectual debates thought-provoking yet overly-consuming of the limited, precious time available to focus on the basic truth of Christ and glorifying Him through earthly service to others.
Today is a busy day, as is this week, so I don't have much time to comment. I do want to mention a few things though in response to Chad's latest post and as my final contribution to the discussion.
First, context is everything. You are correct about the need to share basics and continually have the narrative of Scripture challenge and critique us and inspire others. That said, you are also right in saying that a basic telling of the story is more a need in other places than in the west. Since we are in the West, might we then need to rethink the role of deeper conversation in the discussion? I think so. In one of the Barna groups latest books, UNChristian: What a New Generation Thinks about Christianity and Why it Matters, they describe one of critiques against Christians as being sheltered, rejecting education, deep thought, and conversation, especially when it might not easily align with their faith presuppositions. Now, we don't have to agree with this point to agree that it is true if it is their experience and perception of reality. One of the ways we can allow the gospel to encounter them there is to engage the deeper discussion and to let them witness us in challenging dialog. This is a part of OUR context, so unless we intend to reach out solely to those on the margins of society, we must take it into consideration too.
This is not in any way saying that we should do this to the exclusion of ministering to the disenfranchised and suffering. One of the great sources of solace for me is that most all contributors to this blog (both owners and commenters) consider the biblical call to enact and embody the justice of God a biblical imperative. May God empower us to all to be about this mighty work of rearranging the world, turning it upside down!
That said, another basic and pervasive calling of the church is to embody before the world an alternative vision of life in community. This is a community of unity in diversity, of reconciliation and forgiveness, of new creation. IMO, one of the ways we live this out in the world is in how we disagree. It is easy for us to get together and talk about the weather and the simple points on which we agree. But, in a charged culture that takes its primary cues from the extremist political pundits, the church is called to embody the kind of unity in its life together that is different. This means that we disagree with one another differently than the world does.
Let me be frank here in saying that I don't think "resolution" on these difficult topics is really the primary goal of our conversations. I think that learning to hear others for what they are saying, to allow their voice to be fully heard, and to be deeply committed to one another in the midst of our differences is the goal. It's about having unity, not uniformity. By having challenging and continually returning to the truth that we are bound together in unity in the body of Christ in spite of our differences, we are living out the power of the gospel in front of a world that is bent on division, separation, and isolation. This is a vital aspect of the life of the early church, especially as you read the letters of Paul and Acts.
Finally, let me say again that there is a symbiotic relationship between practice and belief, in other words our praxis transforms what and how we think and our belief informs and transforms our praxis. We must always be devoted to both, especially as it works out in community since none of us can fully embody the full scope of gospel on our own, not allowing one to overly dominate the other.
Thanks for the great conversation here. I pray that we will all embody the transformative love of God in the world, both through our sacrificial service and through our reconciling unity in diversity in our common life together, so that we can truly have the mind of Christ, thinking, feeling, and acting as he would and did in the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home