Sermon: Jesus Liked to Eat

Lectionary: Proper 13A

Text: Matthew 14:13-21

Introduction

“Jesus liked to eat.” That is how one of the commentaries for this week’s text begins. Here is a little bit from the opening paragraphs of this commentary:

"Jesus liked to eat. The disciples of John the Baptist noticed enough to question why he did not fast. His enemies noticed enough to ask his disciples why he ate with tax collectors and sinners. They labeled him a glutton and a drunkard. His parables are often about wheat, or fruit trees, or banquets, or vineyards...

Eating is rarely listed as a spiritual practice, but it should be. Some of the best stuff in ministry happens over meals... Every pastor ought to have an expense account to be used to fund the pastoral ministry of feasting. It may be more important than paying the light bill. Mealtime is often where ministry happens."[1]

The act of eating together in the Christian tradition is traced all the way back to Jesus. The early church shared food and meals together. And food was one of the original controversies, too. The appointment of the original deacons in Acts was in response to a controversy regarding inequities around the distribution of food. Acts also contains the vision of Peter and the unclean foods, and how that led him to accept eating with Gentiles. The Epistle to the Galatians contains a report of Peter reverting to segregated eating at which point Paul challenges Peter. Several of Paul’s epistles contain discussions about food controversies around clean and unclean distinctions and distinctions around food offered to idols. The First Epistle to the Corinthians contains a controversy about the differences in the kind of food the wealthy Christians ate vs. what the poor Christians were left to eat. And of course, the tradition of the Eucharist, or the Communion meal is found in the gospels and in some of the epistles. The Didache describes the communion meal as well, and it is described as the prelude to a full meal.[2] The miraculous distribution of food is reported in all four gospel accounts.

In the present-day church, fellowship time and potlucks take place regularly, continuing the central place of food and meals in the gathered church.

Jesus and Eating

If Jesus liked eating and we love eating as well, why is eating subordinated to the formal order of a worship service? Why is the act of eating, when it is remembered through Communion, reduced to just a symbol?

We read about Jesus teaching through words, but we also have Jesus teaching through activities that occur around meals. What happens during this week’s reading is one, but we also have Jesus teaching at banquets held in his honor, through meals that happen in private homes, and so on.

In the story of the Feeding of the (at least) Five-Thousand, Matthew portrays Jesus only as continuing his healing ministry. In Mark, Jesus teaches the people. In Luke, Jesus both teaches and heals. And in John, Jesus teaches, but directed to the disciples. From this I find potentially broader possibilities for worship than what we have traditionally accepted as the order of worship.[3],[4]

Question About Resources

The issue facing many smaller churches, including this one, is a lack of resources, especially the human kind. Many smaller, rural churches are finding it difficult or impossible to attract a pastor.[5] The congregation itself is getting older and fewer in number, making any kind of ministry difficult, both internal ministries and external ones.

And I think that is where today’s gospel reading touches our present realities.

¹⁷ [The disciples] replied, “We have nothing here except five loaves of bread and two fish.” (Matthew 14:17 CEB)

When given the audacious task of providing food for the entire gathered crowd, this is all they could find. It wasn’t enough to feed even themselves.

¹⁸ He said, “Bring them here to me.” (Matthew 14:18 CEB)

That is Jesus’ response to human need and apparent insufficiency of resources. And then,

He took the five loaves of bread and the two fish, looked up to heaven, blessed them and broke the loaves apart and gave them to his disciples. Then the disciples gave them to the crowds. (Matthew 14:19b CEB)

Jesus gives thanks for what they could find, and then he returns the food back to his disciples.

This story is nearly always portrayed as Jesus providing a miraculous multiplying of food. But that is not anywhere in the text. (One can certainly read between the lines and possibly infer that Jesus might be doing the multiplying.) It is in the act of the disciples going out among the crowd with what they were each given, that the food somehow is not only sufficient, but abundant by the end.

That is a detail I found that I hadn’t really noticed before. Several commentaries I read noted that the miracle, however it might have occurred, is not the central theme or even a point of the story.

What is the point, then?

Start With Sharing What You Have

If the story is restated, it consists of Jesus seeing an initial need, Jesus having compassion and acting on it. Then a new need develops which the disciples see, but they can’t see how it could be solved. They suggest a very reasonable and logical solution, which Jesus rejects. Jesus tells his disciples that they are to solve the problem using their means. Their means appear far insufficient. Jesus takes what they do have, offers gratitude to God, then returns the items back to the disciples. And it is, as the disciples share what they have, that they discover that what they have is not only enough, but abundant.

The full mission of Christ’s Church is to minister to all the world. But what this story seems to be saying is that it doesn’t happen all at once. The story seems to be showing the growth of the kingdom through initial small steps of sharing. And that reminds me of the parables that we heard the past three weeks: “the kingdom of heaven is like” a sower sowing seed, a mustard seed, yeast, weeds, and so on.

Perhaps the gospel writer placed this story in this place, immediately after the parables, as what he saw to be an explanation and illustration of the meaning of the abovementioned parables. The beginning of the kingdom of heaven may appear small, inauspicious, even ordinary, but as God and God’s people work together, the influence and effects sprout and spread quietly, even mysteriously and miraculously, until the end of this age when at the harvest the full picture of how much it has grown is finally seen.

Our responsibility is to do what we can with what we have. Another parable comes to mind: the parable of the talents. Some groups start with larger resources, and they can have greater (in our way of thinking anyway) results. But one of the messages of that parable is to be faithful and use (or share) all that we were given, and whatever the result is, is sufficient. Faithfulness is not a competition or a comparison with the next person or group. Faithfulness is between you and God; between us and God.

Returning to Food and Fellowship as Worship

This congregation is struggling, and it is not alone. There are many all over the country facing similar struggles. What does it mean to be faithful with the resources that we do have?

When we think about resources, the first thing that most often comes to mind is probably financial.

But what about human resources? That may be a more pressing concern. Where are our human resources currently being utilized in this local congregation? How are our time and efforts currently being allocated? Who is being fed? Do we like what we see, or do we want to see something different? If something different, what needs to change?

Even if God was ultimately the source of multiplying the loaves and fish, it was in the act of the disciples taking and sharing to the crowd, not among themselves, that was the critical piece of the multiplication. How might that inform decisions we make about the resources we have among us today?

When I look at today’s story about how a huge crowd was given abundant food, I wonder if the church tradition of compartmentalizing and isolating worship from eating is necessary or good. Can the two be integrated so that worship and eating mingle together, where one moves back-and-forth seamlessly between the two? Where eating and socializing is one form of worship?

If worship is honoring God, is there a more appropriate way to honor how Jesus used food and meals to bring people together and teach the importance of sharing and community? Many of the ancient sacrifices and offerings were “shared meals” with the divine. Why couldn’t we practice and experience the same here, through our meals with one another?

The commentary I started with ends with this sentence: “When you have no idea what else to do, plan a meal, invite as many people as you can, offer what you have, and prepare to be amazed.”

---

[1] Feasting on the Gospels--Matthew, Volume 2, chapter on Matthew 14:13-21, section "Pastoral Perspective", p. 44.

[2] See Chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache.

[3] Our Order of Worship brochure (pcusa.org) (https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/theologyandworship/pdfs/order_of_worship_brochure_dec_2008.pdf#:~:text=The%20order%20of%20worship%20that%20centuries%20of%20Christians,deeply%20into%20intimate%20communion%20with%20God%20in%20Christ.)

[4] The History of the Worship Order | Ashley Danyew (https://www.ashleydanyew.com/posts/2016/the-history-of-the-worship-order/)

[5] Why Did So Many People Stop Going to Church? - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/christian-church-communitiy-participation-drop/674843/)

Sermon: Less is More

Lectionary: Year C, Proper 13
Text: Luke 12:13-21

Saving: Virtue or Vice

During uncertain economic times, who could be faulted for wanting to and saving more? Personal finance advisors recommend three months, six months, and even a full year’s income to be held as savings and insurance against various kinds of financial troubles and catastrophes that could hit the average person and family.

Not everyone can save, and not everyone has the discipline to save, but saving is generally considered a desirable act and even looked up to as a virtue in most societies. This is true not only of North America and Europe, the stereotypical “West”, but also true of many parts of Asia. There may be other regions, but I’m only familiar with what I mentioned.

Most specifically in the United States, we do have Social Security, but it was never designed to be the sole source of income after our working years. The cornerstone of retirement is saving enough during our working years. The virtue of saving is embedded into the history of America. In Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes, the authors write,

“Scholars have noted that Protestant Christianity (especially those of Puritan heritage) puts significant emphasis on hard work, frugality and financial independence. If Roman Catholicism talks about God’s preferential care for the poor, Protestants believe that ‘God helps those that help themselves.’ One way this plays out practically is that most Christians recognize the importance of saving money. Investing and putting money in the bank for the future or a rainy day is good stewardship and requires and reinforces another virtue: delayed gratification.”[1]

Conversely, the authors note that in many ancient and modern Middle Eastern and some Asian cultures, saving is not considered a virtue and could even be regarded as a vice.

Parable of the Rich Fool

Today’s reading includes the parable of the rich fool. There is an introductory narrative that sets the context for Jesus telling this parable. From this introduction, we are to understand that the problem being illustrated is greed. But if we set aside what we are supposed to know about this parable and read it from a 21^st century American context, we might wonder what the problem is.

First, the land produces abundantly. The parable doesn’t say why. It could be luck, or (as often is assumed in interpretations of this parable) God’s blessing. But it could be the result of hard work (or most likely, hard work of his hired hands and servants – which has some rather close parallels to some of today’s business and the relationship of owner to employee vs. relationship of corresponding salary and wages).

From a modern business perspective, proceeds of a highly profitable season belong to the owner. Wealth is a private property, to do with it as they see fit. Why should anyone see a problem with acquiring new and better ways of storing the wealth? (Again, plenty of parallels with modern capitalism.)

Why shouldn’t someone who has risked their capital and life not get to enjoy the fruits of their labor and investing? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to “relax, eat, drink, be merry?”[2]

If we are honest with ourselves, don’t we want at least a little bit of this? Wouldn’t it be nice to have enough stored up so that we don’t have to worry much about current and future economic turbulences? Don’t we feel like we should deserve some security for the hard work that we do or have done?

Insatiable Desires

The problem is that humans tend to want more the more they acquire and save. Arthur Brooks writes in The Atlantic on this topic,

According to evolutionary psychology, our tendency to strive for more is perfectly understandable. Throughout most of human history, starvation loomed closer than it does, for the most part, today. A “rich” caveman had a few extra animal skins and arrowheads, and maybe a few piles of seeds and dried fish to spare. With this plenty, he might survive a bad winter.

Our troglodyte ancestors didn’t just want to make it through the winter, though; they had bigger ambitions. They wanted to find allies and mates too, with the goal (whether conscious or not) of passing on their genes. And what would make that possible? Among other things, the accumulation of animal skins, demonstrating greater competence, prowess, and attractiveness than the hominid in the next cave over.

Surprisingly, little has changed since then. Scholars have shown that our acquisitive tendencies persist amid plenty and regularly exceed our needs. This owes to our vestigial urges—software that still exists in our brains from ancient times. [3]

Desire for fame, attractiveness, success, power – these too, are part of our acquisitive natures. Brooks writes further in the same article,

The insatiable goals to acquire more, succeed conspicuously, and be as attractive as possible lead us to objectify one another, and even ourselves. When people see themselves as little more than their attractive bodies, jobs, or bank accounts, it brings great suffering. Studies show that self-objectification is associated with a sense of invisibility and lack of autonomy, and physical self-objectification has a direct relationship with eating disorders and depression in women. Professional self-objectification is a tyranny every bit as nasty. You become a heartless taskmaster to yourself, seeing yourself as nothing more than Homo economicus. Love and fun are sacrificed for another day of work, in search of a positive internal answer to the question Am I successful yet? We become cardboard cutouts of real people.[4]

When we succumb to the treadmill of more, we stop being fully human. We sacrifice our own true selves and our relationships with other people in the pursuit of more and better.

The Rich Fool, Again

Returning to today’s gospel reading, the introductory narrative was about a brother asking Jesus to tell his (probably) older brother to divide the family inheritance so that he could have his share to do with it how he desired (my paraphrase). Here already, is revealed something that would be understood by those in the immediate audience, but is not explicitly stated and therefore, often overlooked by modern readers like us.

We tend to think of inheritance in monetary terms. Money and other securities can be easily divided. But in the ancient world, wealth was most commonly found in land ownership. To divide up the land to distribute inheritance would mean smaller and smaller plots of land for each generation. Land was generally held in common by the family. The entire family and extended family would work the land and the produce would benefit the entire family.

The brother asking (or even demanding) that Jesus order the other brother to allow the division to happen is an indication that a division has already occurred in their relationship, and the division of real estate is desired to finalize the relational split so that the brother could go his own way, away from the family.[5]

The subsequent parable of the rich fool could be imagined similarly to the vision given by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to Ebeneezer Scrooge (borrowing from Dickens, and really, there seems to be some parallels of this parable with A Christmas Carol).[6] I can easily imagine Jesus saying to the brother that came to him, “This is how things will turn out if you continue on your present path.” The brother has already begun to cut off relationships, and by the time of the parable’s telling, he has no one to speak with, save himself. The brother is already more interested in his own possessions than the family or the community, and yes, that singular pursuit will lead to great wealth, but to what end and for whose benefit?

Slavery to Systems

Modern society, especially what we find ourselves living in, places a high value on independence and individualism. Achieving personal success is a cultural value. Society may speak words about valuing families but in practice, tradition, culture, and social policies prioritize work and money over family. Even those who would rather value family are often helpless because the societal systems in place require them to prioritize work, just so they can survive.

Throughout the gospel of Luke Jesus is described as fighting against the economic systems of that time which kept people slaves to the system. Whatever economic and social status one was, there were expectations and requirements. The poor and slaves obviously had to work for their masters and employers, just to survive. Those with more wealth and the truly wealthy clearly had more options and opportunities, yet they were slaves to status itself. In all cases, people were human-doings and not human-beings.

We live with different economic, political, and social systems today. But are we any freer? Are we any less slaves to circumstances, fulfilling what the systems demand and require of us?

A Different System 

The sequel to the gospel of Luke is the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, at least briefly, a new economic and social system does get implemented.

⁴⁴ All who believed were together and had all things in common; ⁴⁵ they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45 NRSVue)

³² Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ³³ With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. ³⁵ They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. (Acts 4:32-35 NRSVue)

When we read this, we rebel against it. It goes against everything we think about how the economy is supposed to be. It sounds so unAmerican. And so, we tend to explain it away in a number of ways: Perhaps these early believers were overenthusiastic. Perhaps they took Jesus’ teachings about money and wealth too far. Perhaps they did what they did because they really did believe Jesus would be returning very, very soon and they wouldn’t need earthly possessions. Perhaps Acts is an idealized version of what actually happened.

But could we at least think a little bit about the possibility that this is what Jesus actually intended?

Where to Find Satisfaction

Arthur Brooks, in the article I quoted from earlier, continues,

As we grow older in the West, we generally think we should have a lot to show for our lives—a lot of trophies. According to numerous Eastern philosophies, this is backwards. As we age, we shouldn’t accumulate more to represent ourselves, but rather strip things away to find our true selves—and thus, to find happiness and peace…

In truth, our formula, Satisfaction = getting what you want, leaves out one key component. To be more accurate, it should be:

Satisfaction = what you have ÷ what you want

All of our evolutionary and biological imperatives focus us on increasing the numerator—our haves. But the more significant action is in the denominator—our wants…

The secret to satisfaction is not to increase our haves—that will never work (or at least, it will never last). That is the treadmill formula, not the satisfaction formula. The secret is to manage our wants.[7]

In the remaining portion of the article, Brooks lists a number of things a person can do to help manage our wants and thus improve the possibility of finding satisfaction and happiness.

One step is to increase our sharing. This includes material possessions, but also includes things like experience and knowledge. Even experience and knowledge can be hoarded as a way of maintaining status and power. Let them go. Share.

Another step is to continue to build and grow relationships with family and friends, the ones that matter. Reduce and eliminate activities and relationships that exist only or primarily to maintain or enhance status and position. Share time.[8]

A third step is to think smaller. This can be actual downsizing – getting rid of physical stuff, large and small, that weigh us down and distract us. But it also means noticing the small things in life, the things that often get overlooked because we’re too busy doing something else, too busy thinking about the past or future, or too busy going from one place to another. Share moments of wonder.

The question isn’t whether we should save or not. The question isn’t whether the act of saving is a virtue or a vice. What is prudent and necessary varies depending on cultural, social, and economic contexts.

The question should be, are there ways in which we are sacrificing things that matter – being in community with family, friends, and God – for the empty pursuit of trying to satisfy our wants with more money, status, achievements, and the like?

Could it be that by reducing both what we have and what we want, we can become more dependent on one another? And what if that was one of the pillars of the kingdom of heaven – that we are dependent on one another in a mutually sharing community?

Some things to think about, especially whenever we pray, “May your kingdom come.”[9]

 

---

[1] Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, Kindle reader location approximately 2061 to 2065.

[2] Luke 12:19.

[3] How Wanting Less Leads to Satisfaction - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/03/why-we-are-never-satisfied-happiness/621304/)

[4] Ibid.

[5] Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, Kindle reader, approximate location 3602.

[6] This observation comes, in part, from Feasting on the Gospels—Luke, Volume 2, Kindle reader, approximate location 776.

[7] How Wanting Less Leads to Satisfaction - The Atlantic

[8] Science Says the More of This You Give, the Happier You'll Be (Hint: It's Not Money) | Inc.com (https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/happiness-emotional-intelligence-how-to-be-happy-how-to-spend-time.html)

[9] Luke 11:2b.