Sermon: Diversity is a Divine Value

Sermon: Diversity is a Divine Value
Text: Genesis 11:1-9; Acts 2:1-21
Lectionary: Year C, Pentecost Sunday

皆さん、お早うございます。今日は又この教会でお説教をすることが出来て大変ありがたいと思っています。それでは、今日の聖書朗読の創世記の11章から始めます。

I’m sensing and seeing confusion and bewilderment in your faces. What just happened? Was I speaking another language, speaking in tongues, or just spouting gibberish? Perhaps a few of you might have recognized some of what I said. I’m guessing though that for most of you it made no sense at all. So hold on for the next several minutes to those thoughts and what you felt as we go through today’s sermon.

What did I say to you? It was in Japanese and I said, “Good morning everyone. I am feeling very grateful for being invited again to offer this morning’s sermon. Let’s begin with what we read from Genesis chapter 11.”

The story of the Tower of Babel is a Hebrew origin story of how multiple languages and cultures came to exist all over the earth. It attempts to offer reasons why there are multiple languages rather than a single common one.

Just as well as this story is familiar, it has been a source of many interpretations, some better than others. It’s been used as a polemic against technology. It’s been used to denounce human pride. It’s been described as a curse against humans, which the Day of Pentecost reversed.

The text begins, “Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.” We observe that at the onset in this story, it is a single people with a common language and culture. They all moved together into a plain in Shinar and built a community there.

It should be noted that this story is an origin story about one aspect of what one ancient people group believed about how different cultures came about. It does not mean that there was only one culture and language across the entire, literal earth. The previous chapter in Genesis, chapter 10, already describes the spreading out of people and nations. What we are seeing is two different stories addressing different aspects of origins.

The text continues, “And they said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.’ And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar.” The people discovered that the area had good resources for constructing permanent dwellings.

The text continues on, “Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves…’” The people decide that a city is what they need and a grand, central edifice.

At this point we notice the phrase in English, “and let us make a name for ourselves.” This has often and traditionally been interpreted as the hubris of the people at Babel. And certainly argument for this interpretation can be made, including the observation that this Genesis text’s final form was most likely put into place during the Babylonian exile of the Jews. There they would have seen the grand city of Babylon and her many high Ziggurats, so the editors of this Genesis text certainly would have had motivation to include a polemic against urban pride.

But more recent biblical scholars have noted that “make a name for ourselves” is not a phrase that is associated with self-pride in the rest of the Old Testament. It is rather a phrase more commonly associated with identity and legacy. It is a phrase that seeks to answer the questions, “Who am I? And what will happen in the future?”

The Genesis text continues to offer us the reason why the people wanted to build a city and a tower: “‘… Otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.’” Commentaries note that what this story describes is a people in fear — fear of the unknown, fear of being scattered away from their familiar surroundings and culture, fear of the future, fear of losing what they have built for themselves, fear of change. The city and the tower, they see as building a source of civic identity, solidifying their culture, and codifying for future generations what it means to be them.

It’s in response to this that God comes down to see what the humans are doing. It should be noted how ironic it is that the supposed tower to the top of the heavens (meaning where gods reside and where the people intended the tower to reach) is so far below that God has to come down to see it. Another point to note is that this tower, even if it was successful, would not have been intended for people to go up to where God is. The IVP Bible Background Commentary explains,

The central feature of these early cities in southern Mesopotamia was the temple complex. Often, the temple complex was the city. The temple complex in this period would have been comprised of the temple itself, where the patron deity was worshiped, and, most prominently, by the ziggurat. Ziggurats were structures designed to provide stairways from the heavens (the gate of the gods) to earth so that the gods could come down into their temple and into the town and bring blessing. It was a convenience provided for the deity and his messengers… There were no rooms, chambers or passageways of any sort inside. The structure itself was simply made to hold up the stairway. At the top was a small room for the deity, equipped with a bed and a table supplied regularly with food. In this way the deity could refresh himself during his descent. None of the festivals or ritual acts suggest that people used the ziggurat for any purpose. It was for the gods. The priests certainly would have to go up to provide fresh supplies, but it was holy ground. The ziggurat served as the architectural representation of the pagan religious developments of this period, when deity was transformed into the image of man. (Note on Genesis 11:4, IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament.)

Putting together these various parts of this story, what seems to be happening is that the people who are afraid of very many things that are beyond their control, seek to build a place where God would be obliged to come to them and give them blessings, including security. By having a deity that would reside with them, they would procure an identity and the deity would communicate whatever it is that they wanted through their messengers.

The Genesis text uses the personal name of the Hebrew God, Yahweh. Other deities of Mesopotamia might have been fine with the proposal and plan of the people, but Yahweh is not. Yahweh is not restricted to a people or a geography. He is the God of all peoples, and any attempt to control or use him is thwarted. Yahweh foresees the dangers of uniformity. When people become fixated on uniformity of culture, things do not end well. For this reason Yahweh confuses the language of the people.

Dr. Christena Cleveland, social psychologist and associate professor of the practice of organizational studies at Duke Divinity School, in her book Disunity in Christ, writes about the dangers of homogenous, monoculture:

These days, Christians can easily go their entire lives without spending time with those who are different from them. Unfortunately, the more we spend time with people who are essentially identical to us, the more we become convinced that our way of relating to both Jesus and the world is the correct way. Over time, our convictions grow stronger and our attitudes toward different ideas and cultural expressions of worship become more negative. 

Social psychologists call this phenomenon group polarization. In the absence of diverse influences, homogenous group members tend to adopt more extreme and narrow-minded thinking as time passes… 

What begins as seemingly harmless homogeneity often snowballs into distrust, inaccurate perceptions of other groups, prejudice and hostility… 

When we adopt a unique group identity and surround ourselves with similar ingroup members, we essentially create our own alternate universe in which we believe that the standards, ideals and goals of our ingroup should become the new “normal”—not only for our specific subgroup but for the entire larger group, including the outgroup.

Conversely,

Research shows that diverse groups are better groups—diverse groups come up with more creative and more effective ideas than groups composed of similar people…
Diverse groups that fully live out the biblical mandate to unite under one household of God will reap the benefits of increased learning, increased creativity and more effective problem solving… 

The more we interact with those who are different, the more we can respond to the needs of those who are different.

In other words, diversity is necessary to a healthy society and a healthy church. A healthy spiritual community must value diversity — not only in words but also in practice. Why? Because our God values it. God values diversity so much that a pursuit of homogeneity was deliberately thwarted by God.

Now we jump forward a few millennia to the Day of Pentecost and Acts chapter 2. Let’s read the first few verses again,

1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

Going back to the start of this sermon, all of a sudden I started speaking in Japanese. What were some of the thoughts going through your mind as you experienced this? Think about that as I read again the next few verses.

5 Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. 6 And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. 7 Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.” 12 All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others sneered and said, “They are filled with new wine.”

If you’ve ever traveled some place where English is not the primary language and where you don’t understand the language that is used, you recall that most of what you hear is just noise. But if you hear someone speaking English, your ears suddenly perk up and start scanning for the source.
In my case, the same is true of Japanese. I can be in a crowded airport, such as Sea-Tac, where the majority are speaking English. I understand but because the conversation is not relevant to me, I ignore it. But if I overhear a conversation in Japanese, all of a sudden my hearing is attuned to it.

I suspect that is what the crowd in Jerusalem experienced. They were hearing Greek and Aramaic all around, but when those from outside the regular Greek and Jewish areas suddenly heard their native language, their attention was riveted to the source. At the same time others were confused, especially those who knew the disciples. In one sense, this was a little bit like what happened at Babel: all of a sudden the disciples were speaking in languages they had never known before, and hearers were hearing languages being spoken by them, who until just a moment ago had never been known to speak those languages.

But contrary to what some interpretations have explained Acts 2 as a “reversal of Babel,” they did not suddenly collapse into a single, united language. Diversity is maintained, but each hears the same good news of Jesus in the context of their language and culture.

The value of diversity and its importance is continued in Peter’s address to the Jews,

17 ‘In the last days it will be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams.
18 Even upon my slaves, both men and women,
in those days I will pour out my Spirit;
and they shall prophesy.

The proclamation of the gospel won’t be limited to just a narrow group of people but will be to everyone and for everyone. The new community of Jesus Christ will include every person, regardless of gender, age, or socio-economic status. A few chapters later in this same book of Acts, the boundaries will be expanded further to include all nationalities and cultures.

Diversity is a foundational value and a necessary principle of God’s community. It was included in the “pre-history” section of Genesis and it is reaffirmed in the founding of the Christian community.
Human nature runs contrary to diversity. We don’t like differences and ambiguity. We want sameness and certainty. But through the gift of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ to his people, we can overcome our sin-influenced natures and become open and inclusive.

Quoting from Dr. Cleveland once again,

The blueprint of the household of God looks nothing like the blueprints of our own cultural and social cliques. If we want to know how to embody the household of God, we need look no further than to Jesus. While on earth, Jesus modeled this new reality by connecting with every type of person around—conservative theologians, liberal theologians, prostitutes, divorcees, children, politicians, people who party hard, military servicemen, women, lepers, ethnic minorities, celebrities and so forth—and inviting them to be part of his group and to work together to bring wholeness to their cracked and crumbling world. After Jesus ascended into heaven, this continued to be his modus operandi for doing miraculous things in the world. It seems as though the early leaders of the church would agree…

To respond to God’s call fully, we need to express our interdependent diversity in individual churches, denominations and organizations as well as in the worldwide body of Christ. We must be connected to those who are different within our respective churches and we must be connected to those who are different in the larger body of Christ… 

The homogenous, culturally isolated church, denomination or organization is not truly participating in the body of Christ… 

The metaphor of the body of Christ explicitly articulates the need to value different perspectives—to be ideologically interdependent. When we enter crosscultural situations with the belief that our cultural group is holding one piece to the puzzle, we can confidently make our contribution while also looking for and valuing the contributions that other groups make, and as a result, the barriers between us and them begin to fall down.

Pentecost Sunday is an annual commemoration of the beautiful diversity that we have within our community. Pentecost Sunday is also an annual reminder that Christ is who brings unity while bringing forth the blessings that come from our diversity. We are each different, beautiful, valuable, and necessary; yet we remain united and one in Christ. May Jesus’ prayer of John 17:20-23 be fulfilled in us:

20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Sermon: The Fox and the Hen

Sermon: The Fox and the Hen
Lectionary: Year C, Lent 2
Text: Luke 13:31-35

“No good deed goes unpunished.”

If we were to summarize Jesus’ life in one sentence, that might be a strong candidate for consideration.

We might also say that Jesus was rather familiar with being misunderstood, with being falsely accused of acting improperly and out of wrong motivations, and even of being aligned with the devil.

When, after forty days in the wilderness, Jesus was tempted to take an easy way at the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus remains committed to his path and work. And later, as in today’s reading, he is warned to flee to save himself, Jesus still remains committed to his path and work.

Scholars have noted that the Luke’s gospel is headed toward Jerusalem from the very beginning. Jerusalem is the center of Jewish religion and devotion.  The journey is made explicit in chapter 9, verse 51 and the rest of the gospel is told within a framework of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is where Jesus was presented to God after his birth. Jerusalem is where Jesus went when he was twelve years old and found himself among the teachers in the temple. Jerusalem was the home of Jesus’ divine Father. But it would also be Jerusalem that would be responsible for killing Jesus.

It seems that those more politically connected understood where Jesus’ path would lead, if he chose to keep on it. Some Pharisees come to warn Jesus that he is rubbing the powers-to-be the wrong way. Those who hold power, and especially those who hold it tenuously, are threatened by what they perceive to be competitions and destabilizing forces. Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the Great, was a tetrarch (ruler of a quarter part) of Galilee and Perea. He was only there because only because the Romans allowed it. If they thought he was ineffective or worse, he could easily be replaced. Jesus, with his gospel of liberty and deeds of freeing people from oppression and disease, could easily become a destabilizing entity.

Whatever these Pharisees’ ultimate motivation was, they were correct that Herod was a legitimate threat to Jesus’ safety. The prudent thing would have been for Jesus to tone things down, accommodate the establishment, and perhaps move out of the area for a while, at least until Herod cooled down. After all, didn’t that work for Jesus and his parents when he was an infant, when they fled to Egypt from Herod the Great?

In the Bible, when individuals are faced with threats, sometimes the right decision is to flee. At other times, the correct decision is to stay the course. There is no single correct response. That’s where wisdom, through the Holy Sprit, enters and we are to use the brains God has given to evaluate the situation and come to what we believe is the best response.

In the case of Jesus, in today’s text, he stays the course. Jesus understands the risks.The costs of turning away are greater than costs that would be paid by his own safety and life. He also knows that leaving the region of Galilee will not change his ultimate destiny in Jerusalem. He also seems to understand and know that his life will not end until all the established powers – political, religious, Roman, and Jewish – feel threatened by him and come together to decide his fate. And that can only happen in Jerusalem.

Jesus sends his reply back to Herod, essentially telling him that as destructive (“fox”) as he is, he wields far less power than he thinks he has. Jesus will continue to exercise his power of freeing people from captivity to oppressive powers and physical ailments until he reaches Jerusalem. Jesus may also be indirectly telling Herod that he really should not be worrying about Jesus, because the nature of Jesus’ power is far different from the kind of power with which Herod is familiar. Yet the irony is that Jesus’ power, although not directly threatening worldly power, does undermine and eventually destroy it. For the power of inclusiveness, egalitarianism, and unconditional love ultimately destroys any kind of hierarchy and privilege that are the foundations of worldly power.

It’s about this point in the sermon where I’m supposed to begin talking about how and why all this is relevant to us today. But to be honest, I found it to be difficult to find a point in which to bring it into our context. After all, none of us are Jesus, and prophets are a rare occurrence. I doubt any of us are facing direct threat to life and safety from powerful people. I don’t think any of us are on such a defined and time-limited mission like Jesus was.

But maybe we are like the Pharisees in today’s text. When we encounter someone aggressively pushing against accepted power systems and structures, and forcefully calling for reform and justice, what is our response? We acknowledge to ourselves that their position is right, but also feel that their methods make us uncomfortable. And so, especially if they are close to us, like family or close friends, we advise toning down the rhetoric, perhaps suggest utilizing more traditionally acceptable actions for change, and so on. This wouldn’t be unprecedented: Jesus’ own family thought he had gone crazy and tried to have an intervention to try to get him to act more “normal.”

Maybe we need to ask ourselves why we (I) have such a difficult time with those who believe passionately about something and act accordingly. Is it because they challenge my complacency, or challenge the benefits I receive from being more accommodating and acceptable to societal norms? Am I afraid of what the disruption might result and being caught in any potential backlash?

Maybe we think that because things have always worked that way, whatever “that way” might be, that to try to change it is fruitless, or at least something that can only happen gradually. Maybe in our acquiescence of “how things are” we’ve lost the urgency that real people are suffering from oppression and injustice.

In a different gospel story, when Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from following the path set before him, Jesus rebuked Peter as an adversary. Peter had a vision of where Jesus and his movement would go, but when Jesus told him otherwise, Peter didn’t like it. Maybe we are like Peter more than we’d like — we want to advise a “safer” course when we encounter those who are passionately following the call to bring deliverance and healing to the world.

Could it be that in our desire to live quiet, peaceful lives, we’ve inadvertently become stumbling blocks to needed change? Have we advised caution when instead we should have been encouraging someone to follow their passion for helping people, however dangerous the path might have seemed?

But what if we are that person that is called? And really, in one way or another, aren’t we all? When we choose to take the Christian name and join the community of Christ, aren’t we agreeing to journey with Christ, wherever that may lead?

What kept Jesus on track and not dissuaded from the path he was on? Jesus understood who he was, what his task was, and what genuine power was.

Luke’s gospel is the only one that narrates Jesus’ Jerusalem visit at twelve years, but even at that point, Jesus was on his way to understanding his identity. He already knew his relationship to God. By the time he began his public ministry, even the devil could not sway Jesus from the path he had chosen.

Luke’s gospel also uses words in describing Jesus, in which they describe his developing and maturing understanding of his purpose. In today’s text, when Jesus says that “on the third day I finish my work,” the word “finish” indicates bringing to full maturity and completion. What this tells me is that Jesus’ understanding about where his mission would lead and how his life would end was not necessarily fully known to him from the beginning, but that it developed throughout his life. So when some Pharisees came to warn him, I believe it was a genuine temptation for Jesus to take a different path.

But Jesus also understood what his task was. Jesus came to reveal the truth about God, and that was through his work of bringing deliverance to the captives of the multitudes of demons of life and healing to the sick. Jesus’ relationship with God secured his identity and informed his knowledge about God.

Jesus understood that God’s power is not a power-over, that is power that coerces and controls, but rather, a power-with. Power-with is power that raises all to an equal footing; power that protects, just as a mother hen tries to protect her chicks from a marauding fox; power that will sacrifice itself so that others will have the opportunity to experience liberty and healing.

For Jesus to turn aside and follow a different path, a path of self-preservation, would have been to admit that God’s power was insufficient to heal the ills of this world and save it. It would have been acknowledgment that Caesar and Herod did, in fact, hold the reigns of true power. But just as Jesus did in the wilderness temptations  at the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus stood fast against the renewed temptation to follow a different path.

As we journey through the season of Lent, I suggest we reflect on a few things.

First, have we succumbed to the temptation to play it too safe when it comes to following Christ? Second, have we been stumbling blocks in the path of others trying to follow Christ by advising a “safer” course of action? Perhaps the sacrifice of Lent for some this season is to “give up” the default of choosing the path of apparent safety.

Third, do you know who you are in relation to God? What is your confidence in God? Fourth, do you know what your role is in God’s desire to reveal God’s nature to the world and bring all under God’s wings of protection? Fifth, and final point to reflect upon: are you clear on the nature of the types of power that exist and which one comes from God? Perhaps a spiritual discipline to take up this Lenten season is to reacquaint ourselves with the life of Jesus and relearn how he related to God and to the powers of this world – perhaps by reading through one of the gospel accounts.

Let us be willing to allow God to bring us under God’s wings. Let us be willing to allow God to reprioritize our lives and journeys. May we be among those who gladly say, when Christ returns, “Blessed is the one who ones in the name of the Lord.”

Sermon: God Among Us

Lectionary Year C, Epiphany 6
Luke 6:17-26

God Among Us

A lofty God is much easier to handle and live with. That’s the picture the Beatitudes recorded in Matthew gives us. In Matthew’s version, when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up a mountain and the disciples came up to see him. In response Jesus offers his disciples an idealistic, spiritual vision of his kingdom: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven… Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled…”

But Luke’s recording of the Beatitudes is different. Jesus is among the crowds and travels down with them to a level place. Jesus is not lifted above the crowd. Jesus is one among them. Jesus is approachable. Merely touching him brings forth healing power from him. And the way Luke begins the Beatitudes offers a hint into what Jesus was doing among the crowd.

Luke introduces the Beatitudes by writing, “Then he looked up at his disciples and said…” Not only was Jesus among the crowds on a level place, he appears to be stooping down to minister to those around him. Jesus is on the ground and physically below his disciples. He must raise his eyes to look up at his disciples. It is a complete reversal of the setting that is found in Matthew.

When Jesus does speak, Luke’s version of the Beatitudes does not attempt to spiritualized away the difficulties of life. In Luke’s recording Jesus says, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled…” In Matthew, the Beatitudes are lofty, idealistic philosophy — Jesus speaks in abstract, religious terms. In Luke, Jesus speaks directly to his disciples in immediate, physical terms.

Matthew’s Beatitudes read more comfortably. It read more like moral philosophy and something that we might strive toward, but we don’t necessarily expect a complete fulfillment until some distant future.

Luke’s Beatitudes are uncomfortable. Jesus is speaking to you — to me. And whereas Matthew omits any kind of woes, Luke carefully balances four blessings with countering four woes: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry…”

Luke’s Beatitudes are uncomfortable, because for most of us sitting here we identity more with the conditions that bring woe than with the blessings. How many of us are so destitute that we are begging for handouts on the streets? How many of us are so destitute that we would sell our own bodies or our children just to survive? How many of us are so hungry that we would search bags of garbage and dumpsters for a scrap of spoiled food? How many of us face the hopelessness and desperation of having the powers and structures of society turned against us? How many of us are recipients of public spite, exclusion, and slander for speaking out against injustices and standing with the desperate and marginalized?

On the other hand, how many of us live in relative comfort? How many of us worry about being homeless and out on the streets? How many of us had a good dinner last night? How many of us have full refrigerators and pantries? How many of us are generally living a good life, where despair and hopelessness are far from our thoughts? How many of us are respected members of community?

On balance, it seems that as individuals and as a faith community, we find ourselves on the “woe” side rather than on the “blessings” side of Luke’s formulation of the Beatitudes. It isn’t surprising that the more spiritualized Matthean version is the one we hear more. After all, all of us can honestly claim that we are “poor in spirit” and “hungry for righteousness.” But Luke doesn’t offer us that option, and so we must sit in the discomfort and with questions about what we are supposed to do with this text.

One possible interpretation is a very literal one. I point to a later section in this very same Lucan gospel where Jesus seems to advocate and praise such a literal application. In chapter 18 we read about the rich ruler:

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’” 21 He replied, “I have kept all these since my youth.” 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 23 But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” 27 He replied, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.”

28 Then Peter said, “Look, we have left our homes and followed you.” 29 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

A couple of the most notable examples who literally followed Jesus’ words just read include Francis and Clare of Assisi. Each was born into wealthy families but left their families and what they could have inherited and vowed themselves to severe poverty to serve the poor through service and prayer.

Again, we are forced to sit in discomfort as we ponder the Beatitudes of Jesus.

Another way to read this is to see it as time and culture bound. In other words, the words which Jesus spoke and Luke wrote down are specific to the historical period and people that is being addressed. Whether the early or later authorship dates of Luke are considered, both fall in periods during which followers of Jesus were at best seen as oddities and at worst seen as danger to the establishment. There may not have been prolonged and systematic persecution of the church, but they would have been targets of harassment and occasional persecution at the hands of both fellow Jews and Romans. The lengthy fourth blessing about being hated, excluded, and defamed seems to emphasize this historical circumstance about the audience community.

It should, therefore, not be surprising that the Beatitudes seek to bring comfort to those who are suffering and being slandered. It should not be surprising that woes are directed against those who are probably seen to be the instigators against Jesus’ followers, who laugh and mock them, and who are the respected citizenry and who hold power in society.

It would be easy to dismiss the Beatitudes as not that applicable to us. We live in very different circumstances from its original audience. Or we might say that it is applicable to present-day Christians who are experiencing the things described in the Beatitudes, but not to the rest of us. We could say that the words are meant to offer comfort and promise of divine attention, but it bears little practical relevance for most of us.

This too, is uncomfortable, because now we are dismissing an entire scripture passage as having little relevance to present-day life.

Maybe the discomfort is the point of this passage. The unease and tension that we feel as we wrestle with this difficult text may be the point. We prefer settled interpretations and answers, but instead the words of Jesus invite us into questions and dialogue. We are encouraged to approach the text from many angles.

A rhetorical, literary structural perspective offers a third way.

The carefully constructed parallelism between the blessings and the woes are patterned after prophetic utterances found in the Old Testament. As with the prophets of old, Jesus is portrayed by Luke as announcing a reversal of fortunes. Those who have been oppressed and marginalized, Jesus offers relief and comfort. To those who have lived in comfort, Jesus prophesies discomfort and ruin. Jesus tells his hearers that contrary to what is often believed, God is among the poor and hungry, rather than with the rich and full. God identifies with those who are reviled and rejected by society. Just as Jesus stopped down to care for the hurting and suffering, God is found among the despised and diseased.

Perhaps the questions to be asked of this passage is this: Where are we looking for God to show up? Among what kinds of people are we expecting to find God’s blessings?

What seems to be the case according to these Beatitudes is that the groups that we typically think of as “blessed,” the life circumstances that we often label a result of God’s “blessings,” are in fact, not. Instead, those who seem to be suffering the most are the recipient of God’s blessings. Those who are least in control of their own fates are the most blessed by God. In God’s economy, those who appear to have the least have the most, and those who appear to have the most don’t have anything. I think we’ve been trained to think about God’s kingdom as a better, more improved version of what we have now. But it is a complete reversal.

The Church is a manifestation and a breaking-in of the kingdom of God into this world. Since the kingdom of God is a reversal of the priorities and fortunes of this present world, what should the church look like? What should the church’s priorities be? What kinds of activities should the church be involved in? Where and among whom should we be spending our time?

Today’s text isn’t comfortable, and I don’t think it’s meant to be. It is there to wake us up and lead us to examine our priorities, both individually and corporately. Jesus has described whom God calls blessed. Where are we in relation to that? Are we God’s blessing to the world?

Whatever the verdict of our own self-examination, we can be sure that God can work through our sincere efforts. God’s grace and power is larger than any of our shortcomings and failings. We need new minds to even think about a world ordered completely upside down from what we know. That is the kind of “repentance” God desires in us – a completely new way of thinking. Through the words of today’s Beatitudes, let us begin to allow God to change our minds and thoughts.

Sermon: A Reluctant King

Lectionary: Year B, Proper 29, Reign of Christ
Gospel Text: John 18:33-37

What is a King?

When we hear the words “king” and “kingdom” what kinds of images form in our minds? Splendor, glory, wealth, power, authority, homage, ceremony, military might, violence, divine rights, grand palaces, royal balls, parties and banquets, state visits, alliances, marriages of convenience, romance, obedience from subjects, ownership of lands and people. Where do we get these images? Likely from television, movies, books, and school – and probably more or less in that order.

It’s probably safe to say that pretty much none of us have firsthand experience with monarchs and kingdoms. Even those who have lived in a nation that still maintains some kind of monarchy is unfamiliar with the kinds of monarchies under which the gospel writer of John wrote.

So how are we supposed to understand what it means for Jesus Christ to be our King? We have none to very little frame of reference in which to try to interpret how that is supposed to look like.

Kingdom in the Gospel of John

I have what might come as a bit of surprise to you: the Jesus depicted in the gospel of John might agree with us – that we humans have little reference in which to understand the kind of kingdom Jesus rules over.

Some of the other books in the New Testament and the Synoptic gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – have a lot to say about the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God – which are synonymous – and about the rulership of God as King. The Synoptics have numerous parables in which Jesus compares the kingdom to something more familiar in this world.

But in the gospel of John, that language is curiously absent. In this gospel the kingdom is mentioned twice. First time is found in chapter 3, during Jesus’ nighttime discourse with Nicodemus, and the second time in today’s gospel reading where Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king. It is almost as if the Jesus in John is reluctant to identify as king. Or maybe not almost, but actually is reluctant. That to do so might result in misunderstandings about him and what he is about.

Jesus' Self-Identification

It isn’t as if Jesus is reluctant to identify himself in other ways. The gospel of John is known for the seven “I am” sayings of Jesus:

1. “I am the bread of life” – John 6:35, 41
2. “I am the light of the world” – John 8:12, 9:5
3. “I am the door of the sheep” – John 10:7, 9
4. “I am the good shepherd” – John 10:11, 14
5. “I am the resurrection and the life” – John 11:25
6. “I am the way, the truth and the life” – John 14:6
7. “I am the true vine” – John 15:1, 5

Notice however that nothing in these sayings comes close to Jesus identifying himself with kings and kingdoms. So here we are: Christ the King Sunday, discussing a passage where Jesus mentions his kingdom, in a gospel account where his kingdom is almost never mentioned. Is is possible to work out something meaningful from this apparent paradox?

An Imaginary Retelling

While puzzling over this, I wondered what Jesus might say if someone today asked him if he was a king. What follows is my imaginative reinterpretation of today’s reading.

Me: “Jesus, good to see you today. We are honoring you as our king today.”

Jesus: “Are you saying this because you are truly convinced and believe that I am your king? Or are you simply saying this because it is tradition, and because ‘Christ is King’ is something you’ve heard over and over in Sunday School, in sermons, in Bible studies, and more? Tell me, what do you know about kings and kingdoms?”

Me: “Well, a king is ruler over his kingdom. He has subjects and they obey him. The king has absolute power over his subjects and over his domain.”

Jesus: “So are you saying it’s about authority and power to enforce that authority?”

Me: “Well.. Now that you put it that way, I’m not so sure.”

Jesus: “The kingdoms of this world, or shall I say, the nations of this world, are indeed formed around authority and their ability to maintain control over that authority using various types of power: physical force, economic force, social hierarchies, and they use laws and traditions to do that. Indeed, if my kingdom originated in that foundation, I would employ those means to spread my kingdom. But my kingdom is not from here. My kingdom has very different foundations and principles.”

Me: “But you are a King, are you not?”

Jesus: “You say that I am a king. You want to place a label on the kind of power and authority I employ so that you can domesticate me and put me into a category you can feel comfortable with. But I’m not going to let you do that. Here is what I am:

"I am the bread of life.
I am the light of the world.
I am the door for the sheep.
I am the good shepherd.
I am the resurrection and the life.
I am the way, which is the truth and life.
I am the true vine.

"I came to expose the truth about two kinds of power. One unilaterally imposes itself onto others, with an ultimate threat of harm and death. The other invites everyone to share in its life-giving. The world is based on the former. My power is the latter. I came to condemn those who would lord power over others. I came to show that my power is power shared with all in community.

"My entire life is based on demonstrating the life-giving power through loving and caring relationships found in communion with one another. It is the only power stronger than fear and death. It is the only power strong enough to defeat the world. Everyone who accepts this listens to my voice and follow me.

I am the good shepherd. Follow me.
I am the door for the sheep. Enter my kingdom.
I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won’t get lost.
I am the bread of life. Your soul’s hunger will be met through me.
I am the true vine. Your soul’s thirst will be quenched through me.
I am the resurrection and the life. The world may drain you and even kill you, but your life is secure with me.
I am the way, the truth, and life. Follow me into true life.”

Saying that, Jesus takes leave and has me pondering, who is Jesus and what does it mean to proclaim him as king? For so long I’ve assumed the kingship of Jesus to be about his power and majesty that this conversation leaves me with more questions than answers.

Who and What is Jesus?

Immediately following  this morning’s section of the reading, Pilate asks his infamous question, “What is truth?”

In the history of Christian interpretation of this question, Pilate has been much maligned and ridiculed. It’s often been said that he was so impatient to get rid of Jesus that he wasn’t willing to take time to listen. That he had truth standing right before him, but he couldn’t see it because he was so blind to his fear and ambitions. Perhaps for Pilate truth was synonymous with raw factual data and nothing more, and Jesus’ idea of truth didn’t sound like truth. Or perhaps that Pilate was dismissing the whole idea that there could be truth that people agreed upon.

I wonder today if we’ve been too quick to judge Pilate. What Jesus is saying about himself and how Jesus is projecting himself before Pilate defies all labels. Pilate is trying to place Jesus into a category that he is equipped to handle. He can handle a violent revolutionary. He can handle a confused person who claims to be a king. He can handle a person who denies all charges. But Jesus cannot be pigeonholed. Jesus does not volunteer a claim to king, yet he does not deny it. He does not deny the charges brought against him by his own people, yet he does not admit any guilt.

What would we do with someone like that? What do we do with people that makes us very uncomfortable? My first response is to try to get away from the situation as quickly as I can. And when I think that Pilate is doing just that, I think that maybe I shouldn’t be so hasty in judging his reaction because it well could have been mine.

Entering into Discomfort

Maybe the gospel of John is inviting us into the discomfort. In the kingdom of Jesus, there will be a variety of people, some that we are comfortable with, but also many that might cause us discomfort. When we claim Christ as our King, Jesus is not only our Lord but everyone in the kingdom is also our sisters and brothers. Jesus commanded his disciples to love one another, to be in communion fellowship with one another. And we know from our own earthly families that sometimes families can be quite uncomfortable. (Refrain from putting in a Thanksgiving dinner joke here. Oops!) Likewise, a spiritual community can also be uncomfortable at times. But if Jesus is the king, our shepherd, the way and life, then it is through the challenges of community building and sustaining that love can work its power to bring people together, in spite of differences and discomfort.

I think Jesus was reluctant to claim the title of King because it could so easily lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. It could easily lead to us forgetting the actual heart and power of Jesus and his kingdom.

When we proclaim Christ as King today, let us remember what kind of King we are proclaiming. We are proclaiming a King who shares his life-giving power of love through the community we see visibly today as the church. As members of that kingdom, each one of us shares in that power. We have the power to give true life to someone, today. May we honor our King by taking seriously the responsibility and power he has shared with us. May our words and deeds bring comfort and life to the discouraged, the hopeless, the rejected, the marginalized, those who the world would rather just not see, those that the world might just rather go away and even die. May we be willing to sacrifice our comforts to honor our King who gave us the example to follow.

Sermon: Salted for Fire

Lectionary Year B, Proper 21 (Gospel Reading: Mark 9:38-50)

Sermon texts

Mark 9:49-50

For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.

Matthew 5:13

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

Luke 14:34-35a

Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away.

Introduction

Today’s reading is the second half of what began in last week’s. There, it was discovered that while traveling with Jesus, the disciples were arguing amongst themselves who was greatest. In response and rebuke, Jesus told them that those who seek to be first must be last and a servant. And then as an illustration, Jesus took a child and taught them that in serving those that society overlooks and views as unimportant that they are, in fact, welcoming Jesus himself. This sets up today’s passage.

The gospel reading for today covers quite a bit of ground as well. It began with what to do and not do when someone outside of my group is doing gospel work. And then it talked about stumbling blocks and little ones. Keying off the phrase “stumbling block” it then went on to suggest that if something was causing me to stumble, it would be better to amputate those body parts than to be lost for eternity. And then the keyword “fire” transitioned to a discussion of salt.

It is these last two verses about salt that I want to direct our attention for the rest of this time.

Salt Contexts

Present Day

When we hear “salt” we probably immediately think of the culinary uses of salt. Salt is an important component of much of our cooking and eating. It seasons foods and it enhances flavors. It is used in preservation of foods. A certain amount is necessary for life, but too much can be harmful.

There is a more technical definition of salt that is used in chemistry, but unless your work or interest requires it, that is a definition that rarely crosses most of our minds. For most of us, salt is intimately connected with food.

Thus when we read about salt in the Bible, we assume a culinary interpretation and use by those texts.

Ancient Near East

However, that may not be how the original audience heard these texts. Here is Mark 9:49-50 again:

For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.

This is a rather puzzling text, particularly if we assume our present-day understanding and culinary assumptions about salt. Most historical interpretations have assumed these two verses contain three separate proverbs whose commonalities is tied through the word “salt.”

But in recent decades, cultural and historical research has shown another possible interpretation that brings coherence and better understanding to this puzzling text.

The first clue has to do with the kind of climate of the Ancient Near East and present-day Middle East. It is mostly arid – a desert. Water is scarce. People and tribes have fought over water rights. What do we know about culinary salt? It induces thirst. Historically, the people of these lands have not used much culinary salt to season their foods, but rather, relied on herbs and spices to season their foods.

The second clue has to do with the parallel passage found in Matthew 5:13, part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus taught:

You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.

The clue is found in the word “earth” which can also be translated “earth-oven.” Once again, because of the scarcity of water and soil nutrients, trees are uncommon. Grass and shrubs are far more common. But these kinds of vegetation don’t provide much in the way of fueling the fires of an oven.

 

So what did these desert populations do? They found that grazing animals naturally concentrates these plant fibers. It was the task of the women and children to gather these animal dung and form them into fuel. But dung by itself doesn’t burn well or evenly. Enter salt. Now this isn’t pure, refined table salt that we probably imagine, but crude salt consisting of various minerals salts and impurities. When the dung is mixed with this salt, the salt acts as a catalyst to help the dung patties burn evenly and hotter.

The third parallel passage in Luke 14 reads:

Salt is good, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is of no use either for the soil or for the manure pile. It is thrown away…

The English word translated here “soil” is the same word as “earth” in Matthew, and by extension can also be read as “earth-oven.” In other words, the Lucan text strongly suggests that the use of salt found in all three parallel passages is indeed with the oven and its associated fuel, manure.

Slabs of the mineral-rich salt blocks were used to line the floor of the oven also. The manure patties would be placed upon them, adding more catalyst to aid in the burning process. But eventually the catalyst would be used up – i.e., the “saltiness” would be lost – and it would no longer be useful. At that point it would be removed and used to “pave” the road. Hence Matthew’s observation that it is “thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.”

Re-reading Mark

In light of what you just heard, the Marcan text for today could be read like this:

For everyone will be salted for fire. (Unlike in Matthew, in Mark’s text we aren’t the salt. We’re the manure.)

Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it?

Have salt in yourselves (once more, we’re not the salt; we’re the manure and it seems we are being asked to do the dirty job of putting together the fuel), and be at peace with one another (so something about salt has the potential to be at odds with peace).

Lessons

Other than an interesting and new way of reading and understanding these gospel “salt” texts, why does it matter how we read it?

Empathy

We all read and listen through lenses of our own culture, history, and experience. Our default is to read the Bible that way. We read other books that way. We listen to other people’s story that way. We read and listen to news in that way. But as was demonstrated today, our assumptions can be quite off-track. In the case of the gospel salt passages, not much harm comes from assuming a culinary basis, and wonderful spiritual applications have been drawn from culinary saltiness. But what about other things that we see and hear?

One lesson is that it might do us good to check our assumptions and take the time to pause and try to understand what we see and hear from the perspective, history, and experiences of those that are most immediately impacted. This is otherwise known as empathy. We just might discover and learn a whole different world from what we’ve known, and one that is equally as valid as the ones we’ve grown up in.

We’re Not the Center of Attention

In the Sermon on the Mount, we were the salt. But in Mark’s text (and arguably, the more original reading), we are simply the manure into which salt is added.

Mark suggests that the Christian community doesn’t have anything inherently within itself that makes it different or special from any other human group. What makes the church different, special, and useful to the world is that it has a message of hope and a conviction of that hope. That conviction of hope is the salt, the catalyst, to spread the fire of the gospel to the rest of the earth – or the earth-oven, if you like.

It’s not about us. It’s about Christ.

Danger of Over-Zealousness

However, Mark also warns about a potential danger where conviction might turn into something harmful. Fire is useful when controlled, but when it gets too hot and out of control, it becomes dangerous. This section of Mark chapter 9 dealt with two of these dangers.

The first danger was found at the beginning of this section where the disciples were arguing about who was greatest. Self-aggrandizement can be a danger of uncontrolled conviction. The concepts of hope and faith can be turned into weapons against other people. A person can be so convinced of their version of faith and hope that they begin to see themselves as better than those who appear to have less.

A second danger was found at the beginning of today’s reading where the disciples sought to squelch someone outside of their group from assisting Jesus’ work. We might call this group self-aggrandizement. A group begins to believe so much in their interpretations and methods that they begin to see other groups as hostile and as enemies. We can become so convinced that our particular version of the communication of hope is the only right one. Our focus is no longer on Christ but on ourselves. What began as conviction becomes a weapon to protect the group and its methods. 

Conclusion

What Mark is teaching in this text is that Christians must have conviction of hope in Christ. This conviction has tremendous power to set people free. Genuine hope fuels more hope. But conviction turned inward toward self becomes a prison that leads to strife and stumbling blocks. And eventually the fire dies.

Mark’s exhortation to us is that we need to be confident in Christ and convinced of the hope found in him. But we also need to remember that our understandings are incomplete and fallible, and that God can work in ways extending beyond any single individual Christian or a single Christian group.

To be the fire is not our calling. Our job is to make sure that there is a steady supply of genuine hope among ourselves so that Christ shines forth. By our small, seemingly insignificants acts of taking care of one another, we sow hope. This is the salt that allows the gospel fire to burn and reach the world.

The question isn’t, “What great thing can I do for God someday?” but rather, “What word of encouragement or act of kindness on my part will make a difference in someone’s life today?”

---

References

Salt for the Earthen Oven Revisited
Salt, Light, and Dung... 
Of dung and salt and being a catalyst for the kingdom

Sermon: Together in Faith

Together in Faith

Ephesians 6:10-20

Lectionary Year B, Proper 16

Introduction

The lone hero, standing his ground against unending waves of foes coming at him, successfully battling every one of them: this is one of the most common archetypal motifs found in the history of humankind. These epics go back as far as the earliest civilizations and many ancient epics are retold in many ways in many stories today.

From action blockbusters of today, the successful science fiction movies, TV series, and books, to even the old television Westerns, the legends and mythologies of the lone hero make for great storytelling and for many authors and studios, money.

When we read and hear the passage about the armor of God from Ephesians chapter 6, our imaginations might naturally turn toward the staples of literature and movies with which we are familiar – the lone hero, facing impossible odds but successfully deflecting the many threats against her or him. We might imagine a superhero with their supernatural skills defending the world against cataclysmic threats.

It is easy to read the Ephesians text as an imperative being given to an individual Christian. The analogy certain uses the image of a single Roman soldier, putting on his armor and taking up a sword as he prepares to go into battle.

This text has been used to admonish individual Christians on the importance of individually putting on the armor of God as described, and that only through it can they stand up individually to the schemes of the devil and resist temptation and keep from sinning.

But, as you probably suspect where I’m heading with this, is the individual Christian and the battles he or she faces that primary concern of this passage?

Broad Message of Ephesians

Ephesians is written to a community of believers. Yes, a community is made up of individuals, but the concerns being addressed are those that face the community itself. One of the primary concerns has to do with the divide between Jews and Gentile believers who are now comprise this singular community. The part of the gospel that concerns this letter and its author is how Christ removed the boundaries of culture, ethnicity, and race so that peace might exist between groups that once were enemies. This mystery, or the secret, of the gospel and God’s plan for humankind is of foremost concern. It is in bringing together this diversity of individuals that the singular community becomes strong. A further elaboration of this secret of the gospel is that Christian journey and faith cannot be accomplished without this diversity that is brought to a community. Community is an inherent and necessary part of the Christian walk. There can be no Lone Ranger Christian going it alone. The mystery of the gospel is that each individual must depend on other members of the community.

Ephesians 1:9-12 reads:

9 God revealed his hidden design to us, which is according to his goodwill and the plan that he intended to accomplish through his Son. 10 This is what God planned for the climax of all times: to bring all things together in Christ, the things in heaven along with the things on earth. 11 We have also received an inheritance in Christ. We were destined by the plan of God, who accomplishes everything according to his design. 12 We are called to be an honor to God’s glory because we were the first to hope in Christ.

And 2:14-16 and 20-22 read:

14 Christ is our peace. He made both Jews and Gentiles into one group. With his body, he broke down the barrier of hatred that divided us. 15 He canceled the detailed rules of the Law so that he could create one new person out of the two groups, making peace. 16 He reconciled them both as one body to God by the cross, which ended the hostility to God…

20 As God’s household, you are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 The whole building is joined together in him, and it grows up into a temple that is dedicated to the Lord. 22 Christ is building you into a place where God lives through the Spirit.

And in 3:9-10:

9 God sent me to reveal the secret plan that had been hidden since the beginning of time by God, who created everything. 10 God’s purpose is now to show the rulers and powers in the heavens the many different varieties of his wisdom through the church.

The author of Ephesians writes about the former life of members of this community where they were driven by corruption, greed, and satisfying one’s own desires. This is the life that they have been delivered from. Instead, the new persons they are becoming is to practice selfless love, care, and compassion for one another. Those in Christ will not take advantage of another person. Those in Christ will understand that they cannot progress on their journey toward God without working to bring others on the same path.

The Armor of God

It is in this broad context that the armor of God metaphor is introduced as the conclusion to this letter. Thus, when this last part of the letter talks about “tricks of the devil” and “the gospel” we should understand these to refer to something in the earlier part of the letter and not something that might be correct in a broad sense, but not part of the letter specifically.

The concern is that some in the church at Ephesus might be tempted to revert to their old ways – self-seeking; divisions along racial, cultural, ethnic, and religious practice; to try to exclude some and go it alone or with a partial community.

The gospel is the good news of peace – the reconciliation and unity that Christ brought, and which God had planned for humanity since the beginning.

These are things that the world doesn’t understand and is often openly hostile to. It doesn’t require any searching to observe hate and division between races, cultures, ethnicities, and religions. Just opening a web browser to a news site quickly shows numerous instances of self-seeking and self-serving interests. Taking advantage of the vulnerable and weak is often seen as just good business practice in maximizing profits. To be a self-made person, who can handle everything alone is portrayed as an ideal. Conversely, to require others’ assistance is seen as a weakness.

This is the battle for which the armor of God equips us to fight. The Ephesians text mentions specific pieces of armor, but the specifics aren’t what is important. It’s what they represent together. The armor is truth and justice. It also includes the confidence of the completed work of Christ’s salvation for us. The purpose of the armor is to keep one’s spiritual condition safe while the gospel of peace is preached in this world. The weapon is God’s message of reconciliation and community.

The Shield of Faith

I left the shield of faith to the end because this is what triggered in my mind the thought that this armor metaphor isn’t about an individual Christian standing alone, but about the whole church working together. The shield mentioned here is a large body shield, crafted from two layers of wood and leather on the outside. The leather is soaked in water until it can extinguish flaming arrows that hit it. This shield would be too large and heavy to wield successfully in single combat. It was used by entire battalions to protect against the hundreds and thousands of flaming arrows shot toward them by an opposing army. The forward rank would set their shields on the ground, overlapping so that there would be no gap. The ranks behind them would raise their shields above them to create an impenetrable ceiling. Then they would advance slowly together toward the opposing army.

This is the picture that would have remained with the recipients of the letter to the Ephesians as its reading ended. The picture is one of standing their ground, but also of advancing together. The temptation of expediency and convenience must be resisted.

In Conclusion

Today’s text isn’t about a lone Christian standing their ground. It is about the necessity of a community of faith, standing together in faith that allows them to advance the gospel of peace. Working together, we can close the vulnerabilities and weaknesses that each individual possesses, and bound by the strength of God, present an impenetrable shield to extinguish the flaming arrows of the devil that are launched against us.

We would rather that these flaming arrows be obvious evils such as mocking, criticisms, and perhaps even persecution. But I think that they are more along the lines of complacency, desire for comfort, risk aversion, influence seeking, expediency, favoritism, and other such quiet and insidious, but quite acceptable evils.

As a community we must stand and advance together in faith. We must hold one another accountable to the highest ideals of truth and justice. We must let the gospel of peace and reconciliation in Jesus Christ be our guide and goal.

Christian faith is not a solo pursuit. It is a community effort. Let us come together and walk together in faith.

Sermon: A Portrait of Authentic Christian Ministry

A Portrait of Authentic Christian Ministry

Text: 2 Corinthians 6:3-13; c.f, 5:11-6:2, 7:2-4
Lectionary Year B, Proper 7

Just a Christian "Image Problem"?

What does "Christian" look like?

With increasing frequency, I cringe whenever Christian or Christianity is mentioned in the media. There are “pastors” who invoke divine will in securing a private jet for themselves. Racism and misogyny are found too often among those who self-identify as “Christians.” Domestic violence and sexual assault are being uncovered increasingly among those who for years have proclaimed “family values.” Church and denominations leaders are eager to secure civil powers and seemingly will compromise anything to retain their hold on authority and privilege.

The watching world sees Jesus and his teachings but cannot reconcile the public display of so much of what passes today for Christianity.

I think all of us here today would want to rise in protest, “But that’s not real Christianity!” Yet the reality is that some of the most prominent and vocal presence in modern Christianity only reinforces the notion that there is little to commend it. And all our arguing and protests seem to have little or no effect.

Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest who is the founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation in New Mexico frequently says, “The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.” So, what does “better” look like?

Paul and the Corinthian Church

We can find one possible answer in one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. In our Bibles it is found in 2 Corinthians 6:3-10. But first, a brief discussion of the context in which this passage is to be understood.

An ancient Corinthian ruin

The Corinthian church had many issues, among which was that it was divided along ethnic, racial, social, and class lines. They seemed to be drawn to power and privilege and a tendency to marginalize those who the larger society saw as outsiders. There seemed to be factions within the church, each with its favored apostle. Paul was not on any of their lists, apparently.

In the chapter 5 of 2 Corinthians, Paul describes his ministry to them: a ministry of reconciliation.

Paul appeals to the Corinthian church to not look at outward appearances and accomplishments but to the motivations of the heart: “We are giving you an opportunity to be proud of us so that you could answer those who take pride in superficial appearance, and not in what is in the heart.” (5:12b)

Paul writes that Christ died for all – not just some favored few – and adds how Christ followers ought to live: “He died for the sake of all so that those who are alive should live not for themselves but for the one who died for them and was raised.” (5:15)

Paul writes how Christians are to view one another with a brand-new perspective: “So then, from this point on we won’t recognize people by human standards. Even though we used to know Christ by human standards, that isn’t how we know him now. So then, if anyone is in Christ, that person is part of the new creation. The old things have gone away, and look, new things have arrived!” (5:16-17)

Paul begs the Corinthians to set aside their differences and be reconciled in Christ: “We beg you as Christ’s representatives, “Be reconciled to God!” God caused the one who didn’t know sin to be sin for our sake so that through him we could become the righteousness of God.” (5:20b-21)

Paul's Ministry Credentials

It is in this context that Paul writes what we find in the first part of chapter 6. It can be read as a listing of his credentials describing why he should be accepted by the Corinthians as a genuine minister of Christ.

³ We don’t give anyone any reason to be offended about anything so that our ministry won’t be criticized. ⁴ Instead, we commend ourselves as ministers of God in every way. We did this with our great endurance through problems, disasters, and stressful situations. ⁵ We went through beatings, imprisonments, and riots. We experienced hard work, sleepless nights, and hunger. ⁶ We displayed purity, knowledge, patience, and generosity. We served with the Holy Spirit, genuine love, ⁷ telling the truth, and God’s power. We carried the weapons of righteousness in our right hand and our left hand. ⁸ We were treated with honor and dishonor and with verbal abuse and good evaluation. We were seen as both fake and real, ⁹ as unknown and well known, as dying—and look, we are alive! We were seen as punished but not killed, ¹⁰ as going through pain but always happy, as poor but making many rich, and as having nothing but owning everything.

Paul writes that “we don’t give anyone any reason be offended about anything so that our ministry won’t be criticized,” yet in the very next sentences he describes how people turned against him. So, what does he mean? Based on what follows, it appears that Paul is saying that he has done nothing to attempt to secure for himself power, privilege, wealth, or attempted self-promotion. He has disavowed any kind of self-aggrandizement.

The examples he follows with shows the very opposite of the kind of “success” that the world expects. There is nothing easy about genuine Christian ministry. Paul doesn’t say that he went seeking problems, disasters, beatings, and imprisonments, but the result of his ministry was that sometimes these things happened. Persecution is not a sign of genuine ministry, but persecution is also not a disqualifier. I think that is an important distinction to point out since I’ve heard from time to time how persecution is either necessary for genuine ministry, or that encountering persecution means a Christian is on the right track. Neither of these is what Paul writes. What he does imply is that ease of life and prosperity is not what the Christian life guarantees. This is in contradiction to perhaps what some of the Corinthians expected and what some Christians today proclaim.

Paul lists four uncompromising characteristics for himself as a Christian and a minister.

First, purity. This should not be confused with doctrinal purity, but a purity of character. Synonyms that could be used include integrity and honesty.

Second, knowledge. For Paul, having accurate knowledge, as far as it was possible, was an important part of Christian ministry. In a time when Christians are sometimes accused of being anti-science or placing theological belief over demonstrable facts, it is important to know where Paul would likely stand on this issue today.

Third, patience. This can be read as not rushing too quickly to judgment, and willing to suffer wrongs without seeking retaliation and revenge. It is a lesson that Christians continually need to learn and practice, including those of us here today. Christians are too often known for their quick condemnation against others rather than their openness to listening and hearing the stories that need to be heard.

Fourth, generosity. Other translations use kindness. The Greek dictionary shows that the word used here is derived from another word that can mean useful. In other words, Christian ministry has practical usefulness. It is not merely theoretical theology, or just waiting to be taken up to heaven. Our Christian ministry must be of benefit to the world in practical ways, or it isn’t good news, the gospel.

The next four items reinforce and amplify what Paul has already described and adds the divine source of power: “We served with the Holy Spirit, genuine love, telling the truth, and God’s power.” Perhaps in reading between the lines, it might be said that if any other source of power is involved in ministry, love and truth end up compromised. Paul’s ministry had no objective to secure any kind of power from civil authorities, from other Christians, or for himself. As important and valuable as denominations and church governance is, they are ultimately secondary to the Holy Spirit and to God. When a denomination or church authority becomes the proxy for God’s authority, they are on a dangerous path. When popularity or size of ministry is seen as a sign of God’s favor, the ministry is treading on dangerous ground. A large, popular ministry is not an indicator of God’s favor. On the other hand, a small church or ministry does not follow that God’s favor isn’t with them.

Paul continues, “We carried the weapons of righteousness in our right hand and our left hand.” The word “righteousness” carries theological connotations often involving personal virtue and possibly sinlessness. A better way of understanding righteousness is to see it as being in proper alignment with God’s priorities. Seen in this way, how we treat one another becomes vitally important, even more so than having correct doctrines or attempting to uphold and even enforce what we believe is correct theology. Remember that all of this is being written in the context of the ministry of reconciliation, of bringing dissenting factions back together in Christ.

Paul ends his C.V. with a list of paradoxes and contradictions: “We were treated with honor and dishonor and with verbal abuse and good evaluation. We were seen as both fake and real, as unknown and well known, as dying—and look, we are alive! We were seen as punished but not killed, as going through pain but always happy, as poor but making many rich, and as having nothing but owning everything.” This is additional evidence that external appearances and response do not signify the genuineness or success of Christian ministry. It is also a warning to expect the complete gamut of responses to our ministry.

Becoming an Authentic Christian

Christian history is littered with the unfortunate results of individuals and groups who become enamored with power: associating with power, acquiring power, and then hanging on to power.

Genuine Christian community seeks to give away power. It seeks to empower the disenfranchised. It seeks to raise up the wounded and welcome the outcast.

Genuine Christian ministry “reverses the traditional categories of power and weakness according to the model of Christ” [Feasting on the Word, Year B, Volume 3] whose death, death which traditionally is seen as ultimate defeat, turned out to be God’s ultimate power of victory over death. Christians who follow Christ’s pattern of letting go of their own power to serve others, are showing the ultimate source of power in God through the Holy Spirit.

Genuine Christian ministry has authority precisely because it doesn’t attempt to seek it.

Considering how Paul has evaluated his own ministry and those of his close associates, how would he evaluate Christian ministries today? Using the standards noted this morning, how should we judge ourselves?

Is our ministry one of reconciliation, of bringing together diverse individuals and groups together for a common cause in Christ?

Is our focus on building up our “brand,” or are we most concerned about properly representing God to the world?

What is our relationship with sources of power? Are we placing preservation of our entities over authenticity and truth? Are we tempted to compromise authentic Christianity so that we can grow and maintain an audience?

The Corinthians apparently had difficulty accepting Paul and his Christian ministry because it upended so much of traditional ideas about successful ministry. So, he closes this part of the letter with an appeal:

“Corinthians, we have spoken openly to you, and our hearts are wide open. There are no limits to the affection that we feel for you. You are the ones who placed boundaries on your affection for us. But as a fair trade—I’m talking to you like you are children—open your hearts wide too… Make room in your hearts for us. We didn’t do anything wrong to anyone. We didn’t ruin anyone. We didn’t take advantage of anyone. I’m not saying this to make you feel guilty. I’ve already said that you are in our hearts so that we die and live together with you. I have every confidence in you. I’m terribly proud of you. I’m filled with encouragement. I’m overwhelmed with happiness while in the middle of our problems.” (6:11-13; 7:2-4 [skipping a large portion because it is not seen as part of the original letter])

So much of Christian ministry through history, including today, is consciously or not, based on a “power over” attitude. From missions to church hierarchies, it isn’t difficult to find control over others as a key component. But this easily leads to manipulations and abuses, and is frankly, unchristian.

We rightly should speak out against bad forms of Christianity. But it is more important to be the kind of authentic Christian and Christian community that Paul described in his letter to the Corinthians.

“The best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better.”

May we have the courage to practice a better, more generous, more loving, more inclusive Christianity.