Sunday, September 05, 2021

Sermon: Breaking Down Boundaries


Lectionary Year B, Proper 18
Gospel Text: Mark 7:24-37

Introduction

None of us are born in isolation from society. From birth, we are a part of some kind of social group. From these social groups we absorb and learn many things; some good, some neutral, and some bad. Some of the things are taught and modeled explicitly, but many more we absorb implicitly. One of those things is how society values different kinds of people, and more specifically, how my in-group views people that are outside of my group. As we grow and interact with different groups, we have positive and negative experiences that can reinforce stereotypes for good or bad. While most of us learn and know intellectually that we should not look down on people different from us, we may still harbor fear, dislike, or feelings of superiority that unconsciously influence our actions.

Many of my childhood and teen years were lived among predominantly White communities. Whether accurate or not, as my young brain looked around, I observed that White people appeared to be more affluent and clearly were the majority. One result of this was that I subconsciously developed anti-Asian sentiment within myself, even though I am clearly Asian.

I think that most strongly reinforcing this idea occurred during a few of my middle school years and a year in high school, when our family spent some time in Singapore as missionaries. The missionaries, who were nearly all Western and White, had their own school for their children, in nice air-conditioned buildings and rooms in a compound just for them.

All of this added up so that for a good number of decades I tried to avoid associating with other Asians and preferred the company of White groups.

But even within the broad category of Asians, I also absorbed a national and ethnic hierarchy that placed my people, Japanese, at the top and other Asians further down the ladder. Although I had close Asian friends that were not Japanese, I held to negative stereotypes when thinking about other groups as a whole. Even though I would have never thought of myself as racist, I thought it was fine and good to maintain internal hierarchies of race and nationality, and to have negative ideas about groups that I didn’t identify with.

I bring all this up because a human individual’s social environment, their culture, and their upbringing all contribute to what they assume is moral and ethical. What they learn and absorb from their in-group defines much of what is assumed to be right. I didn’t think any of what I’ve mentioned was wrong. I simply believed and accepted that that’s just how the world worked. I bring this up because many decades later, as I’ve learned and matured, I am finally at a point where I can begin to see how my upbringing and the experiences I had shaped me and can take conscious steps to break away from recognized negative aspects.

Was Jesus Exempt from Human Upbringing?

Was Jesus exempt from experiencing this part of humanity?

Dr. James F. McGrath, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University writes,

“Was he [Jesus] entirely free from human biases in his upbringing and culture? As a genuine human being, I think there is no way he could have had a human upbringing in which he learned language, culture, customs, and values, and yet be entirely free of all prejudices and biases.”[1]

And Loye Ashton in the commentary Feasting on the Word writes,

“To be the Son of God, the Messiah must suffer, not only at the hands of those of us who do not understand him, but also under of the conditions of existence, the challenge of the human condition itself. To be otherwise would not allow Jesus to be fully human… Mark provides an interesting way of seeing how the divine and the human can be completely combined in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.”[2]

Jesus and Ethnic Traditions

Today’s gospel text is the middle of a series of stories arranged by Mark to show how Jesus went from caring for the Jews, his in-group, to breaking rigidly established boundaries of purity, religion, ethnicity and race to include all humanity in his care. The Syrophoenician woman is the fulcrum on which this shift occurs.

Up to this point the series of stories show Jesus challenging traditional Jewish norms and even disregarding purity codes. But these were all debates within Judaism and having disagreements or practicing differently did not automatically place one outside of the community.

To offer God’s divine power to someone outside of the Jewish community would be something else entirely. That is the challenge that Jesus is confronted with when the Syrophoenician (or Canaanite; c.f. Matthew 15:22) woman comes to him with a request to cast the unclean spirit out of her daughter. This was not only a Gentile, but a woman; a woman with an unclean daughter, and even more problematic, a descendant of the Canaanites, Israel’s mortal enemy.

And that is the point at which Jesus hesitates. He seems to have some intellectual recognition that God’s mercy should go to all of humanity, but his social norms acquired through his upbringing seems to erect an emotional block. Jesus responds as a Jewish man would be expected to respond to a request from a Gentile woman. It is rude and insulting, but simultaneously, it is an entirely acceptable and expected response.

Rev. Marcea Paul of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd, in Austin, Texas writes,

“We believe and profess that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, and this week, we encounter Jesus in his full humanity.”[3]

We don’t have the time to go into the problem of this apparent portrait of a less-than-perfect Jesus. For now I hope it is sufficient to note that the problem may lie in our overreliance on John’s gospel and some of the Christological texts in the epistles as fully explaining Jesus, and through them our assumptions about what it means to be perfect and without sin. From the quotes I’ve already used, there are biblical scholars and practicing pastors who are raising the problem of an underdeveloped doctrine of Jesus’ humanity.

Jesus Challenged

Jesus responds as a Jewish man might be expected to respond. But the woman, instead of going away, as would have been expected, she responds with a challenge to Jesus’ response, thus invoking an honor contest – again, something that is completely unexpected across social, ethnic, and gender boundaries.[4]

Her response, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs,” (7:28) get the better of Jesus. This is the only story recorded in the gospels where Jesus loses an honor contest, and it is to a Gentile woman. Whereas in Matthew’s account Jesus praises the woman’s faith, in Mark’s account Jesus recognizes the superiority of the woman’s reason and logic.

In commenting on this the Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: Mark reads,

The Syrophoenician woman’s reply in v.28 is startling. The fact that she talks back is itself a sign of boundary-crossing persistence… She engages Jesus in a clever, rhetorical riposte that while not undoing the offense of naming, breaks and thus bests its logic… The gentile woman works cleverly within the metaphor that Jesus uses. But in doing so, she breaks it open for newness and healing.[5]

The woman of this story is the hero. She extracts honor from Jesus, and he is compelled to accede to the woman’s request.

What Jesus Learned

Jesus had been pushing and crossing boundaries within his own Jewish tradition. But the Syrophoenician woman challenged boundaries that defined ethnic, national, social, religious, and gender separations. She challenged Jesus to break those boundaries as ones that were hindering a broader mission to all of humanity. In healing her daughter, Jesus appears to have learned that there were far more traditional boundaries that would have to be broken and crossed.

The next story where a man who is deaf and has a speech impediment is healed shows how Jesus puts into practice what he has learned. He no longer shows reluctance to immediately respond to a Gentile person’s needs. But Jesus’ manner of healing in this story is strange in that he does not lay hands on the man, as was asked of him, but rather pokes his finger into the man’s ears, spits onto his fingers and touches the man’s tongue. It is almost as if Jesus is adopting certain healing practices and goes through motions that were more common in the Greco-Roman world. Karen Pidcock-Lester offers the following observation in the commentary Feasting on the Gospels,

The significance of the spittle is unclear. Some evidence indicates that the Greco-Roman culture viewed it as having curative effects, while other evidence from Jewish texts indicate that it is an unclear discharge. This would actually make a difference in how one views the healing act. Given that Mark has been picturing Jesus breaking boundaries, I would suggest that it is viewed in the Jewish fashion as unclean. By an unclean act Jesus heals; this makes the boundary breaking even stronger.[6]

The final story in this Markan sequence of narratives showing Jesus’ boundary crossings is the Feeding of the 4,000 which takes place still in a Gentil area. In this story, as was found in the feeding of the 5,000 which was in Jewish lands, the Markan text includes that Jesus had compassion for the crowd which had been with him for three days (8:2). Jesus who had compassion for the Jewish crowds, but responded rudely to the Syrophoenician woman, comes around to having compassion for a Gentile crowd.

What We Can Learn

Since we are human, we don’t always know the kinds of boundaries that we hold on to. Many are handed down through our families and the society that we are born into. Others we might choose along life’s way.

Jesus did not say all boundaries should be eliminated. He clearly has at least one – that of sacrificial love for one another which is the defining marker for his people and community.

Any boundary that is antithetical to sacrificial love for one another is, therefore, a boundary that should be questioned. Another might be any boundary that builds and maintains hierarchies of power. And yet another might be any boundary that assigns a degree of value differently from one person to another depending on where they fall. Do our stated values always match what we hold on to internally?

Another area to consider is the ways in which we respond when we are externally confronted and challenged on boundaries that we adhere to, both consciously and subconsciously. Do we become defensive or are we open to the possibility that we might be wrong and take corrective action?

Jesus was crucified, at least in part because he refused to stay within what society demanded were proper and necessary boundaries. Jesus crossed boundaries to love those that were considered enemies by society. He not only crossed boundaries, but he sought to remove them. One could say that Jesus was a traitor for the cause of love. We, who claim the name of Jesus Christ and follow him, are being asked to do no less.


[2] Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 4, Kindle location approximately at 1716.

[4] Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: Mark, p. 103-104.

[5] Fortress, p. 104-105

[6] Pidcock-Lester, Karen (commentary contributor). Feasting on the Gospels: Mark. Approximate Kindle location 7608.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, August 29, 2021

Sermon: Boundaries


Lectionary Year B, Proper 17

Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

Story: The Guru’s Cat[1],[2]

Once there was an Ashram in Kathmandu, Nepal, where a guru lived with many disciples. Also living in this Ashram was a cat. He was a wonderful cat, very friendly and eager to please. The cat was well fed and well loved by everyone in the Ashram.

There was only one problem: during the Ashram daily schedule, the cat wanted to participate. And the cat’s participation began to disrupt the hours of chanting and meditation for the guru and the disciples. Why so? When the guru and disciples would chant, the cat would howl. When they would meditate, the cat would snore quite loudly.

Therefore, the guru asked that every day, during chanting and meditation, the cat be tied to a post in another room. The disciples obeyed the guru’s command, and the discipline of the daily schedule was restored. There was no more disruption from the cat and everyone’s focus was again strong on chanting and meditation.

A few years passed, and one auspicious day the guru peacefully left his body. The disciples continued to tie the cat to the post every day during the period of chanting and meditation.

One day, the sweet cat died. The disciples held a meeting and discussed how important it was to preserve the guru’s teaching. With resolve, they went to the market and bought another cat so that they could tie it to the post during times of chanting and meditation and in this way faithfully honor the guru’s teaching.

Comments on Story

It’s humorous and probably apocryphal. And it illustrates the problem of blindly observing tradition but forgetting what birthed it. Faithful observance of tradition becomes more sacred than what the tradition originally pointed to.

And that is one way of interpreting and understanding today’s gospel text about the washing of hands. There is nothing wrong with interpreting the text as pointing to the problem of excessive observance of outward traditions and reliance on them to appear wholesome and good, while neglecting unaddressed evils inside of individuals and groups. It is a completely valid concern.

Yet there is much more to this text than that.

Literary placement

The first point I’d like to consider is the literary placement of today’s text. The larger literary context begins around the middle of Mark, chapter 6 and goes midway through chapter 8. Here is a series of stories that Mark has placed together to convey a larger point.

The larger section begins with the Feeding of the 5,000. This takes place in Galilee, within Jewish lands. There is a slight narrative diversion of Jesus walking on water that takes him from one part of the lake to another, but still within Jewish land. At this new location, Gennesaret, Jesus heals a large number of people. After this comes today’s text where some Pharisees and legal experts confront Jesus about the washing of hands. From there Jesus removes himself from Jewish territory and goes to Tyre where he encounters a Gentile woman who challenges Jesus. Jesus remains in Gentile territory where a deaf and mute man is healed. This large series of stories ends with the Feeding of the 4,000 which takes place in Gentile lands.

From the literary placement of these stories, it appears that Mark is attempting to convey major boundary crossings that Jesus undertakes. Briefly, these include ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender boundaries.

Clean/unclean discussion

Boundaries have their place when used appropriately. But too often they are misplaced and misused. Boundaries can become imbued with meanings that they were never intended to acquire.

I grew up in a religious environment that observed clean and unclean distinctions regarding food. Beef and chicken are clean; pork is not. Fish has to have scales, and some types of fish therefore, are questionable. Shellfish and crustaceans are on the unclean side of the ledger.

Ostensibly these were “divine health guidance” that God gave to Moses as recorded in Leviticus. But more recent evidence from science is lacking.[3],[4]

Observance of these restrictions is a boundary marker for what it means to belong to this group.

My first few years in this world were in Japan, and I was probably about four years old when this next story occurred.

I attended a public preschool and lunch was provided by the school. One day the lunch included what were probably something like meatballs. Somewhere I had gotten the idea that ground meat was pork. That assumption was probably 99% correct since across the world, meatballs include pork more often than not, but especially in Asia where the use of pork seems to be far more common. I objected to eating it because it would violate, what I had at that young age understood as, a key pillar of my religious faith and community. I was very proud that I stood up for what I believed to be right and true. My very identity of who I was and where I belonged was tied up in this particular and narrow belief.

While that might seem funny now as a limited, black-and-white thinking of a small child, the same thought process can and does occur among much older adults and with more serious consequences. To protect the boundaries of clean vs. unclean, vegetarianism might be encouraged as another boundary. And to provide even more protection veganism might be encouraged. If these were only suggestions, perhaps it would not be so bad. But in boundary-making, especially in religious cultures, these boundaries acquire moral and ethical properties. All of a sudden, those who are able to adhere to stricter and stricter boundaries see themselves as more spiritual and righteous, and perhaps some on the outside might also see those who are sacrificing appetite for the sake of God to be more spiritual.

I think this may be a large degree what Jesus was objecting to in our gospel text for today. Jesus isn’t condemning traditions or their practice, but what they have come to mean. They have become boundary markers excluding all but those most dedicated to a particular brand of religion and spirituality.  

Cultural context

I’ve been discussing today’s subject matter solely in terms of a religious and spiritual context so far. We moderns, particularly in the Western context, live in a world where most of us have separations between religion, civics, social, and personal spheres of life. But that was not the case in the ancient world.

Ritual purity was not just a religious question but affected a person’s belonging within society itself and their participation in any of its spheres. A ritually unclean person was certainly excluded from the religious community, but from participation in civic life, social life, and family life.

For the Pharisees to question Jesus’ disciples (and by doing so were really questioning Jesus’ own practices) about purity rituals was in effect publicly questioning whether Jesus was really a proper Jew. They were defending the honor of all Jews and what it meant to be a Jew. Jesus was, in their view, acting shamefully.[5]

Think about what it means for you to identify as American and for others to see you as American. What goes through your mind and emotions when what you see someone disregard or violate what you believe to be American values, traditions and practices? That is the kind of visceral reaction that these Pharisees most likely felt toward Jesus when they saw him disregarding Jewish rituals they considered vital. It is important to understand that Jesus’ conflicts within his Jewish tradition was not merely religious and intellectual, but that they reached into the core of what it meant to be an authentic Jew.

Drawing New Boundaries

Jesus rises up to the challenge pushed on him by the Pharisees and the legal experts. He confronts accusations of violating tradition by appealing to a different tradition – the prophetic tradition. He quotes from Isaiah to turn the accusation back onto his accusers. The prophetic tradition is stronger than the tradition of the elders. In portions of the text that were not part of today’s reading, Jesus presses his advantage by citing another example where the legal experts placed tradition over justice. Jesus shows that he is a true Jew by utilizing and arguing through a stronger Jewish tradition.

And then Jesus invites the crowd gathered around, who are witnessing this honor contest, to participate by rendering a verdict on his closing argument:

“Nothing outside of a person can enter and contaminate a person in God’s sight; rather, the things that come out of a person contaminate the person.” (7:15 CEB)

Although the crowd’s response is not provided in the text, the lack of any further questioning by Jesus’ challengers and the disciples’ immediate questions indicate that the crowd affirmed Jesus’ position on the debate.

Jesus draws new boundaries. The boundaries aren’t drawn at external observances or their lack. Rather it is the things that come out of a person. The disciples didn’t quite understand so they ask Jesus and additional explanation is provided to them.

“It’s from the inside, from the human heart, that evil thoughts come: sexual sins, thefts, murders, adultery, greed, evil actions, deceit, unrestrained immorality, envy, insults, arrogance, and foolishness. All these evil things come from the inside and contaminate a person in God’s sight.” (7:21-23 CEB)

In the kingdom, the new society and community, that Jesus is establishing, it is not external purification rituals that determine a person’s belonging. The boundaries are, rather, established by the attitudes and actions one has toward another. In this text some examples of the negative kind are given by Jesus. These are each antithesis of love, the positive boundary of Jesus’ new community.

I think that from time to time it can be helpful to see what love is not. When we look at this list of evils, we might be tempted to think that we don’t commit any of them. Perhaps not in their most overt and egregious ways. Every one of the evils listed could have a socially acceptable form. I think all of us would do well to perhaps take some time to think about it and see if we are excusing some evils in our lives because they are socially acceptable.

As we look at ourselves and our communities, perhaps today’s text is asking us to ask, “What boundaries have we erected that hinders or prevent loving relationships to occur among all members of our community?” And secondly, “What boundaries might be necessary to maintain a healthy and loving community?”  


[4] Food Regulation in Biblical Law: A Paper Submitted in Satisfaction of the Written Work Requirement of Harvard Law School, Wendy Ann Wilkenfeld (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8846735/wwilkenfeld.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

[5] Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, E. Randolph Richards and Richard James, p. 228-230.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, August 01, 2021

Sermon: Solidarity

Lectionary: Year B, Proper 13
Text: Ephesians 4:1-16

Sermon

Introduction

I have no problem confessing that I’m not a huge sport fan. I can probably place most teams with their respective sports. I know enough that on the rare occasions I watch a sporting event, I can generally follow what’s going on. The one exception is road cycling, but I haven’t had much time to pay attention to that either. 

We are now witnessing the second week of the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. I sort of follow the games via the headlines and updates I see scroll by on the New York Times and The Washington Post. Despite my lack of attention to the Olympics, I’m aware that there were at least two things that happened last week that caught people by surprise. 

The first was the unexpected gold medal performance of Seward’s Lydia Jacoby in the 100m breaststroke, bringing to Alaska its very first Olympic gold in a discipline that seemed rather a long shot for a state that historically is known more for winter sports than swimming. In fact, the only Olympic sized pool in all of Alaska is in Anchorage at Bartlett High.[1] 

The Value of a Team

The second was the unexpected withdrawal of gymnast Simone Biles from the Team Competition. Heralded as the world’s greatest female gymnast ever, given the slang title G.O.A.T., and having planned to perform the most difficult vault of all-time, she was expected to personally sweep gold medals and anchor Team USA to another team gold. 

But on Tuesday morning, Biles withdrew from the team competition, explaining that as the competition progressed, she felt she could no longer fight the demons of others’ expectations that were being placed on her.[2] The routines that she had performed to this point had not been the flawless perfection that would normally been expected. Her head was fighting her body. Her teammates understood, because they too, had been there at some point in their sporting careers. They were disappointed but understood that what Biles has chosen to do was the right decision. They would continue to perform their best while Biles, who could have left the arena, chose to remain to cheer the team on, encourage them, get them chalk, and hug them.[3] Biles made the call to pull herself out because she saw that to continue would not only jeopardize her health but also a medal chance for the team.[4] Subsequently, Biles would also withdraw from the individual all-around competition, opening the door for another star, Sunisa Lee, to shine.[5] 

MyKayla Skinner was the fifth member of the gymnastic team, and after failing to qualify for any of the individual apparatus events, a week ago she was headed back home believing her Olympic dreams were finished. But Biles sent a frantic text to Skinner stopping her from boarding the plane, just in case Biles remained unable to compete on the vault. That turned out to be the case and yesterday Skinner vaulted to the silver medal.[6] 

These are elite athletes, performing at their peaks. Does any of it remotely apply to those of us with more mundane and ordinary lives? Lives that are generally not in any kind of spotlight? 

I think that there is more in common to be learned than we might see at first glance. 

“Unity” or “Solidarity”?

The reading for today in Ephesians is frequently one that is appealed to in the quest for church unity. It’s right there in the text, “Make an effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit,” and, “Until we all reach the unity of faith.” 

I don’t know if any of the rest of you have qualms about the word “unity,” but I do. In my church experiences, “unity” has too often been used to mean “uniformity.” So-called “unity” has been used as the basis for stifling disagreements and dissent. In modern church use, “unity” too often implies a sameness of beliefs, practices, traditions, behaviors, ideologies, and culture. This call and implications of unity seem to have bled over into our broader lives, too. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with desiring unity among our different groups. We shouldn’t have to suffer unnecessary conflict. But the desire and call for unity is wrong when its basis is motivated by such things as the desire to maintain power, to require minorities to conform to majority norms, and to permit the ongoing oppression of the marginalized. 

I would like to suggest a different word that we might use as a substitute for “unity.” That word is “solidarity.”[7] 

In my mind, “unity” implies cold, intellectual conformity and virtue-base (or rule-based) ethics that guide behavior. On the other hand, “solidarity” sounds warmer and more relational. “Solidarity” feels more empathetic and something that can bring people together, even if they differ in significant ways. 

What the U.S. Gymnastics team showed was solidarity after Simone Biles withdrew. They came together to continue to work towards what was possible, at the same time encouraging and supporting one another. Their top star was no longer able to continue, but the others would step up to fill the vacated roles. 

Healthy and Unhealthy Groups

I think that those of us living more “ordinary” lives could learn a few things from them. 

A Potential Single Failure Point

What struck me first was how a single individual may carry the weight of the entire group. It might be in the workplace, a community organization, the family, or a church. It’s that one individual that knows how everything works and knows the idiosyncrasies and nuances to get things done. 

That single individual is a single point of failure. The stress of the entire group is bearing on that point. Maybe you’ve been there, or maybe you’re there right now. You’ve been holding things together, but don’t know how long you can continue to maintain it. You desperately need help or even want out, but you can’t see anyone else able to fill your role. 

Maybe you’re part of an organization in which such a guru-type expert is holding things together. You’ve always relied and leaned on that person to facilitate things going smoothly. You can’t imagine what might happen if they suddenly left. 

Although today’s text is about the church, I think it can apply more broadly. The text reads that Christ gave gifts to his people. And these were different gifts distributed throughout the community. No single person receives all the gifts, and everyone has some gift. 

It is not healthy for a single individual to carry the burdens of the entire group. It is not healthy for the group to rely on a single individual to deliver results. 

If you feel like the burdens are getting far too heavy to carry and you want to say, “I can’t do it anymore,” can you say that and step away? 

Group Solidarity

That’s where the second aspect of today’s reading come in. Is your group, your organization, your church a safe place for someone to say, “I can’t handle everything that is being asked of me; I need to take a break?” Will the rest of the group show solidarity with the one hurting and injured? Will there be empathy and understanding? 

The text calls for God’s people to be people of humility, gentleness, patience, love, and peace. The text calls for God’s people to grow together into maturity. There are no superstars. All have a place in the community, and all have equal value. The body cannot function if needed parts are missing or parts refuse to perform the roles they are meant to do. 

“The whole body grows from [Christ], as it is joined and held together by all the supporting ligaments. The body makes itself grow in that it builds itself up with love as each one does its part.” (Eph. 4:16) 

The text just read contains some intriguing implications. First, all the supporting, connective elements are critical. Are you a facilitator in helping connect one part of the church with another, or one church community with another? You’re doing God’s work! It’s as equally important as more public-facing jobs. 

Second, the body grows itself. So often we hear about how to grow the church. According to this text, the focus should not be on growth. 

Third, the focus is for each person to exercise their God-given gifts and fulfill their gifted roles through exercising love. When each part works as God designed and gifted, growth happens naturally. 

Some might observe and object that this might be fine for the church, but the groups and organizations of the world don’t work that way. It often seems so, because the ones with the superstars seem to be most successful. 

Success Through Solidarity, Christ’s Way

Yet if we redefined success as long-term health, satisfaction, and well-being of every person associated with an organization, how many of the previously noted groups be considered successful? 

If the Way of Christ in reordering society and its values are really true, shouldn’t Christ’s followers be working on implementing them in the spheres that they are a part of? I am reminded of some of Jesus’ parables where the kingdom starts out small, but slowly and quietly becomes large. The new society of Christ wasn’t meant to remain within the walls of the church. It is supposed to offer the world the values and practices that allow human beings to truly flourish. And it is supposed to be so compelling that people will naturally be drawn toward it. I think that this is one practical way of understanding what it might look when a faith community “become mature adults—to be fully grown, measured by the standard of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. 4:13b) 

Yet too often we are more like “infants” who are “tossed and blow around by every wind that comes from teaching with deceitful scheming and the tricks people play.” (Eph 4:14) How often do we look to the business and political world for practices and methods that we hope can help sustain and grow the church? I’m not accusing all of it as bad. God’s wisdom can certainly be found outside the church walls. But too often the church wants a quick route to success and latches on to whatever is trending and popular without taking the time to thoughtfully and carefully assess whether or not they are in alignment with Christ’s methods and values. 

“You are one body and one spirit, just as God also called you in one hope. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, who is over all, through all, and in all.” (Eph. 4:4-6) 

This is a reminder and an admonition to maintain solidarity with one another. Although we are many, we are one. Although we may disagree and have conflicts, the one God is Father or all, over all, through all, and in all of us. When one part is injured, we all feel the pain. When we comfort one, we are all comforted. When we are in solidarity with the most vulnerable, the most hurting, the most marginalized, the most oppressed – that is when I believe we are most like Christ and when we are closest to the maturity of faith desired by Christ for us.


Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, June 13, 2021

Sermon: Automatic Soil and a Spirit of Abundance


Lectionary: Year B, Proper 6

Gospel Text: Mark 4:26-34

Introduction

Gardening is an activity and hobby that many people enjoy and find relaxing. My mother was one of them. I did not inherit any of it. I made an honest attempt at gardening when we bought our first house in Oregon, about 30 years ago. I found it neither enjoyable nor relaxing. My interests and skills do not reside with the dirt.

Probably around a decade back, when AeroGarden – the hydroponic system – was popular, I received one as a gift. I tried it for about a year. And it worked, mostly. But eventually the maintenance and upkeep of the unit became tedious and expensive. Even an automated system appears beyond me.

Most recently, I found another indoor, window garden system called Click & Grow. There is nothing complicated about this one, unlike the AeroGarden. There are no pumps. You don’t have to add nutrients to the water. You don’t have to tell it when you install new plant pods. There is a single bar of white and red LED grow lights that turn on for 16 hours and off for 8. You can mix different plants. Everything needed for the plant to germinate, grow, and mature is contained within each pod. The pod is placed into a receptacle with a wicking system that draws water from the reservoir below, so the reservoir and the water never touches the soil or the roots, keeping the whole thing nearly maintenance free. This is a system I just might be able to handle. The only thing I must remember is to make sure that the reservoir doesn’t run dry.

Seed Parables

Today’s gospel reading selection from Mark chapter 4 contains two of the three seed parables found in this chapter. The first one is the parable of the sower who scatters seed. The seed lands on different types of soil and the results vary by where they land. The third parable is the one of the small mustard seed that grows into a magnificent shrub where animals and birds find rest. Both of these parables are well known and much can be found interpreting and explaining them.

Parable of the Automatic Soil

This morning my focus will be on the middle parable which honestly, I don’t know if I’ve heard much spoken or written about. Here it is once more, in an original translation found in the book Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism, written by Marie Noonan Sabine:

And he said: “Like this is the kingdom of God: as though someone were to throw seed on the ground and sleep and rise, night and day, while the seed sprouts and grows – how, he does not know. Automatically, the earth bears fruit: first the shoot, then the full-grown head of grain. But when the harvest is delivered up straightaway he sends [in] the sickle because the harvest had showed itself.”[1] 

This is the parable of The Automatic Soil. There is no work that is found to be done in this parable. Interpreters might be tempted to insert regular crop tending work in the “sleep and rise, night and day” phrase, but doing so diminishes the impact of the explicitly stated “automatically, the earth bears fruit.” After the seeds are scattered on the ground, nothing else is done by the person sowing them. He is baffled by the entire process. And why not? He isn’t doing anything! The crop reaches maturity without any work done by the sower. He simply enjoys the harvest.

My Click and Grow comes pretty close to this parable. The only “work” I have to do is make sure the water reservoir doesn’t run dry, and with certain plants, some initial thinning of sprouts might be needed. Everything needed for sprouting, growth, and maturity are contained in each pod and in perfect balance for optimal growth. All I do is “sleep and rise, night and day… and the harvest is delivered up.”

A Sidebar on Reading Parables

Before continuing, I should mention some of the purposes and pitfalls when reading parables.

A key purpose of Jesus’ parables is to provoke thought and questions. Parables are not allegory, where all key elements have a corresponding real-life analog. Rather, parables can be interpreted in many ways, and there isn’t usually a single, “right” interpretation.

Parables illuminate a facet of truth.[2] But a single parable shouldn’t be extrapolated into the entirety of truth, and by itself should not be the basis for doctrine. In the current parable we are reading, it shows something about the kingdom of God.

Automatic Soil at Creation

When I read this parable of the automatic soil, the image that came to mind was the Creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2 – 

Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation… (Genesis 1:11-12a)

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Genesis 2:8-9) 

What is described in Genesis sure sounds a lot like the automatic soil in Jesus’ parable. The soil, the earth, produces plants and causes them to mature and meet human needs.

Sin, Fall and the Curse on the Soil

So, the thought and question provoked by this is: in what way (or ways) is the new kingdom of God that Jesus is proclaiming like the old garden of Eden?

One answer may be found by looking at the account of the Fall – 

“Cursed is the ground because of you;

in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you.” (Genesis 3:17b-18a)

The automatic soil became cursed because of human sin. It will from then on require toil and labor to bring forth anything, and a significant portion of effort will end up wasted.

However one interprets the story of human sin and the Fall, one of the results is that it disrupted the harmony and balance that was designed by God into the earth and all of creation. Where humankind once gave no thought to not having their needs met, because all that was needed was provided and available, the fear (among other fears) of not having enough is introduced and becomes a constant concern. In an attempt to address this fear, those who have the means plunder and hoard resources, further exacerbating imbalances and inequities.

The Curse of Empire

This is the reality of life lived by most who are hearing Jesus’ parable. The Roman Empire, the visible kingdom headed by Caesar, is the political and economic ecology in which they are the smallest of fish. To survive from one day to the next is the best that many can hope for. The empire is efficient in exacting tribute and stamping out any opposition. Fear of not having enough to meet basic needs is a daily concern. They see the extravagant wealth and wastefulness of those who are in the favor of the empire.

At least to some listening, I can’t help but think that Jesus’ parable evokes a return to the Garden of Eden and a restoration of the harmony and balance that existed – where no one suffers from unmet needs, and where there is no longer violent plundering and amassing of resources at the expense of health, well-being, and lives of so many.

Proclaiming and Living the Restoration of Eden

Is it too much to think that there could be a society where every person’s needs are adequately met? Is it fantasy to believe in a world where all creation is in harmony and balance? The gospel writer didn’t think so. Jesus begins his ministry with the proclamation that “the kingdom of God has come near [that is it at hand].” (Mark 1:15, portion.) The signs that Jesus has already performed so far is evidence that the new kingdom is starting to break into the old. Immediately following the parable of the automatic soil, Mark places Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed in which a small seed becomes a great shrub and offers rest and habitation for the birds. This too, evokes an image out of the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life.

I grew up in a tradition that placed most of the fulfillments of the kingdom of God to a time after sin is eradicated, there is a new earth, and God reigns as king. But that isn’t how the gospels depict the kingdom. In the gospels, aspects of the kingdom have already been planted, are sprouting, and growing.

The post-Pentecost Christians had this kind of society; a community that was a restoration of Eden. Acts 4:34 describes this community where “there was not a needy person among them.”

Is it too fantastical to believe that this could be the reality among Christ-followers again? Are the echoes of the Garden of Eden found in Jesus’ parables too idealistic for our time and place?

It might require a huge rethinking of individual, family, and church priorities to see this kind of community. I know that I’ve been conditioned by a half-century of scarcity-minded thinking, and my priorities and values are derived from that. It will require a huge degree of rethinking – or shall I say, repentance – to re-orient toward a mindset of abundance.[3]

God’s kingdom of abundance is already at hand. Do we trust God enough to dare to act on God’s promises? Do we dare to let go of fear and act in ways that will bring back harmony and balance to our relationships with one another and with the natural world? Will the world be able to see signs of the kingdom of God growing among us?

[1] Sabin, Noonan Marie. Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism, chapter 2.

[2] C.f., Mark 4:21-25 (parable of the lamp).

[3] By abundance, I mean enough to meet the needs of all. Not abundance as in gluttonous.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, May 30, 2021

Sermon: The Wind Blows Where It Chooses


Lectionary: Year B, Trinity Sunday
Text: John 3:1-17

Introduction

This week I learned I might have quite a bit in common with Nicodemus, a Pharisee.

I was born into a church denomination that has a wide range of perspectives on various things. But on average, it could be described as traditional, conservative, and even fundamentalist in some respects. It was a denomination founded through the study of biblical prophecies, and when the initial interpretations failed to materialize, interpretations were revised, and its apocalyptic message continues to be taught. It is a denomination with an emphasis on its unique traditions that keeps it somewhat separate from other Christian denominations. From an early age, within education classes in the church and in church-run schools, I was taught the importance of watching for signs of the end times and even possible broad outlines of how the end of the world will come about.

In many ways, what I grew up in has similarities to how the Pharisees viewed their times, lived in it, and looked for the coming kingdom of God.

Before continuing, I should note that although the Pharisees are often perceived negatively by modern Christians, it was not at all the case back in their time. Although some were certainly wealthy and privileged, as a whole they were considered coming from the masses and could relate to the common folk.[1] Their concern was the study of scripture and accurate interpretations of them so that all could live in holiness and purity as God would have them live. This contrasted with the Sadducees, who were given the priesthood by the Romans, and was the aristocracy of the Jewish nation. Their concerns were more pragmatic in that they were more interested in maintaining the status quo and their place in society.

The Pharisees were expecting the Messiah and the arrival of a new kingdom. They had certain assumptions and expectations of who the Messiah should be, how he would appear, and what he would do. They had an outline of how the present age should end and how the new age with the new kingdom would begin. They read the prophecies in scripture with apocalyptic vision.[2]

As I said earlier, I find several parallels between what I grew up in and some of the characteristics of the Pharisees.

Nicodemus

Nicodemus was a Pharisee. Which means all that I had just said is part of the backstory that is not explicitly written in the gospel, because everyone reading or hearing it at that time would have known much of this. Nicodemus is interested in figuring out Jesus, because in Nicodemus’ view, Jesus fits more than a few checkboxes of the expected Messiah.

First, Jesus appears out of nowhere. Secondly, Jesus is performing miraculous signs. Thirdly, Jesus appears to be performing his acts on behalf of God.

In the gospel text immediately preceding today’s reading, Jesus had driven out the merchants selling animals and the moneychangers. The arrival of the new kingdom was also expected to be preceded by a purification of the temple.[3] What Jesus performed could be interpreted by some to fit into that scheme.

Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night. On the most literal level, this simply is an indication that Nicodemus wants to avoid any discourse from turning into an honor contest.[4] This could certainly happen if it was in the daylight with masses of the public around. So, coming at night for a private conversation shows Nicodemus’ sincerity. But on the literary level, the gospel writer uses night and darkness symbolically in the gospel to show a lack of understanding.[5] So Nicodemus is genuinely interested, but the writer foreshadows his lack of understanding as this narrative will continue.

I’ve always wondered why, after Nicodemus greets Jesus with honorific praise, Jesus seems to abruptly change the topic to the kingdom of God. Understanding the background information, I’ve mentioned so far shows that the coming kingdom was what was primary in Nicodemus’ mind, even though he does not explicitly ask about it.

The Pharisees expected that they, because of their devotion to the Torah, would naturally be among those entering the new kingdom with the Messiah. Jesus’ first statement to Nicodemus disagrees with the Pharisee’s beliefs about who is eligible to enter the kingdom. Only those who are born from above, only those who are Spirit-born, can enter the kingdom of God. No natural human person can enter the kingdom. Lineage and ancestry don’t confer qualifications. Only those who have been renewed and reborn of the Spirit can enter the kingdom.

Another messianic belief that the Pharisees had was that as part of the inauguration of the new kingdom, the Messiah would judge the world. But at the end of what is today’s reading, the text reads that in fact the Messiah was not sent to judge, but to save. And salvation is not just for Jews and those that follow the Torah, but the entire world – the cosmos. The kingdom of God would not be a perfect practice of Judaism, but something completely different, something discontinuous with anything found to that point in human history.

In this short section we see at least three messianic ideas that were a part of the Pharisaic tradition that are contradicted by Jesus as he offers different interpretations. First, it is not careful obedience to the Torah that offers entry into the kingdom, but rather, it is being born from above, with the Sprit, that allows someone entry into the kingdom. Secondly, the Messiah did not come to judge, but to save. And thirdly, this salvation and entry into the kingdom is for the entire world, not just Jews.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Nicodemus didn’t understand, at least at that immediate time. But he shows up a couple more times in John’s gospel account and we can infer through those episodes that his understanding about Jesus changes and deepens.

I started this sermon by briefly relating my Christian environment and understandings during the first thirty years or so. The next twenty including now has been a period of both deconstruction and reconstruction. There are many things I used to believe and accept that I no longer do. I’ve changed the ways in which I read and interpret the Bible. There are some things I used to accept that I can’t believe I ever did. And there are things that seem plain and obvious to me now that twenty or thirty years ago, I would have considered heresy.

And that leads me to this next part – the historical context in which the gospel of John was written.

Context of the Writing of the Gospel According to John

This gospel was written toward the end of the first century C.E. It was a good sixty years since Jesus left Earth. It’s been twenty years since the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Pharisees are on their way of transforming into rabbinical Judaism, which is the precursor of Judaism today. The Christians, who for the most part still see themselves as Jews, have been cast out of their synagogues.

The Christian believers looked at their Jewish scriptures and found quite different ways of interpreting the text. They read the prophecies and found a very different fulfillment. Jesus Christ fulfilling the promised Messiah of Israel was now plain and obvious. How could the rest of the Jewish community not see and accept this?

I think that it is in this context that the writer of John utilizes the story of Nicodemus and Jesus to address what is going on in the writer’s community. A strong evidence for this occurs beginning with verse 11 where the writer transitions from Jesus speaking to the community speaking: “I assure you that we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen…” Although traditionally it is Jesus who continues speaking through the rest of this discourse, from verse 11 onward, it is better to read this as their understanding of Jesus and his Messianic fulfillments, from the community that produced this gospel text.

The Jews had lost their Temple and their nation. They were scattered around the Roman Empire. As long as the Temple stood, and they had a land to call their own they could see a glimmer of messianic hope. But with all that taken away what was to become of God’s promise to them of a new kingdom?

Reconstruction and Reinterpretation

The early Jewish Christians found their answer and comfort in reinterpreting the scriptures in the light of Jesus and the words that he left for them. These reinterpretations were not just minor revisions to what they understood and accepted previously. They had to reimagine and reinterpret texts in new ways that often stood in contradiction to their past understandings. The new kingdom was not just an updated continuation of what already exists, but a radical interruption of former history and a departure into a new trajectory.

This might be seen as the work of the Spirit, a part of being born from above, that is promised by Jesus much later in the gospel:

John 16:13-14 (CEB)

13 However, when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you in all truth. He won’t speak on his own, but will say whatever he hears and will proclaim to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and proclaim it to you. 

Just as these first generation of Christ followers experienced upheaval and uncertainties, we too, seem to be in a time of upheaval and uncertainties. We live in chaotic times, and what we assumed to be true about society and the world doesn’t always seem to hold up.

The story of Nicodemus and the development of early Christian beliefs tells us that we must be open to the Spirit in forming and changing how we understand the world around us. Sometimes that might mean radically changing our beliefs, however sincerely held they may be. In my personal experience, that has meant dropping some beliefs and ideas that, looking back now, were quite insular and exclusionary. In their place I found beliefs that I think are more inclusive and hopefully align more closely with Jesus’ teachings that salvation is for all who trust in God. Deconstruction and reconstruction are not easy; but I believe it is often necessary to continue in spiritual growth and maturity.

The Spirit of God, the breath, the wind – it was present at the creation of the world [c.f., Genesis 1:1-2]. Through the Spirit, God brought order to chaos. And in the same way, the Spirit brings order to chaos found in every age. We may not always understand how the Spirit works, but it is present in the world. When we are open to the Spirit, we should assume that our journeys will take unexpected turns and paths.

Will we let go of trying to control our lives, and of trying to bring certainty into them? Will we instead trust and allow God to work through the Spirit of Christ, and to do and go wherever she leads? Will we allow God to work through us as agents of the new kingdom to bring the offer and reality of salvation – from God, through Jesus Christ, and guaranteed by the Holy Spirit – to the entire world?


[1] Wicher, Edward A. “Ancient Jewish Views of the Messiah”, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3141950

[2] Kampmeier, A. “The Jewish Expectation of God’s Kingdom in Its Successive Stages”, https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2581&context=ocj

[3] Hiers, Richard H. “Purification of the Temple: Preparation for the Kingdom of God”, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3262987

[4] Richards, E. Randolph. Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, p. 167ff.

[5] Paulien, Jon. John: The Beloved Gospel, p. 35-36.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)