Sermon: Complicity

Text: Luke16:1-13

Lectionary: Proper 20(C)

Most stories have heroes and villains. There might be plot twists that cause change in how they end up, but nevertheless most stories have the good protagonists and the bad antagonists. I think of any number of fiction and non-fiction stories, and that is generally the case. Any of the fairy tales that are told, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, popular movie and TV franchises such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the list goes on.

In fact, when stories only involve good characters and no conflict, it leaves us longing for more. Or if stories only consist of villains, we end up frustrated because there is no satisfying resolution.

And we want good to triumph over evil. When it doesn’t, again we are frustrated and hope that the next episode or sequel will finally bring about the resolution that we expect and want.

The parable Jesus told that is recorded in Luke 16 is a perplexing one. It seems that the dishonest manager wins at the end and is even commended for being shrewdly dishonest. Why would Jesus tell such a parable?

The author of this Lucan text also appears to have been quite troubled with the conflicted ending to the parable and the lack of expected resolution. So, he appended a bunch of moralistic sayings after the parable. At least that’s what many biblical scholars think happened regarding the text from the second half of verse 8 to verse 13.

This is such a weird and troubling parable that there is no consensus on what it means. There are as many interpretations as there are commentaries and sermons. And some preachers decide to skip it altogether, at least during this lectionary cycle.[1]

That is a somewhat longwinded way of saying that we’re going to tackle this passage, but what I’m saying may be completely off-base. But I hope not entirely, and I hope that it adheres to at least some methods of sound interpretation that make sense.

I think looking at it in small sections and asking questions and looking to see if there is anything more that is assumed beyond the immediate text might be a good way to begin. 

¹ Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property.

First, note the intended audience: it is the disciples. Sure, there were others around including the crowd and religious teachers. But this parable is for the disciples.

Second, the characters are introduced. The first is a rich man. Is he a good or a bad person? The text doesn’t say. Some interpreters think he is a good man.[2] Others, because he is rich, assume that even if he is not evil, he cannot be good. And why is that? Because a rich man in that time and place would have to be part of the patronage system and the system of acquiring wealth, which usually means moral and ethical corners have to be cut. And simply being rich means the person most likely has a large number of servants, indentured servants, tenant farmers, and slaves of which many would be exploited. Given that in Luke’s gospel wealth and rich people are universally seen negatively, I think it is safe to assume that the reader is supposed to understand that the rich man of this parable, even if not intentionally evil, is not a good person as Jesus would define it.

The second character is a manager of the rich man’s estate. Among the servants employed by the rich man, a manager would rank fairly high and probably be receiving adequate pay. But for some reason (greed?), the manager appears to have been misappropriating or embezzling some of the property for himself.

At least that is what the master hears. We aren’t told how he hears about it and who it is that rats on the manager.

² So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management because you cannot be my manager any longer.’

The master summons the manager and fires him. There is no attempt from the master to make sure what he heard is correct. Perhaps the sources he considers trustworthy, or maybe he doesn’t care. We aren’t told. But neither does the manager offer any protestations, implying that what the master heard was probably correct.

The master demands “an accounting of your management.” This might sound like an explanation that is demanded from the manager, but it is better to understand this as, “Return my ledgers that are in your possession.”

³ Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. ⁴ I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’

The fired manager is in a dilemma. Because of the elevated position that he had, he might be seen by the others lower in the estate as the master’s lackey and enriching himself at the expense of their livelihoods. How will he survive if he no longer has the master’s resources, and he is not welcome in the community? He must do something quickly to earn enough honor to be welcomed into community. He has a “Hail Mary” solution. This is before any kind of rapid communication, and the firing seems to have been done in private. No one else has yet received the news of a change in management. As far as everyone else knows, the manager is still the manager.

⁵ So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ ⁶ He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ ⁷ Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’

Before they could be any the wiser, the fired manager summons all his accounts, one by one (so as to not arouse too much suspicion and gossip, and also to avoid the presence of witnesses). He takes the ledgers that he is supposed to return, but before he returns them, he will make a few changes to them. But not in his writing, but in the handwriting of each of the clients. Their handwriting is proof that they agreed to the reductions. The clients still assume the fired manager has authority, and so they do what they are told. After all, who would refuse a large reduction in rent owed? The actual reduction is said to be about “five hundred denarii” in both examples given, about an 18-month wage for an average farm worker.[3]

⁸ And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly… (Luke 16:1-8a NRSVue)

The master receives the ledgers back and sees what has been done. Or maybe the master hears first how the community is suddenly overjoyed and praising him for being such a generous master. In any case he quickly puts one and the other together and realizes what has happened.

He has gained great honor in the sight of the entire community for his supposed generosity. He cannot now go and explain what really happened, because to do so would not only lose the honor that was just added, but more, because he had been duped by one of his servants. And the manager might have possibly even saved his job, because how could the master allow the community to see that he had fired the manager who was “only doing his job?”[4]

And this is the point in the text that is considered the end of the original parable by most biblical scholars. The rest of today’s reading is commentary by Luke to try to get to an acceptable interpretation, some of it better than others in applicability to the parable.

And we are at the same dilemma: what was Jesus trying to communicate with this most inscrutable and weird parable? The plainest reading is that dishonesty might be okay when circumstances call for it, and perhaps that the end justifies the means. But that seems so unlike what Jesus would promote.

I want to add here that although most Christians would disavow outright dishonesty in achieving a goal, manipulation is not nearly as frowned upon when it is a means to “saving souls”, “protecting the reputation of the group”, or “advancing ‘the Christian’ agenda[5].” I think specifically about church growth tactics that are employed in some circles, ongoing coverups of abuse in the church, and tactics used to gain and maintain political power in the name of “protecting Christian values”. One could conceivably stretch today’s parable to justify such manipulations and coverups.

Thus, we are again back to where we started: the dilemma of what to do with this opaque and difficult parable? Jesus told it and Luke included it, so we can assume that it meant something valuable to the original hearers and readers.

What we have is a parable that is told to by Jesus to his disciples; a rich man who although not necessarily evil, is part of a system of honor and wealth that is evaluated negatively by Luke; and an employee of the rich man who is depicted as dishonest but also shrewd.

I suggest that this parable has no hero. Neither may be clear villains, but both are complicit in a system that the gospel writer criticizes. Whereas many other of Jesus’ parables have suggestive elements that disciples are to emulate, I suggest that in this present interpretation, the entire parable may be seen as a warning to the disciples.

What is the warning? I think it is that the societal and cultural system of honor and shame, the system of patronage, the system of masters and clients cannot be redeemed. That to participate in it is to be complicit in it.

Was the manager doing anything that the master wasn’t doing, or wouldn’t do if he was a manager instead of the master? In the pursuit of wealth and power, tactics are generally emulated, because they work. The only trick is to not get caught. The problem with this manager is that he got caught. But in demonstrating his cleverness in his Hail Mary attempt to save himself, he seems to have gained the admiration of the master and (at least in one possible scenario) proved his mettle to the master with his cunning play.

I think that at least one message that Jesus communicates through this parable is turning the conventional-wisdom structures of society upside-down. We can see this from the very beginning of Luke’s gospel. Part of Mary’s Magnificat reads,

⁵¹ He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
⁵² He has brought down the powerful from their thrones
and lifted up the lowly;
⁵³ he has filled the hungry with good things
and sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1:51-53 NRSVue)

I think Jesus wanted to show his disciples that simply trying to reform existing systems and structures would not bear fruit. It has to be a complete revolution and a change in thinking (one might call this repentance).

The temptation to become part of the system and its structures and relationships is great. The history of Christianity doesn’t take too long after the first generation for it to happen. And that’s been our story ever since.

Perhaps the warning is a hyperbole, an exaggeration. Because none of us can simply quit the environment in which we live and breathe. But perhaps there are times when we do have a choice in the matter, and that is where this warning should be heeded. Have there been times when some of us have stayed in a toxic system, hoping to reform it from within? Have there been times when some of us chose to join a system for which you had some reservations, but thought you could just take the benefits and remain untarnished? How did these turn out?

In our efforts to engage the world around us, to be a source of positive contributions to society, we should never compromise the compassion and love that Jesus taught his disciples to have and live out. We must strongly resist the temptation to take shortcuts and employ means that may bring short-term gains but long-term entanglements with relationships that take us farther away from the mission of living God’s love to all. May we have the wisdom to discern correctly and the shrewdness to maintain the course of compassion and love, even when that seems difficult and against cultural norms.

 

---

A few ideas that I originally had, but ultimately did not use. I thought of a number of examples of stories and actual historical instances where people flouted law and/or misused their authority, usually for an ethical, moral reason. Using these would have led to a different interpretation of the parable.

Robin Hood: fighting against a corrupt Sheriff, redistributing ill-gotten wealth back to the poor.

Les Miserables: a broken wealth and legal system that excessively punishes a minor crime committed to feed his family.

Japanese Diplomat Chiune Sugihara – Lithuania, World War II. After receiving recall orders, he continues to write exit visas to refugees that would be harmed by the Nazis. Chiune Sugihara - Wikipedia

Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard –

“They also considered simply leaving the company to Fletcher and Claire. But even that option didn’t work, because the children didn’t want the company.

“It was important to them that they were not seen as the financial beneficiaries,” Mr. Gellert said. “They felt very strongly about it. I know it can sound flippant, but they really embody this notion that every billionaire is a policy failure.”” -- Patagonia Founder Gives Away the Company to Fight Climate Change - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

---

[1] “Once in a while, we just can’t stomach an inscrutable parable and for days like that, the prophet Jeremiah offers us something very different indeed.” A Song of Sorrow, Pentecost 15 (C) – September 18, 2022 – The Episcopal Church (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/a-song-of-sorrow-pentecost-15-c-september-18-2022/)

[2] Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p 334. “From the existence of these reports, the listener learns that the master is respected in his community. There is no hint of criticism of his character.”

[3] Bailey, p. 339.

[4] Feasting on the Gospels—Luke, Volume 2, Kindle location approximately 3505.

[5] And here I write this tongue-in-cheek, as what I’m thinking about are those “Christian” agendas that don’t seem to have any basis in Jesus’ teachings.

Sermon: Less is More

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

Saving: Virtue or Vice

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

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

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

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

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

Parable of the Rich Fool

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

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

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

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

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

Insatiable Desires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rich Fool, Again

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

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

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

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

Slavery to Systems

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

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

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

A Different System 

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

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

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

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

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

Where to Find Satisfaction

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

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

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

Satisfaction = what you have ÷ what you want

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

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

[2] Luke 12:19.

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

[4] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

[9] Luke 11:2b.

Sermon: A Different Economy

Text: Luke 11:1-13
Lectionary: Year C, Proper 12

Five years ago Elise and I took a vacation in Italy, spending about a month there. The first third of the trip was a group tour around the country on a bus. It was at the very end of that trip, the very last evening, as the group’s luggage was being unloaded from the bus, that I discovered that my luggage went missing and probably was stolen.

It was a rather unexpected, nasty surprise. But it could have been worse. I had fortunately carried all important documents and credit cards and such on my person. If the thief was looking for valuables in the luggage, they would have been sorely disappointed, save for a bit of US currency that I had in there since I didn’t need any while in Italy. Probably the most valuable thing was the luggage itself.

I was amazingly Zen about the whole affair. Retrospection wouldn’t change things, and the immediate future was somewhat dictated by having to file police reports and get a couple of changes of clothing. Taking the perspective that this led to some new experiences that I wouldn’t have otherwise had, to invoke curiosity about them, might have been factors that helped get through it without getting too stressed or annoyed.

It was decidedly inconvenient, but the sudden cutting loose from stuff that I had been carrying, albeit not my choice, was surprisingly freeing. Looking back on it now, it seems that I was suddenly forced to be more in-the-moment, to have to work through the new circumstances of the here-and-now.

Mindfulness: Being Present

Mindfulness has become quite the trend and buzz in wellness circles over the past couple of decades. It is most frequently associated with the practice of meditation, but the two are not the same. Meditation, particularly the types focusing on breathing and being aware of one’s own body, is a practice that is used to lead toward mindfulness. But mindfulness is the result of meditation or any other practice that leads to a state where one’s focus is on the present, rather than on retrospection (past oriented) or prospection (future planning).

Social scientists and psychologists have found that people who are happy tend to be focused on the present; i.e., they are mindful. They certainly do look back in history for lessons and make plans for the future, but they have learned to live in the present.[1]

On the other hand, those who ruminate in retrospection or are overly fixated on prospection tend to be less happy. Retrospection might be the result of regrets about the past or the preference for nostalgia, where the mind diminishes or erases the bad parts memories. Prospection might be the preference of an idealized future in which everything goes according to plan. In both cases, there seems to be significant felt dissatisfaction with the present.

Lord's Prayer and Mindfulness

I think the Lord’s Prayer, at least in part, is telling us to be present and to be mindful.

The version found in Luke is quite terse and direct, when compared to the version we most often recite from Matthew. Here it is again to refresh our memories.

^2b “Father, may your name be revered as holy.
May your kingdom come.
³ Give us each day our daily bread.
⁴ And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.” (Luke 11:2b-4 NRSVue)

The prayer begins and ends with what could be seen as future oriented: a desire to see the fulfillment of God’s kingdom on earth and a petition to be spared the time of trial.

But the central portion of the prayer is about the present, one day at a time. This is most clearly seen in the petition for provision of today’s needs, “Give us each day our daily bread.”

Debt Erasure and Not Keeping Records

But notice that the clause about forgiving is stated in the present tense: “And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.” Notice too, how Luke uses sins and debts interchangeably.

I think that there is an important principle here that we often overlook or ignore. Followers of Jesus don’t keep a ledger of debts, either formally or informally.

Keeping a record of debts means always having reminders about something owed to you from the past, and always looking toward a future time when the debt will be repaid in some manner. Relationships become transactional. Our interactions become accounting and mathematical problems. Will what I say or do be a credit or a debit on this relational ledger? Will we be owing someone, or will this be a repayment on some debt owed? Are they doing me a favor because of some past debt, or will they now expect repayment from me in the future? Even if we don’t explicitly think in these terms, I think that there is a part of us that wants to keep this kind of ledger.

Our social and economic structures, the ones we are immersed in from birth, perpetuate and reinforce this kind of thought process. These systems are the very air we breathe. We don’t even think about it. The exchange of goods for other goods and services, meritocracy, lending and borrowing, contracts, expectations of full repayment – these are all not just economic concepts, but they color how we approach community and relationships. Even participation in church can become transactional: am I getting out of church what I am putting into it?

Through the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus teaches us a different economy. One that can free us from being trapped by the past and from limits debt often places onto future possibilities. An economy that is achieved by eliminating ledgers altogether; by forgiving everyone of all debts, where this is done by all for one another.

Could such an economy actually work? Wouldn’t there be some who just take and take without ever giving back, taking advantage of those who give? Perhaps we can’t imagine anything like this working because we are unable to imagine beyond our culture and societal norms. Perhaps we are so steeped in the economy of scarcity and power that we can’t imagine people not taking advantage of one another to acquire more and amass power over others.

Parable of the Friends at Midnight

Immediately after the Lord’s Prayer, Luke records a parable told by Jesus. It does not come through in most English translations, but the first large portion of the parable should be read as a question posed by Jesus.

⁵ And he said to them, “Suppose one of you has [Can you imagine] a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, ⁶ for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.’ ⁷ And he answers from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.’ ⁸

This entire section should be preface as, “Can you imagine a friend doing this with your request?” The expected response from Jesus’ hearers would have been an emphatic, “No, we cannot.”[2]

I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything out of friendship, at least because of his persistence [shamelessness] he will get up and give him whatever he needs. (Luke 11:5-8 NRSVue)

Translation and Interpretation Alternatives

Here we get into one of the very confusing translation and interpretive problems in the New Testament. The word, here, translated as persistence leads to the interpretation that it is because of the persistence of the friend in need that the friend with the means finally acquiesces to the demands. And the frequent application is that we should be just as persistent in prayer to God. But that opens up a whole new can of worms in regard to answers to prayer, which we do not have the time to get into right now.

A better translation is shamelessness. But once more, this is applied to the one asking for bread, leading to the interpretation that one should or must be bold in asking God in prayer.

But other interpreters apply the shamelessness to the friend behind the locked door, the one with means. In this interpretation, the friend finally gives in because to refuse the request would be to bring shame and dishonor not only to himself, but to the entire community, for refusing to be hospitable to the guest who has arrived from outside the community.

A problem with this interpretation is the question about God and shame and honor. Those who object to this interpretation object on the grounds that God isn’t subject to shame and honor, and therefore, this interpretation is unsound. But when we see this and the latter part of today’s reading (which we will not specifically discuss here) as parables of “how much more is God willing” then the interpretation fits. If humans can be motivated by a sense of shame avoidance to do the right thing, how much more is God, who is completely righteous and good, willing to respond to requests from God’s people?

But there is yet another way to look at the parable. In most interpretations we assume that we are the friend asking for bread. But what if we turn it around such that we are the one behind the locked door, with the bread, being asked to get out of bed and get bread for the person outside? We are being asked because we happen to have the resources to fulfill the community’s need at this moment. How will we respond?[3]

Distribution of God's Gifts

It might seem to you like I’m wandering over a lot of territory today that doesn’t seem to connect. I hope that in these last few minutes I can bring it mostly together. First let’s review the final verse from today’s reading.

¹³ If you, then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13 NRSVue)

The specific mention of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask reminds me of the gifts of the Spirit that are found in several of the Epistles. Here is one such list and description from 1 Corinthians:

⁴ Now there are varieties of gifts but the same Spirit, ⁵ and there are varieties of services but the same Lord, ⁶ and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. ⁷ To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. ⁸ To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, ⁹ to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, ¹⁰ to another the working of powerful deeds, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. ¹¹ All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses. (1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NRSVue)

What I notice is that the gifts are distributed among the community for the common good. No one person has all the gifts, and the Spirit determines how the gifts are allocated.

Can We Imagine Better?

What if the answering of prayers to God is most frequently, by God, intended to be answered through God’s community on earth? What if the community of believers, globally, has been given all the resources and gifts necessary to respond to nearly every request that has and will be petitioned through prayer? What if all believers fully believed and trusted in the abundance of God’s provisions? What if we fully trusted that God provides sufficient resources to offer one another with our daily bread? What if we trusted that on some days we would be the ones blessed with abundance, but on other days we would be the ones asking another, but together we could meet one another needs for the day? What if we didn’t keep tallies of who was giving more and who was asking more, but rather, understood that all resources come from God to be used for the common good?

Honestly, I don’t know if this vision is realistic. In all reality, I seriously doubt it could work at all. But maybe just being able to imagine something different is a start.

I think there are briefs moments when each of us has experienced such grace from the community around us. Many of us have probably had opportunities to extend such grace. But then we quickly get back to the ways in which the world actually works.

Letting go of the baggage of living in this world, according to the ways of this world, is a difficult thing. Jesus says to us,

²⁸ “Come to me, all you who are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. ²⁹ Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30 NRSVue)

Jesus won’t take away our baggage without our consent. But he pleads with us to allow him to take them, because he knows it will be so freeing for us.

This sermon does not have answers, only questions. But what I do hope is that it will ignite some small part of our spiritual imaginations to ponder the kind of community that Jesus began to build, and what it will take to continue that work, to create a community that operates from a sense of abundance and cooperation, rather than scarcity and competition.[4] 

---

[1] How to Know That You Know Nothing - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/10/mindfulness-curiosity-arthurbrooks-ellenlanger-howto-2021/620283/). Also the entire “How to Build a Happy Life” podcast series, from which this episode is taken, explorers what happiness is and how to build a life that can experience more of it.

[2] Bailey, Kenneth E. Poet & Peasant, Chapter 6, “Exegesis of Luke 11:5-13”.

[3] Feasting on the Gospels – Luke, Volume 1. Commentary on Luke 11:1-13, Pastoral Perspective.

[4] Although I do not specifically reference the New Testament reading for this week, Colossians 2:6-15, in this sermon, I think there are thematic touchpoints. 1) An ongoing, daily, present walk with Christ (v.6-7). 2) The exhortation to not conform to the "elemntal principles of the world" (v.8). 3) God forgiving "all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us" (vv.13-14). 

Sermon: Wonder, Mystery, Love

By EHT Collaboration& - Astronomers reveal first image of the black hole at the heart of our galaxy (Image link), CC BY 4.0, Link

Lectionary: Trinity Sunday, Year C
Text: Proverbs 8:1-4, 22-31; John 16:12-15

God of Wonders

A month ago, the first-ever image was assembled of the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy so that we could see Sagittarius A*, as the black hole is called.

An article about this in The Atlantic starts out,

We live in the inner rim of one of the Milky Way’s spiral arms, a shimmery curve against inky darkness. Travel for thousands of light-years in one direction, past countless stars, countless planets, and countless moons, and you’d reach the outer edge of the Milky Way, where the last bits of our galaxy give way to the sprawling stillness of the intergalactic medium. Travel about the same distance in the other direction, past still more stars and planets and moons, through glittering clouds of dust, and you’ll end up in the heart of the galaxy, at one of the most mysterious landmarks in the universe…

Behold Sagittarius A* (pronounced “A-star”), a celestial object that has the mass of 4 million suns but could fit comfortably within the orbit of Mercury, the closest planet to the sun…

And still, we are not truly seeing Sagittarius A*, not really. Astronomers can’t take a real picture—in the way us non-astronomers would consider it—because black holes are, by definition, invisible. So the photo released today doesn’t show the black hole itself. Astronomers have captured Sagittarius A* in silhouette. The image reveals the shadow that the immensely dense black hole casts against the glowing, super-hot gas swirling around it.[1]

Black holes are so massive, their gravitational forces so strong, that it collapses space and time and not even light can escape from it. We can peer right to its edge, the event horizon, but cannot see into it. What actually happens inside a black hole is theorized, but we cannot see it.

Still staying within cosmology, but traversing the timeline, the Big Bang is the most widely accepted theory to explain the beginning of our universe. At the beginning of this physical universe, all space, time, energy, and matter was a single point which rapidly expanded and formed what we can observe and experience today. Yet science can only observe and explain moments after the big bang. Before that, we don’t know exactly how things were.

Our reading from Proverbs 8 tells us that God and Wisdom, frequently associated with and sometimes equated with the Holy Spirit, were present before any of what we can observe and explain existed. The immense power that formed the material universe, the immense power at the center of our galaxy – they are just a fraction of the power that is in God’s hands. These are huge mysteries to us in the fields of cosmology and astrophysics, but God knows what came before the big bang and what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

There was yet another article in The Atlantic a week ago about what oceanographers and marine biologists are learning about deep-diving ocean predators. These marine mammals and fish, which we often see at and near the ocean surface, dive to 1000, 2000, and even 3000 meters deep. Science and technology are now allowing us to discover these fascinating facts and slowly reveal the mysteries of the deep. Some of these mysteries that have been revealed is the richness of nutrients that are available in very deep layers of the ocean; how many preyed-upon creatures use swift, deep dives to escape predators; and how certain deep-ocean biological structures that are found in these species that confounded scientists in the past are now revealed to be used for deep-diving.[2]

God and the Holy Spirit works through the discipline of the sciences to allow humankind to discover new truths about the physical world we inhabit. Yet some things may forever remain mysteries.

God of Mystery

When we think about God and the Trinity, it is God’s power, majesty, and mystery that are often what comes to mind first. We think about hymns like Come, Thou Almighty King and Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty. And clearly, God’s power and majesty are demonstrated in the vast expanse and mysteries of Creation in the past, but also ongoing in the present time.

This is mostly how ancient peoples thought about deities – powerful, yet distant. Even for the Israelites, with God among them in the wilderness sanctuary, and later the Temple, God was not a being that just anyone could approach and have a relationship. There were priests and Levites, and sometimes prophets, who mediated encounters between the people and God.

But with the arrival of Jesus into humanity, as a human being, the entire conception of God was turned on its head. No longer was God simply “out there” or contained through mediating layers. No, God became Immanuel: God with us. God literally walked among humanity in Jesus. But after his physical departure, Jesus promised that the Spirit would be with us. The very same Spirit that was present at the beginning, sharing God’s essence, glory, and power; the Spirit that helped form all of Creation.

Today’s gospel text reads that the Spirit “will guide [us] into all truth.” When we hear “truth” we often equate it with “facts.” But we must be careful to determine what Jesus meant by “truth” here. We know very well that facts can be manipulated to communicate something that is the very opposite of what is true. And we also know that what is not factual, often found as fictional stories, can communicate truth more effectively than listing dry facts.

Earlier in the farewell discourse, from which today’s reading is taken, Jesus declared that he is the truth. In the context of this discourse then, what Jesus states to his disciples is that the Spirit will guide them into all that Jesus was and is and will be. Here is the text once more:

¹² “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. ¹³ When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. ¹⁴ He will glorify me because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. ¹⁵ All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-15 NRSV)

God of Love

In this text there are some things that Jesus couldn’t directly communicate to his disciples. At some point in the future, additional truths were to be communicated through the Spirit to them. What the Spirit communicates is the truth of Jesus. And the truth of Jesus comes from the Father. One of the primary truths about the Trinity is found here: God’s truth is found primarily in relationships. Jared Byas, a theology faculty member at Eastern University, says,

“If we look at all of the instances of truth in the Bible, we will come away realizing that it’s a relational term, it’s about being honest, it’s about having integrity.”[3]

There are several examples in the apostolic church of the Spirit revealing new relational truths to the church. The first might be the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.[4] Here the Spirit instructs Philip to go and explain the gospel of Jesus to an Ethiopian and a eunuch, both categories which likely would have been thought of as not fully acceptable God. But the Spirit broadens who can enter God’s family. The eunuch believes, or perhaps more accurately stated, the eunuch decides that God is trustworthy and is baptized into a relationship with God and the community of fellow people that have also come to trust in God’s trustworthiness.

The next example is Peter and the Roman centurion Cornelius.[5] Here Peter receives a vision about unclean foods and is commanded to eat. He is confused until Cornelius comes knocking on the door, and suddenly Peter understands. He goes to Cornelius’ house, ignores Jewish traditions, and enters into relationship with a gentile in his house, the household believes, and they are all baptized into God’s family.

A third example is found in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, where he writes:

²⁶ for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. ²⁷ As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29 NRSV)

The idea that all members of God’s family are on equal ground with one another is a radically different relational model. That everyone has equal access to God is revolutionary. That there are no hierarchies of race, nationality, socioeconomics, or gender was unheard of in ancient Greco-Roman society. And it is still, unfortunately, rare to see this fully practiced.

The truth of God, embodied in Jesus’ life and death, and given to the Spirit to communicate and remind believers across the centuries, is God’s mutual, egalitarian love. Just as God the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit practices it within the Trinity, Jesus demonstrated what it looks like with his disciples and in his interactions with the people he came across daily. The Spirit has been revealing how this kind of love is to be more fully practiced throughout the time following Jesus’ ascension through this present time.

Even though Paul’s declaration to the Galatians was quite egalitarian, in practice slavery, racism, gender inequality, and caste systems continued to keep their hold. Only slowly have their grips loosened on societies, and even today we continue to battle forces that would reverse the progress that love has made.

Experiencing Trinitarian Love

God has made God’s self known in the power, majesty, beauty, wonder, and mysteries of Creation. God’s love extends to all creation, but as far as we know right now, there is only a tiny part of this creation that can respond back to God with love.

In the First Epistle according to John, we read,

¹⁹ We love because he first loved us. ²⁰ Those who say, “I love God,” and hate a brother or sister are liars, for those who do not love a brother or sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. ²¹ The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also. (1 John 4:19-21 NRSV)

Our response to God’s love should be to love one another. To love one another is to love as Jesus loved us. Jesus loved people through words of encouragement, through healing acts, through providing for needs, and sometimes through rebuke. But in every case Jesus did what was most needed to help each person and their communities become the best versions of themselves, to reach the full potentials of humanity and community that God created them to be.

I think that might be a good way of understanding how to love as Jesus loved. Love is not the same as being nice to someone. Love is about building and strengthening individual and societal relationships. Love is sometimes about repairing and restoring damaged and broken relationships. Love may have to say difficult things at times, but it is never harsh. Love might mean we have to engage with people we find difficult or don’t like, but it is always kind and hopes for the best.

The Trinity can’t be explained. But we do have the offer to experience it, if we choose, when we build and sustain a community that loves as God loves.

---

[1] Behold, the Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/05/sagittarius-a-black-hole-milky-way/629838/)

[2] What Are Ocean Predators Doing So Deep Underwater? - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/06/ocean-predators-deep-dive/661186/)

[3] Episode 209: Jared Byas - Making of the Modern Mindset, Part 4 - Pete Enns (https://peteenns.com/episode-209-jared-byas-making-of-the-modern-mindset-part-4/)

[4] Acts 8:26-40.

[5] Acts 10.