Sermon: Gospel Symphony

Lectionary: Proper 9(A)

Text: Matthew 11:16-19, 25-30

Jai Krist
Wesley, Frank, 1923-2002

Among the artistic disciplines, I think that music has the most rigid fundamentals. After all, music can be reduced to mathematics and time. It would be technically accurate to say that music is mathematics being performed in time and space.

But that isn’t how our ears and brains take in music. We sense harmony and dissonance. We sense excitement and contemplation. We sense joy and sadness, love and conflict. We sense life and death.

We know these things because music follows rules, and rules that are quite rigid. But if all music did was to follow rules, it wouldn’t be very enjoyable or have emotional effects. Music that simply follows rules can become tedious and repetitious. Good music works within the confines to add variation and interest. Composers of great music understand the rules so innately that they know when and where to break them to bring surprises to the audience and to delight them through these unexpected changes.

Music can be performed only because there are rules. The notes and notations on a sheet of paper are a language that communicates the composer’s instructions and intent. It allows the one performing to interpret the composer's instructions and bring the page to life.

In performing music, the number of performers matters to how much liberty is afforded to each performer. A solo performer has the most freedom to be creative and go “off the page” and add their own personality and interpretation. A small group or ensemble still has freedom to improvise, but they need to remain cognizant of one another, and music provides the rules for staying together. A large symphony or choir affords almost no individual freedom, but through the conductor and director, allows a communal and collective interpretation through which each performer gives their all to a collective expression of a great composition.

Finally, there is the audience. True, music can be performed for one’s own enjoyment. But music is meant to be heard. Music is meant to elicit a response from the audience. Music is communication from the composer, through the performers, to an audience. Ideally, the audience responds to the music in ways intended by the composer and the performers.

Today’s gospel reading begins with a short parable from Jesus.

¹⁶ “But to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to one another, ¹⁷ ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.’ (Matthew 11:16-17 NRSVue)

The parable paints a picture of two groups of children: one performing music and a second expected to respond. The first group of children performs a polka, but the second group is unmoved, impassionate. The first group switches to a requiem, but the second group remains unmoved and impassioned.

I’m sure all of us have seen how quickly children normally respond to music. They have yet to develop social and emotional filters and guards. They hear the music and act upon how the music affects them.

So, it seems rather unusual for a group of children to remain unaffected and unresponsive to music that they hear. Jesus offers an interpretation of the parable.

¹⁸ “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; ¹⁹ the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” (Matthew 11:18-19 NRSVue)

I see two ways in which to understand this, and I think both apply. The first is the most obvious in which the second group is actively resisting the music coming from the first group. The second way is to understand that the two groups are operating under two different sets of rules, and thus the second group is unable to interpret the music.

When Jesus refers to “they”, we should understand it to mean those who previously were opposed to John the Baptizer and now opposing Jesus. They are the guardians of religious and social tradition, religious and social acceptability. They set up the boundaries and they enforce them. They are the keepers and wielders of power and control over everyone else. They define what music is supposed to sound like. Anything outside of what they know and have defined is both a threat and something that is incomprehensible to them.

Our reading skips a few verses and resumes at verse 25.

²⁵ At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; ²⁶ yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. ²⁷ All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:25-27 NRSVue)

Infants have no control over what happens to them. They have no interest in power games that develop and which are played by older people. And they respond instinctively to the music around them. The music of the gospel, the symphony of good news, is most readily heard and accepted by those who are the victims of power and control games, and by those who refuse and battle against their toxic enticements.

It is for these that Jesus offers the following invitation:

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)

The invitation is to take on Jesus’ yoke. It is for those who are bearing the burdens of other yokes. But it is also for those who thought that going alone would be freedom, but instead found their burdens increased with no one to help them.

The greatest symphony and choral performances are not individual pursuits, but a collaborative, team effort. It is not individuals trying to harmonize and stay together on their own, however. There is a conductor, a director. This individual directs the performance, keeps the individual musicians together, guides the interpretation of the music, and helps bring the music together for the enjoyment of the audience. By following the director, the musicians have less to worry about. Their place the burden of staying together and overall interpretation onto the conductor so that each individual can perform at their best.

We are invited to hear the gospel music and respond to its invitation. To hear it, we need to learn the rules of God’s kingdom. We need to learn to let go of our need for power and control. We need to learn to set aside appearances and acceptance by the world’s rules.

Instead, we are to become as infants, in the way they instinctively respond to music, unconcerned about what other people might think or judge. We are to help others learn and respond to the music of the gospel. We are to take up Christ’s yoke and teach others that genuine freedom comes not from casting aside all restraint, but comes from taking up the yoke that binds each of us together in Christ, to become part of the symphony and chorus performing the greatest music ever heard across the universe.

In the name of God the Composer,

In the name of God the Conductor,

And in the name of God who urges us to dance together, Amen.

Sermon: Power Over the Demons of Empire

Lectionary Year C, Proper 7 (12)

Text: Luke 8:26-39

Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac

As the fire of the Holy Spirit given at Pentecost continued to empower and encourage the disciples, they spread the good news of Jesus Christ throughout Jerusalem, Judea, and even to Samaria. But was the gospel limited to Jews and those who converted to Judaism? Was the gospel another interpretation of Judaism, or was it destined to become something else? Did Jesus set any example or precedent in bringing his work and message outside of the Jews?

This year’s lectionary readings do not include the development of the first-generation Christians found in the book of Acts. But today’s gospel reading from Luke could be interpreted as both a foreshadowing and a summary of what Luke will elaborate upon in his second volume, the book of the Acts of the Apostles.

In the Lucan text, prior to our reading, Jesus told two parables. One was the parable of the sower, and the second was the parable of the lit lamp. Both parables are interested in how the gospel is spread and received. We might see today’s reading as an illustration of the concepts found in the parables.

Some time after that, Jesus decides to take his disciples from one side of the lake to the other side. During the sailing, they are caught in a sudden storm, which Jesus calms and the disciples are awed and amazed. This showed Jesus’ command of natural forces, and more specifically the sea, which to the ancient mind was often associated with primordial chaos and the abyss, the dwelling place of demons.

With this brief background and setting the scene, we are ready to look more closely into today’s text.

The first detail to note is that they sailed to the Gerasenes’ land and that Luke specifically adds that it “is across the lake from Galilee.” Archaeologists and scholars aren’t sure why Luke uses Gerasa, which if the city is intended, is about 30 miles away from the lake. Perhaps Luke used the name because it was one of the most prominent cities in the area and would be better known than a more obscure one. The city itself was thoroughly Hellenistic and Roman. Luke’s use of “across the lake” adds to the emphasis that what will be narrated is thoroughly outside Jewish territory. One commentary noted that it was so outside the borders of acceptable Jewish travel that not even the religious leaders monitoring Jesus accompanied him to keep tabs on him.

The next detail to note is how the man (who is unnamed) addresses Jesus. This man calls Jesus “Son of the Most High God.” Note, too, that in Luke chapter 4, when Jesus encounters another man with a demon, this man addresses Jesus with a similar title, “the holy one from God.” In this case, the setting was a Jewish synagogue. The difference, as minor as it might sound to our ears, is a huge difference. “The holy one from God” is most likely one of Jewish descriptions for the Messiah. “Son of the Most Hight God” was a title used by Romans for Caesar.

Then Jesus asks the man for his name. The reply given is “Legion.” The first point to note is that it was believed that using the name of an entity conferred power over them. So, the man tries to use the true identity and title of Jesus to gain power over him. But instead, Jesus asks the name of the man, and he is forced to give away his name. In this power struggle, it is shown that Jesus is more powerful than the demons.

The second point to note is that legion is a Roman military term, denoting a large unit of soldiers, numbering 5,000 to 6,000 in strength. By contrasting the power of a Roman legion to Jesus, it shows that Jesus’ power can conquer Rome and the empire. It may also imply that the man’s condition is caused by the empire and its powers. Empires and politics always oppress the many so that a few can enjoy its benefits and pleasures.

To show further that Jesus is in command, the demons must ask permission of Jesus to take any further action. And their request is to be sent to the large herd of pigs nearby. When the demons enter the pigs, they run to the sea and drown themselves. The demons ironically end up in the abyss which they were trying to avoid.

This area was also known for the agriculture necessary to feed the Roman armies in the area. By mentioning the herd of pigs, the narrative further emphasizes the foreignness of this land. No respectable Jew would come anywhere close to pigs, yet here Jesus is not too far from them.

Readers have been troubled by Jesus allowing the destruction of so many pigs, and there is no good answer. But if we read it as symbolizing a power struggle and demonstration of Jesus’ strength over creation, it may not make it more palatable to our sensibilities, but it may help us understand the message that was intended.

The Jews of that time are known to refer to Rome and Romans as pigs and swine. Pigs and swine were considered unclean and unholy. It would not have troubled Jews if an entire herd of swine drowned themselves. It might even be a cause for celebration, having both symbolically and economically ruined the Romans.

The scene moves forward and now the man who was formerly naked, homeless, and unable to control himself is sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in control of himself. The position in which he is pictured is that of a disciple learning from a teacher.

When the people of the surrounding area come to see what has happened and see this change, they are in awe. Those who saw Jeus’ power restore the man described to others how the event transpired. And then they were all filled with fear and asked Jesus to leave the area.

There are a few more things to note on this point. First, the gospel of Jesus Christ is not good news to everyone. It can cause some to recoil and turn away. Perhaps the people could only see economic devastation that Jesus caused and could not or would not see alternatives to their future. Secondly, the gospel often does result in social, economic, religious, and political turmoil. It is often easier to live with the devil (or demon) that we know than to be thrown into a completely new and unknown situation. Thirdly, notice that Jesus simply accepts the peoples’ request. He respects their choice and does not try to force himself on them.

As Jesus and the disciples prepare to leave, the man asks to be taken along. But Jesus says, “Return home and tell the story of what God has done for you.” And that is what he did. The man is restored to social belonging, given a home, and given a mission.

Here we see two ways of participating in the gospel work. The first is to go tell the story of how Jesus has changed your life. This witnessing activity plants seeds. The second way is through the process of discipleship, one learns how to tend to the seeds that germinate, sprout, and grow. The man was sent to plant seeds. The disciples returned with Jesus to continue to learn his ways so that they could become caretakers of the early Christian church.

I think that this narrative of the demon possessed man and Jesus is a deliberate satire aiming several pillars of the Roman empire, starting with its head, Caesar, moving to its military, and then to its economy. It shows that Jesus Christ is greater than Rome. It shows that the gospel flips on its head those things that the empire values. The gospel extends beyond a small region or people group, encompassing more than the Roman empire. However, it also reveals that the gospel is not always welcomed. That is to be expected, and one should not force the gospel onto others.

The gospel is opposed to empire, in whatever form and age it appears. Are we on the side of the oppressed or the oppressors? Are we more interested in preserving our comfort at the expense of the humanity of others? How much do the demons of power, privilege, wealth, comfort, respectability, fear, anxiety, and so on, control our decisions and our lives?

May Christ give us the ability to trust him to free us from our bondage to the demons of this world so that we can become fully human, created in the image of God. 

The Gospel Formulation: Simple or Simplistic?

So the following popped up in my Twitter feed today. And yes, I have some issues with it. 

The gospel is the simple truth that God is holy, we are sinners, and Jesus is our Savior.

— The Gospel Project (@Gospel_Project) February 28, 2015

It is certainly simple (I mean, it fits into a 140-character tweet). But is it simplistic? Is this an accurate definition of “the gospel”?

There are three subparts to the statement, and each one is correct. But just because there are no errors in fact does not necessarily follow that the composed statement is the best representation of what is true. To be fair, the statement does not explicitly state the relationships between the elements, but I think it is clear that the assumptions being made are that (italics are unstated assumptions required to make the statement work):

• A (God is holy) –>
• B (and we are sinners) –>
• C (and we need a Savior and Jesus is our Savior) =
• D (therefore, this is the gospel).

Again, I don’t see anything wrong with the stated parts of A, B, and C. But does D necessarily follow A, B, and C? I realize this is a very common formulation, especially in evangelical and neo-Reformed circles.

But where is “love” in the gospel? The same circles that formulate the above are also very fond of John 3:16. But many also hold that God’s holiness is his supreme attribute (hence the “A” above) and that love is merely a manifestation of his holiness (or something along these lines).

So what I see is that this “simple” formulation of the gospel is in fact, not generally applicable to all groups who are defined as Christian (and who, by the way, defines who is and isn’t “Christian”?). This formulation is based on a priori theological axioms that may or may not be agreed upon by all Christians, and makes many relational assumptions between the elements.

As a Progressive Arminian/Wesleyan with leanings toward aspects of open and process theologies, my theological foundation is that:

• God is primarily defined by his love,
• And that love requires that there can be no force or coercion,
• Therefore, humans must be free to choose in an absolute sense;
• Because of that, God knows all possibilities but does not fully know which choices creation will take.

I also accept for myself that the best explanation for Jesus Christ’s incarnation and atonement work is described by the Christus Victor metaphor where the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is a dramatic event (as opposed to the more common forensic/legal/penal-substitution theory from Anselm) that defeated sin and death.

So my formulation is that:

• M: God is love
• N: Love demands creation be given freedom
• O: Love compelled God to act when creation fell
• P: Jesus Christ (his whole life, death, and resurrection) shows the natural consequences of sin
• Q: Christ defeated sin and death by destroying its power through his death and resurrection
• R: Creation is restored through the power of life, evidenced in the resurrection
• S: Therefore, the entirety of creation has hope for new life; and this is the gospel.

It isn’t as short and concise, but it isn’t simplistic either. And I believe it offers better hope than the more simplistic formulation that is more commonly seen and heard.

There is more than one way to explain and define “the gospel.” Some, I think, are better than others.

Searching for the ecology of the gospel accounts

When I originally planned my trip to Ghost Ranch in New Mexico it was to attend a week-long course in coming to grips with who Jesus is to each person. Due to lack of enrollment the course was cancelled. I could have taken a refund and paid out $125 to Alaska Airlines to redeposit the airline miles. Instead I opted to continue the trip with a slightly different objective.

One of my objectives became to read through all four gospels. Not study them, but to just read them. In Christian circles that I grew up in, and probably is many others, Bible reading and Bible study are essentially synonymous. A person reads a small section of the text and studies it, whether it is for theology or for devotional purposes. I can’t recall ever encountering suggestions to just read it without any other motivation.

The other objective became to contemplate the definition of “gospel.” I think that too often, the gospel is defined in terms of Pauline writings. And/Or it is defined primarily in terms of the crucifixion, and in the process reducing the value of the rest of Jesus’ story. The common definition for the gospel is the means through which salvation is afforded to sinners, or some variant of this. Components might include steps to salvation, a “sinner’s prayer”, theories of atonement, discussions about justification and sanctification, and so on.

These two objectives came together during my time of retreat. My larger objective became a search for what the gospel writers intended when they each wrote their “Gospel according to…” I wanted to discover the forest of the gospel, rather than get sidetracked by the individual trees. I wanted to see the topography of each of the paintings of the gospel. I wanted to feel the contours and textures. I wanted to actively sense the nuances of each author’s take on what the gospel meant to him.

I read through the gospel accounts during a span of about three days, during each of their morning and evening periods. I read them in the Common English Bible translation, a translation involving around 120 scholars and whose intent was to render the biblical text into present-day common English syntax. I resisted the temptation to refer to lexicons, concordances, dictionaries, and commentaries. I wasn’t reading to study. I was reading to simply read. They were probably originally read aloud in one extended sitting. That’s kind of what I wanted to emulate, though I chose to not read it aloud.

During the course of my reading, it was fascinating to recognize the different emphases of each of the Synoptic gospels. I recognized the differences in ordering of stories and teachings, differences in what was included or not in each, and the huge difference between the Synoptics and John.

I found that for which I was seeking. I found the forest of each gospel. In the Synoptics, the gospel is that the Kingdom of God/Heaven has arrived through Jesus. Each writer has his own spin on this theme, but it is all about the Kingdom. In John the gospel is that Life has come to be offered abundantly to all who choose to accept it. At least that is what I took away from my time of reading.

I would like to encourage Christians to take the time to set aside Bible study for a few moments and take some time to just read some of these narrative books in their entirety as a work of literature. Take time to discover the forest. Discover the ecology of the work. Only then will the individual trees make sense as they were meant to be.

Book Review: Pastrix, by Nadia Bolz-Weber

Pastrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint by Nadia Bolz-Weber
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

For all who are tired of trying to measure up to and maintain "standards of Christianity," whether these standards are couched in terms of behaviors or beliefs, Nadia has a word for you: the grace of God allows you to stop striving for perfection.

For all who are feel broken and unwanted, Nadia has a word for you: the grace of God says you are a precious child of God.

In this book, through her own life of addictions, brokenness, and subsequent redemption and restoration, Nadia recounts the grace of God at work in her life. In numerous examples of people she has encountered and works with, she reveals that the power of grace cannot be overcome by evil.

The strong current running through all the chapters is grace and redemption. It is about a surprising grace, a grace that works mysteriously and unexpectedly, working beyond the fences that Christianity so often builds around herself.

These are stories of power and defiance. The gospel is not a message of passivity and niceness, but one that stands ground against evil, tragedy, and despair. The power of the gospel is the power the redeems and transforms the ugliness of the world into God's new creation. The power of the gospel is power that defies the powers of evil by holding on to the promises of redemption and restoration in the midst suffering.

This book is likely to be a challenging read to those who lean toward conservative theology and evangelicalism. It will be a challenge to anyone who considers the use of profanity (of which there are plenty in this book) to be "sin."

Nadia challenges Christians to stop pretending to be people they are not. She challenges Christians to be who they are, with all the faults and blemishes, because the power of God working in the problems of real lives is the gospel that will be heard by many who have tuned out "traditional church as usual."

(This review is based on an advance review copy supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Book Review: Healing the Gospel

Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross by Derek Flood
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The primary thesis of this book, as I understood it is this: The retributive justice championed by the penal substitution model of Christ's atonement is false. Christus Victor, the classic and dramatic model of the atonement, reveals the other model for the falsehood that it is and then destroys it through the restorative justice that Christus Victor represents.

In short, all Christians and anyone interested in Christian theology ought to read this book. In the end you may still not agree with it, but it is important to understand the development of penal substitution theory that was based on the perspectives of the medieval church period. It is important to understand that there are other ways of understanding and interpreting the nature and importance of Christ's work through his life, death, and resurrection. It is important to understand that penal substitution is not rejected simply because it seems offensive, but because there is substantial biblical support for an alternative view, that in the author's and this reviewer's perspective, is more coherent with the whole of scripture.

Derek Flood does an excellent job of laying out the evidence for Christus Victor and against penal substitution. He goes through and logically dismantles the usual arguments in favor of penal substitution. He spends one chapter in this book working through the Suffering Servant passage of Isaiah 52-53 and shows that instead of God demanding some kind of punishment, it shows humans and the natural consequences of sin caused Christ to undergo suffering. The Appendix in the book is one of the most important portions as Mr. Flood works through the proper understandings of key soteriological terms: righteousness, justice, justifies, justification, and wrath. He shows how these should not be interpreted within a legal, forensic framework, but in a restorative and natural consequences framework.

This book builds upon Gustaf Aulen's original "Christus Victor" work. Aulen's work is quite scholarly and in it describes the history of the development of the three models - classic (Christus Victor), objective (Latin, penal substitution), subjective (moral influence) - of the atonement. Aulen's shows how classic is best supported by scripture and history.

What Mr. Flood does is take the next step. If one accepts Christus Victor, then the other models are not only inadequate, but they are false, particularly the penal substitution model. Mr. Flood explains how Christus Victor is, in particular, the antithesis of the penal substitution model and how the p-s model not only does not treat sin seriously enough, but it portrays a picture of God that is diametrically opposed to that which Jesus came to reveal.

Christians accept the Bible as the revelation of God. By "revelation of God" I don't mean in the sense of God reveals things but rather in the sense it shows humans what God is like. How one chooses to understand the cross and the atonement is critical for interpreting the rest of scripture. It is the lens through which we see God and how we portray God to others. If we get it wrong, we unknowingly end up lying about God. This book provides a clear differentiation between two ways of viewing God. It is critical to learn the support and reasoning behind the two opposed views and make the right choice.

View all my reviews

On-Air Radio Talk–Sports and Gospel

Why do sporting events draw so many viewers as opposed to the communication of the gospel?

I had the opportunity to spend about 25 minutes on the local Christian radio, KRSA, to talk about whatever was on my mind.

With the Tour de France just having ended and the London Olympics starting and going for the next couple of weeks, I talked about sporting events drawing the attention of millions of people and why people are so drawn to them. I then discussed our communication of the gospel and why it doesn’t seem to have the draw that sporting events do.

People watch sporting events not primarily for the stats, the scores, and certainly not for the rules and regulations. People watch because in each competition, in each event, there is a story that unfolds that grabs our heart and our emotions.

Similarly in our communication of the gospel, we can opt to talk about theology and doctrines, or we can choose to talk about the story. Which grabs the attention of someone unfamiliar with Jesus? Which do most people enjoy? It’s not that theology and doctrines aren’t important or have no value. There is much that is important to rules and regulations in sports, but the focus is not on them but on what happens – the story that unfolds. It should be the same with how the gospel is communicated: for the presenter, theology and doctrine forms a framework but that is not what we are to communicate. Rather we should be focusing on the story: its appeal and enjoyment. Jesus should be seen as the hero in whom our fears die and our hopes born.

Full discussion audio