Sermon: Breathing Hope

Lectionary: Lent 5(A)

Texts: Ezekiel 37:1-14; Romans 8:6-11; John 11:1-45

You Shall Live
Cranach, Lucas, 1472-1553

In case you haven’t guessed already, today’s message comes from our Ezekiel reading.[1] It is a dialogue between God and Ezekiel, set in a valley of dry bones. It is a curious passage where God commands Ezekiel to prophesy, to speak words that God has given Ezekiel, to the bones. Once the words are spoken, God does something. But the return of life is not instantaneous; it is completed after two phases and required Ezekiel’s involvement.

What could this vision of Ezekiel mean? One interpretation that is dismissed by nearly all is where this vision is interpreted as evidence of a future resurrection of individuals. A key reason for this is that the idea of resurrection of people developed in the post-exilic period. As we will see, Ezekiel was written close to the beginning of the Babylonian exile.

First, who was Ezekiel?

Ezekiel the son of Buzi (1:3) was an Israelite priest in the deportee Israelite community in Babylonia. Dates in the book imply that he was born in Judah in 622 BC, just before Josiah’s reform, and thus lived through much of Jeremiah’s ministry there. He was married (24:18), was thirty years old when he began his ministry in 592 BC (1:1), and continued his ministry until at least 571 BC (29:17).[2]

As for the book bearing his name, scholarly views range from Ezekiel being its sole author to Ezekiel having written none of it. There are reasons to dismiss the sole authorship hypothesis, and it is impossible to determine how much of the text can be traced back to the prophet in Babylon. Therefore, it is perhaps best to conclude that the text of the book has some undeterminable relationship to Ezekiel and his time in Babylon.

The portion of text that was read comes from the fourth and final division in the book where the prophet writes about the restoration of Judah and a return to their land. The key point of the prophecy of the dry bones is found in verses 11 to 14.

¹¹ Then he said to me, “Mortal, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are cut off completely.’ ¹² Therefore prophesy and say to them: Thus says the Lord GOD: I am going to open your graves and bring you up from your graves, O my people, and I will bring you back to the land of Israel. ¹³ And you shall know that I am the LORD when I open your graves and bring you up from your graves, O my people. ¹⁴ I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you on your own soil; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have spoken and will act, says the LORD.”[3]

The bones represent an entire group of people as a single entity. There is no hint that the bones are about individuals. The message presented is not about a resurrection, but a return and restoration of the group entity to their ancestral lands. The message is for a people who have lost hope, “who have lost heart, who are suffering a death of the spirit, a living death in exile in a foreign land.”[4]

Is hope and the lack of it really a determinant of life and death?

You may have heard of a book by the title, Man’s Search for Meaning. It was authored by Viktor Frankl, a Jewish Austrian who survived the Nazi concentration camps and wrote about his experiences and observations while imprisoned. In it he writes how those who looked for meaning and purpose, however minute, in their lives tended to survive better than those who lost hope.

Another example comes from the city of Sarajevo and a cellist by the name of Vedran Smailovic. An explosive shell had killed 22 and wounded more than 100. To honor those who had died, Vedran played Albinoni’s Adagio for 22 days. In this war-torn city, where many civilians had died and had been wounded, Vedran, even if for just a few minutes, brought a sense of normalcy and hope that peace would return.

A third example comes from our own state, Alaska. In 2014 Craig Johnson fell through ice while riding a snowmobile 80 miles to visit his family for the holidays. A rescue chopper flew overhead without seeing him and he was stalked by a wolverine. He was ready to give up, but his hope of being reunited with his boys and family kept him going and alive.

Finally, from the world of fiction we might look at the Lord of the Rings where Frodo is the unwilling ring-bearer. He is accompanied every step of the way by his loyal friend, Sam. Toward the end of the journey, Frodo, burdened by the ring and the responsibility of carrying it, poisoned by the curse of a Nazgul, he struggles and is on the verge of giving up. But Sam is there by Frodo’s side, carrying him when necessary, and keeping hope alive for both.

Several years ago, I was involved in several suicide prevention and intervention courses. Among the many ways to intervene when someone is considering suicide, here are a couple of them. The first is to remind the individual that things won’t always seem so dark or hopeless – that there are better days to look forward to. A second is to talk with them to find at least one reason to keep living, even if for just one day.

For the Jews who ended up in Babylon, the dry bones represent a total collapse and loss of hope. God asks Ezekiel, “Can these bones live?” When Ezekiel answers that he doesn’t know, God tells him to prophesy to the bones, “I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you and will cause flesh to come upon you and cover you with skin and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the LORD.”

Ezekiel becomes the agent of hope that is carried to the hopeless. He sees the bones come together, and sinews and flesh formed on the bones. But there is yet no life. Ezekiel must persist by prophesying breath into the physical forms. Only then do the bones, sinews, and flesh recover life and stand as a multitude.

The African American spirituals, of which we sang one earlier and we will be closing with another, were words of hope in what seemed to the ones singing places of hopelessness and death. They looked toward a time and place when they would be free, away from forced labor, and where families would not be torn apart for the monetization and profit for the slaveowners.

The world we inhabit today is not all that different from nations and empires of the past. The poor are still exploited by the rich. War and violence still mostly victimize the poor and weak. The powerless continue to be the victims of the whims and privilege of the powerful. Outsiders are still blamed without cause for the problems created by those on the inside. The powerful still lord power over the less powerful.

All of us, in one way or another, participate in the games of power and position. We try to hang on to what we have, lest we end up falling down the ladder of this game called life. We are scared. We are fearful. And sometimes we feel hopeless. We look at our nation and world and oftentimes it can be difficult to see any kind of hopeful future.

Maybe hope isn’t looking for something big to change. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be about waiting for something to change. Rather, it is finding something, however small it might be, to be an agent and spark of hope in someone else’s life.

In today’s gospel reading, Jesus is the agent of hope who brings life back to Lazarus. It is a sign that even death and the grave is powerless in the presence of Jesus, the Life and Light of the world.

We are agents of hope and life in the world as well. We may not physically resurrect dead people back to life, but we can carry the hope of a just world, the kingdom of God, to those who are suffering under the pressures of this present one. We can be agents of hope by offering encouraging words and through our work to help bear the burdens that others are suffering under.

The Season of Lent is not just about introspection. It is also about looking forward to the kingdom of heaven fully realized and acting today to do what we can to bring pieces of it to be tasted by the communities in which we live and serve. Each of us are called, as Ezekiel was, to prophesy hope and life to the world around us.

In closing I read from Romans 8:6-11.

⁶ To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, ⁸ and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

⁹ But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. ¹⁰ But if Christ is in you, then the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. ¹¹ If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. (NRSVue)

Let us live as resurrected people, alive with the Spirit of Christ.

References

ABC News. (2014, December 28). Alaska Man Survives Three Days Lost in Sub-Zero Temps, Fights Off Wolverine. Retrieved from ABC News: https://abcnews.com/US/alaska-man-survives-days-lost-temps-fights-off/story?id=27860053

Alter, R. (2019). The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Burns, J. F. (1992, June 8). The Death of a City: Elegy for Sarajevo -- A special report.; A People Under Artillery Fire Manage to Retain Humanity. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/08/world/death-city-elegy-for-sarajevo-special-report-people-under-artillery-fire-manage.html

Tolkien, J. R. (n.d.). The Lord of the Rings (Trilogy).

Van De Laar, J. (2026, March 12). The Other Side of Suffering: Evolving Consciously in Lent (Part 5): A Reflection on Ezekiel 37:1-14. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/the-other-side-of-suffering

Wikipedia. (2026, March 21). Viktor Frankl. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] One of the hymns was Dry Bones.

[2] (William B. Eerdmans, 2003)

[3] Ezekiel 37:11-14, NRSVue.

[4] (Bartlett & Brown Taylor, 2010)

Sermon: Honor Among Friends

 

Lectionary Year B, Easter 6

Text: John 15:9-17

Also: Luke11:5-8

Introduction

What is a friend? I supposedly have 756 “friends” on Facebook. But clearly, most of these don’t fit even a very broad or loose definition of friend.

A definition from the Oxford Dictionaries via Bing reads, “A person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations.” Some synonyms from the same source includes words such as: companion, confidante, schoolmate, workmate, pal, and buddy. I think that for most of us, friend is certainly someone that we know well and share some commonalities and can often include those that we know somewhat superficially but do spend some occasional time with. We typically include in our category of friend many with whom we share group membership: this might include workplaces, organizations, school, and church.

An acquaintance, by comparison, seems to be a far more restricted term, applied to those that we know just enough about to not fit the category of strangers.

In our culture, most of the people that we have in our regular circle of contact, if not family members and not pure business contacts, they tend to fall into the category of friends. We also tend to think of friends as not too different from us in socio-economic status. Friends are relationships based on mutual choice. We might call on friends for assistance, but we generally accept that they are free to help or not help. We might expect more from our close and closest friends, but even then, we allow them the choice to offer assistance or not.

We make these assumptions when seeing “friend” in the text of the Bible. And that can potentially limit what we get from reading it or can even mislead us. We can miss the rich layers of meaning in the biblical text when we project our own cultural readings onto it.

Patronage and Friendship

Today’s reading is steeped in the patronage systems that was the air that Jesus and his disciples lived in daily. It was part of the Roman society and systems that the writer of this gospel and its audience lived in.[1]

We see this at work in the first two sentences of today’s reading:

⁹ “As the Father loved me, I too have loved you. Remain in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.  

The Father is the patron. He offers love to Jesus, the broker or mediator. And in turn, Jesus loves his disciples, the client. Through Jesus, the broker, the Father offers love to the disciples.

In a patronage system, there are always strings attached. We, in the Western world might think this to be a negative, but the collectivists see this as a primary reason for patronage: it establishes, builds, and strengthens relationships. Independence is not a highly thought-of value; mutual dependence is. Efficiency is far less valuable than working with a large web of relationships.

The string attached to God’s love is for the clients to keep Jesus’ commandments, which can be understood to be the same as God’s commandments, when we read this text as Jesus brokering communication between the Father and Jesus’ disciples.

Another point that those of us who are not familiar with the patronage system is that the term friend can be used of any of these relationships just described. It certainly can be a term used among the clients, but friend can be used to describe the client-broker, broker-patron, and even the patron-client relationships. Equality in status is not assumed by the usage of friend and we should not assume it when we see it in the Bible.

What the word friend, when used in collectivist societies means, is loyalty and interdependency. It certainly can include affection, closeness, and mutually shared interests, but these are secondary. A friend is not as close as kin, but almost as close. And they are a part of the common community in which they all should have a vested interest in maintaining and upholding the shared honor. Here too, is something we might often miss when discussing honor: although individuals have honor, it is derived from relationship with a community.

Parable of the Friend at Midnight

Some of these ideas can be found in a parable Jesus told, found in the Lucan gospel, chapter 11.

⁵ He also said to them, “Imagine that one of you has a friend and you go to that friend in the middle of the night. Imagine saying, ‘Friend, loan me three loaves of bread ⁶ because a friend of mine on a journey has arrived and I have nothing to set before him.’ ⁷ Imagine further that he answers from within the house, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up to give you anything.’ ⁸ I assure you, even if he wouldn’t get up and help because of his friendship, he will get up and give his friend whatever he needs because of his friend’s brashness.  

Jesus uses the term friend ironically in this parable. When Jesus asks his audience to imagine that one of the listeners’ friends might refuse an inconvenient request, particularly in the middle of a night, their response is, “No, they cannot imagine a friend refusing a request.” Especially when it involves another friend and hospitality.

The parable doesn’t state the social statuses of each of the individuals. They might be equal, but they don’t have to be. If so, who might be of higher status? We can imagine different scenarios. Perhaps the friend asking is of higher status, perhaps a patron asking his baker client. Or perhaps the friend is the client, asking his patron for extra bread that he might have that the client, being of lower economic status, might not have at the end of each day. But the point that the audience of Jesus would have understood is that no one in the community possesses everything that might be necessary for any given day or night. Mutual dependence is key to their survival. In fact, as another parable of Jesus – the parable of the Rich Man’s Barn [Luke 12:15-20] – shows how not wanting to depend on and contribute to his community is considered a curse and the one seen as cursed.

But this so-called “friend” that is asked for some bread does fulfill the request. Not because of the so-called “friendship” that clearly is being ignored or does not exist. But because of the word at the end of the parable. The CEB translated it as brashness, but others translations include importunity, shamelessness, and boldness. The traditional interpretation is that it is because the friend asking is bold and persistent, that the request is finally fulfilled.

But Kenneth E. Bailey in Poet and Peasant and in many translation notes that are often supplied with Bibles suggest that a better interpretation is to see this as affecting the honor of the friend being asked, and for him to refuse it is to cast aspersion on the honor of the entire community. So, in order to avoid shame, the so-called friend gives the requestor not just bread but everything else needed to fulfill the hospitality duties expected of a host.

The point of the parable is that if a mere person who might not behave with loyalty that a friend relationship expects, will still fulfill requests in order to avoid shame, how much more will God, who is far more loyal and honorable, grant requests of those who ask.

What Does It Mean to Be Called Jesus’ Friend?

When Jesus, in the gospel of John (today’s reading), declares that he no longer calls his disciples servants but friends, all of this comes into play. Jesus laid down his life for his friends. Therefore, those who are in a friend-relationship with Jesus are also expected to lay down their lives for their friends. And just in case someone didn’t quite get it the first go around, Jesus states the expectation explicitly:

¹² This is my commandment: love each other just as I have loved you. ¹³ No one has greater love than to give up one’s life [Gk., psyche] for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command you. 

To do what Jesus commands is to love as Jesus loved. To love as Jesus loved is to be willing to give up one’s life for another friend. Now, life, as used here does not necessarily refer to physical life, although it may. There are at least three Greek words that are translated as “life” in English: bios, zoe, and psyche. The one used here is psyche and generally is used for what we would think of as being critical to a person’s identity: thoughts, emotions, motivations, and one’s worldview.[2] One way of applying this may be in my willingness to not assert or even relinquish my rights in order to bring equity and justice to another.

We also read here how Jesus was the broker for the Father’s message. Through Jesus, the disciples have come to know God’s will. It is for this reason that they are no longer servants but friends. Friends understand how their community operates: its values and its principles. Friends are able to behave and act in ways that honor the community, even if no direct command is given as would be the case from a master to a servant. And because the loyalty that friends have to the patron is expected, and because that loyalty means friends will only ask of the patron what brings honor to the entire community, all of those requests will be granted through Jesus, who is the broker. (We should note, however, that Jesus promised “another broker”, or mediator, just minutes before – John 14.)

We’ve discussed what the disciples hearing Jesus’ words might have understood. But why did this gospel writer include this text? What did it mean to his community?

Conclusion: How Do We Remain in Jesus’ Love?

I think that John’s community might have had some questions about what it means to “abide in Jesus’ love.” How does a community remain in Jesus’ love when Jesus is no longer physically around? This gospel’s answer, through Jesus’ words, is that the community loves one another as Jesus loved the disciples: by not insisting on one’s rights and privileges, or by using these for the benefit of another, or by willing to relinquish them so others can be given equity and justice, or perhaps in some cases giving one’s own physical life. When all members of the community love in this way, there should be no need unmet.

Mutual interdependence is not about “me giving to you, and you giving to me,” but “we giving to we.”[3] In this type of society, resources are not used up, they are not hoarded; they are continuously recycled and renewed. And in this way, this becomes a type of resurrection and life that Jesus embodies and offers.

We live in a vastly different culture than when these words were spoken and written. I don’t think that becoming collectivist is expected or desirable. But do we as a culture overvalue independence and individualism? Do we, consciously or not, look down on those who need assistance? Is it possible to elevate the value of dependence upon one another? Can we eliminate the stigma and shame often accompanying asking for help? I think that these might be a few ways in which we might think of better loving one another. By doing so, we keep Jesus’ command, remain in his love and bear fruit, which then honors and brings glory to God.

---

[1] The concepts of patronage and how it works and how it might be applied to biblical texts taken from Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World, by E. Randolph Richards and Richard James. Also Feasting on the Gospels: John, Volume 2, “John 15:11-17, Exegetical Perspective” section.

[2] I am indebted to Liberation Lectionary on Facebook for a discussion on this week’s reading and pointing out the particular use of psyche as the term translated as “life”.

[3] Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, page 67.

Change of Seasons

I look at the calendar and notice that the beginning of Autumn, according to the solar cycle, is a week away. But I can feel the autumn chill in the air today, here in Southeast Alaska, with rain dripping down and forecasts telling me to be on watch for heavy rains and strong winds later today and tomorrow.

Some (many, I’m led to believe) people loathe the end of summer. It signals shorter daylight hours, cooler temperatures leading into cold ones, and frequently more clouds and less sunshine. Summer connotes play and care-free, at least in minds, if not in actual living. Summer evokes warmth and happiness. On the other hand autumn signals the beginning of an end – of the year but metaphorically a death with the death and decay of plants and leaves. Autumn and winter, with its grayness can be sad and depressing.

I’m the other way – one of the rare ones, or so I’m told. I don’t much care for summer and all the brightness and cheer. I like the melancholy and quiet of darkness. I like the calm that settles outside as people disappear from public and remain in their homes. I feel more virtuous in going outside when others seek shelter from the elements. I welcome autumn and winter.

Seasonal changes can have physical and psychological effects on people. The change in light, temperature, air pressure, and humidity can affect how a person feels, in body and in mind.

Most of us tend to avoid change. We prefer stability and predictability. But seasons change and so do our lives. Some of us are more open to it. But there are some that resist it with every fiber of their being, having to be dragged into it.

Children and younger people, I think, are more open and accepting of change. That’s all they know. But as we grow older, we get settled and we get comfortable. We might not like everything about how things are, but we begin to look upon change, any change, with fear and suspicion. Change only happens begrudgingly. Some of us are more prone to it, because of earlier experiences, and due to our personality and temperaments.

I don’t want to be the kind of person that automatically resists change. I’ve known and experienced far too many people who do. It’s hard on others who have to deal with that kind of person.

I’m going through a season of life change. In a few days our home will be empty-nested for the first time as both our daughters will be out on their own simultaneously, for the first time ever. I’ve had more than a few nights of worry and anxiety during the past couple of months in particular. Yes, the older one was away at college for a few years, but she stayed home last year while the younger one went away for her first year.

For around two decades, our kids have been “our kids.” I had at least the illusion that I could keep them safe and secure. But as they go out on their own, the realization is hitting that they really are their own persons and that any illusion and fantasy that I had of them being forever in my bubble, is broken.

I want to hold on to what I know and what I’ve been comfortable with. But I know change is inevitable. I know that if I don’t practice accepting change, I’ll become the kind of person that I don’t want to be. I don’t want to become stubborn and unmoving as seasons change in my life. A few more decades down the line, I don’t want my resistance to end up a burden to my daughters and others around me.

When facing fear and anxiety my inclination is to become psychologically paralyzed. My preference is to isolate myself, binge on TV, stay in bed, etc. But I know from experience that that will only send me down a far worse path.

So I choose to accept changes as they come. I may never come to the point of welcoming them, but I choose to not resist. I will practice acceptance today in order to remain flexible in how I approach and encounter seasons as they change in the future. I choose to live life actively, rather than watch as a spectator, complaining about what I’m seeing.

Sermon: El Roi–The God Who Sees

Primary text: Luke 7:11-17
Secondary text: 1 Kings 17:17-24
Manuscript: PDF – 596KB
Audio: MP3 – 18 min – 2.64MB

This sermon is based on Luke’s account of Jesus at Nain, where he encounters a funeral procession. He returns the dead man to life and returns him to his mother in an echo of Elijah’s account with the widow and her son at Zarephath.

It’s Not That Simple - 2

Question: What is LIFE?

Ah… such a simple question. And a simple answer, too: “Life is ______.” Wait… okay, so how do you define life? Hmm… Maybe it isn’t so simple. I have a sneaking suspicions that the answer for most people is “life is what I think (or believe) life is.” Yup, a rather circular, incestuous reasoning.

“Wait a minute,” you protest, “I know what life is because ______ describes what it is.” That blank could be filled in with any number of options: a branch of science, a religious text, a school of philosophy, among others. But ultimately is comes down to, “I know what life is because of what I have chosen to accept/believe as an authoritative source.” Guess what? Your authoritative source isn’t necessarily accepted by every single human being.

Even in the case of science there is no unequivocal definition of what life is. Do chemical processes define life? Or maybe it’s biological? Or is it a combination, i.e., biochemistry? Does the branch of physics have anything to contribute? Science has come up with a consensus description of what what something called life generally shares, but that is far from a indisputable definition. It seems that even in science, it comes down to “I know life when I see it.”

If something as objective as science cannot form a precise definition of life, should we expect reliance on other sources to be any more precise and accurate? Perhaps not. Interpretations of religious and philosophical sources are far more subjective than interpretation of scientific data.

What precipitated this thought was the topic of “pro-life.” Now, if taken literally, pro-life simply means “for or promoting life.” I’d wager, except for a few sociopaths, no one is anti-life and all would agree they are pro-life. Is that how pro-life is used? We all pretty much know that pro-life is an euphemism for anti-abortion.

If the description of life was simply limited to the biological – e.g., a single cell containing growth and reproduction capabilities, ability to taken in food, ability to respond to external stimuli – a zygote would indeed be life, as well as a single cell amoeba, bacteria, spiders, ants, mosquitoes – and someone who professes to be pro-life would be bound to protect all of the above.

If the description of life was, instead, provided through ontology – e.g., the ability to think, feel, love – then only certain higher-order creatures would fit that description. Amoeba, bacteria, spiders, and ants certainly would be excluded. Cats, dogs and birds might be in an intermediate state. A human zygote… strictly would not be life, though it would have the potential for life if allowed to successfully grow and mature beyond some certain point. Ah, but what is that point?

The reality is that all of us combine the scientific and onotological descriptions of life. No two of us combine them in exactly the same manner. The result is that the description of what life is will vary between every person.

Therein lies the complexity of the pro-life/anti-abortion issue. Every person stands on a different foundation: some just slightly different, others vastly so. Even those who share sources of authority can disagree widely because of different methods of interpreting those sources and thus come to polar opposite conclusions. As I described in an earlier post, each person believes they are right and believe they are doing the right thing, but they may be in fact be wrong, and in complex cases no one can know for certain if they are right or wrong.

LIFE. It’s not that simple.