“Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” I’m sure we have all heard this prayer in various ways. I think it’s interesting that we have used various words. I grew up hearing “debts” because I grew up in the Presbyterian Church. Someone once told me it wasn’t much of a surprise that Presbyterians used the word “debt” since that word had financial implications. Maybe the choice of the word was influenced by this morning’s gospel lesson where Jesus spoke of forgiveness and used a story about financial obligations. The word “trespass” always makes me think of “no trespassing” signs. I don’t know what that says about the choice! Perhaps it reflects cultures where ownership of territory matters, and boundaries are carefully marked and observed.
In the modern translation we pray, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” Ellsworth Kalas suggests that using this translation matters. He wrote, “The word debt doesn’t’ frighten our contemporary culture unless it is associated with bankruptcy – and for some, even that threat is simply a legal process to be passed through.” He goes on to suggest that because the word “debt” has lost its sting or stigma we have, at the same time, watered down the concept of sin. He cites Phyllis McGinley, a Pulitzer Prize winning poet who noted that people don’t see themselves as sinful. They see themselves as “immature, underprivileged, frightened or sick.” What’s missing, Kalas says, is any sense of personal responsibility. We never admit guilt.
A 20th century psychiatrist, Karl Menninger, wrote a book about this modern phenomenon titled Whatever Became of Sin? He thought we needed to “restore that ancient, direct, and quite offensive word to our vocabulary.”
It’s interesting that way this plays out in the church. I remember the story of a woman who attended church, years ago, and joined in the reading of the corporate prayer of confession. It angered her. She insisted that she had not committed any of those sins, so she refused to attend church ever again. One of my mentors was fully against using a prayer of confession. “People already feel bad about themselves,” he said. “They don’t need a prayer of confession that brings them down.”
When I was in seminary, there was a book that had become a national best seller, I’m OK, You’re OK. We read it in one of my classes. When we were done, the professor said that he admired the intent – to help people feel better about themselves, but that it didn’t account for sin (my words, not his.) He suggested that the title of the book, were it to be Christian in its outlook, should be I’m Not Ok, You’re Not OK, But That’s OK.
“How often should I forgive? As many as seven times?” Peter asked. We’re so accustomed, in human life, to try to balance the books, to even things out. So, Peter, who had seen something different in Jesus, offered to be a forgiving person – seven times! (Seven, as a number, indicated a sense of wholeness.) Jesus answered, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.” Some translations suggest it should say seventy times seven. In others words, don’t count. And he told a parable about forgiveness. The king forgave an unpayable amount. We’re told the slave owed 10,000 talents – and a talent was fifteens years of wages. So, the slave owed 150,000 years’ worth of wages! And the king forgave that debt.
We hear in this story about the magnitude of the forgiveness God gives us. It is something we can never repay. We can’t earn our way into God’s grace. It is given. It is a gift. It is beyond our imagining.
The slave, having received this great gift, left. But he encountered someone who owed him money – 100 days’ wages. When that debtor pleaded for time, the slave responded with anger and threw the debtor into prison. When the slave was brought back to the king, the king punished him as he had punished the one who owed him.
Our forgiveness is to flow from an awareness of God’s grace in our lives – that we have been given something that we can never repay. The only appropriate response is to extend that same grace to others. We have not truly understood the magnitude of God’s forgiveness if we live in ways that withhold forgiveness from others. “I’m not OK, “You’re not OK, but that’s OK speaks to an understanding that we live in a world where sin is committed – by everyone. But we live in a world that is touched by God’s grace, God’s forgiveness, God’s promise of new life, new creation.
It is still hard for the Body of Christ to practice forgiveness. Congregations are torn asunder by hurt feelings. People walk away and we don’t know how to respond, how to heal, how to live with each other when wounds are deep and hurts are real.
In 2006, Charlie Roberts killed five children and wounded five others in an Amish schoolhouse. The nation was stunned by the violence – and astounded by the response from the Amish community. I’d like to share reflections from Charlie Roberts’ mother. A decade later she spoke about the aftermath.
"As I turned on the radio on the way there, the newscaster was reporting that there had been a shooting at the local Amish schoolhouse," Terri Roberts tells her friend Delores Hayford during a recent visit to StoryCorps.
"By that time I was at my son's home, and I saw my husband and the state trooper standing right in front of me as I pulled in," she continues. "And I looked at my husband, he said, 'It was Charlie.' He said, 'I will never face my Amish neighbors again.' "
That week, the Robertses had a private funeral for their son, but as they went to the gravesite, they saw as many as 40 Amish start coming out from around the side of the graveyard, surrounding them like a crescent.
"Love just emanated from them," Terri says. "I do recall the fathers saying, 'I believe that I have forgiven,' but there are some days when I question that."
Terri finds it especially hard to accept that forgiveness when she thinks of one of the survivors, Rosanna.
"Rosanna's the most injured of the survivors," she explains. "Her injuries were to her head. She is now 15, still tube-fed and in a wheelchair. And she does have seizures, and when it gets to be this time of year, as we get closer to the anniversary date, she seizes more. And it's certainly not the life that this little girl should have lived."
Terri asked if it would be possible for her to help with Rosanna once a week.
"I read to her, I bathe her, dry her hair," says Terri, who herself is battling cancer.
And, while she can't say it with 100 percent certainty, Terri believes Rosanna knows who she is.
"I just sense that she does know," she says.
"I will never forget the devastation caused by my son," says the 65-year-old Terri. "But one of the fathers the other night, he said, 'None of us would have ever chosen this. But the relationships that we have built through it, you can't put a price on that.' "
"And their choice to allow life to move forward was quite a healing balm for us," she says. "And I think it's a message the world needs."
“Our Father” is the way we begin this powerful prayer. Maybe that’s an important thing to remember when we get to this line about forgiveness. It’s never just about me or some small us. It’s about this world that God loves, about community, about relationships, and about restoration.
Kalas wrote, “Jesus is telling us that in some strange way, forgiveness is all of one piece. As we forgive, we are forgiven. Mind you, the process of forgiveness begins with God who has extended mercy to us. But this divine majesty is meant to be passed along, and if it is not passed on, it ceases to work in our own lives.”
I had never heard this particular legend, but it is said that Leonardo da Vinci, when he was painting the Last Supper, decided to put an enemy’s face on Judas Iscariot. Then he found that he could not paint the face of Christ. When he finally forgave his enemy, the face of Christ appeared to him in a dream.
Kalas concluded, "When we hold something against another person, we begin to shut out the face of Christ, and when the image of our Lord is blurred, we no longer have the faith to accept forgiveness…So it is that forgiveness for my own sins is made impossible – not because God is unmerciful, but because when I hold something against another, I shut out the vision that gives me the faith to accept forgiveness.
When one of my younger sisters was four, she spent the summer with two of my great aunts, Blanche and Georgia, and their brother, Jake. Jake told the story about taking Beth with him to the grocery store one evening so that he could shop for Blanche. When they passed by the marshmallows, she grabbed a bag. “Beth,” he said, “Blanche didn’t put marshmallows on her list!” “I know,” she replied. “But we’re out!” Those three childless adults learned that a four year old had a very different idea of what needed to be on a grocery list. Beth told Jake that they needed marshmallows because they were out. (Of course, I suspect that they weren’t out. Marshmallows had never been in that house – until she helped with the shopping.)
What do we need? A colleague, years ago, said that he worried that Christians often couldn’t tell the difference between wants and needs. I always think of that Janis Joplin song, “Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz.” (As a little aside, I started to put that phrase in a search engine…Lord, won’t…. and an ad for Mercedes appeared!) Beth wanted marshmallows – and declared to Jake that they needed them.
We live in a consumer society. We are often told that it helps our nation if we go out and spend money. Advertising tells us that we need certain things to be happy or successful. Years ago there was a commercial, I think for Rubbermaid, that showed a house full of junk. The owners shopped for storage containers so that everything was neat and orderly. The commercial ended with them declaring, happily, “Now we can go out and buy more stuff.”
Our consumer society depends on our wanting more, more and more. So, we assume that what we buy will wear out or break, and we will throw it away. And one way of engaging us is to tell us not that we might want something, but that we actually need a particular thing. It becomes harder and harder to distinguish between that which we might want and that which we truly need.
“Give us today our daily bread” is a central phrase in the Lord’s Prayer. So, as we hear it, as we pray it, we need to ask, “What is our daily bread?” Perhaps it is, or should be, a clarifying phrase that forces us to ask, “What do we need?” What do we need to sustain life? The phrase “One thing is needful” kept running through my head this week, so I looked it up. That’s what Jesus said to Martha when she complained that Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet – and not helping her. “One thing is needful. Mary has chosen the better part.”
We might begin to wonder. Was Martha’s focus on what she wanted – to be recognized as an outstanding host—instead of on what she needed – to be in the presence of Jesus? Had she convinced herself that her want was, in reality, her need? Her culture might have led her to such an assumption. Hospitality was understood to be of extreme importance. And the women in that culture had responsibility for preparing the food and making it available to guests. Everything in Martha’s world would have told her that she needed to be busy with the tasks that befell one offering hospitality.
“One thing is needful,” Jesus said to her. It was not condemnation. It was an invitation for her to discern what mattered. She may have wanted to be the loving host who offered this treasured guest hospitality that bore witness to her adoration. But what she truly needed was to be nourished by Jesus – spending time in his presence and listening to what he had to say.
“Give us today our daily bread.” This is basic. That colleague was right when he fretted that Christians often get caught up in the world’s inability to distinguish between what we want and what we really need. We know that inability exists. Otherwise there wouldn’t be T-shirts that say, “Lord, I’ll prove to you I’m not selfish. Let me win the lottery!” How many things do we think we might need?
Even the church – congregations—get caught by that want masquerading as need. Almost every congregation has, at one time or another, looked for the perfect pastor. I don’t know if it’s true anymore, but the standard ideal was, “We want a married young man (whose wife will play the organ). They should have two children.” Many of my male seminary classmates were desperate to find wives before they started looking for jobs. (Granted, some of that desperation was driven by the denomination’s fear, at the time, of homosexuality. None of them wanted to appear to be gay.) Churches have other “needs” – members, bank accounts, particular music styles --- the list can go on and on.
“Give us today our daily bread.” We are reminded that one thing is needful – needed. We need Jesus, the Christ. Jesus is the one who told the crowds, “I am the bread of life. If you come to me you will never be hungry. If you believe in me you will never thirst.” Ellsworth Kalas says that the prayer reminds us that our human needs aren’t to be the first thing on our minds. We are to put God’s realm and God’s will first. That provides the structure for our living. We remember that the true bread that we need is God’s life-giving presence in our lives.
It is, maybe, one reason why liturgically this prayer comes after the prayer of thanksgiving when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. We are to connect this phrase, “Give us today our daily bread,” with our “eating” the Lord’s Supper. In this meal we receive our daily bread – we are nourished by the presence of the living Christ who gave of himself that we might know life in its fullness.
“Give us today our daily bread.” One of the primary things to remember about this prayer is that it is communal. In that way, it is a reminder in our very individualistic society that we are called into the Body of Christ, into communion and community with others. It doesn’t say, “Give me bread.” It says, “Give us our daily bread.” We are to look beyond ourselves, as broadly as possible. It is a prayer for the world. In it, we remember all who struggle to find food, to eat adequately. We remember those who work two or three jobs so that their children may have food to eat. We cannot seek for ourselves alone. We pray on behalf of the world – that all its inhabitants may know that which truly gives life.
The good news is that God knows our need for “bread,” for that which sustains us – and even for that which gives us joy. The God to whom we pray is a God of abundance! That does not mean an abundance of stuff – but abundance in life that leads us toward rejoicing in the gift of life. There is a wonderful movie, Babette’s Feast, which critiques a faith that is without joy. Spinster sisters think that serving God means rejecting any form of pleasure. Babette, a French housekeeper, prepared a sumptuous feast for them – giving them a taste of God’s love that they had not known. The feast became an opportunity to know God’s abundance that leads to joy!
What do we need? What do we need to be God’s joyful people? The world’s answers are not satisfying. If we are always striving toward what the world says will make us happy, make us fulfilled, we will be disappointed. What if, instead, we find joy in all the opportunities we have to share in God’s abundance, to share in it in our own lives, in our life as a congregation in this place, and in our work and witness to the world?
It is our daily bread to be able to gather together, to worship, to share the feast of the Lord’s Supper. It is our daily bread to share a meal together, to share our lives. It is our daily bread to stock a little food pantry so that those who are hungry may have something to eat. It is our daily bread to be able to send a teddy bear to someone who is in need of knowing God’s love. It is our daily bread to participate in the CROP Walk as a visible sign of our concern for the well being of others and as a sign of our commitment to serve them. It is our daily bread to be invited, by God, to be part of God’s redeeming and transforming work in this world.
“Give us today our daily bread!” God awaits our asking, our intent. For when we ask, God offers us the banquet of that which nourishes our souls for daily living and for eternal life – participation in the work and ways of God.
Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52
I find the word kingdom problematic. On the one hand, we have idealized pictures. How many young girls dream of becoming a princess? The Disney empire is built on such dreams. Little girls want to be Cinderella, or Sleeping Beauty, or Snow White. There are movies made about young women finding their prince charmings. Think of the fascination our society has with Katherine Middleton who found her prince! There is an assumption that “princesses” will have lives of ease and privilege.
On the other hand, we see the flaws in the system of “kings.” Our nation was founded as a rebellion against kingly authority that fostered injustice. Kings seemed to claim for themselves the power and the wealth of their realms. We see the abuses in the world today. We know of despotic realms where authority is used to abuse and impoverish the people. Our nation has accepted the notion that absolute power corrupts and that it corrupts absolutely!
So, I find the word “kingdom” problematic! But so did God! We have to remember that Israel didn’t always have kings! They had prophetic leaders. Later, as they became a more cohesive group, they had judges who helped them find justice and live in peace.
But, the nations around them had kings. So, the Israelites, too, wanted to have a king. They begged Samuel for a king. “You are old and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.” When Samuel asked God, God sent him to respond, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers….”
Kings were as susceptible to corruption and selfish greed in those days as some rulers/leaders are today! God was, therefore, reluctant to give them a king. But, the Israelites persisted. So God relented telling Samuel to “set a king over them.”
Yet, it is an ongoing Biblical theme that God did not accept earthly definitions of kingship. God expected that Israel’s kings would be guided not by the examples that they saw in the world around them, but by their faith in God and their commitment to God’s ways. Over and over, in the Biblical witness, we are to be surprised by what God valued in leaders and by who it is that God chose to lead. Even the great King David was an unexpected choice for king. He wasn’t the eldest son. He was the youngest – sent to the fields to be a lowly shepherd. God chose him to be the shepherd king – a servant of God and, thereby, a servant of Israel. Yet, David, too, was tempted by the power earthly kings enjoyed and abused his position.
So, what do we do with this familiar phrase, your kingdom come, your will be done? How are we to hear it? How are we to pray it?
Jesus’ message from the very beginning of his ministry was that the kingdom, the realm, of God was at hand – that somehow in and through him it had begun to emerge anew on earth and among human beings and in their societies. The gospel lesson for today is a collection of parables that speak of the kingdom. “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed….The kingdom of heaven is like yeast…the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field…the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls…the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind.”
These sayings are familiar – so, perhaps, they have lost their edge. Jesus lifted up unexpected things to begin to open their eyes to what God’s realm was all about. “The kingdom is like a mustard seed.” The mustard plant was a noxious weed – unwanted. “The kingdom is like yeast.” I grudgingly admit that yeast was often referred to as a contaminate. “The kingdom is like treasure hidden in a field.” What kingdom hides its assets? “The kingdom is like a merchant in search of fine pearls. On finding one of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.” Jesus pointed to something of more value than anything we have on earth. “The kingdom is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind.” Judgment comes later in this parable, but there is a wideness to the realm that is described, a wideness that denies borders and divisions.
The parables, and Jesus’ life, work, and witness, do not point to our worldly expectations of what a kingdom looks like. In fact, they upend our expectations. God may have granted Israel a king, but God did not accept a worldly understanding of kingship or kingdoms. So, the prayer “Thy kingdom come” is a prayer for a different kind of world. We are reminded that this world does not live up to the ways of God. So we pray for God’s realm to come in its fullness.
Our second scripture passage this morning was Psalm 130. It is a lament. The psalms are the Jewish prayer book and, students of this book tell us, prayers of lament and complaint are frequent. Ellsworth Kalas says that “good faith makes us grateful people, always inclined to give thanks, always disposed to see reasons for gladness that other people miss. But good religion also teaches us to complain. We sense that the world is not what it should be because it isn’t what God meant it to be. Thus, godly people are dissatisfied with things as they are.”
Kalas is not inviting a faith that relishes personal gripes, personal complaining. He is advocating faith that has glimpsed the values of God’s realm and sees the gulf between what we know in our lives and in our world and the good realm, the good kingdom, that God intends for us and for all people. A vision of God’s realm gives us a starting point for working for and towards the values of that realm, to make those values real and accessible for all people in this world.
Kalas speaks of being “effectively dissatisfied.” I was reminded of the wonderful movie Amazing Grace which highlighted the work of a British abolitionist, William Wilberforce. Wilberforce spoke out against slavery and met intense resistance from members of the British Parliament who felt that the slave trade was necessary for the stability of the Empire.
Kalas said that effective dissatisfaction is what moves us forward. It has spurred advances in medicine and education. Life expectancy is longer. So he asks, “Do you think that some things ought to be better than they are? Are you troubled that crime statistics in America are measured by the minute? –so many thefts, so many rapes, so many murders every so many minutes? Does it bother you that in almost any American city acres upon acres of land are covered up by a jungle of ramshackle houses and poverty? Are you uneasy that the nations of the world spend literally billions – indeed, trillions--- of dollars every year developing weapons to destroy fellow members of the human race? Are you still able to feel shock that every day the newspapers report the mistreatment of infants and children by their own parents, stepparents, or foster parents? Are you content to live in this kind of world, or does it upset you and anger you?”
We could add, “Are we upset about violence in our schools, about mass shootings?”
Kalas says the Lord’s Prayer includes a phrase for us, “Your kingdom come.” It is a powerful phrase that reminds us of how short our world falls of living into the good that God intends and that God offers us. And it calls us to effective dissatisfaction, to a commitment to work for the realm that is always breaking into this world to offer hope and transformation.
“Your will be done.” God’s will being done is the true mark of God’s realm, of God’s kingdom, being present. Jesus did God’s will. Even when he was tempted to seek his own safety or to succumb to the lure of earthly power, he did God’s will. So the realm was present in and through him.
Kalas says that when God’s will is done, the kingdom is present. He describes the kingdom as having a “spot existence” in the world. “It exists,” he wrote, “wherever and whenever a single human being has given up fully to God and thus has entered the kingdom. And these spot kingdoms are often somewhat larger in size, too. when a family, a church, an institution seeks fully to do God’s will, the kingdom has come within that circle of life. The kingdom exists each time love conquers hate, peace triumphs over conflict, or fear and selfishness have been vanquished.”
This prayer reminds us that we are stewards of this world, this creation that God made. So, we have a responsibility and a role to play in seeking God’s will and making the realm of God present and visible. There is a lot in this world that is opposed, still, to the ways of God. We, even in our own lives, often choose the ways of the world over the ways of God. Kalas says that the “forces are legion – hate, sickness, fear, immorality, prejudice, lying, deceit, brutality, to name just a few.” We can recognize those forces in the world around us and in our own lives.
So, we pray, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done.” Kalas suggests we consider it a pledge of allegiance, an expression of our own intent to participate in God’s realm even when the world draws us to commit to its own brokenness. We are invited to be people of lament – those who see the gulf between what is and what God intends – and mourn, complain. But that is not the end. We also commit ourselves to work for the realm of God – to work to end hunger, to welcome the stranger, to be broadly inclusive, to minister to the sick, to topple systems and attitudes that perpetuate injustice. Kalas points out that this prayer does not whine, “Will you send your kingdom?” nor does it say, “We want your kingdom.” Instead, it proclaims our expectation that, ultimately, God’s kingdom will come. And we will pledge ourselves to its arrival! “They kingdom come. Thy will be done.” Amen.
I would guess that many of you learned the Lord’s Prayer at an early age. Maybe you learned it with different language. I have a decorative piece of pottery that was always on my dresser when I was young. It has the old language – “Our Father who art in heaven.” It, however, is not the version I learned in church. I learned to say debts and debtors whereas it says trespasses and those who trespass against us.
The Lord’s Prayer has been translated (with variations) into about two thousand languages that represent about 98% of the human population. Jesus gave this prayer to his disciples. Perhaps they had seen Jesus’ prayer practices and wanted to know how they themselves could pray. Jesus cited prayer practices that were not helpful. Ellsworth Kalas quotes Matthew’s gospel, the lead in to the prayer, “In your prayers do not go babbling like the heathen, who imagine that the more they say the more likely they are to be heard.” Yet, the familiarity of this prayer invites a kind of misuse. It is often said without thinking. We are lulled into a complacency by its familiarity. The words come quickly –not even requiring us to think. Martin Luther said of this prayer that it became the church’s greatest martyr because it has been tortured and abused.
So, I thought it might be good to look again at this prayer during the season of Lent.
“Our Father in heaven, hallowed is your name.” So the prayer begins.
Kalas points out that the prayer begins with relationship. We are in a relationship with God. The Aramaic, which would have been Jesus’ language, is not necessarily male. The beginning of this prayer could easily be translated “Our Divine Parent.” I find that little piece of information freeing.
I mentioned, a few weeks ago, a young boy who found the idea of God as father terrifying – so, the teacher suggested he pray, “Our Aunt.” It is true that we use our human experiences to inform our understanding of God as Father. But, that could work out the other way, also. Perhaps we can begin to see that calling God Father can inform what human fathers are to be.
Kalas points to the story of the prodigal son – or, as Ken Bailey says we should hear it, the story of the father with two ungrateful sons. In that story, we have a powerful image of who a father is to be. Ken Bailey says this image of father breaks every convention of Jesus’ day. He welcomes the prodigal son with a feast. He tells the older son, who shames him just as the younger did, that he could have a party whenever he wanted it. This father forgives, extravagantly!
Does this mean that “Father” is the only way we can address God? No. The Biblical imagery for God is diverse, expansive. God is the mother eagle, or the mother hen. God is the creator, defender, deliverer, protector, ruler, sustainer, provider, sovereign. God is Love. God is a fortress, light, a rock, strength, shield.
It may be that we need to diversify our language for God. Kalas noted that our culture likes “chumminess.” The term “Father” invites a loving familiarity, but should not invite a presumptuous familiarity.
When I was in seminary, people were beginning to talk about the limitations of human language when applied to God. I quickly learned that papers in which I referred to God as he would be marked with red pencil. We had to learn to refer to God in gender neutral ways. The easiest way to do that was by writing God instead of he. It was awkward. Sentence structure was difficult. It didn’t flow.
But, one day, as I was writing a paper, using the expected protocol, I had an overwhelming sense of the otherness of God. God was transcendent, above and beyond our human categories. So, even as we use the word “Father,” we are to remember that this “Father God” is not limited by our human understanding of fathers. This God transcends that.
We are reminded of that in the latter part of this opening phrase: “hallowed is your name.” Kalas describes this as speaking with awe. There is a tension between speaking of God the Father – the familiar one who loves us and speaking of the God of heaven – the holy One, the Other. Theologians speak of this as the issues of immanence and transcendence. Sometimes we acknowledge God who is as close as our breath. But we have to remember that God is beyond us. We do not have God in our own corner, serving us. So, this prayer, in its opening, reminds us of this tension that is part of our faith.
Before we get to the word Father, we have the very first word of this prayer, “Our.” “Our Father…” Jesus did not teach his disciples to pray, “My Father.” He taught them, and us, “Our Father.” We pray to “our Father.” Kalas says we are not alone. We are, at the very least, with the one who taught us this prayer, the one who called God Abba, Daddy. Jesus prays this prayer with us. We have become his sisters and brothers – so we share one Father.
The word “our” calls us beyond ourselves. It calls us to recognize the world – God’s beloved world to whom and for whom Jesus came. This cannot be a selfish prayer. I am reminded of Bonhoeffer who wrote that we pray with an awareness of those who stand before Christ with us.
Christianity is never a me and my God kind of faith. It’s a we and our God faith. And what “our” means should be stretched—always. We are frequently tempted to narrow the focus of God’s concern. We are frequently tempted to claim God and God’s favor for ourselves or for a small group of those we have deemed worthy. I am uncomfortable when someone or a team prays for God to give them victory – or credits God with the victory after a win. God is claimed to be on one side and not on the other. "Our Father in heaven…” Jesus taught us to pray. Kalas says that God wants the entire human race to seek God. We remember “for God so loved the world…” Praying “Our Father” reminds us to look beyond ourselves – to remember Jesus and the entire human race.
As we begin a Lenten journey, I invite you to focus, this week, on this opening phrase, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed is your name.” Explore it. Deepen your awareness of it as you use it in prayer. Savor each word – our, Father, heaven, hallowed. Accept the tension that is in this opening – remembering the God who loves us dearly as the father loved the prodigal son and the older, resentful one and remembering the God who is beyond our knowing, before whom we bow down in awe, with fear and trembling.
Mark 9:2-9, 2 Corinthians 4:3-6
Today is Transfiguration Sunday. We have this very odd story about Jesus, Peter, James and John on a mountaintop. Suddenly, Jesus was transfigured. Moses and Elijah appeared. Then a voice identified Jesus as the Beloved Son. Moses and Elijah disappeared, leaving the disciples with Jesus alone. This transfiguration story appears in approximately the middle of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In a sense, the veil is pulled back and the disciples get to see Jesus more clearly.
The Christ’s presence is often veiled in this world. That was Paul’s message to the church in Corinth. “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” Shawnthea Monroe-Mueller suggests that Christ’s light disappears because of the excess of light. She wrote of taking inner city kids on a canoe trip in northern Minnesota. On the first night, one young woman looked at the starry sky and asked, “Where did those come from?” Monroe-Mueller explained that the stars were always there; the problem was that city lights masked them.
She suggested that there are different “lights” in our world that mask the light of Christ. One of those is human reason. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for reason. But, it often becomes an idol that displaces God. For years I’ve thought that the modern insistence that the Bible is scientifically true means that we have made “reason” and “science” the judge of all things. We forget its limitations. The very people who rail against science, proclaiming concepts such as intelligent design, are those who have given it an idol’s power. Monroe-Mueller says that faith needs to transcend our reason.
There are other bright lights that prevent us from seeing the light of Christ – that veil his presence. We might think of the entertainment industry or economic success as a goal.
I’m going to come back to the stars and think a little about astronomy. Nicolaus Copernius was an astronomer during the 15th century. He is remembered because of his assertion that the planets revolved around the sun rather than the sun and other planets revolving around the earth. His heliocentric focus started a renewed interest in science that is often called the Copernican Revolution. Now, you may have heard, as I did, that the church rejected his teaching, preferring the ancient Ptolemic assertion that the earth was the center of the solar system or universe. Initially, however, the Roman Catholic Church was receptive to his discovery. However, the Protestant Reformation challenged his views, and, in response, the Roman Catholic Church rejected them as well. Protestants eventually accepted his theory when other scientists backed it. The Roman Catholic Church lifted the ban on Copernicus’ teachings in 1822.
Ptolemy was a Greco-Roman mathematician, astronomer, geographer, astrologer and poet. He died in 170 AD. Although, he was not a Christian, his understanding of the way the universe (or solar system) was organized became the accepted view – in society and the church. Theologically, there was something appealing in the Ptolemic view that the earth was the “stationary center of the universe, with the planets moving in epicyclic orbits.” It seems to echo the Pslamist who wrote: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor.”
“A little lower than angels!” If earth is perceived to be the crowning jewel of God’s creation, wouldn’t one expect that everything would revolve around it?
We’re people of the 21st century! We don’t hold to such outdated notions! We know the truth. We know that the earth revolves around the sun – as do the other planets – and one Tesla with Space Man in it!
Mark Spence was saying the other night that there are Christians who refuse to believe that God could or would have created life on other planets – in galaxies far, far away! No, no, no, no! We are the crown of God’s creation! We were created a little lower than angels!
We may have accepted the Copernican understanding of the universe’s structure, but we still have a human centric view of creation. This earth is God’s crowning achievement. In fact, oftentimes, our view is even more limited – it is a self-centric understanding of creation.
If you go into a bookstore, you can find an entire section of self-help books. Self-actualization is a term that gets used, somewhat frequently. The goal of life is to be the best self you can be, to find success and happiness. Monroe-Mueller says that “apparently, the road to contentment is paved with the right diet, the perfect mate, and a well-organized closet.” That message finds its way into the Christian faith. I heard an advertisement for the Joel Osteen channel, and out of curiosity, I tuned it in. The entire message that I heard was how God will help you find success in your life. A colleague, years ago, said that he had changed the way he preached. “People want to hear about how they should handle finances or home life,” he said. “So, my message is how you can live a better life.” The gospel becomes another “self-help” message whose focus is on human beings. Again, Monroe-Mueller says, “Even popular religious writers have come to the conclusion that we (not God) are at the center of all things, and once we understand that, we can have our best life now.”
It’s a popular message. You can see that in Joel Osteen’s success. I could see that my colleague had many members who loved his message. He gave the people what they wanted. The focus was on them.
Monroe-Mueller says, “Unfortunately, it is hard to see the glory of God when you are standing in the spotlight.” She goes on to say, “Despite what some modern evangelists proclaim, God is not some cosmic butler, some omniscient Jeeves sent to cater to our every need.”
We need that Copernican Revolution that allows us to step out of the spotlight and look for the glory of God in our midst. Church is not the ultimate self-help center where God will serve our every need. This is where we come to seek the God who created all things and the God who came to dwell among us in Jesus, the Christ.
Paul said to the Corinthians, “For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. For it the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.’”
That calls us to what Ronald Allen called a “holy discomfort” with the world today. If Christ is the center, we must see the ways in which the world and we, ourselves, are out of step with the ways of Christ, the ways of God. Paul always reminded those to whom he wrote that Christ’s followers are to “be discontent with brokenness, injustice, scarcity, exploitation, violence, and death, and to believe that God seeks to increase community, wholeness, justice, abundance, peace, love and life.”
Now, the personal message we do need to hear is that we are God’s beloved, each of us, all of us. That love does not make us the center of the universe – either our own or God’s. It does invite us into the fullness of God’s presence and into God’s redeeming, transforming work. Our best is not some worldly definition of personal success. Our best is living into the knowledge that God’s love for us is from everlasting to everlasting – and that love has called us and empowered us to be participants in God’s work. The church, God’s people, must guard against seeking a god who serves us. No. We seek to put Christ at the center – and live as those who have heard the good news.
I Corinthians 9:16-23
I was thinking, as I looked at the lessons for today, that the author of the gospel invites us to enter a story that is moving quickly. This gospel has no birth stories; this gospel has no lofty prologue. It starts with John the Baptist announcing the arrival of the Messiah as he calls people to repentance. Jesus was baptized and tempted in the wilderness. Then he started his public ministry, proclaiming the good news that God’s realm had come near.
The word proclaim occurs frequently in the beginning of Mark’s gospel. So, I think we are to see that his proclamation of the good news was in both his words, that is, his teaching, and in his actions. Last week, we heard that he taught in the synagogue in a way that was unlike the scribes’ teaching. He also cast out an unclean spirit. This week is a continuation of the events of that day.
He went to Simon’s house. And, Simon’s mother-in-law was sick. Now, I have to admit, that I find this story a little difficult. Jesus healed her. And then she served them. It’s easy to get angry at the ways the church has, through the centuries, treated women. She got up and served the men. But, Mike Graves suggests that there is a different way to read and hear this story. She is a positive example of service. Throughout Mark’s gospel, even those closest to Jesus, the disciples, got it wrong. They rejected the notion of the “servant” Christ, the One who came not to be served, but to serve. So, the goal of Jesus’ healing is not selfish – that he wanted someone to serve him. Jesus heals her so that she has the ability to serve. And she used that ability. I’m guessing it was an act of thanksgiving and praise. She knew in her body that this man was unlike the teachers she had known. He had restored her.
P.C. Ennis notes that teaching and healing ministries are not separate. They are manifestations of Jesus’ call to proclaim the good news of God’s realm at hand. Scholars of ancient languages tell us that healing could easily be understood as “salvation.” Simon’s mother-in-law’s illness isolated her. She had no value in her society. When Jesus healed her, he restored her to the community. And, in that community, she was able to express her thanks by serving those who had gathered in the house.
Paul’s words to the church in Corinth also focus on proclaiming the good news. It is typically Pauline in style. It sort of goes around and around. “If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel!...To the Jews I became as a Jew…to those under the law I became as one under the law…To the weak I became weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.”
“I have become all things to all people.” Paul, it appears, was deeply sensitive to the notion of context. For the most part, Jesus’ context was the culture in which he had been raised. As the early believers began to take the gospel into the world, they had to learn how to proclaim that gospel in different contexts. And that is not always an easy thing.
Consider how it is the church sometimes treats the Biblical witness. For many, it’s tempting to think the Biblical witness speaks directly and clearly to the world in which we live. When that happens, we are ignoring the context of the world in which the words emerged and the context in which they are being heard. Sometimes, thoughtless appropriation of ancient words and assumptions does more harm than good.
Years ago, a woman told a story about a young boy who had been invited to attend Vacation Bible School. During that particular VBS, children were asked to learn the Lord’s Prayer. The teacher began, “Our Father,” and the boy became visibly upset and angry. His experience with a father was filled with violence. If God was a father, he wanted no part of God! Fortunately, someone knew this child’s context. She knew of the boy’s father. She also knew that an aunt had welcomed him into her home and showered him with love. “You can pray, ‘Our Aunt,’” she told him.
What Paul describes is hard work. It’s easier just to have a message that we blurt out and expect people to hear and understand it. Much more is asked of us if we are to strive to learn the context in which we share the good news. It’s often been noted that the church is, frequently, out of step with the culture around us. Perhaps we see that as providing a solid rock in the midst of the roaring seas of change. Instead, we become isolated – celebrating a message that speaks little to the world in which we live. I remember a colleague, in the early 1980s, said that he had finally decided it was OK to drop thee and thou from his liturgy. Since no one had been using thee and thou in regular conversation for years, that seemed like an appropriate decision. I still keep in mind what one of the denomination’s worship experts said, “Worship should draw help us develop strong connections between what happens here and our everyday lives.” (Something to that effect!) When our communal life ignores the context in which we live, we do not serve ourselves, the world around us, or God well.
Finally, I think Paul’s words are a reminder that the complexities of the world require many gifts. Today, we ordain and install our elders. This formal rite celebrates the fact all of us are needed to fulfill God’s call to proclaim the good news. It is a shared obligation and responsibility. And in responding, we are blessed.
I Corinthians 8:1-13
Years ago, I was a mediator in New York State. Oftentimes, a complainant would say to me, “I just want to go before the judge and let the judge tell this person that he or she is wrong!” They wanted an authoritative voice to settle things. (I would have to point out that there was no guarantee that the judge would see things as the complainant did!) But there is something in us, as human beings, that wants the authoritative voice that will agree with us, that will settle things.
I’m sure we’ve all had the experience of trying to navigate the red tape of bureaucracy. It seems that no one has the authority to give an answer or to make a decision. There was a story, some years back, about a father who took his young son to a baseball game. He got a lemonade for this son – not realizing that it was hard lemonade. He just didn’t know. He wasn’t a drinker and it was, for him, an unfamiliar concept. He was arrested and charged with child abuse. He was forced to move out of his house. He was given no access to his children. Everyone acknowledged that this was, had been, a terrible mistake and that he was not a child abuser. But they also said, “It’s out of our control.” Even the judge apologized, saying, “I know you didn’t purposefully do this. But I have no choice.” No one seemed to have authority.
“They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” “They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, ‘What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.’”
Authority. That aura of authority set Jesus apart from the scribes who taught the people. They were careful, in their teaching, to cite sources – to footnote everything! Teaching was derivative. It looked back to interpretations through the years. Now, it is not that Jesus ignored the past. On the contrary, he knew the scriptures. He cited the scriptures. He had been shaped and informed by them. Perhaps the difference was that he spoke from the depths of his being rather than presenting a careful, scholarly interpretation.
Jesus’ authority was evident not only in his teaching, but also in what he did. He cast a demon out of a man. “He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” This part of the story is difficult for 21st century followers of Christ. Mike Graves says it doesn’t help that such stories are loved by Hollywood! But, all “exorcism” stories in the New Testament are about the whole story – not the exorcism.
So, what is the point of the story? The exorcism is another way for Jesus to announce his authority. The demon named him. “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of Israel.”
“Have you come to destroy us?” Graves says this story sets up one of the conflicts that will be a part of Jesus’ entire ministry. His ministry is in an occupied land. And, all those with “authority,” with power, will fear him – just as the demon does. He has come to destroy the powers that enslave. His ministry is one of freeing those who are captive – both individuals, communities, and even nations.
If we begin to hear this story as a harbinger of his future ministry, we might remember that the world thought it had silenced him with his death. It appeared that he could not or did not destroy the evil powers. Yet, in the resurrection, the authority that Jesus had was given to the Body of Christ. And the Christian Church has toppled empires. It has confronted the powers that enslave. What was impossible for one person, even the Holy One of Israel, has been done through the work of the faithful.
The story is a reminder that entrenched powers still react with fear. It is no easy thing to speak out against that which demeans, that which enslaves, that which displaces God’s good intent. The story reminds us, as well, that those powers are not merely outside the community faith. They are within. We, ourselves, struggle with that which enslaves us, that which separates us from the love and the ways of God.
So, where are the voices of authority today? Whose words can we, should we trust? There are many who are willing to speak for and about God. How do we find what is true? How do we find what is authoritative?
Paul wrote to a congregation that was struggling with authority. There were competing voices claiming to be in possession of the truth. Some were sure that idols had no power. Therefore, the food offered those idols was merely food, and, therefore, could be consumed without guilt. Others were concerned that consuming food offered to idols was, somehow, honoring those idols, an unacceptable act for the faithful.
Paul, generally, agreed with those who saw no problem with eating the food offered to idols. He agreed with their “knowledge” that idols didn’t exist. However, knowledge was not the same as wisdom. Wisdom required something more than the knowledge. Paul asked the Corinthians to move beyond an intellectual discussion about idols and food. He asked them to look for the “healing” way that would bring the different sides together. “When you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of their failing, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fail.”
Authority is not having superior knowledge. When we seek those who claim to or might have all the answers, we indulge our own idolatry. Even Jesus’ authority was not in being the one who spouted answers. His authority was deeper – rooted in following and demonstrating the ways and the love of God. Perhaps that’s why this early appearance in the synagogue includes authority expressed in word and in deed. And that authority leads to the release of captives, to the healing of those who are sick or oppressed.
Sometimes people are surprised to learn that Presbyterian ministers don’t have a lot of authority. Leadership and power in our system are intentionally shared. In one way, that provides a check, a balance. It also recognizes that authority in the church is a communal gift –one given to the Body of Christ rather than to particular individuals. So, authority resides in our shared theology, (a broad theology), and in our system of governance. At its best, that means that we look collectively for the ways in which we nurture community and work for the healing and wholeness of God’s world.
Ronald J. Allen noted that this goal is not always achievable in a world that still knows division. He wrote, “..a congregation may find itself in a position in which the mission of the church is immobilized by one group’s limiting its freedom for the sake of another. I think of issues such as attitudes toward biblical authority, supporting war, termination of pregnancy, and same-gender relationships…Groups sometimes believe that their integrity is at stake and that silence is complicity with evil.”
That is a human reality. I remember a church cartoon that showed a big church surrounded by smaller and smaller ones. The big church was “First Church.” The smallest said “Sixteenth Church.” I’m guessing the cartoon was poking fun at the church fights that, too often, are trivial. But it is also true that larger issues divide. Presbyterians split, long ago, over the issue of slavery. Nowadays, churches leave over other issues. Allen wrote, “[They] may need to separate in distinct communities and trust that the God through whom all things exist can ultimately bring about the eschatological resolution. Even so, all participants should treat one another with respect in both public and private settings.”
I found that helpful. He reminded me that human beings always fall short. It was also a reminder that, sometimes, forced community works against the ways of God when a segment of the community finds it to be dismissive or injurious.
Jesus’ ministry was not always easy. It set him against the powers and the idolatries of the world in which he lived. It challenged those who would hear him and those who were comfortable in the systems that he confronted. Godly authority was not always welcome. Nor is it. It challenges those of us who still seek to hear it. And it challenges the very systems that often enslave us, even without our knowing it. We often seek the easy answers, the knowledge that puffs up, without looking for the deeper transforming presence that sees, speaks to, and offers healing for our and the world’s ills. God’s authority is revealed in our midst and in the world’s midst as we seek the ways that bring wholeness, and healing, and peace, especially for those who know only the world’s brokenness.
Jonah 3:1-5, 10
The story of Jonah is just one of those great Biblical stories. And it is a story. It’s a theological story – a sort of extended parable. Jesus used parables. His tended to be shorter. But he was accustomed to theology being couched in stories that were easily remembered and told—stories like this one! Theology was not a dry, scholarly treatise – but accessible to all through drama.
It is, therefore, unfortunate that we don’t get the full story in our lesson today. Granted, it’s not short. But it is worth remembering the entire story – not just a little snippet.
“The Lord had called Jonah. ‘Go at once to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before me.’ But Jonah set out to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.” That introduction sets in motion the familiar parts of the story. Jonah paid for passage and boarded a boat headed to Tarshish. But God sent a great storm. Jonah finally confessed to everyone on board that he was responsible for God’s wrath and suggested that he be thrown overboard. So, with great reluctance, they threw him overboard. The storm ceased. And God sent a large fish (not a whale) which swallowed Jonah, saving his life. In the belly of the fish, Jonah repented and praised God. So, God had the fish spew Jonah out onto the dry land.
That’s the lead-in to today’s lesson. “The word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying, ‘Get up, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I tell you.’” So, Jonah went. He went to proclaim God’s anger and wrath. “Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” And, Nineveh listened. They repented.
Well, we miss the last part of this story. Their repentance did not sit well with Jonah. We find out that he was perfectly willing (the second time around) to proclaim God’s wrath. He didn’t want them to repent. He didn’t want God to be merciful to them!
I’ve been re-reading Nadia Bolz-Weber’s book Accidental Saints. It seemed to be an appropriate book to read during this season when we remember God’s call – to Old Testament saints and to New Testament saints. Bolz-Weber is a less than typical Lutheran pastor. Her tattoos are one indication of that! Maybe, in today’s world, they’re not that odd. But, her openness about her history as an addict and alcoholic is a little different.
She has a wonderful chapter in her book about her Nineveh experience. The Lutherans invited her to speak at the annual Youth Gathering in New Orleans. She said, “No.” She was not comfortable with that request. She wasn’t comfortable with teens. And she was pretty sure that the teens’ parents wouldn’t be comfortable with her as a main speaker. She found out that was true! “Parents had been warned that their children would be exposed to dangerous ideas from scandalous women if we weren’t uninvited.” She goes on to note that without scandalous women there would be no gospel! Her own teenagers were less than impressed with her speech when she tried it out on them. Her good friend suggested she was writing a speech for their parents, not the kids. Another friend said, “Oh, honey, you should be scared. Teenagers are a rough audience.” The superdome in New Orleans was her Ninevah. “I spent most of that night (the night before she went) fantasizing about ways to miss my plane, become ill, or have a nervous breakdown.”
Last week, I said we’re not called to be someone we’re not. But, we are called in ways that stretch us and challenge us. For Jonah, in this wonderful story, that challenge was the Ninevites! He didn’t consider them worthy of God’s grace. Maybe he was afraid of them, afraid of how they might react to his message.
I wonder how often we prejudge our message –especially in this society where Christian proclamation is often perceived in negative ways. Can you imagine being asked to go proclaim God’s judgment on a particular group of people? We know that too many hear such words. People know what it is to be prejudged and condemned because of their race or religion or sexuality. People know what it is to be prejudged and condemned because of where they’re from or what they look like. We live in a label obsessed world that classifies and rates people, that considers their merit.
What’s missing? The thing that’s missing is what sets Nadia Bolz-Weber apart from Jonah. Jonah was OK with proclaiming God’s judgment – finally! But, he was not OK with the Ninevites’ repentance or with God’s grace. He wanted to judge and relish God’s punishment. In the final chapter, after God relented, Jonah complained, “O Lord! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing.” Jonah knew of God’s grace. But he didn’t really want others to know of it. Bolz-Weber accepted the invitation when the organizers said to her, “We seldom have actual Lutherans on the main stage, and we want the kids to begin this even by seeing a different image of what a Lutheran looks like, and with a strong message of grace.”
“A strong message of grace.” Is that not what’s missing in the public discourse about Christianity? Even when grace is proclaimed, it’s often conditional. “God will love you when…” “God will love you if….” The thing is, God’s love is always there. That was true in Nineveh. God loved them. Judgement was for their benefit – not God’s. Judgement was a manifestation of God’s love for them.
In Bolz-Weber’s story, God sent a “fish” to help Nadia fulfill her obligation. The fish was a young teen who sat next to her on the plane. This girl had “dyed pink bangs hanging over her face like a protective visor, at once inviting and rejecting attention.” She, without making eye contact, commented on Bolz-Weber’s tattoos. Bolz-Weber noted, without commenting, the scars on the girl’s arms – not tattoos. As they travelled to New Orleans, the girl began to open up and speak about her life – a restraining order against a sister, the special ed classes that denied her intelligence, and how she didn’t fit in. Bolz-Weber wrote, “’So, are you on your way to the Lutheran Youth Gathering?’ She looked at me, stunned. ‘Yeah…wait, are you going to the Lutheran Youth Gathering?’ I smiled and said, ‘Yeah…ends up, I’m a Lutheran pastor and I’m doing a thing there tomorrow night.’ ‘Shut up!’ she said, and I laughed.”
She hadn’t wanted to come on the trip. She didn’t fit in with the youth group. Bolz-Weber said that she, too, didn’t fit in where she was supposed to.
“Sometimes,” Bolz-Weber wrote, “I’m so thick that God has no choice but to be almost embarrassingly obtuse. Like sending me a hurting kid with glistening lines cut in her arm—a kid with protective pink bangs, a kid who doesn’t fit, a kid who in her own way said to me, Oh hey, God told me to tell you something: Get over yourself.”
I think that was God’s message to Jonah – several times. “Get over yourself.” He needed to see the Ninevites as God’s children, loved, and, therefore, deserving of God’s grace. Jonah should have known about God’s grace – evident in the fish that swallowed him and spat him out on dry land. And, maybe he did know that grace. But he made that grace small. He saw it as his – his right, his possession. He was unwilling to share it.
Bolz-Weber, on the stage of the superdome, said, “Somebody with my past of alcoholism and drug abuse and promiscuity and lying and stealing shouldn’t be allowed to talk to you. But you know what? Somebody with my present, who I am now, shouldn’t be allowed to either. I am a sarcastic, heavily tattooed, angry person who swears like a truck driver! I am a flawed person who really should not be allowed to talk to you. But you know what?” I asked. “That’s the God we are dealing with, people!”
And, like the Ninevites, the kids responded – with applause and yells. I think we might picture a rock concert! She continued to speak of God who doesn’t make worldly sense.
She concluded by speaking powerful words of true, real, deep grace. “..this God will use you, this God will use all of you, and not just your strengths, but your failures and your failings. Your weakness is fertile ground for a forgiving God to make something new and to make something beautiful, so don’t ever think that all you have to offer are your gifts.”
Called. Jonah, in this wonderful story, was called. He was imperfect. But still called. Bolz-Weber said, “We come dangerously close to spiritual self-flattery when we say, ‘God used me to do something.’ But perhaps the opposite is true, too. We flatter ourselves just as much when we claim that we can’t do the hard things God sets before us. Without higher-quality material to work with, God resorts to working through us for others and upon us through others. Those are some weirdly restorative, disconcerting shenanigans to be caught up in: God forcing God’s people to see themselves as God sees them, to do stuff they know they are incapable of doing, so that God might make use of them, and make them to be both humble recipients and generous givers of grace, so that they may be part of God’s big project on earth, so that they themselves might find unexpected joy through surprising situations.
Nineveh is within us and all around us. It needs grace!
I Samuel 3:1-10
Call stories can be rather intimidating. We hear the stories over and over – and, we hear them through filters. Artists have portrayed call stories, with visual drama. More recently, films have given us the drama. So, we hear and read stories like the one from Samuel and think of God’s voice thundering in the temple – some deep, basso profundo. We would picture the young boy, overwhelmed by the presence of God.
The stories about the calling of the disciples are equally dramatic in the way that we think about them. Jesus calls and they leave everything to follow him. We picture them walking away from their lives – families and livelihood. “Follow me, and I will make you fish for people.”
“God has sent me.” That’s what the pastor of another local church – not Presbyterian – said to me one day when he came to talk with me. “I’m on a mission from God to oust Satan from the pulpit.” It was clear that, in his eyes, I was Satan in the pulpit – and he had received the message that I was to be ousted. He, and others who felt the same way, had already interfered in another colleague’s ministry, driving a wedge between him and the congregation. The colleague’s health was destroyed and he lost his job. I, apparently, was next on the list.
He was called. That was his proclamation to me – and, I guess, to those who agreed with his theological outlook or accepted his assertion that this mission was godly. I suppose I could have meekly accepted his assertion – after all, he was a minister! His word, therefore, was to be unquestioned!
I suspect that the assumptions and filters that we apply to our understanding of Biblical call stories have allowed for gross abuses of the notion of call. So, we need to rehear these stories, striving to let them speak to us in fresh ways.
If we take out the assumption that God called Samuel with a booming bass voice that shook the temple, we might see other things. Samuel heard the call – and thought it was an old, frail, man who was calling him. He ran to Eli and declared, “Here I am!” He did that three times. “Here I am.” “Here I am.” “Here I am, for you called me.” John’s gospel tells about Jesus calling disciples very differently from the other gospels. The call stories lack the dramatic, sudden impact of the synoptic gospel descriptions. Andrew and Peter weren’t encountered out of the blue and called. No. Andrew discovered Jesus because of John the Baptist’s testimony, “Look, here is the Lamb of God!” Two of his disciples heard this and followed Jesus. One of them was Andrew. He went, found Peter, and invited Peter to come and see Jesus.
That’s the lead into today’s gospel story. This story seems, at first reading, to be closer to the synoptic stories. “Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, ‘Follow me.’”
What I think we need to begin to see is that others are always involved in hearing, discerning God’s call. Samuel didn’t understand the call until Eli was able to interpret Samuel’s experience. John the Baptist told Andrew. Andrews told his brother, Peter. Now, we might say, “Ah, but Jesus, the next day, called Philip!” That call seems much more in line with the stories we know from elsewhere. But the gospel writer is careful to tell us that “Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” City is a very generous description. I think we should assume that Philip, too, had heard about Jesus – through the grapevine! – or even more directly. Perhaps Peter and Andrew told Philip about their encounters with Jesus.
What of the stories in Matthew, Mark and Luke? Well, maybe we need to let go of the notion that the gospels are newspaper type accounts. The gospels are theological documents, interpretations of the stories of Jesus. It may be that the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke wanted to stress the importance of God’s call, so they emphasized the immediacy of the disciples’ response. We don’t know if there had been previous contact. John’s gospel could indicate that there was. We do know that the inclination to believe that the disciples walked away from their lives to follow Jesus may be a misinterpretation. After Jesus’ death, those who were fishermen are portrayed as fishing once again. They were still connected to the life they had always had.
So, Samuel thought he was hearing an old man cry out. Eli told him that it was God who was speaking. Andrew heard Jesus from John the Baptist. Peter heard from Andrew. Philip may have heard something about Jesus. Then, Philip told Nathanael.
There is a very human component to these call stories. There is a communal component to these stories. Samuel could not understand what was happening until Eli helped him. Eli discerned that God was speaking and he shared that wisdom with the boy. John the Baptist fulfilled his role as one who would bear witness. He directed his disciples to recognize Jesus – and so, they followed him.
When we think that God’s call has to be some astounding, earth-shaking, temple-shaking event, we are likely to discount the way God calls us – through the voices of others. And, all of us are called. Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the variety of gifts, spiritual gifts, and how important they are. Each gift is necessary for the health of the body of Christ. One of the sins of the institutional church has been that, too often, the church has lived with the notion that only those in the profession are called. That notion has done damage to the body. We forget that everyone’s gifts are needed to be the Body of Christ in the world.
I loved a periodical that is no longer in existence. It was titled “Faith at Work.” It emphasized the need to take one’s faith into the world. So, the phrase “faith at work” meant living in a way that demonstrated as fully as possible God’s grace and love. It also looked at ways to make faith a reality in work places. They wrote about companies that hired “chaplains” who were available to workers. They wrote about less formal ways that people made their faith accessible to those around them. It was a wonderful reminder that on Sundays we gather together, to nurture one another. Then we scatter to serve. There are churches that intentionally don’t call their pastors ministers. The congregation members are the ministers – the ones who take the good news into the world through their lives. The thing is, that doesn’t mean looking like some crazy street preacher. It means finding ways of using one’s own skills and talents and interests to bring God’s light into the world. All of us, each of us, is called. Peter, Andrew, James and John, the fishermen, were called to “fish” for people.
One of the roles of the church family is to be “Eli,” to look at those around us and see, identify, lift up and encourage the gifts that others have. “Listen, for God is calling you through this skill, this talent, this passion!” We also have to be Samuel, willing to hear those observations. Sometimes, that means we have to be stretched, nudged out of our comfort zones. I always think, looking back at my entry into ministry, that God has a sense of humor. This is the last place I expected to end up! I had thought I’d be working away in some lab, fiddling with numbers, not words! It was those around me who said, “We see something else.” I accepted that wisdom, grudgingly….and slowly. Yet, I don’t think God ever calls us to be something, someone, other than who we intrinsically are! We are God’s beloved children – created with various gifts, talents and interests. The body of Christ needs all of us, each of us, for it to be whole, for it to be effective in this world.
Now, there is one call story this morning that I didn’t really mention, the call of Nathanael. Philip called him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth.” Nathanael did not jump up to go and see for himself. Instead he asked, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Nazareth was a tiny town in the middle of nowhere! “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip invited him to “come and see.”
Nathanael tested the news he had received. He wasn’t going to jump in and believe what had been told him. He needed to confirm the good news with his own encounter.
One of the things I appreciate about the Presbyterian system is that it has a Nathanael bent to it! It “tests” faith; it “tests” call. Someone who senses a call to ministry must have that call confirmed by others – by the person’s session, then a presbytery committee, and then the presbytery. It is a process that involves education and a continuing conversation about that sense of call. Not everyone makes it through! Then, a call to serve a particular church is also tested. There must be a three way agreement that a relationship should exist – between pastor, congregation and presbytery. Our church rulers, elders, are chosen by the congregation – not the pastor. Through nominations and votes, we declare that “God is calling you!” Our denomination’s policies arise after questioning and debate. They are made and re-made, and, sometimes, rescinded. God’s voice, God’s call, is discerned in the midst of the community struggling to work things out, struggling to be faithful.
If we expect the thundering revelation, we will be, more often than not, disappointed. But, perhaps we can learn to listen to others and know that God is speaking through them. And, we can remember that God also uses us to help others hear God’s persistent voice. Eli said, “Listen.” John the Baptist said, “Here is the Lamb of God.” Andrew sought out his brother. Philip found Nathanael. They shared what they knew and what they had experienced. That was enough!