We are all stuck on this little planet together. Different cultures, different religions, different nations. We are not going anywhere. And we have, and continue, to all treat each other terribly. We are violent, destructive, malicious, and angry.
Jesus says that the way out of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into is to love our neighbor as ourselves. The word for "love" is agape. Agape means ultimate concern and presence with those who are decidedly unlovable to us. The love that we are called to express is not the sappy, sentimental meaning of the word that we hear on Top 40 radio. Agape love is powerful, subversive, and scary. Agape love can turn us around.
We cannot practice love of those who are unlovable without holiness. Holiness is often associated with what is separate and apart from the world; it is associated only with praying and singing hymns and reflecting. Holiness is not doing those things; we do those things to make us holy. Holiness is exhibited not by separating ourselves from those who we perceive as unlovable, but by first questioning the unlovable nature of those who we deem to be unlovable, and then to question whether we are as lovable as we perceive ourselves. And holiness is about entering into relationship with those we deem unlovable, and being their servants. As we do so, remember that God is calling those who we deem unlovable to enter into relationship with us.
A good metaphor for holiness is the story of Jesus washing the disciples feet. Washing feet is about as dissimilar from what we typically think of as "separate from the world" as you can get. You cannot get more engaged with the world than washing peoples feet. And remember that if we take agape love seriously, that means we will allow our own feet to be exposed and washed by those who we deem unlovable. This is a great image about what can bring healing and peace to the world. Having the courage to expose all the sweat, dirt, and imperfections of our feet to our enemies, our enemies having the courage to expose their feet to us, our willingness to wash our enemies' feet, and our enemies' willingness to wash ours.
Supporting the work and mission of Caney Spring United Methodist Church and Berlin United Methodist Church, two churches partnered in the ministry of making disciples of Christ for the transformation of the world, located in Marshall County, Tennessee.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
On Being As Wise As Snakes and Innocent As Doves
In Matthew's gospel, the Pharisees approach Jesus and ask him whether or not it is right to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus responds by referring to Caesar Augustus' face on a coin and telling the Pharisees that we should give Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.
On the surface, this is a dialogue about how Jewish persons in Jesus' time should relate to the Roman state. But in actuality, the Pharisees' motivation in asking the question is not to have such a discussion or because they are truly interested in Jesus' answer. The Pharisees are asking a question that is full of figurative minefields--if Jesus answers in a way that sounds disloyal to Rome, the Pharisees can pass along Jesus' response to the Roman authorities and ask that he be punished. If Jesus answers in a way that sounds loyal to Rome, the Pharisees will publicize this to the people, in the hopes of diminishing Jesus' influence with the general public.
Jesus' response is really a non response. Jesus' answer does not expressly define what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. The subtext in Jesus' response is clear: I know why you are really asking the question, so I am going to answer in a way that doesn't give you what you want; ammunition to take either to Rome or to the people, depending upon the response.
Jesus lived in confusing, scary, violent times, like our own. In fact, Jesus told the disciples that they were being sent out as "sheep amidst the wolves." In this environment, Jesus said that they disciples needed to be as "wise as snakes and as innocent as doves." Only by combining both wisdom and innocence could the disciples be the kind of people that could reveal God's Kingdom and faithfully proclaim the good news.
Today the United Methodist Church, like other mainline churches, focuses a lot on the "dove" side of the formula, but doesn't say much about the "snake" side. Being God's people requires both innocence and shrewdness. Innocence without shrewdness creates a community of very nice people who do nothing but sing hymns while the world outside the Church destroys itself. Holiness requires both wisdom and innocence. As always, our model is Jesus.
On the surface, this is a dialogue about how Jewish persons in Jesus' time should relate to the Roman state. But in actuality, the Pharisees' motivation in asking the question is not to have such a discussion or because they are truly interested in Jesus' answer. The Pharisees are asking a question that is full of figurative minefields--if Jesus answers in a way that sounds disloyal to Rome, the Pharisees can pass along Jesus' response to the Roman authorities and ask that he be punished. If Jesus answers in a way that sounds loyal to Rome, the Pharisees will publicize this to the people, in the hopes of diminishing Jesus' influence with the general public.
Jesus' response is really a non response. Jesus' answer does not expressly define what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. The subtext in Jesus' response is clear: I know why you are really asking the question, so I am going to answer in a way that doesn't give you what you want; ammunition to take either to Rome or to the people, depending upon the response.
Jesus lived in confusing, scary, violent times, like our own. In fact, Jesus told the disciples that they were being sent out as "sheep amidst the wolves." In this environment, Jesus said that they disciples needed to be as "wise as snakes and as innocent as doves." Only by combining both wisdom and innocence could the disciples be the kind of people that could reveal God's Kingdom and faithfully proclaim the good news.
Today the United Methodist Church, like other mainline churches, focuses a lot on the "dove" side of the formula, but doesn't say much about the "snake" side. Being God's people requires both innocence and shrewdness. Innocence without shrewdness creates a community of very nice people who do nothing but sing hymns while the world outside the Church destroys itself. Holiness requires both wisdom and innocence. As always, our model is Jesus.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
God's Place at the Wedding Banquet
The gospel lesson from the Revised Common Lectionary this week is a parable from Matthew's gospel involving a king and the organization of a wedding banquet. As always, the parable is set in a context that Jesus' listeners would have been very familiar with; in this case, a wedding banquet hosted by the king. And as always, someone in the parable does not comply with the unstated cultural norms and mores that everyone knew and expected. Jesus then uses this anomalous behavior to make a statement about the Kingdom of God.
The king extends invitations throughout the kingdom. Although not explicit in the story, we can imagine that those invited to the wedding would be those who had influence and prestige in the kingdom. The guests do not show up. The king is enraged, and has the guests murdered. The king then goes out and invites everyone who was not originally invited. We can imagine that this set of wedding guests were those who did not have any influence or power in the kingdom. Picture the king rounding up the residents of the local prisons and homeless shelters.
The parable ends with the king noticing that someone at the wedding banquet does not have a wedding robe. The king is incredulous, and has the individual murdered. The individual does not offer any response, despite the fact that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the individual does not have a robe (i.e. since the guests were gathered up at the last minute, this particular guests might not have had time to dress, and if the guest was poor, there is no way that the guest would have had the financial resources to purchase a robe).
Most readings of this parable identify the king as God. I think such a reading is inaccurate. Identifying the king as God then requires all sorts of theological gymnastics to reconcile God's nature with the king in the parable, who is villainous, capricious, and unstable.
The king in the parable is actually in line with ancient Israel's expectation for kings. In the ancient world, there were no limits on the king's authority. Ancient Israel had suffered through king after king who committed atrocities that were unthinkable. Remember that Jesus' listeners were living in the time of the Herod dynasty--local rulers who were put in place by Rome. Recall that Herod the Great was so paranoid and unstable that he issued an order when he was unable to find Jesus that all infant and toddler males be murdered.
Rather than identifying God as the king in the story, another reading that has been suggested by modern scholars that I find persuasive is to see the unnamed individual at the end of the parable as representative of God in Christ. Like Jesus, the unnamed guest at the end of the parable is accused unjustly, and is executed. Throughout the process, Jesus remains silent to the charges, as the unnamed guest does not protest his execution.
The unnamed guest in the parable, by remaining silent, sheds a light on the idiocy and mental instability of the king. Similarly, the silence of Jesus in the face of his accusers and the crucifixion event shed a light on the corruption of the Roman occupation and the uneasy alliance between Roman authority and the temple authorities. In a broader sense, the crucifixion sheds a light on all of us and our sin. The parable does not expressly say what the Kingdom of God is. It simply says what the Kingdom of God is not. The Kingdom of God is the exact opposite of the kingdom that is implicit in the parable. The Kingdom of God is so unlike the parable, that there is no way for the two kingdoms to have any way of communicating with each other. They might as well be speaking different languages.
The king extends invitations throughout the kingdom. Although not explicit in the story, we can imagine that those invited to the wedding would be those who had influence and prestige in the kingdom. The guests do not show up. The king is enraged, and has the guests murdered. The king then goes out and invites everyone who was not originally invited. We can imagine that this set of wedding guests were those who did not have any influence or power in the kingdom. Picture the king rounding up the residents of the local prisons and homeless shelters.
The parable ends with the king noticing that someone at the wedding banquet does not have a wedding robe. The king is incredulous, and has the individual murdered. The individual does not offer any response, despite the fact that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the individual does not have a robe (i.e. since the guests were gathered up at the last minute, this particular guests might not have had time to dress, and if the guest was poor, there is no way that the guest would have had the financial resources to purchase a robe).
Most readings of this parable identify the king as God. I think such a reading is inaccurate. Identifying the king as God then requires all sorts of theological gymnastics to reconcile God's nature with the king in the parable, who is villainous, capricious, and unstable.
The king in the parable is actually in line with ancient Israel's expectation for kings. In the ancient world, there were no limits on the king's authority. Ancient Israel had suffered through king after king who committed atrocities that were unthinkable. Remember that Jesus' listeners were living in the time of the Herod dynasty--local rulers who were put in place by Rome. Recall that Herod the Great was so paranoid and unstable that he issued an order when he was unable to find Jesus that all infant and toddler males be murdered.
Rather than identifying God as the king in the story, another reading that has been suggested by modern scholars that I find persuasive is to see the unnamed individual at the end of the parable as representative of God in Christ. Like Jesus, the unnamed guest at the end of the parable is accused unjustly, and is executed. Throughout the process, Jesus remains silent to the charges, as the unnamed guest does not protest his execution.
The unnamed guest in the parable, by remaining silent, sheds a light on the idiocy and mental instability of the king. Similarly, the silence of Jesus in the face of his accusers and the crucifixion event shed a light on the corruption of the Roman occupation and the uneasy alliance between Roman authority and the temple authorities. In a broader sense, the crucifixion sheds a light on all of us and our sin. The parable does not expressly say what the Kingdom of God is. It simply says what the Kingdom of God is not. The Kingdom of God is the exact opposite of the kingdom that is implicit in the parable. The Kingdom of God is so unlike the parable, that there is no way for the two kingdoms to have any way of communicating with each other. They might as well be speaking different languages.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The Risks of Leasing in the Kingdom of God
The gospel lesson this week in the Revised Common Lectionary contains a parable where God is likened unto a landowner who leases a vinyard to tenants. When the time comes for the tenants to pay the landowner for leasing the vinyard, the landowner sends servants to collect the money, but the servants are killed by the lessees. The landowner then proceeds to send more servants, who are also killed by the lessees. Finally, the landowner sends his son, but the servants kill the son as well.
Jesus' listeners would have been very familiar with the context of this parable. It was common for rich landowners who owned land in remote locations to lease the land to tenants who lived and worked the land locally. The tenants, in turn, paid a yearly portion of the land's yield to the owner. It was understood and expected that the tenants would be very respectful and courteous to the owner and the owner's agents. Similarly, if the tenants did not have enough money to pay the yearly tribute, it would be expected that they would have begged and pleaded for leniency.
In light of these expectations, the behavior of all parties in this parable is highly surprising and shocking. The tenants not only fail to pay the landowner, but actually kill the landowner's agents and then proceed to kill the landowners son. Their apparent motive (i.e. to take the son's inheritance) is ridiculous since the son has not obtained his inheritance yet. Even more surprisingly, the owner does not exact vengeance against the tenants but keeps sending the servants and then later his son despite the results.
This parable is an obvious critique of the religious leaders of Jesus' day. As those who were given the responsibility of leading Israel in its covenant relationship with God, the religious leaders had lots of responsibility. But rather than being good tenants, they were doing lots of damage to God's Kingdom.
As baptized disciples who have entered into covenant with God and who have accepted the responsibility of living as God's people, we have been given enormous responsibility. God gives us a place in God's Kingdom. We are called to act wisely and to live according to the example of Christ. That means, as tenants, to spend our time doing good and not evil. Like the tenants in the parable, we have the capacity to do enormous harm to others. But we also have the opportunity to do tremendous good as well.
Jesus' listeners would have been very familiar with the context of this parable. It was common for rich landowners who owned land in remote locations to lease the land to tenants who lived and worked the land locally. The tenants, in turn, paid a yearly portion of the land's yield to the owner. It was understood and expected that the tenants would be very respectful and courteous to the owner and the owner's agents. Similarly, if the tenants did not have enough money to pay the yearly tribute, it would be expected that they would have begged and pleaded for leniency.
In light of these expectations, the behavior of all parties in this parable is highly surprising and shocking. The tenants not only fail to pay the landowner, but actually kill the landowner's agents and then proceed to kill the landowners son. Their apparent motive (i.e. to take the son's inheritance) is ridiculous since the son has not obtained his inheritance yet. Even more surprisingly, the owner does not exact vengeance against the tenants but keeps sending the servants and then later his son despite the results.
This parable is an obvious critique of the religious leaders of Jesus' day. As those who were given the responsibility of leading Israel in its covenant relationship with God, the religious leaders had lots of responsibility. But rather than being good tenants, they were doing lots of damage to God's Kingdom.
As baptized disciples who have entered into covenant with God and who have accepted the responsibility of living as God's people, we have been given enormous responsibility. God gives us a place in God's Kingdom. We are called to act wisely and to live according to the example of Christ. That means, as tenants, to spend our time doing good and not evil. Like the tenants in the parable, we have the capacity to do enormous harm to others. But we also have the opportunity to do tremendous good as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)