Hebrew Bible: Genesis 22:1-14
Psalm: Psalm 13
Epistle: Romans 6:12-23
New Testament: Matthew 10:40-42
Preacher: Melissa BrowningSermon
– Sacrifice and Love
June 29, 2008
As I read and reread this week’s lectionary texts and contemplated ways to reconcile the wages of sin, cups of cold water, and a somewhat frightful story about sacrifice, I wondered if I was asked to preach because no one else wanted to! Now, Wes asked me to promise that I would not begin my sermon complaining about the lectionary selections, but when I asked him how I should begin the sermon, the best he could muster was the salutation, “Dearest people of the church…” So, Dearest people of the church, if you will permit me, I thought the best way to engage this week’s texts would be to put aside my conspiracy theories and choose the hardest among the texts and see what we could learn by putting it on the chopping block … hence, this sermon will be on the binding of Isaac.
Isaac’s story has always bothered me. I remember Sunday School coloring pictures of a docile Isaac strapped down to the altar with a knife raised above his chest, saved just in the nick of time by a beautiful glowing angel. In the flannel graph stories that accompanied these coloring pictures, both Isaac and Abraham trusted God and were met with a happy ending. Yet when you actually read the text, there are few happy endings to be found. After this incident, the relationship between Isaac and Abraham is never the same (Zierler, 19). Abraham sacrifices the ram God provides, but does not return from Mount Moriah with Isaac, but with his servants. In the Genesis text, Isaac and Abraham do not speak again after this incident. The last conversation between the two comes when Isaac ask his father, “Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?“ And Isaac’s mother, Sarah, who laughed at the impossibility possibility of her only son’s birth, is forever silenced by a narrative twist that records her death shortly after Abraham’s return (Zierler, 19-20). Furthermore, the text leaves us wondering what changed with Abraham. The faithful sojourner who begged God to show compassion on Sodom and Gomorrah does not even protest when asked to sacrifice his son.
In Jewish and Christian history, this text has been interpreted in a number of ways. In Judaism, this text is called the Akedah and is seen by many as central to spiritual formation within the Jewish tradition. On Rosh Hashanah, the Akedah is evoked through a prayer where God is asked to remember Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac and therefore, show mercy to the Jewish people (Jacobs, 18-20). In this remembrance, the faith of Abraham is highlighted, but the voices of Isaac and Sarah remain silent.
Other interpretations in both Christian and Jewish tradition have seen the text as a polemic against child sacrifice, which was being practiced by other religious groups during the time period when this text was composed. Yet this interpretation has been challenged because it is inconsistent with Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac and with God’s seeming reward of Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son (New Interpreter’s Study Bible, “The Moral Dilemma of the Sacrifice of Isaac,” 43).
Christian theologian Søren Kierkegaard read the text with an ethical lens and said that Abraham was the “knight of faith” who allowed a temporary suspension of ethics in order to honor God’s request (Kierkegaard).
Other Christian readers have recognized an analogy between Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac, who is called his only son, and God’s giving Jesus over to death on the cross.
More daring commentators have read the binding of Isaac in light of Sarah’s death and have asked if this text signaled the triumph of a patriarchal tradition over Sarah’s matriarchal faith. Feminist theologian Carol Ochs argues that the text proves Abraham’s loyalty to the patriarchal religious cult, which replaced a prior matriarchal cult. This argument is based on the idea that Isaac’s sacrifice would have threatened what matriarchal religion held most dear – children. Whereas in patriarchy, children became property (Ochs, 31-46).
Whether we agree with Ochs or not, we certainly must ask the question – Where is Sarah? Did she know what Abraham was doing? Jewish midrashes, which are legends or interpretations of a text, read this text assume that at some point, Sarah must have known what happened between Abraham and Isaac. Some midrashes propose that Sarah died from grief after hearing what Abraham had attempted, while other say that she died from joy, hearing that Isaac survived (Zierler, 11-12).
These are just some of the ways people have been wrestling with this text. This short review is helpful, because as we pick up the text to do our own reading this evening, we have a bit of wrestling to do.
Tonight I want to ask the question that readers throughout history have asked when encountering this text – What sacrifice is required of us? Should we follow Abraham’s example – should we give away what is most dear? Or should we run the other way, understanding Christian responsibility as the duty to fiercely care for, not sacrifice, all that we love?
A good starting point for asking these questions can be found by looking at the relationship between sacrifice and love. Interestingly enough, the first time the Hebrew word for love is found in the biblical text comes in this passage (Zierler, 19). God asks Abraham to "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love…. and offer him as a burnt offering." Yet by the end of the text, the word love has disappeared. When the angel of the Lord calls out to Abraham, Isaac is no longer known as the one whom Abraham loves. The voice from heaven says, “I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." We do not hear the word “love” again in the Hebrew Scriptures until Isaac meets his wife Rebecca and brings her into his mother’s tent (Zierler, 19).
This shift in the relationship between Abraham and Isaac says something about the nature of love and sacrifice. To put it bluntly, offering one’s beloved as a sacrifice does not serve love. So did Abraham get it wrong? And if so, why is this story part of our sacred text at all?
Perhaps part of our conflict with this passage comes in our expectations of the biblical texts. In the days when I colored pictures of Isaac strapped to an altar, I believed that from any given text there were simple ethical parallels, which I could readily apply to my life. But the scripture is only one source for Christian ethics. When scripture is used to make an ethical decision, it must be used in dialogue with reason, tradition, and experience. It is only by putting these sources in dialogue that we can use the text on the binding of Isaac as starting point for speaking about sacrifice today.
The story of the binding of Isaac must be read in light of other passages that teach us that loving God brings the obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves (See Luke 10:27 & Matt. 22:36-40). This is especially necessary because it is in the relationship between love and sacrifice where this subject gets messy. In the Christian tradition, many of us have been told that Christian love is always self-sacrificing love (See Niebuhr & Nygren). Yet in our history, this interpretation of love as self-sacrificing has benefited some, and harmed others. In fact, the first article ever published on feminist theology in the 1960’s recognized that women’s sin was not pride, but was the temptation to give too much of themselves (Saiving, 100-112). In relationships between men and women, between parents and children, sacrifice has often not been even distributed. Even today, women and children continue to carry too much of the global burden of poverty, disease, and malnutrition.
In addressing this concern, African feminist theologian Mercy Oduyoye says that in Africa, the church should look to women as its model for sacrifice. She says that women sacrifice too much; and that they are being sacrificed by the church. But, according to Oduyoye, if the burdens of sacrifice were equally distributed, then sacrifice would no longer be a burden but a way to participate in the community of God (Oduyoye, 259-272). Oduyoye comes to this perspective not by listening to those who direct the ritual, but by those who have been sacrificed.
Perhaps in reading today’s text, we could follow Oduyoye’s lead and listen to the silent characters within the text. Abraham’s obedience cannot be lifted up over Isaac’s victimization or Sarah’s silencing. All three voices must emerge from the text if we want to understand what sacrifice truly means.
When this text is read with the experience of each participant in mind, and when it is read against the backdrop of modern experiences of sacrifice and love, it can provide a lens to discern the difference between a sacrifice that is harmful to ourselves and others, and a sacrifice that is our obligation as people in Christian community. Toward this end, I believe there are a few guidelines that can be suggested to keep sacrifice within the realm of Christian love.
First, in order for sacrifice to live within the realm of love, it must respect our sense of embodiment. By embodiment I mean that our bodies are essential to who we are as persons. We were created by God not as minds trapped in bodies, but as bodies relating with other bodies. Simply put, Abraham cannot love Isaac if he is willing to deny him bodily existence. In the same way, in our relationships with each other, we must respect each other as embodied people. This means that we honor each other’s emotional and physical limits. That we do use the ones we love to fulfill our own needs, but that we honor and care for one another. We encourage each other to rest. We seek in all our actions to flourish together and not at each other’s expense. In this, our goal should be to distribute sacrifice as equally as possible within our relationships and within our communities.
Second, in order for sacrifice to live within the realm of love, sacrifice must serve love. Sacrifice is not a good test for love. Even in the relationship between God and Abraham, Isaac’s sacrifice was not a test of Abraham’s love for God, but of whether or not he “feared” God. Christian sacrifice must not be given out of fear – it is not something we can demand of each other when power is unequal. No, Christian sacrifice must be freely given if it is to serve love. Sacrifice may not always be equal, but it must exist as much as possible within relationships of reciprocity. While there are special relationships – such as those between a parent and a child – that necessitate unequal sacrifice, this should be the exception, and not the norm for Christian relationships. In all our relationships, like in the relationship between a parent and a child, we should hope to grow into reciprocal exchanges of equal giving.
This brings us to the last, and perhaps the most important point. For sacrifice to live within the realm of love, it must not neglect the balance between love of God, love of neighbor, and love of self. In Matthew and Luke’s gospels, Jesus sums up the entire law by saying, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind.” And "You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (See Luke 10:27 & Matt. 22:36-40). For sacrifice to live within the realm of love, it must honor all our loves – our love of God, ourselves, and others. It must honor our embodiment – our heart, soul, strength and mind – our whole person related to other people. Sacrifice should not kill us or kill those we love. We must take seriously Paul’s admonition to be a living sacrifice – knowing that the sacrifices we make should lead us all live life more abundantly.
While preparing this sermon, I ran across an excellent reflection on the binding of Isaac from a blog that was written for Rosh Hashanah. The writer of this blog read the text from a literary perspective and noted the way the simplicity of the text’s language gives a sense of ambiguity to the story. He said that as we read this text, our questions remain unresolved. The blogger put it this way, he said the author of the text “wants the reader to never cease pondering our relationship with God and the inhuman tests of faith to which (God) periodically puts us… Our faith… is meant to be a continual struggle” (Richard Silverstein blog)
In reading the difficult story of Abraham and Isaac, we are reminded that relationships are difficult, full of conflicting interests and priorities. It is hard to know when to give and when to hold back, when we should sharing ourselves, and when we risk dangerously losing ourselves to another. This is why attention to sacrifice is so important.
For sacrifice to be Christian sacrifice, it must live within the realm of love. And to live in this realm, it must respect our embodiment, it must serve love, and it must balance our loves – love of self, love of neighbor and love of God. When sacrifice lives within the realm of love, we can give of ourselves without losing ourselves. We can work toward relationships of reciprocity where the burdens and benefits of sacrifice are equally distributed in our relationships and in the community of God. This is the gift of God’s grace – eternal life given through a sacrifice that only God could give. It is from this place of sharing the benefits and burdens of sacrifice that we are able to welcome one another, to give a cup of cold water, and to live together in love.
Sources
Jacobs, Louis. The Jewish Religion: A Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
New Interpreter’s Study Bible, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003.
Nygren, Anders. Agape and Eros. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953.
Niebuhr, Reinhold An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1963.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Ochs, Carol. Behind the Sex of God. Boston: Beacon Press, 1977.
Oduyoye, Mercy Amba. “Church-Women and the Church’s Mission in Contemporary Times,” Bulletin de Théologie Africaine 6, no. 12, (1984): 259-272.
Saiving, Valarie. “The Human Situation: A Feminine View,” Journal of Religion 40:2, (1960): 100-112.
Silverstein, Richard – Blog found at http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2004/09/16/the-akedah-abra
Zierler, Wendy. “In Search of a Feminist Reading of the Akedah,” NASHIM: A Journal of Jewish Women_s Studies and Gender Issues, Number 9, Spring 2005, pp. 10-26.
Monday, June 30
Friday, June 27
Reconciler Update
Summer is fully upon us. The Clark Street Festival will soon be here, the first of two Chicago neighborhood festivals in which we plan to have a booth. And we are planning another panel discussion for September. We are seeing ourselves grow in being a congregation. As Laura has pointed out we are beginning to live into the ministry of Reconciler as the work of all of us, as was shown in the panel discussion on Fair Trade. However, along with consciousness raising and outreach we need to attend to relationships, both those that already exist within our congregation and those we may form with whom God sends us as we reach out to those around us. This is perhaps the more difficult task than planning events and programs or becoming politically active as individuals and as a congregation. We can inadvertently hurt and break relationships in the process of doing things even the right things, unless we believe that particular human relationships and exhibiting love in those relationships is as important, possibly more important, than what we do. First it should form us and propels us to grow in love for each other and for people in particular. The love we have from God is the basis of what we do, both as a church and as individuals. God sent The Son, Jesus Christ, out of love not just for humanity in some abstraction or generality but in all our particularity. Being able to love each other and others in the world in their particularity is always the most difficult task for the church, because it stretches us beyond our human capacities. This goal leads us to a reliance upon God, as the source of our love and as that which binds our relationships together. So, yes let us do and plan, but may we be attentive that what is done is done out of love of God with love attention to the particular people we already know and will meet as we follow God's leading as a congregation.
Announcements:
Laura our priest and her family are moving as construction begins in earnest on their home. There is a packing party this Saturday.
The Pulse:Africa is this Saturday June 28th at the 1 Pm at the Brixon Ivy Community Center Theater 2 blocks east of Wrigley feild on Addison. Featuring Watoto Children's Choir from Uganda and the Labco Dance Company of Pitsburg. 1 PM, $10.00.
Melissa Browning is preaching again this Sunday, June 29th.
Thursday July 10th we are having a potluck supper at Will and Chrissy's house 3106 W Carmen Ave at 7 PM.
It will be a time to hang out together and briefly hear about our opportunity to partner with North Shore Baptist Church as they have been connected with a church in the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans through the organization Churches Supporting Churches.
Sunday July 13th we are at the Clark Street Festival, see the sign up sheet that has been sent around or talk with Daniel or Kate about signing up to staff the booth. We will have our regular service at 5 PM and be leaving the Festival in time for church that evening.
August 23rd and 24th we will have a booth at the Glenwood Arts Festival in Rogers Park. We are looking for artists of all media to contribute. Talk with Larry about showing your art. Talk with Daniel and Kate about staffing the booth when we get closer to the festival.
Pastors vacations: Larry will be taking a week vacation between July 21 and 27. Laura will on a weekend tripp the weekend of July 20 th and then be away on vacation from August 24th through August 30th.
We are planning a panel discussion on homelessness on September 11th. Talk with Jeremy or attend the next meeting of the Social Action Committee if you are interested in helping plan this event.
In Christ,
Larry
The Pastoral Team
The Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler
Announcements:
Laura our priest and her family are moving as construction begins in earnest on their home. There is a packing party this Saturday.
The Pulse:Africa is this Saturday June 28th at the 1 Pm at the Brixon Ivy Community Center Theater 2 blocks east of Wrigley feild on Addison. Featuring Watoto Children's Choir from Uganda and the Labco Dance Company of Pitsburg. 1 PM, $10.00.
Melissa Browning is preaching again this Sunday, June 29th.
Thursday July 10th we are having a potluck supper at Will and Chrissy's house 3106 W Carmen Ave at 7 PM.
It will be a time to hang out together and briefly hear about our opportunity to partner with North Shore Baptist Church as they have been connected with a church in the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans through the organization Churches Supporting Churches.
Sunday July 13th we are at the Clark Street Festival, see the sign up sheet that has been sent around or talk with Daniel or Kate about signing up to staff the booth. We will have our regular service at 5 PM and be leaving the Festival in time for church that evening.
August 23rd and 24th we will have a booth at the Glenwood Arts Festival in Rogers Park. We are looking for artists of all media to contribute. Talk with Larry about showing your art. Talk with Daniel and Kate about staffing the booth when we get closer to the festival.
Pastors vacations: Larry will be taking a week vacation between July 21 and 27. Laura will on a weekend tripp the weekend of July 20 th and then be away on vacation from August 24th through August 30th.
We are planning a panel discussion on homelessness on September 11th. Talk with Jeremy or attend the next meeting of the Social Action Committee if you are interested in helping plan this event.
In Christ,
Larry
The Pastoral Team
The Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler
Sunday, June 15
Reconciler Update for June 15, 2008
"Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good....For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body..." 1 Cor. 12: 4-11
+++ REFLECTION +++
Dear Friends,
There have been a few things recently I feel particularly excited about -- that I think speak to our health as a religious community and areas in which we are growing.
One is the recent Fair Trade event, sponsored by our Social Justice Committee. For this event, the committee got together a group of three panelists, one a Loyola professor, the other a fair trade worker from Ethiopia, and the third a member of Chicago Fair Trade.
Each of the panelists spoke convincingly and compellingly -- in his/her own unique voice -- about the need for fair trade. I appreciated the opportunity to buy and sample fair trade goods. The hand-out packet listing venues that sell fairly traded goods will be very helpful. I liked the combination of in-depth background information and specific suggestions for action steps. Members of the audience had thoughtful questions and comments. Several expressed interest in worshipping with us. The hospitality was a nice touch (wicked good chocolate chip cookies there).
Another significant piece was that the Reconciler laypeople who organized this event were demonstrating the priesthood of all believers. Ministry is not just for ordained people or professional clergy, it's something for every member of the church, to the degree to which they feel called and capable. Clergy serve as representative leaders, icons if you will. Ordained ministry represents a specific level of commitment and training. But clergy do not have -- and are not meant to have -- a monopoly on ministry, which belongs to all the people of God. Paul talks in 1st Corinthians 12 about the variety of spiritual gifts, and likens church members to parts of a body which united is greater than the sum of its parts. We worked on this passage together on our retreat in December, when we identified areas in which we as a church wanted to grow.
In seminaries and churches there is much talk about every-member ministry and the need for lay people to be actively engaged and empowered, but often this is more talked about than lived out. I am glad to see Reconciler showing health and growth in this area, as demonstated by the Fair Trade event and the harmonious work of our search committee for a new Baptist pastor.
Another exciting new development is our invitation to explore a partnership with North Shore church, a Baptist church in our neighborhood, that is seeking to assist a church in New Orleans with its re-building efforts. To that end, North Shore is planning several mission trips to New Orleans. Larry and I attended an exploratory meeting last week at North Shore, with members of other Chicago-area churches.
Another thing I'm excited about is a conference on the emerging church, sponsored by the Episcopal diocese of Chicago, which I recently attended. Reconciler demonstrates many earmarks of the emerging church movement, including a merging of old and new traditions, an emphasis on community and relationality as exemplified by the Trinity, a concern for social justice, a general "thinking outside the box." And again, an understanding of the church as the body of Christ, a la Paul. Our new bishop, Jeffrey Lee, is supportive of innovative ways of being and doing church, and expressed enthusiasm for follow-up conversation and a visit to Reconciler. I found the emerging church conference exciting, heartening, and instructive, and will be excited to share more with you about it in the days to come.
Yours in Christ,
Laura+
for The Pastoral Team
The Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler
+++ ANNOUNCEMENTS +++
Melissa Browning, our candidate for the Interim Baptist pastor position, will be preaching today at our 5:00 p.m. worship service.
The Pulse: A Gathering for Christian Artists, is having a special event on Saturday June 28th, 1 PM at the Brixen Ivy Community Center 1242 West Addison. The event will be featuring the Labco Dance Company and the Matoto Children's Choir.
Pastor Laura and her family are in the process of moving. She is inviting the Reconciler congregation to a "P" party at her home: Pizza and Packing with Pastor. Date to be announced soon.
We will have a booth at the Clark Street Festival on Sunday July 13th. Talk with Kate or Daniel if you'd like to help set up, take down, and/or take a shift staffing the booth. It's fun! and good outreach to the community.
Reconciler's next church council meeting will be next Thursday June 19th, 7:30 PM at the 'Nidge. All are welcome to attend.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++ REFLECTION +++
Dear Friends,
There have been a few things recently I feel particularly excited about -- that I think speak to our health as a religious community and areas in which we are growing.
One is the recent Fair Trade event, sponsored by our Social Justice Committee. For this event, the committee got together a group of three panelists, one a Loyola professor, the other a fair trade worker from Ethiopia, and the third a member of Chicago Fair Trade.
Each of the panelists spoke convincingly and compellingly -- in his/her own unique voice -- about the need for fair trade. I appreciated the opportunity to buy and sample fair trade goods. The hand-out packet listing venues that sell fairly traded goods will be very helpful. I liked the combination of in-depth background information and specific suggestions for action steps. Members of the audience had thoughtful questions and comments. Several expressed interest in worshipping with us. The hospitality was a nice touch (wicked good chocolate chip cookies there).
Another significant piece was that the Reconciler laypeople who organized this event were demonstrating the priesthood of all believers. Ministry is not just for ordained people or professional clergy, it's something for every member of the church, to the degree to which they feel called and capable. Clergy serve as representative leaders, icons if you will. Ordained ministry represents a specific level of commitment and training. But clergy do not have -- and are not meant to have -- a monopoly on ministry, which belongs to all the people of God. Paul talks in 1st Corinthians 12 about the variety of spiritual gifts, and likens church members to parts of a body which united is greater than the sum of its parts. We worked on this passage together on our retreat in December, when we identified areas in which we as a church wanted to grow.
In seminaries and churches there is much talk about every-member ministry and the need for lay people to be actively engaged and empowered, but often this is more talked about than lived out. I am glad to see Reconciler showing health and growth in this area, as demonstated by the Fair Trade event and the harmonious work of our search committee for a new Baptist pastor.
Another exciting new development is our invitation to explore a partnership with North Shore church, a Baptist church in our neighborhood, that is seeking to assist a church in New Orleans with its re-building efforts. To that end, North Shore is planning several mission trips to New Orleans. Larry and I attended an exploratory meeting last week at North Shore, with members of other Chicago-area churches.
Another thing I'm excited about is a conference on the emerging church, sponsored by the Episcopal diocese of Chicago, which I recently attended. Reconciler demonstrates many earmarks of the emerging church movement, including a merging of old and new traditions, an emphasis on community and relationality as exemplified by the Trinity, a concern for social justice, a general "thinking outside the box." And again, an understanding of the church as the body of Christ, a la Paul. Our new bishop, Jeffrey Lee, is supportive of innovative ways of being and doing church, and expressed enthusiasm for follow-up conversation and a visit to Reconciler. I found the emerging church conference exciting, heartening, and instructive, and will be excited to share more with you about it in the days to come.
Yours in Christ,
Laura+
for The Pastoral Team
The Church of Jesus Christ, Reconciler
+++ ANNOUNCEMENTS +++
Melissa Browning, our candidate for the Interim Baptist pastor position, will be preaching today at our 5:00 p.m. worship service.
The Pulse: A Gathering for Christian Artists, is having a special event on Saturday June 28th, 1 PM at the Brixen Ivy Community Center 1242 West Addison. The event will be featuring the Labco Dance Company and the Matoto Children's Choir.
Pastor Laura and her family are in the process of moving. She is inviting the Reconciler congregation to a "P" party at her home: Pizza and Packing with Pastor. Date to be announced soon.
We will have a booth at the Clark Street Festival on Sunday July 13th. Talk with Kate or Daniel if you'd like to help set up, take down, and/or take a shift staffing the booth. It's fun! and good outreach to the community.
Reconciler's next church council meeting will be next Thursday June 19th, 7:30 PM at the 'Nidge. All are welcome to attend.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sunday After Pentecost, Proper 6
Hebrew Bible: Genesis 18:1-15, (21:1-7)
Psalm 116:1-2, 12-19
Epistle: Romans 5:1-8
New Testament: Matthew 9:35-10:8, (9-23)
Preacher: Melissa Browning
June 15, 2008
Sometimes there is no better way to begin a sermon than with a somewhat embarrassing narrative from one’s own life. When I was ten, maybe eleven years old my parents sent me to spend a week with my 70-year old grandfather and his new wife in Mansfield, Ohio. Now it just so happens that when a grandfather gets re-married at 70, you end up gaining a lot of new relatives. That week in Ohio, my new step-grandmother thought it would be a wonderful idea for me to spend the week with her less-than-religiously-devout grandchildren. Now let me pause for the backstory… I grew up in the Bible belt where the only non-Christians I knew were soon-to-be-converted characters in my Christian romance novels. I was not at all prepared to meet my 9-year old step-cousin who did not believe God existed. We had been playing all day when the subject of church came up and he let me know that he didn’t go to church because he was an atheist. I didn’t know 9-year-olds were allowed to be atheists.
Either way, I had been waiting my entire life for a moment such as this so I pulled out my red-letter New Testament, with each verse of the Roman Road carefully tabbed and highlighted, and jumped immediately to matters of ultimate concern. But he wouldn’t budge, and then he had to go home before I was able to explain what the beads on my salvation bracelet meant. Left in a state of spiritual rejection, I wasn’t sure what to do so I begin to thumb through my little Bible and I ran across this verse in Matthew, the same verse that appears in today’s gospel text… “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town…”
So I went outside, took off my sneakers and banged them against the side of the house until I was sure most of the dust had been shaken off, then I went back inside for a popsicle, confident I had done the right thing.
The plentiful harvest, the sheep with out a shepherd, the dust on our feet, and the good news of God all mean something a different to me now that I’m all grown up. In today’s gospel text we find Matthew’s account of the commissioning of the twelve disciples. This passage follows story after story of miracles where Jesus healed individuals who were marginalized by society: a hemorrhaging woman, a man with leprosy, a little girl who died too young, and two men who were blind, just to name a few. The text we read today begins by telling us that Jesus was “curing every disease and sickness…” What good news for a hurting world! And when we see Jesus in this text, we find him in the midst of these crowds, crowds that symbolize how far God’s good news will go, and Jesus looks at the people with compassion.
In retelling this story, Matthew mixes two metaphors that would resonate with his audience – sheep without a shepherd and a plentiful harvest. In listening to these words, his hearers would have remembered the image in the Hebrew Scriptures of the neglectful shepherds who the prophets criticized for not caring for Israel (Hare, 108-109). In the same way, the image of the plentiful harvest was used in Jewish teaching to convey a sense of urgency (Keener, 309). In combining these metaphors, Matthew conveys both urgency and need. The sheep are lost and scattered, pushed to the fringes of society, without a shepherd to bring them home. And the time for them to be gathered is now. The fields are ripe for harvest, there is no time to spare – the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven is bursting forth on the scene.
Up until this point in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus was the only one who was teaching and healing (Hare, 109). But all good Jewish teachers recognized that they could only do so much (Keener, 309). Here, Jesus sends the “12 disciples” out to do God’s work, to follow his example. And as Matthew retells this story his hearers would have recognized a model of training miracle workers that reflected the ancient Israelite model of training disciples within prophetic guilds (Keener, 310).
Some commentators have noted that the Greek word that Matthew uses, which translates as “sent” conveys the sense of sending an ambassador out on official business for a kingdom (Keener, 313). Perhaps Matthew chooses this word intentionally to tell us something about the nature of the kingdom of Heaven. But as Jesus sends the disciples out, he’s not just giving them a letter to deliver; he’s asking them to do the impossible – to cast out unclean spirits, to cure every disease and heal every sickness. He tells them to proclaim the “kingdom of heaven” and to back it up by curing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing the lepers, and casting out demons. And on top of that, Jesus tells them to leave their shoes, their staff and their traveling bag behind… Oh, and that they’re likely to be flogged, beaten, and dragged into court. Realistically speaking… its not exactly a free trip to Disney land. In fact, it sounds a bit impossible.
There was a theologian Reinhold Niebuhr with whom I’ve always had a love-hate relationship. Neibuhr was a theologian who lived and worked at a time when World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust were still painfully fresh in everyone’s memories. Neibuhr took sin seriously, which is one of the reasons I love his work, but his articulation of Christian Realism has always clashed with my hope of our achieving justice here on earth. Drawing on the prophetic ethic of Jesus and the ultimate love of God, Niebuhr believed humanity must reach toward the law of love but believed that in this life, the ideals of the kingdom of God could never be fully realized. Neibuhr believed the law of love was embodied in the person of Christ, but called the realization of this law of love an “impossible possibility” (See Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics).
An “impossible possibility” – is that really even possible? I’ll admit that I’m not the only one who has a love-hate relationship with Neibuhr, and in fact, I’m in good company. Liberation theologians have been quick to remind us that salvation, that the kingdom of God, must be here and now, that it must not neglect history. It must cure the sick, raise the dead, bring good news to the poor and dismantle injustice. If the gospel is to be God’s good news, it must not remain in the realm of the impossible, but become a possibility – even if it seems to be an impossible one.
Perhaps if we put Neibhur and liberation theologians in dialogue, we might find a space for a Kingdom of Heaven that is both “already present” and but has “not yet” fully arrived. And perhaps if we commit to live in this “impossible possibility” we can find a space of struggle and hope that can help us envision salvation as justice, here and now.
In a world where 33 million people are living with HIV and AIDS, where 11 million children die each year of preventable diseases, we need a gospel that promises to heal the sick and resurrect the dying. In a country where 50 million Americans have no health insurance and another 25 million are underinsured, life is risky and too many of our sisters and brothers are marginalized and without – scattered like a sheep without a shepherd.
But the field is ripe for harvest! There are even simple solutions we can offer: nutrition, mosquito nets, HIV/AIDS drugs which literally resurrect the dying – though the task feels impossible, though the numbers are overwhelming – justice is not out of reach. The field is ripe for harvest. With a little creativity and imagination, with the commitment to live in the struggle, we can get there.
But if today’s text tells us anything it reminds us that the good news of the gospel does not travel well on its own. It needs feet, it needs a voice, it needs a little proof to back it up. The story of Jesus commissioning the disciples reminds us that we are called to continue the good work of God here on earth. The gospel needs our feet, our words, our actions to live and grow – to bring justice here and now.
And this must be the case, because if you read between the lines, you might just notice that Matthew’s message is not a simple retelling, but it is a message for the church as well. Historically, there is no evidence that Jesus’ disciples encountered any hostility during Jesus’ lifetime. They were not dragged into court as the text promises; they were not flogged or beaten. No, these were the experiences of the early church (Hare, 113-114). This message, this encouragement in the text is not a simple retelling, it is a message of hope for the church. It is a message for those of us who know the risen Christ but live in a pessimistic and impossible world.
This detail – this hidden message for the early church in Matthew’s narration of this story – can put things in perspective. Within this passage, Matthew balances Jesus’ instructions to his disciples – to confine their work to the “lost sheep of Israel” – with the post-Easter good news of a Christ risen for all the world.
Just as the disciples were sent out as ambassadors of God’s good news, we too are sent into the world each day, carrying only the impossible possibilities of justice, hope, healing, and peace. But with a little hard work, these will be enough, because these are the banners of God’s good news. Shoes, a staff, and a bag, won’t help us much on this journey anyway. We are called to “travel light” (Hare, 112).
Like the disciples, we may do well to start here at home – in the places we know, confronting the injustices we find in our own back yards. In reading this passage, its always bothered me that Jesus sent the disciples out only to the “lost sheep of Israel.” But maybe he had a good reason. Maybe he recognized the power of a good grassroots movement. Maybe, when he told them to stay only with those who welcomed them, he knew the importance of solidarity. Maybe he wanted them to live in the possibility a little longer before they realized how impossible this possibility might be.
And maybe we should do the same. Yes, we’re called to live in the impossible possibility – but we’re not called to live there alone. Like Sarah, finding out she would bear a child in her old age, we can laugh and rejoice in God’s impossible possible news. We too are called to give birth to justice in an unjust world. We’re called to heal the sick, care for the poor, to shout and sing God’s grace, and then back it up with our actions.
Looking back on my 11-year old self, perhaps I should go easy on the girl who could not believe that anyone would reject God’s good news. But now I’m all grown up and along the way I’ve learned that salvation rarely comes through words alone. It needs feet to take it places. It needs feet that aren’t afraid to walk impossible possible paths.
This is the work to which we’ve all been called. But for each of us, the impossible possibility will take a different shape. It will find us, and call us to different places, to different work. It may ask us to stay close to home or call us to cross borders or boundaries. There is an impossible possibility for each of us – our task is to follow God’s lead and when people tell us our work is impossible, we just shake the dust off of our feet and keep walking. We are people of impossible possibilities – this is the good news of the gospel.
So what is your impossible possibility? To what kingdom work have you been called?
Sources
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994.
Hare, Douglas R.A. Interpretation: Matthew. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Niebuhr, Reinhold An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1963.
Senior, Donald. The Gospel of Matthew (Interpreting Biblical Texts). Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.
Psalm 116:1-2, 12-19
Epistle: Romans 5:1-8
New Testament: Matthew 9:35-10:8, (9-23)
Preacher: Melissa Browning
June 15, 2008
Sometimes there is no better way to begin a sermon than with a somewhat embarrassing narrative from one’s own life. When I was ten, maybe eleven years old my parents sent me to spend a week with my 70-year old grandfather and his new wife in Mansfield, Ohio. Now it just so happens that when a grandfather gets re-married at 70, you end up gaining a lot of new relatives. That week in Ohio, my new step-grandmother thought it would be a wonderful idea for me to spend the week with her less-than-religiously-devout grandchildren. Now let me pause for the backstory… I grew up in the Bible belt where the only non-Christians I knew were soon-to-be-converted characters in my Christian romance novels. I was not at all prepared to meet my 9-year old step-cousin who did not believe God existed. We had been playing all day when the subject of church came up and he let me know that he didn’t go to church because he was an atheist. I didn’t know 9-year-olds were allowed to be atheists.
Either way, I had been waiting my entire life for a moment such as this so I pulled out my red-letter New Testament, with each verse of the Roman Road carefully tabbed and highlighted, and jumped immediately to matters of ultimate concern. But he wouldn’t budge, and then he had to go home before I was able to explain what the beads on my salvation bracelet meant. Left in a state of spiritual rejection, I wasn’t sure what to do so I begin to thumb through my little Bible and I ran across this verse in Matthew, the same verse that appears in today’s gospel text… “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town…”
So I went outside, took off my sneakers and banged them against the side of the house until I was sure most of the dust had been shaken off, then I went back inside for a popsicle, confident I had done the right thing.
The plentiful harvest, the sheep with out a shepherd, the dust on our feet, and the good news of God all mean something a different to me now that I’m all grown up. In today’s gospel text we find Matthew’s account of the commissioning of the twelve disciples. This passage follows story after story of miracles where Jesus healed individuals who were marginalized by society: a hemorrhaging woman, a man with leprosy, a little girl who died too young, and two men who were blind, just to name a few. The text we read today begins by telling us that Jesus was “curing every disease and sickness…” What good news for a hurting world! And when we see Jesus in this text, we find him in the midst of these crowds, crowds that symbolize how far God’s good news will go, and Jesus looks at the people with compassion.
In retelling this story, Matthew mixes two metaphors that would resonate with his audience – sheep without a shepherd and a plentiful harvest. In listening to these words, his hearers would have remembered the image in the Hebrew Scriptures of the neglectful shepherds who the prophets criticized for not caring for Israel (Hare, 108-109). In the same way, the image of the plentiful harvest was used in Jewish teaching to convey a sense of urgency (Keener, 309). In combining these metaphors, Matthew conveys both urgency and need. The sheep are lost and scattered, pushed to the fringes of society, without a shepherd to bring them home. And the time for them to be gathered is now. The fields are ripe for harvest, there is no time to spare – the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven is bursting forth on the scene.
Up until this point in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus was the only one who was teaching and healing (Hare, 109). But all good Jewish teachers recognized that they could only do so much (Keener, 309). Here, Jesus sends the “12 disciples” out to do God’s work, to follow his example. And as Matthew retells this story his hearers would have recognized a model of training miracle workers that reflected the ancient Israelite model of training disciples within prophetic guilds (Keener, 310).
Some commentators have noted that the Greek word that Matthew uses, which translates as “sent” conveys the sense of sending an ambassador out on official business for a kingdom (Keener, 313). Perhaps Matthew chooses this word intentionally to tell us something about the nature of the kingdom of Heaven. But as Jesus sends the disciples out, he’s not just giving them a letter to deliver; he’s asking them to do the impossible – to cast out unclean spirits, to cure every disease and heal every sickness. He tells them to proclaim the “kingdom of heaven” and to back it up by curing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing the lepers, and casting out demons. And on top of that, Jesus tells them to leave their shoes, their staff and their traveling bag behind… Oh, and that they’re likely to be flogged, beaten, and dragged into court. Realistically speaking… its not exactly a free trip to Disney land. In fact, it sounds a bit impossible.
There was a theologian Reinhold Niebuhr with whom I’ve always had a love-hate relationship. Neibuhr was a theologian who lived and worked at a time when World War II and the atrocities of the Holocaust were still painfully fresh in everyone’s memories. Neibuhr took sin seriously, which is one of the reasons I love his work, but his articulation of Christian Realism has always clashed with my hope of our achieving justice here on earth. Drawing on the prophetic ethic of Jesus and the ultimate love of God, Niebuhr believed humanity must reach toward the law of love but believed that in this life, the ideals of the kingdom of God could never be fully realized. Neibuhr believed the law of love was embodied in the person of Christ, but called the realization of this law of love an “impossible possibility” (See Niebuhr, An Interpretation of Christian Ethics).
An “impossible possibility” – is that really even possible? I’ll admit that I’m not the only one who has a love-hate relationship with Neibuhr, and in fact, I’m in good company. Liberation theologians have been quick to remind us that salvation, that the kingdom of God, must be here and now, that it must not neglect history. It must cure the sick, raise the dead, bring good news to the poor and dismantle injustice. If the gospel is to be God’s good news, it must not remain in the realm of the impossible, but become a possibility – even if it seems to be an impossible one.
Perhaps if we put Neibhur and liberation theologians in dialogue, we might find a space for a Kingdom of Heaven that is both “already present” and but has “not yet” fully arrived. And perhaps if we commit to live in this “impossible possibility” we can find a space of struggle and hope that can help us envision salvation as justice, here and now.
In a world where 33 million people are living with HIV and AIDS, where 11 million children die each year of preventable diseases, we need a gospel that promises to heal the sick and resurrect the dying. In a country where 50 million Americans have no health insurance and another 25 million are underinsured, life is risky and too many of our sisters and brothers are marginalized and without – scattered like a sheep without a shepherd.
But the field is ripe for harvest! There are even simple solutions we can offer: nutrition, mosquito nets, HIV/AIDS drugs which literally resurrect the dying – though the task feels impossible, though the numbers are overwhelming – justice is not out of reach. The field is ripe for harvest. With a little creativity and imagination, with the commitment to live in the struggle, we can get there.
But if today’s text tells us anything it reminds us that the good news of the gospel does not travel well on its own. It needs feet, it needs a voice, it needs a little proof to back it up. The story of Jesus commissioning the disciples reminds us that we are called to continue the good work of God here on earth. The gospel needs our feet, our words, our actions to live and grow – to bring justice here and now.
And this must be the case, because if you read between the lines, you might just notice that Matthew’s message is not a simple retelling, but it is a message for the church as well. Historically, there is no evidence that Jesus’ disciples encountered any hostility during Jesus’ lifetime. They were not dragged into court as the text promises; they were not flogged or beaten. No, these were the experiences of the early church (Hare, 113-114). This message, this encouragement in the text is not a simple retelling, it is a message of hope for the church. It is a message for those of us who know the risen Christ but live in a pessimistic and impossible world.
This detail – this hidden message for the early church in Matthew’s narration of this story – can put things in perspective. Within this passage, Matthew balances Jesus’ instructions to his disciples – to confine their work to the “lost sheep of Israel” – with the post-Easter good news of a Christ risen for all the world.
Just as the disciples were sent out as ambassadors of God’s good news, we too are sent into the world each day, carrying only the impossible possibilities of justice, hope, healing, and peace. But with a little hard work, these will be enough, because these are the banners of God’s good news. Shoes, a staff, and a bag, won’t help us much on this journey anyway. We are called to “travel light” (Hare, 112).
Like the disciples, we may do well to start here at home – in the places we know, confronting the injustices we find in our own back yards. In reading this passage, its always bothered me that Jesus sent the disciples out only to the “lost sheep of Israel.” But maybe he had a good reason. Maybe he recognized the power of a good grassroots movement. Maybe, when he told them to stay only with those who welcomed them, he knew the importance of solidarity. Maybe he wanted them to live in the possibility a little longer before they realized how impossible this possibility might be.
And maybe we should do the same. Yes, we’re called to live in the impossible possibility – but we’re not called to live there alone. Like Sarah, finding out she would bear a child in her old age, we can laugh and rejoice in God’s impossible possible news. We too are called to give birth to justice in an unjust world. We’re called to heal the sick, care for the poor, to shout and sing God’s grace, and then back it up with our actions.
Looking back on my 11-year old self, perhaps I should go easy on the girl who could not believe that anyone would reject God’s good news. But now I’m all grown up and along the way I’ve learned that salvation rarely comes through words alone. It needs feet to take it places. It needs feet that aren’t afraid to walk impossible possible paths.
This is the work to which we’ve all been called. But for each of us, the impossible possibility will take a different shape. It will find us, and call us to different places, to different work. It may ask us to stay close to home or call us to cross borders or boundaries. There is an impossible possibility for each of us – our task is to follow God’s lead and when people tell us our work is impossible, we just shake the dust off of our feet and keep walking. We are people of impossible possibilities – this is the good news of the gospel.
So what is your impossible possibility? To what kingdom work have you been called?
Sources
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994.
Hare, Douglas R.A. Interpretation: Matthew. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993.
Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Niebuhr, Reinhold An Interpretation of Christian Ethics, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1963.
Senior, Donald. The Gospel of Matthew (Interpreting Biblical Texts). Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.
Wednesday, June 4
Sermon on the Sermon on the Mount
Gospel: Matthew 7:21-29 (The Two Builders)
Readings: Romans 1:16-17; 3:22b-38 (29-31)
Genesis 6:9-22, Psalm 46
Date: Sunday, June 1, 2008
Preacher: The Rev. Laura Gottardi-Littell
+++
Today’s gospel contains evocative imagery about building a house on rock vs. sand. It comes at the tail end of the sermon on the mount. Jesus has just given the crowd his sermon. He concludes by saying that those who hear his words but don’t apply them are like people who build on sand. They will find themselves on very shaky ground when the winds and the rains come. Those who live out his message, on the other hand, will be safe when the elements threaten, because their house is built on rock.
Jesus seems to be talking about buildings, but he’s really talking about souls. How do we build up our souls, so they are sturdy, and not liable to crumble under duress? How do you build a soul that can stand up to the judgement of God? How do I live as a wise rather than a foolish person?
I’m sure you’re all familiar with the sermon on the mount. But it may be a while since you’ve checked it out in depth. It starts with the Beatitudes, the blessings: “Blessed are the poor in the spirit, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, those who are persecuted for righteousness’s sake...” Nothing too challenging in this for me – it’s lovely and counter-cultural but it’s not really the hard part. That comes next:
Referencing the 10 commandments, Jesus says not only will people be judged by God if they commit murder but also if they are simply angry at a brother or sister. And not only are you guilty of adultery if you sleep with someone else’s spouse, but if you merely lust after another person’s spouse. Jesus says if your eye or your hand causes you to sin – why just cut it off.
It doesn’t get any easier from there. Here are some of the other hard parts:
If a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery. And if someone marries a divorced woman he commits adultery.
Jesus says if someone strikes your cheek, turn the other one. If someone wants to sue you and take your coat, give them your cloak too. Give to everyone who begs from you. Love your enemies and pray for them. Don’t store up treasures on earth. You can’t serve God and wealth. Don’t worry about what you will eat, drink or wear. Don’t make a public show of your prayer or fasting—don’t seek to look pious. Don’t swear any kind of oath. Don’t judge, so you won’t be judged.
The crowd listening to this is astounded, or more accurately, shocked. And they are shocking words. What to do with these teachings? We might be able to pull of some of them, but all of them? How are they practical or even possible? How can we live like this – so perfectly, so radically – in a flawed universe where we are trying to survive? And do we even agree with all of it?
Its not only my question, or yours, it’s a question Christian communities and scholars have struggled with for a very long time. There are different theories about how to interpret the Sermon of the Mount. Different ideas about how literally to take it, and to whom Jesus was aiming his message.
I’ll talk about a few of them, because they provide helpful windows into Jesus’ sermon. I’ll summarize briefly, otherwise we’d be here a long time today.
There is the absolutist view. In this view, all teachings in the sermon on the mount should be taken literally. St. Francis, Bonhoeffer, and, in his later life, Tolstoy, held this view. The oriental Orthodox church takes this view, and the Anabaptists have come close to fully embracing it.
One of the most common views is the hyperbole view, which understands much of Jesus’s sermon as hyperbole, exaggeration. If we’re going to apply his words to real life, they need to be toned down. Most interpreters agree there is at least some hyperbole in the sermon, especially the part about cutting off your hand or eye if they cause you to sin. Whew.
Closely related to the hyperbole view is the general principles view, which argues that Jesus was giving us general principles about how to behave, rather than specific instructions.
There is the double standard view, the official position of the Roman Catholic church. This view divides the sermon on the mount into general precepts and specific counsels. Most people need only follow the general precepts in order to be saved; but people who wish to be perfect (for example, nuns, monks and priests) need to follow the specific counsels also. This view goes back to Augustine and was further developed by Aquinas.
Luther rejected the Catholic position and developed the two realms theory. Luther argued there are two realms, spiritual and temporal. The sermon on the mount can only be taken literally in the spiritual realm, but in the temporal world our obligations to family, employers and country make it necessary for Christians to compromise.
Albert Schweitzer popularized the “interim ethic” view. This is the idea that Jesus believed the world as he knew it was about to end, so he offered precepts about how to behave in the end times, where worldly survival is irrelevant.
Martin Dibelius developed the Unconditional Divine Will View. Dibelius believed Jesus's sermon expresses a mandatory code of ethics, but the world as we know makes it impossible to follow it. This will change when the Kingdom of God comes on earth. Until then, we must try to live up to these ethics, even while knowing we cannot succeed. This view is expressed in Dostoevsky’s book The Brothers Karamazov.
The repentance view argues that Jesus knew the sermon on the mount would be too high for any human being to grasp, and that in failing, we would be driven to repent or to faith in the gospel.
There are other views but these are some of the main ones to consider. (source for information on views in the preceding paragraphs: New interpreter's Bible, Wikipedia).
And consider them we must. As Christians, you and I need to think about how the sermon on the mount applies to us. How literally can we, must we take it? I know some things in it are easier for me to do, and understand, than others. For example, I give to most, if not all, people who beg from me. But I don’t believe anger is the same as murder. I think anger is a natural human emotion that can sometimes protect us. There is such a thing as a just anger. Even Jesus got angry. Yes, anger has a flip side – it can be destructive and even addictive. But I would not say counsel someone by saying: “You must repent of your anger. Or: “You must repent of your lust.” Instead, I would counsel them to recognize and handle these feelings in ways that don’t harm themselves or others. So when Jesus says anger is tantamount to murder, I don’t think he’s judging our human emotions as inherently wrong, but saying – to a crowd that’s very focused on outward behavior– hey, pay as much attention to your attitudes as to your actions.
Jesus offers his Sermon as an addition to – and correction to -- the Ten Commandments. His sermon is his interpretation of the law and prophets. Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. Some people in Jesus’s time– including chief priests and elders –were abusing the law by advocating a strict outward adherence to it. As if simply avoiding murder, adultery, or oaths was enough to make one a righteous person. As if one could be saved by going rhough all the right motions, rather than developing a right spirit within. Jesus’s message in the sermon is that we must integrate "actions and attitudes, behavior and belief." (The Complete Bible Handbook, John Bowker, DK Publishing Inc., London, 1998). We need to be pure in heart, not just obedient to the law.
Paul says in today’s passage from Romans that we are saved by faith. Being a righteous person – getting right with God – no longer depends on obeying the law, but on having faith in Christ. Now neither Paul nor Jesus is saying “throw out or ignore the law.” They’re saying the law is no longer the source of our salvation. We are saved by faith in Christ who fulfills the law. This avoids a works righteousness – the idea that right actions alone will save us.
Matthew, author of today’s gospel, believed the teachings of Jesus couldn’t be separated from the person of Jesus. The sermon on the mount is not just a nice collection of sayings, and if you follow them, you will lead a good life and be OK. No. For Matthew, we also have to believe in Jesus, accept him as our savior, and approach the sermon on the mount in that context. We have to accept Jesus as Lord, not just as a good teacher. For Matthew Christology – who Christ is – cannot be separated from ethics – what Christ teaches (New Interpreter's Bible).
The sermon on the mount makes more sense to me, when I understand where Matthew was coming from on this. The idea of faith being the context in which to understand Jesus’s teachings. When I made an adult decision to follow Christ—when I accepted Christ as savior – not just his teachings – but Him, I feel I built on solid rock, and escaped some sinking sand.
When we look at the sermon on the mount, and how it does or doesn’t apply to our lives, we need to do so in the context of having faith in Christ. It’s faith that’s paramount.
We can’t prove ourselves by madly trying to adhere to everyone of these precepts. This alone will not save us. Rather, we are saved by our commitment to make Christ the rock we build on. It is our faith in Christ that give us the strength to try to follow his very difficult, even impossible, teachings.
So we need to approach the sermon on the mount with both humility and patience. Paul says all of us have fallen short of the glory of God. How true. We don’t go around saying “I’m built on the rock and you’re not.” “I’m following Jesus’s teaching and you’re not.” “Nanana boo boo.” Building a sturdy soul that can stand up to life’s vicissitudes and to ultimate judgement is an ongoing process. We get there when we get there, if we ever get there. None of us is in a position to be judgmental and didn’t Jesus say “judge not? Paul says “Don’t boast.”
Part of what Jesus is taking to task in his sermon is arrogance. The arrogance that was a prevailing wisdom in his time – and still in ours – that suggested if you were materially comfortable or otherwise living a pretty easy life you must be blessed by God. Jesus offers the sermon on the mount in part to address this kind of arrogant judgement against the poor and unfortunate. So humility is necessary, lest we make judgements against those who are victims of natural disasters, violence, poverty, or illness, and conclude that perhaps...they have built on sinking sink.
Building a soul is a process, so as well as being humble, we must be patient with ourselves and each other. If we stumble in the process of living out Christ’s sermon -- and who doesn’t? --we know that we are ultimately on solid footing, because through faith we have built our house on the solid rock that is Christ.
One last word, because this is tricky stuff. It’s still easy to get caught between a rock and a hard place on this – no pun intended. Because on the one hand if we say "don’t worry too much about taking everything in Jesus’s sermon on the mount literally," we can be in danger of offering ourselves and others cheap grace. But on the other hand, if we insist on taking it literally, we may miss the reality of grace, being so focused on works righteousness.
I think the Flood Story in today's readings from Genesis gives us a window into this, in that it shows a progression in how God approaches humanity. First, via the Flood, God wipes us out in an attempt to correct us. The God makes a covenant with Noah that God will never again destroy the earth. Later God gives us the Law, to correct our tendencies toward violence and general depravity. Then God gives us the prophets to return our hearts to justice. Finally, God gives us Jesus, God’s own son, who through his life and sacrifical death, shows us an alternative to violence and selfishness. Now it is faith in that Christ, and the grace of God, that save us. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus presents his own interpretation of the Law and the prophets, expressing their true meaning through his words and his own being. Perhaps what all our readings taken togehter show us is that God gives us ever more effective ways of combatting our human weaknesses, even if none of them are easy.
I’m in danger of not being able to wrap up everything. But my thinking on sermons has changed a bit. Instead of having to tie up all the loose ends into a neat, tidy bow, I like to think we can do that work together in discussion, and through our shared life in faith.
Amen.
+++
Readings: Romans 1:16-17; 3:22b-38 (29-31)
Genesis 6:9-22, Psalm 46
Date: Sunday, June 1, 2008
Preacher: The Rev. Laura Gottardi-Littell
+++
Today’s gospel contains evocative imagery about building a house on rock vs. sand. It comes at the tail end of the sermon on the mount. Jesus has just given the crowd his sermon. He concludes by saying that those who hear his words but don’t apply them are like people who build on sand. They will find themselves on very shaky ground when the winds and the rains come. Those who live out his message, on the other hand, will be safe when the elements threaten, because their house is built on rock.
Jesus seems to be talking about buildings, but he’s really talking about souls. How do we build up our souls, so they are sturdy, and not liable to crumble under duress? How do you build a soul that can stand up to the judgement of God? How do I live as a wise rather than a foolish person?
I’m sure you’re all familiar with the sermon on the mount. But it may be a while since you’ve checked it out in depth. It starts with the Beatitudes, the blessings: “Blessed are the poor in the spirit, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, those who are persecuted for righteousness’s sake...” Nothing too challenging in this for me – it’s lovely and counter-cultural but it’s not really the hard part. That comes next:
Referencing the 10 commandments, Jesus says not only will people be judged by God if they commit murder but also if they are simply angry at a brother or sister. And not only are you guilty of adultery if you sleep with someone else’s spouse, but if you merely lust after another person’s spouse. Jesus says if your eye or your hand causes you to sin – why just cut it off.
It doesn’t get any easier from there. Here are some of the other hard parts:
If a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery. And if someone marries a divorced woman he commits adultery.
Jesus says if someone strikes your cheek, turn the other one. If someone wants to sue you and take your coat, give them your cloak too. Give to everyone who begs from you. Love your enemies and pray for them. Don’t store up treasures on earth. You can’t serve God and wealth. Don’t worry about what you will eat, drink or wear. Don’t make a public show of your prayer or fasting—don’t seek to look pious. Don’t swear any kind of oath. Don’t judge, so you won’t be judged.
The crowd listening to this is astounded, or more accurately, shocked. And they are shocking words. What to do with these teachings? We might be able to pull of some of them, but all of them? How are they practical or even possible? How can we live like this – so perfectly, so radically – in a flawed universe where we are trying to survive? And do we even agree with all of it?
Its not only my question, or yours, it’s a question Christian communities and scholars have struggled with for a very long time. There are different theories about how to interpret the Sermon of the Mount. Different ideas about how literally to take it, and to whom Jesus was aiming his message.
I’ll talk about a few of them, because they provide helpful windows into Jesus’ sermon. I’ll summarize briefly, otherwise we’d be here a long time today.
There is the absolutist view. In this view, all teachings in the sermon on the mount should be taken literally. St. Francis, Bonhoeffer, and, in his later life, Tolstoy, held this view. The oriental Orthodox church takes this view, and the Anabaptists have come close to fully embracing it.
One of the most common views is the hyperbole view, which understands much of Jesus’s sermon as hyperbole, exaggeration. If we’re going to apply his words to real life, they need to be toned down. Most interpreters agree there is at least some hyperbole in the sermon, especially the part about cutting off your hand or eye if they cause you to sin. Whew.
Closely related to the hyperbole view is the general principles view, which argues that Jesus was giving us general principles about how to behave, rather than specific instructions.
There is the double standard view, the official position of the Roman Catholic church. This view divides the sermon on the mount into general precepts and specific counsels. Most people need only follow the general precepts in order to be saved; but people who wish to be perfect (for example, nuns, monks and priests) need to follow the specific counsels also. This view goes back to Augustine and was further developed by Aquinas.
Luther rejected the Catholic position and developed the two realms theory. Luther argued there are two realms, spiritual and temporal. The sermon on the mount can only be taken literally in the spiritual realm, but in the temporal world our obligations to family, employers and country make it necessary for Christians to compromise.
Albert Schweitzer popularized the “interim ethic” view. This is the idea that Jesus believed the world as he knew it was about to end, so he offered precepts about how to behave in the end times, where worldly survival is irrelevant.
Martin Dibelius developed the Unconditional Divine Will View. Dibelius believed Jesus's sermon expresses a mandatory code of ethics, but the world as we know makes it impossible to follow it. This will change when the Kingdom of God comes on earth. Until then, we must try to live up to these ethics, even while knowing we cannot succeed. This view is expressed in Dostoevsky’s book The Brothers Karamazov.
The repentance view argues that Jesus knew the sermon on the mount would be too high for any human being to grasp, and that in failing, we would be driven to repent or to faith in the gospel.
There are other views but these are some of the main ones to consider. (source for information on views in the preceding paragraphs: New interpreter's Bible, Wikipedia).
And consider them we must. As Christians, you and I need to think about how the sermon on the mount applies to us. How literally can we, must we take it? I know some things in it are easier for me to do, and understand, than others. For example, I give to most, if not all, people who beg from me. But I don’t believe anger is the same as murder. I think anger is a natural human emotion that can sometimes protect us. There is such a thing as a just anger. Even Jesus got angry. Yes, anger has a flip side – it can be destructive and even addictive. But I would not say counsel someone by saying: “You must repent of your anger. Or: “You must repent of your lust.” Instead, I would counsel them to recognize and handle these feelings in ways that don’t harm themselves or others. So when Jesus says anger is tantamount to murder, I don’t think he’s judging our human emotions as inherently wrong, but saying – to a crowd that’s very focused on outward behavior– hey, pay as much attention to your attitudes as to your actions.
Jesus offers his Sermon as an addition to – and correction to -- the Ten Commandments. His sermon is his interpretation of the law and prophets. Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them. Some people in Jesus’s time– including chief priests and elders –were abusing the law by advocating a strict outward adherence to it. As if simply avoiding murder, adultery, or oaths was enough to make one a righteous person. As if one could be saved by going rhough all the right motions, rather than developing a right spirit within. Jesus’s message in the sermon is that we must integrate "actions and attitudes, behavior and belief." (The Complete Bible Handbook, John Bowker, DK Publishing Inc., London, 1998). We need to be pure in heart, not just obedient to the law.
Paul says in today’s passage from Romans that we are saved by faith. Being a righteous person – getting right with God – no longer depends on obeying the law, but on having faith in Christ. Now neither Paul nor Jesus is saying “throw out or ignore the law.” They’re saying the law is no longer the source of our salvation. We are saved by faith in Christ who fulfills the law. This avoids a works righteousness – the idea that right actions alone will save us.
Matthew, author of today’s gospel, believed the teachings of Jesus couldn’t be separated from the person of Jesus. The sermon on the mount is not just a nice collection of sayings, and if you follow them, you will lead a good life and be OK. No. For Matthew, we also have to believe in Jesus, accept him as our savior, and approach the sermon on the mount in that context. We have to accept Jesus as Lord, not just as a good teacher. For Matthew Christology – who Christ is – cannot be separated from ethics – what Christ teaches (New Interpreter's Bible).
The sermon on the mount makes more sense to me, when I understand where Matthew was coming from on this. The idea of faith being the context in which to understand Jesus’s teachings. When I made an adult decision to follow Christ—when I accepted Christ as savior – not just his teachings – but Him, I feel I built on solid rock, and escaped some sinking sand.
When we look at the sermon on the mount, and how it does or doesn’t apply to our lives, we need to do so in the context of having faith in Christ. It’s faith that’s paramount.
We can’t prove ourselves by madly trying to adhere to everyone of these precepts. This alone will not save us. Rather, we are saved by our commitment to make Christ the rock we build on. It is our faith in Christ that give us the strength to try to follow his very difficult, even impossible, teachings.
So we need to approach the sermon on the mount with both humility and patience. Paul says all of us have fallen short of the glory of God. How true. We don’t go around saying “I’m built on the rock and you’re not.” “I’m following Jesus’s teaching and you’re not.” “Nanana boo boo.” Building a sturdy soul that can stand up to life’s vicissitudes and to ultimate judgement is an ongoing process. We get there when we get there, if we ever get there. None of us is in a position to be judgmental and didn’t Jesus say “judge not? Paul says “Don’t boast.”
Part of what Jesus is taking to task in his sermon is arrogance. The arrogance that was a prevailing wisdom in his time – and still in ours – that suggested if you were materially comfortable or otherwise living a pretty easy life you must be blessed by God. Jesus offers the sermon on the mount in part to address this kind of arrogant judgement against the poor and unfortunate. So humility is necessary, lest we make judgements against those who are victims of natural disasters, violence, poverty, or illness, and conclude that perhaps...they have built on sinking sink.
Building a soul is a process, so as well as being humble, we must be patient with ourselves and each other. If we stumble in the process of living out Christ’s sermon -- and who doesn’t? --we know that we are ultimately on solid footing, because through faith we have built our house on the solid rock that is Christ.
One last word, because this is tricky stuff. It’s still easy to get caught between a rock and a hard place on this – no pun intended. Because on the one hand if we say "don’t worry too much about taking everything in Jesus’s sermon on the mount literally," we can be in danger of offering ourselves and others cheap grace. But on the other hand, if we insist on taking it literally, we may miss the reality of grace, being so focused on works righteousness.
I think the Flood Story in today's readings from Genesis gives us a window into this, in that it shows a progression in how God approaches humanity. First, via the Flood, God wipes us out in an attempt to correct us. The God makes a covenant with Noah that God will never again destroy the earth. Later God gives us the Law, to correct our tendencies toward violence and general depravity. Then God gives us the prophets to return our hearts to justice. Finally, God gives us Jesus, God’s own son, who through his life and sacrifical death, shows us an alternative to violence and selfishness. Now it is faith in that Christ, and the grace of God, that save us. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus presents his own interpretation of the Law and the prophets, expressing their true meaning through his words and his own being. Perhaps what all our readings taken togehter show us is that God gives us ever more effective ways of combatting our human weaknesses, even if none of them are easy.
I’m in danger of not being able to wrap up everything. But my thinking on sermons has changed a bit. Instead of having to tie up all the loose ends into a neat, tidy bow, I like to think we can do that work together in discussion, and through our shared life in faith.
Amen.
+++
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)