Sermon Second Sunday In Lent- Acts of Faith

Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16 •
Psalm 22:23-31 •
Romans 4:13-25 •
Mark 8:31-38 •

Acts of Faith

What is Faith and are their acts of faith that are not works? Tonight I proclaim to you that it is by faith alone and not by works that we are righteous. This may seem to be a contradictory proclamation to that of last week. Last week I spoke of "faith" in terms of what you or I posses consistently over time of our own belief and trust in God that comes of our own accord. So then what is the faith that produces righteousness? Last week I attempted to put forward that this true faith was not devoid of acts. Today I must say that this faith cannot be by works. However this faith is not about simple beliefs held or a trust that comes from my own resources that makes one righteous or saves. In this distinguishing of faith from faith, the faith I spoke of last week, the faith that is as often as not the faith of Protestant forms of Christianity, is a work as much as trusting and living according to the Law. On the other hand the faith that Paul is talking about is that which is connected to the reality of loss of self and identity in Jesus Christ. Paul's use of Abraham as the father of faith or our father in the faith, shows us that he does not see faith as something we do or hold over a lifetime but is a faithfulness that in doubt in confusion in lack of belief continues to hold one self open to God and God's faithfulness, and receives faith as a gift, and not a possession of one's own. Last Sunday I was attempting to say that according to catholic faith and practice baptism, fasting lent, liturgy etc. are not works but acts that open us to Gods grace, thus properly understood these things are acts of faith. There are many acts of faith, following Christ demands acts of faith, which are not works. To understand this we must explore the nature of faith that is not bound to works of the Law and which does not become a work and Law of its own.

The fulcrum here is Paul. As Protestants we know well Paul as that teacher of the nature of faith, the very place we have gone to for the doctrine of "alone by grace through faith." This sumary of the Gospel has had all sorts of misunderstandings to lifting from simple belief completely seperated from any form of life reflecting the Gospel, such that to encourage people to live out their faith it was feard that this was to introduce works into faith. On the other end faith becomes this thing that one manufactures that must be without doubt or question and is shown in a life a near moral perfection or at least keeping to a strict outward moral and ethical code, which can include such things as no smoking, drinking or veiwing or participating in entertainements of varius kinds. At this end of the pedulum swing one must constantly prove ones faith based on various external standards of belief and behavior. The passage before us tonight in Romans is one of the prooftexts of the assertion that it is by faith alone that we are righteous, or to use the theological term Justified. Paul argues that the promise of Abraham was not according to the works of the Law but the righteousness of faith. A key peice of his argument is the assertion that Abraham exhibited great faith. However, in Pauls argument the point isn't simply Abrahams faith, but that Abraham and the promise of God comes before the Law. Paul's claim then is that Abraham lived according to faith and not according to the works of the Law. In faith not his works of the Law was the basis for God reckoning Abraham righteous. To rehetorically drive his point Paul use a seriese of intensifieres concerning the greatness of Abraham's faith, which may give us the impression that the faith he speaks about has no room for doubt, no place for our own individual belief to falter. yet Paul should be read in light of Genesis and Genesis in light of Paul. Let us accpet as true that Abraham was a person of great faith and that God declares him a righteous person not based on his works but upon his faith. Accepting these things as true let us see what such a person full of faith is like. To do so we must turn to Genesis and the stories of Abraham in Genesis speicifically our text in chapter 17.

How does the story of Abraham's life in Genesis match up with Pauls praise of Abraham as the father of faith? We are getting toward the end of the overal story of Abraham. It has been a long time since Abram and Sarai left their home in Ur and travled to canaan based on the word and promise of God. They have endured much and prospered some, but remain semi-nomadic herders of sheep and cattel. God on several occasions after the first call promises Abram that he and Sarai will be the beginning line of a great nation. Yet through it all and despite the repetition of the promise Sarah her self does not bear a child. In their desperatin to have a child (and help God along with the promise, or in an atempt to live into the promise on their own) Hagai becomes suragate to Sarai and Abram has the son Ishmael by Hagar. This brings us to our story today, and again God reiterates God's promise to Abraham. This great person of faith how has he been unwavaring and without doubt? In our passage we see Abraham in responce to Gods promise bring to God his solution, Ishmael. But God's plan includes Sarah who has taken part and walked in faith as well as Abraham. God does not accept Abrahams feeble attempt to live into God's promise. From the first of Abraham's travels from Ur, in responce to God's call, this story of faith includes lying about his relationship to Sarah to save his own life, having a son by Hagar his wife's maidservant as a means to fulfill God's promise, arguing with God about the destruction of Sodom and Gemorah which occurs after this theophany in Genesis 17. Abraham and Sarah struggle with Hagar and Ishmael after Isaac is born. Fear and jealosy drive Abraham and Sarah to send Hagar and Ishmael away to an almost certain death except that God intervenes. The unwavering faith and hoping against hope and steady belief in God was part of a life that included all these false starts, attempts at self preservation and attempting to help God out with God's promise. Faith that Paul is talking about must be something more than always believeing and never doubting and always acting out of belief in God.

What if our fiath, the faith that Paul is talking about has as much to do with God's character as with ourselves? What if faith isn't something we own or posses of ourselves as something earned or naturally posessing? What if faith is a gift recieved through certain acts? Reading Paul and Genesis together suggests to me that faith is larger than our consistency, larger than any presentation of ourselves to the others or to God. In the midst of all Abrahams false starts, failure to trust God and attempts to help God along with God's plans, there is one consistent thread, Abraham is always open to God as God, as the totally other and the very substance of life. This is one side of the faith that leads to the accounting as righteous. This is such a faith because it allows God to work it trust that no matter what God is the faithful one. We like Abraham are inconsistent and faithless, we try to keep up a good image but we are inconsistent, but Abraham trusted God's unfailing love and unwavering faithfulness. God is full of faith and so as Abraham remains open to this faithfulness never claiming any right before God, he becomes a person of great faith through God's faithfulness. Abrahams faith, which God reckons as righteousness is a gift of God's faithfulness to Abraham, not what Abraham earns because of his faithfulness to God. So that the source of Abraham's faith is God, not Abrahams own works.

What then does this life of openness to God look like? How do we know if we are open to God? Jesus tells us: " If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 8:35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it." "Mark 8:34-35) Taking up the cross is an act of faith that is not a work of the Law. This loosing of oneself and taking up the cross is an act of faith but not a work. The act of letting oneself and identity go and taking up the cross is an ongoing activity that perfects. But it doesn't necesarily mean having it all figured out, the disciples and Peter in the text certainly don't! The Life of Abraham and Sarah are examples of taking up the cross and letting go of the self. They travel from their home and become nomads, never settling down after taking up the call of God. In the midst they have their failings, they fail to understand what God is doing and they try to help God out. Their selves still raise their heads and at times they continue to act out of selfishness and mere self-preservation. But in the end when the entire story is told they perservered and they no matter the moments of self, or of doubt or failure of nerve they never gave up on God, they alwasy were open to God's appearing and God's word to them, they never settled down. God had sent them on a journey that lasted their entire life time. They are examples of deing to ourselves letting go of what people tell us should be done when we know God has called us to other things. They lost their selves and found new names, that were more themselves given to them by God.

Faith is not something you drumb up in yourself. Faith is not banishing all doubt and never asking a question. Rather faith is the letting down of ones defenses and the walls of human identity and opening oneself up in trust to the faithfulness of God. This faith does require or should have resultant acts things that could be described metaphorically as taking up ones cross and dying. But the act itself does not make one perfect or righteous. God is not asking that we live perfect lives, but in the messiness of our lives, and even when we know we have sinned and messed up that we do not let those things close us to God, that we in faith await the presence of God in our lives. This is much easier now that Christ has come and fulfilled all righteousness and perfectly fulfilled the Law of God, so that we now can do this in assurance that we are Christs.

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.
+++