Sunday, July 19, 2015

"Something there is that doesn’t love a wall"

Robert Berra
Sermon, St. Matthew’s, Chandler
Proper 11, Year B
Track 1


A photo of the barrier separating Palestine from Israel, taken by a fellow pilgrim (who I would credit if I could remember who took it!).

Rain quietly spattered on the windows of the bus as we made our way west from Jericho to Bethany on our way to Bethlehem.  This was day 4 of our trip. We had left the north of Israel and our time around the Sea of Galilee, and we were coming to spend two nights in Bethlehem and then three nights in the Old City of Jerusalem.  The politics surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were present on our first days of the trip, but muted.  In the Galilean countryside, the conflict seemed far away.  Now, as we set our faces to Jerusalem, we had some idea that our guides were going to take us square into elements of the conflict.  This pilgrimage was going to be political as well as personal.  As we traveled from Jericho to Jerusalem, we left the main highway for a side trip. There is a church along the road that commemorates the raising of Lazarus and the conversation Jesus has with Mary and Martha about choosing the better way.[1]  Going through the urban area, I noticed a lot of trash piled near the crowded streets.  Many of the buildings looked like they were suffering from deferred maintenance.  It looked like an economically depressed area.   After we finished our worship and tour of the church, we pulled our rain gear over us to re-board the bus and be on our way.  As we traveled, we saw more of the same.  A lot of men standing and talking.  Grocers trying to sell their goods at curbside markets.  We then came to what our guides wanted us to see.  On the most direct path from the church we visited to Old City Jerusalem stood a wall of grey concrete nearly 30 ft. tall with an imposing guard tower in the distance.  As we stared at this wall through the rain-beaded windows, and as the driver turned us around on a path to the nearest checkpoint, our guide read this bit of scripture: 

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us…that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.

It was a calculated move on the part of our guides, and knowing that it was intentional felt like some of us to be manipulation for dramatic effect.  Perhaps it worked; I’m telling you this story today. 

We had to go back the way we came to swing west and then south through Jerusalem to Bethlehem.  It was then that I realized and confirmed with our guides what I suspected.  The path we had taken which would have lead from Jericho to the Old City of Jerusalem was at one time a major thoroughfare.  Now, with the wall in place, the entire community was essentially turned into a cul-de-sac and cut out of the tourism trade.  What used to be a 10-minute walk from Old Jerusalem to that community can now be a 3 hour drive; that is, assuming you are allowed through the military checkpoint.  As a result, few people pass through, and the major industry of that area has shriveled, Folks are cut off from services, such as one’s doctors, from one side of the wall to the other. That, among other things, explains the economic depression we saw along the way.  The barrier was ever-present for the rest of our trip as we drove through both Israeli and Palestinian territory.

And lest we think that we can claim some sort of moral superiority over either side, it is worth noting that our nation currently has one of the largest walled borders in the world, portions of which run through our very state.  And lest we be tempted to think that we can sit back and claim that the barrier is an overreaction, or a sign of collective madness, let me say this.  From 2000 to 2003, 76 suicide bombings occurred in Israel. That is a land space that roughly covers a triangle from Tucson to the Grand Canyon, through Phoenix to Globe; but all of those attacks occurred in urban centers.  After the building of portions of the wall, from 2003 to 2006, only twelve suicide bombings occurred, and the number has gone down from there.[2]  

As a father, if I were in a similar situation and someone promised me that I could send my children out in the world more-confident that they would not be blown up in a suicide attack, I would face a difficult decision.  While I like to think I’d be brave enough to live boldly in a dangerous world as a sign of my trust in God’s good purposes and ends, I may indeed be willing to trade the human dignity of many (reducing their freedom, stopping their movement, taking their land) if I receive a sense of security for my family. (We, sitting in this sanctuary, have certainly benefitted from the historical taking of other people’s land by our forebears who wanted that security and felt entitled to take what they wanted by force.) It might be worth it to think that I’ve done what I can so that when he’s old enough I can send Colin shopping without wondering whether he would be blown up by a suicide bomber. 

I have some very definite ideas about the morality of these situations, but at the moment I simply say that the decision-making process is not “crazy” or “delusional.” Reserve those words for actual psychological diagnoses, because what we are talking about is the human instinct of survival.

Survival is the human instinct that drives us to build walls.

And there are so many walls. 

International borders. 
Occupied territories. 
No man’s lands.  
Demilitarized zones. 
Gated communities. 
Ghettoized neighborhoods (which in the U.S. are the legacy of white flight and the practice of redlining).[3] 
Our own notions of race, class, sex and gender identity, and religion.  
Our political leanings.  
Our propensity to wall ourselves from those who have wounded us or disagree with us.  (How long is your list of those people?  My list is in the double digits, I think.)

Walls keep us safe.

In fact, their existence is touted as a virtue.  Benjamin Franklin once quipped “love thy neighbor, yet don’t pull down your hedge.”  The poet Robert Frost is perhaps most credited with how we often hear this wisdom from his poem “Mending Wall”: “good fences make good neighbors.”[4]  And this is a notion that one can find expressed in many different cultures.[5]

However, Frost’s poem begins with this line: “Something there is that doesn't love a wall.”  Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, would agree.[6]

In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Paul is writing to a church community primarily made up of Gentiles.  In so doing Paul is making the case that God has done something radical and new in Jesus Christ.  On the one hand, there are the gentiles, strangers and aliens, far from God and unaware of God’s covenant and promises made to Israel.  On the other hand are the children of Israel, near to God in covenant and law, but are indicted by that very law as disobedient.  “Both groups, Gentiles and Jews, for different reasons, are estranged from God.  And both groups are estranged from and live in hostility to one another.”[7]  The heart of the text is Paul’s reminder these two distinct people, Jews and Gentiles, have become one new humanity, writing that “Christ might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.”[8]  Christ brought down the dividing wall.  This is the reality of God’s ministry of reconciliation, and it would have been a shocking image.  These two groups would not even deign to eat together.  And yet, “when the neighbors in ancient Ephesus saw who was eating together in the little church, they were shocked.  And when the preacher in that infant congregation saw those shocked faces, all that needed to be said…was “you are witnesses to God’s kingdom come, God’s will done.””[9]  No one is thrown out.  No one is cast aside.  Everyone is invited.

Even though Paul is speaking specifically to the separation of Gentiles and Jews, this passage speaks to our separations today, our situations that need reconciliation.  We are not invited to reconcile ourselves to God and consider our life’s work done; our space in paradise reserved.  That is a purpose too small for God—who desires no less than the reconciliation of all to all, so that God can be all in all.[10]  And God has given us the ministry of reconciliation that not only brings us into a more perfect communion with God but to make us one through Christ with those we once called enemies.[11] 

But even more audacious than the claim of a new humanity is Paul’s other claim.  Are you ready for this?  Because Christ is our peace, bought through the cross, we Christians proclaim that peace has already been made.  Just as death has been destroyed, just as death is no longer the end; hostility, and war, bloodshed are not the final destiny of humankind.  Aggression and hatred are shadows, intended to pass away.  As Paul wrote, “Christ is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall…the hostility between us.”[12]

It is this abiding peace of Christ that we are called to witness to, and it is this peace that creates the conditions for the walls to come tumbling down.  It is God’s desire for this peace that propels Christians into the world, into situations that seem hopeless.   But the work is difficult.

You see, even at their best, walls do not create peace.  They are the tools of temporary cease-fires, of truces that may end, of stand-offs that can last years and decades, in situations both political and personal.  They are testimonies to humankind’s inability to effect reconciliation and a just peace, and so instead we stall.  The situation still exists, but building the walls allows us to think that we have a solution, and that our attention is now better spent elsewhere.  And when the walls we built seem insufficient, we build bigger and better walls.  Bringing down the wall, however, is not good enough, nor does the simple demolition of boundaries create peace.  The walls we create are symptoms of the hostility behind them. Peace comes only when that hostility is eliminated, and that is the work God calls us to participate in and witness in action. This is bitter, difficult work, well worth the effort and joy that comes with its completion.

“Something there is that doesn't love a wall
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, 
And spills the upper boulders in the sun, 
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.”[13]

And God commends the same to us.
----------------
May we consider these questions:
Where is God inviting us and equipping us to confront a hostility within ourselves or within our world?
Where might we rejoice to take a stone off the walls we have built?
Where might we point with joy to crumbling walls, and testify to God’s work?





[1] Luke 10:42.
[6] Paul’s authorship of Ephesians is contested in modern scholarship.  It is possible that a follower of Paul’s school of thought wrote the letter.  This sermon is written assuming the tradition of Paul’s authorship while noting the uncertainty of that authorship.
[7] George Stroup, “Ephesians 2:11-22: Theological perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  256.
[8] Eph 2:15-16.
[9] Edwin Searcy, “Ephesians 2:11-22: Homiletical perspective” in Feasting on the Word, Year B, Vol. 3,  257.
[10] 1 Cor 15:28.
[11] 2 Cor 5:18.
[12] Eph 2:14.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

"Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?"

Many of you know that I am from Mobile AL on the Gulf Coast.  That was where Laura and I called home for the first 20 or so years of life.  It’s the center of gravity that pulls us back to see family once or twice a year.  Like monsoon season here, the summer brings to the Gulf Coast its own character and rhythm.  Nearly every afternoon in the summer, a rainstorm rolls in from the gulf—so much so that the Gulf Coast, around Mobile Bay, averages between 100 and 110 days per year with thunder reported. 

Now, Laura and I were once in a boat on Mobile Bay when a storm was rolling in.  It is true what they say about the calm before the storm, we completely lost the wind, and I was worried about being in a 12 foot sailboat, with a metal mast, reaching for the bolts of lightning wrapped in dark grey clouds that were approaching.  Eventually the wind picked up and we were able to steer ourselves back to shore, tie-off the boat, and race back inside the house with the rain following three feet behind us in a torrential downpour. 

And you know what?  I’ve used that illustration to talk about this passage before. I could turn that story into some sort of morality tale about how I know storms—the disciples should have had faith but they didn’t—so let’s learn our lesson from their disbelief and be better. It is so easy to skip to that lesson:  Have faith no matter the storm, with a side of calling the disciples silly for doubting.

But that rings so hollow for me this week. 

That’s not what I’m here to say this morning.

Taking the Gospel lesson seriously means reading it as it is:  which is to say that a boatful of experienced fishermen and sailors were at the limit of the abilities, and they were going to die.  This was not a situation of nervousness; this was existential panic.  And I think it is disingenuous to treat the disciples' words as the silly expressions of those who don't really trust in Jesus' love.[1] I think if we want to grasp this situation in a modern context, perhaps we ought to imagine ourselves in an airplane that has lost its engines.  I think if we want to grasp the storms we’ve seen this week, we can imagine gunshots ringing out in our sanctuary and bullets ripping through flesh.

Now, let us explore panic and piety together.

The disciples, at their limits, cry out, "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?”  This is no mere intercession to God. This is a cry of anguish, is it not?  It is a cry that carries resonance.  It is a cry replete through calamity, exile, and genocide in our sacred scripture.  It is on the lips of Christ’s own disciples at what could have been the hour of their death.  It has been the cry of the forgotten throughout history—the cry of many who receive a terminal diagnosis—the cry of communities facing violence at the hands of religious extremists—the cry of communities in our own country who bear the brunt of a racist society under the watchful eyes of a majority who more often than not think mere civility can cancel out centuries of pain.  In our interior lives, in our relationships, in our communities, in our global states of affairs, we can look and see so many storms forming, so many heading our way, so many storms on top of us.

"Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 

For me the disciples are those with whom I can totally relate.  We are all finite.  In the face of the power of nature, they met their limit.  So have many others before them and since who have been swept away by the awesome power of nature. So many before and since have found themselves swept away by the desire of more-powerful others to possess what is not their own, and exert control for the benefit of a few at the expense of many.  So many of us have weathered storms with all that we could muster. So many of us have watched the storms of our lives take down others.  We watch, we warn, we do what we can to steer ourselves from trouble.  Anything we can do to avoid those storms that send us into a panic.  Yet it seems to find us. 

And there are times when I have wondered what would be worse:  if God did not exist, or if God exists and does not care.

"Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 

Hope in the gospel passage comes in the form of Jesus waking up in midst of it all and calming the storm.  And I think it is important to note that Jesus was with them all along, and bringing the disciples along on a journey that would ask so much of them all.  In that sense, may we be comforted by that presence of God even when the reality of the presence seems muted.  Even when we think God must have fallen asleep at the rudder.

But that does not seem like enough.  And worse still, following the example of the disciples has its place, but a comparison that tells us how we should act at the expense of the disciples remains at a surface level and leaves God as a reality wholly outside of ourselves that we hope we may conjure by our faith.  However, the reality of the Christian faith and relationship we are offered in Christ is much more audacious.

So I’d like to suggest that while it is a more common interpretation to see ourselves as the disciples in this story, it is also the case that we must see ourselves in Jesus.  The ability to enter into the storms of our lives and in the world and say, “peace! Be still!” is always a possibility.  It may even be our responsibility.

You see, I relate to the disciples. I see my own humanity in theirs.  But there is a deeper reality than the bond of humanity and we only follow the disciples insofar as they show us by example what it means to live like Christ.  Beloved, we carry with us the spark of the Divine, the image of God that not only forms a basis for our common humanity but our connection to all creation, and the light of Christ which connects us to each other in ways that led Christians to be known of Christ’s own body in the world.  As St. Paul wrote, we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.[2]

By the Holy Spirit, we are the continuation of Christ’s incarnation in the world and so are keepers of a vision of God’s holy reign.  Through the same Spirit, we have access to reservoirs of mercy, of grace, of love, of patience, of hope, of encouragement.  These are things we can find by asking God; these are things we share with others; and these are things we can ask of each other when we think ourselves empty and at our end.

What would it mean to see ourselves as the one who would say in the storms of our lives, “peace! Be still!”?  What would it mean to see ourselves as the emissary of the one who hears the question “do you not care that we are perishing,” and answers “I care, and I can act.” Might these questions illuminate a vision worth pursuing?  If we were to say ‘yes,’ what do we know, and what promises do we have in our work?

We know the fragility of life; and the myriad of ways life may end or change forever. 
But we carry Christ within us, who has ultimately defeated death; knows the power of resurrection; and promises us that our view is fixed much further than the horizon of mortality.  And when we find in our moments of panic, of doubt, of uncertainty, that the person who needs to hear words of stillness and peace are our very selves, may we listen for Christ within us and hear the same encouragement from others.  May we share this stillness and peace with others broken on the wheels of living. 

We know state of the world we live in and that it is not as God would have it.  The events of this week, including the attack in Charleston, show a world in which fear, hatred, division and lust for control find violent expression.  But we carry Christ within us, and we are beckoned to speak in love the possibilities of a world in which goodness and mercy reign.  Entering into the stormy confrontations the world shows us is a frightful proposition.  To utter words of God’s peace and stillness can be a comfort to those who are broken on the wheels of living, or it can be a chastening word to those who prefer a disordered status quo to a peace which passes all understanding.  Take heart.  We are to go forth with a promise in trust and prayer that Christ goes with us, even to the end of the ages.[3]

So, let us seek Christ within; and let us pray that we be delivered from the presumption of seeking Christ for solace only, and not for strength.  Let us seek prayer that will stir our hearts to the courage and tasks God sets before us.  Let us seek the Spirit who can inspire within us a word of stillness in the midst of our storms, whatever they look like.  For God did not give us a Spirit of fear, but of power and love and discipline and wisdom.[4] And we, beloved, are invited to live into the glory and work and purpose of the One who does indeed care that we are perishing.



[1] I owe this thought to D. Mark Davis ("Piety and Panic." Left Behind and Loving It. June 15, 2015).
[2] Philippians 4:13.
[3] Matt 28:20
[4] 1 Tim 1:7

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Sermon: "Who are we that we might hinder God?"

St. Matthew's, Chandler AZ
Sixth Sunday of Easter
Year B

"The student looked up from the Gospel reading and said "Thomas is a punk!"[1]

She used considerably stronger language.

Tuesday nights at the ministry house on campus were our community’s opportunity to gather for a meal and worship; and while I would occasionally give a sermon or a reflection, I most often left the space for an impromptu Bible Study on the texts for the coming Sunday.  I might have some interesting tidbit about the text or a comment about some theme, but I most often asked those gathered questions like:

What phrases struck them in a strong way?
What new ideas did the text inspire them to think about?
What is God doing in this passage and how are we called to respond to that action?


I am always interested to see where people might take these questions, and I knew we were doing something right when we got to a place of an unvarnished, raw, reaction to something in the text—be it a testimony to God’s action in one’s life in a way strikingly similar to the biblical situation, a disagreement with something in the Bible, or an outburst about one of the people in the passage we had just read.  Those raw reactions make me sit up and take notice; they make something of the divine come alive within me.  God acts frequently in the midst of disruptions, and casting aspersions on the disciples we are told in subtle ways by the tradition to emulate or see ourselves as like isn’t the way smooth bible studies are supposed to go, but whoo-boy God shows up in those moments.  I also have the type of personality that responds to sass with sass.  You can find God there too, it turns out. 

And to be fair, the student is right. Thomas is a punk—and I swear that I’m not recycling a sermon on Thomas—but think about it.  We talk about Thomas as though the only thing he’s known for is that he doubted.  First of all, all the disciples doubted the resurrection until Jesus showed up in the locked room.  We remember Thomas like he somehow different from them.  

But that’s not even the worst thing Thomas did.  Before Jesus and his entourage even arrive in Jerusalem before the crucifixion, it was known that going there will mean death because the religious leaders were looking to kill them.  And Thomas said, in his first sentence in the Gospels, that they should “go and die with him.”[2]  Sounds pretty brave, right?  

But guess who does not end up on a cross with Jesus?  If Jesus was the passive-aggressive type, you can imagine that the last words from the cross could have been, “Gee, who said they would follow me all the way to my death, and who is nowhere to be found?  Thomas and Peter.”  So, Thomas didn’t follow through with his promise.  

He punked out on Jesus.  
Thomas is a punk.

But here is where the student seemed to have the real problem.  Jesus’ forgiveness of Thomas and the other disciples came too easily.  Jesus just shows up and forgives.  And Thomas gets exactly what he asks for:  to see Jesus again in the flesh. 

Jesus could have just said, “If Thomas won’t believe the other disciples, then tough for him.  Out he goes, the unbeliever.” And, if you’ll remember, the disciples had received the Holy Spirit at this point from Jesus, and they keep the unbelieving Thomas around for a week in the same house.[3]  That’s a long time to keep someone who disagrees with you around when you do not have a smartphone to distract you.  The disciples as bearers of the Holy Spirit and Jesus could have just written Thomas off, but they do not.  They stay with Thomas and the truth is revealed to him (even though he was a punk).

See, here’s the thing:  we are so used to conditions being put on love, on affections, on friendship, on religious life, on all of our interactions, that witnessing the indiscriminate love God has for us and for others is often difficult—even offensive—to us.  The forgiveness and love of God is given to us freely, and because of this, we sometimes think it comes to too easily. 

Father Robert Capon, an Episcopal priest, once wrote a prayer that encapsulated the difficulty of living with the reality of God’s freely-given love and grace.  He said:

“Lord, please restore to us the comfort of merit and demerit. Show us that there is at least something we can do. Tell us that at the end of the day there will at least be one redeeming card of our very own. Lord, if it is not too much to ask, send us to bed with a few shreds of self-respect upon which we can congratulate ourselves. But whatever you do, do not preach grace. Give us something to do, anything; but spare us the indignity of this indiscriminate acceptance.”[4]

The ironic thing about this prayer is that even though it shows how we may grasp at something—anything—we can control about the relationship we have to God, this is the one prayer God will never answer.  This love and grace God gives us is outrageous, but to allow us to carve out a space of our very own, to pretend that we can continue to struggle in this world on our own, God will not allow that.  To do so would be abandonment, and God will never do that. Nor will God respect our claims to set the conditions of the love God offers to us or to others. 

This is the sixth Sunday after Easter.  And all throughout this Easter season our readings have been pointing us to the nature of this love that God has for us—our readings from the Acts of the Apostles, from the Gospel of John, and from especially from the first Epistle of John, which is in part a treatise on love.  Through Jesus’s resurrection appearances, we see a love that reconstitutes broken relationships, a love that pursues even when we think the object of God’s love is unworthy, even if that object of God’s love is one’s self. 

Though the Acts of the Apostles, we see the Holy Spirit constantly a few steps ahead of the disciples, showing them that Ethiopian eunuchs and Roman gentiles are within God’s grasp and loving purpose.  All the disciples can do is breathlessly make official the radical, barrier-breaking movements of God’s equal regard for all.  All the while the disciples--Peter especially--have to get over the revulsions engrained in them for profane animals and profane persons.  After the baptism we heard about today from Acts, Peter has to return to Jerusalem and explain to the offended disciples what happened, about which he said, “If God gave [those gentiles] the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?’[5]

The image of love scripture gives us is as wonderful as it is terrifying.  Assenting to it as a philosophical proposition—maybe that is possible. But how do we accept it?  Our relationships, our acquaintances, our common lives, our economics, all of these have a sense of quid pro quo so firmly rooted in them that it is so hard to imagine something so freely given and so unearned that also sometimes seems invisible.  

But there is also something attractive about this love.  Something that calls us to experience a reality greater than the one we see around us.  Something beyond the mundane, something that ignites holy desire and pushes us beyond our limits.  Something that strikes us a freely given but demands so much.  Others sense that attraction; even if it isn’t always clear that Christians act according to it.  Will we share what we know of such a mystery?

Beloved of God,
Who are we that we might hinder God?
Who might we prefer to set God’s love as conditional for?
Is it a particular person?
Is it a group of folks?
Is it yourself?
Where might the Holy Spirit be calling on each of us to break a boundary on God’s love we would rather keep in place?




[1] Of the many definitions for ‘punk,’ in this context the word refers to a cowardly individual.
[2] John 11:1-16 (particularly v.16).
[3] At least in John (20:21-22).
[4] Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon & Three: Romance, Law & the Outrage of Grace.
[5] Acts 11:17.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Vigil sermon: Will we follow Jesus?

Robert Berra
Sermon
The Easter Vigil, 2015
Mark 16:1-8


On this night of holding vigil—and now of celebration and joy—in which we greet Easter and the news of the resurrected Jesus Christ, our gospel reading gives us this final sentence:  “ [The women] went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”  Mark Chapter 16 Verse 8.  What a strange place to end a reading from the Gospel on Easter.

But this brings up an interesting thing about the Gospel of Mark.  While Mark in our Bibles goes on to Chapter 16 verse 20, which rather hurriedly mentions a number of resurrection appearances,  in most modern translations of the Bible you will see a footnote that reads “Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8.”  The remaining 12 verses came later in the tradition, probably added sometime in the second century.  In fact, in the manuscript tradition of the Gospel of Mark there are no fewer than four possible endings to Mark’s gospel.  And the earliest commentators on the Gospel note in cases where there is something after verse 8, the additions are not present in the best manuscripts they have on hand.  In other words, Mark 16:9-20 were added to the gospel later on, and Mark may have intentionally ended his Gospel with the amazed and terrified women fleeing the tomb, not delivering the message to Peter and the disciples to follow the resurrected Jesus on to Galilee.  The earliest copies of Mark point to this moment of amazement, terror, and silence as the end of the gospel account.

It might be odd to think of a book that calls itself an account of Good News of Jesus Christ ending in a cliffhanger; but personally, I love it.  With Mark ending his Gospel at verse 8, we do not get a clean, rounded off, happy ending to the Jesus story.  We instead get terror and confusion.  That is in keeping with the rest of the story Mark tells, in which the people around Jesus just don’t get what he is up to.   Jesus orders folks to be silent about his identity as the messiah, which they do not do, and misunderstand the nature of Christ’s work. The disciples didn’t listen when Jesus told them the way he treads must lead to the cross.  Those same disciples abandon Jesus at his arrest.  Peter does not just abandon Jesus, but denies him thrice.  The women go to the tomb expecting to find Jesus’s body, meaning that no one has remembered what Jesus said when he prophesied his resurrection and return to Galilee.[1]  For Mark, the story of the disciples is one of little faith.  Why would Mark do this?

What Mark leaves us with, we who read this story so many years later, is a challenge.

As Mark has it, the angelic visitor who meets the women tells them: “you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here…go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

Mark’s challenge to us is this:  Will we heed the angel’s words?  Will we follow Jesus to Galilee?

We have seen the stone rolled away, and the empty place he was laid.  Will we follow Jesus where he has led, even through death and the tomb?

We know that the cross was not the final word, and God’s love triumphed over death by resurrecting Jesus.  Will we follow Jesus, with the promise that we will find our life in losing it?[2]

We heard from the angel that even Peter and the disciples—deserters and deniers—are invited to rejoin Jesus.  Will we follow Jesus, trusting in his gracious ongoing invitation even when we find our faith wanting and lapsed?

Will we follow Jesus, who tells us that the greatest task we set ourselves to is to love God with all that we are, and love our neighbors as ourselves?[3]

Will we follow Jesus, and being witnesses proclaim in word and deed the good news of the Kingdom of God?[4]

You see, the first verse of Mark’s Gospel sets out what it is.  Mark says it is ‘the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.’  And Mark makes clear by his ending that, actually, our story is its continuation.  Our answer to his challenge to believe and follow Christ is part of the ongoing story of Christ’s work in the world.  The gospel is not something we can put down, like a finished book.  We are always writing the next chapter and answering the challenge of discipleship.[5]

We continue this story tonight, and we begin new chapters of God’s good news as we welcome these two children by baptism into the household of God.   Let us renew our vows to follow Jesus, and make our vows to help these little ones do the same.

Amen.



[1] Mark 14:27-28.
[2] Mark 8:35.
[3] Mark 12:29-31.
[4] Mark 13:10.
[5] I owe much of this language to Tim Geddert, "Beginning Again (Mark 16:1-8)." (Direction: Biblical Scholarship 33, no. 2, 150-57. Accessed April 4, 2015. http://www.directionjournal.org/33/2/beginning-again-mark-16-1-8.html).

Friday, February 6, 2015

Prayer Breakfasts, Confession, and Sin

President Obama's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast seemed to have sparked some controversy. One posting I read promised the presidents remarks would ignite a 'firestorm of controversy.'

“The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” said former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R). “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

With such a promise of controversy, I was surprised to watch the offending snippet of video and find it so...innocuous.  For the sake of completeness, here is the entire address:



And a link to the transcript--and the 'offending' passage (with a tad more context):
But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge -- or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon.  From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.  We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism  -- terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions. 
We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion.
So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends? 
Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ...
So this is not unique to one group or one religion.  There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.  In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.  
I'll come back to why I think Obama's comments are theologically and biblically sound, but I'll share what some of the criticism seems to be.

From the Washington Post, "In the words of Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Obama’s comments about Christianity show “an unfortunate attempt at a wrongheaded moral comparison....What we need more is a “moral framework from the administration and a clear strategy for defeating ISIS,” he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State."

This is exemplary of one strand of critique.  Critics are unsure of Obama's ability to recognize ISIS as a threat.  That it's not the right time to talk about the failures of Christianity, it's the time to talk about the failures of Islam.  Or, as the site Western Journalism opens their article:  "For weeks now, many in the media and across America have been asking the question as to why President Obama won’t declare that radical Islam is the enemy that our country and much of the rest of the civilized world are fighting."

I guess my very basic response to this is that I am unsure that the National Prayer Breakfast is the venue to declare open hostilities to any sect of a world religion, even those who are responsible for such evil acts.  So while I understand why folks are disappointed in the (lack of) response to ISIS, being angry that a strong response did not happen at the prayer breakfast strikes me as odd.  And removed from the context of anxiety about ISIS, nothing about what Obama said struck me as wrong.

That brings us to a few other possible critiques.  As Gilmore said, every believing Christian in the U.S. should be offended (I wonder what it means that I am not?).  Could it be that the president dared to even compare Christianity to Islam?  Could it be that he brought up specific Christian sins?  Could it be that America is in Gilmore's opinion beyond reproach?

I think it appropriate to then speak as to why I--as a Christian-- am not only not offended, but appreciative of Obama's remarks.  They speak to an incredibly faithful view of our understanding of ourselves as fallen creatures.

As the WaPo notes:
Obama’s remarks spoke to his unsparing, sometimes controversial, view of the United States — where triumphalism is often overshadowed by a harsh assessment of where Americans must try harder to live up to their own self-image. Only by admitting these shortcomings, he has argued, can we fix problems and move beyond them. 
“There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency, that can pervert and distort our faith,” he said at the breakfast.
It is at this point worth noting that Obama once named Reinhold Niebuhr, probably the most influencial Christian public theologian of the last century, as his favorite philosopher.  One of Neibuhr's most influencial works is "The Irony of American History" in which Niebuhr points out the danger of the American psyche is that our great virtues can blind us to our great vices.  It is a powerful and incisive insight into the nature of sin.  It certainly seems to be not far below Obama's thought about our national identity.  And I'm personally grateful that the knowledge of the sin we individually and collectively are capable of is so close to the surface.  And it is worth noting that Obama's "offensive" comments are deeply rooted in scripture.

One of the most distressingly powerful traits of sin is its ability to let us convince ourselves that what we do is not so bad.  As St. Paul said:
"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:15-25)
and:
For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
Further, St. John writes:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." (1 John 1:8-10)
Sin is ever-present, always possible, and capable of creating within us a powerful self-deception about our own righteousness as compared to others.  For these reasons, the critique of Obama makes much more sense to me.  He reminds us that we Christians have sinned--we have that in our history and our present--and that humanity or a faith tradition does not outgrow or progress away from the possibility of sin.

This is no accidental concept in Obama's thought or speech.  He continues after the offending passage:
I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.  
And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.
Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments. And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process. And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty. No God condones terror. No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number. 
I suggest that if a Christian has a problem with the above, an astounding feat of biblical twisting will need to occur.

So one round of critique says, "Why is Obama bringing up the Crusades and Inquisition, that was so long ago?" Well, yes, but self-proclaimed "good Christians" upheld slavery, segregagation, and lynching much more recently. Self-proclaimed "good Christians" are calling for concentration campus for LGBT+ folk. A Christian general called the fight against terrorism as a Christian battle against Satan (and I can't think of a better expression of the Holy War Idea). While Christianity is not the orgainizing principle around which we determine who to fight, my research into religious rhetoric's place in U.S. history leads me to conclude that while we have never fought a holy war we've never fought a strictly secular war, either. Christians are notoriously quick to proclaim the righteousness of our causes, regardless of the sin embedded therein.  This should not be a surprise to Christians who take sin seriously.

And within the above critique is the very odd notion that many conservatives would deny: the idea of uninterrupted progress which states that humanity is always on an upward swing to a more civilized and (dare I say) progressive state of being. It seems convenient that this notion of uninterrupted progress is believable when Christianity is thought to be beyond its sordid past and that Islam cannot make it past its own history (or radical Islam's present). And personally, it sounds to me like a denial of sin's nature.

In my tradition, confession and reflection are built into our primary worship services (and there they should remain). We are asked to hold our nature and our true selves in front of us and confront our misdeeds in spite of our tendency to seek self-righteousness instead of God's righteousness.  A prayer breakfast, then, to my mind, seems an appropriate place to do such an activity, or simply make allusion to our tendency toward sin.  And knowing the nature of sin, it's not surprising that what Obama said was hard for some to hear.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Torture Master-Post

Last month, my colleagues at All Faithful Can allowed me to write a four-part series on the U.S. Senate's report on the CIA's use of torture that was  released on December 9th.  Instead of cross posting the same material to this blog, the links below will take you to the particular posts.

  • Part One:  Why do Americans—and in particular Christians—support torture?  And why do Christians do so at higher rates than non-Christians?
  • Part Two:  How do you define torture?  How have we defined torture? What does torture “do”?
  • Part Three: What do torture and sexual assault have in common?  
  • Part Four:  What are the theological resources that have shaped Christianity’s moral prohibition on the use of torture (even if they have not always worked in practice)? 
Along the way, I pulled from some of my graduate research I did in 2009-2010 and in 2012.  I have a few more posts in mind that will be a few months in the making.