gregoryjenks

Author: Gregory C. Jenks

  • Pentecost 25B (18 November 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • 1Samuel 1:4-20 and 1Samuel 2:1-10
    • Heb. 10:11-14, (15-18), 19-25
    • Mark 13:1-8

     

    First Reading: Birth of Samuel

    The RCL turns to 1Samuel for its reading from the Hebrew Bible this week, and that is a natural sequel to the last couple of Sundays with their focus on Ruth.

    Samuel is the dominant figure in the first of the books that now bear his name, even appearing from the other side of the grave to deliver his final condemnation of King Saul (1Sam 28). This birth narrative features several puns on the name of Israel’s first king, since sha’ul is the Hebrew word for ask or petition:

    • 1:17 – “Go in peace, the LORD has heard the sha’ul you have made to him …”
    • 1:20 – She named him Samuel (God hears), for she said, “I have asked (sha’al) him of the LORD.”
    • 1:27 “… the LORD has granted me the sha’ul that I made to him …”
    • 1:28 “… I have lent (sha’ul) him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he is sha’ul to the LORD.”

    The presence of such a strong theme within the text has led some scholars to ask whether this may originally have been the birth story of Saul, rather than Samuel.

    Apart from providing a suitably auspicious birth narrative for Samuel, the tale also serves to introduce the Song of Hannah which is used as this week’s Psalm and may have been the model for Luke when he composed the Magnificat, or Song of Mary (Luke 1:46-55).

    These songs both express an eschatological perspective, although it is most likely that neither is explicitly “apocalyptic” in tone. Still, they affirm a vision of hope and the expectation that God would act to bring justice to the people.

     

    Daniel 12

    The book of Daniel is a key apocalyptic text within the Hebrew Bible, and it was a book that continued to grow as time passed. We know from the additions found in the Greek versions of Daniel that this archetypal man of faith, who could serve as such a positive role model for the young scribes that studied the book as part of their own training, continued to attract new episodes in which his wisdom and faithfulness were celebrated.

    Daniel seems to have been a legendary figure in the West Semitic cultural tradition, as he features in the texts from Ugarit from before the time of the Exodus as well as getting a passing mention (along with Noah and Job) in Ezekiel:

    even if Noah, Daniel, and Job, these three, were in it,
    they would save only their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord God. [Ezek 14:14]

    The text is well chosen as a preparation for this week’s Gospel as it represents an earlier version of a similar tradition. Several classic literary features of an apocalyptic text are to be seen here:

    • Michael, the archangel, will be the savior of God’s people
    • unparalleled troubles just before the End
    • timely deliverance of the faithful
    • a book of life with the names of the faithful recorded
    • resurrection of those who sleep in the dust of the earth
    • final judgment leading to bliss or punishment
    • unsuccessful attempts to calculate the timing of the End

     

    Second Reading: Jesus the eternal high priest in Hebrews

    The extended metaphor of Jesus as a priest continues this week, but it seems best to focus on the apocalyptic and eschatological themes that will be so prominent between now and Christmas.

    Gospel: Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse

    The major western lectionaries all draw upon Mark 13 for this week’s Gospel:

    • 13:1-8 = RCL
    • 13:14-23 = ECUSA
    • 13:24-32 = RC

    This interest in eschatological themes alerts us to the proximity of Advent, with its focus on the One who comes and the associated themes of judgment and salvation.

    All of these excerpts are from a discourse on eschatological themes that Mark attributes to Jesus, and which both Matthew and Luke retain with some amendments (see Matthew 24 and Luke 21).

    There has been considerable debate among scholars concerning Jesus’ relationship to the well-attested apocalyptic eschatology of Second Temple Judaism. Some definitions may be helpful as we consider these issues:

    • eschatology is theology with a focus on the “last things” (Gk: eschaton = end) and deals with doctrines about the end of the world, judgment, afterlife, etc. Essentially, eschatology introduces a sense of meaning by reference to the goal or purpose of life, and there is no need to suppose a significant delay between the present time and the inauguration of God’s reign (a.k.a., “the kingdom of God”).
    • apocalyptic eschatology is a common variant of “endtime theology” and its particular hallmark is the assumption that the anticipated future golden age will only arrive after a cataclysmic intervention by God to punish the evil and to vindicate the faithful. Apocalyptic preachers and their writings are typically concerned to stress the extreme evil of the present world in contrast to the idyllic conditions of the world to come. That information usually rests upon some special revelation conveyed to the seer by God through the agency of a vision, or an angelic visitation.

    John the Baptist is widely recognized as a 1C Jewish apocalyptic prophet, but it is not clear whether Jesus belongs in that tradition, or more in the tradition of the sages and miracle-workers of ancient Judaism.

    While the majority view among NT scholars seems to be that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, the Jesus Seminar has adopted a dissenting opinion.

    Whether or not Jesus himself was an apocalyptic prophet, the most influential interpreters of Jesus certainly were, foremost among them Paul and Mark. As a result, the Gospel of Mark attributes to Jesus the classic early discourse on the end of the world now found in Mark 13 and parallels:

    13:1-2 Temple’s doom
    13:3-8 The last days
    13:9-13 Trials and persecutions for the faithful
    13:14-20 The desolating sacrilege
    13:21-23 Confusion over the Messiah’s appearance
    13:24-27 The coming of the Son of Man
    13:28-32 This generation will see it all
    13:33-37 Appeal to stay alert

    The point of such apocalyptic traditions (including the Book of Revelation) was to encourage the faithful in the face of persecution, not to publish a theological puzzle to confuse and alarm readers. The apocalyptic writings explain the present chaos and lawlessness of human society while assuring the faithful that God will act on their behalf in good time.

    Long after apocalyptic had settled into a domesticated role within Christian theology, the association of Jesus with the prophecies of the end time can be seen even in the Muslim traditions about him:

    /71/ The disciples said, “Christ of God, look at the house of God—how beautiful it is!” He replied, “Amen, Amen, Truly I say to you, God will not leave one stone of this mosque upon another but will destroy it utterly because of the sins of its people. God does nothing with gold, silver, or these stones. More dear to God than all these are the pure in heart. Through them, God builds up the earth, or else destroys it if these hearts are other than pure. (mid-ninth century CE) [Tarif Khalidi, The Muslim Jesus, p. 91]

     

    Jesus Database

    • 002 Jesus Apocalyptic Return: (1) 1 Thess 4:13-18; (2) Did. 16:6-8; (3) Matt 24:30a; (4) Mark 13:24-27 = Matt 24:29,30b-31 = Luke 21:25-28; (5a) Rev 1:7; (5b) Rev 1:13; (5c) Rev 14:14; (6) John 19:37.
    • 008 When and Where: (1a) Gos. Thom. 3:1 & P. Oxy. 654.3:1; (1b) Gos. Thom. 51; (1c) Gos. Thom. 113; (2) 2Q: Luke 17:23 = Matt 24:26; (3) Mark 13:21-23 = Matt 24:23-25; (4?) Dial. Sav. 16; (5) 1Q?: Luke 17:20-21.
    • 049 Temple and Jesus: (1) Gos. Thom. 71; (2a) Mark 14:55-59 = Matt 26:59-61; (2b) Mark 15:29-32a = Matt 27:39-43 =(!) Luke 23:35-37; (2c) Acts 6:11-14; (3) John 2:18-22.
    • 062 Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt 10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.
    • 064 The Last Days: (1) Did. 16:3-5; (2) Matt 24:10-12; (3a) Mark 13:3-10,12-20 = Matt 24:3-22 = Luke 21:7-13,16-24; (3b) Matt 10:17-18; (3c) Luke 17:31-32.
    • 265 Within this Generation: (1) Mark 13:28-32 = Matt 24:32-36 = Luke 21:29-33.

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Pentecost 24B (11 November 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17 and Psalm 127 (or 1Kings 17:8-16 & Psalm 146)
    • Hebrews 9:24-28
    • Mark 12:38-44

     

    First Reading: Ruth and Boaz

    The two excerpts from Ruth that serve as the first reading in the RCL, provide the book ends for this critical part of the story:

    3:1-5 Naomi instructs Ruth how to secure her future with Boaz
    3:6-15 Ruth spends the night with Boaz
    3:16-18 Ruth reports the events of the night to Naomi
    4:1-6 Boaz negotiates for the right to marry Ruth
    4:7-12 Boaz gains the legal responsibility for Ruth as a childless kinswoman
    4:13-17 Boaz marries Ruth
    4:18-22 Davidic genealogy

    This story reflects ancient customs, some of them no longer practiced at the time the account was composed:

    • matters of inheritance, marriage and other social obligations were settled in open discussion with the elders of the community (cf: Exod 3:16; Deut 19:12; 22:15; 25:7; Josh 24;1; 1Sam 16:4) “seated at the gates of the city” (cf: Deut 21:19f; 22:15; 25:7; Josh 20:4; Isa 29:21; Amos 5:15)
    • the selection of 10 elders reflects traditions that a synagogue required 10 adult males, as the letters of the Hebrew word for congregation (qahal) have a numerical value of ten
    • symbolic use of dusty sandals as a public shaming ritual (cf: the words of Jesus in Mark 6:7-13, and in recent events in the Middle East with the treatment of a fallen statue of Sadam Hussein by residents of Baghdad and the throwing of a shoe at the then US President George W Bush by an Iraqi journalist)

    The traditions preserved in Deut 25:5-10 provides the legal basis for this transaction:

    When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man has no desire to marry his brother’s widow, then his brother’s widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.” Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying, “I have no desire to marry her,” then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare, “This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.” Throughout Israel his family shall be known as “the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.”

    As neither Boaz nor the anonymous kinsman are actual brothers of Ruth’s dead husband, neither has an obligation to marry Ruth and raise up children for Mahlon.

    The legal transaction that lies at the heart of this story may be offensive to us. However, in the context of a patriarchal society, levirate marriage seems to have served as a social security safety net to provide for women who were widowed before having sons that might take possession of the family property and care for them in their own turn.

    Such a story may also prompt us to think about the inevitability of the Gospel being expressed within and through the cultural context of a given period of time, even if (like the Book of Ruth) it challenges and confronts contemporary practices and prejudices. We can never escape our cultural context to hold a timeless expression of some “pure religion.”

     

    The Widow of Zarephath

    The RC and ECUSA lectionaries both draw on the story a desperately poor widow in 1 Kings 17 for the first reading.

    This story links with the Gospel but also illustrates the plight that widows such as Naomi and Ruth typically faced in the ancient world.

    The needs of people without recognized social protection were understood within the religion of ancient Israel and Judah. The protection of widows and orphans, along with the resident alien and the poor, was considered to be the particular concern of Israel’s God. The prophetic tradition within ancient Israelite religion kept alive the vision of a just society in which the most vulnerable were protected.

    In the Epilogue to his massive study, The Birth of Christianity, John Dominic Crossan cites Psalm 82 as “the single most important text in the entire Christian Bible” while noting that “it comes, of course, from the Jewish Bible.”

    God has taken his place in the divine council;
    in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
    “How long will you judge unjustly
    and show partiality to the wicked?
    Give justice to the weak and the orphan;
    maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute.
    Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

    They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
    they walk around in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

    I say, “You are gods,
    children of the Most High, all of you;
    nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
    and fall like any prince.”

    Rise up, O God, judge the earth;
    for all the nations belong to you!

    Crossan comments:

    … that short psalm best summarizes for me the character of the Jewish God as Lord of all the world. It imagines a mythological scene in which God sits among the gods and goddesses in divine council. Those pagan gods and goddesses are all dethroned not just because they are pagan, nor because they are other, nor because they are competition. They are dethroned for injustice, for divine malpractice, for transcendental malfeasance in office. They are rejected because they do not demand and effect justice among the peoples of the earth. And that justice is spelled out as protecting the poor from the rich, protecting the systematically weak from the systematically powerful. Such injustice creates darkness over the earth and shakes the very foundations of the world. (Birth of Christianity, p. 575)

     

    Second Reading: Jesus – eternal priest in an otherworldly temple

    The lectionaries all converge for the second reading as they continue the current series of readings from Hebrews.

    In a passage such as this we can observe Christian theology in the process of being developed under the impetus of a powerful metaphor. Despite Jesus’ own antipathy to the Temple and to its functionaries, this community of first-century Christians is actively developing a priestly (re-)interpretation of Jesus using categories drawn from the Jewish cult.

    The significance of Jesus’ death is being understood in sacrificial terms, as with Paul in a passage such as Romans 3:21-26. However, unlike Paul, this writer opts to imagine Jesus as the priest rather than simply as the victim. here we see the origins of the priest-victim metaphor that was to prove so powerful in later theology.

    Some Christian traditions continue to find such imagery meaningful, but for others the image is too far removed from present experience. The very idea of sacrifice to appease God and secure some divine blessing seems inadequate, if not offensive.

    Gospel: The widow’s gift

    This week’s Gospel for all three major Western lectionaries features the story of Jesus observing a poor widow making her offering at the temple, and commending her gift above the large donations made by the powerful and wealthy (Mark 12:41-44).

    Such a story really does embody the core Kingdom values that Jesus himself taught and practiced. It challenges our (sometimes hollow?) affirmations of a value system that places the worth of persons above any calculation of the contribution they are able to make toward our shared projects. We say that the thought counts more than the gift, but do we practice that set of values?

    One of the places in the life of Church where such a Kingdom dynamic is still celebrated is the Baptism of an infant. In the church as in life generally, a baby calls forth from us the very best of the human spirit. We do not look to an infant to provide us with anything, to contribute to our pet projects, or even to attend to us. We lay no expectations upon them and we appreciate them simply for being who they are.

    The story of the widow’s gift is a simple story that celebrates that kind of uncomplicated devotion to God.

    Samuel Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 375) offers some Jewish perspectives on this story:

    The importance of this passage is best summed up in the rabbinic saying,
    “It does not matter whether your offering be much or little,
    so long as your heart is directed to Heaven.” [M.Men. 13:11]

    There is a story of a woman who brought a handful of meal as an offering. A priest despised it and said, “See what they offer! What is in it that one could eat, and what is in it that can be sacrificed?” It was shown to him in a dream., “Do not despise her; it is as if she has sacrificed herself [Heb. nafshah] as the sacrifice.” If in regard to one who does not sacrifice himself, the text uses nefesh [soul], how much more of one who does! [Lev. R. 3:5]

    What is the peculiarity of the meal offering that nefesh is used [Lev 2.1]? Who brings the meal offering? The poor. ‘I reckon it,” says God, “as if he has offered himself before ME.” [Yal. Lev. 447]

    God prefers the one handful of a free-will offering of the poor to the heap of incense which is offered by the high priest.” [Koh. R. 4:6]

    It can be helpful for Christians to recognize and appreciate the convergence of Jewish and Christian piety here, and especially in view of the negative stereotyping of Jewish religious leaders (“the scribes”) in verses 28-40.

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site.

    Other recommended sites include:
    * Iona Community
    * Laughing Bird
    * The Text This Week

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • All Saints and All Souls

    Following a request as to whether I have any lectionary materials for All Saints and All Souls, which many parishes will observe next Sunday, I have gone back to check my files.

    There were no lectionary notes, as such, but I did find my sermon from Sunday, November 2, 2003. While it seems not to be on the FAITHFUTURES web site any more, it no doubt still exists somewhere in the Internet Archive with the delightful name, The Way Back Machine.

    That sermon—and the related open letter to a critic within the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane—reflects the tensions then threatening to pull the Anglican communion apart. Those tensions remain with us, as does the possibility of fragmentation and schism—as well as the Spirit’s call to embrace “a more excellent way.”

    Given the way that my 2003 sermon sought to engage with the festival of All Saints in that context, and the continued tensions within the Anglican communion, I am posting a slightly edited version of the sermon here. It has been edited to remove those elements that were so topical to the occasion almost 10 years ago as to be unhelpful for readers now.

    It is also important to note that some years after this sermon, I received a gracious letter of reconciliation from the priest who had called on me to resign in the heat of the conflict in 2003.

    Called to Holiness in Community:
    A sermon for All Saints & All Souls

    We are called by Christ into a communal relationship with the Sacred Mystery known to us as the Holy Community of the Trinity.

    Introduction

    If you have had an opportunity to scan the latest issue of FOCUS, the monthly newspaper from the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane, you will see that it reflects the current struggles going on within the Anglican Communion around the world and right here in this Diocese.

    I often find FOCUS almost impossible to read. The content, and more especially the tone of sections such as Letters to the Editor, are just so foreign to my understanding of faith and discipleship. Of course, were those things more to my liking, others would find the paper just as unpalatable to them!

    As it happens, this month there are a number of items that express anger and shock following the visit of Bishop John Shelby Spong to Brisbane at the beginning of October. Not only is the bishop accused of heresy, but those clergy in the Diocese who share his views or supported his visit are told to get out of the Anglican Church as we do not belong.

    I say “we” advisedly since I was one of the principal organisers of Bishop Spong’s visit to Brisbane, and have worked closely with him over the past 5 or 6 years. I was delighted to host his visit to Toowoomba in 1997, to chair the public lecture that he gave in Brisbane in 2001 and to host him here in this very Chapel just 4 weeks ago.

    It is not my intention to resign as invited to do in this Letter to the Editor, and I have published an Open Letter in which I respond to his letter.

    Instead, what I am hoping we can do is use the opportunity provided by today’s celebration of All Saints and All Souls to reflect on the faith issues posed by theological diversity within our Church. Then, at the SOJOURNERS gathering on Tuesday evening, I hope we can discuss the Letters to the Editor along with my response in the Open Letter and this sermon.

    So this is a time for heavy lifting as we put our minds and our hearts around the question of how best to be faithful to the God who calls us into holiness within community: the community of All Saints, the community of All Souls, and the community of this congregation gathered around the Table of Jesus here today.

    REALITY CHECK: A CHURCH DIVIDED

    It was once said that Anglicans did not believe anything. We were sometimes characterised as a Church of convenience, a place to worship and live as a Christian without getting embroiled in arguments about religion.

    Now it almost seems that we hear too much of what Anglicans believe. Or at least, we have heard of what some Anglicans believe, while also hearing of what other Anglicans believe, and still more about the views of Anglicans in Canada, or New Hampshire, or wherever.

    Suddenly it is all too clear that Anglicans believe lots of things and that not all the things claimed as Anglican are accepted by other Anglicans.

    Of course it has always been so, but we have been less aware of it during some periods of our history. In the past we have hounded and persecuted people for views that differed from those holding sway in the Church at the particular time, sometimes with the one person going through successive periods of favour, disapproval and rehabilitation.

    The reality is that the historical roots of the Anglican Church make it impossible for us to be a Church with a single ideology; that is, unless we have the theological equivalent of genocide and suppress those tribes that are different from our own (which ever ours happens to be).

    At the time when Europe was ravaged by the upheavals of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, England chose to hold competing theological viewpoints in the one national church. Papists and reformers were required by force of royal decree to find ways to work together, and those unable to do so were excluded and suppressed. Good people of conscience from both Catholic and Protestant traditions were exiled, jailed and killed by the Anglican Church and the English Parliament.

    That is part of our history, and we do not honour the true Saints and brave Souls of all persuasions if we pretend it to have been otherwise.

    Today we again find ourselves staring down the abyss of seemingly intractable divisions within the Church that we all love, and sometimes love to hate:

    • traditional conservatives and revisionist progressives struggle for soul of the Church
    • ordination of women, as especially their ministry as Bishops
    • lay presidency at the Eucharist
    • affirmation of gay and lesbian persons
    • today the consecration of the first (openly) gay bishop
    • threats to sever communion between dioceses and provinces

    We are a church divided. Some of us at least think that there are matters of substance here that are worth passionate debate and struggle. At least we shall not die of boredom!

    For good or ill, you have yourself a priest who stands unashamedly on the progressive or liberal side of each of those issues. That will please some of you, and disappoint others. The challenge is to find ways to build and nurture a faith community where we can all go deeper into that holiness in community to which God has called us in Christ.

    THE HEART OF THE CONFLICT: WHERE IS TRUTH TO BE FOUND?

    It seems to me that most of the issues over which we see Anglicans (and other Christians) taking sides are not the real cause for the conflict. The heart of the conflict lies much deeper and I believe it concerns the profoundly human question; Where is truth to be found?

    Next weekend, for example, our friends from the Uniting Church will meet in a special session of their Queensland Synod to consider whether to cut all ties with their own national Assembly over its recent decision to allow local Presbyteries to ordain homosexual persons if they wished to do so. Their pain gives no joy to us, whatever our personal view of the issues. We pray for them and we hurt with them.

    Within the present “God Wars” raging across the Christian denominations, I think I can discern some constant themes.

    One of the themes is associated with the more traditional or conservative side of the debates.

    Conservative Anglicans—like conservative Catholics or conservative Evangelicals—tend towards a literal interpretation of the Christian tradition. This does not mean they are biblical literalists, and people such as me must be careful not to categorise them as “fundamentalist.”

    While such people can accept a certain amount of symbolic truth in the Bible and in the Church’s Tradition, they still tend to take religious language as having some objective referent and a single meaning.

    On the more progressive or liberal side of many current debates it is possible to identify another trend.

    People such as me embrace the same Scriptures and appreciate the same ancient Tradition, as I think you will appreciate after listening to my sermons and participating in my services for the best part of a year. As Paul once said to the Corinthians, “you are my credentials.” It is the quality of your lives as disciples of Jesus that attests to my own character as a priest and pastor.

    Like the conservatives we also love the Bible, the Creeds and the Prayer Book—but we tend to treat them as metaphor. This does not mean that we do not recognise literal and historical elements in the ancient writings and traditional practices, but it does mean that we are less inclined to think of them as timeless statements of divine principles. And we are less likely to spend time defending the historical or literal truth of the Bible’s stories.

    We are more likely to see them as human constructs through which the Spirit of God continues to speak as we now go about the task of being faithful to God in our own time and place. We tend to experience religious language as an invitation to enter more deeply into the mystery of God. We find Scripture and Liturgy to have many different meanings.

    The real point of the struggle, then, is the almost unspoken issue of where truth is to be found and what it might look like when we find it.

    • Will truth be found in the written words of an ancient book?
    • Will truth be found in the beliefs and practices of people who imagined the earth as the centre of the universe, and God to live just above the clouds?
    • Will truth be limited to the pre-modern understanding of reproductive biology and human psychology?

    Or we will allow:

    • That time makes ancient truth uncouth?
    • That God who spoke in certain ways in times past now speaks in new ways?
    • That as our knowledge of the universe and human nature explodes so must our theology?
    • That the same God who we know through Jesus is known to others, and that they have no need to become like us in order to be acceptable to God?

    Those are indeed big questions.

    They frighten the horses!

    But Anglicans have a legacy of active engagement with the best of human learning, rather than a reputation as people who put tradition ahead of truth.

    A WAY FORWARD—TOGETHER

    If I am correct, then the theological fault lines running underneath our Church are such that we must learn to live with, to embrace and to exploit our diversity—and even our disagreements—for the sake of the Gospel.

    It would be brave person—or foolish, or both—who suggested a resolution to the deep and angry divisions opening up within our Church. Let me at least suggest a way forward.

    My suggestion is shaped in conscious response to this weekend’s holy days of All Saints and All Souls.

    We are not alone.

    We increasingly realise that are we intricately linked to one another and to all other living life through a staggeringly high proportion of common DNA. But we are also deeply linked to all who have gone before us, as we affirm in the line about the communion of saints in the Creed.

    As I suggested a couple of weeks back when we reflected on the Gospel account of the man with money who comes to Jesus seeking something more, the future of our holiness lies in solidarity with one another. There is no solitary path to eternal life.

    • The rich man was well set up financially. Presumably this was not an achievement entirely of his own doing. Whether he inherited the wealth or acquired it by trade, in warfare or simple good fortune of stumbling upon buried treasure, others were involved in his success.
    • He had no qualms in claiming a VHA in personal and social morality. He had kept all the Commandments since childhood! Jesus did not deny that claim. Jesus simply said, “OK, one thing more is needed.”
    • The “one thing more” was to go beyond the obligations of morality and social responsibility and give away all he owned so that could be freed to follow Jesus as a beggar. Even when reduced to nothing more than a focus on himself and Jesus, the call to holiness involved community with others called into the company of Jesus by God.

    This weekend we are reminded of our debt to those who stand with us in the community of faith. The great saints and the ordinary souls. We are one with them. Our call to holiness involves us in a relationship with them; dead or alive!

    The challenge is to build and sustain faith communities where people can be drawn more deeply into the dream that God has for each of us, and for all of us together.

    It is not our role to distinguish between tares and wheat, and to rip out the weeds we think lie before us. It is our role to be faithful in responding to God’s call upon us, whether we hear it through a literalistic view of the Bible or a metaphorical understanding of the Gospel.

    Conclusion

    On Tuesday night I hope as many of us as possible will gather to talk and pray together about these things. In the meantime, let me conclude with the words that I used in ending my Open Letter:

    So John, I am staying in this church that has ordained and licensed both you and me. The church is big enough for both of us. The questions that remains is whether our affection for one another is sufficiently generous to see beyond our different emphases.

    On this All Saints & All Souls weekend, that is one (metaphorical) interpretation of the faith we share that commends itself to me. Amen.

  • Pentecost 23B (4 November 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Ruth 1:1-18 and Psalm 146 (or Deut 6:1-9 and Psalm 119:1-8
    • Hebrews 9:11-14
    • Mark 12:28-34

     

    First Reading: Ruth

    The Book of Ruth is one of the most attractive short stories in the Bible, and also a story that celebrates the autonomy and freedom of women even when living within a clearly patriarchal society. Naomi and Ruth are individuals who take control of the situation in which they find themselves. For the most part circumstances require them to act in the absence of their menfolk and they are the dominant characters in the story.

    Writing in the HarperCollins Bible Commentary, Adele Berlin observes:

    According to rabbinic tradition, the main theme of Ruth is chesed, loyalty or faithfulness born of a sense of caring and commitment. Chesed is a Hebrew term used to describe God’s relationship to Israel as well as the relationship among members of a family or a community. All of the main characters in the book, Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, act with chesed. Naomi, although she technically had no responsibility for her widowed daughters-in-law, was concerned that they find new husbands; she went out of her way to see that Ruth did. Ruth, on her part, had no obligation to Naomi, but she remained steadfastly with her, even giving up her native land and religion; all of her actions were directed toward finding support and protection for Naomi. Boaz too took upon himself a commitment beyond what was required; not only was he willing to redeem the family’s land, but he was eager to marry Ruth and enable the family name to be perpetuated. God also manifested his chesed, by virtue of which the individuals are repaid for their loyalty by finding security and fulfillment, and the family that came close to destruction finds new life and continuity. (p. 262)

    In the Greek Bible and later collections influenced by the Latin Vulgate, Ruth is found between Judges and 1 Samuel. This places the story in its natural setting prior to the development of a Jewish monarchy. Indeed, Ruth is identified at the end of the book as the great-grandmother of David.

    In the Jewish Bible, Ruth is placed among the Megilloth (“Five Scrolls” – Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther) used as liturgical texts for various festivals. Ruth is read on the Festival of Shavuot (Pentecost).

    Within the RCL, Ruth provides the first reading this week and next.

    Ruth is also a story about inclusion of the foreigner, and may originally have been crafted as a protest against the narrow theology that developed in the time of Ezra as the post-exilic Jewish community sought to ensure its own survival by excluding those without a specified pedigree. The “foreign wives” and their children were repudiated in a mass divorce ceremony (see Ezra 9-10).

    In such a time of crisis some unknown “liberal” has penned this delightful story that celebrates the human dignity and theological virtue of a particular foreign wife, Ruth the Moabite. Ruth embodies the essential character of God (chesed, steadfast love—cf. Exod 34:6-7). In a striking protest at the theological thought police of the day, this ancient scribe notes that one of Ruth’s descendants would be none other than King David himself!

    At a time in history when so many Christians are obsessed with the issues of gender identity and human sexuality, we may do well to reflect on the story of Ruth. Like gays and lesbians in our world, women and especially foreign women, were the focus for the projected self-loathing of the theological purists in Jerusalem. No matter how many biblical and canonical authorities may be invoked in support of prejudice and fear, the biblical tradition also celebrates inclusion and tolerance. Tolerance may be a minor theme in a Bible that also endorses genocide as divine justice on the tribe’s competitors, but it is there as a “light to the nations.” Like a candle flame on a dark night, the persistent affirmation of inclusion and tolerance may not penetrate far into the surrounding darkness, but it is an important signal of the Kingdom values we see embodied in Jesus.

    When (spiritual) famine and (ecclesial) hardship compels us to find refuge and welcome beyond the traditional lands of the covenant community, we may find as Naomi did that there are beloved strangers living there who share our experience of being human and have much to offer us.

    Are we able to open our community to include those we have previously imagined as frightening and dangerous? Will we know the blessing of hearing those who were once strangers say to us, “Your people shall be my people; your God my God.”

    Deuteronomy 6 – the Shema

    Both the RC and ECUSA lectionaries use the passage from Deuteronomy 6 for the first reading.

    In doing so they present congregations with the living tradition of Judaism as the context for Jesus and also his teachings. It never hurts Christians to remember that everything Jesus said and did was as a Palestinian Jew whose understanding of God was nurtured by and expressed within Judaism.

    The Shema (named after the first word in the original Hebrew form of this prayer) continues to be a key ingredient of Jewish identity and prayer, perhaps somewhat like the Lord’s Prayer in Christian circles.

    The following passage from the Talmud illustrates how reflection on the essential Torah enriched Jewish piety:

    Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative ones, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and two hundred forty-eight positive commandments, corresponding to the parts of man’s body…
    David came and reduced them to eleven: A Psalm of David [Psalm 15] Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle, and who shall dwell in thy holy mountain? (i) He who walks uprightly and (ii) works righteousness and (iii) speaks truth in his heart and (iv) has no slander on his tongue and (v) does no evil to his fellow and (vi) does not take up a reproach against his neighbor, (vii) in whose eyes a vile person is despised but (viii) honors those who fear the Lord. (ix) He swears to his own hurt and changes not. (x) He does not lend on interest. (xi) He does not take a bribe against the innocent,…
    Isaiah came and reduced them to six [Isaiah 33:25–26]: (i) He who walks righteously and (ii) speaks uprightly, (iii) he who despises the gain of oppressions, (iv) shakes his hand from holding bribes, (v) stops his ear from hearing of blood (vi) and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, he shall dwell on high.
    Micah came and reduced them to three [Micah 6:8]: It has been told you, man, what is good and what the Lord demands from you, (i) only to do justly, and (ii) to love mercy, and (iii) to walk humbly before God…’
     Isaiah came again and reduced them to two [Isaiah 56:1]: Thus says the Lord, (i) keep justice and (ii) do righteousness.
    Amos came and reduced them to a single one, as it is said, For thus says the Lord to the house of Israel, Seek Me and live.
    Habakkuk further came and based them on one, as it is said [Habakkuk 2:4], But the righteous shall live by his faith.
    — Talmud, b. Makkot, 24(a)
    [cited in Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah, 22]

     

    Second Reading: Jesus as priest

    Jesus as priest (the metaphor continues)

    The major western lectionaries continue their reading of Hebrews this week:

    • RC: Heb 7:23-28
    • ECUSA: Heb 7:23-28
    • RCL: Heb 9:11-14

    These selections all come from the central section of Hebrews (4:14-10:31) with its focus on Jesus as the eternal high priest:

    4:14-5:10 Christ as “a great high priest”
    5:11-6:20 Appeal for steadfast hope (“an anchor for the soul”)
    7:1-28 Melchizedek as a superior order of priesthood
    8:1-6 Jesus as the “more excellent” priest seated in divine glory
    8:7-13 The new (and “better”) covenant mediated by Jesus
    9:1-10 The limited and symbolic character of the tabernacle
    9:11-28 Christ’s priestly action as “priest and victim”
    10:1-18 Christ’s offering of himself “once for all”
    10:19-31 Concluding appeal and warnings

    This way of interpreting Jesus is distinctive within the NT.

    Creative spiritual imagination is at work here. In our own time so much effort has been invested in determining precisely what Jesus “actually said” and what events “really happened.” Hebrews shows us a rather different approach to the questions, Who is Jesus? and, What am I called to do in response to him?

    Is it possible that we have been seduced by the narrative format of the Gospels and have accorded them far more historicity than they require? Perhaps the Gospels, like the Letter to the Hebrews or the Book of Revelation, are better understood as imaginative expressions of what Jesus meant to some of his followers in the 1C rather than as historical descriptions of the man and his message?

    To rephrase a question posed last week: How best do we honor the sage of Galilee? Is it by excluding one another on the basis of our differing historical assessments of the Gospels, or by fashioning lives and communities around his message?

     

    Gospel: The Chief Commandment

    Samuel T. Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 280f] notes that the form cited in Mark begins with the traditional opening phrase of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel …”). This may reflect the influence of Jewish devotional practices, since none of the other versions have that form. He also notes that the combination of Deut. 6.4 and Lev. 19.18 is already found in the Testament of Issachar and in the Testament of Dan. It is reasonable to assume that this combination was already commonplace in rabbinic teachings by the time of Jesus, since it combines the love of God with the love of others.

    Testament of Issachar

    Keep the Law of God, my children;
    achieve integrity; live without malice,
    not tinkering with God’s commands or your neighbor’s affairs.
    Love God and your neighbor;
    be compassionate toward poverty and sickness. (TIss 5:1-2) [OT Pseudepigrapha]

    Testament of Dan

    Observe the Lord’s commandments, then, my children,
    and keep his law.
    Avoid wrath,
    and hate lying.
    in order that the Lord may dwell among you,
    and Beliar may flee from you.
    each of you speak truth clearly to his neighbor,
    and do not fall into pleasure and trouble making,
    but be at peace, holding to the God of peace.
    thus no conflict will overwhelm you.
    Throughout all your life love the Lord,
    and one another with a true heart. (TDan 5:1-3) [OT Pseudepigrapha]

    David Flusser, a Jewish scholar with a major interest in NT studies comments:

    Jesus’ saying about the double commandment of love was clearly coined before his time. … both verses from the Bible (Deut. 6:5 and Lev, 19:18) begin with the same word. It was typical of rabbinic scholarship to see similarly phrased passages from the Bible as connected in content also. The first great commandment of Jesus—love of God—was thus in harmony with the spirit of contemporary Pharisaism. … the double commandment of love existed in ancient Judaism before, and alongside, Jesus. The fact that it does not appear in the rabbinical documents that have come down to us is probably accidental. Mark (12:28-34) and Luke (10:25-28) show that on the question of “the great commandment” Jesus and the scribes were in agreement. [Jesus, 89f]

    The commentary in The Five Gospels (104f) notes the secondary character of the narrative framework for each version of this saying in the Gospels: a friendly scribe in Matthew, a hostile scribe in Mark, and as a prelude to the parable of the Samaritan in Luke. This passages provides a classic example of the function of a Gray result in the Jesus Seminar’s deliberations:

    The majority of the Fellows thought that the ideas in this exchange represented Jesus’ own views; the words, however, were those of the young Jesus movement. Those Seminar members who voted pink argued that Jesus might have affirmed the interpretation of the law given by Hillel, a famous rabbi who was a contemporary of Jesus:

    A proselyte approached Hillel with the request Hillel teach him the whole of the Torah while the student stood on one foot. Hillel responded, “What you find hateful do not do to another. This is the whole of the Law. Everything else is commentary. Now go learn that!”

    Tarif Khalidi [The Muslim Jesus] records the following version of this tradition in Muslim literature:

    /170/ Jesus said to his disciples, “The sign that you shall use to recognize each other as my followers is your affection for one another.” And Jesus said to his disciple Yashu’, “As for the Lord, you must love Him with all your heart. Then you must love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus was asked, “Show us, Spirit of God, what difference there is between these two loves, so that we may prepare ourselves for them with clarity of vision.” Jesus replied, “You love a friend for your own sake and you love your soul for the sake of your Lord. If you take good care of your friend, you are doing so for your own sake, but if you give your soul away, you do so for the sake of your Lord.” [Eleventh century]

    Whether or not Jesus said these words, he lived and died within the Jewish tradition that imbued him with precisely this set of values. They are values seen in his own passionate embrace of God’s call upon his life. For Christians, Jesus is the one who did not simply teach the double commandment, but actually embodied it.

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Pentecost 22B (28 October 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Job 42:1-6, 10-17 and Psalm 34:1-8
    • Hebrews 7:23-28
    • Mark 10:46-52

     

    First Reading: Job’s fortunes restored

    This week the RCL completes its series of readings from the book of Job.

    There is no intellectual resolution to the questions posed by Job’s undeserved suffering, but the narrative provides a kind of “they lived happily ever afterwards” ending for the tale.

    • 42:1-6 provides the final exchange between Job and God. Job seems to acknowledge that it is sufficient for him to embrace his own condition as a mortal. He relinquishes any claim to vindication and withdraws his demands for an explanation from God. It is enough to have a proper sense of his own place in the divine economy. Religion itself almost disappears in this resolution. Job stands in the presence of the Holy Other, and abandons any claims (religious or moral) on the Sacred. Simply to be a creature of this God is enough.
    • 42:7-9 portrays God rebuking the friends. They have not represented God accurately in the discourse and are advised to seek Job’s intercession on their behalf:

    After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has done.” 9So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the Lord had told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.

    • 42:10-17 rounds off the tale with a description of Job’s fortunate life being restored, including new children and a long life. The fairy tale quality of this ending may distract us from an interesting theological issue. The community whose values are enshrined in this ancient classic was apparently quite able to imagine an entirely satisfying and meaningful human existence without any recourse to the idea of life after death. A rich and full life, lived in the company of one’s neighbors and loved ones, has not been fully appreciated by Christians. The Christian ideal of a truly blessed life has tended to focus much more on divine blessing after death, rather than on material and psychological wellbeing in this life. As contemporary Christian belief is losing its focus on life after death as the chief benefit and value in religion, the simpler focus of the biblical community responsible for Job may provide the stimulus to seek a holistic vision of human existence as part of the complex web of life on our planet and within the cosmos.

    While Christians may not wish to jettison belief in life beyond death, we may wish to set such a belief within a more robust appreciation of life before death.

     

    Second Reading: Jesus as priest

    The major western lectionaries continue their reading of Hebrews this week:

    • RC: Heb 5:1-6
    • ECUSA: Heb 5:12-6:1,9-12
    • RCL: Heb 7:23-28

    These selections all come from the central section of Hebrews (4:14-10:31) with its focus on Jesus as the eternal high priest:

    4:14-5:10 Christ as “a great high priest”
    5:11-6:20 Appeal for steadfast hope (“an anchor for the soul”)
    7:1-28 Melchizedek as a superior order of priesthood
    8:1-6 Jesus as the “more excellent” priest seated in divine glory
    8:7-13 The new (and “better”) covenant mediated by Jesus
    9:1-10 The limited and symbolic character of the tabernacle
    9:11-28 Christ’s priestly action as “priest and victim”
    10:1-18 Christ’s offering of himself “once for all”
    10:19-31 Concluding appeal and warnings

    This way of interpreting Jesus is distinctive within the NT:

    • The Synoptic tradition (Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts) does not give any ground for thinking that Jesus was from priestly circles, although Luke turns John the Baptist into both a cousin of Jesus and the son of a priest from the Jerusalem temple. The Pauline writings use a considerable array of images and categories to express the significance of Jesus, but do not draw on priestly themes. The Johannine communities shared Hebrews interest in Jesus’ divinity, but found no need to employ priesthood as the title “Son” seemed to meet their needs.
    • The nearest we come to Hebrews seems to be 1Peter where we find some themes derived from the sacrificial cult are applied to both Jesus and the Christian:

    Christians are to be sprinkled with the blood of Jesus (1Pet 1:2)
    Christ is like a lamb without defect or blemish (1Pet 1:20)
    Christians are fashioned into a royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1Pet 2:5,9)
    Jesus suffered abuse and hardship in an exemplary manner (1Pet 2:20-24)
    Christ suffered in the flesh (1Pet 4:1)
    Christ has entered into heaven and is at the right hand of God with the angels (1Pet 3:22)

    It seems that a case could be made that Hebrews and 1Peter share much the same theological outlook, and yet there is not the slightest hint in 1Peter that Jesus was (or could be imagined as) a Jewish priest.

    Hebrews perhaps acknowledges the imaginative leap involved when it assigns Jesus to the mythical priestly order of Melchizedek, and makes not the slightest attempt to assert his physical descent from Levi. Indeed, making a virtue of necessity, Hebrews argues for the supremacy of the pre-Torah priesthood of Melchizedek over Israel’s traditional priestly pedigree.

    Creative spiritual imagination is at work here. In our own time so much effort has been invested in determining precisely what Jesus “actually said” and what events “really happened.” Hebrews shows us a rather different approach to the questions, Who is Jesus? and, What am I called to do in response to him?

    Is it possible that we have been seduced by the narrative format of the Gospels and have accorded them far more historicity than they require? Perhaps the Gospels, like the Letter to the Hebrews or the Book of Revelation, are better understood as imaginative expressions of what Jesus meant to some of his followers in the 1C?

    Do we honor the sage of Galilee better by treating theological fictions as history, or by fashioning lives and communities around his message?

     

     

    Gospel: Blind Bartimaeus

    The Gospel story of Jesus healing the blind beggar, Bartimaeus, is common to all of the major western lectionaries this weekend.

    This story can be understood as the other end of the extended exploration of the meaning of discipleship created by Mark (8:22-10:52). The Greek word hodos (translated as “way” or “road”) was a code word for “Christianity” (cf. Acts 9:2; 18:25; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22 and 2Pet 2:2) and occurs several times in this section:

    • 8:27 – “On the road, he started questioning his disciples …”
    • 9:33,34 – “What were you arguing about on the road?”
    • 10:17 – “As he was traveling along the road …”
    • 10:52 – “And right away he regained his sight, and he started following him on the road.”

     

    In the first section of his Gospel, Mark has set up various scenes in which Jesus acts as a person of spiritual power. According to Mark, only the demons recognized his true identity as the hero sent by God to rescue people from the Evil One. Disciples and opponents alike seemed unable to determine his identity and mission.

    The central section stretching from 8:22 to 10:52 provides an opportunity for Mark to present the true meaning of Jesus and, by extension, the authentic character of discipleship. Writing on the other side of 70 CE (when the Romans destroyed the temple), Mark interprets Jesus as the messiah of an empire that has power but exerts no violence. This mother’s son (a paraphrase of “son of man”) comes to give his life away for the sake of others. This mother’s son has no special privileges, not even a safe place to sleep of a night. This mother’s son will drink the cup prepared for him by God, and will be baptized in the ordeal that is his destiny. Those who grasp his identity and are drawn into the mission as disciples will do likewise.

    In the final section of the Gospel (11:1-16:8) Mark sketches the final outcome of that interpretation of Jesus. It is easy to forget that our oldest copies of Mark end the story of Jesus without any Easter appearances. Neither Matthew nor Luke felt able to imitate Mark’s boldness at that point. Mark looked beyond the fate of both Jesus and Jerusalem, and told his readers that Jesus had gone ahead of them to Galilee. They were not to linger around the graveyards of Jerusalem, but to go find Jesus in the places where they had first encountered him; in the communities of the Galilee. Their job was not to protect the relics of the past, but to catch up with Jesus who was already ahead of them and blazing new trails into the future.

     

    In the context of that brilliant literary fiction created by Mark, Bartimaeus has a symbolic role. Here is someone empowered to see Jesus clearly. He immediately follows Jesus “on the road” (Greek: en te hodo). No one else in this central section makes the connection.

    • A blind man at Bethsaida (8:22-26) eventually sees clearly but is sent home
    • Disciples (8:27-9:1) cannot embrace a suffering messiah
    • Transfiguration (9:2-13) does not achieve enlightenment for disciples
    • Disciples have not understood prayer at healing of the mute spirit (9:14-29)
    • Disciples argue over status in the kingdom (9:30-50)
    • Disciples fail to welcome the children (10:13-16)
    • Man with money (10:17-31) fails to become a disciple
    • James and John seek special favors (10:32-45)
    • Bartimaeus regains his sight and becomes a disciple (10:46-52)

    Bartimaeus is part of a very small cast of characters in Mark’s Gospel who actually understood the identity and mission of Jesus. The others include:

    • An unnamed woman who anoints Jesus for burial (14:3-9)
    • Roman officer in charge of the crucifixion (15:39)

     

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

  • Pentecost 21B (21 October 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Job 38:1-7, (34-41) and (or Isaiah 53:4-12 & Psalm 91:9-16
    • Hebrews 5:1-10
    • Mark 10:35-45

     

    First Reading: God replies to Job

    This week’s excerpt from Job takes us into the long-awaited divine response to Job’s complaint. The speech extends from 38:1 to 42:6, with Job having almost nothing to say in response to God:

    • 38:1-40:2 First divine speech
    • 40:3-5 Job’s first response
    • 40:6-41:34 Second divine speech
    • 42:1-6 Job’s second response

    Job 38 is a fine example of the natural sciences in the late first millennium BCE. We are given a catalogue of cosmic processes and phenomena that were understood as signs of God’s unparalleled power over creation, and all creatures. This is not to be taken as a timeless benchmark for human knowledge of the natural world, but as a conscious drawing on the best current information for theology. The challenge for the contemporary theologian is to make similar use of our own best knowledge, rather than to fight yesterday’s battles in defence of empty castles.

    The divine speech begins with a theophany: God answers out of a whirlwind. This is reminiscent of other biblical theophanies:

    • Exod 3 (Moses at the burning bush)
    • Exod 19 (giving of the Law at Sinai)
    • 1 Kings 19 (Elijah at the cave)
    • 2 Kings 2 (ascension of Elijah)
    • Ezek 1 (chariot vision)
    • Psalm 83, 97, 104, etc
    • Isa 29:6
    • Jer 23:19

    Nahum 1:3-6 may reflect a similar tradition to what we find in Job 38:

    The LORD is slow to anger but great in power, and the LORD will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. 1:4 He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, and he dries up all the rivers; Bashan and Carmel wither, and the bloom of Lebanon fades. 1:5 The mountains quake before him, and the hills melt; the earth heaves before him, the world and all who live in it. 1:6 Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and by him the rocks are broken in pieces.

    The divine speech does not directly address Job’s complaint. His troubles are never explained. It seems sufficient for the author that the clearer vision of God’s reality makes everything else fall into place. The awesome reality of God glimpsed in the splendor of the cosmos does not resolve human questions of meaning and justice. However, a vision (or even a glimpse) of the sacred Other may frame those questions with a sense of our own vulnerable and yet essential place in the web of life. That may suffice to allow us to continue living faithfully even if we never cease to wrestle for both meaning and justice.

     

    Suffering Servant

    The RC and ECUSA lectionaries both draw on Isaiah 53 with its famous description of the suffering servant of Yahweh. This theme will link well with both the reading from Hebrews (a son who learns obedience through suffering) and Mark (can you drink my cup or undergo my baptism?).

    Isaiah 53 is one of a series of “songs” in the second half of the book that seem to describe the community of ancient Israel as a suffering servant, destined for great things and with a mission to illuminate the nations with the light of the sacred Torah.

    There is some debate about the number and exact delineation of these servant songs, but the following passages seem to work with the theme of “servant” as a way to explore the meaning of Israel’s existence:

    • Isa 41:8-16
    • Isa 42:1-9
    • Isa 49:1-6
    • 50:4-11
    • 52:13-53:12
    • 61:1-4

    The four passages underlined are those usually recognized as the Servant Songs of Isaiah.

    Early Christians understood these texts are prophecies of Jesus. While it is not certain that Jesus himself drew on these texts to understand his mission, it is clear that his followers did so. The passage used this week seems closely connected to the Jewish tradition of the innocent victim that shaped the early telling of the passion narrative.

    After many centuries, they continue to evoke the ideal of a non-violent mission to share the divine Torah with all humanity.

     

     

    Second Reading: A high priest in the order of Melchizedek

    The RCL moves to the distinctive representation of Jesus as a priest in Hebrews 5.

    There is no historical basis for the way that this author has re-imagined Jesus in terms that were familiar and significant to himself and his community. Only in Luke’s infancy traditions do we get the slightest hint that Jesus was connected with priestly circles, and then only by inference since his supposed cousin, John the Baptist, was the son of a priest. The twin birth narratives of John and Jesus that we find in Luke 1-2 are clearly the creation of the author and do not provide any reliable information about the social status of Jesus’ family.

    The priestly Jesus of Hebrews is just as much a creative fiction as the well-connected Jesus of Luke-Acts. In Hebrews, Jesus is not simply a priest, but a High Priest; and not merely a human High Priest, but a divine figure in the “order of Melchizedek.”

    There are three passages in Hebrews that develop this link to Melchizedek:

    In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek … [Heb 5:7-10]

    This “King Melchizedek of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him”; and to him Abraham apportioned “one-tenth of everything.” His name, in the first place, means “king of righteousness”; next he is also king of Salem, that is, “king of peace.” Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever … [Heb 7:1-3]

    It is even more obvious when another priest arises, resembling Melchizedek, one who has become a priest, not through a legal requirement concerning physical descent, but through the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of him, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” [Heb 7:15-17]

    The origins of this line of thought are to be found in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110:

    And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.  He blessed him and said, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth;  and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave give one tenth of everything. [Gen 14:18–20]

    The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind,
    “You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.” [Ps 110:4]

    This rudimentary tradition was elaborated in Jewish texts as diverse as the Qumran scrolls and Philo of Alexandria, extracts from which are available here: Melchizedek.

    Gospel: Status in the kingdom

    The Gospel reading from Mark continues the “master class” in discipleship that is found in Mark 8:31-10:52.

    In this case, the disciples are portrayed as still failing to understand the character of Jesus and their own parts in the Kingdom. Their inability to see beyond opportunities for personal benefit serves as a teaching moment for the narrator.

    Jesus has come with a destiny. He must drink the cup prepared for him, just as others will in their turn. And he must undergo the baptism that is reserved for him and for those who are his disciples.

    The cup symbol will recur in the Last Supper (Mark 14:23-25) and in the solitary prayer vigil in Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). The symbol of Jesus’ baptism (now understood in a metaphorical sense, rather than as an allusion to his baptism by John the Baptist) is less familiar, but presented Mark’s readers with the challenge to remain faithful to their suffering master as they went through their own personal and communal baptisms of suffering.

    Mark then presents a classic text on servant leadership, with repeated use of the term “deacon” —

    whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant [diakonos],
    and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave [doulos] of all.
    For the Son of Man came not to be served [diakonethenai] but to serve [diakonesai],
    and to give his life a ransom for many.

     

    One of the recent signs of new life in the churches has been the recovery and revival of the diaconate as a distinctive and significant ministry. Despite the pious imagination of Hebrews, Jesus was not a priest. He is not even described in the NT as a bishop [episcopos], although he is called a shepherd. Is it possible that the authentic and distinctive Christian ministry role, is neither bishop nor priest, but deacon? This is a role without pretensions to status or power, being defined by its role in preparing for the meal of the gathered community. In the “kingdom of nobodies” that constitutes the empire of God, what better model for leadership?

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

    For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

    See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.