The first reading here today has to do with the Sabbath (Isaiah
58: 9b-14); what it’s about and why it’s important.
Isaiah tells us:
“Keep the Sabbath
Holy. Don’t pursue your own interests
on that day, but enjoy the Sabbath and speak of it with delight as the Lord’s
holy day. Honor the Sabbath in
everything you do on that day.”
And for sure, in a culture
like ours, we really do need to look at taking “Sabbath” more seriously! Making space in our schedules to honor God
means what to us? Watching the game? Going to church? Could it mean honoring- and giving time
to- those things that build not only our souls, but relationships with people
we love?
The Gospel expresses a particular perspective on God and the
Sabbath. In the reading (Luke
13:10-17), Jesus heals a woman who’d evidently had spinal/skeletal deformities
for many years – and he does this on the Sabbath. The religious leaders mentioned in the
story seem to be angry with Jesus for doing this. Although the story seems to imply all the religious leaders agreed Jesus
seemed to have broken a pretty serious ritualistic rule by doing this, I have a
lot of trouble believing Jesus was the only
rabbi/religious leader to think that healing, helping… ON THE SABBATH … was not only a good thing,
but the RIGHT thing. In the story,
they of course chastise him – once again – for so not “following the
rules”!
He then of course is
perfectly set up to chastise them for
forgetting that the rules were meant to serve us, not for us to serve the
rules. And he tells them they have no
right being arbiters of rules they themselves break when they untie their
horses/donkeys/beasts-of-burden – ON THE SABBATH – and walk them to get
water. Evidently, looked at from
another angle, this could be also construed as “working on the Sabbath”. But, Jesus points out, it’s okay if they do
work… but not okay if someone else does work.
Although “the rules” were written by people to help provide some
sort of spiritual and practical structure to life, these same rules can later
become a tool for oppressing the very people the “rules” were written to
serve... more often than not, by those
who later “control” the rules.
So, Jesus has no problem
calling them hypocrites!
It seems obvious to us – the readers – that they are indeed
hypocrites!
We may ask ourselves – why couldn’t they (the religious leaders) see how wrong they were? We have example after example – thanks to
the Gospels – of how religious rules designed to bring alive the will of God…
can easily become a bludgeon that pounds the love of God right out of
people.
Truth is…what’s described in the reading is fundamentally a
struggle between different perspectives (granted very closely held
perspectives… so closely held that they actually seem “right”) of what’s
important… to whom it is important… and why it is important.
It’s a struggle of values between…
… The desire for
order versus the freedom that independence brings.
... The desire to
protect what one loves versus the adventure of engaging in an unknown
world
… Understanding God
as an unchanging entity versus relishing the idea that as we grow, so
grows our understanding of God
I’m going to tell you a couple true stories, each of the beginning
(as I can remember) of two groups; both
Lutheran… both following the same gospel… both having the same roots… but with two different perspectives on
order, structure, views on what the church is/does/should be, and how that
perspective on the role of church informs how they organize themselves. Notice how differently these two groups,
without judgment, answer the above questions so differently. And based on those answers, notice what they
hold as important… what they value.
The first story: A small
group of Lutheran pastors got together at some point back in the late
80’s/early 90’s. They were drawn
together around a common sense of loss of concern. It would be fair to say they were on the
more theologically conservative end of the spectrum. But this “conservativeness” might not
necessarily mean they all viewed the bible as inerrant, or that they limited
ordination to heterosexual men.
Their conservativeness might have demonstrated itself more in
the following ways;
o
Baptism would only be
done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, rather than an
alternative formula that some clergy and congregations were (and maybe still
are) using – baptizing in the name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier
o
Although these pastors accepted women in their ranks as clergy,
and certainly never viewed women as lesser human being… nevertheless God has historically been
worshipped as, and described in bible as, Male… and as far as they were
concerned, will remain so
o
That worship services reflect style & expression of
liturgical roots – contemporary worship leaves a lot to be desired – more to
say on this in a bit…
o
Baptism in not only entrance into life of church, but that it
washes away the stain of sin that separates us from God – a sort of original
sin idea
These pastors, both from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America (center-left on the theological spectrum) and the Missouri Synod
(center-right and right on the spectrum) Lamented the slow erosion of their
beloved Lutheran theological moorings, recognizing that different
understandings of worship/or God, etc had crept into Contemporary 20th
Century Lutheranism, resulting in a
watering down of Lutheran underpinnings.
From their perspectives, the main critiques of “contemporary
evangelical” theology, for example would be that it expresses a relationship
with God based not-so-much on theological seriousness and depth, but more on some
light & fluffy feelings of “happiness” and” joy”. Another critique of the contemporary
Christian perspective might be that it leads to “slogan” understandings of God…
“God is good… All the time All the time… God is good”. If I could put words in their mouths I think
it would be fair to say they might express that a connection with God requires
a little more than repeating a slogan enough times until it “sounds”
right.
This group of pastors lamented the giving-way of traditional
Lutheran Identity to a more general non-denominational Protestant theology such
as the idea that we don’t need Communion every week, or that we don’t need to confess to a person…
and therefore do not use or need the “Words of Absolution”, that the Bible is
the dominant (if not only) way to connect with God.
So, after much lamenting and conversing… these pastors decided
to do something about this: they formed
a religious “order” primarily based around protecting and bringing back of
traditional expression of Lutheranism; theologically, sacramentally, and as
expressed in traditional worship styles.
The name of group – its official title in Latin – Societas Trinitatis
Sanctae (the Society of the Holy Spirit) ––
tells you something about how it sees itself.
The next story: Another group of Lutherans gathered sometime in the mid ‘80’s
formed themselves around the story of St. Francis, the 13th century
man who inadvertently started an order of men (and later women… and later still…
lay people) around the belief that
people are called to reform the church through engaging in prayer… and particularly
prayer in action… by serving the most humble of society; the poor, the disenfranchised, the
marginalized.
Francis also believed that God was alive in the creation, that
the creation reflected the Creator, that we could experience this Divine Presence
both in and through the creation. There
are apocryphal stories of Francis preaching to birds, talking to wolves (he
evidently convinced a wolf to stop terrorizing some village), and noticing in
other ways the presence of God, the glory of God alive in all he saw around
him.
This group of Lutherans were attracted to this kind of
“spirituality”… and decided to start a group that
*Reflected Franciscan tradition of service to the poorer
brothers and sisters of the world
*Expressed the theological belief that The Creator is alive
in the creation… that God is still active and alive in the natural world
*Understood being in community is the fundamental expression of
Christian existence – as exemplified in the Trinity
There was a Lutheran Friary in Florida. The friars
(NOT monks – an aside: the word “Monk” comes from root word “Mono”,
meaning “One”, or solitary whereas the
word “Friar” comes from the root word “Frater”, meaning “brother”… implying community) formed a ministry to
people living with, and dying from, AIDS.
The balance of the group was made up of lay people & pastors
who, also attracted to this tradition, worked in their own ways reflecting this
sense of mission in the world. The name
of this group was the Evangelical Order of the Cross/Franciscan, which also
might tell you something about how it saw itself.
We still
struggle with the different expressions the different spiritual values take in
our lives. These values… what we hold as true about G, and life… can certainly express themselves in politics
(local and national) – How we view the role of government, of charitable
organizations, of our own personal responsibilities.
These values… what we
hold as true about God and life… can inform our view of church – What’s the role of church? To help us feel good? To help us engage in the world (to include
politics?)? To help us connect with
God? With each other? Some of the above? All of the above and more?
These values… what we
hold true about God and life… can
inform our view of God… and how this
view informs our perspectives on what we are to do here, how we are to live,
how we are to organize Church… etc.
And what “true” worship really is.
What’s “real” worship?
What’s appropriate for worship?
What’s the most appropriate music? What’s the most appropriate
attire? What’s
the most appropriate role for children in church? What’s the role of women? Is it appropriate to clap after someone
sings something, or plays a musical instrument?
I’ve been to some congregations where the
leadership gives the impression that clapping is not appropriate in church –
they say expressions of worship through music and word are definitely NOT a
performance! And since it is not a
performance, but a prayer, and one doesn’t clap after prayers… one ought not
clap after a musical prayer either.
And I’ve been to other church communities where clapping is quite normal
after musical expressions of prayer.
There are way more questions where these came from… but you get
the idea. The answers to these
questions, and the place the answers come from, are based on particular ideas
about God… and church… and what we’re supposed to (or NOT
supposed to) do before our God on Sunday
mornings (or Saturdays, or Fridays).
In the story, we hear what Jesus did (healed the woman)… and how some of the religious leaders
reacted to what he did… and how Jesus
responded to them.
Of course J. was right!
Because we agree with him!
Now, Jesus (or the bible for that matter) didn’t prescribe the
“right” response to every possible combination of life and worship and God we
might possibly face. So if it’s not
answered for us, then what ends up happening is we think the “right” thing –
the most appropriate thing – is what we are most familiar with, what we
want to have happen, what we think is right…
And what we end up with are different situations that might have
different answers… depending on who’s asking the question; situations where loyal, faithful people
might actually disagree …
Such as…
What’s the purpose of the church? Really… what is the purpose of church?
To do the will of God?
Take care of the building? Pay
the bills that having a church building incurs? How much of a responsibility do the
people have towards things like the building?
What’s the role of the people of God? How many of you think we actually have a job
in all this “Christian” stuff? What
are our critical roles in the work of God?
Do you think our role is to “make disciples”, as J. said very
often? Look at the Gospel stories,
and count the number of times Jesus calls his disciples to make further
disciples.
I’ll save you the trouble
– it’s LOTS.
And if this is the case…
one can safely assume it’s pretty important. So… how are we doing in that? As denominations… As congregations… As individuals….??
Here’s another question – What role does money play in the life
of a disciple of Christ? Truth is,
in each of our lives, money plays a very critical role.
A related question – What is our spiritual relationship with
money? Have we ever even considered
the Question?
The last Sweat (Sweat
Lodge Ceremony) I did in Montana (Mission trip to a Reservation), the person
leading the sweat had all the things that would be used in the sweat placed
just outside the lodge and they were all blessed… including the money people
had given as a gift.
Now we do this every Sunday sort of… most churches that I know
do not place the money on the altar.
They might bring it up front, like we do, but then it’s shuttled off to
the side, and put away.
In this case, the man blessed all the money as well. I remember finding it a little jarring to
see money blessed, and then left there with all the other sacred objects.
And yet…. And yet… Jesus
talks more about money – and its place in the life of a person
– its… dare I say it… spiritual
component – than all other things combined.
Should we as Christians
-given what Jesus says about money and things- be as materialistic as our culture looks
like it is?
Should we as Christians
-given what Jesus says about discipleship- be as reluctant to share what we
believe?
“Yes, but…” Are
there exigent circumstances… are there
situations in our lives, living here in the US in the 21st century,
where we legitimately have a right to say to God… “Yes, but…”?
Is there room in the call of Christ for “good enough”?
Is it okay for one group of Christians to be “different”… in
thought, believe, action, practice, political persuasion, views on subjects as sexuality,
views on marriage… than other groups of
Christians?
When do we go from
“different views are okay”
to “now they’ve crossed the
line”? And who makes that
determination? You? The Pastor? The Bishop? The Pope?
The answers we come up with – both consciously; through policies
and doctrines and rules… and
unconsciously; those values we hold as important but haven’t yet dug up from or
souls the reasons for our answers… have
tremendous
impact on what we hold as important… and right… and true….
That which we value – that which we hold dear – hold onto for
dear life… THESE things impact how we answer the whole God-and-Church-and-life
experience.
Whether they’re right or wrong… they tend to hold sway.
Sometimes they’re challenged… sometimes they’re not.
Whatever your way of doing it…
(your way of answering the whole God-and-Church-and-life thing) – the
Society of the Holy Trinity or the Evangelical Order of the
Cross/Franciscan… remember that Jesus often came and killed these Sacred Cows
people tended to make.
There’s a book title from a few decades back that I think
expressed this best: “Sacred Cows
Make Gourmet Burgers” (insert polite
nervous laughter here)
For you who actually inserted polite nervous laughter
there… maybe it was funny.
But what if it’s your sacred cow being butchered…
then it’s not so funny. What if it’s your
values being challenged… not so funny.
Then it’s personal! So
what do we do? Fight back? Or Listen….
We also criticize the religious leaders that questioned
him. And laugh at them as Jesus
chastises them. Those silly
people! How they didn’t get it!!!
But I’ve always wondered how Jesus might react to all of us… and
all we’ve built… in his name? I’ve
always wondered how welcoming we’d be to him in his return… particularly us
professional clergy types; pastors, bishops, etc. You know, those of us who have the most
invested in this religious system. Would
we be telling our congregations to NOT listen to this crazy radical? That we are expecting the return of the
Messiah… but this guy sure ain’t him!
Here’s a quote from a book – a little dated but highly
recommended – called “Nickel And Dimed In America: On (Not) Getting By In
America”, by Barbara Ehrenreich
“The preaching
goes on, interrupted by dutiful ‘amens.’ It would be nice if someone would read
this sad-eyed crowd the Sermon on the Mount, accompanied by a rousing
commentary on income inequality and the need for a hike in the minimum wage.
But Jesus makes his appearance here only as a corpse; the living man, the
wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist, is never once mentioned, nor
anything he ever had to say. Christ crucified rules, and it may be that the
true business of modern Christianity is to crucify him again and again so that
he can never get a word out of his mouth. I would like to stay around for the
speaking in tongues, should it occur, but the mosquitoes, worked into a frenzy
by all this talk of His blood, are launching a full-scale attack. I get up to
leave, timing my exit for when the preacher’s metronomic head movements have
him looking the other way, and walk out to search for my car, half expecting to
find Jesus out there in the dark, gagged and tethered to a tent pole” (pp.68-69).
Can we agree that Jesus came to help us see better, to help us live
better, to help us be better people?
Here – in our churches, in our gatherings together – perhaps we have a
chance to look at our values, those things we really, actually believe… based
on how we think, and what we do. And
we’re invited to perhaps change our meals.
Gourmet burgers anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment