Just say "No!"

In The United Methodist Book of Worship (BOW), there are guidelines for conducting a variety of worship services.  As you might expect, there are rituals for marriage, for funerals, for Holy Communion and for a variety of other church observances. 

The portal for participating in all such events is Baptism.  The BOW there are six services of Baptismal Covenant that address a variety of contexts.  The language for each of these includes a pair of questions early in the ritual.  These are:

            Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness,
            reject the evil powers of this world,
            and repent of your sin?

Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you

to resist evil, injustice, and oppression
            in whatever forms they present themselves?

All who would become a part of The United Methodist Church answer these questions in the affirmative, or the service does not continue.

“Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness…?”  I would agree that, at one level, that leaves a lot open to interpretation.  But on the other hand, there is a certain amount of “I know it when I see it” involved.  I wouldn’t want to involve myself in the pages and pages it could take to come anywhere close to defining “the spiritual forces of wickedness.”  But, if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely a duck.  The ritual question doesn’t invoke words like “sin” or “unrighteousness.” It says “wickedness.”  The word itself leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  For the living of these days the church calls us to renounce and reject those things that do not glorify God.  I’m sorry – that is simple enough.  The day’s news headlines give ample illustration of what does and does not glorify God.  Invoking the name of God for the sake of a Fallen agenda does not glorify God.  A prayer circle on the floor of congress where the participants invoke the name of Jesus in order to dismantle health care and providing a basic living for those in need while establishing a budget for ICE that exceeds that of the FBI and CIA does not glorify God. 

The second question amplifies the first: “Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?”  Freedom.  Freedom to resist or accept.  The freedom to make choices is one of the first options extended to the newly-created man and woman in the Book of Genesis.  They made a poor choice, but the choice was theirs to make.  The church here encourages us to employ our freedom in order to make the right choice.  Say “No” to evil.  Say “No” to injustice.  Say “No” to oppression.  And say no to each and every form in which these wicked forces make themselves known.

Renounce.  Resist.  Embrace those things that glorify God.

And no matter who the proponent – government, office-holders, obscenely wealthy heads of corporations, law enforcers, politicians who are too busy feathering their nests to govern efficiently and fairly, thugs on the streetcorner – no matter who.  Say no.  Just no.  No.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

thoughts on 2 Kings 5:1-14

 1 Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.  2 Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife.

3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”  4 Naaman went to his master and told him what the girl from Israel had said.

 5 “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold and ten sets of clothing.  6 The letter that he took to the king of Israel read: “With this letter I am sending my servant Naaman to you so that you may cure him of his leprosy.”  7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”

 8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.”  9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house.  10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”

 11 But Naaman went away angry and said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.  12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage.

13 Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!”  14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.

I truly believe that churches ought to read this story without comment about once a month.  Don’t preach it.  Don’t wax eloquent about lessons learned.  Don’t say, “Now, aren’t we often like Naaman the Syrian?”  Just put it out there and let it do its work.  It is a powerful statement about God, about God’s servants, and about pilgrims who would approach God.

There are a lot of secondary issues here that could seduce us if we would let them. We could understand and even support this kidnapped servant girl if she had said to herself, “Well, there is a prophet in Israel who could help this leper.  But he has raided my home and taken me captive and pressed me into servitude.  Why should I do anything good for him?”

 The king of Israel is in a bit of a pickle.  Out of the blue a foreign general, and an officer of some repute, shows up at his door with a letter of introduction from a rival king extolling Israel’s king to cure this military man of his leprosy.  We comprehend that the Israelite king believes that this foreigner has come to pick a fight.  We could spend a lot of time reflecting on the king’s conundrum.

There us the conduct of Elisha himself that puzzles us.  We sort of expect our great biblical figures to be kind and accommodating and gentle.  (That is not always accurate, but that is often our anticipation.)  Their door is always open; they are always ready to receive visitors with a pot of hot tea and a tray of biscuits.  “Welcome!  Welcomed!  Come in!  What can I do for you?” is our unspoken attitude.  But Elisha here is curt, even rude.  Are we to infer that this is the recommended attitude for servants of God?

But these are inconsequential concerns.  What is on the front burner is that God is a mighty God, who will exercise power and mercy as God so chooses.  We also come to understand that God will work in whatever manner God wishes, irrespective of our preconceived notions.  I just love the point in this story where Naaman says, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.  Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So, he turned and went off in a rage.  He wants some magic words and grand gestures, maybe a little thunder and lightning.  Instead, Elisha stays indoors and sends him a message to perform the most mundane of acts.

I once heard Zan Holmes talk of visiting a physician’s office after a period of feeling less than vibrant.  The doctor performed all the usual testing and examining.  Then the doctor took out a prescription pad and wrote a little something on it, ripped the page from the pad, and gave it to the patient.  It said, “Walk.”  The patient was irate.  “How much is this examination costing me?”  “Five hundred dollars” was the doctor’s reply.  “Five hundred dollars!” said Holmes.  “For that kind of money, I want some LATIN!”

 Elisha wasn’t asking for grand gestures.  He wasn’t promising cosmic signs.  He was asking Naaman for a humility in which he would merely do what God (through Elisha)) asked him to do. 

I think we ourselves would fast or give or sacrifice in order to receive some blessing we couldn’t acquire otherwise.  But, ordinary acts, acts of humility, are at times the most difficult things to do.  Or we are resistant because they seem common.

Naaman’s servant advises his master, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’ ”

He’s a pretty good theologian.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

 

 

Some more thoughts on Luke 9

 Luke 9:51-62 (NRSVu)

⁵¹ When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. ⁵² And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to prepare for his arrival, ⁵³ but they did not receive him because his face was set toward Jerusalem. ⁵⁴ When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”^[a] 55 But he turned and rebuked them. ⁵⁶ Then^[b] they went on to another village.

 ⁵⁷ As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” ⁵⁸ And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” ⁵⁹ To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” ⁶⁰ And Jesus^[c] said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” ⁶¹ Another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” ⁶² And Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

I heard a sermon on this text Sunday (not a surprise – it is the gospel Lesson for the Third Sunday After Pentecost in the Revised Common Lectionary, and would have been the lesson for the day in numerous churches) that was by and large thoughtful and insightful.  But it left me begging at one point. 

The preacher talked of Jesus’ setting his face to Jerusalem, and of the resistance Jesus met in the Samaritan village.  The preacher spoke of the people whom Jesus summoned, and how one asked leave to go and bury a parent and another who responded by wanting to go and say some family farewells.  The pulpiteer demonstrated some depth of thinking that was encouraging.  But, in moving through the various elements of this pericope, the speaker omitted any reference to the encounter with the first individual altogether.  This is the person who said to Jesus, “I will follow you wherever you go.”  Jesus’ reply is, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

This omission could have been an expedient – preachers sometimes can’t address every issue in the time allotted for a sermon.  The preacher may have wanted to examine a single strand of thought and considered that this portion of the reading didn’t support that exploration.  It could be that, in the mind of the preacher, it would take too long to unpack this portion within the framework of the sermon.  Sometimes we just don’t know what to do homiletically with certain pieces of material.

I contend, however, that the omission of this portion interrupts the flow of the narrative.  If in reading 9:51-62, we push the other material aside, what remains is a three-fold pattern: “I will follow,” “Follow me,” and again “I will follow.”  In each small conversation, there is a kind of thesis statement (“I will follow,” “Let me first…” “I will follow, but…”  What Jesus offers in each instance is commentary.  To maintain that there are two or three separate stories here – I believe – is to lose track of what is going on.  Each portion is as vital to internalizing the story as another.  Without a part, we miss out on the whole.

Let me be quick to say that it is not my purpose to tear down this preacher or to diminish the work done.  I have said that I thought the presentation was thoughtful and insightful.  I am left not so much with criticism as with hunger.

As I have observed previously, the twice-stated subject of this overall thought is, “he set his face to go to Jerusalem.”  There are several responses to Jesus’ conviction.  I just would liked to have heard about them all.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

"And he set his face toward Jerusalem"

 Luke 9:51-62 (NRSVu)

⁵¹ When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. ⁵² And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to prepare for his arrival, ⁵³ but they did not receive him because his face was set toward Jerusalem. ⁵⁴ When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”^[a] 55 But he turned and rebuked them. ⁵⁶ Then^[b] they went on to another village.

 ⁵⁷ As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” ⁵⁸ And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” ⁵⁹ To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” ⁶⁰ And Jesus^[c] said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” ⁶¹ Another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” ⁶² And Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

This is the gospel lesson for Sunday, June 29 according to the Revised Common Lectionary.  Much of what is in this pericope is familiar to us.  But we frequently cherry-pick this passage and read fragments rather than the whole.  The fragments can be confusing.  A little clarity comes from considering the section as a whole.

Consider the several folks that Jesus encounters here.  There are the people of a  village in Samaria.  The text says that these Samaritans wouldn’t receive Jesus because “his face was set toward Jerusalem.”  That is an oddity, because it is unlikely that a Samaritan village would receive any Jew who was passing through their territory: “Jews have no dealings with Samaritans” -- John 4:9.

On the road, Jesus encounters someone who proclaims, “I will follow you wherever you go!”  Jesus dismisses him.  The reason is a bit unclear.  Jesus goes on to say, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”  If the volunteer is looking for a kind of permanence, he will not find it here.

Finally, there is a pair of people whom Jesus summons, and each one has a delaying response: “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”  Another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.”  Jesus then apparently moves on down the road and does not wait for these folks.

So, a village that says “No” on the basis of Jesus’ motive; a person who seeks to follow and is denied; and a brace of people who receive a call, but who make excuses.  What do these have in common.  And what do we take away from these seemingly disparate reactions to Jesus?”

Remember how this reading begins: “When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.”  That is no casual introductory statement.  It is in many ways the hinge upon which the entirety of Luke’s gospel depends.  We have had the infancy narrative and the record of the Galilean ministry.  But here, Jesus leaves home and hearth and familiar territory behind in order to travel to Jerusalem.  This is no trivial preliminary to a random road trip.  “When the days drew near for him to be taken up…” is an indication that Jesus intentionally embraced God’s plan, and that Jesus was now ready to set that plan in motion.  To go to Jerusalem is to go to Gethsemane, to the Judgement Hall of Pilate, to Calvary, to the Tomb.

One of the things that the other players in this little drama don’t get is that Jesus us going to Jerusalem to die.  The Samaritans may disagree with his choice of destination.  After all, Jerusalem is the seat of the powers that have rejected Samaritans for generations.  The person who would follow Jesus wherever he goes could not possibly intuit that Jesus was travelling to his time of sacrifice.  Those who gave a conditional “yes” to Jesus’ summons have no idea that they were delaying accompanying Jesus to a history-making moment over lesser priorities.

This entire reading is really a response to its opening line.  If Jesus is simply wandering across the landscape, then these encounters are trivial.  If these events are commentary on Jesus’ impending sacrifice, from our vantage point we see how short-sighted are the story’s participants.  

As modern-day disciples we see everything in light of the death (and resurrection, and ascension) of Jesus.  Our perceptions, our life choices, reflect our response the Lordship of Jesus Christ and his call on our lives.  Our preconceptions, our ill-considered thoughts and our mundane distractions can stand in the way of our following Jesus to the one destination that has any significance at all.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

The Colors of Advent

 

The liturgical colors that churches employ in the observance of Advent have become a point of contention in recent times.  Through the history of the church violet (or purple) has been a traditional color for the season.  In times when the church emphasized self-denial, fasting or penitence (as Advent was seen as a reflection of Lent, preparing for Christmas as Lent prepares for Easter in the theologies of the day) black was employed.  There is a long history of the use of blue in Advent, although the widespread display of this color waxed and waned through the centuries.  Blue is a color associated with Mary the Mother of Jesus in church iconography.  It is a representation of hope in the color palate of Christian symbolism.  The use of blue is enjoying a resurgence in recent years.  This is due in part to the re-defining of some Advent theologies by the Second Vatican Council in 1963.  Communions outside the Catholic community have adapted the Roman position and have embraced much of the current Advent thinking of Catholicism.  So, the fabric hangings that adorn our communion tables, lecterns and pulpits are blue in more and more churches.  Likewise, the stoles and other vestments that clergy wear during worship are more frequently blue in contemporary settings.

The color of candles in Advent wreathes is far from consistent.  Different geographical settings have (as might be expected) their own practices.  Northern European influence often results in candles that are all red on the outer ring of the wreath.  Many congregations that have recently established traditions use three violet (purple) candles and one rose candle (that is frequently misidentified as “pink.”)  Those not familiar with traditional church practices will often light the three violet candles on the first three Sundays of the season, and then light the fourth – rose – candle as a kind of “transitional” color between the solemn hues of violet and the joyful colors that we associate with Christmas.

In fact, the tradition of the rose candle is that it is lighted on the third Sunday of Advent.  You have to stay with me here: the lighting of the rose color on that day goes back to the time when Advent was thought to mirror Lent.  The third Sunday in Lent is Gaudete Sunday (GAW-di-tay).  It is a Latin term that we translate “rejoice.”  It is the initial word in the Catholic liturgy for that day.  On this occasion in medieval Catholicism, the Pope would give a golden rose to the favorites in his court.  So, on the third Sunday of Lent, the gift of a rose gave rise to the use of rose-colored fabrics in worship on that day as a kind of break in the solemnity of Lent.  As Lent influenced the observance of Advent, the rose color came to be associated with the third Sunday   of Advent.  Thus, the contemporary appearance of a rose candle in our Advent wreathes.   As this rationale has come to be rejected, a fourth violet candle frequently replaces the rose candle. 

Other wreathes use four blue candles, employing the imagery of that color that is also used in paraments and vestments.  The use of three blue and one rose candle has nothing historically or theologically to recommend it.

The First Sunday of Advent

We come to the beginning of a new year.  Not the calendar year, of course.  2019 will be upon us quickly enough.  December 2 marks the beginning of the Christian Liturgical Year.  The Western Church reckons time a little differently than secular observers.  So, we start a new year four Sundays before December 25 – Christmas.

 Advent literally means “to come” (from the Latin advenio).  The season is a many-layered period.  The church, all at the same time, anticipates the physical birth of Jesus, placing him in time and space.  The community of faith also begins the yer-long observance of the coming of the Savior of the world into human history.  In addition, believers look forward to the return of the exalted Son of Man in glory.  Lawrence Hull Stookey (Calendar: Christ’s Time for the Church, Nashville, Abingdon 1996) observes, “What may seem to be an anomaly is a very important theological point.  The beginning pf the liturgical year takes our thinking to the very end of things.” (p. 121)

 The friction in this time is that this is not the “Christmas Season.”  The retailers have been huckstering STUFF since the Fifth of July.  But the church does things differently.  Advent is a time of introspection.  It is a time of expectancy.  It is a time of not getting in a hurry.

 Time will pass quickly enough.  I look to enjoy the anticipation.

The Feast of St. Andrew

Today is the Feast of St. Andrew.  Andrew was one of the first Apostles -- along with his brother Peter --  called by Jesus.  He is the Patron Saint of Scotland. Tradition holds that he was one of the more widely-traveled of the Apostles. His evangelistic ministry took him to Greece, where in c. 60 A.D. he was martyred in Patras.  He asked to be crucified on an X-shaped cross (known as the St. Andrew’s Cross or Saltire) rather than a traditional cross, as he did not feel worthy to die on the same cross as Jesus.

St. Andrew did not visit Scotland, but several legends associate him with that country.  One such tradition says that  St. Regulus brought the relics of Andrew with him when he was shipwrecked on the Scottish shore.  This day is celebrated throughout the church, with great fanfare in some areas.

St. Andrew's Day is the very last day of the liturgical year.  Tomorrow is the first day of Advent, and a new cycle begins.