Unknown's avatar

A Prayer for the Common Good on The Fifth Sunday in Lent

O Lord, by all your dealings with us, whether of joy or pain, of light or darkness, let us be brought ever closer to you. Let us not value your grace simply because it makes us happy, or because it makes us sad, because it gives us or denies us what we want, but because all that you send us bring us to you. Let us realize that in knowing your perfection, we may be sure in every disappointment that you are still loving us, that in every darkness you are still enlightening us, and that in every bump in our journey’s road you are giving us life, just as in death you gave life to your Son, our savior Jesus Christ.

O Lord, our whole world is in the midst of struggle about our future, and there is great fear and uncertainty among us. We worry about war and peace, about terror and trouble, about the environment and the economy. Calm us down and let us speak to each other as those who have a common stake in our life together, as neighbors rather than as adversaries

Keep us from rancor and strife, from rumors and accusations. Let us seek the truth as best we can know it, and the common good above our own particular interests. Deliver us from the need to build ourselves up by cutting others down.  Let us listen more than we talk, and think before we speak, and realize that we are all in this together,

O Lord, you alone can control the days that are gone and the deeds that are done; remove from our burdened memory the weight of past years, that being set free both from the comfort of complacency and the paralysis of remorse, we may reach forth to those things which lie before us, and press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ. Amen.

(Photo: R. L. Floyd)

Unknown's avatar

George Hunsinger: Answer to a Question About Baptism

 

Recently I was so impressed with George Hunsinger’s “Are The Gospels Reliable? A Letter to a Young Inquirer,” which I saw on Ben Myers’ site, that I asked him if he had other such helpful catechetical resources.

Dr. Hunsinger, who teaches systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, is not only a first rank academic theologian, but a faithful Christian concerned with the catechesis of the faith at every level, witnessed to by his guiding  involvement in the most recent (1998) Presbyterian Catechism.

Years ago, he was my first advisor for what became my A Course in Basic Christianity, a project subtitled “Remedial Catechesis for Adults.”  I often call it “Everything you should have learned in confirmation, but probably didn’t because you had other things on your mind.”

As always he keeps ecumenical concerns in view.  Here he addresses a thoughtful letter on Christian baptism with the same clear and careful thinking that he brought to the earlier letter on the scriptures, and also to his most recent book on The Eucharist and Ecumenism (Cambridge, 2008).

I quote both the letter and his response  in full with his permission:

“Dear Dr. Hunsinger,

I’ve recently been stymied as to how to understand baptism theologically.  As a “good” Lutheran I’ve always understood baptism as a means of grace, through which the spirit both quickens and awakens faith in the baptized, with the old Adam drowned and the New Creation raised to New Life in Christ.

However, I’m currently in a course on the Radical Reformation, in which we’ve been reading the anabaptist, Balthasar Hubmaier, who argues for a different, though biblically defensible understanding, with Baptism a human response to grace already received, a profession of one’s desire to live according to “the Rule of Christ.”

These conflicting notions of baptism demanded further reflection, and so I turned to Barth’s IV/4, with only greater confusion ensuing.

All this is to say, I’m unsure of how to locate baptism in terms of justification. If Christ is the one in whom we are elected, if he is our justification, and the one in whom we are crucified and raised to New Creation, where do we locate baptism?

Is it simply the awakening of the believer, through faith, to our already present justification? Can we be said to play a role in this, perhaps passively, but a kind of consent to what has already been accomplished for our sake? At any rate, the issue seems to be an incredibly confusing one, and I’m unsure how to think about this. Any guidance you might provide would be appreciated.”

“Dear N,

I agree that this is a difficult and confusing question.  Furthermore, I don’t find Barth’s views in IV/4 to be entirely convincing.  In the end, his position seems more nearly Anabaptist than Reformed.

You might want to read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about baptism.  It at least takes adult baptism as the norm from which to understand infant baptism.  I think this is an advance over traditional Reformational views (e.g., Lutheran and Reformed).

Infant baptism complicates the matter enormously.  To make sense of it, I think we need a Christ-centered eschatology of participation.  On these grounds we can posit an objective participation in Christ that anticipates its fulfilment in subjective (conscious and active) participation at a later date.  We could then see the baptism of an infant as somehow being “proleptic.”  Baptism would be the means by which the infant is included, objectively, in Christ and his community by grace, but this grace would need to be fulfilled when the infant later responds to the Gospel with faith.  So there is an “already” here and a “not yet.”  In baptism the faith of the parents and the community would function vicariously for the infant until confirmation.

The grace of baptism would be the grace of participatio Christi.  This grace would precede conscious faith on the part of the baptized infant, and it would be fulfilled only when the infant affirms Christ by faith later in life.

This view would not quite amount to “baptismal regeneration.”  I don’t really know what to do with this idea.  I’d like to work something out that would not be church-dividing.  Perhaps we could use the same conceptual pattern that I have been suggesting here.  It would be a pattern of moving from precondition to fulfillment.  We could see baptism as an objective precondition for the justification and regeneration that will later be actualized, confirmed and fulfilled by faith.  What was once actual objectively becomes actual, in a new and essential form, subjectively.

Is baptism necessary for salvation?  Catholics think so.  Protestants often don’t.  I think we could probably resolve this one by asking, “necessary in what sense”?  “Absolutely” (simpliciter), or only “in a certain respect” (secundum quid)?  I think baptism could only be “necessary” in a certain respect.  It is always fitting and necessary unless certain obstacles intervene to prevent it (as sometimes happens).

I wrote an article about baptism about 10 years ago for the International Journal of Systematic Theology.  I would revise it along the above lines if I were to re-print it today.

With best regards,

Dr. Hunsinger”

Unknown's avatar

Extravagant Love and the Smells of Passion: Reflections on John 12:1-8

Mary of Bethany pours out a whole pound of expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet. This is an extravagant, seemingly wasteful and impulsive act. And why would she pour it on his feet and not on his head, as would have been the normal act of hospitality for anointing? Because, although you would anoint a living man on the head, this is how you would begin to prepare a corpse for burial.

The house immediately fills up with the smell of perfume. I once ordered my wife two bottles of her perfume on-line, since it is hard to find in stores. I ripped opened the paper package and handed it to her, and she went to pull one of the bottles out of the package, but it had one of those decorative plastic tops that pull off. The top held the bottle just long enough to let it be pulled out of the package and then it let go and we had a smashed bottle of perfume on our bathroom floor. I can assure you that the smell of it quickly filled up the room, and this was just a few ounces, not a pound.

So Lazarus’ house, where his sisters live, is now smelling really good. Here’s an interesting connection: remember how in the story of the raising of Lazarus when Jesus approached the tomb, Martha had warned him that there would be a stench, because Lazarus had been dead for four days. (John 11:39)

This time Mary has filled the house with the fragrance of devotion to overcome the stench of death. Fragrance is often used in the Bible as a metaphor for a sacrificial offering. In 2 Corinthians 2:14-16, Paul refers to Christians themselves as a fragrance that spreads the knowledge of God. He writes, “But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him.”

So Mary’s act was fragrant as well as flagrant! Then she began to wipe Jesus’ feet with her hair. What is the significance of this? Jewish women of the time usually wore their hair tied up in public. There would have been only two occasions when their hair would have been loose like this, when undressing for a husband, or as a sign of distraction in mourning. So Mary plays the role of both unabashed lover and soon to be mourner as she wipes Jesus’ feet with her hair.

But Judas, the treasurer of the disciples, has different thoughts. You might say, “He caused a stink!” Judas criticizes Mary. He says, “What a waste! That perfume was worth a year’s wages. Surely it could have been put to better use. Could it have not been sold and the proceeds given to the poor?” In this case Judas’ condemnation of Mary serves as a reminder that any act of faith will always have someone to criticize it and complain about it.

It is interesting that Judas is a character both at this dinner and at the Last Supper. The Greek word for “dinner” is used in John’s Gospel only in two places: here and at the Last Supper. There is another interesting connection with the Last Supper: the word used to describe Mary’s “wiping” with her hair is the same word used to describe Jesus wiping the disciples feet. There is clearly a close connection between this supper and the Last Supper. What do they share? They are both preparatory to Jesus death. At this dinner, Mary knows that Jesus is about to die and anoints him. At the Last supper, Jesus tries to interpret his coming death to the disciples with a ritual meal.

Judas’s role here is interesting, too. Not only is he in both stories, he lays a similar role. He is described as a thief here, kleptes in the Greek, which is the same word used earlier in John’s Gospel to describe the unreliable hired hand who threatens the flock. Judas is a like the dishonest hireling, a thief and a betrayer. There is a word here for the church, too. When Judas betrays Jesus, he betrays the flock as well. Which is to say that if Mary is the model of the faithful disciple, then Judas is the model of the unfaithful disciple.

But Jesus doesn’t accept Judas’ complaint. He says to Judas, “Leave her alone. She bought it (the perfume) so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” The word “leave” here is the same word in Greek as “forgive” in the Lord’s Prayer. It means let it go.

“Let it go, Judas. Mary is right and you are wrong!” That is what Jesus is saying. That Mary is devoted and true, and Judas is dishonest and false. And it is interesting that in this story, the virtues Jesus praises are the seemingly wasteful and extravagant act of Mary.

What are we to make of this? A few thoughts:

• First, I think we need to be careful not to extract this story out of its context and make a general principle out of extravagance. Jesus is saying, “There’s a time and a place. My time is short, Mary’s devotion to me at the brink of my death is a better thing than business as usual.”

• Secondly, Mary has truly understood both the trajectory of Jesus’ special vocation and the very nature of God. The extravagance of her act mirrors the extravagance of God’s love. We got a glimpse of that extravagance last week in the story of the Prodigal Son. We see it again today. Here is a God who does not know when to stop. Whose love knows no limits. The pouring out of Jesus’ own life later that same week for the sins of the whole world will also be an extravagant act of love. What kind of love is this? This is the love that pours itself out.

• Thirdly, this story is not a repudiation of the church’s ministry to the poor. Yes, the poor are still always with us, but Martha, ever the activist, is not wrong in acting like a good deacon and trying to feed the empty mouths around her. That is the church’s vocation in every generation. But a frenetic activism will soon burn itself out if it doesn’t fathom the extravagant generosity and love of God. The world, not to mention the church, would have a hard time running itself without any Marthas, but without the flagrant and fragrant offering of the Marys, the church runs the risk of understanding God as just the distributor of a calculated justice rather than as the extravagant lover he is. As we saw last week, for Jesus it is all about grace, not about bookkeeping.

So it is no accident that Jesus offers love of God as the first and greatest commandment, and love of neighbor as the one that follows. For it is only when we have known ourselves to be the recipients of divine generosity that we are really able to see the neighbor in need, not as an object of pity or charity, but as a fellow sinner, forgiven and loved by God, and thereby worthy of our compassion.

As we prepare to observe Christ’s coming passion and death, we might ask ourselves “what kinds of service God requires of us?” Where have we been stingy where God has been extravagant? How do we use what God has so generously given us in ways that are truly acts of devotion as well as service. Have we worried too much about holding on to the things that are precious to us? Have we withheld those gifts that might have given both God and us true pleasure in the giving?

And how we might make of ourselves a flagrant and fragrant offering to God?

C. S. Lewis once wrote, “ The allegorical sense of Mary’s great action dawned on me the other day. The precious alabaster box which one must break over the Holy feet is one’s heart. Easier said than done. And the contents become perfume only when it is broken. While they are safe inside, they are more like sewage.”

Sewage comes up in this week’s epistle as well (a better translation of the Greek word that Paul uses than “rubbish”). Paul wrote, “For Christ’s sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.”

Sewage! Rubbish! More strong smells. What is it that made these people of faith believe that it is only in extravagant giving that the things we cling to can be transformed into a pleasing fragrant offering to God? Did they recognize that the death of this man, this Jesus, this costly outpouring of life and love, is worth far more than the things we think of as precious.

In these final Lenten days, may we take in the extravagance of that precious love poured out for us by Jesus. “Walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

(Picture:  Christ in the House of Mary and Martha, Johannes Vermeer, National Gallery of Scotland)
Unknown's avatar

What to call the first half of the Christian canon? How about The Old Testament!

One of the limitations of being a pastor is that you don’t very often get to hear your colleagues and minister friends (or anybody, really) preach and lead worship, because you yourself are so occupied on the majority of Sunday mornings.

So for the last five years since I retired I have enjoyed from time to time visiting a variety of churches, mostly, but by no means exclusively, in my own denomination, the United Church of Christ.

In doing so I have experienced all manner of worship, some good and not so good preaching, and generally interesting approaches to the Lord’s Day worship of the people.

But one troubling feature of many of the  worship services I attended is the practice of calling the Old Testament reading by another name. I think this is a bad practice, and further adds to the confusion in the pews about just what the role of Scripture is in worship. Because we don’t pick these readings at random, as if we could just as easily pick some other one (say Kahlil Gibran or e.e. cummings.) No, these reading are our canon of Scripture, and define our identity as Christians.  The word canon comes from the word “rule” or “measure,” and it’s one of the ancient rules of our tribe, but now seemingly in jeopardy.

The most common practice that I have noticed is for congregations to call the first reading, “A Reading of the Hebrew Scriptures.”  It sounds good and fair, and who could object?   Well, me for one.

The reasons for calling it this are right-minded (a supposed sensitivity to Jews for one thing), but wrong-headed. For one thing, it isn’t entirely true, as the Hebrew Scriptures differ somewhat, and have an entirely different canonical order. And they are not actually all in Hebrew as there is some Aramaic in them. In academia, where I suspect this bad habit has been picked up by well meaning but misguided ministers, it makes a certain sense to call the academic study of the Hebrew Scriptures “the Hebrew Scriptures,” but congregations aren’t classrooms, and the liturgical use of Scripture is a different creature from the academic study of it (although the latter should certainly inform the other.)

So Sunday service bulletins should call it the Old Testament, which has the advantage of being the near universal practice of the ecumenical church, and also theologically correct, since it precedes the New.Old Testament doesn’t imply super-sessionism (the great fear of the revisionists), only chronology, and points to the arc of the whole Christian narrative, which is obviously contained in both of the two testaments.

Calling the first readings the Hebrew Scriptures also wrongly implies that the New Testament is the Christian Scriptures (sometimes, believe it or not, even just called that in some of our churches), which of course is dangerously false, as the Christian canon is both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Remember Marcion?

Furthermore, we Christians read the Old Testament (or should) through a different set of lenses than the Jewish community, precisely because of the New Testament. Which is to say that we read them in the light of the life, teaching, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or as we say in the jargon of the theological world, Christologically.And other common euphemisms for the old Testament, such “Our Common Scriptures,” or “First Reading” or “First Lesson” are no better, and share the same flaws. Some of this language may well be appropriate in an inter-faith service, but I am talking about it being used in our own worship.

Given the despicable history of Christian anti-Semitism it is understandable that we are trying to be sensitive to our Jewish brothers and sisters, whose faith and ours do indeed share common roots. But my Jewish rabbi colleagues, and I have had many of them, tell me they don’t understand this practice and it gives them no solace.

They (usually) would like to be in conversation with us, but not as a way to find some new religion that is netiher Jewish nor Christian. My best rabbi friend tells me that our honesty with each other comes about because he doesn’t apologize for being a Jew, and I don’t apologize for being a Christian, and so we can talk about where we agree and where we differ.And one of the places where we differ is in having different Scriptures, although they do indeed overlap. And for Christians, our Scriptures are the writings contained in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

So why else do we do this?  I think we do this to signal to ourselves and others how open we are,  and to make our mostly middle class congregants feel good about themselves, which is actually not what divine worship is for.So if you are calling the first reading something else in your congregation, just stop it. It’s proper name is the Old Testament!

(Photo:  Moses the Prophet, Icon from the Eastern Orthodox Church)
Unknown's avatar

The Preacher’s Burden: “Sunday’s Hour” by Arnold Kenseth

 

Arnold Kenseth wrote some wonderful poetry, but he never lost touch with the challenges of having to stand up on your hind legs each Sunday morning and try to make words become the Word for the people.  Here he names the impossibility of such a task, a task he and all preachers must nonetheless take up each week, because that is what God has called us to do. This is one of my favorites of his:

 

 

 

SUNDAY’S HOUR


Comes Sunday’s hour, and speech hangs itself
On God’s red tree. Preacher, word-monger, I
Defy the interdict, naming dark Yahweh, taking Him
And His fire in vain. O havoc, cry havoc! Sigh
His deep blue breath into phrases and praises. 
Still, it is impossible. He will not dwell half 
Or anywhere in my capture. Yet I must draw home 
The net, try to catch somehow His graces.

For it is by grace we live, and all the people
Must be told. So I could wish my body more 
Contained Him, that my walks more shaped, here 
And there, His amble. How ill beneath a steeple 
I incarnate! Despite me, then, come now, 
Let His enlightening strike us row by row.

(Arnold Kenseth, From Seasons and Sceneries, Windhover Press, 2002.  Photo by Wilson Poole
Unknown's avatar

Ruminations on Late Winter and Late Lent

 

I have been outdoors more this Lent than perhaps ever before.  There has been lots of winter hiking and snowshoeing, which has been a real and unexpected blessing for me, since for various health reasons I have been unable to hike the trails for a couple of years, something I have sorely missed.

So many of my Lenten reflections have been on snowy trails in the nearby Pittfsfield State Forest, just a ten-minute drive from my home.  During the week there is hardly anyone there; often I hike for hours without seeing a soul.

I have gone out in all kinds of weather, and joyfully watched the daily changes that were taking place there, just as I was noticing the daily changes taking place within me.

I have always loved to be outdoors, but in my theological writings I have shied away from too much talk about it because it so easily degenerates into a kind of nature worship, or the garden variety pantheism of so much popular culture.

God is surely known in his Word, Jesus Christ, in the preaching of the same, and in the bread we share and the cup we drink together.  He is known to in the daily life of his congregations, where I served for more than thirty years.  These things I know.

But this Lent I found God’s presence too in the small rivulets running under the ice even in the hard frozen days.  Many of my Lenten Ruminations here on this blog have been illustrated with photos I have taken in the forest, with my ancient digital camera.  I wasn’t sure why.

It took some time before I made the connection between what I was seeing in the woods and streams and what was taking place in my own Lenten journey.

Today I went hiking in the rain with my daughter and her boyfriend for about three and a half hours.  It was mostly just drizzle or light rain.  The snow and ice are melting from the week-end’s heavy rains, the brooks and streams are filling up.  It is late winter.  A week from today is officially spring (though not really here!)

Today I saw a roaring swollen brook and I felt somewhere deep inside me that my Lent this year is almost over, and that I am almost ready.

I was wet, but happy.

(Photos:  top, Swollen Stream by R. L. Floyd;  bottom: Wet but Happyby R. M. Floyd)

Unknown's avatar

Tony Robinson: “Glenn Beck advises leaving your church. What gives?”

 

With apologies to my friends in the U.K., Down Under, and around the world, I am going to focus on one of our current domestic concerns here in the States.

Because we have a serious problem that is profoundly influencing our national political  discourse. We are plagued here right now with right wing demagogs (we have left wing ones, too, but far fewer and hardly anybody is listening to them) who are spilling their venomous bile by means of Cable TV and Talk-radio.  People like Rush Limbaugh, who are essentially entertainers, have millions of listeners who believe their every pronouncement.

The worst of these fear-mongers tend to be on the Fox Network, which has become the house organ for the very worst impulses of the Republican party. But this is not so much about politics as about the poisoning of any chance of serious adult conversation about important matters facing our country and both parties.

The current bad boy is a clown named Glenn Beck (photo, left), and the only reason I mention him at all (because he is truly worthy of our inattention) is many people believe his nonsense, and he recently advised Christians to leave their churches if they heard any mention of social justice, which I would imagine might be all of them if they are reading the same Bible I am.

My friend Tony Robinson has written insightfully about this on several blogs, where he often gets flamed. I liked this post from Friday so much I am going to post it in its entirety, with his permission. This is from a Seattle on-line site called Crosscut:

March 12, 2010

Glenn Beck advises leaving your church. What gives?

What is it about our lives today that this kind of distortion of simple truths about the church, and its commitment to “social justice,” sells so well?

Holding a placard with the trademark hammer and sickle of Communism in one hand, and the swastika of Nazism in the other, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck last week told his listeners that churches that talk about “social justice” are really fronts for Communism and Nazis and they should flee them as fast as they are able.

“I beg you look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church’s website. If you find it run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.”

Beck’s urging of disaffiliation cuts a broad swath in the ecclesiastical landscape, running from the Unitarians to the Catholic Church. In between he would catch mainline Protestants like the United Methodists, Presbyterian Church USA, and United Church of Christ, the Black Church tradition, as well as many Evangelical and Pentecostal congregations.

Responding to Beck, Evangelical leader Jim Wallis urged “Christians to leave Glenn Beck.”

Whether you look to the Scriptures of the Old or New Testaments or to historic teaching of popes and theologians, a concern for a just society is an unavoidable part of Christian faith and teaching. From the Old Testament prophet Micah, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly before God,” to Jesus’ preaching, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” — justice is part of the message.

Is social justice the whole message? No, it is but one part of Christianity though certainly an integral one.

Still, Beck’s flamboyant claim that religion fronting a political agenda is a turn-off found confirmation (though not the kind Beck has in mind) in a recent Pew Research study of “Religion Among the Millennials,” (ages 18 – 29). While the majority tends to be believers, this group is disaffiliating from churches. But according to Pew they are not leaving because churches care about social justice; pretty much the opposite. “Youth’s disaffection is largely due to discomfort with religiosity having been tied to conservative politics.” If there’s too much politics in religion, at least the millennials see that as more of a Religious Right issue.

On another recent occasion Beck went after the idea of “community.” Speaking to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Beck claimed that the Founders were against community. Listening to his weird rant, I found myself recalling the eloquent words of John Winthrop [picture: above right], Puritan leader and first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, as he preached aboard ship before landing in the new world.

As the Arabella drew toward land, Winthrop warned that the only way to avoid a figurative shipwreck “and to provide for our posterity is to follow the Counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love kindness, to walk humbly with God, for this end, we must be knit together as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly Affection, we must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities . . . we must delight in each other, make others’ Conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our Commission and Community in the work . . .”

One would have to count Winthrop among the founders, I’d think.

So what does the popularity of a person who so distorts both religion and history, as seems to be Glenn Beck’s stock-in-trade, tell us? That this kind of things sells? But that begs the question. What does that tell us? That the long and ugly American tradition of anti-intellectualism and right-wing demagoguery is alive and well? That contemporary Americans are now so ill-informed about history and theology that they will buy this? Or does this suggest some new low-water mark in American culture?

I find it hard to say for sure what the Beck phenomenon tells us. Except possibly this, the anxiety level in America today is very high — orange alert for sure, maybe red. And anxiety, in such large and steady doses, makes us stupid.

(Anthony B. Robinson is an author and teacher who is former senior pastor at Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle. For the past several years, his column on religion and values appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.)

Unknown's avatar

Who’s afraid of the big bad cross? The bloodless theology of the mainline church. Thoughts on 2 Corinthians 5:16-21.

If you were to worship in an American conservative evangelical church that hasn’t yet sold its soul to the prosperity Gospel, there is a good chance you may soon hear a sermon about the cross.

Not so in many Mainline churches.  I have been ruminating about why this is, given the cross’ important place in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s writings, of which the Epistle Lesson appointed for tomorrow, 2 Corinthians 5:16-2, is a prime example.

This passage is clearly about the atonement, which was a word invented by Tyndale (“at-one-ment”) to translate the same Greek word that is also translated as “reconciliation.”

I expect there will be many sermons preached from it in “our” pulpits on how we need to be ambassadors of reconciliation, which is an important message and one I have preached myself.

But what you are less likely to hear is why we Christians are to be ambassadors of reconciliation.  And that reason is clearly because “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,” which goes right to the heart of the Gospel, the act of God in Christ that became known as the atonement.

I have stopped using the term “liberal,” because it’s practically useless as a identifier, and its new substitute “progressive” carries political baggage that I find unhelpful.  I realize “mainline” has its own problems, but at least it covers a wider range of both theological and political positions.

So why do “we” (by whatever name) generally like the idea of reconciliation, yet not like the idea of atonement, even though they mean the same thing?

I have some thoughts.  One reason is some bad teaching in some of our seminaries, based on a view (false, in my view) that the cross is a bad business that perpetuates violence, which I have addressed elsewhere.  There is a current cottage industry making the rounds with this view, and many of our newer ministers, indoctrinated by it, are just uncomfortable or downright hostile to any atonement theology, however nuanced.

Another reason is that many folks who end up with our denominations are refugees from various traditions that have had excessive or morbid preoccupations with “the power of the blood,” and/or who have been subject to formulaic atonement theories that make God into a monster that needs blood sacrifice.  I have addressed that as well, in my book, When I Survey the Wondrous Cross:  Reflections on the Atonement.

I realize that some atonement theories can be monstrous, and I am aware of Stanley Hauerwas’s typically biting comment that if “you need a theory to worship Christ, go worship your theory.”

Nevertheless, what the word atonement connotes is at the crux (which is Latin for cross ) of our Gospel and proclamation if we are still to be called Christians.

And “the power of the blood,” however it has been misused, is just theological shorthand for Christ dying on our behalf, an act of the triune God, that does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, namely reconciling us to God and to one another.  This is why Paul says we are now ambassadors of reconciliation.

Yesterday I sent out a Passion hymn text to a number of my colleagues, thinking they might want to use it on Passion/Palm Sunday or during Holy Week.  Most thanked me, some said they would use it, but several said they had a problem with the” blood“ in it.

The first verse is:

“He died upon the lonely tree
forsaken by his God.
And yet his death means all to me
and saves me by his blood.”

If you want to see the rest of the hymn it can be found here.

As Passiontide and Good Friday loom, “we” might do well to ask ourselves just what it is we are going to preach about if “the work of Christ” and its symbolic language is off limits?

Unknown's avatar

“There is nothing to be afraid of!” A sermon on Psalm 27:1-2

When my daughter was a little girl she went through a fearful period when she would wake in the night, and come into our bedroom and stand quietly quivering next to our bed, typically on my wife’s side, where there was considerably more sympathy to be had, and where she was sometimes invited to stay under our covers until she fell back asleep.

It was actually kind of eerie. She would just stand there like an apparition until one or both of us awoke, and we would ask her what was the matter, and she would say in a little trembling voice, “I’m scared.”

And I would invariably say in a big Dad voice, “There is nothing to be afraid of, go back to bed.” It happened frequently enough for long enough to become a family story.

I was reminded of this last September, for during her very first week at Yale Divinity School, there was a well-publicized murder of a young woman in a Yale lab on what was supposed to be her wedding day.

My daughter’s new apartment is not far from the lab, where the victim’s body was eventually found hidden inside a wall, and the night her body was found, the dean at Yale e-mailed all the students warning them to be extra vigilant, as there might be a dangerous person in the vicinity. It turned out that the murder suspect was a colleague of the victim’s from work, and that allayed some of our fears that a random serial killer might be rampaging through the streets of New Haven.

But before we knew that, and on the night she received the e-mail from the dean, my now very confident 25 year-old daughter, who is tall and imposing, and graduated from Wellesley, where they teach the women that they can conquer the world and many of them do, called me on the phone, and her first words, in that same trembling little voice from long ago, were, “I’m scared.”

And I, of course, said, “There’s nothing to be afraid of,” and she started giggling. Then I told the truth and said, “I’m scared, too,” for I had indeed been worrying about her.

And, in fact, when she was a little girl, my reassurance that there was nothing to be afraid of was only a half-truth, the kind we parents must tell our children for a time. It was true that she was safe and sound in our big parsonage, with all the doors securely locked and with us present, and that is all I was trying to convey to her.

But the larger truth that you don’t tell a small child is that there is plenty to be afraid of in our world, and all of us learn that sooner or later.

And not too much later in her young life, we had some very real events to make a child, or an adult for that matter, afraid. First, we had an arsonist setting fires on people’s back porches while they were sleeping, right in our immediate neighborhood, and I worked patrolling shifts for our newly formed neighborhood watch organization.

Then we actually had a serial killer who kidnapped and eventually murdered several children, one of whom played in Little League with the son of some good friends of ours. The man was eventually caught when he tried to snatch a girl off the main street of Pittsfield just a few hundred feet from the church where I served. She wisely wriggled out of her back-pack and ran away, and an alert driver behind them wrote down his license plate.

So not long ago she reminded me of all these things and said, “Dad, no wonder I was a fearful child, there were dangerous people in our neighborhood. I should have been afraid.”

Our world has plenty to be afraid of, no only from disturbed people, but from earthquakes like the ones in Chile and Haiti, and hurricanes like Katrina, and droughts and famines and other natural disaster, as well “the evil men do to one another.”

But it is also a wonderful world, as Louis Armstrong sang long ago, and I love to hike in it and bike in it and watch its sunsets and listen to its birdsong.

It is, in the larger Christian story, a world made good by God, but fallen. And fear is part of its fallen-ness.

In one of the darker chapters of human history, the poet W. H. Auden captured our plight the way that sometimes only a poet can. In his poem September 1, 1939, as the Nazi tanks rolled into the Low Countries to begin the war that would engulf the world in flames and blood, he sat at a bar in New York City, and described the human condition thus. We are, he wrote:

“Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.”

The story we will be hearing again in the next weeks is the story of God’s rescue mission to this fallen and fearful world through the work of the man Jesus of Nazareth. It is itself a fearful story, even for those of us who know the glorious outcome, but we have miles to go before we get there.

Psalm 27 talks about fear. Here the Psalmist, who from now on I will call “David,” moves back and forth from declarations of great confidence like the opening to lists of all the many things he has every right to be afraid of.

And I really like this, because I believe that faith lives in the midst of our fears.

John Calvin writes about this passage: “When David declares, “My heart shall not fear,’ this does not imply that he would be entirely devoid of fear, — for that would have been more worthy of the name of insensibility than of virtue.”

In other words, David had every right be afraid of the army encamped about him. Imagine it. He sees their campfires every night, he can hear their trumpets, and he knows they can attack him at any time. I’d be afraid, too.

And Calvin goes on to say: “Under the terms, camps and armies, [David] includes whatever is most formidable in the world.”

So though the names and faces of the powerful who hold the world in thrall will change, the truth of the Psalm remains: “Although all men should conspire for my destruction, I will disregard their violence, because the power of God, which I know is on my side, is far above theirs.”

The Good News here is that the principalities and powers of this age, and any age, are ultimately subordinate to the power of God, though as the rest of Psalm 27 amply shows, they manage through their subordinates (in this case “the army encamped about David”) to give both David and, with the necessary changes, us, plenty about which to be afraid, at least in the short run.

This faith in the power of God, as Calvin writes, is not the complete absence of fear, as in a more Eastern religious calm through meditation and detachment. No, the fears are quite real.

So faith always lives in the midst of our fears, but it is that same faith that knows “when the trial comes, our faith will prove invincible, because it relies on the power of God.”

And the final power of God will finally be made manifest in weakness, on a Roman cross. This Jesus knows, and this is why he must go to Jerusalem.

So there are two kinds of fears, and they are quite different, though it is often hard to distinguish between them, because they get all wrapped up in each other.

First, there are the real fears, as when David has an enemy encamped around him, or when we had an arsonist, and then a serial killer in our neighborhood. Or when someone ties to blow up the airplane you are on with explosives in his jockey shorts. These are real fears.

But there is also a kind of fear that is not real. It holds some kind of power over us, and it is not attached to a specific threat. This kind of generalized fear is not good for us. It makes us less than who God wants us to be. It robs us of dignity and courage, and makes us act in ways that are not worthy of us.

And I am convinced that some of the nastiness in our public discourse right now is based on exactly that kind of fear.

The Great Recession we are in, or have just gone through, depending on who you believe, is something that most of us have never known in our lifetime. It has stirred up a lot of the second kind of fear, the unnamed and unknown fears about our future, and the future of our country. It is true that there are real things to fear from it, like losing our jobs or our homes or our pensions. That is real fear,

But the second kind is different; the general pervasive kind of fear that takes on a larger life of its own. It begins to eat us up, and attaches itself to every part of life. I call it 4 o’clock in the morning fear.

Do you know what I am talking about? Do you know that kind of fear? I suspect you do.

I know I do. I know it all too well. And there is just enough reality in our fears to give them some credibility, but their power over us is larger than they deserve.

And I know that these are the kind of fears that can debilitate one’s life, and in some real way, they are the very opposite of faith, and so they must be dealt with.

So here we are in Lent, the season of self-examination and repentance.

My Lenten admonition to you all, both as individuals and as a congregation, is to figure out those fears that keep you from being who God has made you to be. Identify them, name them, and call their bluff, because they really have no actual power over you that you don’t give them.

That is the Good News on which we can stand secure. Because in that final trip to Jerusalem that Jesus was waiting to make, and ultimately did make, he defeated the powers that threaten us, including our unreal fears, along with some other big things “that go bump in the night,” like death and sin.

Oh, we still sin, and we still die, and we will still be afraid, but the power has gone out of them. Because Jesus took them all to the cross with him, and there they died with him. And believing that is a good part of what makes us Christians.

For the real power in the world is the power of the living God, that we are called to live out of day by day, even in those fearful times when we can’t see it or feel it.

So as I used to say my daughter, “There is nothing to be afraid of.” And this time I really mean it.

“The LORD is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear?
The LORD is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?” Amen.

(This is excerpted from a sermon entitled “Whom Shall I Fear?” that I preached at Charlemont Federated Church, Charlemont, MA, on February 27, 2010)

Unknown's avatar

Dietrich Bonhoeffer on living in the “Middle of the Village”

 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)  wrote this to his friend Eberhard Bethge from prison the year before he was executed by the Nazis:

“I find all this talk about human limits questionable. (Can even death, since people hardly fear it now, or sin, which people hardly even comprehend now, still be called genuine “limits?”) I always have the feeling we are merely fearfully trying to save room for God; I would rather speak of God at the center than at the limits, in strength rather than in weakness, and thus in human life and goodness rather than in death and guilt.

As far as limits are concerned, I think it best simply to remain silent and to leave the unresolvable unresolved. The belief in resurrection is not the “solution’ to the problem of death. The “beyond” of God is not the “beyond” of our cognitive capacity. Epistemological transcendence has nothing to do with God’s transcendence. God is “beyond” our lives. The church is found not where human capacity fails, at the limits, but rather in the middle of the village. This is the sense of the Old Testament, and we still do not read the New Testament enough from the perspective of the Old Testament.

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Eberhard Bethge Tegel prison, April 30,1944)

I read this as a call for the church to be fully engaged in the life around it, and not be a conventicle that separates itself from the “world.”  Certainly Bonhoeffer himself engaged his times and society, and gave his life for doing so.  But it is so hard to be “in the world and not of it.”