LOOK FOR THE LIVING

March 31, 2013

Easter Sunday

Isaiah 65:17-25

Luke 24:1-12

(prayer)

A quarter century ago, when I was a student at the Vancouver School of Theology, I went regularly to local United Churches (St. James for a couple of years and then Gilmore Park in my last year):  I taught some Sunday School, I led some youth group, I sang in the choir; I preached once or twice, and I sat in the pew and sought to nurture my spirit.

Everyone once and while, I liked to visit different churches (from different denominations) to experience the variety of the people of God.  I thought it would help make me a better minister once all my studies were done.

//

One Easter, a couple of friends of mine were visiting (we all went to different kinds of churches back home) and we decided to seek out a place to worship, where things might be lively and exciting.  And so, we picked a church that (I had never been too, but) belonged to one of those denominations with a reputation for charismatic worship services.  I was ready to really get into the joy of Easter!  Ready to raise my hands and shout some ‘amens’ and ‘hallelujahs’!!

He is lord.  He is lord.

He is risen from the dead and he is lord.

Every knee shall bow

and every tongue confess,

that Jesus Christ is lord.

//

I was ready. 

And I waited… and waited.

//

But all the pastor talked about was that Jesus suffered and died.  He kept using the word “good news”, but where was the joyful Sunday morning hallelujah.

The closet he came to making this more than one of the most boring, uninspiring Good Friday services (even though it was Sunday) was to say that Jesus proved everything by resurrecting and then the sermon went back to the blood and death.

//

I know that many-a pastor’s lexicon includes the phrase that “Jesus died for us/me” as the standard gospel proclamation, but… that makes it sound like we are a Good Friday people.

I believe that we are an Easter people, so…

“Jesus was raised for us/me!”

//

Jesus’ friends did not experience any ‘good news’ on the Friday, the day Jesus was executed.  They were devoid of any gospel joy on the Saturday, it wasn’t until Mary Magdalene and others had experiences of Jesus’ resurrection did joy and praise enter into the equation. 

In fact, the possibility of joy seemed so remote that it took some of them a while to treat the women’s story as anything more than an idle tale.

//

In Jesus, Mary, Peter and the other disciples and followers, experienced a depth of love and faith that they never imagined was possible – a love strong enough for compassion toward enemies; a love deep enough to reach beyond societal boundaries that divided people of various classes, and gendre, nationality, age and more; a love unbreakable enough that Jesus could offer forgiveness to even those who sought his destruction.

These folk followed Jesus because it made them better people and it enlivened their spirit.

On Friday, at three in the afternoon, when Jesus struggled to say “it is finished” and his lungs exhaled no more, not one of them said: “yay, Jesus died for me!”

All that they hoped for, all they had imagined was possible, all they desired for their walk in this world, died on that cross, as well.

Jesus’ final words were well chosen: [whispered] ^{it is finished}.

//

Why do so many Christians today not appreciate the words of the brightly clothed ‘angels’ that the women say at the empty tomb?  “Why do you look for the living among the dead?”

Why is good news (gospel) so focused on the suffering and death?  Okay, I do understand where they are coming from, I just respectfully disagree.

[I don’t want to focus on it today, other than to say that the theological concept of Substitutionary Atonement (the belief that Jesus’ death was a required, literal sacrifice to atone for the sins of humankind) {that way of thinking} really didn’t gather steam within Christendom until the 19^th century. 

I am convinced that the letter to the Hebrews and a few lines in the gospels that use similar language were about a metaphoric sacrifice not a literal one - even for the small minority of early Christians in the final quarter of the 1^st century, who felt a bit lost without the ability to seek a right relationship with God through a physical offertory act as their ancestors had done for centuries and they could no longer do because the Jerusalem Temple had been destroyed.]

//
Easter is not about dead Jesus.  It is about the Risen Christ – alive forever more.  Eventually the “idle tale” brought renewed life into the community of disciples.

All that they had come to know about themselves and God’s love and grace had not died on a cross, but continued to live, as long as they continued to live like they believed in resurrection.

//

Wandering the countryside with Jesus was a limited, time-constrained opportunity, but carrying, the good news of the compassion of God, the mission of Jesus, with us everywhere we go is eternally possible.

//

To be followers of Jesus’ Way in this time and age, we must (as the tomb angels said) look for life, not death, as our inspiration.

It is possible for the deep compassion and grace of God to live in our world:

·      where enemies become friends,

·      where the value and equality of all people is a reality, not an issue for the courts,

·      where greed gives way to generosity,

·      where all can enjoy this life in safety and peace.

That is what needs to be risen in us, this Easter and for all time.

//

Thanks be to God.  Amen.

****Offering****

FROM TABLE TO TOMB

March 29, 2013

Good Friday

Luke 22:17 - 23:56

MEAL

Jesus had amazing table manners.  He would break bread with anyone.  In fact, one of the criticisms some people foisted upon Jesus was that he was not discriminating enough with his dinner partners.  All manner of societal outcasts could be seen at table with Jesus: the icky ill, those of poor reputation, empire collaborators, the ritually unclean, women and (brace yourself) even, children.

Thursday's evening meal was a bit more intimate, more familiar.  Jesus likely had dozens of regular followers, most of who probably came with him to Jerusalem for the Passover.  Since arriving in Jerusalem on Sunday, he had gained the attention of hundreds more.  But this meal was a more private matter - shared among Jesus and his twelve closest disciples.

The Passover week was generally a festive occasion, but Jesus raised a more sombre topic at that Thursday meal.  He spoke about brokenness.  As he passed around the elements of the meal, he wanted these close friends to think about the nature of brokenness.

This [bread] is [like] my body, broken.

This [cup] is [like] my blood poured out.

//

What was Jesus trying to say?

//

#194MV  “Bread of Life”

//

BETRAYAL/DENIAL

During the meal, Jesus' brokenness language takes on a very practical form - broken relationships.  At the table, among the disciples, were Simon Peter and Judas: two relationships that will crack in the coming hours.  In Matthew and Mark, it appears that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him mid-way through the meal, before Jesus comments on the wine and the bread.  (Actually, Matthew and John are the only gospels where Judas is outed in front of the others.) For that reason, some biblical analysts will argue that Judas was not part of the first communion.  But Luke's timeline waits until after the meal before Jesus mentions a betrayal. 

Given, Jesus intentional habit of eating alongside all kinds of sinners and outcasts, I am partial to Luke's account.

Peter, who was predicted to be one who will deny Jesus, was also among the disciples during the meal.  Even at a time of broken and fractured friendships, Jesus lived out God's wide love and compassion.

//

#64MV  “Because You Came”

//

PRAYER

After supper, even after telling Peter that he would deny him three times before the sun's first light, Jesus invited John, James and (soon to thrice deny) Peter to join him to the garden to pray.  Jesus seems to be attempting to break into this tense moment with a complete turning over of himself into the spiritual discipline of prayer, for at least an hour, maybe as much as three hours (according to some of the gospel accounts).  Jesus had asked his disciples to stay awake while he was a short ways further into the garden, but it was already well past sundown and sleep won out for the disciples.  Makes sense to me: it was a day and age with limited artificial light.  Labourers, craftsmen and fishermen like Jesus' disciples were much more used to early mornings than late nights.  Jesus compared (perhaps a bit unfairly) their lack of nighttime alertness to the energy that deep faith requires.

I wonder if Jesus felt like these disciples broke a promise to stay awake with him.

//

[Good Friday Prayers]

//

SR. CHOIR  "I See a Rose in the Garden"

//

ARREST/JUDGMENT

After the praying session, as Jesus and the disciples who were with him were coming to edge of the garden, a familar face met them.  Familiar lips touched Jesus.  But this usually respectful, intimate and compassionate gesture was 'none of these'.  In the darkness of the garden, Judas got close enough to Jesus to see his face.  The kiss was a sign to the soldiers who had come with Judas, so they would surround and quickly subdue the right man.  They did.  Jesus was taken away with barely a struggle.

//

The gospels vary on the nature of Jesus' trial.  There seems to have been dual processes: religious opponents of Jesus, and political opponents - Jesus held to account to the Sanhedrin Council and the Roman Governor of Judea - accused of blasphemy and treason:. Jesus was being called Son of God, Messiah (King).

In the end it was Pilate's decision to make.  The claim to kingship may have appeared inconsequential; Jesus was small potatos at best.  And yet... peace in the empire is maintained through might.  And might must be demonstrated.  If only Jesus would have denied the charges, recanted the claims, he could have broken his bonds and been released. 

Ah well, Pilate thought, execute him for the crime of treason.  Write the conviction on the sign for all to see along with his broken body: 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'.  I doubt we'll see anymore of these messiah types.  Away with him.

//

#497VU  “Nearer My God to Thee”

//

CRUCIFIXION/BURIAL

Crucifixion was a brutal form of execution.  It was deliberately slow and painful process.  The condemned arms would be outstretched by tying the arms or nailing the wrists (between the radius and ulna bones) to a cross beam and the hoisting him up so that the full weight of the body felt the full force of gravity.  It was used in several regions, from as early as the 6th century BCE.  According to some historians of the time, it was a particular favorite method in parts of the Roman Empire.  It was used for pirates, slaves and enemies of the state.  Roman Citizens would usually be dealt with some other way – their status deserved something more dignified, even for a capital crime.  Crucifixion was considered a most shameful and disgraceful way to die.  Death could take days: you could suffocate from the fluid build up in the lungs from the raised arms; your heart could give out; you could suffer an infection in your wounds.

To hasten death, prisoners were beaten and flogged.  The condemned were often given the indignant task of carrying their own cross beam to the erected posts at the execution location.  That further tired them out and gave opportunity for the crowds to mock and insult the condemned.  The death posts were often strategically placed for maximum public viewing: busy crossroads, hilltops.

In Jesus' day, there was a small rounded hill, that looked like a skull cap, called Golgotha that served such a purpose.  You may also know it by the anglicised version of the latin word for "place of the skull" - Calvary.

Sometimes, to further hasten death, the soldiers (who had to guard the site until the prisoner was dead) would break the legs.  With a final brokenness, the condemned would have no fight against the downward pressure.

Some lasted days; the heartiest, maybe a week.  Jesus was in such a weakened state that he breathed his last in only about six hours.  There was no need to break his legs so the guards could go home early.  Jesus was a completely broken man.

//

In all of the archaeological discovers of Roman era sites, there is only one set of remains that have been confirmed to be that of a crucifixion victim.  And crucifixion is only known in this case, because a nail fragment and a peace of wood was attached to an ankle bone.  Usually, the nails were driven through the flesh, missing the bone.  And more so, unless the condemned had family members who could negotiate the body for burial, the corpses would be left on the crosses to decay and be ravaged by predatory animals - a very disgusting deterrent to would be criminals.

//

//

Jesus died in the mid-afternoon on a Friday.  There were only a few hours of daylight left to obtain the body... wrap it... and find a suitable place to store it before the Sabbath began at sunset.  A proper burial would have to wait until first light on Sunday.  Mary Magdalene and some of the other women would leave as soon as was permitted with spices and burial ointments in hand. 

That Sabbath had to feel like the longest one ever. 

I imagine that most of them spent the day quietly... with little to break up the lonely silence or ease the real grief.

//

Music:  “For Real”

SAME MIND

March 24, 2013

Palm – Passion Sunday

Luke 19:28-40

Isaiah 50:4-9a

Philippians 2:5-11

(prayer)

It is spring time in the northern hemisphere. 

//

As it was for Jesus when he and his disciples made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem from their homes near the Sea of Galilee.

They were coming for the Passover festival, celebrated every spring since the time of Moses which (in Jesus’ day) was always on the eve of the first full moon after the vernal/spring equinox.

//

They had friends in Bethany, so by the Saturday before the Passover, the disciples and Jesus had made their way there: just east of Jerusalem.
//

SUNDAY

Jesus made plans to go into the city.  It must have seemed curious to his followers that Jesus was unusually insistent on entering Jerusalem riding a donkey.  I mean, they had just spent several days walking all the way from Galilee.  And Bethany was not very far from Jerusalem - even in its day, it was a bedroom community to the capital.  Certainly, Jesus must have had some other motive than he simply needed to rest his feet.

But if that was what the master wanted, the disciples went along with the plan - they found Jesus a donkey.  And Jesus rode into the Temple City from the east.  It was the start of the festival week.  The mood in the community was jubilant.  As Jesus moved along the eastern streets, festival goers were everywhere.  It was probably a combination of the festive mood and this man on a donkey, but it had a parade-like atmosphere.

Are you like me, if you see a limousine drive by, do you try and take a look who might be inside?  Sure it's probably just a wedding party or a group of teens living it up on grad night, but maybe... it could be some real celebrity.  It is natural to want to look.

"What's going on here?"

"Who's the guy on the donkey?"

"Jesus? Who's he?"

"A healer from Galilee?" 

"A prophet?"

//

It was the Passover - the festival remembering the time when the people of Israel first gained their liberty after centuries of Slavery to a succession of Egyptian Pharoahs.  The final of ten plagues that afflicted Egypt was a 'spirit of death' that swept through the land killing the firstborn of every household.  Moses told the Israelites to prepare and share a special lamb meal.  To rush the breadmaking, not waiting for the dough to rise.  To dress for travel in the morning and to pack light.  And before cooking the main course to rub some blood from the slaughtered lamb on their door posts.  Moses told them that it would be a sign to the spirit of death to "pass over" such a house.

In the morning, in the chaos of the devastation, Pharaoh finally agreed to Moses' long standing demand to "Let my people go!"  And the Israelites, whose families were unaffected by the plague as Moses promised began their long walk to freedom.

It was the festival of the freedom from oppression and submission that Jesus rode that donkey to celebrate.

Now, in Jesus' day, Moses and Egypt were a distant memory from some 3000 years in the past, but... oppression and submission were present realities for the people of Judea and Galilee.  The new Egypt was the Empire of Rome and the new Pharaoh was Caesar.

It must have made the roman authorities in Jerusalem a bit nervous each year when the city filled up with excited pilgrims to recount a story of liberation from an empire.

Maybe that is why the Roman Procurator of Judea left his official residence in Caesarea to be in Jerusalem that week.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that about the same time Jesus was making his almost comical, non-treatening entrance into Jerusalem from the east that Pilate and his entourage of horses and chariots were coming in from the west with all the fanfare of a conquering warrior.

Imagine the contrast of those two parades.

·         Which one is in control?

·         Which one is has authority?

·         Which one holds the salvation of the people in his hands?

//

I wonder if "that contrast" was what Jesus had in mind, when he told his disciples to go and find him a donkey?

//

The Bible is silent on what Jesus and his followers did that first day in Jerusalem.  There is some indication that (later in the week at least) he went to the Mount of Olives after sunset.  Perhaps that's where Jesus (and maybe even other out-of-town pilgrims) camped during the festival.

//

MONDAY

Even though Jesus was in Jerusalem on Sunday, I don't think he made it to the Temple that first day.  I say that because we know that Jesus went to the Temple on Monday, and he seems surprised by what he saw.  His reaction allows me to assume that he hadn't seen the same things the day before.

Perhaps Jesus was just a naive northerner, but he expected the mood at the Temple to be more serene, more spiritual.  Instead, it had the aura of a marketplace more so than a place of worship.

In a way, though, the sale of livestock and birds and the currency exchanges were necessary.  It is quite probable that well over 100,000 pilgrims had come to Jerusalem for the Passover.  It is just not practical to expect people to have traveled great distances bringing with them the animal offerings for the Temple rituals.  And since people came from all over the greco-roman world, the could have been expected to have temple currency with them.

The frenzied atmosphere was disrupted when Jesus began shouting and running between the animals and the merchants tables.  "This Temple should be a house of prayer.  But you have made it a den of thieves."

//

If there were a few whispers of "who is this?" beside the road while Jesus had his east Jerusalem palm parade, you can guarantee that after the Temple incident, a lot of people were trying to quickly figure out who this zealot was.

Jesus' so called 'cleansing of the temple' had to have been a concern to the temple leaders.  This was one of the busiest and holiest times of the year, they would not have appreciated the disruptions.

And it most definitely would have drawn the attention of the Roman authorities.  As I already mentioned, security measures would already have been heightened, given the volatile nature of the Passover festival.  I have no doubt that if Jesus' little anti-Pilate parade hadn't already done it, that the near riot at the Temple definitely stirred up conversations among the Roman guard.

And finally, I think that it is fair to assume that the incident also raised a few eyebrows among Jesus' own group of followers and disciples.  Some perhaps pleased that Jesus was making such a socio-religious stand, and others who were concerned about what kind of trouble it might bring.

//

TUESDAY-WEDNESDAY-THURSADY

Whatever the reaction, Jesus wasn't banned from the Temple and he wasn't deterred from going back either.  From something Jesus is quoted as saying on Thursday, we can believe that he was at the temple daily - he would find a good spot in the courtyard and he would discuss issues of life and faith with whoever wanted to venture into a conversation.

People were drawn to him.  There was an attractive truth in the words he spoke.  Luke's gospel said that people were "spellbound by what they heard". 

To some of the elders and temple scribes, this Nazarene preacher was a mystery.  Eventually, even the Chief Priests were asking: Who was he?  What gives him the right to speak with such confidence and apparent authority?

//

Jesus debated the scriptures with Sadducees.  He told parables about patience and commitment.  He spoke how wealth and status has no bearing on one's faithfulness.  That upset some of the powerful, but it enlivened the ordinary folk.  He challenged an empty piety that seemed devoid of spirit.  When he suggested that the temple was mere stone and could not endure forever, that really upset some of those whose identity was tied to the rote rituals.

And Jesus didn't shy away from the intersections between religion and politics.  "Should we pay taxes to the emperor?"  And of course, just as Pilate and the other romans feared the intersection of religion and politics often raises the prospect of revolution.  Jesus spoke about a battle for Jerusalem.

That was enough for some of Jesus' opponents.  Too many people seemed to be enthused by Jesus view of life and faith. He had to be stopped. The biggest problem was his popularity.  How could they take him with no crowds around?  They would need someone with inside information.

Enter Judas.  Who approached who?  We don't know.  Did they approach Judas, did he set out to betray Jesus?  Those questions were really moot once the silver was exchanged.

Judas gave them Jesus' itinerary for Thursday.  He'd be surrounded by people all day; probably spending much of the day in the Temple, teaching.  But in the evening, Jesus and his disciples planned to feast together and then Jesus would seek the solitude of a quite garden for an evening prayer. 

They worked out a sign.  The soldiers would wait in the shadows in the garden.  Judas would kiss the man they wanted to arrest.

//

THURSDAY EVENING

This bread is like my broken body.

This red wine is like my blood poured out.

Take, share, eat and drink.  Remember me.

Love one another as I have loved you.

//

//

Peter, James and John, wait here while I go a little further to pray alone.  I'll only be gone about an hour.

//

//

Judas, must you betray me with a kiss?

//

FRIDAY

Jesus, the prisoner, was peppered with questions (some religious, some political):

·         Are you the Messiah?

·         Are you the Son of God?

·         Are you a king?  The king of the jews?

It was that last question that brought the real trouble.  Was Jesus denouncing the authority of Rome?  Was he trying to win Judea's independence? 

//

The stories people told years later varied.  Some insisted that Jesus stayed silent and refused to cooperate.  Others wrote as if Jesus responded defiantly, sarcastically.

In the end, Pilate was convinced enough that Jesus was a potential traitor (or he couldn't care less).

Jesus was crucified as a traitor of Rome.

He was hastily buried as the Sabbath sunset approached.

//

//

Years later, the followers of Jesus - even after the joy and wonder of Easter, they had difficulty with Jesus' trial and crucifixion.

Some found comfort and meaning in 400 year old scriptures - the suffering servant songs of Isaiah.  I did not turn away.  I gave my back and my cheeks to those who struck me.  I did not hide my face.  It is God who vindicates and helps me.

Jesus remained committed and confident, even in the face of brutality and torture.  The old servant songs had a new life in the early Christian communities.

//

And there was also new songs.  The passage we heard from the letter to the Philippians (chapter 2, verses 6 to 11) is more poetic in its style that the sections of the letter around it.  It appears that Paul is inserting a quotation into his message for the church at Philippi.  In this passage, we may be looking at the oldest written Christian record - an early hymn about Jesus.

And what does it say about Jesus' trial and execution?  That Jesus humbled himself.  He was obedient to his message - he wouldn't recant, he wouldn't beg for his life.  The hymnwriter said that Jesus remained obedient "even [through to] death on a cross".

//

//

Paul's brief intro to the hymn is an invitation to the church of the Risen Christ.  "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus".

In other words, think like Jesus.

In other letters, Paul invited the church to have a heart like Jesus, love (after all) is the greatest of all gifts.

But here, in Philippians, we see more.  Feel like Jesus, yes.  But also think like Jesus.

When Jesus was in the throws of his kangaroo court, he reasoned that his fate was set.  And, so he choose to remain committed to what he had done and said.  He must have been humble enough to know that his teachings and example had left a mark.  He had the humility to admit that the movement he initiated would endure beyond his imminent death.  That, if necessary, the stones themselves would shout out the goodnews of God's compassion for all.

//

Jesus' final week began with a humble and jubilant donkey ride and ended with the laboured walk up Skull Hill.  It started with shouts of Hosanna and ended with cries for crucifixion.  It began with dedicated fellow pilgrims and ended with denial and betrayal.

And yet, Jesus' heart and mind was unchanged through it all.  His leadership was not like that of Caesar or caesar's Judean governour - his was not authority through oppression and might.  It was authority through humility and peace.

//

Let same mind be in us.

Let us pray...ad lib

#130VU "An Upper Room Did Our Lord Prepare"

ACTUALLY, HE MAKES A GOOD POINT

March 17, 2013

Lent 5

Philippians 3:4b-14

John 12:1-8

(prayer)

The Bible has three different versions of Jesus being anointed, handed down to us in four different Gospels.

Mark and Matthew share the same basic version.  The setting is Bethany, just east of Jerusalem, in the home of someone called "Simon, the Leper".  It is just a day or so before Jesus will be arrested. An un-named woman anoints Jesus' head with an expensive ointment.  People in the room (Matthew says it was Jesus' disciples) complain that it was a waste to use the ointment; it should have been sold to raise money for the poor. Jesus responds by praising the woman and noting that she has done a memorable thing.

The Mark/Matthew anointing story is remarkably similar to what was read from John earlier in the service.  Again John places the event in Bethany during Jesus' final days (John says it was six days before the Passover).  John doesn't mention a Simon, the leper but locates the anointing in the home of Lazarus (a friend of Jesus) and names the woman as one of Lazarus' sisters: Mary.  Also different from M&M is that it is Jesus' feet in John (not his head) that is anointed and she wipes his feet with her hair; also John says that the criticism comes from Judas alone, not the disciples as a group. 

All of the authors of Matthew, Mark and John draw a parallel between the anointing of Jesus and the practice of anointing a body for burial.

And they all have the curious quote of Jesus, "you will always have the poor with you", which may be a reference to Deuteronomy 15:11 - Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land.’

//

Luke is quite a bit different.  First of all, the third gospel has the story much earlier in Jesus' ministry rather than during Holy Week.  And because it is placed among other narratives that occur in Galilee, we can assume that Bethany (in Judea) is not the setting: certainly Luke makes no mention of the town.  Like M&M, the woman is unnamed and the host's name is Simon (although, in Luke, Simon is a renowned Pharisee, not an avoided leper). 

Like John, the woman's focus is Jesus' feet and she wipes them with her hair.  And like all of the other three, the anointing in Luke raises concerns, but for an entirely different reason in this version.  The cost of the ointment is not the issue - it is the moral character of the woman herself that raises eyebrows.  "If Jesus was really a prophet, he'd know her reputation and would not let her touch him."

The other gospels presume that the woman was a welcomed guest, but in Luke this woman-sinner clearly crashes the party.  This woman in Luke is overwhelmed in Jesus' presence; she cries... and her tears wash Jesus' feet before she anoints him.  That is a powerful image that we must be grateful that Luke has shared with the church.

//

The what and where and who vary, but the core anointing story is strong and must hold a wonderful historical nugget of good news from Jesus’ lifetime.

The act is controversial: wasteful, distasteful and deeply intimate. And it is a light shedding moment – challenging the depth of care we owe each other. We are invited to ask: can we honour one without dishonouring others? What is the place of adoration in our lives of service?

//

[Aside: There is a prevailing theory among biblical scholars about the connection between the four gospels and the order in which they may have been written.  Scholars were confronted with two opposite problems.  Assuming that they were written by different authors, why do Matthew, Mark and Luke share so many of the same stories, often using almost exactly the same wording (that's why these three are called the Synoptic Gospels; and... why is John so different from the other three.  I'll skip the details of the theories and jump straight to the widely-held conclusions.

Mark was the first gospel written, shortly after the year 70CE and became widely known within the early church.  Matthew was written a few years later (mid-70s) and the author of Matthew had a copy of Mark to draw material from.  Luke was written around the time of Matthew, and he (yeah, likely "he") also used Mark as a base.  It is generally believed that Matthew and Luke did not know of each other's gospels, but since the do share common material (mostly sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark, the theory goes that they share an otherwise lost-to-history additional gospel that scholars have labeled "Q". There are other later examples of collections of sayings of Jesus.  Q may even have simply been an oral gospel, committed to memory, not written down and that’s why no independent copies survived. Ask me later if you want to know why it's called Q.  The Mark-Q (two-source) theory deals with the synoptic problem, but what about the johannine problem?

John is believed to be the last of the four gospels written and quite a but later, perhaps the 90s.  John is certainly more theologically rich compared to the other three, which supports the notion that more time had passed before it was written.  Scholars believe that John's author had access to each of Mark, Luke and Matthew and intentionally chose to relay the story of Jesus (the Christ) in a fresh way.  He doesn't seem to want to simply rehash what was already know.  For example, John's gospel makes no direct reference to the Last Supper, but bread and wine imagery is found throughout the gospel.

So... When we find the rare parallels to the synoptic gospels in John, it deserves special attention.  We might ask: if we assume that John knew that the church was familiar with the story, why does he think it is important to share it again?]

Because John tells us about the anointing of Jesus in the context of the home of Martha and Mary, we might conclude that John is combining the anointing story with another brief story told only in Luke 10: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet and listened to what he was saying; Martha was busy with her many tasks."  The Luke story goes on to have Martha complaining to Jesus that Mary isn't helping her.  Jesus responds that Mary has chosen wisely. Reading between the lines, it seems that Jesus is saying that Mary's choice is symbolic of a spirit-focused life over a world-centered, distracted life.

Even though Luke presents Jesus in the home Mary and Martha completely separate from the anointing in the home of Simon, the Pharisee, there must be some method to John's madness of combining them.  Of course, John did even more editing: although he kept the anointing at Jesus' feet like Luke, he used Mark/Matthew's reasoning for the complaints: the resource was too valuable to be wasted.

Now, I don't imagine there is much historicity in John's naming of Judas as the complainer (and the editorial comment that he stole from the group's common purse).  I see that part of the story as a bit of literary foreshadowing by John of Judas' eventual betrayal of Jesus to the authorities.  John is not one to hide the ending from his readers.  After all the fourth gospel begins with a section that includes: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son,^* full of grace and truth.

//

Because Jesus was such an obvious advocate for the poor throughout his ministry in his words and deeds, I imagine that several of Jesus' disciples (not just Judas) would have been puzzled by the apparent inconsistency in this instant.  “Poetic License”, I’m sure John would say.

//

//

"You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me" does make Jesus sound a bit self-centered, even if he was intentionally referencing Deuteronomy.

//

One of the things I notice in all of the similar, non-Luke versions of the anointing of Jesus is that the expensive ointment seems to be property of the woman.  No one else seemed to know that it existed until it was used,  In fact, in John, it is said explicitly that the woman "bought" the ointment.  That's interesting to me.  When she brings it out, and the fragrant aroma wafts through the house, it seems to catch the others in the house by surprise.  It's presence is unexpected.  And then when people see her engaging in such an intimate act with Jesus (either over him caressing his head and running her fingers through his hair, or down low at his feet massaging, kissing, crying) it is shocking. It seems the disciples feel compelled to make some comment.

//

The basic truth of the story is that when she anoints Jesus, soothes his tired, smelly feet (or his bushy hair), she is sacrificing something of herself.  Jesus notices that… and he won't discount what has already been done with a judgement of what might have been.  As a general rule, after-the-fact judgements are seldom helpful: especially if they only chastise and don’t focus on future possibilities.

The woman’s personal, devoted sacrifice will be honoured - not at the expense of others, but in addition to other aspects of their shared ministry.  Jesus used the opportunity to teach his disciples that devotion can accompany service.

//

//

The motto of this congregation is "welcoming in - reaching out".  I see that as a phrase that parallels the dual priorities expressed in the anointing of Jesus: spiritual nurture and devotion and service in the name of that Spirit. 

//

The truth is that both Jesus and Judas make good points in John chapter 12.  And they do not need to be in perpetual opposition to each other, just because Judas would later panic and give Jesus up to the authorities.

Yes, Judas makes a good point: a live-out-compassion for others is essential for a person of faith.  As Jesus, and the writer of Deuteronomy, so bluntly pointed out: as long as greed exists in the world, there will always be poverty.  Faithful compassion, in turn, will always have opportunities to live out the commandment to "love your neighbour as yourself" (Lev19:18b).

And Jesus' point is well taken as well: what the woman did was an act of Holy Devotion.  She chose to honour her lord and saviour with the best of what she could offer.  Life (even a life of faith) should never be too busy to not include worship, praise, prayer, discernment.  We must make opportunities to live out the commandment to "love God with all our heart, soul and strength" (Dt6:5).

//

It can be a challenge to hold these two aspects of faithful living in balance.  It is natural to gravitate to one extreme or the other.  When we do, the stretching of our spirit should call us back into balance.

The Letter of James proclaims that "faith without works is dead" (Jam2:17).  I would add that works without faith... well, isn't faith at all.  The Apostle Paul points to all of the accomplishments of his life prior to him becoming a follower of Jesus and now looks back and sees an emptiness that was filled with his deepened faith.

//

And so, there is value for our spirits to come together to offer praise and seek inspiration in worship. 

And, the value is increased when the love and care and nurture we receive in times of devotion is translated into a lived-out-compassion in our homes and community and world beyond these walls.

//

//

Next week we will begin a challenging journey. 

It will start with a humble and jubilant donkey ride that will become (in less than a week) a humiliating and laboured march up a hill called 'The Skull'. 

It will take all the hope and promise our spirits can bear to rise on the following Sunday morn ready to met our God face-to-face.  We will be invited to both:

·        fall on our knees in prayer, and

·        run out in the world with shouts of joy.

Spirit and Service will be the hallmarks of the renewed faith that will emerge.

Let us pray:

God of surprising grace, embolden us in ministries that convey care and compassion.  Like Mary, like Martha, we minister to you.  Amen.

#79MV "Spirit, Open My Heart"

ILLOGICAL GRACE

March 10, 2013

Lent 4

Joshua 5:9-12

Luke 15:1-2,11-32

(prayer)

I am coming up quickly on the big five-oh (as far as candles on the cake go) – just 44 days to go –  so I think I am almost old enough to claim the entitlement of saying…

“(sigh) kid’s today – they don’t know how easy they have it!”

[video Louis CK on Late Night With Conan O’Brian – 2005]

I am victim of Louis CK’s scorn too.

I have done that with my smart phone (ugh…) as it is slow to react to my whim of the moment.  Yes Louis, the speed of light is not fast enough sometimes.  I have be ‘disappointed’ when I couldn’t find a wifi hotspot when I wanted it (you know up at the pulpit here I sometimes can't even connect to the church network because the router is way down in the office)… I have also been disappointed when I have trouble locating a bank machine… or a late night place to get a jug of milk… or a 2am hamburger joint.

We live in a "feeling entitled" society. 

I’m reminded of the Queen song: 

I want it all; I want it all;

I want it all. And I want it now.

We have gotten to that point as a society:  We want it all.  We want it fast – and we want it now.

It must be so hard for those of you who lived in the era of wartime or depression rationing.  How pathetic we must seem to you.

In fairness, living in a 9/11 generation – with never ending talk about economic disparity – it is easy to see how this current time of history engenders a certain level of hopelessness and live-now thinking.

//

The world has changed and I doubt it’s going back very soon and certainly very reluctantly, if circumstances force it to. 

//

Each generation (certainly in our part of the world) since WW2 has grown its sense of that entitlement.  The most frustration thing (as a person looks at the situation) is that part of that entitlement is an apparent inability to appreciate the amazing opportunities this era of human existence affords.  If I had played the entire Louis CK clip, you’d have heard him start off by saying “everything’s amazing… and nobody’s happy”.

//

We have it 'pretty good' living in this time and place - as our smartest minds and entrepreneurs have fed our appetites for every gadget and app possible.  It has changed the general mindset from generations past.

And (ph’whoa) how we love to complain!

·         Edmonton and its pothole complaints.  On the radio the other morning I heard a song: "Mayor Mandel, he had a town, eieio... with a pothole here and a pothole there..."

·         Weather must always be warm and sunny.  Oh how I hate the TV news banter when the newscaster passes the camera off to the meteorologist saying: “So, Bill, have you got some sunny weather for us this weekend for a change?”

·         Full variety, perfect, made to order, fast and now. 

We don’t want to wait.

//

//

There was man who had two sons.  He was a wealthy land owner and his boys had known nothing but the privilege that comes from living among the servants and hired hands of the estate.

Both of these kids had issues with ‘work’ – the older one was all work, the younger one was all play.

The story (commonly known as The Parable of the Prodigal Son) is one of those biblical stories that a lot of people ‘kind of’ know even if they don’t have much to do with church.  The word prodigal comes from a Latin root word that means Lavish.  Lavish is not necessarily a negative word – it can be a-kin to “generous”.  But by the middle ages, prodigal (even in Latin) was associated with a sense of "wastefulness": in other words, lavishness and short-term-selfishness combined: not so positive.

//

You heard the story earlier.  It is part of a series of three parables of Jesus that the gospel of Luke lumps together because of their common theme – things that are lost, getting found.

The first parable (at the start of Luke, chapter fifteen) is about a man who looks after 100 sheep and one gets lost.  The shepherd refused to give up and searched every valley and wood until it was found.  Then he told everyone and there was a community celebration.

The second parable is about a woman who had 10 coins (perhaps her savings, or some necklace or headdress adorned with the coins, maybe a family heirloom or a wedding gift).  One of the coins was discovered to be missing, and she searched every nook and cranny of her house until she found it.  We've all had that experience some way, I’m sure. 

And then (using the exact same language as the first parable), the woman called together her friends for a party.

Finally, there is today’s reading – a father with two sons, one of which got ‘lost’ in his own selfishness and greed and utter prodigalness.

//

One of themes I have preached on before when looking at all three of these 'Luke chapter fifteen' parables is that each one represents a different way of getting lost.

1.      Losing one out of a hundred sheep could be a result of being overwhelmed: too many things to keep track of.

2.      Losing one of ten coins could be a result of neglect:  it’s not too many to handle – just maybe they weren’t being cared for closely enough.

3.      But ‘getting lost’ like the prodigal son… is a choice – a conscious decision to turn away from family and obligations.  He is lost to his father, the moment he leaves; the son doesn’t realize that he (himself) is lost until the money runs out and the fair-weather friends flee.

The Joni Mitchell song comes to mind here: 

Don’t it always seem to go,

that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone.

//

The story of the prodigal son is filled with disturbing moments:

ÿ    To ask for his inheritance while his father was alive, was basically like saying – ‘Gee dad, I wish you were dead’.  (now, I suspect that every kid has probably thought that at least once, but to say it out loud and really mean it is particularly disturbing.)

ÿ    Then there are the exploitive desires of the ‘new’ friends who were more-than-happy to tag along on the ride of riotous living as long as they could.  Then, when the gravy train was dry, they ran in search of a new trough to eat out of.

ÿ    And then there is the son literally eating ‘pig’ food after the money is gone.  This is an unpleasant image in any culture, but for the Hebrew audience of Jesus to hear about a young Jewish man eating with pigs (who were considered ritually unclean), it must have been especially disgusting!

ÿ    Also disturbing is the reaction of the older son (when his brother finally comes home) – refusing to come in to the celebration even after his father explained his reasoning.  Up until that point the older brother is cast in a good light – but we see a less than favourable part of his character in the form of his very hard heart.  He can’t offer forgiveness first to his brother… and then to his father.

//

As I said: this story is commonly called The Prodigal Son.  It could also be called The Prodigal Father. The older son would like that title, as he saw it as overly lavish to waste such a celebration on his brother – who had disowned the father and wished him dead; who had never worked as hard or as faithfully as he had.  Where is ‘my’ party?!

Really, it makes little sense, what the father did.  No one would fail to understand him, if his broken heart was hardened toward his selfish, greedy, lazy, prodigal son.  It would be a logical response.  What the father did was (in fact) illogical!

//

That’s exactly what Jesus wants his audience to think.  If the younger son character is you and me at our worst, the older son character is really you and me at our best – we’re the ones who would never treat our parent like that.  We strive to work hard, to feel fulfilled, to be respected: to seek justice, love kindness and walk humbly with our God.

God (in the story) is of course the parent character: the Father of Grace and Forgiveness.

//

In the first two “lost” parables, the ‘moral’ of the stories was something like… there is more rejoicing in heaven over one person who repents that 100 people who need no repentance.

I would sum up the stories with this statement – We are never too lost for God to give up on us.  God will find us and welcome us home!

We are never too lost for God to find us and welcome us home!

//

The call to those listening to Jesus teaching – either in person in the early first century, or in the millennia since, reading the story passed on in Luke – is to not be surprised by the lavish grace and forgiveness of God.  We are challenged to not necessarily feel entitled to this graciousness of God, but to humbly appreciate the lavish generosity of God, which too often would defy the logic of our human interactions.

//

I would argue that is should not just a personal goal to be a humble recipient of grace, but to be humble as a society – we shouldn’t act as if we can do anything, at any time – to appreciate that there is impact now and down the road to our choices and actions.

I mean, look at the Alberta economy and this past week’s provincial budget – until very recently I didn’t even know that the Oil Sands were a unique commodity on world oil markets – “Western Canada Select heavy crude oil”.

We have behaved ‘societally’, as if we could grow and expand forever.  But the harsh realities of supply and demand economics have priced Alberta bitumen at half the cost of other lighter or more desirable oils:

It’s an issue of supply because we have encouraged lots of development at the mining stage (OVERdevelopment, some would argue); and it’s an issue of demand because of limited refineries and the fact that some people are exercising the choice to not to be customers of so-called the tar sands.

Our sense of entitlement, like that of the prodigal son, can lead to forced humility.  Although, I am not sure whether our planet has the ability to be as forgiving as the father in Jesus’ parable.

//

//

It is a marvelous piece of Gospel to be taught that God loves beyond our ability to love, that God welcomes beyond our ability to welcome, that God forgives and redeems beyond anything we might deserve.

Thank God for illogical, amazing grace.

[no prayer]

#266VU “Amazing Grace”