Sunday, February 26, 2017

UNCERTAIN CLARITY

February 26, 2017
Last Epiphany - Transfiguration
(prayer)
Easter Sunday is a movable feast within the cycle of the church year.  Unlike Christmas which is a set day each year (December 25th), Easter can occur anywhere between March 22nd and April 25th.  If you want to calculate the date in a given year, you just need to know that Easter falls on the Sunday that immediately follows the first full moon after the vernal (spring) equinox.
This year... the first day of spring is Tuesday, March 21st and the next full moon after that is Tuesday, April 11th, which makes Easter Sunday 2017: April 16th.
//
The calender of the church year sets aside 40 days (plus Sundays) before Easter as the Season of Lent (always begins on a Wednesday)  As such, Lent 2017 will begin this Wednesday, March 1st.  That makes next Sunday, the First Sunday in Lent and... today the Last Sunday in the Season of Epiphany.
Epiphany is the post-Christmas season that begins with the story of the wisemen (and the star of Bethlehem) and ends with another story of light that we heard this morning.
Three of the biblical gospels (Matthew 17, Mark 9 and Luke 9) all share a version of Jesus on the mountain top with Peter, James and John.  In each gospel, it is a pivotal moment in the narrative.  It also serves as a pivotal moment as we transition between the two great stories of the Christian faith: Christmas and Easter.
//
//
Jesus and three of his closest followers go up 'a high mountain'.  The setting implies a private time together - none of the other disciples were with them and they were away from any crowds.
And so it is a surprise to find others on the mountain with them: two others.
And they showed up in a moment when Jesus' appearance changed - Jesus was bathed in light.  His skin and clothes appeared to shine.
Somehow, Peter instinctively knows that the two guests are great figures of the past: Moses and Elijah.  Whatever was happening, Jesus was in impressive company.
To confirm that, into the quiet of the mountain top, the voice of God rang out: "This is my belov`ed son.  Listen to him".
In the best scholarship theories about the order in which the gospels were written, Mark would be the oldest and Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a starting point for their books.  With the transfiguration,  Matthew and Luke stay pretty faithful to what Mark had written, with only small changes:
The voice in Luke's version calls Jesus chosen instead of beloved.  And (as we heard this morning) Matthew adds the line with him I am well pleased to what the voice proclaims.
Regardless, each gospel writer relays a story that was experienced both sight and sound... known by three distinct disciples - separately - through tangible sensory experiences.
//
That was complicated by the fact that it was a fleeting experience... it only lasted an instant.
Jesus looked normal, like he always did.  Suddenly, he changed in front of their eyes.  He was joined by Elijah and Moses.  And a heavenly voice claimed Jesus as belov`ed son who the disciples should listen to.  And then (just as suddenly) Jesus was back to normal.
//
From the very beginning, whether what happened was real or not was a matter of debate.  Was Jesus physically transfiguration in front of Peter, James and John?  Or did they share in some metaphysical experience of the mind?
It is interesting that the author of Matthew calls it a 'vision'.
And, as we heard in the other reading this morning, there appears to have been a tradition that Peter himself argued that it was not in his mind, but something that really happened in front of his eyes.
//
//
Strange, but meaningful experiences can be like that - to question their factual historicity can feel like the impact of the experience is being questioned.
I hear that struggle as the author of 2nd Peter relays the fisherman-disciple's assertions that he wasn't making things up about what happened on the mountain top.
//
In two of the gospels, the transfiguration follows a story of Peter openly declaring that he believed Jesus was the Messiah of God.  In those stories, Jesus rebukes Peter for making such a claim.  So it is all the more shocking - that less than a week later, Peter hears (what he presumes to be the very voice of God saying) that Jesus IS God's chosen-beloved-pleasing child.
As the years went on, it appears that Peter would not let people's questions about what actually happened (on the solice of the mountain) interfere with how that experience affected him and his faith in the days, weeks and years that followed.
//
//
The Greek word behind the English word transfigured in today's gospel reading is used elsewhere in the New Testament.  In the letter to the Romans, it refers to an inner transformation, as opposed to an outward change: Be transformed [transfigured] by the renewing of your minds. (Rm12:2)
//
//
For me, the story of Jesus' transfiguration is less about bright lights, bleached clothes and prophets come back to life, and more about how Peter (and the others) were changed in their hearts and minds as a result of what they experienced.
//
//
Matthew's version of this story offers one other unique detail that the others don't.  All three accounts note that as intriguing as the appearance of Moses and Elijah was, the sound of a divine voice caught them by surprise and terrified them.  In fact, the image is that the fell to the ground and covered their eyes as the voice spoke.  It is when they re-opened their eyes that the whole vision was gone.
What Matthew adds (that the others don't), is Jesus (looking normal again) telling his disciples to not be afraid and to get up.
//
I like this.
//
Jesus knew that the experience (whether experienced the retina and ear drum or in the mind's eye) was transformative for John, James and Peter.  And Jesus did not want it to be remembered as a scary experience.
Matthew puts the compassion of Jesus on full display.
//
//
The truth is... transformation can be scary.  And in the circular way these things tend to go, fear makes transformation difficult.  We can be afraid to make changes without some assurances that things will be improved.
//
And I do believe that learning and knowledge are ways to reduce fear.  In all times and places, people have been afraid of the unknown... of what they don't understand.
Open eyes, open ears, open minds make transformation easier.
//
I have mentioned to some of you that the theme of my sabbatical (that I will be taking in the fall) concerns transformation in the church.  I believe that there can no longer a successful delusion in the church that our place in society and the world hasn't changed.
Gone are the days when we thought we knew what beliefs people generally held... pretty much the same as us.
And yet, some still are yearning to connect on a spiritual level... and the Christian Church's powerful story still has appeal.
It is important to see that how the church fits into the wider society has been transforming for decades.
And so it makes sense that we will embark on new, transformative ways to be the church.
//
What is already clear to me -- and it will be one of my main sabbatical learning goals -- is that churches that are too afraid to adjust to new realities will fade away and eventually disappear.
//
//
Peter, James and John got a glimpse of something new and exciting.  For a few seconds on that mountain top, they saw Jesus as part of their past and future and not just someone in their present.
//
Transformation begins with a dream about what will be possible in the time yet to come.
//
If we are more afraid than excited about what might be, we will be less likely be open to real and meaningful transformation.
//
//
And so Jesus sees his friends on their knees with their heads buried in their hands and he gently invites them to look up and rise because they do not need to be afraid.
When their eyes were opened, they saw a familiar face and the fear began to subside.
They were able to descend that mountain knowing that their past and present was leading them to a safe and exciting future.
//
//
I know that we live in times of legitimate fears.
And there are some in our world who want us to live in fear - because it advances their personal cause or wallet.
//
Big picture views seem to skew to fears.  We talk about walls and divisions as solutions to differences.  If all we look at are problems too big to solve, we might just be justified by falling down and covering our eyes - hoping that if we don't pay attention, it will go away.
//
But - I believe - that on small scales, fear can be challenged.
It is my experience that human beings - as individuals - are more good and kind, than not.
Jesus reached out personally to set aside the fear of the moment.
//
We can be agents of change in the world, transforming fear to calm, by our acts of openness and kindness.
There is a poem that I sometimes read a funerals that includes the line:
Everytime you offer someone a helping hand,
Everytime to show a friend you care and understand,
Everytime you have a kind and gentle word to give,
You help someone find beauty in this precious life we live.
//
Fear is eased by understanding.
Fear is eased by kindness.
Fear is eased by seeing a belov`ed child in each stranger.
Fear is eased when there is room to believe (as the ancient storyteller proclaimed) that God looked on all things that had been made and it was very good.
Fear is eased by believing that we are part of something good.
//
When fear is eased, the necessary changes that will move us into a good future become possible.
//
Let us pray:
We seek clarity and find uncertainty, O God.  Help us find courage to face the fears.  Amen.

#104VU

“We Have Come at Christ’s Own Bidding”

Sunday, February 19, 2017

TECHNICALLITIES

February 19, 2017
Epiphany 7
Leviticus 19:9-18
Matthew 5:38-48

     Karl Barth - “Take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible."
     Every assertion (bible, law, philosophy) is subject to interpretation.  Even physics-math.
     Politicians, media, other voices distinguish between neighbour and enemy.  Do we accept those lines and love one and hate the other?
     Hate your enemies is not biblical.
     Love you neighbour is Leviticus: honesty, justice, excess to benefit others, no grudge or vengeance.
     Luke parable: who qualifies as 'neighbour'.  Get off on a technicality.
     You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.
     Eye for an eye... Exodus follow up to Ten Commandments: limited legalized retribution... revenge. 
     As metaphor: the punishment should fit the crime.
     Are the punishments in Exodus 21-23 really eye for an eye: for lawyers and philosophers to sort out.
     Reality: privilege stacks the deck... then and now.
     Why did Jesus turn this on its head? Less justice for victims?
     Jean Valjean (steal bread to feed).  Need coat?  OK,  but did Jesus go too far... especially re: violence.
     Truth of darwinism: strong survive?
     Star Wars: R2D2 v Chewbacca.
     Jesus: even if you are the strongest, chose to let them win.
     Christians chose to be doormats? 
     Pacifist, passive residence to violence... sure, but give in to non-violent opposition too?  Give every squeaky wheel it's grease?  Shun the introverts for the extroverts?  Keep the voiceless mute?  Re-victimize?
     Too easy to just say 'love everyone', without struggling with what that means.
     Each of us knows what it feels like to like someone or something or to loath them.  People and ideas garner different levels of respect.  I try really hard to be respectful of everyone, but deep down... I really don't like some.  Is that not supposed to matter?
     Or... understand why it matters... and to really decide how much our opinions and experiences justify the devaluing the worthiness of others (in the eyes of God at least)
     Harsh punishment is easy to justify-impose if dehumanized: a monster, criminal, enemy.
     But people we care about: we treat with compassion, help, reclaim, repair.  At least a second chance... often way more.
     Jesus: apply that to those you don't care about.
     Everyone is an image of God regardless of label.
     Can cherry-pick bible to support capital punishment, slavery, etc. People did/do.
     Jesus: don't just quote scripture about punishment... be just... justice based on compassion-love.
     Interpret. Think. Chose. Act.
     What do we do with Jesus' implication that the bully, the thief, the dictator, the greedy, the selfish, the violent are to be loved as deep in our hearts as our dearest neighbour?
     Jesus knows this is NOT easy.  Don’t avoid the hard.
     Don't just pretend 'they' don't exist.  Don't pretend they aren't as much of God as us.  Lock 'em up and forget 'em.
     Play on words.  Eye for an eye.  See with eyes of God.  Love with Jesus' heart.
     Minimum: when we just CAN'T 'love' our enemies at this idealized level - for reasons that are well-reasoned and right for us - at the very least, don't deny or begrudge God the ability to love them with the full depth of the divine heart.
     Don't force God to wear our image, just because it is hard to our enemies bearing the image of God.


Let us pray: 
God, we proclaim the hard faith that your love has no limits.  We will try to expand limits of our love.  Amen.


#365VU “Jesus Loves Me”

Sunday, February 12, 2017

WALKING THE GARDEN

February 12, 2017
Epiphany 6
(prayer)
The catcher puts down the sign for the pitcher to throw a down-and-away fastball on a three-two count to a left handed batter with a history of hitting ground balls the opposite way.  As a result, the third base player is going to be expected to line up in a certain spot as the pitch is thrown.
//
During the huddle, the quarterback calls for a 25 Dive Counter with a Bootleg Option.  As a result, the left tackle and tight end are going to have to make a hole for the fullback to run through and the right tackle will want to kick out and look for the smart block just in case the QB is coming his way.
//
Am I right?
//
//
The New England Patriots are probably one of the most maligned National Football League teams of the last decade and a half.
At the same time, it is hard to argue that the New England Patriots are not one of the most successful NFL teams of the last 15 years.  Counting last weekend's game, the Pats have made seven Super Bowl appearances since 2002, winning five times... all with the same head coach and quarterback.
But... as one sports commentator postulated a week ago: unless you lived in Massachusetts or Rhode Island, you were probably rooting for the Atlanta Falcons in Super Bowl LI.
I appreciate that perpetual winners are not always popular outside their home fan base.  Was anyone (outside of Edmonton) rooting for the EE to win their sixth straight Grey Cup in 1983 or was anyone other than rabid Habs fans cheering for the Montréal Canadiens in 1980 to win Stanley Cup number twenty-three after having won six from 1971-79. 
Of course, the New England Patriots' negative reputation is not just because people are bothered by New England's history of success.  Just Google "deflategate" if you want to study part of the reasons why.
//
//
Love him or loathe him, (New England Patriots head coach) Bill Belichick is fond of sharing his three-word mantra for team success: Do Your Job.  You may even have heard the new US Secretary of State mention this on his first day on the job two weeks ago.
//
Team work does rely on the various parts fitting together to serve the wider goals.
Football - as much as any sport I know - is like this.  Of the 12 players on the field (11 in the US), different players have very specific roles on every given play. 
//
Every organized sports team has game plans - they work on set plays that they hope to use in certain situations.
In hockey, for example, teams will practice two-on-one drills with hopes that the flow of the game will give them the opportunity to use what they have practised.
But, unlike more the more fluid, flowing sports (like soccer or hockey or basketball), football (similarly baseball and curling) has regular stops and starts allowing for a specific plan to be implemented at a specific time.  Each new play has a plan and each player has a part of that plan.  In baseball, curling and football, there is a pause before the ball is snapped or pitched (or the rock is thrown) allowing for each player to be ready to act as part of a greater whole.
Everyone is asked to meet the goals their job (to do their job), so that the big job can be accomplished.
//
//
//
A few weeks ago, we read from First Corinthians chapter one about conflicts over leadership in the early church.  Reports had made it to the Apostle Paul that certain people were praising some leaders and maligning others, sorting themselves into subsets of the church:  I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos, I belong to Peter.
Today's reading from First Corinthians chapter three continues Paul's point about the issue.  And as I mentioned in my Annual General Meeting devotion last week (from First Corinthians chapter twelve:  many parts of one body), Paul spent 13 1/2 of the 16 chapters of the letter on this topic.
//
In today's chapter three reading (which is part of this wider narrative), instead of making a case for people to line up behind him instead of Peter or Apollos, Paul speaks of the ways that each beloved leader has contributed to the whole.
Apollos and Paul are servants
through whom you came to believe.
Paul planted, Apollos watered.
God who gave the growth.
The one who plants
and the one who waters
have a common purpose.
For we are Gods servants,
working together;
you are Gods field.
//
This is not a call for all of us to live out our faith in exactly the same way.  It is not an invitation for us to all get behind the same activities within the ministry of Christ.
//
//
And, as a church minister for almost 30 years, I have seen many situations (in churches I have served myself and places I have observed elsewhere)... people within a church can become annoyed with their fellow pew-mates for not sharing the same depth of passion for a particular part of church work.
I have heard people proclaim sentences that begin: "obviously, the church should be doing..."
//
Why do we feel the need to see others as competitors rather than collaborators?  To pit one ministry emphasis against another.
Is not the household of God able to be more diverse and inclusive than that?
Just because we are sharing this experience we call united church doesn't mean we are going to be united in everything.
//
I know that on any given Sunday, within the same congregation, one person could think, Blaine's sermon was too political, while someone else will be thinking it wasn't political enough.  Or the service was too deep or not deep enoughToo much music, and not enoughExactly what I needed and I couldn't relate.
We have all chosen to be here, but that choice is not identical to everyone else.
//
More than five thousand years ago, west of the Jordan River laid the land of Canaan... where the great ancestors of the Hebrews (Sarah and Abraham) had ended their journey and found the right combination of welcome and opportunity to establish a new home.
It was only three generations later that this family found itself on the move again... fleeing to Egypt to escape the hunger of a devastating drought.
Abraham's descendants stayed in Egypt, but never lost their connection to Canaan.  They became an identifiable people with unique cultural and religious traditions.  That unity created fear among the rulers of Egypt and the Hebrews (aka... the People of Israel) were forced into a slavery of forced labour, until Moses (emboldened by God) convinced the Pharoah to let the people go.
As the narrative reaches the book of Deuteronomy, the Israelites have completed their liberating exodus journey through the Sinai wilderness.  They were forty years removed from being slaves to Pharoah in Egypt when they first saw the waters of the River Jordan from its eastern bank.
  It is - in the setting of that view - that the people are reminded of a basic choice.
Before you today is life and death, prosperity and adversity, blessings and curses.  Choose life.  Hold fast to God.  And live long in this land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
It is not a difficult choice.  It is a rhetorical question, with an expected answer.
On one hand is life, prosperity and blessings - the other death, adversity and curses - of course everyone would choose life.
//
What may come, after choosing life, will rely on a trust in the promise of a holy presence as they moved into this traditional land.
//
The life they were choosing - naturally - would not be identical for everyone.
//
It is God who finds unity in our diversity.  God is big enough to handle the task.
//
Being baffled by the choices is not just a church thing.
When I see those internet memes and comments that ask we should help our own homeless instead of refugees, I am baffled.  Because I am more prone to ask... why can't it be both?
//
Part of this defensive attitude comes from an attitude of scarcity: a belief that there is not enough to go around. 
There are times when people seem very quick to force a choice... to pick one direction or another... because then we can unite under a common direction.
While that is certainly true - to a degree, sometimes - my experience of dynamics (within the church at least) that I have observed... scarcity is generally overplayed... as a reality of church life.
Yes!  Energy, money, space all provide the outer limits to what might be possible at a given time.  But... the edge is often further away than some people think.  When we are afraid to go too far out, we may never discover that we know more abundance that we think.
//
Even liberals-minded churches tend to be conservative when it comes to making choices that might bring new uncertainty into church life.
While there is wisdom to plan for a rainy day, some churches are so rainy-day-focused that they never get to enjoy the sunshine.
//
God invitess the Israelites to choose life, but that choice does not mean that the chosen life will be certain. 
Again, this was not new.  During the years of the Exodus, Moses and the other leaders were confronted with people who were willing to choose going back to their lives as slaves in Egypt (the only home they had ever known) because it offered more certainty than the promised prosperity on the path that was leading to Canaan.
//
//
We can choose life together without expecting perfect unity to be part of that choice.
//
//
The Church of Christ Jesus, the Apostle Paul would say, is made better by our diversity.  We should see ourselves as part of something greater than any one person.  Paul invites the Corinthians to embrace the gifts, skills and activities that each person holds in service for the greater whole ("the common good" is the phrase Paul uses in chapter 12).
Paul has some credibility in this regard, because behind the theme of the first thirteen-and-a-half chapters of the letter, were people who were maligning the gifts that Paul offered as compared to what Apollos brought to the table.
Paul could have wallowed in defensiveness, but he stepped back and saw how his part fit into the bigger whole.
"[You and your faith are like a field.]
I planted.  Apollos watered.
God gave the growth."
This horticultural metaphor is easily understandable - in both the first and twenty-first centuries.
On their own, neither Apollos nor Paul did it all.  And neither's efforts would have any impact without God's involvement.
The reality of how plant growth happens in our evolving world includes aspects beyond the influence of both the planter and waterer.  Jesus used this fact in one of his parables (Mk4:26-29):  The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come.
Now, Jesus was making a different point than Paul, but the reality is that even the most skilled botanist starts with laws of nature beyond her/his control (Jesus: the earth produces of itself; Paul: God gives the growth).
//
//
On the edge of the promised land, the Hebrews of the Exodus were invited to cross the river with feet guided by the promise of a good life.
The goodness they were promised would be experienced in different ways, but (as the Christian Apostle would write 3000 years late), they were tied to a common purpose and and common good.
//
The potential of God's growth is a garden in which we live.  Seeds of faith and passions for certain aspects of ministry are planted in each of us.  As we walk the garden of God, some of our passions are watered and nurtured resulted in even greater growth.
We bloom where we are planted.  But our growth foliage can be very different than others in the same garden.  The garden of God's people is beautiful and diverse.
Bloom where you are planted.
Do your job.
Know that you are part of something greater than yourself.
//
//
//
Let us pray:
Loving God, we desire devoted hearts that seek to listen, think and feel anew.  Amen.


#703VU “In the Bulb There is a Flower”

Sunday, February 5, 2017

SEEING THE FLAVOUR

February 5, 2017
Epiphany 5
(prayer)
Salt losing its saltiness?
//
It doesn't seem to be a modern problem.
Even the salt discovered at the back of a cupboard after decades of hiding will still taste salty.  Even if moisture has turned it into a solid salt block, it will still taste salty when you like it.
Sodium Chloride is a very stable chemical.
But (you might say) if you let a glass of salt-water evaporate, a white residue and it doesn't taste very much like salt.
Has the salt lost its saltiness?
In reality, the residue is mostly other chemicals.  Most of the NaCl particles were lost in the water vapor.
//
Salt losing saltiness might not be relatable to our modern experience, other than in a metaphoric - purely theoretical - way  But, Jesus' audience would have no problem imagining the reality of salt losing its saltiness.  It happened all the time.
In Jesus' day, a common way to get salt was to collect it from the sand of salt water beaches.  Or, if you didn't live by salt water, you might be able to buy salt bundles at a market.
When collecting salt, you could try and minimize the amount of sand you collect along with the sea salt, but it was not a practical use of time to try and get pure salt. 
After putting some salt-rich sand in a piece of tied up fabric, you could add the salt-pouch to cooking water. 
Think of it like a tea bag of salty-sand.
The heat of the water would leach the salt out of the package, leaving the sand intact inside the bag.  After several uses, only the sand would remain... the salt-pouch had lost its saltiness.  The only thing left to do was to throw out the used up saltless sand get a fresh pouch of salt-rich sand.
It is no longer good for anything,
but is thrown out
and trampled under foot.
//
In the Babylonian Talmud, there is an exchange between Rabbi Yehoshua and some Greek sages that includes the question: When salt becomes unsavory,  wherewith is it salted?
The Rabbi's response was: With the afterbirth of a mule.
I guess there is an alternative to having to tredge back to the sea shore and collect a new salt pouch.  Just treat your old pouch with a little mule placenta and go back to preparing supper.
Yummy.
//  //  //
Do you believe the rabbi?
Will this work?  Re-salt salt with a mule's afterbirth?
//  //  //
You may know that a mule is the cross-species offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.  [A hinny is the genetically similar child of a male horse and a female donkey.]  Mules and Hinnies are useful beasts of burden.  They are more patient, tougher and longer-lived than horses, and are more intelligent than donkeys.  They tend to eat less than horses of the same size.  In other words: cheaper for longer, more compliant and harder working.
Biologically, the DNA of a horse has 64 chromosomes; donkey DNA has 62.  Mules end up with 63 less than perfectly paired chromosome.  A result of this is that mules are almost always infertile.  Other than very rare instances, mules cannot have babies. 
//
No babies.  No placenta.
//
So, when Rabbi Yehoshua said that the only way to re-salt unsavory salt is to treat it with the afterbirth of a mule, he was saying that salt CANNOT regain it's saltiness.
//
//
Jesus' audience predates the Talmud, but they didn't need it to know that unsavory salt has no purpose as a seasoning.
The message - for Jesus' followers (listening to his stories on the mountainside and reading Matthew's gospel decades - or millenia - later) - was don't squander your ability to enhance the life experience of others.
//
You are salt. 
     You are light.
Don't lose your saltiness.
     Don't cover up your light.
//
//
The precise context in Matthew for the salt and light metaphors was (what appears to be) a misunderstanding of Jesus' broader message.  Some were concluding that Jesus advocated that it was no longer necessary or valuable to follow the practices and rituals of their traditional faith.
Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was NOT an abolishment of the Torah [Hebrew law] nor the teachings of the prophets.  Jesus wanted the disciples to continue to live lives of obvious faith and devotion.  The Torah and the prophets described ways to do this that tied people to their faith tradition and practice.
Besides being valuable for one's personal faith development, spiritual practices and acts of social justice are visible testamonies to others.
Our public actions (not just our private devotions) glorify our God.
//
John's gospel puts it this way, by quoting Jesus as saying: Everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (Jn13:35)
In my summer camp days, we would sing:
And they'll know we are Christians
by our love, by our love.
Yes, they'll know we are Christians
by our love.
//
Jesus' salt-light talk is in the tradition of prophets like the Isaiah of the Exile.  This morning, from Isaiah chapter 58, we heard a prophet expressing frustrations around the hypocrisy of words and actions not matching up.
During the Babylonian exile, the remnant of the Judean people were forced to re-imagine how they could practice their faith after centuries of stable temple-focused worship and ritual. 
One of the ways that the faith could be kept alive by the Rivers of Babylon, was to encourage people to practice the spiritual disciplines that were not dependant on a Jerusalem locale -  things like: celebrating special fast days.
The prophet's concern was related to more than the practical aspects of the practice of fasting.  At best, it sounds like people were going through the motions of the fast. 
Some saw no value in glorifying a God, who had clearly abandoned them: Why humble ourselves when [God does] not notice?
Those that did fast may have been challenging their bodies, but that was where it ended.  People were not challenging their minds and spirits as deeply as the fast intended.
They continued to hold on to anger and a mistreatment of others.  Maybe the hunger made the cranky.
Fasting - the prophet preaches - is NOT only about feeling a literal hunger, and longing for the release that the coming feast would bring, but also... (in empathy) to see the bigger needs around us and long to satisfy them as well.
The prophet says... the fast that God chooses is not about bowing down and humbling yourself; it is to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.  [It is] to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house;  when you see the naked, to cover them,  and not to hide yourself from your own kin? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly. (Is58:6b-8a)
//
In that last sentence, Isaiah uses the same metaphor that Jesus used centuries later... your light shall break forth like the dawn.  Faithfulness is not only to have an internal focus... it is like igniting a spark within us whose light shines out into the world.
//
Fasting is not about a lack of food, it is a way to reorient one's spirit... to use a modern phrase: it is a spiritual discipline.
Discipline = learning.  The fast was supposed to teach them something, not just make them hungry.  It was a personal experience that was supposed to teach them to be lights in the world... even by the Rivers of Babylon.
Spiritual Discipline = learning what an active spirit can do.
//
//
The closest followers of Jesus were called disciples... as the word implies, the disciples were learners of a way of faithful living.
//
We are to seek the practicality of that title for ourselves, too.
//
Faith includes discipleship - in the context of Jesus' teaching from Matthew today, discipleship means learning to live as metaphoric light and salt: to illuminate the compassion and love of God and let people taste what that feels like.
//
This congregation - for about two decades - has described it's mission as involving both 'welcoming in' and 'reaching out'.  We seek to welcome all to participate in its nurturing Christian community and to inspire [each other] to serve others as Christ taught.
Reach out.  Welcome in.
We can do both: to feed our own spirits, to draw closer to our God as part of our own spiritual journey; and let that impact how we live in the world and how we connect with those beyond these walls and beyond the boundaries of those who hold similar beliefs and practices to us.
//
Did you notice that the issue of people displaced by war and terror has been in the news a lot lately?
I understand that a recently elected politician south of the border got some press about a week ago for halting refugee intake and revoking all kinds of valid visas from seven countries... that - by the way - have never produced a single terrorist who has attacked the US homeland.
There was spontaneous outrage that resulted in public demonstrations of support for refugees and immigrants affected.
The unplanned gatherings at airports followed two very different well-planned and organized marches in the US:  the Women's March on January 21st and the March for life on January 27th.
Although not on the same page, each of these gatherings were examples of people shining the light of what they believe into the world.
While it is possible that some beliefs were changed because of what had occurred.  Each of these spontaneous and organized events provided an opportunity for people to express things they already believed
A week ago, it happened again when the rhetoric of division was made manifest in violence in Quebec City.  In the early hours, three very different belief perspectives brought flavour to the discussion:
·         One that quickly drew parallels between the known suspect's past online professions with the US President's executive order from two days earlier, although there was nothing released to show a direct connection between the events.  There are still some who want that connection to support their already held beliefs that "the ban" actually makes things less safe than safer.
·         On the other end of the spectrum, others jumped on the possibility that the shooting might have been an act of muslim-on-muslim violence because the police initially mis-identified an innocent witness as a suspect.  Even when this was not the case, so strong was the desire for this tragic mosque shooting to justify "the ban" that (even mainstream) news organizations refused to correct the record until guilted into it by the Canadian government's Director of Communication;
·         The third dominant perspective came from those who believed greater respect and honest welcome is needed among the varied people of the human family.  They organized and attended vigils; they lamented the violence - however motivated.
//
Again, I haven't witnessed a lot of shifting of beliefs, just reinforced beliefs.
As I watch the politics of the US Cabinet and Supreme Court confirmation processes, I see two sides that are so entrenched in what they want if they no longer believe in the possibility of change that is only possible when one is humble enough to accept they don't already know everything.
I do lament that the age of compromise is dying... giving birth to only winners and losers where half the people feel are perpetually forced in to resistance movements.
I lament this, but I am forced to accept it as a current reality, now-a-days: sad, but true... the #newnormal.
//
I know that beliefs can and do change, but they usually need more than a twitter post or Facebook meme to bring about that transformation.
Evolving beliefs are born out of discipleship... a willingness to learn something new. 
The close-minded and hard-hearted (by definition) cannot be disciples because... they are not humble enough to accept that God has created and is creating.
What is the point of letting light shine, if we aren't open to what is being illuminated?
When light shines, we may be surprised by what becomes visible.
What is the point of there being flavour in the world if we aren't will to risk tasting it?
We will never experience new flavour profiles unless we are willing to stick our tongue out.
Yes, let us be light and salt for what we have come to believe in our discipleship so far, but if we are not able to see and taste what else is out there, we cease to become learners.
//
//
If Isaiah of Babylon and Jesus had collaborated on a sermon, they may have said... "a ritual fast that only focuses on our own hunger is like closing your eyes in the midst of morning's new light or like bypassing the taste buds when trying a new food."
//
//
Yes, we are light. 
Yes, we are salt.
But we are also called to see what else the light is exposing and to savour the unknown flavours on our plate.
//
I think... having enough faith in one's beliefs to have them challenged is what makes us disciples in the truest sense of the word.
//
So shine, but look and learn too.
//
//
Let us pray:
Light of the world,
be our light today. 
Shine through us.
Amen.


***offering***