In working through this past Sunday's texts - It was Palm/Passion Sunday - I noticed something that I had only tangentially regarded before this year. The Triumphal Entry is actually the clash of two religious cultures, one that is reflected in the Temple and the other reflected in those who sit, begging, at the city gate.
The Temple authority is a traditional configuration. It is a closed audience, a hereditary code, an exclusive association of those who have, by birth or "proper" behavior, worked their way into positions of power and recognition. Only the proper ones are allowed access. If there is something wrong with you, if you are a leper or lame or blind or a menstruating woman, if you are poor or unemployed or unusual, if you are a non-Jew or dressed inappropriately, or if you eat the wrong things or think the wrong kinds of ways, well then, you are simply not allowed access. The privilege that keeps all those within the system from falling out are taken for granted and held up as expectations and standards of those who are left outside.
At the gate sit those who have been excluded. They have no access to the benefits of the Temple. Because they are excluded from Temple, they are excluded from business, relationship, association, acceptance and hospitality. These are the pariahs. They are untouchable. To associate with them renders those within the Temple system impure, unacceptable, defiled. The two cultures rarely, if ever, interact. The gate population is to be avoided at all costs. In fact, if the Temple authority could manage it, they would disallow the gate population from sitting and begging at the Temple gate. What an embarrassment they are to those who come from afar to visit the Temple of the Lord.
Jesus comes, borrowing the ancient symbol of royal coronation, to declare to the gate population that there is a new religion afoot. There is a new world coming. There is a new way. In this new configuration, Jews and non-Jews will be equal, in both the sight of the Temple and in the courts of law. Leprosy will become a universal need for care and medical research. Those who are lame and deaf and blind will be supported and cared for and valued. The poor will be employed. Women will be respected and no longer considered the property of men. The divisiveness of the Temple system will come to an end and all people shall be included in the population that is in covenant with God.
The Temple hates this symbol. The Sanhedrin despises the promise. Such radical equality is simply not to be allowed. Such grace is ridiculous to a system that has been so steeped in the law.
The clash goes on. In Indiana, two religious communities are clashing over current legislation. The "Freedom of Religion" bill has been approved by the Indiana Representatives and Senators and signed into law by the Governor. Now, the law in itself has little of so much controversy. It is similar to what has been enacted in other states and federally. What differentiates the Indiana bill from the others is its intention. It comes from the desire of some businesses within the state to refuse service to some segments of the population because those persons practice in ways unacceptable to the business owners. Should a business not have the right to refuse service to persons who do not live up to some moral or religious code?
The question is quite simple, really, and can be applied in a very consistent manner that follows a very basic Christian rubric. Do we stand on the side of Christ or do we represent the Temple culture that Christ's radical practice of equality and respect so deeply insulted?
Holy Week provides a clear answer. Some today stand with the crowd that shouts "Crucify him!" while some stand boldly by him, rejecting exclusionary legislation. What will we do this week? Where do we stand?
Monday, March 30, 2015
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
The Big 54
The 54th birthday is not usually a cause for tremendous celebration. In fact, at this age, birthdays come and go, all to quickly. There is little that differentiates one from another. Unless there is some special reason, 54 is just another year to celebrate, looking back at what has been accomplished and another occasion for imagining as we look forward.
Unless, that is, there is something more to it than we might at first realize, which is the case with me. This is a very big birthday.
Let me explain.
My father died, in 1989, at the age of 53, just months short of the birth of our first and only daughter, Casey Jane. He died as the result of medical mishap, a mistake made in the course of a heart catheterization (sp?) that cut off blood flow to his intestines. When they opened his chest cavity for a quadruple bypass two weeks after, they discovered that a significant portion of his intestines had become necrotic and gangrenous. Instead of pursuing incredibly dangerous, and nearly impossible, medical procedures at the time, he decided, in consultation with the family and the doctors, to allow his life to end naturally. He died later that same day.
I have inherited many of my father's health challenges. I am hypertensive, with an enlarged heart and slightly high cholesterol. My transglycerides have advanced over the years, though only to a slightly high point. My habits are not like his were, however. I quit smoking in 1994. I work out as often as I can, though there is a special challenge with a very bad hip and two bad knees. While my diet is not perfect, I do not eat three-egg fried egg sandwiches three lunches per week or drink upward of a dozen cups of battery-acid coffee every day. I know my health numbers. They are not perfect, but better than they were ten years ago.
In short, 54 looks pretty good. I thought that I would take this occasion to celebrate some of that for which I am thankful...and some of that for which I hope.
I am thankful for my family. My wife and my daughter continue to be tremendous life-partners. They are, in many ways, the reason that I do what I do and the motivation behind me doing it. I am thankful for the life time of memories, for those who have contributed to shaping me, educating me, inspiring me, reminding me who I am and from whence I have come. I recognize the influence of teachers, coaches, mentors, friends and colleagues along the way. Thank you to each of you.
I am thankful for advancements in medical science, which, if they had been available in my father's time, may well have saved his life. I am thankful for doctors and nurses, who dedicate their lives to dealing with human illness, hoping that the outcome of their care is human wellness.
This leads me directly to several things for which I continue to hope and work. I wish that medical care were less financially dictated, that insurance companies did not have the power or authority to determine one's health care. I wish that we could all receive whatever care we needed and desired, like Angelina Jolie, who can afford to take preventative and voluntary surgical measures to protect herself from illness.I wish that option were open to the poor and middle class as well as the rich. I wish that we were more unified in caring for one another, that the superficialities that divide us might be erased by the unity at the essential human core.I wish that people treated others with respect and honor. I wish that list included all others, not just those of one's kind, type, class, status, race, orientation or life style.
Because I have been given this gift, which I, today, celebrate, I dedicate my remaining years to achievement of these wishes. I hope to serve in communities where they join me in the effort of overcoming decades and centuries of divisiveness in ways that result in radical unity, peace, justice and mercy.
The 54th is a big birthday for me. Thanks for all the kind wishes. Now, can we get to work?!
Unless, that is, there is something more to it than we might at first realize, which is the case with me. This is a very big birthday.
Let me explain.
My father died, in 1989, at the age of 53, just months short of the birth of our first and only daughter, Casey Jane. He died as the result of medical mishap, a mistake made in the course of a heart catheterization (sp?) that cut off blood flow to his intestines. When they opened his chest cavity for a quadruple bypass two weeks after, they discovered that a significant portion of his intestines had become necrotic and gangrenous. Instead of pursuing incredibly dangerous, and nearly impossible, medical procedures at the time, he decided, in consultation with the family and the doctors, to allow his life to end naturally. He died later that same day.
I have inherited many of my father's health challenges. I am hypertensive, with an enlarged heart and slightly high cholesterol. My transglycerides have advanced over the years, though only to a slightly high point. My habits are not like his were, however. I quit smoking in 1994. I work out as often as I can, though there is a special challenge with a very bad hip and two bad knees. While my diet is not perfect, I do not eat three-egg fried egg sandwiches three lunches per week or drink upward of a dozen cups of battery-acid coffee every day. I know my health numbers. They are not perfect, but better than they were ten years ago.
In short, 54 looks pretty good. I thought that I would take this occasion to celebrate some of that for which I am thankful...and some of that for which I hope.
I am thankful for my family. My wife and my daughter continue to be tremendous life-partners. They are, in many ways, the reason that I do what I do and the motivation behind me doing it. I am thankful for the life time of memories, for those who have contributed to shaping me, educating me, inspiring me, reminding me who I am and from whence I have come. I recognize the influence of teachers, coaches, mentors, friends and colleagues along the way. Thank you to each of you.
I am thankful for advancements in medical science, which, if they had been available in my father's time, may well have saved his life. I am thankful for doctors and nurses, who dedicate their lives to dealing with human illness, hoping that the outcome of their care is human wellness.
This leads me directly to several things for which I continue to hope and work. I wish that medical care were less financially dictated, that insurance companies did not have the power or authority to determine one's health care. I wish that we could all receive whatever care we needed and desired, like Angelina Jolie, who can afford to take preventative and voluntary surgical measures to protect herself from illness.I wish that option were open to the poor and middle class as well as the rich. I wish that we were more unified in caring for one another, that the superficialities that divide us might be erased by the unity at the essential human core.I wish that people treated others with respect and honor. I wish that list included all others, not just those of one's kind, type, class, status, race, orientation or life style.
Because I have been given this gift, which I, today, celebrate, I dedicate my remaining years to achievement of these wishes. I hope to serve in communities where they join me in the effort of overcoming decades and centuries of divisiveness in ways that result in radical unity, peace, justice and mercy.
The 54th is a big birthday for me. Thanks for all the kind wishes. Now, can we get to work?!
Monday, March 16, 2015
Perspective
This past week, in Shiloh's regular Thursday Bible study, we were discussing the texts that are designated for this past Sunday by the Revised Common Lectionary. Among the four designated texts were the two that we had decided to use as the focal point of worship for the fourth Sunday in Lent: Ephesians 2:8-10 and John 3:14-21.
The conversation arose naturally, as we were attempting to tie our modified Historical/Critical Method to a direct application for that upcoming Sunday. We discussed the Pauline concentration on the grace of God in the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Christ Jesus and the typical epistolary elements of his letters. We determined that, given those typical and necessary elements, Ephesians seems only slightly like Pauline material. The theology is similar, but the essence of the epistle is missing. We discussed that the theology of grace is always juxtaposed with a theology of the law. The question is whether Jesus and Paul reflected a conditional relationship with God, as one would expect under a theology of law, or if it is unconditional, as one would experience with a theology of grace.
In the course of the conversation, in order to make transition to consideration of the gospel texts, I said that most biblical texts can be interpreted from either perspective. In order to support the point, I demonstrated to the class how John 3:16 can be read as either conditional or unconditional statement of faith. (I did the same at the 10:25 service on Sunday morning.)
John 3:16 can reflect both a conditional (law) or unconditional (grace) relationship with the God of Jesus Christ. Here is what is written: For God so loved the world that God gave God's own begotten Son, that whomsoever should but believe in him would not perish but have eternal life (my translation). Does this mean that everyone receives salvation in Jesus Christ, or that only those who believe (rightly) in him do? The difference in how one reads the text reflects how one was raised, how one thinks, and what one embraces as a truth of life. Those who believe that their relationship with God is conditional will read the text from that perspective. Those who believe that their relationship with God is unconditional will read the text from that perspective. Neither, it turns out, tends to entertain the alternative perspective.
Some in the class understood that the text itself could be interpreted from alternative perspectives. The text is not definitive, but open to interpretation. Some in the Sunday service understood that the text leaves the interpretive door ajar and that neither perspective is certain, at least not according to the text itself. Most wanted to argue the point, from one perspective or the other.
It was clear, however, that the intent of the Revised Common Lectionary authors was that this text should be interpreted as the theology of grace. Tying John 3:16 to Ephesians, the notion that we are saved solely through faith and not works, with works as faithful response to the free gift of God's grace, is testament to the theology of grace. The Revised Common Lectionary interprets John 3:16 as belonging to the theology of grace, and approaches the theme from that perspective.
While not a definitive answer to how we should interpret John 3:16, the action of the Revised Common Lectionary authors is informative. But the question for us is clear. Is John 3:16 a conditional or unconditional statement? Does it paint the picture of relationship with the God of Jesus Christ according to the theology of law or according to the theology of grace. The answer, it turns out, tells us more about our perspectives than it informs us about the faith.
By the way, almost every scriptural text can be read from either perspective. In fact, the divisions between unconditional and conditional perspectives on faith have been the chief dividing factors within, among, and from religious traditions of every kind and every place throughout time. I wonder if we can move past those perspectives and find common ground from which to practice the mission and ministry to which our faith calls us? Perhaps faith relies more on the outcomes of what we do than the path that we follow in order to get to them?
The conversation arose naturally, as we were attempting to tie our modified Historical/Critical Method to a direct application for that upcoming Sunday. We discussed the Pauline concentration on the grace of God in the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Christ Jesus and the typical epistolary elements of his letters. We determined that, given those typical and necessary elements, Ephesians seems only slightly like Pauline material. The theology is similar, but the essence of the epistle is missing. We discussed that the theology of grace is always juxtaposed with a theology of the law. The question is whether Jesus and Paul reflected a conditional relationship with God, as one would expect under a theology of law, or if it is unconditional, as one would experience with a theology of grace.
In the course of the conversation, in order to make transition to consideration of the gospel texts, I said that most biblical texts can be interpreted from either perspective. In order to support the point, I demonstrated to the class how John 3:16 can be read as either conditional or unconditional statement of faith. (I did the same at the 10:25 service on Sunday morning.)
John 3:16 can reflect both a conditional (law) or unconditional (grace) relationship with the God of Jesus Christ. Here is what is written: For God so loved the world that God gave God's own begotten Son, that whomsoever should but believe in him would not perish but have eternal life (my translation). Does this mean that everyone receives salvation in Jesus Christ, or that only those who believe (rightly) in him do? The difference in how one reads the text reflects how one was raised, how one thinks, and what one embraces as a truth of life. Those who believe that their relationship with God is conditional will read the text from that perspective. Those who believe that their relationship with God is unconditional will read the text from that perspective. Neither, it turns out, tends to entertain the alternative perspective.
Some in the class understood that the text itself could be interpreted from alternative perspectives. The text is not definitive, but open to interpretation. Some in the Sunday service understood that the text leaves the interpretive door ajar and that neither perspective is certain, at least not according to the text itself. Most wanted to argue the point, from one perspective or the other.
It was clear, however, that the intent of the Revised Common Lectionary authors was that this text should be interpreted as the theology of grace. Tying John 3:16 to Ephesians, the notion that we are saved solely through faith and not works, with works as faithful response to the free gift of God's grace, is testament to the theology of grace. The Revised Common Lectionary interprets John 3:16 as belonging to the theology of grace, and approaches the theme from that perspective.
While not a definitive answer to how we should interpret John 3:16, the action of the Revised Common Lectionary authors is informative. But the question for us is clear. Is John 3:16 a conditional or unconditional statement? Does it paint the picture of relationship with the God of Jesus Christ according to the theology of law or according to the theology of grace. The answer, it turns out, tells us more about our perspectives than it informs us about the faith.
By the way, almost every scriptural text can be read from either perspective. In fact, the divisions between unconditional and conditional perspectives on faith have been the chief dividing factors within, among, and from religious traditions of every kind and every place throughout time. I wonder if we can move past those perspectives and find common ground from which to practice the mission and ministry to which our faith calls us? Perhaps faith relies more on the outcomes of what we do than the path that we follow in order to get to them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)