True dat

Year B, Transfiguration (February 19, 2012)

·         2 Kings 2:1-12

·         Psalm 50:1-6 (2)

·         2 Corinthians 4:3-6

·         Mark 9:2-9

Last week we were reading about the very beginning of Yeshua's ministry, and today we are on to Transfiguration, which is the beginning of the end. Then after Pentecost, which is the end of the gospel, we'll simply jump back to where we left off in Mark 2, and go on until Christ the King.

This peculiar order of doing things comes from the fact that the early Church assigned Jesus's birthday to 25 December, for political reasons, and then proceeded to make a big fuss of it, neither of which is at all supported by the scripture. If it weren't for politics, the church year would start the week after Pentecost, skip Advent, Christmas and Epiphany, and simply proceed through the gospel in order from Yeshua's baptism through to Pentecost. And we would have big celebrations for the Baptism and Transfiguration, not for the Nativity, which is of little interest, or Epiphany, which probably never happened at all.

Did the Transfiguration happen? I'm inclined to think so. First of all because it's in Mark, and I trust the author of Mark. But also, because it's very Hebraic. The New Testament was written very much in the context of the Roman Empire, and there isn't much Old Testament Judaism in it, but this is very much an Old Testament story. Not just because Moses and Elijah appear, but because the details are right. It takes place on a high mountain, and God speaks out of a cloud. In the Old Testament, this is how God has conversations with his most responsible servants, particularly Moses. Also, we hear that Jesus's face shines and his garments turn unnaturally white. This is how angels generally appear.

An angel is a messenger of the Lord. A prophet is a human who receives messages from the Lord in dreams and visions; an angel is not human, but a heavenly creature who can meet with God in person. So angels get messages direct from the mouth of God, not in dreams or visions. They have glowing faces and incredibly white garments. Moses' face also glowed after he talked with God face to face. No other human in the Old Testament is recorded as having spoken to God face to face, or having a glowing face.

So, this story, more than just about anything in the four gospels, is very faithful to Old Testament traditions. And this inclines me to believe that it is true.

We can read the Bible in a more or less literal sense. When I first began to seek the Lord, I assumed it was mostly metaphorical, but the more I read the Old Testament, the more I'm inclined to believe that much of it is factual, especially when it comes to the ways in which the Lord communicates with us. Now Moses is known to have spoken with God face to face, and Elijah, though he didn't in his lifetime, was taken up to heaven bodily instead of dying, where he would of course have spoken to God. And these two, God's most responsible human servants, are having a conversation with Yeshua on a high mountain. This in itself would not make Yeshua's face glow. God himself must have been there speaking with him directly. But since the story was reported by Peter, James and John, not by Yeshua himself, I think God was there, in a way that they did not perceive. Maybe a burning bush, or something like that. Then when God wishes to speak to them directly, he brings up a cloud, and talks to them out of the cloud, which is how he usually talks to people.

What God has to say to Peter, James and John is just to confirm what he already said to John the Baptist: "this is my son, the chosen one. Listen to him." What God says to Yeshua, we don't know. I suppose it must have had something to do with the Passion. And this, as far as we know, is the only time in Yeshua's life on earth that he spoke directly with God, face to face. His disciples saw him appear in the form of a direct messenger from God, not just a prophet or a holy man.

So the Transfiguration is another step in the relationship between Yeshua and God. Yeshua was born the same as any other man. He heard the teaching of John the Baptist and repented his sins. God found his repentance acceptable and selected him to be particularly dedicated to his service, and commissioned him to do miracles. Yeshua preached, and did miracles in the name of the Lord, to establish the validity of his teaching. Then, Yeshua was called to meet with Moses, Elijah, and most importantly, God himself. The Lord spoke to him directly, and then spoke from a cloud to his disciples, confirming again Yeshua's authority. And then Yeshua was offered as a sacrifice of atonement for the people of God. The virgin birth, the Epiphany, the edits that were made to the story of Yeshua's immersion in the Jordan, those are unnecessary to advance the story of God and Christ. It is the Transfiguration that shows us what their relationship was. We should give it a great deal more importance.

Praise be to God, the Wise, the Loving One, the Most Glorious.

Year B, Lectionary 6 (February 12, 2012)

·         2 Kings 5:1-14

·         Psalm 30 (2)

·         1 Corinthians 9:24-27

·         Mark 1:40-45

So Elisha heals a leper, and then Yeshua heals a leper.  Mm-hmmm...

Why is that, exactly? I was at a Roman Catholic Bible study the other day and we studied this passage in Mark. One theory proposed by those present was that Jesus can't even stop himself doing miracles, because he loves us so much. And in the ensuing discussion of other miracles Jesus did, it was suggested that even just proximity to the person of Jesus was enough to be healed, because the love just poured from him.

That's one theory. I don't agree with is.

If you read the Old Testament, the prophets do cool miracles. Elijah and Elisha are probably the top two miracle workers, except only Moses. In fact, some of their miracles are cooler than Christ's. And if you read the New Testament, the disciples also do tons of miracles. Jesus himself gives them a commission to do so. So the miracles aren't intrinsic to Jesus or even to Christ, that is, neither to the person of Yeshua son of Joseph, of Nazareth, nor to the anointing he received from the Lord in the presence of John the Baptist.

Likewise miracle-working isn't intrinsic to the person of Elijah, or Elisha, or Peter, or Moses. Miracles are a mark of Jehovah's authority. They are a seal which Jehovah lends to an individual to show that he, Jehovah, has delegated his authority to that person. The New Testament frequently uses this language of authority. Even in last week's gospel reading, we heard that Jesus teaches "with authority". When he sends out the Twelve, he "gives them authority over the unclean spirits." (Mark 6:7). We call this the "great commission". Well, "commission" means literally "the authority to perform a task." In military language especially, "commission" means granting the rank of officer, or the command of a ship. So Jesus is appointing his disciples as officers, which is to say, delegates of his authority.

We hear it as well when the centurion says to him "I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and the slave does it." (Matthew 8:9) Notice the centurion says "I also". The "also" is referring to Jesus, describing him as someone who is himself under authority, and having that authority, can give orders knowing that they will be obeyed immediately. From a comparative religion point of view, it's interesting to ask why a Roman centurion, most likely a worshipper of Mithras, recognises Jesus as a man under divine authority; but for our purposes what's to the point is this: Yeshua has authority from Jehovah. He can use this authority to work miracles. He can delegate this authority to his disciples. He has authority in the same way that an officer has authority: not because it is intrinsic to his person, but because he is part of a chain of command that flows from the highest authority. Nowadays the top of this chain of command is the head of state, but until very recently, the head of state himself or herself was assumed to hold his or her authority from God.

So this is to say, again, that miracles are the proof of Jehovah's commission to a person. Whether the person is Moses, Elijah, Yeshua or Peter, the miracles all come from one and only one authority: God. And God does not do miracles out of love for us. If that was the case, miracles would happen to all of us, every moment, because God hates to see us suffer. If miracles were how God shows his love, then there would be no disease, no amputations, no paraplegics, no broken hearts, no anything unpleasant. Puppies and kittens would never die, bad drivers would never crash, everyone would win the lottery every day.

That would be absurd. In fact I'll venture to say that God does miracles despite his love for us. The world would make absolutely no sense if everyone who is beloved of God could get miracles. People would probably prevent rain all summer so they could golf every day; then they'd complain about global warming. Plants would still grow despite the drought, and slugs would never eat your vegetables. Yet the slugs would never die, because God loves them and would provide something for them. And the vegetables would be eaten but not consumed, because God loves the vegetables too and wouldn't let them suffer either.

A world where God can't stop himself from doing miracles for those he loves is nonsense even by fairy-tale standards. Even Narnia or Shangri La aren't like that. God does no miracles, because he loves us. Because he wants us to have free will, and for that to happen we have to be able to predict consequences, and therefore God can't mess with the consequences. We can see in many children today the effects of preventing actions from having predictable consequences. Not only are they behaviourally challenged, but we know from brain imaging that the part of their brain responsible for self-control actually atrophies. Removing cause-and-effect is not an act of love, but of immediate gratification for the parent.

When God does miracles, it's as a sign of the commission he gives to certain people. If I say to you that I speak directly from the Lord, you may or may not believe me. But if I say to you that I speak directly from the Lord and then I raise the dead, I bet you'd believe me then. And that is why God permits his officers to do miracles: as evidence of their commission. No more.

And yet when you look at the outcome of the gospel reading today, the leper didn't actually listen to anything Jesus said to him. Jesus clearly said, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them." But the leper "went out and began to proclaim it freely", and there is no mention that he ever went to the priest or did the offering. So God gives his officers the authority to do miracles, so they can prove they speak for him; and we Christians look at the miracles and don't listen to a word of the speaking. Like the Chinese proverb says: when the sage points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.

Praise be to God, the Eternally Besought, the Omnipotent, the Powerful, the Most Exalted.

Year B, Lectionary 5 (February 5, 2012)

·         Isaiah 40:21-31

·         Psalm 147:1-11, 20c (3)

·         1 Corinthians 9:16-23

·         Mark 1:29-39

Sometimes you read the lectionary and you're like "wow, this is giving me such amazing insights! I feel so much closer to God! It's like being totally high!" And then sometimes you read the lectionary and you're like... "so? Your point being?" To me, this is one of the latter lectionaries. I read it and then I'm like "so, what about that Greek bailout then?" So rather than preaching you an uninspired sermon, I'm going to read you from two books, one that I just finished reading, and one that I'm currently reading.

The first book is called Made for Goodness, by Archbishop Tutu, who needs no introduction.

The parable of the lost sheep underlines God's love for the sinner even more than the parable of the prodigal son. In the latter story God waits. ... The parable of the lost sheep is different. In that story God goes out after the lost sheep. There is no hint that the sheep plans to return. In fact, the lost sheep is intent on going away. The good shepherd leaves his ninety-nine perfectly well-behaved sheep to set out in search of the lost one. ... God leaves the saints to go in search of the sinner.

... God's behavior, seeking out the sinner, undermines our notion of right and wrong. That the shepherd would abandon the obedient sheep to go and hunt for the recalcitrant one makes it seem to us that right and wrong do not matter.

Now the lost sheep has always been one of my favourite parables – that and the banquet. But when I read this I was reminded of another book, Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk.  The protagonist sees himself and his peers as "God's middle children" and posits that like many middle children, he'd rather get negative attention through bad behaviour than no attention at all. Then I felt like acting up to make God pay attention to me.

Next up, I started reading In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, by Dr. Gabor Maté. This is a book about what he learned in his work as the staff physician for a residence and harm reduction facility for "unhousable" people in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. This excerpt is a woman named Serena recounting her life after the death of her grandmother in Kelowna.

"She was sixty-five. She raised me, from when my mother delivered me and left the hospital right away. The social worker had to phone my grandmother and tell her that if she didn't come and sign papers, I'd be put into a foster home.

"Then she raised my daughter from a year old." Serena has a child, now fourteen years old, born to her when she herself was fifteen. Serena's mother ... was sixteen when she abandoned her newborn. "(My daughter) is with my Aunt Gladys (now). I guess she's doing all right. After my grandmother died, she started getting into speed and everything like that...

"She raised me; she raised my brother Caleb and my sister Devona – my first cousins, actually, but we grew up like brothers and sisters.

"She gave me a perfect home – until I left to find my mother. That's how I came down here, to look for my mom. ... I had my daughter when I was fifteen. He was my auntie's boyfriend, whatever. He was molesting me and if I said anything, he vowed to beat my auntie. ... I was fifteen years old when I came down here to Hastings. ... I had five hundred dollars in my pocket I'd saved for food until I caught up with my mom. It took me a week to find her. I had about four hundred bucks left. When she found that out, she stuck a needle in my arm. The four hundred dollars was gone in four hours. ... And then she sold me to a fucking big fat huge motherfucker while I was sleeping.

"I'm not safe in Kelowna. I was molested by my uncle and my grandfather, and the drug is keeping me from thinking about what happened. ..." The sexual abuse began when Serena was seven years old and persisted until she gave birth to her child, at fifteen. ...

"I had to protect my brother and sister, too. I'd hide them in the basement with four or five bottles of baby food. They were still in diapers. When I was eleven years old, I tried to refuse my grandfather, but he said that if I didn't do exactly what he told me, he was going to do it to Caleb, too. Caleb was only eight then.

"(My grandmother) couldn't (protect us). She was drinking so much until she quit. She began drinking every morning. She was drinking until my daughter was born."

Years later, Caleb was killed – beaten and drowned by three cousins after a drinking bout. "I still have trouble believing my brother is dead, too. We were so close when we were kids. ...

"Me and my mom don't have a mother and daughter life. We live in the same building; we don't even see each other. She walks right by me. That hurts me large. I've tried everything. There's no point. I've tried so many years to see if my mom would get close to me. And the only time she gets close to me is if I have some dope or money in my pocket. It's the only time she'll say, 'Daughter, I love you.' The only time."

This is a sinner and a prostitute. Why does God care more about saving her than about all I do to serve him? Because she needs him a lot more. Because she deserves his love a lot more than I do, to heal her sufferings. Not in this life, probably, but in the next, she will sit right close to God. Why? Because she needs God to comfort her for what she's suffered, much more than I do. I used to date guys like that, back when I used to date. Guys who are addicted, violent, unreliable and dangerous. Die-hard sinners. Not quite the bottom of the barrel of sinners, because mine were still able to work. And people will say things like "what do you see in him?" or "why do you stay?" I did, because the brokenness in them is so visible, even to the naked, human eye, that you have to stay and give them what love you can. They simply need it so much. And if we can see this even as humans, how much more does God see the brokenness and the need to be loved?

This is why the sinners and the prostitutes are going into the Kingdom of Heaven ahead of us. They simply need the comfort of God's love that much more. It's also why we shouldn't sit on our hands and pray that God help our neighbour. God knows their need and will heal them in the end, but he will remember the times we could have done something and just walked on by and presumed to call his attention to the matter. And this is also why we shouldn't be bothering God with things we want him to do for us. Even when we are stressed and suffering, we are vastly better off than the lost sheep; so we should be thankful and let God attend to those who need him more.

And we certainly shouldn't act like middle children to get God to pay attention. Yes, I'd like God to come and help me. Right now. I'm stressed and things are not going well, and I feel hopeless, and I really wish God would get me a better job so I'd have some disposable income and collective bargaining. Maybe if I had a big temper tantrum and did some serious sinning, God would pay attention to me. But I'm one of the ninety-nine sheep, so the right thing to do is keep grazing the green pastures where God has put me, while he's off looking for the lost ones.

Praise be to God, the King , the Most Holy , the Bestower of peace , the Granter of security , the Protector.

Year B, Lectionary 4 (January 29, 2012)

·         Deuteronomy 18:15-20

·         Psalm 111 (10)

·         1 Corinthians 8:1-13

·         Mark 1:21-28

This is an interesting lectionary to preach, because it tells us about "authority". Yeshua taught "with authority", not "like a scribe". And then we look at the passage from Deuteronomy and it tells us how to recognise a real prophet.

A real prophet is one who can perform signs and miracles in the name of Jehovah. Jesus did these miracles: raising the dead, curing the sick, withering a fig tree, multiplying food, changing water into wine, walking on water. This seems amazing to us, and yet if we read the Hebrew part of the Bible, we find out that Elijah also did all these miracles, which is why when Jesus asks later "who do the people say I am?", the disciples answer "some say you are Elijah." Jesus then gives his disciples the power to do miracles in his name, to prove their authority.

But for all that, Jesus and Elijah's miracles are actually not that cool compared to the grand-daddy of all prophets: Moses. Moses is the only human being in the Bible who speaks to the Lord face to face, as a friend. (Exodus 33:11) Moses is above even prophets, as the Lord said: "when there are prophets among you, I the Lord make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face – clearly, not in riddles; and he beholds the form of the Lord." (Numbers 12:6-8)

Humans, other than Moses, cannot speak with the Lord face to face, or we die. This is made very clear in the Scripture. None of us, other than Moses, can see God and live. Even Jesus did not speak with God face to face during his ministry. And when Moses spoke with the Lord face to face, his appearance was changed, and he had to wear a veil afterwards when he was among the people.

So, when we hear accounts of someone having died, gone to Heaven, spoken with God, and then returned to speak of it, we should be very cautious in accepting their claims. Speaking with God face to face is not something you just do and come back from. If God chooses you to come and meet him face to face, it will change everything for you forever; more importantly, God will give you authority to lead his people. God does not talk to living people face to face just to have a chat about the weather. And by the way, God does not need to let people die before he can talk to them. If God wants to talk to you, he just shows up – and you know it.

Not many people claim to have spoken to God face to face, but there are countless people who do claim to speak with God, and many who claim to do miracles in the name of the Lord. I watched a DVD by one of those modern preachers who name their ministries after themselves and become extremely rich. This man claims to heal the sick. One claim he made in the DVD is that one day he preached to a gay man for 45 minutes, and then the gay man was saved and [SQG] "relieved from homosexuality". Then this formerly-gay man went home to his hometown, and brought all his gay friends to his home church, and all of them were saved and [SQG] "relieved from homosexuality." Now whatever you believe is the cause of homosexuality, I think we can agree that being able to turn gay people straight would be quite miraculous, and it would certainly be written about and publicised. So I tried to do some research and find evidence that this preacher did in fact preach gay people into straightness. Except for his own claim in the DVD, I did not find any reference to this miracle anywhere at all. Not one.

The Roman Catholic Church puts a lot of resources into finding real miracles. At Lourdes, there are doctors paid by the church to examine those who claim miraculous healing, and certify the miracle – or not. These doctors hardly ever find any miracles, even though they're looking for them and paid to find them. So when preachers claim to heal people, again, we have to take their claims carefully. Prayer can relieve pain and give a patient strength to fight their condition. It does not work miracles. God works miracles, not humans. And God works miracles in his own time, when he's trying to tell us something.

As for claims of visions, they seem less common now than claims of miracles. People no longer write books like Ezekiel or Revelation. Yet in the Hebrew texts, visions are more common than miracles. A vision from the Lord, like a miracle, is a spectacular event. People do not get a vision from the Lord and just go on calmly with their day.

Finally, the most common claim is of having conversations with God. One person I know claims God wakes her up at night to pray for people. Is that possible? I suppose. But then, menopause and old age make you wake up at night, and why would God wake you up to tell him to ask him to do something? If God wants to do something for your friend, he's not gonna tell you to ask for it; he'll just up and do it. Again, those rich preachers tell us how they have conversations with God, in plain language. Daily. Several times a day. Is this true? Perhaps. But then I think about Samuel, when he was a young boy serving Eli, and the Lord called him. He heard the angel of the Lord calling him, and thought it was Eli calling. The voice wasn't within him, but outside. Samuel did not recognise it. And when Eli recognised that it was the angel of the Lord, and Samuel listened, the messenger said what he had to say and then left. In the Bible, people don't just talk to God all the time about random stuff – and God talks to people rather less than they talk to him.

So do we never hear God anymore? I'm inclined to say it is at best very rare. Preachers today are not prophets, and not even "disciples" in the way that the first-generation Christians were. We do not get words straight from the mouth of God as the prophets did. We are, in fact, the Scribes. The same Scribes that Jesus railed against. And most of us are Pharisees, too. We bring no new word from the Lord: we only study the recorded words of the Lord, and try to understand. We do not have authority from God, but from the congregation. The church gives us a position of authority. Not even the capital-C Church, the body of Christ, but the individual small-c churches, the human organisations of people with similar images of God. That is all the authority we have. We do not speak for God, or from God, but only about God, about the knowledge and the understanding that we have acquired by studying. We certainly hope that our interpretation is true to God's intention, but we don't know for sure.

The moral of all this is to remind us to be humble. We, none of us, have authority to claim to speak for the Lord, but only to share with others a God of our own understanding – and realise that they too, will have their own understanding of God. None of us are prophets, so none of us should claim to have received any kind of communication or vision straight from the Lord. When that happens, we'll know the difference. And certainly none of us have the authority to work miracles, which is to say, we cannot substitute prayer for action. If we ask the Lord to help our neighbour, we have done nothing, because the Lord knew our neighbour's suffering before we did, and cares more than we do. Our prayer is self-righteous and lazy. It is up to us to help our neighbour with our own hands, as is in our power. If we also pray with or for them, that's fine, but if we pray and do not act, we are just the kind of hypocrites Jesus hated.

We, the Scribes and Pharisees, will be last in the Kingdom of Heaven if we are self-satisfied. But if we humble ourselves and serve our neighbours, the sinners, prostitutes and tax-collectors, then we will have a place at the right hand of the Lord, with the sinners and prostitutes.

Praise be to God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Year B, Lectionary 3 (January 22, 2012)

·         Jonah 3:1-5, 10

·         Psalm 62:5-12 (6)

·         1 Corinthians 7:29-31

·         Mark 1:14-20

I love Jonah. He reminds me of Eeyore. Remember Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh? He was the only character I ever liked. Eeyore lives under a perpetual cloud, and so does Jonah. Nothing ever goes right for Jonah. He's the worst prophet. He doesn't even want to be a prophet, and he never gets the will of God right. Finally he goes to Nineveh and prophesies against it, and his prophecy doesn't even come true, and then he's even more miserable. Even God can't make Jonah stop wallowing in misery.

Seriously though, from a theological point of view, I like Jonah because he's completely missing the same point that most Christians are missing. The reality is, God wants to forgive us. I hear Christians going on and on about what a huge, hideous, unforgivable debt of sin we owe the Lord, and only Jesus could pay for it. And then almost always, they go on to say that we have to do X or Y to get that forgiveness that Jesus paid for.

What?

What sense does that make? Either Jesus paid the price or he didn't. If he did, we don't have to do anything more to get the forgiveness; if he didn't, then there is nothing we can do that will achieve what he couldn't. We're already forgiven. For the sins we did, the ones we haven't done yet, the ones we don't even realise are sins, sins of commission, sins of omission, deadly sins, venial sins, fornication, homosexuality, rancor, blah blah, etc, whatever. All sins are forgiven. Done deal. Since two thousand years ago. You don't have to do anything about it, and you couldn't do anything about it if you tried. All you have to do is follow the Lord. So it's the same thing as in the Old Testament, really. If you read any of the historical books, it's the same story: God forgives anything, except worshipping the Baals. Same thing now: if you follow Christ, you're forgiven; if you don't follow Christ, you're not forgiven. But then if you don't follow Christ, you don't believe God is gonna smite you anyway, so it's all the same to you.

I was going to say "most Christians talk about forgiveness a lot", but then I remembered, that's not true. A lot of Christians only talk about the loot. I was praying with the clergy of an Anglican parish one day, and all of them went on and on about all the loot they had and all the extra loot the Lord was gonna give them, all around the circle. I was last to go, so I said "thank you for our salvation." The others said "oh, right!"

Right. So we have the "loot" version of Christianity, which is actually worshipping other gods. But besides them, we have the "unforgiven" version of Christianity, which are the people who go on and on about how impossible it is that God would forgive us, and what all we have to do to get forgiven.

Now if that's your bend, first of all I'd like to know, what exactly have you done that would matter that much to God? Have you killed someone? I bet not. I know a lot of guys who have done time. I know a guy who did 19 years at a stretch. Nineteen years. That's one bad dude. But even he didn't kill anybody. In fact, what he did was in retaliation, so it's not even that far wrong, biblically speaking. Now 19 years is a lot to us, but to God it's nothing. Suppose you even kill someone. Suppose you get convicted for murder one. So, you get [SQG] "life", which is actually imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years, and no guarantee of ever being released. "Life" means "somewhere between 25 years and the rest of your life." That's not bad, for having killed someone. And that's in human terms. Humans will let you walk after 25 years for killing someone. So how long do you think God will hold it against you? God is more forgiving than people, not less. So even without Jesus, how bad would God really smite you for killing someone?

I like to think that in many ways, I am to God as my dog is to me. I like my dog, but she's not at all obedient. She rarely comes when called, unless I have cheese in my hand. She picks fights with smaller dogs. When the weather is nice, she wakes me up in the middle of the night to go for a walk, and when it's cold I have to carry her around the block for her bathroom break. She loves to tear fabric, particularly bedding. She's oppositional on the leash. She doesn't eat perfectly good food I give her, then wants to eat garbage outside. You could say my dog sins against my commandments quite a bit. Several times a day, most days. But do I want my dog to spend eternity in the outer darkness wailing and gnashing her teeth? No. I'm not even mad at her. I think the longest I've ever been mad at her was twenty minutes. Because I like my dog, her [SQG] "sins" are minor, and overall I greatly enjoy her company.

I figure God is like that with us. What's the worst sin I ever did against the Lord? I was disrespectful to my parents as a teenager, I've worked on the Sabbath, and I've taken the Lord's name in vain. Is that really such a huge deal to God? Or is it like my dog shredding my pillow? How many years do you think God would stay mad at me for swearing, if I don't stay mad at my dog more than twenty minutes? And what would God actually do to me? You know what I do to my dog? I give her the cold shoulder. You think God is gonna send me to eternal torture? No. Didn't Jesus say "Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for fish, will give a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:9-11)

That's what Jonah missed, and what many Christians still miss: God wants to forgive us. God does not want to make a big deal out of everything and hold it against us forever. God likes us. So when the people of Nineveh dressed in sackcloth, fasted and sat in heaps of ashes, God was like "hey, that's good enough for me." God wanted to forgive Nineveh. That's actually why he sent Jonah: to give Nineveh a chance to repent. Jonah totally missed that part. And that's why God sent us Yeshua. Because he wanted to forgive us, so he tried to make it as easy as possible for us to do the right thing. Really, he's saying "ok, now this guy here is gonna do all the atoning, and all you have to do is agree with me that this dude is making amends for whatever you've ever done wrong, and we're cool." And we're like "oh yeah, sure, now can I have more loot?"

Praise be to God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Year B, Lectionary 2 (January 15, 2012)

·         1 Samuel 3:1-10 [11-20]

·         Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18 (1)

·         1 Corinthians 6:12-20

·         John 1:43-51

I rarely preach on the letters. One reason is that the letters were written by humans trying to explain the message of Christ; if I preach on the letters, I'm a human explaining another human's explanation of the word of God, which is getting rather far removed from the actual word of the Lord. Another reason is that I often don't agree with Paul. Today I'm going to preach on the reading from 1 Corinthians, but I'm going to start with a disclaimer, because I don't agree with Paul.

Paul is telling us that having sex with a prostitute defiles the body of Christ. Well, seeing that Christ had friends who were prostitutes, I doubt he'd have seen it that way. Paul was a big one for shunning and segregating; Christ wasn't. A prostitute is a child of God as much as anyone else, and lest we forget, prostitutes and tax collectors are going into the kingdom of Heaven ahead of us. So no, the prostitute does not defile the body of Christ in the john. Rather, the john sins against the prostitute, and against the Lord.

The other thing is that Paul, like many people, is setting one sin above another. Everyone seems to have an opinion as to what is THE sin. Fornication. Suicide. Homosexuality. Rancor. Anger. Apostasy. Ok, well, I think God himself voted for apostasy; but as for the rest, Jesus did not give us a hierarchy of sins. A sin is a sin and Christ has already redeemed it before you even committed it. And what's more, unless it's a sin against you personally, then it's none of your business. Is homosexuality a sin? Is it a sin against you personally? No. So never mind. Is fornication a sin? Against Paul personally? No. So never mind, Paul.

Now the thing with Paul is, he never married, and was quite set against fornication, which suggests he was what's popularly called a "sex camel." Camels go without water for long periods of time. "Sex camels" are people who can go without for long periods of time. So it was probably quite easy for Paul to preach abstinence, because it came naturally to him. Other people [SQG] "need" to have sex much more often.

Except they don't. The difference is that the camel actually needs water to live, whereas no one, human or animal, needs sex to live. You can go without sex forever, it won't do you any harm. So where Paul is right about it is in saying "all things are lawful to me, but not all things are beneficial." Fornication is not beneficial. There are many reasons fornication is not beneficial, but from a Christian point of view we might consider an outward and an inward reason, so to speak.

Outwardly, we represent the Lord to the unbelievers. Therefore, we are to be above reproach. Fornication will be held against us; likewise sloth, anger, pride, envy, greed and gluttony. And because they are held against us and we represent the Lord, unbelievers will hold it against the Lord when we commit these sings. Whatever we do, we should be asking ourselves, "is this how I wish to make the unbelievers see the Lord?" Are the unbelievers going to be impressed and interested in your God when they know you're fornicating? Hardly. If they do not respect your behaviour, they will not respect your God.

Inwardly, we are accountable to God for our actions and especially for our ministry. As Jesus says, "occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come! It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea, than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Luke 17:1-2) Remember that those to whom you minister will look up to you, and will be guided by your behaviour; be it your children, your friends, your congregation, or anyone else to whom you bring the word and grace of the Lord. So your conduct should not lead others into error. And even if no one knows and no one will be misled, we should so act that we can offer our actions to the Lord. As Paul wrote in Romans 14:5-8:

Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honour of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honour of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honour of the Lord and give thanks to God. We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.

So how does fornication fit in with this? Have you ever fornicated for the glory of God? Have you ever fornicated in the name of Christ? If you have, I'd like to hear how. I don't believe anyone fornicates in honour of the Lord. And Paul is right in this: you are consecrated to the Lord, therefore whatever you do, you should be able to consecrate to the Lord also. If it can't be offered to the Lord, then don't do it.

Now again, fornication is not the only or the worst sin, but it's possibly the easiest one to make an example of, which is why I'm preaching about Paul's letter today. It's easy to recognize that fornication does not honour the Lord. There are other behaviours that can be arguable. Some might argue that shunning homosexuals honours the Lord, and others might argue that it doesn't, and/or that including them honours the Lord better. Some might argue that having a feast honours the Lord, and some might argue that refraining from excessive eating honours the Lord better; and some might eat sparingly to honour the Lord, and have occasional feasts to honour the Lord. Some might argue that sending money to the Third World honours the Lord, and others might argue that donating it in your community honours the Lord better. But I haven't heard anyone claim to fornicate to honour the Lord.

All things are lawful to us, but not all things are beneficial. So before we act, we should consider, not so much whether something is "a sin" that the Lord will hold against us; much less should we consider whether someone else's action is a sin that the Lord will hold against us. What we should ask ourselves is: "does this serve and honour the Lord? Does this set a good example for those who look up to me? And does this reflect well on the Lord in the eyes of unbelievers?" If not, don't do it. It doesn't matter whether it's on Paul's list of sins or someone else's list of sins or how much better or worse it is than the other sins. If it doesn't serve and honour the Lord, set a good example, and reflect well on the Lord in the eyes of unbelievers, then don't do it.

Praise be to God, the Judge , the Equitable , the Knower of subtleties , the All-Aware , the Forbearing.

Year B, Baptism of Our Lord (January 8, 2012)

·         Genesis 1:1-5

·         Psalm 29 (3)

·         Acts 19:1-7

·         Mark 1:4-11

You know, I would really like to know what it was exactly that John said. John was a Levite, meaning he was a priest, and he was also a prophet. Whatever he was saying would have been in Hebrew and rooted in the Hebrew scripture, but what has survived for us to read was written thirty years later, in Greek, by someone who wasn't there when John was preaching, and who might not even have been particularly versed in the Hebrew scriptures.

When we read the Old Testament, however, there are two different concepts that are brought together in Mark's rendition of John the Baptist. On the one hand, there is the ritual washing by immersion, from which the ritual of baptism is descended. This washing marks one's becoming clean after having been impure, for example after having contact with a corpse, or being cured of a leprous disease, or having an unclean discharge. On the other hand, there is rebellion against God. This is completely different from uncleanness. Uncleanness happens inevitably from time to time, and is removed by time, healing and washing. Rebellion against God is deliberate and cannot be taken away by washing. The remedy for it is repentance and sacrifice, and sacrifice means having to give up to the Lord some of the necessities of life, in the form of food.

So what was John preaching? Apparently, he was telling people that now they could get reconciled with God just by immersion, which is free, rather than by sacrifice, which is costly. Even though the law provided a sort of sliding scale of sacrifice, so that everyone sacrificed according to their means, we often see in the Old Testament that priests would become corrupt and make demands of the people which might exclude the poor from reconciliation with God. By preaching this reconciliation through immersion instead, John is extending reconciliation to all, regardless of means.

In Mark's version, John does not know Jesus before he immerses him, which makes sense. This is happening in Jerusalem, and Jesus is from Nazareth in Galilee. Jesus would have been down to Jerusalem every year, but so would everyone else, so John would have no reason to know him. In the Matthew and John, which are written later, John recognises Jesus before immersing him, and in Matthew he argues with him, saying "I need to be baptised by you, and do you come to me?"

This has given rise to an enduring controversy between those who believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and those who believe he was chosen by God at the time of his encounter with John. Personally, I'm with Mark, but of course as Lutherans, you're to read the scripture and make up your own mind. But if you believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and was without sin, it begs the question that shows up in Matthew: why is Jesus being baptised by John? And we get told "well, it's just a formality, to do everything as per the law."

That doesn't make much sense, though, because first of all, it isn't the law. That's not what the law had ordained, which is exactly what made John the Baptist interesting. And second, if it's just a formality, then we're actually learning that Jesus is insincere. "Right, I'm gonna go through this thing of repentance and reconciliation, but it's all just for show because I don't actually sin." Is that the thinking of the Son of God? Not even close. That's the thinking of a Pharisee. And in fact in both Matthew and Luke, John rants prophesies against the Pharisees and Sadducees, saying to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance... Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruits is cut down and thrown into the fire." And so on. This is both Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9, but not in Mark. There are more than 200 verses like these, which are nearly identical in Matthew and Luke and don't appear in Mark, and are theorised to come from another early gospel known as the Q document. Again, it's difficult to know what's original and what's apocryphal in the gospels, but this rant against the Pharisees and Sadducees sounds true, because it makes sense theologically.

So why did Jesus come to be immersed by John? Because he genuinely repented his sins. Jesus did not believe he was without sin. In fact he wasn't without sin, by our modern concept of "sin" or by the Law. We see in the gospel Jesus being angry, eating and drinking with prostitutes and tax collectors, working on the Sabbath, and other sins that concern petty people like ourselves and the Pharisees. And no doubt he repented all these things, though he did it again. But if you read the Old Testament, it becomes apparent that God is not very concerned with these things. The one thing God really holds against us is forsaking him to worship other gods. I think it is best stated in 1 Samuel 12:20-25:

Samuel said to the people, "Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart; and do not turn aside after useless things that cannot profit or save, for they are useless. For the LORD will not cast away his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself. Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you; and I will instruct you in the good and the right way. Only fear the LORD, and serve him faithfully with all your heart; for consider what great things he has done for you. But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king."

God is not fussy about the details of how we've done wrong, as long as we serve him with all our heart, not turning aside after useless things that cannot profit or save. In the days of the prophets these "useless things" were carved idols, the Baals and the Astartes. Nowadays we have the things I call "loot": money, Santa, status, over-abundance.

Had Jesus turned away from the Lord and worshipped other gods? I think that's possible. Jesus was remarkably Buddhist, for a Jew, and he also had some rather unusual ties with Roman soldiers, whose god was Mithras; and there are many similarities between Mithraism and the mythology of Christ that we have today. So in my personal opinion, it's quite possible that Jesus had departed from the faith, and that he repented and returned to the Lord. And when he repented and was immersed by John, as he came up from the water, the Spirit of God came down from the heavens in the form of a dove, and announced that Jesus was selected as God's son, because his repentance pleased the Lord. In this way I think the story of Jesus' baptism makes much more sense than with the virgin birth.

Why did the Lord choose Jesus? The Lord always chooses people because of their obedience. If he picked Jesus at the time Jesus repented, I suspect it was because Jesus was the most sincere in his repentance and commitment to obeying the will of the Lord, fearing him and serving him faithfully with all his heart. And so God chose him to be the final sacrifice of atonement, the new Covenant between God and his people.

And this is why also we are to have the faith of Jesus, not in Jesus. If we have the faith that lets us turn from the useless thing and serve the Lord faithfully with all our heart, we are [SQG] "baptised", immersed in the Spirit of God and his chosen son Jesus Christ, so that the Spirit moves us henceforward in obedience to the will of God. We are all baptised with water by a human. Our baptism in the Holy Spirit comes from God, when we have the faith of Jesus.

Praise be to God, the Maker, the Shaper, the Forgiver, the Subduer.

Year B, 1st Sunday after Christmas (January 1, 2012)

·         Isaiah 61:10 - 62:3

·         Psalm 148 (13)

·         Galatians 4:4-7

·         Luke 2:22-40

The readings from Luke this time of year are rather iffy. They're written long after Christ's life and death and don't really fit in with the rest of the story. They create plot holes, if you will. The whole concept of "Christmas" is in fact very dubious, and it's well established historically that the celebration of Christmas was instituted by the leadership of the church several centuries after Christ's death, for reasons of politics more than theology. Nonetheless the prayer of Simeon is interesting and, in my opinion, meaningful. I use it in my evening prayers in the modern form:

Now Lord you let your servant go in peace,
your word has been fulfilled.
My own eyes have seen the salvation
which you have prepared
in the sight of every people;
a light to reveal you to the nations,
and the glory of your people Israel.

The lectionary committee thoughtfully provided us for today with a passage in Isaiah which Simeon echoes:

I will rejoice greatly in the Lord,
my whole being shall exult in my God,
for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
he has covered me with the robe of righteousness...
As the earth brings forth its shoots,
and as a garden causes what is sown in it to spring up,
so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise
to spring up before all the nations.

Again, notice the themes in these texts: salvation, righteousness, and the glory of the Lord. Simeon is talking about Christ, and Isaiah is talking about Zion, but they're really both talking about us, Christians, the body of Christ. The Lord has covered us, you and me, Zion, the body of Christ, with the garments of salvation and the robe of righteousness. We, you and me, Zion, the body of Christ, are the light to reveal him to the nations. We are the glory of the Lord. We are "a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God." We are the ones out of whom the Lord causes righteousness and praise to spring up before all the nations.

Notice also, once again, what is NOT in these texts. Loot. As I keep saying day after day, the Lord doesn't care about loot. The Lord doesn't hand out loot, he doesn't bless us through loot, he doesn't reward the just with loot and punish the wicked with lack of loot. If you think that, you're confusing the Lord with Santa, and speaking of which, there is a funny story about Santa in 1 Kings 18:20-40; you can read it at home later. In short, the priests of Santa, or Baal as they called him back then, call on his name all day long, and nothing whatever happens. And so it is to this day. You can pray to your gods of loot day and night, and nothing will come of it. But if you pray to the Lord, the Lord answers. Only, the Lord doesn't give out loot, but these blessings: salvation and righteousness.

When we call on the Lord, he answers, by bringing us into the body of Christ, so that we can be lights to reveal him to the nations. How? By serving. We do not work miracles; only God does. But we serve our neighbour, joyfully and indefatigably, and so all people see the glory of the Lord through us. We should serve our neighbour in a way that they do not give thanks to us, but to the Lord. When people see us serving others, they should see that the Lord is with us and that it is the Lord who helps. If all of us Christians were living the faith of Christ and showing the righteousness and glory of the Lord, whenever someone is in trouble, his first thought would be "I hope a Christian comes along to help me." If we were living according to the faith of Christ, no one, believer or unbeliever, would hesitate to turn to a Christian for help.

In that sense, our Muslim brothers are better Christians than we are. They do not have faith [SQG] "in" Jesus, but they have the faith of Jesus, often more than us Christians. A good Muslim has a duty of hospitality, and will fulfill it. You can call on him when in need, and he will let you into his house, feed you, and protect you. Does he believe that Christ died for his sins? No. But he serves his neighbour for the glory of the Lord, and in doing so he is closer to Christ than many of us who just move our lips and put money in the plate.

Am I saying that we are saved by works rather than faith? By no means. We are saved by faith, through the grace Christ won for us, freely given regardless of our merit or lack thereof. But because we are saved and Christ lives on in us, the Spirit moves us to serve others, freely and regardless of their merit, just as Jesus did when he lived among us. That is righteous, and we rejoice in it, knowing that we are serving the Lord. Thus the Lord causes righteousness and praise to spring up from us before all the nations, until we shine out like the dawn, a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of our God.

Praise be to God, the King, the Most Holy, the Bestower of Peace.

Year B, 4th Sunday of Advent (December 18, 2011)

·         2 Samuel 7:1-11, 16

·         Psalm 89:1-4, 19-26 (1)

·         Romans 16:25-27

·         Luke 1:26-38

This passage from 2 Samuel conveniently summarises two main themes I've been preaching about: that loot doesn't matter to God, and that it is not for us to make decisions for God. David gets rich, lives in a nice house made of cedar, by the Lord's grace. So David decides to make a nice house of cedar for the ark of the Lord. The Lord puts David in his place, saying "I raised you up from nothing; you don't make me a house, I make you a house."

There's hardly any need to preach this, is there? David, chosen of the Lord, gets put in his place for trying to make decisions for God. Corollary: David, chosen of the Lord, doesn't even know what God wants.

Think about this next time you're making a to-do list for God. If David didn't know what the Lord wanted, what makes you think you do? If David can't make decisions for the Lord, what makes you think you can? That's pretty much what you're doing when you have a list of things you want the Lord to do for you. Get me a job, fix my relationship, make my headache go away, blah blah blah. If the Lord isn't taking orders from David, do you think he's going to take them from you?

Notice also, that the Lord didn't talk to David directly in this reading. He spoke through a prophet. Many people today claim the Lord speaks to them constantly, directly, telling them how to live their lives or who knows what. I can't exactly say that this is not true, but I doubt it. If God speaks to David through prophets, who are you that he would speak directly to you about how to go about your day? Somehow I don't really think so. The only person we know of who had regular chats with God himself was Moses.

During the Christmas season we often talk about how wonderful and amazing it is that God was so humble as to be born poor and laid in a manger. Now I have my doubts as to the reliability of Matthew and Luke's stories of Christ's birth, but assuming this really happened, then why are we not learning anything from it? Why are we not humble? Why are we telling God what to do, making demands when he's already give us everything, and not carrying on the work he asked us to do? Does that make sense to you? Is it because Christ came to serve us?

Christ served us by his death on the cross, and also by feeding many, healing, and washing his disciples' feet. Not so we could get arrogant and ask for more, but so we could learn to serve others. If Christ wasn't too good to live simply and serve others in humble ways, why are we? Why are we celebrating of his humble birth by being greedy and wallowing in our wealth? Does that make any sense at all?

By the way, Jesus himself did say, "not my will, but yours."

David came from humble beginnings, tried to tell the Lord what to do, got put in his place. Jesus came from humble beginnings, asked the Lord to change his mind, didn't get what he wanted either. The Lord favours the humble, but not to the extent of getting told what to do. We work for the Lord, not the other way around.

Like I said, there's hardly any need to preach on this, it's so self-evident.

Praise be to God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

Year B, 3rd Sunday of Advent (December 11, 2011)

·         Isaiah 61:1-4, 8-11

·         Psalm 126

·         1 Thessalonians 5:16-24

·         John 1:6-8, 19-28

Isaiah, like many of the prophets, tells us repeatedly that if we're good, God is going to make us happy, and if we're bad, God is going to make us miserable. We tell kids the same thing about Santa, and many Christians tell prospective converts the same thing. If you're good, you'll be happy. And for some reason, we always have to reduce "happiness" to material loot. Just the other day at my Bible study class, the preacher was going on and on about how he was [scare quotes gesture] "blessed" with a weekend at a five-star beachfront resort in Bali with his wife and three kids.

Really?

Seriously: God does not [scare quotes gesture] "bless" people with five-star beachfront resorts in Bali. Yes, serving God brings us blessings and joy, but not in the nature of material loot. Let me give you two examples from my personal life.

One time, I was invited to a holiday dinner at my Catholic friends' house. Walking down the street a few days before the dinner, I saw someone who is very unpopular in our town. He was walking alone as always, looking demoralized. I invited him to join us at my friends' house. Then I called the hostess to let her know I had taken that liberty, and she said "Awesome! It will be a great exercise in Christian charity!"

Another time, on a Facebook group, I suggested church attendance as a way to build up a support network. Many people began attacking me. At first I wondered why, but then I remembered the beatitudes: "blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." So I was glad that the people were attacking me, because really they were blessing me.

My point here is that God does not bless you with better loot, he blesses you with a better attitude towards what comes to you. To a Christian, an opportunity to serve is not a chore, it's a blessing. Living humbly is not a hardship, it's a blessing. Being attacked for the sake of righteousness is not a curse, it's a blessing. Christians don't have it materially better than unbelievers. In fact, we should have it worse. We should deny ourselves, serve others, and give glory to God, not to ourselves. A Christian should be someone anyone can count on for help, not someone everyone envies for their material well-being. And a Christian should find joy in service, not in possessions.

That being said, we can also go too far with this theory. There is a hymn I absolutely can't stand called <em>Trust and Obey</em>. Why? Because it says "not a sigh nor a tear can endure if we trust and obey" and so on in that vein.

That's nonsense. If your leg is amputated, you will mourn. If you are hit by a drunk driver and you will never walk again or have children, you will mourn. If your seven-year-old dies after a five-year battle with cancer, you will mourn. It doesn't matter how much you trust in the Lord. Grief is grief, and no amount of faith will make it go away. Remember Jeremiah 31:15:

"Thus says the Lord:

A voice is heard in Ramah,
lamentation and bitter weeping.

Rachel is weeping for her children;
she refuses to be comforted for her children,
because they are no more."

Or Job. All his ten children died when a house collapsed on them. Did he grieve? Duh!!!!! He sat in the town dump scraping his sores with a pottery shard and crying, and no one could comfort him. A woman I knew lost her son. After she had been grieving for months, a friend asked her "how long are you going to keep grieving?" She said "how long is he going to keep being dead?"

Grief is grief, and it endures. In fact, grief is the last thing you have left after loss. God does not take it away from you. God does not keep it away from you, either. That's not part of the covenant. Any of the covenants the Lord has made with us.

The Lord blessed Noah by not drowning him in the flood. He blessed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with descendants and a land that flows with milk and honey. And he blessed us, Christians, with the new covenant in Christ's blood. He blessed us with a good attitude, not with material goods. He blessed us with the gift of denying ourselves joyfully in service of others, for the glory of his name. And he blessed us with the gift of the human experience, with its ups and downs; grief, loss, setbacks, five-star beachfront resorts in Bali.

Praise be to God,  the Provider, the Withholder, the Expander, the Abaser, the Exalter, the Bestower of honour , the Humiliator.