Sunday, June 24, 2007

4 Pentecost, Year C

“A NEW DEFINITION AND WIDER HORIZONS”
(Sermon text: Luke 9: 18 – 24)
Given at Church of the Redeemer, Cairo, IL

“But you, who do you say that I am?”[1] Jesus’ question comes leaping off the pages of Holy Scripture, bypassing the passage of time and the remoteness of first-century Palestine. It burns a hole in our hearts as we read those words.

“But you, who do you say I am?” This question was the central question for those first disciples, the ones whose discomfort matches ours as we scramble to provide an answer to the healer, the demon destroyer, the charismatic teacher who stills the waters and raises the dead to life again, the one whose eyes must have looked intently into the faces of those first followers, and whose eyes look intently into ours, 20 centuries later.

For the answer to this question will determine where we are willing to follow, and how far.

Our answer will determine what God is able to say of us, when all is said and done, when we see Him face-to-face.

So, let’s look at two progressions in today’s passage:

  • The progression of groups in those giving the answers

  • The progression in the answers given
For in the convergence of the answers given lies a focus that Jesus uses to propel us into a new definition of who He is, and into a wider horizon of understanding of what God is doing in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Note, first of all, the progression in the groups:
  • At first, the crowds are the providers of the answer to Jesus’ question, as Jesus asks, “who do the crowds say I am?”

  • Then, the disciples themselves are asked to provide the answer, Jesus posing the question directly, using the (plural) word “you”.
Then, notice the progression in the answers given:
  • John the Baptist[2]

  • Elijah

  • One of the prophets
The first answer (John the Baptist) is the most recent and most immediate figure named. The other two are either farther back in time or are more general in description. The net effect is to place Jesus in a long line of prophets.[3]

As I look at these two progressions, I think I see that the focus is clearly on Jesus. Let me explain:

  1. The answering groups: progress forward through the text from “crowds” to “disciples” to “you” (and ultimately, to Jesus Himself).

  2. The answers: progress backward through the text from “John the Baptist” to “Elijah” to “one of the prophets of long ago”.
It is Peter who provides the crowning answer as the two strands come together, as he says, “You are the Christ of God.”

We should stop here for a moment to reflect on Peter’s answer….

The title “Christ”[4]
carried with it in first century times certain expectations. Some of these expectations were royal ones, and some were prophetic.

Let’s consider both, from a first century perspective:

  • Royal: the coming “Messiah” was to be the one, sent by God, to redeem captive Israel from the invading, Gentile conquerors, the Romans. The “Messiah” would come in the same way and same sense as King David of old, uniting God’s people, freeing them, and creating for them the wealth, status and power that the old King David had gained for God’s people a 1,000 years earlier.

  • Prophetic: The “Messiah” would restore God’s voice and authority, speaking God’s truth and ushering in God’s reign, and completing the work of the prophets of long ago.

Now, the answer provided is Jesus’ own answer. The spotlight falls directly on Jesus.

Using Peter’s answer as a springboard, Jesus pushes the disciples and us to a new definition of who He is, and into a wider understanding….He says, “the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the Law, and He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

The key to this new definition and wider horizon lies in Jesus’ use of the term Son of Man…..

We know from Daniel 7:13 that the “Son of Man” is a figure who will ascend to the Almighty at the end of time. We also know, from some contemporary Jewish writings of Jesus’ time, that the title “Son of Man” had gained understandings that were “messianic” in nature.

[5]

We also know from a careful reading of Luke (see 6:5 and 6:22) that the title has already been applied to Jesus.

The title “Son of Man” takes on eternal, “big-picture” meanings. Meanings that suggest that God is at work in:

  • The person of Jesus

  • The things Jesus came to do

  • The things that He came to experience

Jesus’ answer pushes aside all the limitations, royal and prophetic, of Peter’s answer.

It redefines the title “Christ” or “Messiah”.

It shoves our faces into the reality of this “Messiah”:

  • A person who would come, not to he hailed, but to be rejected

  • A person who would come, not to be honored, but to suffer

  • A person who would restore life to God’s people, not by killing the oppressors, but to be killed by those same oppressors.

At the beginning of this sermon, we noted the direct impact of Jesus’ question on us….and so it is true….Jesus’ question rings in our ears, “But you, who do you say I am?”

Jesus provides the answer Himself, in the very next statement He makes, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

Having just told His disciples (for the first time) what the true nature of His “messiah-ship” was, He now applies the path that awaits Him as he makes His way to Jerusalem, to His trial, suffering, and crucifixion, to His disciples as well: “take up (your) cross daily (emphasis mine) and follow me.”

Therein lies the clue to today’s reading for you and me: Jesus is asking us to share in His redemptive work.

Think about it: what was the central meaning of Jesus’ suffering and death? It was to offer redemption to the world.


In order to bring about this redemption, Jesus had to:

  • suffer rejection

  • deny His own welfare and safety

  • face the un-faceable

Jesus’ suffering and death brought about new life – and notice that Jesus does not omit “the rest of the story”

[6] in telling the disciples just where His rejection, suffering and death will lead…it leads to His “being raised to life.”

If we are to follow Christ, then we must “take up our cross daily (notice the recurring nature of that word “daily”) and follow Him.”

To do so, it means (for us), just as it did for Our Lord, that we must be willing to:

  • Suffer rejection

  • Deny our own welfare and safety

  • Face the un-faceable

In so doing, we make Christ’s redeeming work available to the world around us. Following in His footsteps, we are able to extend His kingdom (the royal aspect) and His word (the prophetic aspect) of God’s work in the world.

One final thought – a reminder, actually, of something we said at the beginning: what we say about Jesus, answering the question “who do you say I am?” will determine what God is able to say about us, when God’s purposes for us and for this world are completed.

May God enable us to gain a new understanding and a wider horizon of the person and work of Jesus Christ.

AMEN.



[1] I am quoting the NIV translation of this question, since it repeats the word “you”, which is present in the original Greek (the second “you” is understood by the person and number of the verb).
[2] Luke has previously reported that John the Baptist had been beheaded by King Herod (Luke 9: 7 – 9).
[3] Notice that Jesus confirms John’s status as a prophet…In Luke 7: 26 (speaking about John), Jesus says, But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.”
[4] The word comes from the Greek word for “anointed one” (“Messiah” is the Hebrew equivalent).
[5] The commentator R. Alan Culpepper, writing in his commentary on Luke in the New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. IX, p. 200, cites two first-century Jewish writings to underwrite his assertion concerning the use of the title “Son of Man”: I Enoch and IV Ezra.
[6] The radio announcer Paul Harvey’s famous line

Sunday, June 17, 2007

3 Pentecost, Year C

"A HOSPITAL FOR SINNERS"
(SERMON TEXT: Luke 7: 36 - 50)
Given at St. Mark’s Church, West Frankfort, IL; and at St. James’ Memorial Church, Marion, IL

“The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.”

Have you ever heard that before (or perhaps one of several variations on it that all begin with “the church is a hospital….”)?

It seems to fit our Gospel reading for today, Jesus’ well known encounter with the sinful woman at the house of Simon, the Pharisee.

Elements that are found throughout Luke’s gospel account are present here in this story: role reversal (the woman is forgiven, but Simon is not), a scene which takes place at a banquet (there’s lots of “eating and drinking” in Luke), and the prominent role of women throughout Luke’s writing.

But it is the nature of the sin of the righteous Pharisee, Simon, when it is compared with the sins of the unnamed woman that capture my attention as I reflect on today’s text….For “the Church is a hospital for sinners”….

We should begin with a close look at the cultural setting for the banquet that Jesus attended that day, for being able to understand the social setting will tell us a lot about the ways in which Jesus associated with sinners and the other outcasts of first century Palestine….

2,000 years ago, when dinners such as Jesus attended occurred, they were quite different from our dinners today….For example, the guests would normally be accorded a number of socially mandatory welcoming gestures (which Jesus enumerates as having been omitted when He arrived): washing of feet, a kiss of peace, and so forth. In addition, guests would eat lying down on their left side, perhaps by propping themselves up on their left arm, or on a pillow, with their feet extending outward from the mat where the food was sitting.
[1]

But beyond these conventions, it was the presence of townspeople in the courtyard or house that is most striking about the differences from today’s dinner parties….apparently, it was quite common for ordinary folk to watch the proceedings, either by looking over a wall or fence, or by inviting themselves into the house to stand around the edges of the courtyard or room. That practice would explain why the woman was able to be present at the banquet, and how she was able to wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, and to anoint them with the perfumed oil.

The woman’s actions also hold a key to the potentially embarrassing position her actions created for Jesus: For a woman to uncover her head 2,000 years ago was a scandal, and to allow her hair to fall had sexual connotations. And in a culture that did not allow men to speak to women in public, for her to touch his feet was a further provocation, again with explicitly sexual overtones (no wonder that Simon referred to her sins – her actions indicated to him that she was a person whose sins were probably sexual in nature
[2]).

So Jesus was put in a potentially embarrassing and compromising situation….(He must have had an enormous capacity to be “cool” in tough situations!)

But, by allowing the woman to touch Him, Jesus also became ritually unclean by the rigid standards of the Law of Moses that the Pharisees so zealously tried to maintain.

Returning to the phrase with which we began, “the Church is a hospital for sinners”, let’s reflect on today’s reading, using a medical lens to look at Jesus’ role in healing this woman….

The first reflection we might make is the attitude of Simon, the Pharisee…In medical terms, the Pharisees tried to isolate themselves by creating a “quarantine” from sin. Notice Simon’s reflection, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is – that she is a sinner”.
[3]

It was Jesus’ consistent violation of the rules of Jewish quarantine that got Him into trouble…Jesus constantly sought to be in the presence of “unclean” people and “sinful” people (like the woman in today’s reading), and even touched them, or allowed them to touch Him.

Consistent with the Pharisees’ careful observance of the rules of quarantine was an attitude of spiritual superiority….Perhaps we would be accurate in characterizing it this way: “as long as I am following the ‘rules of quarantine’, I can be sure I am free of spiritual disease.” And it is this “spiritual smugness” that prevents Simon from receiving pardon for his own sins, for the truth of the matter is that, no matter how rigidly and carefully Simon might have followed all those “rules of quarantine”, the germs of sin still found their way into his spiritual life. He could not prevent his coming into contact with their corrosive effects, no matter how hard he tried, and he was powerless to heal himself from the disease that the germs of sin always produce.

The other observation we ought to undertake is a close look at the unnamed woman in today’s story…..

For her, the disease of sin has taken its destructive course, and the effects are there for all to see….no amount of pretending she is “disease-free” will cloak the reality of the grotesqueness of her spiritual condition.

Only one option is open to her: to give herself into the hands of the One who can save her from her spiritual condition.

And so she does, not trying to hide her condition or her past contact with spiritual contamination that may have led to her present condition, not seeking to avoid the discomfort of the treatment process.

It is her willingness to allow Jesus’ to heal her by her demonstration of faith in his ability to do so that, in the end (and as Jesus confirms) allows her to go away, spiritually disease-free.

Jesus’ willingness to associate with sinful people and the outcasts of His day occupy a good bit of the discourse in our Church today. People often point out His unconventional behavior and His willingness to break the social conventions of 2,000 years ago, allowing ritual contamination in the process as He violated the “rules of quarantine”.

But often, the implication is that Jesus was acting like a doctor who was willing to enter a quarantined hospital ward for the purpose of just “hanging around” sinners, without addressing their spiritual diseases., or that He ignored the true nature of their ailments, merely reclassifying serious spiritual injuries as minor ones which didn’t need treatment.

We know from Jesus’ contact with physically-diseased persons that He healed them, often by touching them.
[4] Nor did He simply ignore the nature of their problems….No, there was no redefining of the sinful natures and actions which created their need for His healing presence.

Jesus displayed the same attitude when it came to spiritual diseases as well: He came to heal the spiritually sick, He did not leave them in their diseased condition.

Moreover, Jesus’ holiness and the power of God at work in Him was the agent of healing, both for the physically and spiritually diseased.

Jesus encountered people where they were, but never left them there!

As we consider our own place in today’s story, what observations might we draw as we insert ourselves into this story? Perhaps the following are appropriate:

  1. Our presence in Church today is an admission of our spiritually ‘sick’ state: Truly, the “Church is a hospital for sinners”, for it is here that we encounter Jesus’ healing power, both for physical and spiritual healing.

  2. We witness to God’s power to heal: Just like a hospital, the Church allows us to observe each other’s progress as God’s power to heal is demonstrated in our lives. Seeing God at work strengthens our faith in God’s power to heal us, as well.

  3. We begin to see that hiding our spiritual maladies won’t do us any good: We can pretend, like Simon the Pharisee, that “we aren’t so bad off”, or that we “follow all the rules of ‘spiritual quarantine’” (that apply today), or that “so-and-so is so much worse off than I am”, or that “that aching in my heart isn’t really ‘sin’ at all, just a normal-sort-of-pain”. But hanging around spiritually-ailing people who are willing to allow Jesus to heal them can help us to shed our layers of defensive thinking and believing, so that God can work on us through the agency of Jesus Christ.

    In that sense, the Church is like a “support group”.

May God’s Holy Spirit soften the layers of our hearts, that God the Father may work through God the Son to heal us, that we may be forgiven our sins and offenses.

AMEN.


[1] If the commentators who remind us of such practices are right, then the famous painting of the Last Supper, showing Jesus sitting at a table with His disciples gathered around Him, incorrectly portrays the nature of such events 2,000 years ago.
[2] Luke does not tell us the nature of her sins, only that Jesus said her sins were “many”.
[3] Verse 39
[4] A good example is the raising of the widow’s son, read last week (Luke 7: 11 – 17).

Sunday, June 10, 2007

2 Pentecost, Year C

“REVELATION AND PERCEPTION”
(Sermon text: Galatians 1: 11 – 24)
Given at St. Mark’s Church, West Frankfort, IL; and at St James’ Memorial Church (Parish Picnic), Marion, IL,


“The Christian faith is a matter of God’s revelation, not human invention.”

Ever hold up a fine piece of glassware – crystal – to the light, and watch the rays dance through the many facets of the glass? It’s fascinating to see the various angles of the cuts in the glass as the light plays with them, delighting the eye.

Revelation - or particularly God’s revealing of Himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ - is sort of like looking at the light that is refracted through fine glass…..The brilliance of God’s handiwork in Jesus Christ draws our attention, and the more we look at His revelation, the more we realize there is to study and learn.

Now what if we were to look at a fine piece of crystal, study it for awhile, and then turn away to allow our imaginations to be the source of what we know about that piece of crystal? I think two things might very easily happen: 1. we would miss something of the depth and the complexity of the crystal; and 2. we might well begin to believe that our mental image of the crystal was the actual reality of the piece of crystal, or, - put another way - that our perception was reality.

Clearly, we can see that, if we are not to miss anything, we have to keep looking at the piece of glassware, for we cannot allow our imaginations to capture something that isn’t there, nor can we allow what we have gleaned from our observations to become the continuing source of our knowledge….we need to keep referring back to the source.

What is true about looking at a piece of fine crystal is also true of the Christian faith:

  • It takes constant observation of the source to be sure we are getting a clear and complete picture,

  • We must constantly “check out” that source to avoid substituting our own version of reality for the basic reality itself.

With this premise in mind, let’s look at St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, our Epistle reading for today:

Two things ought to be noted about Paul’s exposition of his faith and its source:
  • God’s revelation to him is the source of Paul’s faith. Clearly, God is the actor, the prime mover. Notice verses 11 and 12: “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.” (NIV) A little later on, Paul will go on to say (verse 15): “But when God…..was pleased to reveal his Son in me….” (NIV)

  • The source of Paul’s gospel declaration is independent of the other Apostles: Notice that Paul takes care to say that his revelation is unique. Verse 16: “I did not consult with any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was….” Only later on, did Paul go to meet with Peter and with James, the Lord’s brother (see verses 18 & 19).

A footnote is in order here: Though Paul’s source of divine revelation is independent of the other Apostles, his faith – and therefore, his gospel
[1] - is basically the same as the other Apostles, differing in no major respect where beliefs and morals are concerned.[2]

Why is it important for us human beings to remember who or what is the source of divine revelation?

The answer is: the human heart and mind are infinitely capable of “making it all up ourselves”, substituting the objective revelation of God for our own perceptions, which may – or may not – be based on the revelation we have received from God in Christ.

Put another way, and using the illustration we began with: since we are able to see the piece of crystal and the light passing through it, we might begin to believe that our ability to see and to comprehend is the revelation.

To substitute our perception for God’s revelation is to set the stage for a descent into the introspective world of individual thought and conviction. We then might become cut off from God, for we might not be able to see and comprehend Him in His Son, Jesus Christ. We may become isolated from one another, as a cacophony of individual points-of-view supplant the unity that God’s revelation is intended to bring.

In the end, “going our own way” by following our own perceptions, divorced from the reality of Jesus Christ’s revelation of God the Father, is idolatry, for we can become fascinated with our own individual perceptions to the point that they themselves become the source of revelation and the origin of authority.

Though the mystery of God’s revelation of Himself in the person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ, is a complex and wonderful thing (not unlike looking again and again at a piece of fine crystal), and though we might come away from our study of God’s purposes, worked out in Jesus Christ, with differing understandings of God’s working, yet we cannot come away from our study of God’s revelation in Christ with a wholesale denial of the basic nature of God-come-in-the-flesh, Jesus Christ, any more than we might come away from a careful study of a piece of glassware with the conviction that it is really a clay pot.

So, I have said the basic premise of this sermon in quite a few ways to this point: God’s revelation vs. our perceptions.

Is this such a problem in the Church today?

The answer is “yes”.

As I look at it, the clearest example might be the trend toward individual “spirituality”, a spiritual awareness which is nearly – or totally – devoid of a vibrant and continuing connection to Jesus Christ….In such a state, where the individual’s needs, wants, and preferences take over, whatever will serve the individual, no matter its source, becomes the reference point for all things spiritual.

Soon, two things can happen:

  • All sources of spiritual inspiration take on equal importance.

  • All sources of spiritual enlightenment are of benign origin.

The result is:
  • Chaos as competing truth claims seek to assert themselves

  • God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ takes second – or last – place among our sources of revelation.

In the final analysis:

“The Christian faith is a matter of God’s revelation, not human invention.”

AMEN.


[1] Paul seems to equate faith with gospel, as this passage implies. Here, I am in complete agreement with the commentator Richard B. Hays, writing in the New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XI, p. 217.
[2] How do we know that Paul’s teaching and beliefs do not waver from the other Apostolic witness? I think one way we can know that is by Paul’s presence at the Council of Jerusalem (held about 48/9 AD), at which the question of the basis upon which Gentiles would be welcomed into the Church as full members was discussed. Essentially, the issues before the Council of Jerusalem were those that confronted Paul in Galatia: whether or not Gentile convert had to undergo circumcision and had to observe the Law of Moses in order to become Christian. The Council’s decision was – briefly stated – that ritual observances of the Law were not binding on Gentiles, but the moral provisions were. (See Acts 14: 27 – 15: 29.)

Sunday, June 03, 2007

1 Pentecost (Trinity Sunday), Year C

Fr. Tucker served as Assistant Spiritual Director at the Diocese of Springfield's Cursillo weekend from May 31 through June 3. There is, therefore, no written sermon for The First Sunday after Pentecost (Trinity Sunday) 2007.