Jesus Lives FOR Us. 'Tis the Season to Focus on Living For Jesus

     There was a time in our theological history that we did not do much "Lenting".  I grew up in a Reformed church that did not pursue it at all, at least not to my recollection.  Had I asked, the answer at the time would have been that Lent was "too Catholic".  

   SIDEBAR:  Notice, I capitalize Catholic there, a shorthand for Roman Catholic.  In the techno-babble of the Christian faith, this is different from "lower-case" catholic, as we share in the words of the Apostles Creed.  It is in the last section, "I believe in the Holy Spirit (Ghost), the holy catholic church..."  It means 'universal' in this context (some modern translations of the Apostles Creed change the word to 'universal', but Tradition...).  So Roman Catholic and Presbyterian and those other denominational and non-denominational Christian siblings are all part of the catholic (little "c") church. 

    Back to our post in progress...

    I have heard Lent referred to as the Season in which we give up something.  Meatless Fridays are part of the Roman Catholic tradition.  Although I did stump some folks of that tradition when, in the course of researching something for a sermon long long ago, I discovered that Sundays are "feast days" and so all restrictive bets are off.  Then there was the theological conundrum of meatless Fridays when St. Patrick's Day fell on a Friday in Lent.  The bishops intervened with grace and love and corned beef.

    It is SO easy to step away from the true depth and grace of our Lord Jesus and the faith we have been gifted to head down rabbit holes of distraction and speculation.  Even with an overtone of the 'tongue in cheek', to make it less threatening, it has still succeeded in distraction from what is truly important.

    Which is that there are moments in the Gospel where God the Father makes an appearance.  God the Father addresses humanity directly, in regards to Jesus.  By their very scarcity, these are moments for us to sit up and take notice.  And I am not 'discovering' something new in the Bible to say this.  These moments have been recognized since the earliest times in the church.  The very calendar of the church year was built around them.

    Luke sets this up in his very narrative.  In the last post, we talked about the "eight days", the conscious decision to include a transitional connection between this passage and what came before.  

    Here is another bit.  What were Moses, Elijah, and Jesus talking about?  According to verse 31, they were speaking of Jesus' departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.  Now, quick read, and this might look like Jesus' departure for Jerusalem.  Because he is heading that way,  Verse 51 of this same chapter, Jesus sets his face toward Jerusalem.  He'll get there in the middle of chapter 19.

    But read this again and Jesus' departure is a thing that, apparently, is to be accomplished in Jerusalem.  His departure?  From this life at his death on Good Friday?  Into his New Life at his resurrection on Easter?  Well, Moses and Elijah are on a field trip from Heaven, so maybe Jesus at His Ascension?  

    Again, this easily leads us to distraction.  For Our Story, we are taking up the historical interpretation of Scripture that this moment, the Transfiguration, leads us to something of great importance in Jesus.  God says, "Listen to Him."  Not that we should be ignoring what came before, but that we ought to "put our listening ears on", as per my kindergarten teacher, for something of importance.  Thus is the heart of a true "Lenting" experience.  It's not about giving up chocolate or beer or whatever, unless this things are done with the intent and expectation of setting them aside for Jesus.  It's not even about adding something new, like praying every day, unless again, it is done for Jesus.     

    Part 4 of Our Story: Jesus lives FOR US.  'Tis the season to actively focus on Living For Him.

Peace,
Pastor Peter

What Happened Eight Days Ago?

     Our story for Sunday begins at Luke 9:28, with Jesus' transfiguration.  The story's cold open comes with this hook "Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took..."  Jesus took Peter, James, and John up a mountain and they experienced heavenly conditions as Jesus consulted with Moses and Elijah.  Now, of all the Old Testament people to return to talk to Jesus, why Moses and Elijah?  That is its own blog post.

    But what happened eight days ago?  If this was a television show, maybe this is how the episode would begin.  Jesus brings these three up the mountain, he prays, the appearance of his face changes, his clothes become whiter than a Canadian blizzard, Moses and Elijah are there.  Peter, James, and John looked shocked and amazed.  Then we cut away to a caption that reads "Eight Days Earlier".

    Why do I spin my wheels around a transitional phrase in the gospel?  Its just half a sentence long.  For two reasons.  The first is that there is nothing in the Gospel, much less the Bible, that is insignificant.  But the second is that this is, in fact, a transition.  For example, at the beginning of chapter 9, "Then Jesus called the twelve together..."  Then?  What then?  We jump off a couple of miracles to this conclave.  

    Or 9:18, the story before the Transfiguration. "Once when Jesus was praying..."  This right on the heels, in the text, of the feeding of the 5000.  Jesus prayed lots of times.  Which time is this? 

    We don't get transitions that often.  When we do, they mean something.

    It may not be the level of paying attention to when Jesus says "Truly, truly I say unto you..." but there is a point here.

   The centerpiece of this story before the Transfiguration are Peter's words about Jesus.  Jesus asked, "But who do YOU (the disciples) say that I am?"  Peter answers, "The Messiah of God."  I can almost picture Jesus tapping his finger on his nose, telling Peter "On the Nosey" before sternly ordering them not to tell anyone.

    This is the set up to the Transfiguration.  The disciples suddenly "get it" about Jesus.  He's not John the Baptizer (recently executed), he's not Elijah, he's not one of the ancient prophets arisen.  He is something else entirely.  Something new and unique.  He is the Messiah.

    Eight days later, up on the mountain, God in heaven will affirm that, in an unprecedented display of heaven's inbreaking to the earth.  God will say, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!"  

    When the disciples finally figure it out, God returns (remember, he spoke at Jesus' baptism).  Then God was well pleased with His Son.  Now he commands the three to listen to Him.  

    What now?  This grand connection based on a simple transitional phrase?  Yes, because Luke doesn't use them, not unless he wants to understand that there is a two part episode unfolding before us.

    Look at it another way.  God tells the disciples, and us, that Jesus is His Son, His Chosen.  That we must listen to Him.  Read Luke 9:18-27 to see exactly what Jesus has to say.

Peace
Pastor Peter

When "Normal and Expected" Cannot Be Expected and 'Normal' is Violence and Destruction

            In the midst of our passage for Sunday, there is, for many, a throw away line.  Jesus said, "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?  For even sinners love those who love them."  It is Normal and Expected that we love those who love us.

            Our passage begins with the radical love of Jesus expressed in the Golden Rule, where Jesus speaks of loving your enemies, doing good to the haters, blessing the cursers, praying for the abusers, turning the cheek to the violent.  (See the Feb. 18 post on ChurchMerch blog post for a lot more about these verses).

            When Jesus speaks of what is Normal and Expected behavior, it is not simply “If you love those who love you…”  It is not simply that “…even sinners love those who love them.”  Normal and Expected is expanded in the next verse.  “If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you?  For even sinners do the same.”

            To love, to say that we love and mean it, is to do good.  In a Normal and Expected healthy relationship, we love those who love us and do good for those who do good for us.  This is not Jesus-level behavior, but human-level behavior.  Jesus points out sinners do this.  We are saved, but we are still sinners.

Now the Apostle Paul takes a thumping today for the misogynistic passages in his letters.  In previous times, he took a thumping for passages that justified slavery.  Today, he is used by some 'faithful Christians' to claim that women are second class citizens and justify the abuse to 'keep them in their place'.  We can talk about ‘cultural circumstances’ all we want, about 2000 years between then and now, but the reality is that this attitude is still real today.  Violence against women, against any group that is ‘othered’, is codified in the deliberate misinterpretation of Scripture. 

            What Paul has written gives obvious foundation for this spiteful, wrongful abuse of Scripture.  My first corrective to Paul is always to look at what Jesus tells us (as Paul did).  But when the of Jesus are also abused for evil purposes, it is a truly nasty invasion of sin into our faith.  

            To twist Jesus' words, there is a clever game of dividing word from action.  Normal and Expected behavior in a loving relationship is the mutual action of doing good things for one another.  But a dangerous 'new' normal and very twisted expectation emerge in the word ‘love’ when it is divided from the actions that Jesus has defined.

            Jesus speaks of the "enemy", then defines the enemy by their actions, those who hate me, curse me, abuse me, strike me, take from me.  But the words of the Bible are twisted by the evil-hearted who conveniently redefine 'actions' for their own gain. 

            How many 'believers' in Christ Jesus, demonstrate the actions of the ‘enemy’, they hate, curse, abuse, and violate, but say they ‘love’ the victim.  They rearrange Jesus' own words to malevolently twist the Bible to say that 'love' supports hatred, abuse, and violence against another.

            “Do unto others as you would have them to unto you.”  That safeguard has already been cliched into irrelevance.  

            The call to turn the other cheek, to receive more violence, abuse, cursing, and hatred, if that is the call to treat the enemy, how much more should it apply to someone who perversely claims to 'love' you when they act this way?  So, like verse 35, "love your enemies, do good...expecting nothing in return."  How much more should this apply to those who act as enemy but 'love' us?

            "Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High."  One more bit of perversion of Jesus' words, that God, the Most High, is invoked so the victim accepts the abuse.

            Abuse in the family touched my life growing up, where 'love' was said but the actions were among those Jesus defines for the enemy.  So yes, this is personal for me.  I serve as a pastor now.  In today's world, so many claim the 'love' of Christ in word, but act out in the hateful, cursing, abusive, and violent actions of the Enemy.  They dare to claim this is the "Normal and Expected" way of loving.  That makes it both personal and vocational for me. 

           Yes, Jesus calls us to express radical love for those enemies we can clearly define by their actions.  But when it comes to those who claim the name of Jesus, but who hate, curse, abuse, and commit violence and dare to call it 'love'?  In addition to the radical love Jesus teaches us to show our enemies, He has also showed us anger, bitterness, and even violence against those who know God's love and twist it for their own gain.

            Paul (here at least) lays down a clear foundation for how then we should act.  "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."  That starts by being crystal clear on understanding what Jesus actually said and not what someone (even me) tells us that Jesus said.

Peace

Pastor Peter

The Golden Rule and the "Triteification" of the Radical Nature of Jesus' Love

     "Do to others as you would have them do to you."  Such is the Golden Rule as expressed in Luke 6:31.  It is certainly better than the sarcastic flip of this Rule, "They that have the Gold Make the Rules."  Sarcastic, but maybe too close to home?

    The Golden Rule is a cliche.  That does NOT mean that it is neither true nor profound in its implications.  But it has fallen in my favorite cliche, "All the greatest human wisdom inevitably becomes cliche".  It has become trite, "overused and consequently of little importance" says the Google.

    The Golden Rule is what cultural observers point to as proof that "all religions are the same".  This charge is made because the Golden Cliche can be found, in some form, in 'most' religions, so, perhaps religion itself is "overused and consequently of little importance."

    When a verse is ripped out of context, it can be reduced to a milky pablum of universal love and general niceness.  This is Jesus talking.  He carries God-level expectations for His followers.  Consider what Jesus said not from the point of view of what Jesus expects of his followers, but from those with whom Jesus says they will come in contact with.

    So, instead of wearing the sandals of one of Jesus' followers, I am wearing the sandals of the other ones.

    So I hate them.  They are my enemy, and I demonstrate my hatred in my actions toward them.  Then I, the hater, get knocked into the dirt by something unforeseen.  And who is there to offer me a hand, no strings attached?  The one I hate, my enemy, those people.  Whatever reasons I have in my own head and heart to hate them, they have tried to do good by me.  Because a hater's going to hate, I would probably slap that hand aside.

    I am going to curse them out.  They are invading my space, taking my job, putting my family at risk.  They are not right, not worthy, not good.  They are the enemy.  Foul words come out of my mouth and they reply, maybe smiling sadly, with a blessing instead.  "Do well this day."  "Peace be with you."

    I am going to be abusive.  Maybe I am their boss, I can make their lives miserable.  Maybe I have power, I can dump on them.  Maybe I am just a mean, selfish *&%^$, but I can make sure they feel unworthy, unloved, uncared for.  I can belittle them, I can invade their space, get in their face.  They can know they are nothing and less than nothing in my eyes, and I act out on that certainty.  And maybe, when I walk away, I overhear their prayer on my behalf, in the words of Jesus, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

    It is so very hard for me to put myself into the shoes of someone who would lash out and strike someone else.  My first image is out of a movie, where I hit someone, they smile and turn the other cheek, offering me one more shot before they crush me.  That's the movies.  Here, I strike someone and they offer me the next blow; and the next; and the next.  Let me come with truncheon and attack dog and riot gear and water hoses and beat them down while they join hands and sing a hymn and leave me to bring it on.  

    It is winter, I am cold, or not, just mean.  You have a coat and I rip it out of your grasp.  You nod slowly, take off your sweatshirt and offer it to me as well.

    I am the beggar.  You don't know if I am running a scam.  You don't know if I am shiftless and lazy.  You don't know if the system has dropped me between the cracks and then closed up the fissures to crush me.  You don't need my backstory, you will give to me.

    I borrowed from you (maybe I asked, maybe not), maybe some money, maybe a power tool, whatever.  I took it and never quite remember to return it.  You don't ask for them back.  You know and I know what I did here, but you move on.

    "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  

    The world might think this is someone bumping me by accident in a hallway and me wishing they hadn't done that.  

    That is nonsense.  We speak here of the radical love of Jesus, that I will love you no matter how hard it is to do so.  Unachievable by human standards?

    This is Jesus' standard.

Peace,
Pastor Peter

Ever Read A Couple of Verses and Simply React, "Oh, I Don't Like That..."

     "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man.  Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what your ancestors did to the prophets."

    Strange how that was not in the welcoming literature to Seminary back when.  

    That bit is tucked between the blessed be's  and the woe-to-you's in our Luke 6 passage. It is a fascinating contradistinction to the immediate reaction to what Jesus is doing.  "They had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured.  And all in the crowd were trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them."

    There is attraction in the power but not so much in the message.  

    So, blessed is nice, I like to be blessed in Jesus, but excluded, reviled, and defamed?  Makes me think of the cliched movie line, "This is not what I signed up for."

    And Jesus doesn't leave us hanging, "for surely your reward is great in heaven..."  But in the mean time, exclusion, revulsion, and defamation.  

    And this is not a new thing.  Jesus speaks of history repeating itself, "For that is what your ancestors did to the prophets."

    And I am going to leave it there.  Leave it uncomfortable, maybe even unresolved.  Jesus speaks with power and truth, but sometimes those are not pretty.  But he speaks these words for us.

Peace,

Pastor Peter

    

    

There's A Typo in the Gospel!!

     One of the centerpiece monologues for our Lord Jesus Christ is to be found in the book of Matthew.  We know it as the Sermon on the Mount.  So, a sermon is a religious monologue.  It leads off with the Beatitude's, the "blessed be's" and then moves into a rather incisive and sometimes disturbing exposition of the Law of Moses, especially into a couple of the latter Ten Commandments.

    Begins in Matthew 5 and feels like it goes through about chapter 18 (but it doesn't).

    But that's not what I want to talk about.  Well, maybe kind of, because it serves as an introduction.  

    As you may or may not know, there are four gospels, four books focusing on the life and times of Jesus.  There are overlapping stories, parallel stories, stories with the same punchline but different details, some bits that seem to assume that you are reading the other gospels because they all but say, "go read this bit over there".  

    Devotees of the Bible have worked hard and deeply to track how stories develop between the gospels.  I don't know why, but I am strangely proud of the reality that there has been actual academic infighting over what these books have to say.  It doesn't really matter to me, ultimately, who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'.  What matters is that God's Word is being taken so seriously.

    Our passage this week continues us in Luke.  Luke 6: 17-26 more precisely.  Here comes the typo.  The Study Bible I am using (I won't say which one) calls it the Sermon on the Mount.  Like it is Luke's parallel to Matthew's Sermon of the same name.  Except there is a problem (in several pieces).

    The first problem piece.  Matthew says, in 5:1, that Jesus went up the mountain to talk to the people.   In Luke 6:11, it says that he went down with them and stood on a level place.

    The second piece is that this passage in Luke I was raised to refer to as the "Sermon in the Plain" (see the first piece of the problem).  

    The third piece is that the blessed be's are different.  I know the blessed be's  from Matthew more deeply that I know the blessed be's from Luke.  Matthew is definitely the more popular one, to the point that when Monty Python decided to humorize Jesus in 'the Life of Brian', there is the moment when the crowd member goes "What did he say?"  "Blessed are the cheesemakers?" came the response.

    Luke's beatitudes are a lot sharper in tone.  Matthew offers us a religio-salvific set of beatitudes.  These are religious bits and salvation bits, spiritual application to life, death, and the pursuit of happiness.  Luke is more pointedly socio-economic.  There are social bits and there are economic bits.  Blessed are the poor, the hungry, and the hated, because God's blessings will be there for them.  Matthew offers us 'poor in spirit'.  Luke offers us 'poor', like empty-wallet poor.

    Then Luke offers a downside. the woe-to-you's.  Rich now?  Well fed now?  There's your reward.  You are done.  Does not go so far as to deny salvation to them, but maybe just as there are rich and poor in this life, there are going to be rich and poor in the next life, and there is going to be a flip.

    Wonder if there are people out there who might wish this were the typo...

Peace,
Pastor Peter

Before Fishing For Jesus, We Will Be Afraid? Very Afraid?

    This is how I know Luke 5:11.  It was a song I was raised on.  It has hand motions that I was never quite able to master, but I tried.  "I will make you fishers of men."  

    This verse, as translated in the NRSV (our pew bibles), is Jesus' mission challenge to his first disciples, "From now on, you will be catching people."  

    For me, the power of this passage is not in this mission challenge.  Yes, it is powerful, Jesus is telling them they are going out to be 'mini-me's' of Jesus.  And they will.  It is a blessing that rolls forward through history, down to us.  

    But...how?  These are fishermen, not evangelists.  What inspired them to follow Jesus?  The song, and what I have quoted, is only half the mission for the disciples.  Peter, James and John have two parts to their mission challenges.  First, "DO NOT BE AFRAID", and secondly "from now on, you will be fishing/catching..."

    To be "Not Afraid" means that first we must be afraid.  But not "ghost clowns with pointy sticks in an abandoned haunted insane asylum" afraid.  I mean in an "inbreaking into our lives and defying how we thought things ought to be" kind of afraid.  Not a fear of something killing us.  But a fear of something that can let us know once and for all that WE are not in control.

    Back to the gospel account.  Its the middle of the day.  Nobody in their right mind fishes in the middle of the day.  Not only that, its the middle of the day following a night of failure.  No fish, none on the overnight shift.  They are not there.  They are somewhere else.  Its a big lake.  The men are tired and hungry.  Check out yesterday about Peter backtalking Jesus.  Maybe worst of all, they have been captive audience to the pastor's sermon.  Lord have mercy!!  (Can I get an LOL?)

    Their experience to the moment they let down the nets at Jesus' command was "It is not going to work."  It was impossible.  Except it wasn't.  Because, Jesus, and not Loving Jesus but Scary Jesus.

    Ever thought about this?  Nobody new ever comes to church.  What if ten newbees were in the pews on Sunday?  Faces we have never seen or maybe faces we thought we'd never see again?  Mind blowing.  Scary even, how did that happen?  Hasn't been like that since...ever?

    Maybe that's what we are missing.  When was the last time we were truly fearful of Jesus' awesomeness?  That our consideration of the miraculous was not simply some abstract thought process of 'what could be'?  Rather, a moment where the stuff got real?  Nothing so dull as 'seeing is believing' but 'shaken to my socks believing'?  

    Maybe before we can 'be still and know that our God is God', we need the moment of absolute, explosive clarity that yah, God's got the power.

Peace,

Pastor Peter  

Getting Sarcastic With Jesus

     Should we remember that forgiveness is a privilege and not a right?  That abuse of privilege is a thing to keep in mind?

    In our text for Sunday, Luke 5: 1-11, Jesus comes down the shore of the lake of Gennesaret (aka the Sea of Galilee, aka the Sea of Tiberius).  The crowds are pressing him into the sea, so he asks Peter to take his boat out into the water to create a floating podium from which to address the people.  

    Peter takes Jesus out.  When Jesus concludes his lesson, he does not request to be taken ashore (possibly to avoid engraving autographs?)  No, he tells (not asks) Peter to put out into the deep water and put down the nets.

    And Peter looks up at Jesus...

    The Bible says that Peter and crew were washing their nets.  They were cleaning up after their shift.  Bring the boats in, take care of the gear, prep things for the next day.  Once that is done, maybe then get some breakfast? 

    This is after fishing all night.  And this is not rowing out into the middle of a favorite pond, drinking one's favorite *soda*, and casting a line all night long.  No, this is closer to "Deadliest Catch", Holy Land edition.  The Sea of Galilee is thirteen by eight miles (approximately), known for sudden storms and temperamental weather.  These are guys in boats smaller than your average ocean liner lifeboats casting homespun nets, dragging them in, and repeating...and repeating...and repeating...

    These are not big boats.  We know from John 21, when Peter and other disciples are fishing when Jesus appears to them, that 153 fish will threaten to tear the nets.  So, one or two good casts of the nets would fill the boats and end their shift in what, thirty minutes?  Need daylight to process the catch, so "one and done"?  But they caught nothing that night.  

    We know Peter as the disciple's disciple.  He gets the keys to the kingdom and puts them on the flag of the Vatican.  Tradition has him as the first pope in the Roman Catholic flavor of Christianity.  Of the disciples, he gets the most 'airtime' in the gospels.  But he doesn't know Jesus yet.  

    Worked all night, failed shift, trying to clean up, no breakfast, seeking to accommodate this wandering preacher who apparently doesn't want to get his feet wet, maybe earn a little coin for a wasted night fishing...  Now, I do not know how long Jesus taught for.  My longest college courses were 80 minutes long.  But Jesus has phenomenal, cosmic powers.  So, several hours?  Maybe the sun was high up in the sky when he wound down.

    So maybe Peter and crew have not just missed breakfast but are craving the midday meal?  And Jesus looks to Peter when he is done and does not request to go ashore.  Be nice if Jesus offered to take them out for lunch after this, maybe? No, Jesus wants to go fishing.

    And Peter looks up at Jesus...

    "Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing.  Yet it you say so, I will let down the nets."

    If one were to prepare to deliver this line on the stage, perhaps one might have the following notes: "Your character has been playing lake-borne chauffeur to this smiling, preachy, talk-talk-talk landlubber who obviously knows nothing about fishing but wants to play at being a fisherman after showing off in front of these gullible crowds who have been following him down the shore out of Capernaum.  Your character has been working hard all night, to consistent and repeated disappointment, is tired and hungry, has not seen a shiny denarius for this ongoing work of playing stage manager for this poseur who does not ask, but invokes privilege and tells you to take the boat out to go play fisherman, at noon, when everybody knows the fish are sleeping."

    How much sarcasm might Peter have built into these words when he responded to Jesus?

    How do I presume that Peter got sarcastic with the Lord in the first place?  Because of what comes after.  They gain so many fish that Peter has to signal his partners to come out in their boat, both boats being filled past capacity "so that they began to sink" (vs. 7).  

    Then verse 8, "But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!""

    Getting sarcastic with Jesus.

Peace,

Pastor Peter