#revsaraebaron

“Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” has 5 salient points:

"A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth."

"God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions."

"The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself."

"God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem."

"Good people go to heaven when they die."

This week we are going to take a closer look at the second of the them:

"God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions."

Unlike last week, where I directly contrasted Moralistic Therapeutic Deism with the perspective of the Christian-Right and then both with Jesus-following, in this case I think Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and the Christian-Right largely overlap.  I don't see a noticeable difference, other than perhaps in the degree of openness to other faith traditions.

The difference from both is in how Jesus-followers see our tradition, including in our Micah passage today.  That passage claims that what God wants is for us “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” For some people, what Micah says and “be good and nice” may look similar at the outset.  That's what makes it so dangerous!

Now, obviously, I take no issue with the last bit, where the Bible is conflated with other faiths.  When it comes to the basic moral principles of the world's religions, there is enough agreement to speak in such terms.  The issue, rather, is what a moral life looks like!

The first statement is that God wants people to be “good.”  That's not particularly controversial at this point, but it is circular logic!  What does it mean to be good?  Isn't this a statement about what being good means?  Then simply saying, “being good is being good” doesn't help us figure things out much does it?  That means we have to decide from the next two words what this goodness looks like.  

This is where we get “nice.”   “God wants people to be nice.”  In fact, if you take out some words, this statement could read, “God wants people to be nice, as taught in the Bible.”

Here is the problem.  It doesn't.  The Bible doesn't tell people to be nice.  

Actually, the Bible does not include the word NICE.  And I mean AT ALL.  Its not there.  It doesn't show up.  And I don't think its an accident or a mistranslation.  I think its not there ON PURPOSE.  What is nice anyway?  We use the word so much that we easily lose its meaning. Apple dictionary defines it this way:  “Nice” pleasant; agreeable; satisfactory.”  I think the most important part of that definition is “agreeable.”  The word “nice” has very serious connotations of “don't rock the boat!”  A nice person doesn't argue, doesn't disagree, doesn't tell you when you're wrong, doesn't tell you when you are harming another person.  A nice person doesn't name injustice, doesn't upset the status quo, doesn't willingly engage in conflict.  A nice person is always pleasant, even when things are profoundly wrong.  To be NICE is to take the path of least resistance.  

Our Micah passage says that God wants us to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with God.   For clarity's sake, I offer 3 different translations of this verse for you:  

NRSV: He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
 and what does the Lord require of you
 but to do justice, and to love kindness,
 and to walk humbly with your God?

NIV: He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Message: But he's already made it plain how to live, what to do, what God is looking for in men and women. It's quite simple: Do what is fair and just to your neighbor, be compassionate and loyal in your love, And don't take yourself too seriously - take God seriously.

Now, there is something in there about loving kindness or showing mercy. They aren't the same thing as “be nice.”  Now, the definition of kindness, “the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate”, helps, but I think its in the definition of mercy that we really see the difference.  Mercy is compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.  WHOA.  That's so not the same thing as agreeable. Its so much STRONGER!  

Jesus says that the greatest commandments are to Love the Lord Your God with all you heart, all your soul, and all your mind – and to love your neighbor as yourself.  In fact he suggests they aren't so different.  This Micah passage is another way of saying it.  To love mercy is to love your neighbor as yourself, ESPECIALLY when you have the power and reason to do otherwise.  

Now its time to go back to the rest of Micah's claim.  To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God.   I will admit that its best the Moralistic Therapetic Deism's claim that God wants us to be “fair” is entirely true, and I suspect that its a similar articulation as the theme of Justice throughout the Bible.  It seems clear, Biblically speaking, that God is OBSESSED with justice.  There are all sorts of commandments that have to do with making sure that the justice system is fair – and that it doesn't benefit the rich more than the poor, men more than women, natural citizens more than outsiders.  There is a deep awareness that left to its own devices, a society will bend justice toward power so that the powerful will constantly become more powerful and the powerless more powerless.  God's commandments are meant to prevent this!

Justice, and judgement, and the judicial system even are all there to make sure that things are FAIR for people no matter who they are.  You might remember the story of the prophet Nathan telling a sob story to King David … the story is that a very very wealthy man with many herds noticed that his very poor neighbor had a very nice lamb, and so, he stole it!  David's was so angry at this rich man, and Nathan pointed out to him that HE was the wealthy man in the story.  The prophets were the ones making sure that people didn't forget about justice!

Justice often demands the opposite of niceness.  While niceness is the path of least resistance, justice often requires being part of active resistence.  The demands of justice in the world may require upsetting the social order, upsetting other people, upsetting the institutions of power and privilege.  Those fighting for women's rights were told they weren't being NICE.  Those fighting to end slavery weren't NICE.  Those fighting to end segregation weren't NICE.  But.... they were just, and they were merciful.  

In the best case scenario, if “fairness” is given all the power and energy that it deserves, then YES, God does want us to be fair, but note that it isn't some fairness that has mostly to do with trivial matters – it is a fairness that has to do with everyone having a fair opportunity to LIVE and THRIVE.  That's where the Leviticus passage comes in.  It does, of course, include “love your neighbor as yourself” but it seems to also be pretty explicit about what that looks like.  In this passage, loving your neighbor as yourself means leaving a means of livelihood for the poor rather than enriching yourself.  In this passage, loving your neighbor as yourself means telling the truth in order to produce fairness and justice.  This passage worries about the disempowered, and tells those who have power to act responsibly with their power: to give wages when they're earned, to refrain from doing harm simply because it can be done.  Loving your neighbor as yourself means creating a JUST justice system, impartial to power and wealth, and to refrain from profitting from violence.  This is some PRATICAL and real stuff.

It isn't “nice” stuff.  It is “just” stuff.  

That tiny Micah passage includes, as well, that God wants us to “walk humbly with our God.”  This is not paralleled at all in Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, and from my understanding of it, that is not accidental either.  People following that way of thought do not believe that in spiritual practice or discipline. They see prayer as a way of manipulating God into giving them what they want.  For the most part, they do not read the Bible, or reach out to others as a way of sharing God's love.  They think of God as existing for THEM, rather than thinking of themselves as existing to do God's work in the world.  Its an enormous switch!  

This may be one significant place where the Christian-Right and Jesus-followers align.  Our Tradition teaches us that we are the Body of Christ – we are gifted and blessed so that we can be a blessing to others.  We exist so that God's love can spread.  We are the continuation of the ministry of Jesus himself.  We are part of God's transformation of the world, and our work in that includes significant time studying and praying and worshipping and discussing so that we might BEST use our lives for the goodness of all.  

Micah tells us to be humble before God.  That is, to remember that God is God and we are not!  That the purpose of life is not that God serve us, but that we serve God.  And that in serving God we are both blessed and a blessing!  That our lives AND the lives of those we meet are improved!  

You see, our Tradition is not all about us, it is about everyone.  It is DEFINTELY not about “ME”!  Micah reminds us with simple words about humility – which are put next to justice and mercy in their importance!  Those THREE things are what it means to be a “good” person, if you listen to the Bible.  Justice, mercy, humility. They're balanced, and they push us beyond ourselves to being truly good neighbors to those we meet.

So, my friends, despite the the apparent similarities, again we find that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is a mistranslation of our faith.  Our tradition does NOT teach us to be nice.  In many ways it teaches the opposite.  It teaches us to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.  May we do what we are taught.  Amen

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the people are reminded that they were once slaves in Egypt. It is used to explain the Sabbath, or maybe just to explain why servants get to have Sabbath too in Ancient Israelite society. It is used in the commandments to take care of the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner as well. Basically, the people are reminded time and time again to have compassion for the vulnerable because they were once a vulnerable population.

However, there aren't many stories about the people being enslaved in Egypt, this is one of the few. The ones that exist all revolve around Moses, and this story is the prelude to the story of Moses' birth. It is very difficult to tell if there is any authentic memory underneath this story, because it is an old enough story that there really shouldn't be and yet there are such epically profound truths in it about what it means to be an oppressed people and what subversiveness looks like from within oppression that it feels more true than most stories in the Bible. This story may not be a factual accounting of a particular incident in history, but because it contains so many larger truths, I'm going to treat it as if it is, and let it speak for itself.

According to the end of Genesis, the descendants of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob had all moved down to Egypt during a famine after Joseph had become the right hand person to the Pharaoh. Joseph had urged them to come down, where he could ensure that they would have sufficient food and land to be safe. The story explained that Joseph had interpreted the Pharaoh's dream and predicted 7 years of excellent harvests followed by 7 years of famine. Pharaoh was so pleased that he elevated Joseph to the 2nd highest office in the land, and while there Joseph reigned over an agricultural policy that completely impoverished the entire nation and brought their wealth into the Pharaoh's hands. The people ended up selling their livestock, their land, and then themselves for access to Joseph's grain stores.

So the same guy who “saved” his family did so while utterly destroying the people of the nation he was – supposedly – serving. The new Pharaoh “didn't know Joseph” (the Bible suggests this story happened 400 years later, so that would be reasonable). However, it is a bit ironic that the Hebrews were enslaved by the people who one of their forefathers had masterminded enslaving.

Perhaps that suggests that oppression breeds oppression, and oppressors should be careful. In any case, by the premises of this story, by this time the Egyptians were in full fledge oppressor roles and the Hebrews were enslaved by them and oppressed by them.

In our Bible Study we were struck by the similarities between the story in Exodus and the experiences of slaves here in the United States. There is something universal about this story, and it strikes cords through the eons.

Puah and Shiphrah are midwives who are given an immoral order. They are to kill all the baby boys of their people. The names Puah and Shiphrah are classically Hebrew names, and the text reminds us that they're Hebrew as well as mentioning twice that they are in awe of God. (The “awe” is often translated “fear” but “awe” is a much better translation.) We are not supposed to miss that they're Hebrew, or that they're being ordered to kill the boys of their own ethnic group.

It took me entirely too long to figure out why the boys were to be killed. I was thinking of males as especially strong laborers in the fields, and wondered why you'd want to have fewer of them. If you wanted fewer descendants, I thought, why not kill the girls who have the babies and leave the workers? Our Bible Study participants responded that the death of the male babies meant that the females would be sexually available to the Egyptians, and they'd presume that as half-Egyptian – the next generation would be more pliable and “better.” The participants in the Bible Study figured this out by considering American slave history.

We also noticed the language of fear created around the oppressed group, and the dehumanization of them. The Hebrews are called “powerful” and “numerous” and the myth is that they would do harm for the Egyptians, a myth used to justify enslaving them. It is suggested that they could be spies, or fight against Egypt in a war, or abandon their posts of much needed labor. Therefore, the myth of the oppressors says, we must enslave them and double down on the harm we do to them to keep them below us.

Oppression is very powerful, and human oppressors are capable of extensive harm, but there is a resiliency to life itself, and it fights back when life is oppressed. This story says that the more the Hebrews were oppressed the more they multiplied. I think we're supposed to believe this was God's hand at work; I think it is more the myth of the Egyptians continuing to justify evil. In any case, both the Hebrews of this story and the African American slaves oppressed in the United States suffered great losses as a community – losses of life and identity, language and culture, dignity and hope. Yet, the communities found ways to fight back, reform, and try again and again. This story suggests that the power to do so came from God, as do many of the songs and stories that remain from the American slave era. God supports the experience of the oppressed in overcoming oppression.

The midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, were unusual women. It doesn't seem reasonable that only two midwives could have been sufficient for all the births of the Hebrew women, so more likely they were the LEADERS of the midwives. It may even be that they were also midwives to the Egyptian women, as they imply they know the difference between each set of women giving birth. They are BRILLIANT, DEFIANT, and seemingly FEARLESS (although I'd stake a bet that they were terrified even while they kept their cool.)

They are given a direct order by the most powerful man in their country to kill the baby boys of their community and they don't! If it is true that they were the leaders of the midwives, they give counter instructions. In any case, the voices of all the midwives are united in the shared voices of Puah and Shiphrah, and their voices respond to this immoral command with “no.” They just don't! It makes me wonder how they had been formed as humans, and what empowered them to know better. The text says it was that they knew God, and I hope it is true for all who know God that our relationship with God empowers us to refuse to follow unjust orders, but I've seen it go other ways. How is it that knowing the Holy One can form us into people who more deeply believe in the sacredness of life? How is that being present to God helps us overcome our fears of the powers of the world? How were the midwives able to be so brave? I wish I knew, but for now I'll accept the premise that God can help us overcome our fears and resist the power of oppression.

Did the midwives refuse the Pharaoh because he was Egyptian? Because the order was so atrocious? Because someone had already been training them on resisting oppression? Was it about who gave it, how terrible it was, or about who they were? How were they strong enough to simply refuse? And how were they wise enough NOT to say “no” to the Pharaoh (who would have killed them and replaced them with someone who would do what he said) but instead to simply not to it? I'd love to know, but for now I'll accept the premise that God helped them overcome the power of the oppressor.

When they get called back to account for the live baby Israelite boys, they have a crafty answer in hand. They give a compliment to the femininity of the Egyptian women while using the fear of the Hebrews and assumptions about them to their benefit. They respond along the lines of “your women are more feminine and fragile while ours are more like animals.” To be precise, they say, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” You see? The answer they give manipulates the Pharaoh by complimenting his ethnic group and denigrating theirs, and it is believable to him. They save their boys. To do it they have to imply terrible things about the lack of humanity of the women they were related to, and they did because it was totally worth it.

Puah and Shiphrah aren't the only ones in history who have played the assumptions of oppressors against the oppressors to gain freedom for the oppressed, but they did it as well as anyone.

Now, the incredible actions of these subversive women to save the lives of Israelite boys ended with things worse off than they started – sort of. The midwives had been told to kill the babies, the tactics then were supposed to be somewhat hidden and covert. Their actions forced his hand to make the death sentence to baby boys OVERT and visible. He continues to order the death of the baby boys, and he makes everyone responsible for it, since he hadn't been able to control the midwives. In the short term, that meant more babies died.

But in the long term, it meant that the Hebrews lived. The overt action of the Pharaoh led to more subversive actions – by Moses' mother and sister – and by Pharaoh's own daughter. The fear of Pharaoh that led to his orders for murder resulted in Moses being raised in his own house – an Israelite boy who he had ordered killed. When Pharaoh raised the stakes it ended up backfiring on him and he eventually lost all his slaves.

It seems important to take note of how it must have felt to be Puah and Shiphrah in the moment when Pharaoh ordered the Hebrew babies to be thrown into the Nile. It would have felt like failure, right? They took risks with their own lives and likely the lives of those who worked with them to save the babies. They took morality and the love of God more seriously than the power of the Pharaoh/King. They fought with their wits about them for the well-being of their people and they won...

Until the Pharaoh made it worse and raised the stakes. They tried to save those baby boys and allow them to live, and then Pharaoh orders everyone to kill the baby boys and the organizational methods of the midwives can't protect the babies anymore. Puah and Shiphrah must have been dismayed. Yet, the tactics they used ended up in one generation with the freedom of their people – instead of the death of the males of a generation and the rape of that generation's women. Yes, things got worse. That's what happens when you fight back against oppression. The oppressors make things worse first. Which means that when women – and men – are forced to use subversive tactics they have to be prepared for things to get much worse before they get better.

In The United Methodist Church right now, things are getting worse. The many brave people who have refused to follow unjust rules in the church have upset the status quo. Those who are committed to excluding LGBTQ people from full participation in the Body of Christ are furious that they can't make people follow the rules. As they double-down on exclusion and tightening rules and punishments, they push the UMC toward schism. This weekend in Chicago a group of 1700 people deeply committed to exclusion gathered, and formally launched a para-Church structure they are calling the Wesleyan Covenant Association. Their first demand is that the Church end the resistance to exclusion once and for all. Since we all know that the progressives fighting for inclusion will not be silenced that is not possible. They suggest, that if resistance can't be silenced that a plan needs to be developed to divide the denomination. Things are getting worse.

That means we are on the road to ending oppression. Thanks be to God for the midwives and all those willing and able to follow their lead. What a joy it is, in God's holy name, to be part of ending oppression in any form. Amen

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

Most Biblical scholars are utterly perplexed by our Gospel parable of the week, they tie themselves in knots trying to make sense of a story they perceive to be a moral out-lier. The ones who are able to make sense of it do so by making it sound a bit like this little story. The story MIGHT be true, and it goes like this:

Henry Ford made a trip to Ireland to visit the place of his ancestry. While he was there, two trustees from the hospital in the town he was visiting came to him asking for a donation. He agreed to give them five thousand dollars, which at the time was no small gift. In the paper the next morning, Ford saw the headline proclaiming that the generous American philanthropist Henry Ford had given fifty thousand dollars to the local hospital. As you can imagine, Ford was shocked and called the hospital to track down the two trustees he had met with. When they got to his hotel, he confronted the men about the massive mistake printed in the paper. The trustees apologized, and said they would be calling the paper immediately to correct the mistake and print a retraction, letting everyone know that Henry Ford had not given not fifty thousand, but only five thousand. Instead, Ford promised to give them another forty-five thousand. But, he gave them a stipulation: that a marble arch be erected at the hospital entrance with a plaque that read, “I was a stranger and you took me in.”1

To be fair to most of the scholars, today's text is complicated: it is a confusing story, it is a convoluted passage, and it has many layers of meaning. The author of the gospel of Luke - who for the sake of ease from this point forward we’ll call Luke- creates some issues for us. According to the Jesus Seminar, Luke merged together a combination of source material: 1) a parable Jesus is highly likely to have stated (vs. 1-8a); 2) a saying that probably comes substantially from Jesus’ lips (vs. 13)--neither of which is repeated in any of the other gospels; and 3) explanatory material provided by the Luke, which includes further statements placed on Jesus’ lips (vs. 8b-12, and 14).

That is, the parable likely ends with “And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly”. The Jesus seminar puts the parable in RED, indicating that they think it was likely authentic to Jesus. They put the final saying, “No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." in pink, thinking it likely reflects something Jesus would have said. They distrust it a bit because of the way that Luke is using it. The stuff about trusting people to be honest in small and large matters, and using ill-gotten gains are all LUKE. It is OK to hear things from Luke, I love Luke, but it is important to separate out what Jesus was likely doing with this parable from what Luke was.

In order to understand what Jesus was likely talking about, it would be helpful to understand more about the laws and economic systems in Roman Palestine. Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh in Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels help us out with this and win the prize as our favorite commentators of the week! They say, “Rich landowners frequently employed estate managers (often a slave born in the household) who had the authority to rent property, make loans, and liquidate debts in the name of the master ...”2 The manager in the parable was such an estate manager. We're figuring he wasn't a slave, since he has to worry about where he'd live after he loses this job. It also seems worth pointing out that the landowner is TOLD that the manager has been mismanaging, but we don't get any evidence of the truth of the statement, nor is the manager given the chance to defend himself. It could be hearsay, but the manager is vulnerable to the accusation and now has to fend for himself.

Back to Malina and Rohrbaugh, “Traditional Israelite law provided that an agent was expected to pay for any loss incurred by his employer for which he was responsible. He could also be put in prison to extort the funds from his family. If the dishonesty of the manager became public knowledge, he would have been seen as damaging the reputation of the master. Startlingly, however, in this story he is simply dismissed.”3 That is, the landowner is being unusually generous with the manager. Remember this because we're going to come back to it. The commentators make it clear that the timing was IMMEDIATE, “In the case of the dismissal of an agent, this dismissal was effective as soon as the agent was informed of it, and from that time forward nothing the agent did was binding on the person who employed him. The plan worked out by the manager thus had to be enacted before word of his dismissal got back to the village.”4 The manager had to act with the element of surprise as well as with haste.

And act he does! He gives away A LOT of money!! Malina and Rohrbaugh suggest one amount saying, “The size of the debts involved is extraordinary. Though such measures are difficult to pin down, they are probably equivalent to 900 gallons of oil and 150 bushels of wheat.”5 The Jesus seminar translated this as 500 gallons of oil and a thousand bushels of wheat.6 In any event, it was a tremendous amount. Malina and Rohrbaugh continue, “Storytelling hyperbole may be involved or, as recent investigations have suggested, the debts are large enough that they may be the tax debts of an entire village. The amount of debt forgiven, though different in percentage terms, is in both cases approximately 500 denarii.”7 We know from other parables and stories of Jesus that a denarius was a day's wage for a laborer, so we're talking about each of these amounts being 1.5 years worth of a laborer's wages, or about $28,000 based on today's minimum wage in New York.

The manager IS shrewd. He doesn’t panic at the idea of being homeless and without resources, whether or not he was guilty of the dishonest management he was accused of. He uses the landowner’s softness against him, and for the common good! Back to our commentators, “Having discovered the mercy of the landowner in not putting him in prison or demanding repayment, the manager depends upon a similar reaction in the scheme he cooks up. It is a scheme that places the landowner in a particular bind. If he retracts the actions of the manager, he risks serious alienation in the village, where villagers would have already been celebrating his astonishing generosity. If he allows the reductions to stand, he will be praised far and wide (as will the manager for having made the 'arrangement') as a noble and generous man.”8 Now do you see how it is like the Ford story? The rich man ends up being far more generous than he intends to be, in large part because he couldn’t easily take back claims others made of his generosity.

In vs. 8a, Jesus reflects the landowner praising the manager, “And his master commended the dishonest manager because he acted shrewdly.” By extension, Jesus was praising the actions of the manager as well--actions that brought debt relief to an entire village. The first listeners would have had an easy time identifying the themes of mercy and debt jubilee in the story, and knowing what Jesus was praising. Still, the praise given to the manager for his shrewd (and likely illegal) actions would have made the parable challenging. Jesus praises someone for tricking someone else out of a large some of money. The common good was met, but standard economic thinking suggests the landowner was cheated. Perhaps it is worth noting the the softness of the landowner, his preference for his employee, made space for his unintentional generosity. It might suggest that God is able to work with whatever softness we do have to create greater good!

Given the social-science context for the story, it sounds a lot like others of Jesus’ parables! In fact, it sounds a lot like the instruction to turn the other cheek (which happens to be the saying of Jesus that the Jesus seminar MOST believes to be authentic.

Luke records that saying this way, “If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also”. Scholars have taught us that this was a fantastically subversive action. Superiors hit inferiors with a backhand, while a front hand slap was indicative of hitting an equal. Because the left hand was used to wipe in ancient times, only the right hand was used for everything else. To turn the other cheek was not to become a doormat – it was to requires that if another hit happened, it was one that acknowledged you as an equal! It rejected the system of oppression.

It seems that the “parable of the shrewd manager” is another expression of this philosophy of rejecting systems of oppression (here including undue tax burdens and interest) and creatively turning them on their heads!! The shrewd manager found a way to care for himself, take care of his village, and make his former boss look good. Talk about a win/win! However, it took disregarding some rules/laws to make it happen, and the greater good was worth it. That's what we think Jesus was trying to communicate with this passage. We are still left with the question of what Luke was trying to communicate with this passage--not just with the parable but with the passage as a whole.

According to Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, commentator in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, an important contextual piece to be aware of is that Luke was likely writing to a wealthy Greco-Roman Christian audience. Likely Luke-Acts was written to and for his patron, Theophilus, named at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke. In this part of the narrative of Luke-Acts, Jesus was attempting to teach his disciples and followers all that was most important for them to know before his “date with destiny"in Jerusalem.9    

Vs. 8b-14 speak to Luke's interpretation of this parable. A key theme in this interpretation is money/wealth and the wise use of it, which is so central to Luke's understanding of Jesus that it shows up no fewer than 8 times in the Gospel.10 This was raised by Alan Culpepper who wrote the brilliant commentary on Luke in the New Interpreter's Bible.11

This was an audacious message for Luke to deliver to his benefactor and his benefactor’s rich friends. To the end of making a fateful choice about whether or not to follow Jesus, Luke pushed them hard on the use of their wealth. Luke challenged them in a way that we don’t often get today. The line about not being able to serve two masters tends to either get ignored by modern day audiences when they have wealth or misinterpreted by others to mean that accumulation of money is inherently sinful. On the contrary, Luke’s audience was challenged into decisive, bold, creative actions--not a theological position on whether money is good or bad.

Unlike perhaps most of us, they were more likely to identify with the landowner and his experience of being manipulated into generosity. Luke pushed them to consider the steward, who in our parable faced not only the loss of his position but of his livelihood! He acted decisively, boldly, and creatively!    He acted in a way that would have brought mercy and jubilee to an entire village and love to his master, while costing his master a LOT of money.    Luke’s audience faced a situation that required bold, decisive, creative actions: whether or not they would follow the way of Jesus. This choice was encumbered with life-altering implications for how they used their wealth. Hanging onto it meant rejecting Jesus, rejecting God, and rejecting eternal life. Following Jesus meant something more and other than just giving their money away. It meant using wealth as a tool for mercy and jubilee, for bringing about God’s kin-dom on earth. It meant upending an economic system of usery and exploitation. It meant upending the fabric of the existing social contract.

Today, we face the same choice. Today we are relentlessly bombarded with messages about being consumers and needing to shop now and later today and tomorrow and every day so we can consume and needing to work in the highest paying jobs possible so we can support that consumption. Our society and economic system compel us into lives built on the exploitation of the poor, the marginalized and of this planet until they have nothing left to give us. The myths of our society are designed to silence objections: the cries for relief of the poor are said to be class warfare, global climate change is called a “theory”, the well-being of the economy is used as a proxy for the common good, and – of course - we’re told that any real change to our economy or the abuse of our planet would cost jobs, bankrupt businesses, and waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. That is, we’re told in many ways (large and small) that we can’t afford to be a just society because it would upend our society as we know it. This misses the point that not only can’t we afford to continue life as we know it, and upending society is going to have to happen to create an actually just society, but we are called to a higher way of being and a higher way of living in relation to each other.

Are we bold enough to follow Jesus?    Are we willing to rock the boats of stability that keep the oppressed down?    Are we decisive enough to follow Jesus?    Are we willing and able to differentiate between the desires of consumerism and the needs of the kin-dom?    Are we creative enough to follow Jesus?    Can we see through the claims the economic system makes clearly enough to see how the system steals from the poor to give to the rich?

Finally, are we shrewd enough to follow Jesus? Given the broken systems that oppress, are we shrewd enough to mess them up? Jesus praises the shrewd and rewards bold, decisive, creative action. Let’s go and do! Amen

---

1 Story told by Nichole Torbitzky in “September 18, 2016-Proper 20 (Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost)” on the website “Process and Faith”http://processandfaith.org/lectionary-commentary/september-18-2016-proper-20-eighteenth-sunday-after-pentecost/" accessed on 9/17/16.

2 Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) “Textual Notes: Luke 16:1-16” p. 292.

3Malina and Rohrbaugh, 292.

4 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 292.

5 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 293.

6Robert W. Funk, Roy W Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Autthentic Words of Jesus (HarperOneUSA, 1993), pp. 557-9.

7 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 293.

8 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 293.

9Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, “Luke-Acts, Propaganda for World Mission: The Church's Internal and External Relations” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Howard Clark Kee, et. al. (Cambridge University Press: USA, 1997) pp. 519-523.

10Jesus denounces the greed of Pharisees in Luke 11:39-41. A rich fool forfeits his soul in 12:13-21. Jesus speaks of a prudent steward in 12:42-48. Jesus tells a parable in which the outcasts are called to a great banquet in 14:15-24. Jesus speaks of the cost of discipleship and giving up all possessions in 14:33. And finally, the parable of the prodigal son in 15:11-32 immediately precedes today’s reading.

11R. Alan Culpepper, “Luke” in Leadner Keck, ed. , The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press: 1995).

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron and Kevin M. Nelson

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

I'm going to start by answering Jesus' presumptive questions, because I know the answers. It is really exciting to know the answers to questions Jesus asks, because they are usually trick questions, but I have these. “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the 99 in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?”  

NO. - What are you crazy?  Have you met sheep?  They are seriously the dumbest creatures God ever created (ok, fine, they are tied with deer).  If you leave 99 sheep behind while you go look for one that got lost, when you come back, you'll have 70, if you are lucky.  I mean, I was a camp counselor, and we went over the “lost camper plan” and step one as a counselor is that you STAY WITH THE CAMPERS YOU STILL HAVE.  (The support staff looks for the lost camper, you work on not losing another.)

NO, you don't go after that sheep.  Not unless you have a really good team backing you up, and it doesn't sound like you do.

Next question?  “Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it?  When she has found it she calls together her (female) friends and neighbors ...”  Um.  No one. Because a silver coin is a days wage for a laborer and it is basically enough to buy half a loaf of bread, and no one can afford to throw a party for their neighborhood because they just found a coin that would cover 1/20th of that cost.  I'll agree that she'd search for the coin, it is after all 1/10th of her life savings, but NO she wouldn't throw a party.  Are you nuts?

These two parables feel like Jesus is doing a really bad Childrens' Time with all of us, waiting for us to object with the most basic of reasoning, and then laughing at his presumed stupidity.  

The problem is that I've been preaching regularly for 10 years now, and I know not to trust it when Jesus appears to be an idiot. I've learned that he only plays dumb to get our attention.  So, what is really going on here?  It seems that the key to understanding Luke 15 is in paying attention to the opening paragraph.  “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, 'This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.'" (Luke 15:1-2, NRSV)

Curious. The New Testament seems to assume that some people are sinners and others aren't.  Modern Christianity seems to assume that all people are sinners (although if we look at actions and not just words, there is an assumption that some people are WORSE sinners than others, but no one cops to that).  What did it mean to call some people sinners in those days?  R. Alan Culpepper, who wrote the commentary on Luke for the New Interpreter's Bible says “Those designated as 'sinners' by the Pharisees would have included not only persons who broke moral laws but also those who did not maintain ritual purity practiced by the Pharisees.”1 I'm mesmerized by the idea of sin being finite enough that many people wouldn't qualify as sinners.  It might take some of the guilt off of life if, at least once in a while, we “weren't sinners.”

The so -called sinners are set up in contrast to the Pharisees and scribes, people who were religious insiders.  (To be precise, Pharisees weren't religious insiders at the time of Jesus, but they were when Luke was writing his gospel, so we're going to live with it for today.)  The religious insiders were concerned about the access the religious OUTSIDERS were getting.  

I chose to use this text this week because I didn't understand it at all, and I took a leap of faith that some commentators would be able to help me with it.  Sometimes life works out exactly as planned, and I discovered AMAZING work in the commentary series Feasting on the Word by Charles Cousar (Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia.) and Penny Nixon (Senior Minister at Congregational Church of San Mateo, United Church of Christ).  The rest of this sermon is indebted to their genius, and largely to their words ;)

“Often this parable unfolds in a way that emphasizes the redemption of the 'lost,' but it is the 'already found' that the parable is meant to bring to repentance.”2 Issues arise because in verse one the tax collectors and sinners are coming near, and the ones who think they have an exclusive right to be there are getting antsy.  Jesus seems to respond that the ones who are “lost” are already a part of the flock.  They are lost out of the flock, or in the house.  They already count.  

The two parables are the same idea, they repeat for the sake of getting a point across, or maybe because it is fun to have God as both a shepherd (hated by Luke's time) and a woman – and make most people anxious at once.  The Pharisees and scribes are said to be mad because Jesus ate with sinners, which according to Luke he's done all of once by this point.  They're annoyed, “especially because the sinners are 'hearing' Jesus.  'Hearing' for Luke is a sign of repentance and conversion.  Like the prophet Jonah in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Pharisees and scribes do not take kindly to the possible repentance of those who lie outside their definition of the redeemable.”3

I fear they're not the only ones who feel that way.  Have you heard about the Wesleyan Covenant Association?  They're an emerging group within the United Methodist Church who are trying to take Luke's “Pharisees and scribes” as their models for behavior. Emerging as in their initial meeting is in October in Chicago.  Their stated goals start with “Connect evangelical, orthodox United Methodists with one another in a common ministry of the gospel,” and culminate with “To uphold and promote biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality.”  (You might be shocked to learn that they don't actually mean “biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality” as  I understand it. They mean excluding the LGBTQ community from the Body of Christ.) The Wesleyan Covenant Association is designated to be an alternative structure that can become a new denomination, based on the litmus test of believing that excluding God's children from the church is the best way forward.  That is, they do not take kindly to the welcome of people who lie outside of their definition of worthy of God's love, and they are willing to break a denomination over it and define themselves by it.

4

Unfortunately, the Wesleyan Covenant Association is NOT the only group of people who immediately come to mind as trying to mold themselves after the scribes and Pharisees rather than after Jesus.  On this 15th anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, we live in a country where many people are calling for the exclusion of Muslims, the registration of Muslims, and closed doors to the refugees of the world.  We have a repeat of the ideology that existed before World War II and kept many Jewish families from receiving the welcome they needed to stay alive, except this time with Muslims.  Instead of learning the lesson that violence begets violence and the world needs food, peace, and hope from the attacks of September 11th, we have people calling for greater violence, less humanity, and thereby the creation of more and more desperate people willing to join extremist groups.  Our sisters and brothers in faith who know God through the teachings of Mohammad are particularly vulnerable today, as they grieve with the rest of America.

Getting back to the deceptively complicated parables, both the sheep and the coin are passive.  As one commentator explains, “A lost sheep that is able to bleat out in distress often will not do so, out of fear.  Instead it will curl up and lie down in the wild brush, hiding from predators.  It is so fearful in its seclusion that it cannot help its own rescue.  The sheep is immobilized, so the shepherd must bear its full weight to bring it home.”5 Furthermore according to Cousar, “Neither a sheep nor a coin can repent.  The issue of the two parables, therefore, is not to call sinners to repentance, but to invite the righteous to join the celebration.”

Let me say that again.  “The issue of the two parables, therefore, is not to call sinners to repentance, but to invite the righteous to join the celebration.”  He goes on to quote Alan Culpper who said, “'Whether one will join the celebration is all-important, because it reveals whether one's relationships are based on merit or mercy. Those who find God's mercy offensive cannot celebrate with the angels when a sinner repents. They exclude themselves from God's grace.' The Pharisees and the scribes put themselves outside of the circle of divine grace by the way in which they grumble at Jesus' fellowship with tax collectors and sinners.  There is no joy or celebration, no partying or delight, among Pharisees and scribes. Even though invited to the reception given in behalf of the joyous shepherd/woman, they cannot bring themselves to come; thereby, like the elder brother (15:25-32), they are exposed.”6  Indeed, when Amy Jill Levine was in Schenectady speaking on the Parable of the Prodigal (which immediately follows these parables), she said that the point of the parable is the question of if  the older brother will accept grace or reject it after all.  It therefore raises the question about ourselves as well.

*Cough* Wesleyan Covenant Association *Cough*  (Seriously, this is so easy I feel guilty about it.)

I have one more gem to share with you from these wise commentators. Nixon asks about the sheep and the coin, “Is it a search to save or to welcome?  It is one thing to 'save' and another to 'welcome.' Religious insiders are more comfortable with saving the lost than welcoming those whom they perceive to be lost.  Saving is about power, whereas welcoming is about intimacy. Saving is primarily focused on the individual, whereas welcoming is focused on the community.”7  *SNAP*

These texts present God as the hound-dog of heaven, searching out anyone who would for any reason believe they are not welcome or not worthy and proving that person wrong!  All we are asked to do is celebrate with God when goodness transforms the lives of those who desperately need it!  All we have to do is rejoice with God!  And apparently, sometimes, that's too hard.  It is easier to think of people as needing to be saved (and assimilated into our way of doing things), and harder to make space to truly welcome all of God's children and allow them to impact our lives in deep ways.

But that's the call: to be welcoming and open to intimate friendship and relationship with all God's children, and to rejoice when the welcome is received.  May God's grace guide us to be the ones who are able to rejoice!  Amen

1R. Alan Culpepper, “Luke” in Leadner Keck, ed. , The New Interpreter's Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press: 1995), 9: 295.

2G. Penny Nixon, “Homiletical Perspective on Luke 15:1-10” in Feasting on the Word, Year C Volume 4, edited by David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 2010) p. 69.

3Charles B. Cousar, “Exegetical Perspective on Luke 15:1-10” in Feasting on the Word, Year C Volume 4, edited by David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 2010) p. 69.

4http://www.wesleyancovenant.org/purposebeliefs accessed on 9/10/16.  The access date is especially important as the wording has already been known to change without notice ;)

5Helen Montgomery Debevoise “Pastoral Perspective on Luke 15:1-10” in Feasting on the Word, Year C Volume 4, edited by David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, Kentucky, 2010) p. 70

6Cousar (quoting Alan Culpepper in “Luke” in the New Interpreter's Bible, 1995).

7Nixon, 71.

-- Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

This story is all messed up. To begin with, Paul is a very questionable hero. He doesn't seem to act in order to benefit the slave girl. In fact, the text says explicitly that he was “very much ANNOYED” by her and that's why he healed her. Annoyance – not compassion, love, or concern for her well-being, annoyance.

Truth be told, the story doesn't really seem to care about the slave girl either. The slave girl is not named, the text does not indicate that Paul ever spoke to HER directly, and it does not tell us what happens to her after she was “healed.” She's a narrative means to an end.

The spirit in her is used to tell us that the followers of Jesus's way were in fact slaves of the Most High God. Her status as a slave may exist primarily as a narrative device, whereby the enslaved is able to name the slave-to-God status of others. While it is suggested that her owner's were angered by losing the money she had been making them, the accusations they made against Paul and Silas don't even have anything to do with that.

Of the girl herself we know very little. She was a slave. She had a spirit of divination. It made her owners a lot of money. She followed around Paul and his company, and her truth-telling about them got annoying after a few days, so Paul ordered the spirt of out of and it came out. Then she wasn't worth as much money.

Those aren't terribly human facts to know about someone. We know nothing of her motivation, although her motivation could reasonably be assumed within the confines of the story, to be the spirit and not her! We don't know what happens next for her. Is she beaten because she is now worthless? What back-breaking labor does she land in? How old is she anyway? What other work may she be used for now? What she grateful? Was the spirit something that benefitted her life or harmed it (go with the story on this one, we can't change the story, so we might as well accept its premises for a moment).

Not only do we know nothing about her, we also don't know why Paul failed to SEE her or have any mercy on her. If he had the power to take away the spirit, then maybe he could have done so earlier. On the other hand, having the spirit made her more valuable, which may have improved her life. But he doesn't seem to CARE and neither does the story.

At best, this part of the passage might just be a retelling of the parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge.

[Jesus said,] ‘In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor had respect for people. In that city there was a widow who kept coming to him and saying, “Grant me justice against my opponent.” For a while he refused; but later he said to himself, “Though I have no fear of God and no respect for anyone, yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.” (Luke 18:2-5)

Paul gets worn down by a spirit, and orders the spirit out of slave girl. Like the judge, he doesn't act out of justice or obligation, he uses his power because he is ANNOYED.

Later, when he gets out of jail because of his inborn status as a Roman Citizen, he demands HIS rights as a Roman Citizen, and is upset that he was mistreated because HE deserves better because of his power in the world. Paul demands a public apology, but only for how he was treated. He doesn't ask about her status, or indicate that she mattered.

In Acts, Peter is presented as “the new Jesus.” Paul isn't. Thanks be to God. I don't know what Peter would have done in this case, nor can I really speak to what Jesus would have done. Yet, I'd like to believe they would have SEEN the girl, and not just been annoyed by the spirit. I want to think they'd worry about her life too. Stories of Jesus seem to imply that lives matter, even the lives of people who have been beaten down by life.

In this story, Paul fails to do so.

And yet, he doesn't. The second half of the story is different from the first half. The interaction with the jailer is amazing, beautiful, miraculous, and shows an INCREDIBLE amount of empathy for the very person who was oppressing them. Paul and Silas cared about the jailer, and the ways that they responded to the jailer saved his life and showed him a new way of being. The way that Paul responds to the jailer is exemplary. He SEES him and cares about him, without even knowing him. That feels like how Jesus would have handled it.

The story of the earthquake in jail, and the prisoners staying put is pretty darn weird. I suppose Paul knew that the authorities would figure things out sooner rather than later, so he wasn't particularly concerned.  Yet in most cases in human history, the cycle of oppression wins out. One person or group oppresses another, and if the oppressed ever get a chance to lead, they respond with oppression as well. Prisoners taking gentle care of their jailers breaks the cycle of oppression. That being said, as a GENERAL rule, I don't think this is a model we have to follow. It is a good thing to keep in mind when you already know you are SAFE, but not necessarily a good choice every time.

Paul's actions in prison were very effective in proclaiming that the way of Jesus was different than the ways of the world. The jailer converted. Paul didn't, however, call out the economic injustice, the inherent human dignity of the slave girl, or even the position of jailer in a system of oppression. Paul's actions mostly left things the same, and didn't lead people to fuss over them, other than worrying about if they'd get in trouble for misidentifying a Roman Citizen.

I think he could have done better. I think these stories are all messed up. That's a relief! It indicates that sometimes the people of God mess up, and although we are doing our best, we fail to see the most loving way forward. Sometimes we don't notice the calls for justice around us.  Sometimes we're just plain wrong! Often we don't SEE.

Yet, God continues to work through Paul through the rest of Paul's life. The writer of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles has told some pretty important stories for the history of human kind. That is, the failure of Paul and the story to get it right isn't the final answer. (Not that this helps the slave girl one little bit. Nothing does.)

Yet, it doesn't stop here. Paul kept developing, and learning more deeply how to love. He would eventually write the famous words to the Galatians, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29) Paul would come to know that slaves have value and that women have value. Perhaps if he looked back on his life, he would have regretted how he acted on that one day, but it didn't define his life.

We can make mistakes, and learn to do better later. It's normal. It's human. In fact, we can't do otherwise! God is certainly capable of forgiving us, and that should lead us to believe that we can be capable of forgiving ourselves.

want to share God's love and God's light at General Conference, even with those with whom I disagree. I don't want to compromise, and I WILL NOT compromise on the inherent dignity and worthiness of all of God's people regardless of sexual preference or gender identity. (Obviously.) And yet, the people who stand in opposition to inclusion are not the enemy. They simply don't know better – yet. Many of us in this room have struggled along the journey to get to inclusion. (Some of us who are younger, had open-minded parents, and attended great churches in our youth didn't have to struggle, but that makes us much more lucky than wise.) If those of us in this room, who now so consistently act out of regard for the wholeness of your sisters and brothers who are LGBTQI, were once not so sure, then it is clear that God's grace can win in the hearts of others as well.

No one's mind will be changed by yelling though, nor by nastiness. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” Love is the only way forward, especially in the face of hatred and fear. As I get ready to leave, I'm pondering how to make space for God's love to flow through me to drive out hate. I wonder how I can serve as a light.

Now, as previously discussed, I am convinced that the time has come for acts of disobedience and non-violent direct action that will disrupt the normal system. I believe that The United Methodist Church acts as an oppressor doing harm to beloved children of God, and I believe (as I have believed throughout my life) that I am to be part of changing that. The question is how to keep my heart and mind peaceful, steady, and focused on love while I do so. People are going to say terrible things, and things are at times going to go terribly wrong.

But the people who say terrible things are misguided, not evil. The things that will go terribly wrong are not permanent. God is love, God is creator, God is powerful beyond measure. God's will win out in the end – either through The United Methodist Church or The United Methodist Church will die so that God's love can live. Nothing else is the final answer. Nothing else can be. God's love always wins. That is, the Love of God will win out in the end, no matter how much human beings at the church at large mess it up right now.

Two of my favorite prayer practices interrelate. I've mentioned them before, but it is worth a reminder today. One prayer practice is to breath in love and breath out stress, fear, and anything that holds you back from love/God. That one is wonderfully de-stressing. The other is to breath in the pain of the world, and allow God to transform it within you, so that you can breath out love.

It is my intention to pray that prayer over and over again. It is my intention to try to live that prayer through the next two weeks. When you are able, I invite you to join me. When the pain becomes too much to bear it may help. (If it doesn't, return immediately to the other one and soak up love until you can go forward again!) We are, all of us, called to be God's love and God's light in the world. We are to participate in co-creating the world with God. We are to use our power to bring in the kin-dom. We are able to participate in changing hate into love.

Let us breathe. Amen

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

“Why are there so many songs about rainbows, and what's on the other side?” “What's so amazing that keeps us star-gazing, and what do you think we might see?”1 Or, in another voice (one that is not Kermit the Frog), “Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace...” “Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, no need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people, sharing all the world...”2 Or, in another voice (one that isn't John Lennon), “We will work with each other, we will work side by side, and we'll guard each one's dignity and save each one's pride.”3

Or, in yet another voice, one attributed to God and one that likely formed the basis for the reading from Revelation today, from Isaiah 65:17-19

For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice for ever in what I am creating; for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in my people; no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, or the cry of distress.

The strange text of Revelation is generally obscure. It was written in code so that if it was found by the wrong people, it wouldn't be understood. In this case the “wrong people” were those who wanted to destroy the early Christian community. The issue is that we don't really have the code. However, the last two chapters break out of the clouds a little bit, and it becomes clear that the author is yet another dreamer. Granted, he hasn't been writing about rainbows, nor star gazing, but by the end he writing about hope, faith, and love as convincingly as third Isaiah. (Which, in case you didn't know, is as high of a compliment as I can give.)

Our brief passage today is jam packed with imagery. There is a new city, a new Jerusalem. Heaven and earth as we know them have “passed away” and this is the new creation. The sea is no more. That's significant in two ways. First, in Hebrew lore, the sea was the epitome of chaos, and the fear that comes from it. Secondly, in the ancient world, the sea was what separated people from another. It is as if all the continents came back together again. So the lack of sea means there is nothing to fear and nothing that separates people from each other!

God chooses to live WITH the people. “The home of God is among mortals.”(21:3). That is, there is no separation between God and people either. And, within the vastness of the created universe, this dreamer proposes that there is no where God would rather be than among the people! With God's presence, there is no death, there is no sadness, there is no pain. And when there is thirst, God's one self quenches it.

This is really interesting imagery. It isn't a image of heaven. It could be an image of heaven come to earth, that makes some sense, or they may be combined into one thing. It proposes a sanctity of life itself, of humanity, of earthiness and fleshiness and of cities! (As commentators point out, the Bibles starts in a garden but ends in a city – a really big city, as it turns out.) Much of Christianity has been other-worldly focused, but both the hope-texts in Isaiah and this hope-text part of Revelation suggest that God is at work creating the WORLD as God wants it to be, not just waiting around for us to die in order to give us abundant life.

That's something that REALLY matters to me. I believe that God is at work in the world, still creating, still moving the world into what it can be, and is now working WITH us on that. I believe that the life of Jesus was part of that creative energy, and the work of his followers is to be attentive to co-creating the world as it can be with God. His message was that this work is POSSIBLE, and that it is NEAR, that we can reach it. I deeply believe that the purpose of life as a follower of Jesus is to help form the world into what it can be. This is one of the most important pieces of my faith.

Another of the most important pieces of my faith is that God loves each and every person AS WE ARE. We are already enough for God. I don't deny human brokenness, nor the need for healing and change. I simply believe that it is not a barrier to God's love, and that even in brokenness and sickness God still sees us as enough.  Because I believe God loves ALL of us, I believe how we treat each other matters in the deepest parts of the universe. When we hurt each other, we hurt God. When we exclude each other, we exclude God. When we fail to love each other – or ourselves – we limit our capacity to love God.

My biggest question coming into this sermon was “Why is this commandment to love each other called 'new'?” You might even have noticed that I put this in the bulletin as my sermon title, but I've since gotten over that. My issue is that the commandant is very old. It is in the Torah. It is one of the foundations of the entire YHWH tradition. Every Jewish person ever has known it. Worse yet, this version is a bit tame! While the rest of the Gospels give some version of “love your neighbor as yourself” which reflect the original law, this text says simply to love each other. It is an insider commandment, which is (still difficult but...) way easier!!

I finally found an article by a Jesuit named Jack Mahoney on a website called “Thinking Faith” that did some justice to the question. Father Mahoney points out that, “One of the purposes for which the Gospel of John seems to have been was written was to attempt to resolve painful divisions which existed within the Johannine community (as we see in the First Letter of John). The evangelist therefore may have Jesus here exhorting all his future disciples to mediate his continuing love to one another after he has gone, and so maintain the unity he will pray for earnestly.” That is, this is a pretty practical suggestion! The love ONE ANOTHER bit is being said because they weren't succeeding at it. It also suggests that the love we show is a partial expression of the holy love that exists for each person. That is, 'John in his gospel and his letters (as their author or their source) writes so repeatedly of the need for mutual love and unity among the disciples of Jesus, that it seems likely that these virtues were notably lacking in John’s Church”.4So, it wasn't “new” but it needed attention.

If we are meant to love each other – and our neighbors in all places – and if we are meant to co-create the world as it can be with God, that leads us to significant questions about HOW that work is best done. Within communities of faith, there are vast and abundant differences about what that means.

In particular, The United Methodist Church is a broad umbrella, and we have some striking differences of opinion about how God would like the world to look and what love looks like in the world. On May 10th our every-four-years international gathering, General Conference, starts. It is the only body that can speak for The United Methodist Church and make adaptations to our rules.

There is a fantastic Coalition called the Love Your Neighbor Coalition which is the combined effort of the Methodist Federation for Social Action, 4 groups working on LGBT inclusion, the 5 racial ethnic caucus groups in the United Methodist Church, a new environmental group called “Fossil Free UMC”, UM Association of Ministers with Disabilities, and the Western Methodist Justice Movement. (If you want to know more, grab a copy of my sermon, they're all listed in the footnotes.)5 Although I love the name “Love Your Neighbor” it has also occurred to me that it could be called “The Rainbow Connection.” The views and perspectives are different, but the Coalition works towards inclusion, celebration of diversity, and recognition of the wholeness of humanity of people across many different rainbow spectrums. That's what they believe love looks like. That's what they think God's world is meant to look like.

There is another Coalition. It is the Renewal and Reform Coalition, and it is comprised of Good News, The Confessing Movement, UMAction, and Lifewatch. (Transforming Congregations and the Renew Network are now part of Good News.) If you know what the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) is you might want to take note that UMAction is the UM wing of IRD. If you don't know, ignorance is bliss. The Renewal and Reform Coalition released their General Conference Agenda last week. As they put it, “The Renewal and Reform Coalition has three major priorities in Portland: 1) uphold biblical teaching on life, marriage, and human sexuality, 2) restore and strengthen the integrity and accountability of our covenant connection as United Methodists, and 3) promote the fair representation and empowerment of our United Methodist brothers and sisters outside the U.S.”6

To be more specific, their legislative goals include: to remove The United Methodist Church from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; to make sure that the church does not “agree to disagree” about the full humanity of LGBT people; to significantly tighten restrictions on clergy preforming same sex marriages (including a mandatory minimum penalty of a one year suspension); “broadening the definition of 'self-avowed practicing homosexual,' so that those who are married to a same-sex person or who have publicly acknowledged being a practicing homosexual would no longer be able to serve as clergy”; “adding as a chargeable offense 'interfering with the General Conference or another United Methodist body or agency’s ability to conduct business,' in order to counteract the disruption of General Conference and other agencies by activists.”; and much more!

The church that the Love Your Neighbor Coalition dreams of (and believes God to want) and the church that the Renewal and Reform Coalition dreams of (and believes God to want) do not look the same. Unfortunately, the Renewal and Reform Coalition has the voting majority on most (if not all) issues.

There are plenty of reasons to maintain hope. First of all, the existence of this church is proof that God's love matters in the world, and no legislation from General Conference will ever change that. Secondly, the Love Your Neighbor Coalition (Rainbow Connection) may be prepared to LOSE, but they aren't going to sit down and take it! There is a significant non-violent resistance strategy. I'm going to a training on it this Saturday. A Bishop and a pastor did a wedding yesterday in NC and got news of it onto CBS! More is coming. The commitment to sharing God's love in the world is deep and wide. (Fair warning, this resistance may lead to my arrest. I'm not concerned about this, and I hope you won't worry either. Portland, OR is friendly to protestors.)

God's dreamers put God's love into action to create the world as God would have it be. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is hard. It doesn't really matter though, because God's love is worth it! May the dreamers who seek to welcome all of God's people into God's holy church continue to do their work and find their way, so that the rainbows of peoples in the world might know they are worthy of God's love and they are enough. Kermit sang, “Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection, the lovers, the dreamers, and me.”7 I think we found it – now we get to use it. Thanks be to God. Amen

1“Rainbow Connection” in The Muppet Movie Original Soundtrack Recording, Kermit, 1979.

2“Imagine” John Lennon, 1971.

3“They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love” Peter Scholtes, 1966.

4 Jack Mahoney SJ, “Why a ‘New’ Commandment?” http: //www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20120713_1.htm Posted on: 13th July 2012, accessed on April 23, 2016.

5Affirmation, Black Methodists for Church Renewal. Fossil Free UMC. Love Prevails.MARCHA: Metodistas Asociados Representando la Causa Hispano-Americanos,Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), Methodists in New Directions (MIND),National Federation of Asian American United Methodists (NFAAUM), Native American International Caucus (NAIC), Pacific Islanders Caucus of United Methodists (PINCUM),Reconciling Ministries Network, United Methodist Association of Ministers with Disabilities, Western Methodist Justice Movement (WMJM)

6Steve Beard “Renewal Agenda for General Conference”http://goodnewsmag.org/2016/04/renewal-agenda-for-general-conference/ Published April 13, 2016, accessed April 21, 2016.

7“Rainbow Connection” in The Muppet Movie Original Soundtrack Recording, Kermit, 1979.

It strikes me as likely that most of you don't know anything about Nehemiah. In fact, I would guess that the MORE Biblically knowledgeable among you would be fairly likely to assume that Nehemiah is one of the minor prophets. (This assumes Biblical knowledge, clearly, in understanding what the Minor Prophets are. Minor prophets are the prophets whose books are shorter. That's all.)

Nehemiah is a book of history. It is bound up with the book of Ezra – apparently they were one book for the first 2000 years or so, but now are considered two. They are books about the return from Exile. Those of you who are here all the time may be getting sick of hearing me explain the Exile, but I don't want to leave anyone behind. So, hold onto your seats, I'm about to review Basic Biblical history and catch everyone up. I'll try to be informative without being boring. Wish me luck.

This is a story that starts with Abraham. Abraham heard the call of God to leave the land of his ancestors and start a new life. God made promises to Abraham that he'd be the father of a multitude, and that his descendants were specially blessed to be a blessing to the world. He was married to Sarah, who may or may not have been his half sister. She was barren for a LOOOOOOOONG time, and to make it sound simpler than it was, she eventually had a kid named Issac.

Issac married Rebecca (whose father AND grandfather were Issac's first cousins), and they were barren for a mere LOONG time and then had twins named Esau and Jacob. Esau was the older twin, but Jacob was the one whom Rebecca and God favored. Jacob was a bit of a trickster, but no more so than his uncle Laban, his mother Rebecca's brother. He went to live with Laban for a few decades and when he returned he had two wives, two concubines, 12 sons, an unknown number of daughters, and a lot of wealth. Those 12 sons would become the fathers of the 12 tribes.

Jacob's two favorite sons were Joseph and Benjamin, the sons of Rachel, his favorite wife. (Did I forget to mention that both of Jacob's wives were his first cousins?) The older of the two was so obnoxious in his status as his father's favorite that the rest of the sons sold him to slavery in Egypt. The Bible suggests that God favored him, so Joseph eventually became the right hand to the Pharaoh. He instituted a pretty severe taxation system that involved Egypt having great stores of food and the poor people not having any. Meanwhile there was a famine in Israel (which happens in desert climates). The brothers came down to buy grain so they wouldn't die, it was all sorts of dramatic, but eventually everyone moved down to Egypt.

Then there was a new ruler, the family stopped being in favor, and they became slaves. Then there was Moses, they say about 400 years later. Or, rather, we should say, then there were two very wise, caring,and manipulative midwives who refused direct orders and helped Moses come into the world. His mother and sister were also wise, caring, and manipulative, and Moses (who was supposed to be killed upon his birth because that's what they were doing to Hebrew babies) got raised as the adoptive grandson of the current Pharaoh.

Then there are some parts you've likely heard about: Moses had compassion for his people, but then he killed a guy, so he had to go away; he went into the desert; he had an experience of God initiated by a burning bush, God sent him to be the leader of the people; he whined about his stammer, Aaron got to help; there were conversations, there were plagues, the people were freed; the Pharaoh changed his mind, and the army died in the sea. Or, at least, that's one of the versions the Bible tells.

Then the people wander in the desert for a few generations. Afterward, Joshua leads them into the land, and after his death for about 300 hundred years, random leaders emerged when the people needed them and otherwise they just settled in. Then the people wanted a King, and they got Saul, and Saul was crazy (maybe), so they got David, and David was a jerk (for sure) and after he died they got Solomon who was really not a whole lot better than Pharaoh. Which is likely why after the death of Solomon there was a civil war and the North seceded from the South. The North gets called Israel, the South is called Judah.

A little over 200 years later the North – Israel – is defeated by the Assyrian empire, goes into exile, and never returns. That's 722 BCE. About 150 years after that, the South – Judah – gets defeated by the Babylonian Empire (587/586 BCE) and goes into exile. Then in 539 the Persian Empire lead by Cyrus beats out the Babylonian Empire and the exiles are free to go home.

Except a lot of them didn't. Some went home. They started rebuilding the Temple. But a lot stayed put. About 100 years later a Jewish man named Nehemiah was the cupbearer to the King, and he he heard a report from men from Judah of the terrible lives being led there. It took him to prayer and prayer brought him before the King asking for a favor – to be sent to Judah to rebuild the walls of the city. He was appointed the governor of Judah.

The walls had been down for nearly 150 years. ALL IT TOOK was for someone to organize – the people COULD do it, the issue was that unless everyone did it t the same time it wouldn't really matter. With Nehemiah's hope, vision, and money, it worked. Some organized and rebuilt the gates, and then each family rebuilt the part of the wall that was next to their house (or, more likely) a part of their house. It wasn't that anyone had that much work to do. It is just that unless your neighbors rebuilt too it wouldn't really help – invaders could still come in.

It took 12 years for Nehemiah to work with the people, to face down the opposition, and to get the walls back up. That's where our lesson for today comes in – right after the walls were complete. It seems that the people who gathered at the Water Gate hadn't heard the whole story, all put together, either. The Water Gate was an interesting choice of location for this event, because the Temple had been rebuild. But the Temple didn't have space for EVERYONE – for men AND women AND children. So they gathered where they could all fit, and they heard their own story from start to finish. (I'd guess that what was read was an early version of the Torah.)

It seems reasonable that the people would weep after hearing it. It is a good story! Furthermore, the story is intentionally designed to bring the past into the present, and for the people who just completed the restoration of Jerusalem, that would be incredibly powerful. They were hearing their stories within the gates and the walls of the city for the first time in 7 generations.

But the command they're given doesn't give them time to live in their weeping. They're told not to weep – not for the 7 generations that missed this chance – not for anything. They're supposed to PARTY. (I don't make up the Lectionary. Therefore I don't make up the PARTY theme. It is in the Bible.) Nor do I make up the theme that the whole deal is that we get to enjoy life as long as we share the joy. Nehemiah told the people, “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions of them to those for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our LORD; and do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.”

Eat the GOOD stuff. Savor the wonder of it all. And share. Because it is holy, and that's how it works. From the time of Abraham the idea is “blessed to be a blessing.” When you are able to feast on the richest food there is you should enjoy it, and SHARE. Wow. I really do love the story of Nehemiah. It is the story of what can be done when the people work together. And this passage is the story of the transformative power of worship and the stories of God. The whole book is the story of what can happen when one person's heart is opened to the blight of others, and it is the story of the restoration. Nehemiah doesn't just talk about the “good stuff” of life, the book of Nehemiah is some of the good stuff.

Thematically, the Gospel lesson and Nehemiah seem like kindred spirits. The Gospel tells of Jesus at his home synagogue reading the lesson from Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because (God) has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. (God) has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." The other synoptic gospels put this later in Jesus's ministry, but Luke seems intentional in putting it right in the beginning. For Luke, this is Jesus's mission statement. Or maybe this is Luke's thesis statement.

The words would have already been known to be connected to the Messianic expectation. (Which by the way is also all about the Exile, but I can leave that for another day.) They're words we still use in our formal Communion liturgy. They are powerful words. They are words of restoration. They are words that reflect God's care for all of God's people, and not just the ones that societies tend to think are of value.

God wants a message brought to the poor – and it is good news for them.

God sends a message to the captives – and it is release of their captivity for them.

God messenger is to bring sight to the blind.

God's work is to let the oppressed become free again.

God's story is the proclamation of the jubilee.

The Jubilee is another Hebrew Bible idea that doesn't get enough press. It is the Torah law that says that every 49 years all the fields are to lay fallow, all debts are to be forgiven, and all land is to be returned to its original owners. Jubilee is one of the ways that God's vision for community in the Torah prevents cycles of poverty. For Jesus to read this passage is to connect his life with the care for the poor, the sick, and the oppressed, and the incarcerated.

Luke put this story at the beginning of his Gospel because he thought this was the point. The life of Jesus participated in God's work of freedom, healing, and transformation. To be poor in Jesus's time was similar to being poor today and being poor in the time of Nehemiah – it increased the chance you would die young after having struggled mightily. God isn't interested in leaving people in those conditions.

Which means that for Luke, the work of the Body of Christ (US!) is that vision from Isaiah. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon us, because God has anointed us to bring good news to the poor. God has sent is to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Or, maybe we like it from Nehemiah, “Go your way, eat the fat and drink sweet wine and send portions of them to those for whom nothing is prepared...”

We are to care for each other, and enjoy the goodness of life, and work toward a more just world. Let's get back to it! Amen

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

I know its early, and I know it is Christmas, so I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to say this, but I'm really sick of this story.  By my rough estimations I've read it about 500 times, and maybe 100 of those out-loud.  It isn't really that good.  Frankly, of the whole story we're given only 2 verses that really have anything to do with Jesus being born and they're pretty anticlimactic.     But, again, I know it is early and I know it is Christmas and none of you got out of bed this morning to hear me whine about the Lukan birth narrative.  I'm not sure any of you got out of bed to listen to me do exegesis either, but oh well ;)     As sick as I am of this story, these 14 verses still have surprises left in them.  This year it is the geography that jumped out at me.  It is only in the past few years that I've really understood Galilee and Judea.  To be direct about it, Judea, the Southern Kingdom, that came back from exile in 538 BCE was the land of the “Jews.”  That is, the word Jew comes from Judah who was the primary ancestor of the Southern Kingdom.     The Northern Kingdom – Israel - which went into exile first in 722 BCE, never returned.  The “10 lost tribes” did not regain their previous existence as a country.  This tends to become relevant when we're talking about the Good Samaritan or the Samaritan Woman at the well, because the Samaritans were the hated Northern neighbors of Judea, the place where people who had once been followers of the same God had deviated and intermarried and not got it all WRONG.   The weird thing is that Galilee is NORTH of Samaria.  So all the things that we say about Samaria should be true of Galilee.  Galilee should be an area of outcasts who don't follow God correctly, but it isn't!  The difference was a policital one.   Judean leaders decided to colonize Galilee as an outpost of Jewish thought and culture, and they had!  The Galilean backwater was an experiment in exporting the “true faith” of the Judeans up into the north.  The three areas were then very different.  Judea with Jerusalem – and Bethlehem – was the center of Jewish life.  Samaria, directly to the north, was distinct enemy territory (which is really dumb since the Empire was the real problem, but that's how humans work, right?).  To the north of Samaria was Galilee, the backwater colony of Jewish thought and life, a place to go if your family couldn't make it in Judea.   Mary and Joseph were from Nazarath, a TINY town in Galilee.  Jesus was from Nazareth.  It is one of the few facts about Jesus that can be even a little bit historically validified.  Jesus, the Nazarean – that's how he was KNOWN.   And yet both Matthew and Luke go through great pains to explain how Jesus – known as a Nazarene -  was ACTUALLY born in Bethlehem.  They come up with two very different answers.  Matthew suggests that the family was originally from Bethlehem but after the Magi left, Joseph had a dream and they went off to Egypt to hide away for a few years and then when they moved back they moved to Nazareth.  Luke comes up with the census narrative, which is cute, but has no historical basis.  And even if there was a census, NO census makes you go to the land of your ancestors.  EVERY country wants you to register according to where you live (and pay taxes.)   But David was born in Bethlehem, and David was the great king.  The awaited Messiah was supposed to be a New David.  And the Gospel writers wanted to make their points abundantly clear.  The new King was, also, like David, born in Bethlehem.  It is where Jacob's wife Rachel died.  It is where Ruth the Moabite settled.  The great kingS were born there.   Bethlehem is a 100 mile walk from Nazareth, and that's without the struggle of getting around Samaria.  Bethlehem is near enough to Jerusalem (about 17 miles).  Jesus, whose ministry centered around the Galilean backwater, is said to be born and die in the same places as King David.     If the Gospel writers do so much creative work to connect Jesus to David, there must be theological significance for them in it.  Luke also does a lot of work to place Jesus in the political context of the day.  Throughout the first two chapters Luke reminds us again and again who the power players were in the Empire.  This poor boy was born into a world that already had rich, famous, and extraordinarily powerful men in it.  And he was born in the city of the King.   And then, Luke, tells us that the announcement of the birth of Jesus was made the SHEPHERDS.  Shepherds were despised at the time of Jesus, they were seen as thieves of a sort – because they were always grazing their sheep on other people's land.  (Which happens when all the land is privately owned.)  They were USELESS.  But after telling us about the Men who Ran the Empire, after doing all that work to put Jesus in Bethlehem, Luke goes on to describe in explicit detail an interaction between the angels of God and the shepherds up in the hills.   Now, to be fair, David was a shepherd.  So maybe Luke was just going over his point again.  The more I study Luke, the more I can believe it.  Of all the Gospel writers, he is the smartest and the best story teller.  He'd weave something like that in on purpose.  But he also choose to talk about shepherds.  Matthew talks about Magi.  Luke's shepherds IMMEDIATELY differentiate the sort of King that Jesus is going to be.   He's born in the City of David.  He'll ride triumphant into Jerusalem and die there like David did.  But his kingship isn't going to look anything like David's.  He isn't going to take the throne.  He isn't going to lead an army.  He isn't going to go through political machinations to increase his power.  Jesus is going to be the one who pays attention to the poor, the sick, the women and children, the powerless, the refugees, and gives them ways to help each other.  He is going to call the powerful away from their power.  He is going turn the world upside down, and wash his disciples' feet, and change what even power means.  He's the son of a backwater carpenter and a teenage mother.  And while we've all but forgotten the other great man whose names appear in his birth story – other than their appearance in his birth story – we're still getting out of bed before Dawn to celebrate the wonder of the one who brought peace to earth and purpose to our lives.  Born in the City of David, but from Nazareth.  Isn't that everything all at once?  Jesus wasn't a part of the power structure of Judea, but he changed the world more than any of them did.  All the contrasts, conflicts and wonders of Jesus!  Isn't it great?   Merry Christmas!  Amen   

-- 

Rev. Sara E. Baron First United Methodist Church of Schenectady  603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305  http://fumcschenectady.org/