What did Jesus really say about divorce?

There are times when I want to say to the lectionary committee: thanks a lot.

(Note: The lectionary, in case you're not up with the church lingo, is the set of Bible passages that are prescribed to be read in a given church on a given Sunday. If a congregation follows the 3-year cycle of the lectionary, the people will hear a pretty balanced representation of the whole Bible during that time).

So - my beef with the lectionary committee this week has to do with three very difficult scripture readings assigned for this World Communion Sunday: one from Job (dealing with the why of human suffering), and two readings that have to deal with the topic of marriage and divorce (from Genesis and from Mark).

I chose the one about divorce as my sermon text this week. (Mark 10:2-6)

I only have about 8-10 minutes, since this is a communion Sunday.

I like a challenge....

Like to know which direction I'm going with it? (Like to suggest a direction?)

Hint: the sermon title is: "Disposable People".

You will get a great head start if you read about why divorce was such a big deal for Jesus by doing a bit of advanced study. (And if you click in there, DO indeed read down to the fine print.)

How did the practice of divorce differ in Jesus time and culture? How is it similar? Could Jesus' teaching on this subject be characterized as "feminist"? Why is the teaching about children follow on immediately afterward?

Study, pray, let me know if you have any insights - but danger, they may be added to the soup!

Have a great week - and see you Sunday.

Jeff

Falling Into an Outhouse

During a round of golf, here's what you say when you make a particularly bad and embarrassing shot that nevertheless ends up in wonderful spot: "falling into an outhouse and coming up with ice cream."

Crass. But hopefully it makes the point. (And, by the way, if you've seen this scene from the movie Slumdog Millionaire, you'll know that this is more than a metaphor). This Sunday, we will explore one of the mysteries at the heart of the Christian faith: God using our mistakes-making tendencies - our falling into the outhouse of human frailty - for the purpose of our transformation. Jesus indeed seems particularly fond of people who have been lost and who, through the incredible power of grace, get "found."

I will be brief this week. My wife looked at my entry last week, and commented about how it was too long and formidable a thing to read. So this week, brief.

First; read the text: Luke 15:11-24. A familiar one. I like the title "The Lost Son" instead of "The Prodigal Son", because it's set in a chapter full of stories about lost things that get found.

Watch these two clips. There is no better illustration of this strange phenomenon than this scene (shown in two parts) from the movie The Mission. First clip. Second clip. (For background on the story, see my entry from last week.)

Reflect. Are there instances in your life where you caught a glimpse of God's incredible grace, because you had been lost and got "found"? Further, as I mentioned my sermon last week: is it possible that the process of redeeming our mistakes actually begins not with our desire to get "off the hook," or our desire to assuage our guilt - but with our transformative encounter with the living God?

Extra Credit: If you'd like to get into some more detailed scripture study, click here.

Final Thoughts: Thanks for your question, Mark! (The question: "Did you truly mean that those who have [asked forgiveness in advance of sinning] at some point will never be forgiven by God? Is there room for such a person to stop doing so, repent of that practice, and be forgiven?" Briefly - yes, there's always room. Here's my response - with a bit of help from others.

Repentance: getting a clear view

Last week's sermon spurred several responses. I'll mention one here. One member shared with me having had a marital spat the night before - which had been weighing heavily that morning, and about which he was not ready to apologize at the time. He described to me how it was to take that first step, which I discussed in the sermon: Acknowledgement. The first step is to become clear about what one has done.

I did it. It was wrong. I take responsibility.

Obviously, the most important step is to communicate that to the one or ones you've hurt.

One thing I may mention on Sunday: just as there is in God's grace nothing that can't be forgiven, there is no statute of limitations on repentance. Aaron Lazare's wonderful book On Apology describes a 71 year old man who apologizes to a classmate (now 70) for something he had done in elementary school. It's a moving account of how it's never too late to begin this process.

This week, we look at the 2nd and 3rd step in this process of repentance: remorse; and restitution. When we realize we've done something that has torn the fabric of relationship with self and other, self and community, self and God - the next step is to feel the pain we have caused. This is an internal process of coming to clarity. To confess that to God, and then to express that pain publicly, as we indicate to the one(s) offended our contrition, is important both for us and for the other. It is necessary if healing is to continue.

One way to make this contrition (remorse) visible is to make some tangible and concrete effort at making right what was wrong (restitution). The deed cannot be undone; the vase cannot be unbroken. But, there can be concrete ways to move toward restoring what was lost. In some cases, the actual restitution is not so much about replacing or directly repairing what was lost, but it is the act itself that is most important.

The ancient word for this act is the word penance. Penance is very different from punishment. We should think of penance as a gift that aims to restore and repair the damage that has been done. Through this act, the healing power of God's grace is bestowed on us in and through that action. Doing penance is therefore not a punishment, but a gift.

One of the most powerful illustrations of this part of the process of repentance is this scene from The Mission. Robert Mendoza has hunted the Amazonian Indians as slaves for years. In a crime of passion, he murders a rival for his lover. In asking for penance, his friend Fr. Gabriel asks Mendoza to minister to the very same people he had once hunted down. See for yourself (click the link above) how these 2 steps become clear in Mendoza's journey up the cliff to the Mission. How does this show remorse and restitution? Why is it important that it be visible (and is convincing) to the ones who have been hurt? (Tune in next week for the rest of the scene!)

This week's scripture text is a familiar one for many of us: the story of Zaccheus in Luke 19:1-10--the tale of his climb, in this case up the sycamore tree. In it, we also see these two steps at work: contrition, and the act of restitution (or penance).

What interests me about this text is the fact that it takes place after Jesus has healed a blind man on the way into Jericho, a major trade checkpoint for goods and services going in and out of Palestine. Zaccheus was a chief tax collector, collecting levies on behalf of the Roman occupiers who were so hated by his fellow Jews ("Children of Abraham"). Such compatriots might question whether Zaccheus really remained a Child of Abraham because of his collaboration with them.

Zaccheus' climbing of that tree had to do with his desire for a clear view of the Christ. How does his act (of penance) serve to be another "tree" he must climb - and give him another clear view?

What does it mean to be "A Child of Abraham?"

Does Zaccheus' actions serve to restore him to community? To a right relationship with God? Wholeness in himself? (Salvation can indeed mean "Wholeness"?

What has been your experience of this process of repentance? Has it indeed helped you see more clearly - yourself, the other, God?

I would love to hear your responses...AND to hear about what you think of the effectiveness of this mode (blogging) as a companion to the sermon....

Jeff

PS - for further study of the scripture, click here.

Repentance: The Theology of Apology

This Sunday, I begin a new series called "Repentance: The Theology of Apology". I invite you to prepare, along with me, to hear and discern God's Word!

Some Information about this three-part series, beginning September 13

Part of the package in being human is making mistakes. But is it possible to repair our mistakes, especially when they harm other people, and to reorient our lives? How can we be restored when we’ve done something that brings shame to us? How do we deal with the whole mistake-prone, harm-causing nature that comes with being human?

As we will explore in this series, Christian faith offers us a tool—a divine gift, really—that enables us to heal what is broken, through the power of God’s grace. The most common name for this gift is repentance. Doing a 180. A process that begins with God’s reach into our lives, and asks of us a life-altering response that enables us to repair what's broken.

The secular name for this tool (or "art") is apology; we'll use the best of Christian theology, as well as social science, to explore how to use this tool - this gift - in our own life, and in our common life together.

An Invitation to Prepare

1. Read this week's scripture lesson, on which the sermon will be based: 2 Samuel 12:1-15.

2. Ponder some questions that I'm pondering. Respond below if you'd like.

What prevents David from seeing how destructive his own behavior is?

Why does Nathan use this particular technique to deal with David's moral blindness?

If there is a first-step to repentance - repairing what's been damaged and reorienting our life - what is it and why is it necessary?

3. Extra credit. Do some study on the scripture: click here.

Heroditus vs. Thucydides? The Melian Debate

In today's sermon, entitled "The Melian Debate," I am posing two differing ways of thinking about history - and I might add, different understandings of international and political relations among human beings. Today's sermon offers the invitation for us to become, for this week, armchair historians and political scientists, as we also seek to examine these issues in light of the revelation of God's truth in scripture.

The first way of thinking is illustrated by the historiographic approach of Herodotus, the ancient Greek historian. His approach to history held that it indeed gives evidence of a moral structure in human relationships - which he shows in his primary work detailing the history of the Greco-Persian war in the early 5th Century BCE. In that work he makes the claim that the strength of Athenian democracy lies in its embodiment of the ideals of freedom and "equality under the law," which inspire people to "their own cause."

Contrary to this way of thinking is Thucydides, who sought to strip the telling of history of all talk of values and morality, or what the gods may be up to, in favor of simply allowing history to teach its own lessons. He is considered the father of modern political science, in that he sought to show how human beings interact, not how the gods are controlling the score.

Here's an excellent summary that illustrates these two approaches to history.

Thucydides poses the question as to whether history is driven not by values or the hand of heaven, but by more human considerations. His exploration of this question is illustrated in a section of his "History of the Peloponnesian War" called The Melian Dialogue. In it, he seems to show the foolishness of an appeal to a values-based reading of history. Though the Melians may be righteous and noble in deciding to defend their homeland against tyranny - in the faith that heavenly justice will favor their admittedly weaker forces in the battle - Thucydides means to show that it's power, and not values, that drive relations among people. His point can be summarized by the familiar phrase, "Might makes right." Authority ultimately derives from the point of a gun. And morality is a function of power.

This contrasts, of course, with the biblical text under consideration: the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. The telling of history in the Old Testament (we ought to consider the writers of the Old Testaments as the parents of history, since their writing predates Thucydides and Heroditus by several hundred years!) serves to illustrate Herodotus' point: that history IS full of moral lessons. God grants authority and efficacy to a King based on his conformity with standards of rightness and justice - usually in the form of obedience to God, the source of all goodness and power. "[Insert the name of King here] did what was right in the sight of the Lord..." was the recipe for successful exercise of power, or the opposite if the condition was not met. Here, the opposite claim is in play: "Right makes might."

David's defeat over Goliath serves to illustrate that "God saves not by sword or spear, but the battle is the Lord's."

So which reading of history is correct? Is it true that the world operates in the way that Thucydides posits? Does "might make right?" Or is our strength in the higher values we seek to embody?

Does, as Martin Luther King claims, "history have a long arc, but it bends toward justice"?

Moreover, whatever the reality might be, is it possible to choose the view of history according to which you - we - will live? Even if we live in a world where human relations are governed by the maxim "Might makes Right," would you want to live your life on that basis (a rather cruel and cynical formula, for my money)? Is there indeed another world we're invited to live in - in fact, the world announced by Jesus when he said "The Kingdom of God is at hand"? A world described in the Sermon the Mount?

And finally - is it ever a "pure play"? Must we say that life is really a combination of both? Of might that forms our moral judgments, and moral judgments that form our opinion on the right use of power and authority?

Such a conversation, though I did not mention it in the sermon, is really taking place on our national stage. One could say that it is a debate between an understanding of how history works embraced by the previous administration, and that of our current one. Mr. Obama seems to make the claim that our greatest strength lies in the embodiment of our ideals - who also referenced the MLK quote referenced above in a recent speech. Does he mean it, or is it Realpolitik cloaked in good rhetoric (of which Thucydides' Athenians would be proud)?

What do you think?

Onward!

(PS - would encourage folk to find links to illustrate the points above.... If you do, I'll add them to the entry. Didn't have time with this original post to do so).

Bentham vs. the Bible: Can We Use Scripture to Justify Torture?

The sermon that I gave this morning deals with the question,  Is it right that our society self-consciously and self avowedly employs the method of torture in the effort to keep us safe?

Without repeating the entire sermon here...the thesis is this: the use of torture in any form is incompatible with the clear teaching of the scriptures, and Christians can never countenance the use of torture in our name as a means toward the end of attaining national security.

I offered a bit of reflection on utilitarian ethics as contrasted with Biblical ethics, and used as an illustration Ursula Le Guin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".

The question at stake: for a Christian, is national security, or even happiness, the appropriate prime value that ought to govern our national conduct - and can we justify any act as a means toward achieving this end?

If we do, we will be able to countenance the torture of both the potentially guilty and the innocent.  The logical extreme of this moral calculation is exemplified in that story - where the happiness of an entire society depends on the suffering of one child; it is the same logic with which we justified the torture and death of Jesus.

Caiaphas's word exemplify this secular ethical philosophy all too well. He says, "You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation be destroyed." (John 11:50) Of course, these contain a uniquely double Johannine meaning - we know what Caiaphas is thinking, but he does not know that what he is saying is fulfilling the divine purpose.

How is it possible that we find so many evangelical white Christians taking the same position as Caiaphas?

I left out of the sermon the point that even from a utilitarian standpoint, torture may not stand up. There are many (most notable among them John McCain) who claim that torture does not produce the desired result of good intelligence that prevents harm to the majority. More often than not, this intelligence is unreliable. A point one could argue, but the argument of the sermon doesn't hinge on it. Torture is wrong even if it produces good results.

What do you think? Is there any justification based on scripture with which we might be able to say that torture is right? 

And lastly, for those who wish to exercise their conscience in expressing their thoughts to our elected leaders, or to find some good additional material to reflect upon, I would direct them to the National Religious Coalition Against Torture (NRCAT). Would also welcome others to share links of useful information.

Let's see if we can't break the record in number of responses!

In Christ,

Jeff Vamos

What does the Bible say about immigration?

For you folk who want to cut to the chase, here's the question for this week: Does the gospel (and the scriptures in general) speak to how we ought to treat the stranger in our midst? Might it guide us in advocating for public policies about immigration? And if so, how can we faithfully (ahem...) use the Bible for this purpose.

[Sidenote: anybody want to comment on the difference between a split verb and a split infinitive? Alas, I digress]

BACKGROUND...First, a review of last week's sermon.

HOSPITALITY. We usually think tea and cookies when we think of this word, but my main point in the sermon last week was that hospitality is at the heart of the gospel. 

* It's important because we all know what it's like to be a stranger - as the people of Israel were strangers in Egypt, we're all in touch with estrangement at a deep, human level. Not only the Junior High sort of looking-at-our-feet-at-the-dance stranger experience. It is the story of our incomplete humanity to feel "not at home" anywhere. We are "restless" sojourners until we "rest in thee."

* It's important because it's what God does for us. Welcomes us into the household of God. "Thou hast set a table before me in the presence of mine enemies. Thou anointest my head with oil. My cup overflows." These are images of divine hospitality to humans who are yearning for home. "...And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life."

* It's important because God came to us as a stranger. It's how we experience God--through the stranger. "And the recognized him in the breaking of the bread." Bread broken with the mysterious stranger, in someone else's home.

That's where I jump off this week - in this week's sermon. I'm going to talk about immigration and what the gospel - what the scriptures in general - might have to say in guiding how we might think about it.

I'm still formulating my sermon - but one thing that is a danger I wish to avoid is to be cavalier or quick about making connections with immigration policy based on the scriptures. The world in which the the biblical writers were living is a completely different place. No Holiday Inns, for example, made hospitality a most sacred obligation, key to the survival of all travelers. 

That said, there are some pretty obvious ethical and religious guidelines about how we treat the person who happens to be the foreigner within our land. Less clear is how we ought to use the Bible in formulating policies about immigration.

Here is also where we may need to talk a bit about social analysis - not just Biblical exegesis. Why is our immigration policy so out of whack? Why are some saying it isn't fair? Why are some so afraid of "the other" wrecking our way of life (if that indeed is true - and I believe it is).

In any case - this is perhaps a "partial post" - I will post more after the sermon.

But I would very much welcome any thoughts or insights in advance of this Sunday's sermon, as I sit down to write tomorrow

Jeff V. (written Thursday at 4:15pm)