Tag Archives: Episcopal

“You got to know when to hold ’em…” (15th Sunday after Pentecost, 9/21/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings (Track 1)

“You cannot serve God and wealth.” That’s a statement that seems perfectly obvious when applied to other people, whether to the Spanish conquistadores who brought the cross and the sword —not necessarily in that order— to the Americas or to the occasional well-heeled tele-evangelist who practices creative bookkeeping. But the same statement seems unnecessarily limiting when applied to us. There really ought to be a way to do it!

Where did Jesus get “You cannot serve God and wealth”? He could have gotten it from the Decalogue: when wealth is the bottom line it’s a god and “no other gods before me” kicks in. This is another form of the duck test: if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it drives my decision-making, it’s my god. He could have gotten it from reading prophets like Jeremiah. But I don’t think he came to it without carefully examining the alternatives. His career would have been a lot less frustrating and a lot less painful if he’d found a way! That may be what the 40 days in the wilderness were about. Recall the temptations. The devil invites him to turn stones into bread, to cast himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, to worship the devil in exchange for “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” These are also ways of trying to serve God and wealth.

Now, sermons are supposed to contain good news, and “You cannot serve God and wealth” doesn’t sound very good newsy. It can, however, be useful information. It’s like the first rule of the hole: if you’ve dug yourself into a hole, the first thing to do is…stop digging. To the degree that we take “You cannot serve God and wealth” seriously, we save ourselves all the futile work involved in trying to serve both.

But “You cannot serve God and wealth” does more than this. Once accepted, it opens up some new possibilities, possibilities that Jesus explores through his story. But before diving into that story, a few words on our first two lessons.

Jeremiah is directed, broadly, to the leaders of the Kingdom of Judah at the end of the 7th Century bc. God had brought Israel into being about 600 years earlier —about the time of the fall of Troy— as a place where God would be loved and the neighbor loved —the two halves of the Ten Commandments or Decalogue. Measured against the Decalogue the leaders’ conduct was suicidal, particularly with respect to the love-your-neighbor half. And so God sends Jeremiah to announce the end of the Kingdom —exile. And from that time Jeremiah’s words are passed down from generation to generation so that Israel will remember that God really is serious about both halves of the Ten Commandments, that one cannot serve God and wealth.

Now one way of responding to Jeremiah would be to retreat into a strict legalism that wrote off everyone on the outside. Something like this was what Paul was responding to in the letter to Timothy. Rather than writing off everyone on the outside, pray for everyone —supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings— including the kings and folk in high positions who are as corrupt as Israel’s leaders were. Why? God desires that all be saved. God, desiring the salvation of all, has supplied a mediator between God and humankind —Jesus Christ— and appointed Paul —and many others down to ourselves— as witnesses of this. So —Paul to his audience— if God desires everyone to be saved, the least you can do is pray for everyone. In other words, don’t use “you cannot serve God and wealth” as a reason for writing off your neighbor—God hasn’t.

Another way of responding to Jeremiah would be to retreat into a sort of quietism, maybe to retreat into the desert and wait for the Messiah. Here’s where Jesus’ story comes in. It’s a strange story. To get into the spirit of it a soundtrack might help. As a sound track we might use the country-western song Kenny Rogers made famous back in 1979 called The Gambler. You may recall some of the lines… “Ev’ry gambler knows that the / secret to survivin’, / Is knowin’ what to throw away / and knowin’ what to keep. / ‘Cos ev’ry hand’s a winner, / and ev’ry hand’s a loser.” And the chorus: “You got to know when to hold ’em, / know when to fold ’em, / know when to walk away, / know when to run.”

So, keeping that song going in the background, recall the story Jesus tells: out of the blue a rich man gives his business manager notice. It’s a crisis: business as usual just isn’t an option. The business manager faces the crisis, and responds by calling in all the rich man’s debtors and reducing their debt, thereby making them indebted to him. (It’s not clear if he’s cheating his boss, or simply forgoing his cut.) His boss commends the manager for acting shrewdly. And Jesus glosses the story: make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. Parenthetically, the phrase “dishonest wealth” or “unfaithful mammon” is probably a shameless pun, since “mammon,” the word for wealth, is probably derived from the Hebrew root for “faithfulness.” As Luke tells the story, Jesus is returning to a theme we’ve met before: “Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.” This doesn’t mean that every Christian is called to sell all their possessions —not even Luke believed that. But every Christian and every Christian community is called to recognize that God’s coming Kingdom means the economic arrangements of this world’s kingdoms will become obsolete and to use their resources —shrewdly. We can’t serve God and wealth, but, serving God, we can use what wealth we have to serve others, and—Jesus’ words, not mine—make purses for [our] selves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, (Luk 12:33). If the financial planners only knew…

This homily, you see, ends up being about stewardship —not simply what we give to the church, but how we steward (manage) all our resources.

The standard is God, who, in Jesus’ brother James’ words “gives to all generously and ungrudgingly” (1:5).

The surprise is that Jesus is quite happy to urge generosity for selfish motives—“an unfailing treasure in heaven.” Generosity for selfish motives—better than no generosity for selfish motives. And what can happen, of course, is that the generosity transforms—slowly—the motives.

The obvious question: just how generous do I have to be? I think Jesus would say that’s the wrong question. What might be the right question? Do I think that this generous God is worth imitating? If my answer is yes, then I sort, or continue to sort—that out within the web of relationships in which this God has placed me.

Ev’ry hand’s a winner, and ev’ry hand’s a loser. The secret to survivin’, is knowin’ what to throw away and knowin’ what to keep. Kenny Rogers’ gambler and Jesus’ business manager have something to say to us. Every hand’s a winner, and every hand’s a loser, so with every hand it’s possible to act shrewdly with what we have for the glory of the Lord. May God give us the grace to continue to see and act shrewdly.

This is what we do (14th Sunday after Pentecost, 9/14/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings (Track 2)

One of these Sundays we’ll have a Gospel reading that doesn’t remind us of our current polarized context—but it’s not this Sunday. Luke sets the scene: “All the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to Jesus. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.’” So Jesus tells three parables, the two we heard this morning, and the third, the Parable of the Two Lost Sons, a.k.a. The Prodigal Son, which we heard the fourth Sunday in Lent.

I mention the Parable of the Two Lost Sons because it addresses something that might leave us uncomfortable in the first two parables. The parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin don’t question our assumptions about what it means to be lost or found. The Parable of the Two Lost Sons does: the younger son is clearly found; but the parable ends with the older son—who never left home—undecided about how to respond to the father’s plea to join the party. The older son: transparently a stand-in for the grumbling Pharisees and scribes, all facing the same challenge: join the party or not? Never having left home can mask an even more intractable way of being lost. But that said, what of the text we did hear?

“All the tax collectors and sinners…” Scholars argue about whether “tax collectors” is the best translation. But whatever the translation, what isn’t argued is that folk bid to collect taxes and tolls, and then farmed the work out to local subcontractors. If profit were to be made, it had to be on top of what the Romans figured they were owed. Abuse was pretty much inevitable. “Sinners” was a more nebulous category, but would easily have included those whose life choices showed little interest in observing Torah, e.g., raising pigs. So it’s not just the Pharisees and scribes who would have been grumbling. As we’ll hear a few weeks from now in the story of Zacchaeus, a chief tax collector, nobody’s happy that Jesus is eating with him.

How is Jesus going to respond? If his opponents have a valid point, it’s that he isn’t shunning the wicked. Most societies practice shunning as a way of maintaining social cohesion (lately ours has been calling it “canceling”). The opponents could have appealed to various psalms (“I do not sit with the worthless, / nor do I consort with hypocrites; / I hate the company of evildoers, / and will not sit with the wicked.” [26:4-5]). But there are dangers. It can too easily encourage self-righteousness. The goal can too easily shift from encouraging repentance to elimination. Later we hear Paul trying to avoid these dangers (“Take note of those who do not obey what we say in this letter; have nothing to do with them, so that they may be ashamed. Do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as believers.” [2 Thess. 3:14-15]). But it’s not part of Jesus’ toolkit. Jesus, more, understands his role as gathering Israel—all Israel, definitely including the tax collectors and sinners, and even (recalling the third parable) that stubborn righteous older brother who’s refusing to come to the party. And in his companion volume to the Gospel, Luke narrates the widening of the gathering: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

But rather than wade into the sociology of shunning, Jesus tells some parables. The sheep and coin parables build on what we do. They’re brief, but dense, prodding us to wonder about multiple things. First, the actors lose the sheep, the coin. So there’s some implied responsibility. When what is lost is a person, the responsibility is shared, but probably doesn’t disappear. Cain’s “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9) is probably not a line we can safely echo. So Jesus’ opponents might wonder about their responsibility.

Second, the sheep, the coin, have value. Jesus to his opponents: do you really want to say that these tax collectors and sinners have no value? [Cf. 4 Ezra 7:[60-61]!)

And so the shepherd and woman seek. The parables echo the prophet Ezekiel’s words: “For thus says the Lord GOD: I myself will search for my sheep, and will seek them out. As shepherds seek out their flocks when they are among their scattered sheep, so I will seek out my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places to which they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries” (34:11-13).

Then there’s Jesus’ commentary on the parables. First, straining the logic of the parables a bit, the focus on repentance. Jesus seeks it among the tax collectors and sinners—among the Pharisees and scribes, for that matter, but we have to wait for the third parable to hear that play out.

Second, the joy, God’s joy. As a good Jew, Jesus is using circumlocutions to talk about God, so speaks of “joy in heaven” and “joy in the presence of the angels of God,” but it’s God who’s rejoicing. Again from the prophet Ezekiel: “As I live, says the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live” (33:11).

This, Jesus says, is what we do. We seek out the lost. And, implied, this is what we do because this is what God does. Even Ecclesiastes notices it: “And God looks after what is driven away” (Eccl. 3:15 CEB).

Listening to all this in our current polarized context doesn’t require much fancy footwork on the preacher’s part.

Whatever else the parables are saying: we don’t write people off.

And, recalling our first reading and the leadership roles of the Pharisees and scribes, this is particularly important for our leaders. Recall our first reading, Israel has acted perversely—just after formally entering into covenant with the Lord at Sinai. Moses has the option of becoming the new Abraham (“and of you I will make a great nation”). But Moses gets it right: when the people are at their worst, that’s the time to plead for mercy, not justice. Our armed forces have this baked into their creeds: leave no one behind; we need it from our leaders.

Equally important: we don’t write people off because God doesn’t.

One of the stranger portraits of God in the popular imagination is God as Judge, uncaringly doling out rewards and punishments. ‘Stranger,’ because it has nothing to do with Holy Scripture. Recall Hosea’s portrait of this God tied up in knots over how to effectively respond: “How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender” (Hos. 11:8). This God, Jesus’ God, continually seeking us out. “Surely goodness and mercy shall pursue me all the days of my life” (Ps. 23:6) sang David. This God, as we’ll hear in next week’s Epistle, “desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4).

One final observation. The parables raise issues of responsibility and worth. When we pull back the camera and ask what drives God’s action these pale in comparison to love. “God so loved the world…” Is our capacity to love growing, our capacity to translate that love into action growing? That’s perhaps the most profound of the challenges the parables pose to Jesus’ opponents, to us.

Edema, Gratitude, Generosity (12th Sunday after Pentecost, 8/31/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings (Track 2)

We’ll start this morning by recalling the first part of today’s collect:

“Lord of all power and might, the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of your Name; increase in us true religion; nourish us with all goodness; and bring forth in us the fruit of good works…”

What’s worth noticing about this and many of our collects—the prayers that collect our thoughts and intentions at the beginning of our worship—is that it implies a story. There’s a past: God, “the author and giver of all good things.” There’s a future: “the fruit of good works” which have yet to ripen. We’re in the middle of the story. And who we are, what we should do, what we can hope—all of that is determined by what story we’re in the middle of.

We’re in the middle of a story. We’re not at the beginning, so there’s no question of starting with a blank sheet of paper. And we’re not at the end, which is why despair is never an appropriate response.

The “author and giver of all good things” in our collect also points to a theme that runs through our readings: gratitude and its proper expression.

Today gratitude is seriously under-rated as a virtue; we may even think of it as a sign of weakness. Other times and places got it right: The Roman politician and philosopher Cicero claimed “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.” The modern psychologist Abraham Maslow: “[The most fortunate are those who] have a wonderful capacity to appreciate again and again, freshly and naively, the basic goods of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy.” And Albert Einstein: “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”

The “author and giver of all good things.” If that’s who God is, if that’s what God has done, if that’s the story we’re in, then gratitude is the fitting response. And, conversely, it’s the failure of gratitude that regularly gets us into so much trouble.

Creation invites us to gratitude. Many of our psalms give us words to express this. “All of them look to you / to give them their food in due season.” Or we can attend to the conversations in the hard sciences. It turns out that a good number of physical constants like the strength of gravity need pretty fine tuning for life to be possible. The fine tuning of our world is so improbable that to avoid thanking the Creator we have to postulate a virtually infinite number of universes, with us happily in the one that holds together. (Google “John Polkinghorne” and “anthropic principle.”)

Equally, as Christians God’s project of restoring all creation elicits our gratitude. From the First Family on, God has responded to our rebellion with ever more daring attempts at reconciliation, culminating in taking human flesh in Jesus. So our word ‘eucharist’ is simply the Greek word ‘thanksgiving.’

The theme of gratitude runs just below the surface in our second reading from Hebrews. On the surface it’s about what worship is pleasing to God. If we think of worship as primarily what happens in the sanctuary, we’re surprised, because the text talks about what we do out there as worship: mutual love, hospitality to strangers, holding marriage in honor, contentment, sharing what we have. All this can sound rather much if we’ve forgotten what came before our reading: “since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks!” Gratitude.

Our Gospel reading: the lectionary prescribed verses 1 and 7-14, eliminating the man with dropsy in vv.2-6. The Pharisees would have been happy to eliminate him; with apologies to the lectionary editors I’ve left him in.

Jesus has gotten an invitation to eat with some leading Pharisees on the Sabbath. And “just then, in front of him, there was a man who had dropsy.” Today we use ‘edema’ rather than ‘dropsy’, swelling caused by the retention of fluid. There’s a predictable argument about what work is lawful on the Sabbath, and Jesus heals the man. Jesus then shifts the conversation to what he’s watched the Pharisees doing and starts giving them some unwelcome advice: don’t keep jockeying for the places of honor, stop limiting your invitations to those who can reciprocate. God’s in the business of humbling those who exalt themselves and of exalting those who humble themselves.

So we’ve got a healing and Jesus admonishing the Pharisees. Outside of it all happening at the same meal, is there anything else that holds it together? Turns out there is, for in that culture edema—various parts of the body all puffed up with extra water combined with an insatiable thirst—served as a metaphor for greed, the sort of behavior the Pharisees are exhibiting, the antithesis of gratitude.

Most groups have a pecking order: who defers to whom. We all learned this on the playground. As we get older, negotiating that pecking order gets more subtle, but rarely disappears. In 1st Century culture, meals were prime opportunities to display the pecking order: who’s closest to the host? Who’s at the head table? So, predictably, a lot of jockeying takes place. Likewise, lunch and dinner invitations are a prime opportunity to cement and maybe even augment one’s rank. It’s very easy for it to become a form of greed, not for food or for money, but for status.

As you may have noticed, the man with edema is introduced abruptly: “Just then, in front of him, there was a man who had dropsy.” It’s surprising, and commentators wonder about how he got there. Well, once we realize that the Pharisees are suffering from their own form of edema, we can see that the surprise is intentional: we don’t expect someone who’s ritually unclean in the home of a leading Pharisee; we don’t expect the Pharisees, spiritual athletes every one, to be so afflicted with greed for status. But there we have it.

The text as Luke’s given it to us is a gem. It turns out to be about what Jesus can heal easily and not-so-easily. Jesus can easily heal the man with the physical edema; he finds it harder to heal the Pharisees’ greed for status—they don’t think they’re sick. It turns out to be about what sorts of work are appropriate for the Sabbath. Healing, just like pulling a child or even an ox from a pit, is appropriate for the Sabbath; the work of jockeying for status is not.

The text is a gem, but there’s also a sharp pointy end to notice: “He said also to the one who had invited him, ‘When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, in case they may invite you in return, and you would be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.’” We usually think of gratitude as a sort of reciprocity: we receive something from someone; we reciprocate. Here Jesus breaks it open: don’t confine your generosity to those who can pay you back: include those who can’t pay you back. That’s where Jesus’ vision of God’s generosity has been heading. God gives generously to us, but not to set up another closed circle! Recall God’s words through Isaiah: “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats” (1:11). God gives generously to us so that our gratitude is expressed in giving to others.

What we’ve got here is the logic implicit in Jesus’ joining of the two commandments to make the Great Commandment. “Love the Lord your God” alone can be—well, is often—misunderstood as setting up a closed circle: just me and Jesus. “And your neighbor as yourself” reminds us that loving this God is about creating open, ever-expanding circles.

So, to try to pull all this together! The story we find ourselves in has as its center a breathtakingly generous God, to which our proper response is gratitude. Because strong currents in our culture discourage gratitude, we often need to be intentional in nurturing gratitude. But—here’s the sharp pointy end—we’re not talking about generic gratitude, which can settle into a comfortable closed circle, but a gratitude expressed in generosity toward those who are currently in no position to reciprocate.

As we prayed in this morning’s collect “Graft in our hearts the love of your Name; increase in us true religion; nourish us with all goodness; and bring forth in us the fruit of good works.” Amen.

The problem isn’t that Jesus might be the Messiah; the problem is how he choses to be Messiah (10th Sunday after Pentecost, 8/17/2025)

1 Reply

Readings (Track 1)

Today’s Gospel reading is downright puzzling. What are its various parts doing? How does it relate to what Luke’s been giving us in the last few chapters? Why—for example—does Jesus address the crowd as “You hypocrites”?

Well, what has Luke been giving us? Arguments between Jesus and the religious leadership, extended teaching about God’s generosity and the folly of greed. The seventy Jesus sent out to announce the Kingdom came back encouraged, but that doesn’t seem to have moved the needle. So today’s text, primarily a call to repentance. (That repentance theme continues into the beginning of the next chapter, which our Lectionary had us reading back in the third week of Lent!) Repent!

But why that strange combination of stories of arguments between Jesus and the religious leadership and teaching about divine generosity and human greed? We encounter one clue when a Pharisee criticizes Jesus’ omitting the ritual handwashing before the meal. Jesus responds: “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed (ἁρπαγή) and wickedness” (Lk. 11:39). Later, as Jesus talks about dealing with opposition from the authorities, there’s that request from the crowd that prompts Jesus’ warning against greed (πλεονεξία; 12:15). Luke wants us to wonder about greed and opposition to Jesus—so let’s wonder!

A few chapters back in Luke:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.…
But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep… (Lk. 6:20-26)

Early in the Book of Acts Luke tells us “a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7), so we’re not talking about all the religious leaders here. But for the religious leaders who oppose Jesus and end up seeking his death the logic may have been simple: “yes” to Jesus means no more business as usual: the unending contest for status with its accompanying wealth, readings of the Law that just happen to feather one’s own nest.

In other words, their problem isn’t that Jesus might be the Messiah. Their problem is that Jesus’ way of being Messiah makes it impossible for them to hitch their wagon to his apparently rising star. That had long been the pattern. Whether with the Persians, the Greeks, or the Romans an accommodation was always possible as long as everyone’s greed was taken into account. But Jesus with his “whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all” (Mk. 10:43-44) or “And do not keep striving for what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying” (Lk. 12:29)? Impossible.

Which is why, I think, we hear Jesus’ “You hypocrites!” in today’s Gospel. The problem isn’t that those good at reading the weather can’t read the “present time” (“Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them.” [Lk. 7:22]). The problem is that they refuse any reading that might disturb the status quo.  No additional signs from Jesus would move the needle because Jesus’ way of being Messiah is simply unacceptable.

This helps us appreciate Jesus’ troubling words “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!” Peace isn’t neutral. Recall the Roman historian Tacitus, who gives us this speech from a British leader—one of Jesus’ contemporaries—prior to battle: “They [the Romans] plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.”[1] Would any of us have been happy with Jesus bringing a peace that fit comfortably within the Pax Romana?

That was then; what about now? We might return to Jesus’ word to his disciples: “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy” (Lk. 12:1). As long as Jesus is around, accommodation to the status quo is impossible. Once he’s offstage, possibilities emerge. Paul’s letters: they’d be considerably shorter if their recipients weren’t already trying to merge confession of Jesus with their ongoing pursuit of status and wealth. The Roman Empire, that well-oiled machine of plunder, receives quite unflattering treatment in the Revelation, but by the early fourth century the emperors are Christian.

Over here, we have the prosperity gospel, in which greed pretty much moves from the “vice” to the “virtue” column. And Christian nationalism, in which the image of God is effectively reduced to those of the right skin color and culture.  Yes, “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy.” Beware of the constant temptation to adjust Jesus or “Messiah” so that nothing need change. As our brother Martin Luther put it in the first of his 95 Theses: “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’ (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

Or, to put it in positive terms, from our reading from Hebrews: “looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith,” or, better, from the Common English Version, “and fix our eyes on Jesus, faith’s pioneer and perfecter.” Fix our eyes, not only because it’s easy to get distracted, but because there remain parts of us that want to get distracted. Jesus doesn’t always tell us what we want to hear: pioneers and perfecters are like that. Sometimes the immediate effect is division, not peace. But Hebrews has it right: “who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.” Jesus would share that joy, so, however the past week has gone, he again invites us to his Table.

“Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace; and at the last day bring us with all your saints into the joy of your eternal kingdom.”

[1] Cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus, accessed 8/6/2025.

Why we want to keep listening to Jesus’ word (6th Sunday after Pentecost, 7/20/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings (Track 2)

In last Sunday’s Gospel we heard the lawyer ask “Who is my neighbor?” and Jesus’ reply, the parable of the Good Samaritan. Luke pairs that with today’s Gospel, Jesus in Martha’s home—with perhaps surprising results. Martha: “About that loving your neighbor command: please tell my sister…” But it doesn’t play out as Martha (or we?) expect. What’s going on?

We might notice how Luke describes Mary’s conduct: “who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying.” Culturally it’s somewhat unexpected: we’d expect men at Jesus’ feet—and we’ll come back to this. It’s Luke’s “listened to his word” that catches the ear, because it’s language we’ve already heard repeatedly: “I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them” (the parable about building on rock vs. sand [6:47]); “But as for that in the good soil, these are the ones who, when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart” (the parable of the sower [8:15]). Mary’s on the right path.

What of Martha? “Martha, Martha, you are worried (μεριμνᾷς) and distracted by many things.” This sounds like Jesus’ description of the seed sown among the thorns: “they are choked by the cares (μεριμνῶν) and riches and pleasures of life” (8:14). Again, there are Martha’s words: “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.” Mary is listening to Jesus’ word; Martha assumes what Jesus’ word should be, and—at the moment—Jesus’ role is simply to confirm Martha’s assumptions. There’s more than a whiff of the lawyer’s “But wanting to justify himself” from last Sunday’s reading. Or we might hear Martha’s words as apostolic, in the tradition of “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us” (9:49) or “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (9:54) Jesus may be Lord, but apparently still needs guidance on how things should be organized.

“Lord.” Throughout the short story it’s “the Lord:” “who sat at the Lord’s feet,” “Lord, do you not care,” “But the Lord answered her.” This is the Lord in the living room for whom five loaves and two fish are more than enough for 5,000 people, and Martha’s letting herself get distracted by “many tasks” in the kitchen?

What’s going on here? It’s not simply that the paired stories (the encounter with the lawyer, Martha’s hospitality) illustrate the importance of loving the neighbor (the Samaritan) and loving God (Mary). It’s that without a continual listening to Jesus’ word even love of neighbor can morph into something disconnected from Jesus’ vision. Hence the chilling warning in Matthew: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers’” (Matt. 7:21-23).

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, our vision and Jesus’ vision of what love of neighbor means, how it’s best expressed, are not the same. We assume, for instance, that the more power we have the better we’ll be able to love our neighbor. But here’s Jesus two Sundays ago: “Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals…”

Multiple reasons for continually listening to Jesus’ word. I’ll notice another from our Epistle, another from the Gospels, and then wrap up.

Judging by both Galatians and Colossians it looks like popular religion in Asia Minor assumed the more initiations the better, something like the credit cards in our wallets. The Colossians had been baptized. Great. Now, what was the next initiation they needed to further progress, to better navigate this world filled with gods, goddesses, “things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers”? So we hear Paul trying to explain that it doesn’t work like that. Let’s listen again: “in [Jesus] all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers– all things have been created through [Jesus] and for [Jesus].… in [Jesus] all things hold together. [Jesus] is … the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in [Jesus] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” Any other initiations? Superfluous! Any other cards in the wallet? Superfluous. As the heavenly voice at the Transfiguration put it, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” (Lk. 9:35)

But back to the Gospels. There, Jesus has this uncanny ability to come at things differently, to not get trapped by the assumed alternatives.

“’Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?’… ‘Show me a denarius. Whose head and whose title does it bear?’ They said, ‘The emperor’s.’ He said to them, ‘Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s’” (Lk. 20:22-25).

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.”… “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles” (Matt. 15:2-11).

Einstein nailed it when he said something like “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” But too often “the same thinking” is the order of the day, and we’re told that it’s either this or that. Then along comes Jesus, who regularly come at problems diagonally:

We Christians in this country—and probably others as well—really need to learn how to do that more often. Too often we end up just parroting the talking points from the left or the right—and then appeal to Jesus for support. “Tell [Mary] then to help me.”

What of the ending? “Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” On the one hand, it continues one of Luke’s major themes: “the better part,” hear and obey the word. Elsewhere in Luke: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:21). On the other hand, it’s a landmine. It’s Mary’s choice, not her parents’ or Martha’s or anyone else’s. And proclamations that start “A woman’s place is…”—they shouldn’t look to Jesus for support.

Yes, let us keep learning, keep listening to Jesus.

When Mercy meets “Us & Them” (5th Sunday after Pentecost, 7/13/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings (Track 1)

This morning let’s focus on three elements in today’s Gospel. First, the lawyer’s answer to Jesus’ first question: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” Second, the lawyer’s second question: “And who is my neighbor?” Third, the final interchange: “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” “The one who showed him mercy.” “Go and do likewise.”

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

In Matthew and Mark this is Jesus’ answer to the question of which commandment is the most important (Matt 22:36ff; Mk 12:28ff). Perhaps the lawyer had been listening to Jesus! What of Jesus’ reply: “do this, and you will live”? Not because life is some sort of external prize tacked onto this commandment, but because love is at the heart of God’s life. In the first letter of John: “God is love” (4:8). If we want to live with the grain of the universe, it doesn’t get more basic than that. We might view the other two elements that we’ll be dealing with as fleshing out this theme.

“But wanting to justify himself, [the lawyer] asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” “Wanting to justify himself,” for the lawyer, like the rest of us, assumes that there’s “us” and “them” (that’s built into our language), and that “neighbor” is “us” or some subset of “us.”

“Us” and “them.” Mostly this works automatically, starting with language. Word choice, accent: after a few words we’ve slotted the speaker as one of us or them. Clothing, personal space, zip code: so many ways of slotting people into us or them.

Speaking of “us” and “them,” what do we make of the argument reflected in this morning’s psalm? The treatment of the weak, the orphan, the humble, the needy, the poor: is it really unjust? Aren’t these “the takers” (in Mitt Romney’s memorable phrasing in 2012) in contrast to “the makers,” who do deserve to be shown favor? As a nation we’re still in the middle of that argument. The weak, the orphan, the humble, the needy, the poor: how do these map onto our “us” and “them”?

“Who is my neighbor?” So Jesus tells a parable in which “neighbor” cuts across our “us/them” boxes. First, the cast of characters: Priest, Levite, Samaritan. As you recall, the Samaritan was the classic “Other;” “Be a good boy / Eat your vegetables or a Samaritan will…” Second, Jesus’ closing: “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”

As Jesus reads the Torah, “neighbor” relativizes our “us/them” boxes.

Now, if we pull back the camera, there’s an obvious question. A few weeks back we heard Paul say “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.” Haven’t we just replaced these us/them contrasts with “Christian and non-Christian” so that we’re back where we started?

A response to that question requires two hands. On the one hand, the NT is clear: saying “yes” to Jesus is fundamental. Last week we heard Paul saying “So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith” (Gal. 6:10). On the other hand, if that “yes” motivates anything other than love, it’s no longer Jesus to whom I’m saying yes.

Consider the limit case, love of enemies. Jesus’ “love your enemies” isn’t simply one element in his teaching; it captures his Father’s modus operandi throughout the Bible.

His Father’s modus operandi: we meet this in today’s first reading from Amos and repeatedly in the coming weeks with the Old Testament lessons from the 8th & 7th century prophets. The Northern Kingdom (Israel) and Southern Kingdom (Judah) are turning their backs on God, trampling on the vulnerable (Psalm 82 again). Those two actions are two sides of the same coin: I turn my back on God and—surprise—I’m no longer in solidarity with all those who bear God’s image, but only with those who bear my image: same skin color, dialect, etc. Anyhow, Israel and Judah: they have made themselves God’s enemies. So for God all the good and easy options are off the table, and God struggles to find a way to stop the madness and to begin laying the foundation for a better future.

And it captures Jesus’ modus operandi. Two weeks ago we heard James and John offering to call down fire on a Samaritan village that—they thought—had not given Jesus a sufficiently enthusiastic reception. So Jesus finds himself for neither the first nor the last time among his enemies.

Any two-bit god can surround themselves with friends; Jesus’ God is constantly seeking out her enemies.

Our Eucharistic Prayer reminds us of this weekly. For example, Prayer A: “to reconcile us to you, the God and Father of all” or, again, “Sanctify us…and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace.”

To stay with our liturgy for a moment, every week there’s the Confession and Absolution. So the divide between Christians and non-Christians isn’t between friends and enemies of God. On our good days we Christians are allowing God to continue the life-long work of transforming us from enemies into friends.

In sum, that’s one thing the parable is doing. “Neighbor” messes with our notions of “us” and “them.”

“Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” “The one who showed him mercy.” “Go and do likewise.”

Mercy, compassion. In God’s self-description to Moses in the aftermath of the Golden Calf incident, we hear “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, (  יְהוָ֣ה׀ יְהוָ֔ה אֵ֥ל רַח֖וּם וְחַנּ֑וּן) (Exod. 34:6). It’s worth noticing that that Hebrew word for ‘merciful’ (raḥûm) comes from the word for ‘womb’ (reḥem). And one of the (Greek) verbs for “have compassion” is used in the Gospels exclusively for Jesus and in a couple of Jesus’ parables—like this one, the Samaritan “moved with compassion.”

Compassion, the Gospel writers tell us, is fundamental to how Jesus navigates this world. Like Father, like Son. And this, in turn, shapes the Gospels’ understanding of how we follow Jesus. So, in the parable compassion is the turning point in the story. And if we read the parable as an image of the divine-human history, it is the turning point in that history: this Samaritan God finding us and caring for us on the Jericho road. We hear that turning point in our Eucharistic Prayers. What is the start of Eucharistic Prayer A if not an extended description of compassion?

“Holy and gracious Father: In your infinite love you made us for yourself; and, when we had fallen into sin and become subject to evil and death, you, in your mercy, sent Jesus Christ, your only and eternal Son, to share our human nature, to live and die as one of us, to reconcile us to you, the God and Father of all.”

The lawyer’s answer rightly focuses on ‘compassion’ (using a different Greek word), and Jesus serves it back to him—and us: “Go and do likewise.” We might recall Jesus’ words earlier in the same Gospel: “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Lk. 6:36). Be merciful: a big part of The Dummy’s Guide to Going with the Grain of the Universe.

What this sermon boils down to: an invitation to use Jesus’ parable as a lens through which to view the world we’ll encounter in the coming week. Us and them. Notice how often this gets encouraged, the subtle ways it can distort our identity. Compassion. Notice all that deadens it. Look for opportunities, however small, to practice it, inside and outside the “family of faith.” Recall former Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple’s observation: “The church is the only institution that exists primarily for the benefit of those who are not its members.”

Freedom: A Post-July 4 Conversation with Paul (4th Sunday after Pentecost, 7/6/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings (Track 1)

Last week we heard Paul’s ringing “For freedom Christ has set us free!” and his Flesh/Spirit contrast. The flesh (our humanity curved in on itself) undercuts that freedom; God’s Spirit boosts it. This week he’s still working that Flesh/Spirit contrast. Two days ago we celebrated the 4th of July. So this sermon is mostly a conversation with Paul—in our early 21st century context.

“You reap whatever you sow.” It sounds like it’s already a proverb, which Paul wants to use to keep talking about Flesh and Spirit. Flesh vs. Spirit isn’t the material/immaterial contrast, as though the latter were intrinsically better. It’s not about escaping from the body. Recall the list of the works of the flesh we heard last week: many of the items have nothing to do with the body: “enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy.” Luther often talked about sin as being curved in on oneself, and I find that a helpful way of talking about Paul’s ‘flesh.’ Nothing wrong with flesh per se; the problems start when we treat it as the only reality. And Spirit: not any spirit, but the Spirit that brooded over the waters at creation, the Spirit that enlivened Ezekiel’s valley of bones, the Spirit that arrived at Pentecost.

“You reap whatever you sow.” Why does Paul think he needs to say that? If we think about our own experience, the upside to sowing to the flesh is that the reward is usually immediate. And that can deceive us into forgetting the downside. So, a warning. On the other hand, the downside of sowing to the Spirit is that the reward is often not immediate. It’s easy to “grow weary in doing what is right.” So, encouragement: “we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up.”

And notice what follows: “So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.” As with Paul’s lists of the works of the Flesh and the fruit of the Spirit, the focus is communal, the sowing and reaping that happens in our common life. Paul’s particularly concerned about what happens in the “family of faith”—we might say “the parish.” But the same logic applies outside, and as there’s opportunity, Paul wants us to pay attention to that.

“The good of all.” Back in 2020 the sociologist Robert Putnam published The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again. Looking at economic, political, social, and cultural indicators, Putnam thinks we were getting “more equal, less contentious, more connected, and more conscious of shared values” in the period 1900-1960, and since then “less equal, more polarized, more fragmented, and more individualistic” (pp.285-86). The “How We Can Do It Again” part is necessarily short on detail: it’s a bottom-up process. Our attention to “the good of all” in and past parish boundaries can contribute to that badly-needed upswing.

“Let us work for the good of all.” Well, how? “I’m doing this for your good” is usually not reassuring. And here today’s Gospel provides one clue. Jesus gives the seventy impressive power, and pairs it with self-imposed weakness: “Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals… Whatever house you enter… Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide… Do not move about from house to house.” The work demands not lording it over these towns, but entering into community with them.

Which brings us—recalling July 4th—to Paul’s “For freedom Christ has set us free.” What do we think freedom is about? The German theologian Moltmann observes that we tend to think of freedom in terms of what we can do or have, which is, he argues, to see freedom as a sort of lordship. “Everyone should be his or her own ruler, his or her own lord, his or her own slaveholder.… Each one sees the other as a competitor in the battle for power and ownership.” This sounds like what Paul was confronting among the Galatians: freedom as license to continue to compete with each other. The alternative? Freedom as community. “I am free and feel myself to be free when I am recognized and accepted by others and when I, for my part, recognize and accept others.…Then the other person is no longer a limitation of my freedom but the completion of it.”[1]

In case freedom as lordship vs community sounds like apples and oranges, the following might help. If I’m thinking of freedom to consume (“What can I get this week?”) lordship works. But if I ask: am I free to play the flute? To gain that freedom I’d need teachers, fellow students for encouragement, folk giving honest feedback… a community. Am I free to speak Japanese? Am I free to live as a human being?

Freedom as lordship or community: the alternatives align pretty closely with Paul’s lists of the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit. They align pretty closely with Jesus’ instructions to the seventy.

Freedom as community invites us to recognize freedom across the status totem pole, as in, for example, our first reading. Consider the folk at the bottom of the totem pole.

First, the little maid, captured in a Syrian raid, and now serving Naaman’s wife. She could easily have kept the information about Elisha to herself, and taken a sort of joy in watching the commander waste away. She could have seen it as a sort of justice, or even as punishment from her God. She’s near the bottom of the totem pole, but she has choices, and she chooses to give Naaman the information that saves him.

Then, Naaman’s servants. Naaman’s response to Elisha’s non-appearance suggests that he had a short fuse, and his servants would have been the first to suffer from that. Never mind whether they thought Elisha’s instructions had any merit: they could have enjoyed watching their master stymied. They’re not much up the totem pole from the little maid, but they have choices, and they chose to deal gently and honorably with their master, to give his indignation an offramp, and he is saved.

Let’s try to pull this together. “For freedom Christ has set us free!” That Paul found it necessary to talk about the Flesh and the Spirit tells us that ‘freedom’ can be ambiguous, and I’ve used Moltmann’s freedom as lordship or community as a way of unpacking that. “Let us work for the good of all.” A necessary exhortation, whether in our parish life or two days out from July 4th. The examples of that servant girl and Naaman’s servants together with Jesus’ instructions remind us that this work isn’t about amassing as much power as possible to impose our solutions.

And, simply for the joy of it, let’s watch all this play out in the verses just after today’s first reading:

“Then [Naaman] returned to the man of God, he and all his company; he came and stood before him and said, ‘Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel; please accept a present from your servant.’ But he said, ‘As the LORD lives, whom I serve, I will accept nothing!’ He urged him to accept, but he refused. Then Naaman said, ‘If not, please let two mule-loads of earth be given to your servant; for your servant will no longer offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god except the LORD. But may the LORD pardon your servant on one count: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow down in the house of Rimmon, when I do bow down in the house of Rimmon, may the LORD pardon your servant on this one count.’”

There are—one might argue—all sorts of things wrong in this request. Elijah and Elisha have spent pretty much their entire careers fighting against idolatry. But this is a foreigner, and Elisha lives in that freedom Paul celebrated. So Elisha says to Naaman: “Go in peace.”

[1] Humanity in God pp. 63-64.

God is Love; The Holy Trinity: The Community of Love (Trinity Sunday, 6/15/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings

Children’s Sermon

Can you play ping pong or tag by yourself? Tell yourself a joke?
Many of the things that give us the greatest joy, that express our humanity, we need to do together. Loving is another of those things.

What we’re celebrating today, Trinity Sunday, is that that joy and love have been at the heart of reality even before God created anything. God is One. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, an eternal community of joy and love.

And this God calls out to us: come join the party. That’s the invitation we share with our neighbors.

Adults’ Sermon

What I shared with the children is the core of what I’m sharing with you. Love, like telling a joke or playing tag, demands others. What we celebrate on Trinity Sunday is that the statement “God is Love” did not need to wait for creation to be true. And God, rather than putting up a wall around that community, has been calling out to us from the start: Come on in!

Today’s readings offer different ways of exploring this reality.

Our psalm: “you adorn him with glory and honor.” We heard the psalmist spell that out within the psalm’s horizon. Within the horizon of Scripture as a whole the core of that glory and honor is that divine invitation. We heard it a couple weeks ago in Revelation: “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.” And we heard it in Jesus’ prayer: “The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” What is any glory or honor our nations can gin up in comparison to being the recipients of this invitation? (So the Doctrine of the Trinity ends up telling us who we are.)

In the Gospel we heard “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth,” or, as Raymond Brown translates it in his magisterial commentary “he will guide you along the way of all truth.” But here—sorry—we need a brief parenthesis about that word “truth.” We’re used to contrasting it with what’s factually false. But recall its first use in the Gospel to describe Jesus: “full of grace and truth.” We might better translate “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,” because John’s citing God’s self-definition at Sinai (Exod. 34:6). That’s who God is; that’s who Jesus is. And the truth in question is as much about being true in relationships (faithful) as being true to the facts.

The Spirit’s work, guiding “along the way of all truth,” is crucial in both senses. Jesus is alive, not dead. The Gentile believers don’t need to be circumcised. But how do the Jewish believers who keep kosher and the Gentile believers who don’t, live faithfully together? That’s equally important, so that the New Testament letters spend a great deal of energy on what truthful/faithful life together means—in the midst of our differences. Turns out there’s nothing automatic about “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35).

In today’s epistle we heard “and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.” Why doesn’t this hope disappoint us? If we asked Paul to unpack this, I suspect that I would have reminded us that all of this is directed to us in community rather than us as isolated individuals. We’ve received the Holy Spirit, who guides us into more faithful relations with each other. We can put our weight on that hope of sharing the glory of God because we’re getting a foretaste of that glory in what the Holy Spirit’s doing in our relationships in the parish.

We pray for this at every Eucharist. Recall the words from Prayer A: “Sanctify [the bread and wine] to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son… Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace.” Make these elements holy; make us holy. We need this holiness to live together in love.

What of wisdom’s words in our reading from Proverbs? They’re probably included because of their historical role in early conversations leading to Doctrine of Trinity. This morning, let’s hear them in context of other readings.

30b and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the human race.

What’s surprising about these lines is their contrast with wisdom’s words elsewhere in these first nine chapters. Wisdom has been offering to guide us “along the way of all truth.” But we humans are often a hard—if not hostile—crowd. Nevertheless, wisdom chooses to focus on what brings her delight, so “delighting in the human race.”

(Another quick parenthesis: as the portrait of the accuser—which comes into English as “Satan”—develops in the Old Testament, its core is arguably viewing humanity in the worst possible light: Job’s only serving God from self-interest. Or in the prophet Zechariah the accuser pointing out all the things that are wrong with the high priest. Delighting in or criticizing other folk: regularly choosing the latter—even when it’s more or less justifiable—is satanic.)

Proverbs’ portrait of wisdom participated in the Early Church’s conversations regarding the Trinity because what wisdom does sounds like what the Son or the Spirit do. In the light of our other readings, we can also observe that the Spirit’s guiding us along the way of all truth, strengthening our capacity to hope, also aligns us with wisdom’s stance so that we might echo wisdom’s words. So Trinity Baraboo might aim at:

We are daily God’s delight,
rejoicing before God always,
rejoicing in God’s inhabited world,
delighting in the human race.

Not a bad way to extend our celebration of Trinity Sunday into the rest of the year!

Renewing–not erasing–the face of the earth (Pentecost, 6/8/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings (Genesis 11, Acts 2, John 14)

As a setup for a story of epic proportions it’s hard to beat that brief interchange between Jesus and his disciples at the beginning of the Book of Acts:

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” He replied, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:6-8)

There’s some quiet humor in it. The apostles are ready to kick back, assuming that the ball’s in Jesus’ court. Jesus parries the question, talks about what they’re going to do: receive power, be Jesus’ witnesses “to the ends of the earth.”

Does anyone else think that sounds like a remarkably bad idea? Recall the stories Luke’s told about these apostles:

On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (Lk. 9:52b-54)

John [again] “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” (Lk. 9:49)

People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. (Lk. 18:15)

Give this group more power? How’s that going to work?

What’s at stake is captured by that verse in today’s psalm: “You send forth your Spirit, and they are created; / and so you renew the face of the earth.” Renew: how do you renew without erasing? Folk who work at restoring art constantly face this challenge, trying to remove the effects of smoke, dirt, etc. without losing the original creation.

The Day of Pentecost provides one model, in which the Spirit keeps a pretty tight reign on the apostles. “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?” How indeed? Perhaps the languages of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc. came out of the mouths of the apostles. Perhaps—more likely—the Spirit provided simultaneous translation so that the Parthians etc. heard in their own native language. And even if it’s the former, it’s a one-off event.

“My witnesses… to the ends of the earth.” That’s a vision of frequently crossing cultures, of frequently learning. Recall the crash course the Spirit put Peter through so that he could share the Good News at the gentile Cornelius’ home. First that strange repeated vision of the sheet containing clean and unclean animals. “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” Then, when Gentile messengers show up at the door the Spirit says“Look, three men are searching for you. Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them.” Later, “While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word,” and there they are, “speaking in tongues and extolling God.” It’s the conversion of Cornelius and Peter.

Regularly crossing cultures, regularly learning. No passport required, as anyone who’s parented knows: we’re almost constantly learning new languages.

So it’s perhaps no surprise that when Jesus talks about the role of the Spirit in today’s Gospel, the focus is on the Spirit as Teacher: “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.” And from elsewhere in the same discourse: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (Jn. 16:13).

Heard in isolation “guide you into all the truth” can sound abstract, even esoteric. Heard alongside the rest of the New Testament, it’s about renewing without erasing. Jesus, not the many Roman gods, is Lord. OK: so in the cities in which the meat markets are temples to these other gods, how do the Christians relate to these markets? Paul, writing to the Corinthians, spends a couple chapters on that question.

How do we renew without erasing? Some years ago a cartoon captured this nicely. All the characters are pigs, and they’re in a hospital waiting room. The doctor comes out smiling, saying to the anxious spouse “Your husband is cured.” Unfortunately, he’s carrying the sort of 10 pound shrink-wrapped package you’d find in the meat department.

How do we renew without erasing? Current arguments about how we steward the environment, how we respond to different experiences of sexuality, how we order our economic life suggest that “guide you into all the truth” still belongs on the front burner. And that—God having a stubborn regard for our freedom—the promise isn’t “coerce you into all the truth.”

So how does the Spirit guide? Three suggestions; perhaps they’ll echo your experience.

From one of my favorite theologians, Mark Twain: “Good decisions come from experience. Experience comes from making bad decisions.” Our Acts reading focused on language, so let’s stay with that. I learn a language by making mistakes. If I try to avoid making mistakes I learn much more slowly. I also learn more slowly—or not at all—if I insist that I’m not making mistakes. Feel free to transpose that to other areas of life.

From one of my favorite crime novelists, Louise Penny: her protagonist Inspector Gamache says this: “There are four things that lead to wisdom.… They are four sentences we learn to say, and mean.…  I don’t know. I need help. I’m sorry. I was wrong.” Four things that lead to wisdom; four things that makes it easier for the Spirit to guide.

Finally, this concern to renew, not erase. It’s at bottom an expression of love, loving the other enough to recognize the difference between renewing and erasing, loving the other enough to do the hard work of getting to know the other enough to begin to have some sense of what renewal might mean, loving the other enough that Gamache’s four sentences work their way into the core of our vocabulary.

God, so the Gospel tells us, “so loved the world.” The Spirit’s guiding us into all the truth is about being infected by that love. And so, in our best moments, we welcome the Day of Pentecost. Come, Holy Spirit.

About that exorcism in Philippi (7th Sunday of Easter, 6/1/2025)

Leave a reply

Readings

I like a good story as much as anyone, so, perhaps predictably, we’ll spend most of our time in Acts, in one of Luke’s more open-ended stories. At the same time, our lectionary invites us to notice connections. On the one hand, this proud Roman colony of Philippi, on the other our Psalm’s celebration of the Lord’s kingship, Revelation’s repeated invitation to “come,” our Lord’s prayer that we all be one: what happens when these two hands meet?

So, to our first reading. We’re still in Philippi, where in last Sunday’s reading we met Lydia, that dealer in exclusive high-end purple cloth, who believed and was baptized. And what gets the story started is a slave girl with a “spirit of divination” who over “many days” follows Paul and Silas, crying out “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.”

Luke tells us “But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, ‘I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.’ And it came out that very hour.” What’s intriguing about the story is Luke’s decision to name Paul’s motivation, and it’s not flattering. Not “Paul, filled with compassion…” or “Paul, recognizing an evangelistic opportunity…” but “Paul, very much annoyed…” That could have been the end of the story, but the slave girl’s owners know how the city operates, and Paul and Silas end up beaten and jailed.

And here’s where Jesus’ prayer that his disciples all be “one,” comes in. In that prison it’s not hard to imagine Silas saying to Paul, “Well done, mate! What were you thinking?” It may have started there, but by about midnight we’re hearing echoes of Jesus’ prayer: Luke: “About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.”

And whatever the Lord thought of Paul’s impromptu exorcism, the Lord at whose presence “the mountains melt like wax” (so today’s Psalm) is not above throwing in an earthquake. The effects of the earthquake are remarkably focused: it’s “so violent that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were unfastened.” That pretty much invites Paul and Silas to segue into that bit from Isaiah that Jesus read in the Nazareth synagogue: “he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners.” But no.

As Luke tells us, “When the jailer woke up and saw the prison doors wide open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, since he supposed that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted in a loud voice, ‘Do not harm yourself, for we are all here’.”

It looks like Paul has learned from Peter’s experience, and maybe even from the events of the day. A while back Herod had had Peter imprisoned. At night an angel had sprung him, but in the morning, Herod had the guards “examined” and executed (Acts 12:1-19). Thankfully, that’s not repeated; Paul takes the more difficult path: ”Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” The jailer also enters into Paul’s calculus, for the jailer is also a recipient of Revelation’s invitation to come and drink.

(Parenthetically, Paul’s response is echoed repeatedly in Martin Luther King Jr’s practice of non-violence. From various speeches: “the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces… the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding” [A Testament of Hope pp. 8, 12].)

So the story ends, as did last Sunday’s story, with a baptism. Last week, the baptism of Lydia, the dealer in purple cloth, and her household; this Sunday, the baptism of the jailer and his household. Folk near the opposite ends of the social spectrum: Revelation’s invitation to come and drink: Luke’s celebrating that that really is for everyone.

Luke chose to name Paul’s motive in exorcising the slave girl (“very much annoyed”) and that slave girl is the loose end in the story. Exorcised, she’s of less value to her owners, and we would not expect her story to end well. But we don’t know.

Paul’s role in her story is part of that loose end. I wonder about that, what Paul did with that. So I wonder whether, some time later, when Paul encountered the slave Onesimus, he did not recognize the opportunity to do it differently this time. He spent time with Onesimus, discipled him, took the trouble to write to his owner, Philemon, arguing—between the lines—that Philemon’s proper response was to receive Onesimus as a brother, not as a runaway slave.

“The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come’. And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come’. And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.” That’s our message. Sometimes we do a decent job of sharing it; sometimes not so much. We, too, are quite capable of sharing our annoyance, quite capable of failing to distinguish between the forces of evil and those caught in those forces. So, in the words of the Eucharistic Prayer we’ve been using this Easter season, “Deliver us from the presumption of coming to this Table for solace only, and not for strength; for pardon only, and not for renewal. Let the grace of this Holy Communion make us one body, one spirit in Christ, that we may worthily serve the world in his name.” Or, as the Revelation puts it, “And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift.”