Paul wrote to the Galatians:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel.
(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Galatians 1:6 – June 4, 2012)
I’m very tempted to ask, “O come on, Paul! You really didn’t expect them to remember you after you’d gone, did you?” But, of course, he did! It seems to me that Paul here is very much like modern clergy. I think we all expect to have lasting impact on the places we serve, but the truth is most of us will not. Clergy are transients; in the past half-decade I’ve seen studies variously reporting the average length of a pastorate across denominations as somewhere between three and five years. That’s not much time to make much of an impact. ~ Now, there are exceptions. Every parish seems to have its sainted Father Usedtobehere, that one priest or pastor whom everyone remembers with great affection. He (it’s usually “he” in my denomination because we haven’t had women in the presbyterate long enough yet) was the best at visiting, best at preaching, best at organizing, best at presiding at the altar, best at remembering parishioners’ birthdays, best at whatever. He is remembered as the paragon of ministry even by people who came to the parish after he departed! There’s really no competing with such ghosts. One just has to accept that they are here and will live on in memory long after one has gone . . . and that it is unlikely that most of us will ever enjoy such exalted canonization. ~ However, I’m not suggesting that we clergy adopt the attitude of the Preacher whose writing is also included in today’s lectionary readings: “I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it, and again, all was vanity and a chasing after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.” (Eccl. 2:11) As unlikely as it may be that any of us attain the celebrated status of parish patron saint, it is equally likely that we will have an impact (usually through something we think of as mundane or insignificant) on the lives of one or two people, maybe more. Most of us may not be remembered by the whole congregation as the cream of the clergy crop; the majority of the parish may (as Paul complained) quickly desert us. But those few will remember . . . and here’s the rub (as Hamlet might have said) – we don’t know who they will be, nor what action or word of ours may make the difference. We just have to try to do the best we can in any given pastoral situation, in most of which we may feel woefully inadequate, because we never know. ~ That’s what Paul should have remembered; that’s what the Preacher should have remembered; that’s what each clergyperson should remember!
Did you listen carefully or perhaps even follow along in the Prayer Book when I offered our opening prayer today, the Collect for Trinity Sunday? Listen to it again:
Each time I read these words I think they are the wisest thing Paul ever wrote, especially the observation that those who want to be rich are trapped in things that “plunge people into ruin and destruction.” I suspect that Paul meant it is the wanna-be-rich themselves who are so plunged, but all too often it is other people. One need only observe the state of our economy today and the ever-increasing gap between the haves and have-nots to see that. It may be that those eager to be rich “pierce themselves with many pains,” but it is certain that they pierce others with hardship! ~ I spent several years in the “gotta get rich” world practicing law and earning a six-figure annual income. When I finally gave in to God’s nagging and left that life to be ordained and enter parish ministry, my spouse and I discovered that we were more deeply in debt than we had realized because no matter how much I’d earned, we’d spent more, living the life and keeping up appearances. It took several years living very frugally at a much lower income but we finally got out of that financial hole. That was painful, but I think staying in the life I had been living would have been fatal. ~ Further on in today’s reading, Paul encourages the rich “to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share” relying on God “who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.” (vv. 17-18) This is not a message that is well-received in today’s society; hardly anyone seems to believe in God’s abundance or to be willing to trust in it. I know from personal experience that one can live peacefully and reasonably on a smaller income (and even save for the future), but it’s a difficult lesson to teach others. “The profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (v. 20) are so much louder than than the message of moderation, simplicity, and trusting in God. ~ For some reason, the old saying, “Try shouting into a gale and see how that works for you,” comes to mind, together with an image of wind-blown money sailing by. 
Sometimes I think the Lectionary editors play games with us and today is one of them. They have combined this advice with Paul’s admonition to the young new bishop Timothy: “No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23) Don’t drink wine. Drink wine. What’s it to be? ~ Hey! It’s the Bible. For nearly every point made somewhere in Scripture, you can find a counterpoint made somewhere else. It is possible to reconcile these two into a message of moderation, but that is often not the case and, in any case, reconciling or trying to harmonize contradictory passages of Scripture is a poor hermeneutic. ~ The Bible is an historic record and represents, among many other things, the changing understandings of God’s people. There is an arc or trajectory of understanding in scripture. There is development from bashing the heads of our enemies’ infants against the rocks (Psalm 137:9) through leaving the gleanings of the vineyard for the alien, the orphan, and the widow (Deut. 24:21) to loving your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18) and, finally, to “this wine is my blood poured out for many” (Mark 14:24). The development may be inconsistent, there may be backsliding, but as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us, “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” That moral arc is witnessed in Scripture. ~ So have that glass of wine for good health, but “do not be among winebibbers.” (Prov. 23:20)
A few verses later Matthew’s Jesus will interpret this parable, though most biblical scholarship agrees that it is Matthew (or some later editor) doing the interpreting not Jeus, that the interpretation is “nondominical” (as may be the parable itself). According to that interpretation, the enemy is supposed to be the devil, that the wheat that grows from good seed are all the people who’ve heard the gospel and responded appropriately, that the weeds that sprout from the bad seed are all the people who’ve followed the devil instead, and that when it’s all gathered and sorted (the wheat for the barn – Heaven – and the tares for the fire – Hell) it’s the last judgment. Martin Luther taught that the tares are “heretics and false teachers” who are “beautifully green and hypocritical.” But then he also said this parable teaches “that our free will amounts to nothing.” I’m not sure I buy that. ~ It seems to me that the parable in this form is a plea for inclusivity and tolerance. It’s not up to us who’s in and who’s out. The weeds depicted in this parable are probably darnels. Darnels look very much like wheat until harvest time and they cannot be told apart. Furthermore, their roots intertwine with the wheat’s roots so that they cannot be removed without significant damage to the crop. We’ve all seen what happens in a community when some group of “purists” starts trying to determine who gets to stay and who has to go. Better to let all stay and let God sort things out later than to destroy the community. ~ I remember reading some years ago that other rabbis have told a similar parable in which the mixing of wheat and weeds re-occurs over the course of several years. Finally, the owner’s steward decides to find out who the enemy is and stays up at night. When “the enemy” comes to sow the bad seed, the steward is surprised to find that it is the owner himself, sleep-walking in the darkness. This version suggests that we each sow the seeds of our own troubles, that we are each responsible for the good and often for the bad in our lives. The two versions read together underscore the reality that we frequently cannot tell the wheat from the weed, the good from the bad. Best to leave it to God to sort out!
I am truly amazed at the lengths some people go to deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Greek here is adelphos (pl. adelphoi) and it means “brothers”. It could mean a countryman, a fellow employee, or someone of the same ancestral lineage in some contexts, but do any of those apply here? No! Here, some men show up in the company of Jesus’ mother and with her they are described as “your mother and your brothers”! Could anything be clearer? ~ Those who argue in favor of some alternate meaning (like “cousin”) do so because they want to preserve the supposed “perpetual virginity” of Mary. But if these men are Jesus’ cousins why wouldn’t Matthew have used the word anepsios (which means “cousin”)? The second-century writer Hegesippus, calls James and Jude “brothers of the Lord,” but he uses this word anepsios of Simeon the son of Clopas, the “cousin of the Lord”, so it is possible to distinguish the two relationships and certainly the gospellers could have done so! ~ Others argue that these men were Jesus’ half-brothers, Joseph’s boys by a first marriage. If that’s the case, where is the biblical evidence for that? Where is there even a hint that Joseph was previously married, let alone that he was bringing a bunch of kids along? ~ And as for Mary’s “perpetual virginity”, what does one do with Luke’s description of Jesus as “her firstborn son”? (Luke 2:7) Doesn’t that somehow imply that there was at least a “second born son”, if not a few others? And maybe some daughters? Both Mark and Matthew report that Jesus had sisters. (See Mark 3:32 & 6:3 and Matthew 13:56) If she’d had no other children, wouldn’t Luke have used the word “only” rather than “firstborn”? ~ And as for the virginity thing . . . . Matthew says that Mary became pregnant “before they [i.e., Joseph and Mary] lived together.” (Matthew 1:18) The Greek here is sunerchomai, which specifically refers to conjugal cohabitation! And Matthew continues, saying that Joseph “had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son.” (Matthew 1:25) I mean, really! Can the biblical witness to Mary’s non-virginal status after the birth of Jesus get any clearer? ~ Finally, there’s the cultural argument. For this “perpetual virginity” story to hold water, Joseph would have had to live a life of complete abstinence and chastity! This would not have been a societal norm and certainly wouldn’t be in accord with Jewish marital custom. Under Jewish law, sex is not considered shameful, sinful, or obscene; indeed, there is an halakhic obligation to procreate, and partners are not permitted to withhold sex from one another! Failure to abide by the law is practically unthinkable from the parents of a man who said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets ; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18) ~ Why is this important? I suppose in many ways it isn’t! But for me . . . . I have this idea that the Christian church oughtn’t to promote ideas that are patently absurd. If the church has to perform all sorts of silly linguistic contortions and rely non-biblical and a-historic pious legends to support its dogmas and doctrines, can we really blame those who shrug their shoulders and walk away? ~ A virgin? Perpetually? C’mon! Get real!
Everywhere I look these days, no matter the time of year, the world world screams at me to “keep up”, to buy this or that, to go on vacation here or there, to take this cruise or that tour, to drive this luxury car or that SUV. I am told that if I don’t spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on gifts, if I don’t “go to Jared” or if every kiss doesn’t “begin with Kay” I must not love my spouse. Everywhere one looks, advertisements promote excess. ~ Proverbs tells me there is a better way though. “Better is little with the fear of the Lord . . . Better is a dinner of vegetables where love is.” All the treasures of the world can never take the place of being in right relation to God. We all know people who are careening through life looking for great treasure, trying to fulfill the advertisers vision of the perfect consumer life, trying to keep up with culture, trying to respond to the media. How many of those people are truly happy? ~ We all may know (or know of) others who simply cannot do that, who are deprived by environment or circumstance of the simplest necessities, for whom the luxurious excesses promoted by our advertising are unimaginable. When the Lord simply says, “Better is little than all of that . . . .” it is a statement not merely of moderation, but of justice. Clearly, it is healthier to eat more vegetables than meat, but the import of these proverbs goes beyond personal well being. When we eschew excess, we leave more available to others, we become able to provide for the needs of those deprived of necessaries, and that allows us to move closer to God. If we do not do so, what does that say about us? ~ Remember the words of St. John: “Those who say, ‘I love God,’ and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.” (1 John 4:20) Remember also the words of St. James: “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” (James 2:15-16) “Better is a dinner with vegetables . . . . “
You have no idea how many times in 22-plus years of ordained ministry someone has said to me, “What exactly is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Spirit? What is that?” I used to struggle to answer that question because I wasn’t sure myself. I’m not all that sure now, but I think the answer to to simply look at the context in which Jesus says these words. He has just healed a blind and mute demoniac. The Pharisees insist that “It is only by Beelzebul, the rule of demons, that his fellow casts out demons.” (Matt. 12:24) In this context it would appear that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did his miracles by the power of the devil. It was attributing to evil the work of the Holy Spirit. ~ I wonder if doing the opposite might also be considered here – attributing to the Holy Spirit words that she didn’t say, deeds that she didn’t do, and experiences that she didn’t produce, attributing to the Holy Spirit that which is not the work of God. There are plenty of TV preachers these days attributing to God lots of things (especially political positions) that I simply cannot believe are the work or word of God. Are they flirting with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? ~ Here’s what I think . . . attributing to evil the works of good and, in the opposite vein, calling good that which one knows to be evil, these things destroy relationships and disrupt community for no reason or purpose other than promotion of one’s own agenda. If, as we believe, the church is a community created and constantly renewed by the Holy Spirit commissioned to go into the world to do the work of Jesus, then the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are words and actions which disorder that community and disrupt that work. ~ There are some who say that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can no longer be committed because it is specifically about the actions of Jesus himself; since Jesus is no longer in the world, one can no longer attribute his actions to evil. Others say that anyone who is a believer in Christ cannot commit this sin. I think they’re both wrong. I think people blaspheme the Holy Spirit on a regular basis . . . and a lot of them are (or, at least, claim to be) Christians.
What happened one thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine years ago?
If so, then receive it. [Each congregant was given a bottle of water when they entered the church.] I want you to give your bottle of water to someone whom you think might need some spiritual refreshment; and I want you to accept a bottle of water from someone who thinks you might need some spiritual refreshment. Let these bottles of water remind you that you are a source of refreshment to others, and that through others God provides you with spiritual renewal.
According to Luke, “there was not a needy person among them” because the apostles “distributed to each as any had need.” (Acts 4:34-35) Sounds a bit Bolshevik, doesn’t it? At least it certainly sounds like Karl Marx who, in 1875, wrote, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” Of course, Marx believed that this sort of social organization could only exist in a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, which cannot in any way, shape, or form describe the situation in First Century Judea. Nonetheless, I’ve never understood how, with Holy Scripture describing and even extolling this social organization of the first disciples, any Christian could not strive toward a society of this sort. ~ Throughout the last two millennia there have been religious orders and utopian experiments which have sought to recreate the first Christian community as separate from, rather than in the midst of, the secular world. It seems to me that we are called to minister within the world order and try to reform it. As Christians we should strive to build a world where there is not a needy person and where all receive as any has need. Jesus put it this way, “Love your neighbor as your self.” (Mark 12:31) We have a word for that sort of love. We call it justice.
