That Which We Have Heard & Known

Occasional thoughts of an Anglican Episcopal priest

Page 99 of 130

Fruitful House of Bread – From the Daily Office – October 13, 2012

From the Prophet Micah:

But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah,
who are one of the little clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to rule in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Micah 5:1 – October 13, 2012)

House of BreadThis obscure little verse in the book of the Prophet Micah is best known to Christians from the story of the visitation of the wisemen in Matthew’s Gospel:

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: “And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.’ “

I’ve always been intrigued by the word Ephrathah (which Mattew does not quote). Apparently it is a place name; one source indicates that Ephrathah, or Ephrath, is the ancient name for the town of Bethlehem in Judah, in the southern part of the land of Israel. Micah uses both names in order to distinguish the town from another Bethlehem in the north. Another source tells me the name means “fruitful”.

The name Bethlehem means “house of bread” which always intrigues Christians who see it as somewhat prophetic of Jesus words at the Last Supper identifying the bread as his own body.

When I hear that Ephrathah means “fruitful” I am immediately put in mind of two other verses of Scripture. First, God’s admonition to Adam and Eve in Genesis: “Be fruitful and muliply.” (1:28) The second is Christ’s admonition to his disciples: “I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name.” (John 15:16)

In the name of Jesus’ place of birth as set forth in Micah, I hear a call to evangelism. Nurture and sustained by what comes from the “house of bread,” we are “to go and bear fruit;” we are sent out to “be fruitful and multiply,” The fruit which we are to bear is an increase in followers of the Way, an increase in the number of disciples (not simply the fruit of individual good works, nor only the “fruits of the spirit” in our own lives). Our efforts, our ministries, our prayers, our daily lives are to be the means by which the “house of bread” will truly be “fruitful.”

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Three Women, Resources and Priorities – From the Daily Office – October 12, 2012

From the Gospel of Luke:

Jesus went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Luke 1:1-3 – October 12, 2012)

Generic Debit CardThree cheers for the women of the church! Seriously, it seems to have ever been thus: women do the “heavy lifting” but end up little noticed in the background. One wonders if Jesus and the twelve could have done what they did if these women “who provided for them out of their resources” had not been so generous . . . .

Some suggest the women offered what we would call domestic services for Jesus and the twelve; others that they joined them in preaching the kingdom; still others that they were wealthy benefactors. One auther, Renita Weems, writes: “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna and other female traveling evangelists made up the band of female workers who surrendered and sacrificed everything to follow Jesus . . . . between teaching, they did the cooking; beyond recruiting, they did the mending; in excess of donating their funds, they donated their time.”

Frankly, I don’t know if there’s any support for such a vision of these women mending, cooking, or laundering, although it’s certainly possible. Nonetheless, it is pretty clear that they gave generously to Jesus’ mission; the gave their gifts, talents, time, money . . . . they gave, as Luke says, out of their resources, whatever those resources may have been. It was the women whose resources kept Jesus’ dream going. These women are paragons of generosity.

Throughout human history, financial support has been needed for any ministry that ever existed. Jesus and the twelve needed monetary support to carry on an active ministry that was dependent on the generosity of others. These women provided that support.

We all know the commonplace wisdom: look at a person’s checkbook, his or her monthly credit card statements or online banking report and you will gain insight as to the values and priorities by which he or she lives. If we had looked at the Magdalene’s statements, Joanna’s checkbook, and Susanna’s credit card receipts, we would have seen, at the top of their list of priorities, one name: Jesus.

Jesus is reported to have said: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt. 6:21) I know that all too often my treasure and my heart are elsewhere than they ought to be. Every day, I need to remember, sometimes to relearn what these generous women knew: that my heart and my treasure belong to Jesus Christ!

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Political Speech: Prophetic or Nasty? – From the Daily Office – October 11, 2012

From the Prophet Micah:

And I said:
Listen, you heads of Jacob
and rulers of the house of Israel!
Should you not know justice?—
you who hate the good and love the evil,
who tear the skin off my people,
and the flesh off their bones;
who eat the flesh of my people,
flay their skin off them,
break their bones in pieces,
and chop them up like meat in a kettle,
like flesh in a cauldron.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Micah 3:1-3 – October 11, 2012)

Cannibalism, Copper Engraving by Theodore de BryMicah gets just a wee bit graphic here with his metaphors, with his condemnation of political leaders, don’t you think? He has accused them of being cannibals! He describes them as treating the people like meat for a meal; they have butchered them, flayed them, broken their bones, and chopped them up for stew meat! It’s awful!

In the midst of our political campaign, I am intrigued by the awfulness of Micah’s prose as it compares to the things we are seeing about the candidates, about President Obama, about Governor Romney, and on the local level about those running for the Senate, for the House, and for state and local offices, though those are not quite as bad as the presidential advertisements, commercials, and so forth. Worse than the television advertisements and radio spots are the things that others (the superPACs and the partisan websites) are throwing up on the internet, on Facebook, on Twitter. Some of it truly awful. Like Micah’s prose.

Where does one draw the line? Each week in our Prayers of the People, my parish includes a petition that political discourse during the election campaign will be civil, courteous, and productive. So far, I’m sad to say, it seems to be none of those things. I think many people would agree that it is excessively negative, but has it crossed the line? I believe that it has; it always does – this election is no different from any other of my adult life, to be honest. Every election year seems to bring out the worst in people.

Why do we feel justified in uttering such terrible things about others, especially about those who are our leaders or those who would like to be our leaders? And is there any difference between our election year condemnations of incumbents and challengers, Micah’s prophetic condemnations of the leaders of Jacob, the rulers of Israel? Are we following in a prophetic tradition when we call them out in such “purple prose” for what we believe are their failings?

Are we being prophetic like Micah and his colleagues in Scripture? Or was Micah just being nasty like us and our neighbors? Is there a difference? I wish I knew.

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Radical Preaching – From the Daily Office – October 10, 2012

From the Prophet Micah:

Alas for those who devise wickedness
and evil deeds on their beds!
When the morning dawns, they perform it,
because it is in their power.
They covet fields, and seize them;
houses, and take them away;
they oppress householder and house,
people and their inheritance.
* * *
“Do not preach” – thus they preach –
“one should not preach of such things;
disgrace will not overtake us.”
* * *
If someone were to go about uttering empty falsehoods,
saying, “I will preach to you of wine and strong drink”,
such a one would be the preacher for this people!
* * *
The one who breaks out will go up before them;
they will break through and pass the gate, going out by it.
Their king will pass on before them,
the Lord at their head.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Micah 2:1-2,6,11,13 – October 10, 2012)

Bible Lighted by Votive CandleMicah condemns those who plot to do wrong “on their beds” and then carry out their plans when they rise; he prophesies God’s retribution against them. But then he is told not to do so; those to whom he preaches not only reject his prophecy, they tell him not to preach such things at all. He concludes that they only want to hear their preachers tell them of pleasant things, the things they enjoy; they want preachers who will utter “empty falsehoods” and preach of “wine and strong drink.”

I’m sure that every preacher has at one time or another felt like Micah. I remember early in my ordained career being told by a congregant that all she wanted from church was to spend Sunday morning with her friends singing songs she knew and hearing “an uplifting message.” But not every bible text lends itself to an “uplifting message” and from time to time there are social ills that need to be addressed! The early 20th Century Swiss theologian Karl Barth insisted that theology and preaching had to be done with the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other. Another theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr is often credited with saying that the role of the preacher is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” (Interestingly enough, the originator of that idea was newspaper humorist Finley Peter Dunne who said it was the role of newspapers to do so.)

Micah, Barth, and Niebuhr thus call the preacher to view contemporary culture, especially the news of the day, though scriptural lenses and view the Word of God through cultural lenses, to call out and condemn that in the culture which does not accord with the word of God, even if the preacher is, in turn, condemned for doing so. The witness of Micah reminds us that doing so will result in criticism from at least some of those to whom one preaches. The thin-skinned preacher would do well to be safe and conservative and always preach that pleasant, uplifting message. In my opinion, he or she would not be faithful, but he or she would be likely never hear “Do not preach of such things” from his or her congregation.

Preachers, as Micah makes clear, and as Barth and Niebuhr intimated, are not called to play it conservatively safe. Preachers are called to be (as Micah puts it) “the one who breaks out”, the one who leads his or her people out of their comfortable culturally-bound lives through the gate of Scripture so that they may follow “the Lord at their head.” It isn’t always, or even often, an easy-to-hear, uplifting message that breaks down those cultural walls. It is been said that the word of God is radical and so it is; Scripture gets to the root, the radix, of human existence and good preaching should do the same. Although Barth was speaking in a political context, something else he is reported to have said is also true of preaching: “The radical is probably wrong but has a chance of being right; the conservative is always wrong.”

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

God Has Done Great Things – From the Daily Office – October 9, 2012

From the Psalms:

When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, then were we like those who dream.
Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with shouts of joy.
Then they said among the nations, “The Lord has done great things for them.”
The Lord has done great things for us, and we are glad indeed.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Psalm 126:1-4 (BCP Version) – October 9, 2012)

Jesus Clapping and Shouting for Joy (artist unknown)Have you ever visited a church which as part of its normative worship service gives congregants an opportunity to voice aloud their own prayers to God? It may surprise some that the Episcopal Church is one such religious group. In the typical service of the Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church, following readings from Scripture, the sermon and a recitation of the Nicene Creed, the congregation is led in a responsive cycle of prayer called The Prayers of the People.

A rubric (a direction for the conduct of worship services) in The Book of Common Prayer outlines what is to be included in these prayers. It states that

Prayer is offered with intercession for
The Universal Church, its members, and its mission
The Nation and all in authority
The welfare of the world
The concerns of the local community
Those who suffer and those in any trouble
The departed (with commemoration of a saint when appropriate)
(BCP, Page 359 or 383)

Six forms of suggested prayers are provided in the BCP, but other forms conforming to the rubrical requirements may be used. Each of those forms provides opportunities for silence during which the People are encouraged to speak their own petitions, intercessions, or thanksgivings. The sixth form even includes this specific invitation, “The People may add their own thanksgivings.” (Page 393)

I have visited a lot of Episcopal Churches. I have heard many prayer leaders invite the People’s prayers during those silences. I have seldom heard anyone laugh, shout with joy, or express gladness because the Lord has done great things for them. Why do you suppose that is? Garrison Keillor (who is an Episcopalian, by the way) has suggested that “Episcopalians believe in prayer, but would practically die if asked to pray out loud.” That may be doubly true of giving thanks out loud.

I have no answer to the question. Keillor suggests that Episcopalians are known for our blandness, our excessive calm, and our fear of giving offense, and maybe that’s part of it. I don’t know. But I do wish in prayers and worship that we would laugh a little more, shout with joy from time to time, and let our gladness show when God has done great things for us, because God has done great things for us!

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Why Do You Call Me “Lord, Lord”? – From the Daily Office – October 8, 2012

From the Gospel of Luke:

Jesus said: “Why do you call me “Lord, Lord,” and do not do what I tell you? I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Luke 6:46-49 – October 8, 2012)

Jesus Teaching the CrowdsIt’s a darn good question, “Why do you call me “Lord, Lord,” and do not do what I tell you?” As we come to the last month of the 2012 political campaign, it is one which needs to be carefully considered by many Christians on all sides of the political divide. Are the values on which Christian voters are making their decisions those taught by Jesus, or are they cultural values dressed up in Christian clothing? One-issue voters in particular should take a broader look at their choices; just because a candidate supports your position on a question of particular importance to you does not mean his or her overall platform conforms well to the values of the Gospel, or does what Jesus told us to do.

Yesterday, evangelical preachers and churches around the country broke the law by engaging in something called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”. They claimed to be the victims of “religious discrimination” because of a provision in American tax law which prohibits churches which claim religious tax exemption from endorsing political candidates and preachers from making campaign speeches from their pulpits. In this blog, I will not debate the law or the legality of what these churches and preachers did, but I do want to suggest that they have lost their way. Christ’s church was never intended to be a political party; Jesus is not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat; he is not a Green, or a Libertarian. Preaching politics from the pulpit undermines the Gospel message which is for all regardless of their political affiliation or their voting decisions. Preaching partisan politics from the pulpit is not doing what Jesus told us to do!

When the Gospel of Christ is equated with a particular party’s platform or a particular candidate’s position, the person or institution preaching that equivalence is not doing what Jesus told us to do. In fact, I believe they have even stopped calling Jesus “Lord, Lord” – they have given their allegiance to something or someone else!

The Gospel should impact our political decisions; I’m not suggesting otherwise. But churches and preachers should not be endorsing political nominees nor telling their congregations how to vote. Instead, they should be encouraging their members to give food to the hungry and something to drink to the thirsty, to welcome the stranger, to give clothing to the naked, to care for the sick and those in prison (see Matthew 25), and ask themselves how their political decisions best accomplish those goals. Because that is what Jesus told us to do!

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

The Patients of Job: Part One – Sermon for Pentecost 19, Proper 22B – October 7, 2012

====================

This sermon was preached on Sunday, October 7, 2012, at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio, where Fr. Funston is rector.

(Revised Common Lectionary, Proper 22B: Job 1:1; 2:1-10; Psalm 26; Hebrews 1:1-4; 2:5-12; and Mark 10:2-16. These lessons can be read at The Lectionary Page.)

====================

Job's Repentance (Artist Unknown)I know two things today that I didn’t know earlier in the week. First, I know that people read our sign. I got two telephone calls and one email telling me that we had misspelled “patience” on the sign. Second, I know that people won’t believe you when you tell them you did it on purpose. But I really did name this sermon series “The Patients (P-A-T-I-E-N-T-S) of Job” for reasons that I hope will become clear very shortly.

Before diving into that subject this morning, however, a word about the Lectionary. For the next four weeks our lessons from the Old Testament will be from the Book of Job as we follow what is called “Track One” of the Revised Common Lectionary.

Track One is a semi-continuous reading of major Old Testament books. The idea this is that we tend to short-change the Old Testament in our Sunday Eucharistic lectionary, and that we need to hear more of the Old Testament and be more familiar with it. So Track One is set up so that we can see the development of some of the great Old Testament stories over the course of successive Sundays; this gives us peculiar opportunities for preaching series like the one we’re embarking on today. The assumption, of course, is that the congregation each Sunday is made up of who actually come to church every week to hear the unfolding of the Old Testament readings in this way. That’s not always a valid assumption. Many of our people, because of work schedules or whatever, do not make it to church every Sunday and so are likely to miss huge chunks of the story. So each week in these sermon there may be a bit of repetition to bring these folks up to speed; I hope weekly congregants will bear with us on that score. (For those of you who may not be here every week, the sermons and lessons will be on the internet for you.)

There other thing about Track One is that, unlike Track Two, which is a Gospel-related track in which the Old Testament reading is selected because it has some sort of thematic connection to the Gospel reading appointed for the day, there is no specific link between the lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures and the lessons from the Christian Scriptures. For example, today we heard part of the backstory of Job’s suffering (we’ll return to that in a moment), while the Gospel focused on Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce. I suppose one could draw a connection between the little spat Job and Mrs. Job have at the end of the Old Testament reading and what Jesus has to say, but I’m not going to go there. So for the next few weeks, please don’t expect much exegesis of the Gospel lessons.

So, now, let me answer the signage critics and explain why I chose to (apparently) misuse the word “patients” on our sign. Obviously it is a play on the familiar statement made of a long-suffering individual that he or she has “the patience of Job”. That’s an odd turn of phrase because, as we shall see, Job is not particularly patient; he is at turns angry, demanding, petulant, and sullenly silent, but he is not patient. Nonetheless, I chose to play with and make a pun on that old concept because the story of Job is one to which we can turn are in need of balm for whatever turns in life may beset us.

The great preacher St. John Chrysostom, in a sermon on the Gospel of John, said of Holy Writ,

The divine words, indeed, are a treasury containing every sort of remedy, so that, whether one needs to put down senseless pride, or to quench the fire of concupiscence or to trample on the love of riches, or to despise pain, or to cultivate cheerfulness and acquire patience – in them one may find in abundance the means to do so. (Hom. 37 On John.)

In a sermon on St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians, he likened the Bible to a medicine chest:

Listen, I entreat you, all that are careful for this life, and procure books that will be medicines for the soul . . . . If grief befalls you, dive into [the Holy Scriptures] as into a chest of medicines; take from there comfort for your trouble, be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations; or rather do not merely dive into them but take them wholly to yourself, keeping them in your mind.” (Hom. IX On Colossians)

This is especially true of the Book of Job.

This book, as I made mention from this pulpit some weeks ago, is a work of fiction, but that does not stop it from being a work from which we can learn great truth. Or perhaps I should say “great truths” for, more than any other book in the Bible, Job offers what some might call a “post-modern” or pluraform vision of truth. Job, in the midst of his suffering, is visited by his wife, his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, and a fourth man, Elihu (who may just be a passerby). Each of them offers an explanation of why life has treated Job so shabbily and offers advice as to how he should respond. Job’s answer to each of them is basically, “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me!” The character Job could be the patron saint of our post-modern age, and the Book of Job offers us a variety of remedies, a selection of alternative truths for whatever besets our spirits; it also provides a glimpse at the over-arching meta-truth that sustains our lives, namely the awesome power of God. We all come to this book, as we come to all of Scripture, as patients seeking medicine for the soul; we are all the “patients of Job.”

When we first open this text we are treated to two scenes involving the characters God and Satan. (I put it that way very advisedly, very carefully. Please always remember that this is a work of fiction and so we have a character named “God” and a character named “Satan” who may or may not behave in the ways the Creator and the Adversary actually interact with the world.) In both of these scenes these two characters make and continue a wager regarding Job. In Chapter 1, all the heavenly court appears before God, including Satan whom God asks where he has been. Satan answers that has been “going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” (1:7) God asks if he has seen God’s servant Job who is a good and righteous man. Satan replies that he has, but then challenges God about Job’s virtue suggesting that Job is only righteous because God has provided him a good life. So they make a wager; Satan bets that if Job loses everything he has, he will curse God. God gives Satan authority to strip him of his wealth and possessions, but forbids him to lay a hand on Job. The next thing we know, Job is struck by calamity after calamity all within a very short time. Four servants come to him, one after another, the next coming before the one before has even finished speaking, telling him that Sabaeans have come and stolen his oxen and donkeys, a fire has destroyed his sheep, Chaldean invaders have killed all his servants, and a collapsing house has killed all his sons and daughters. Job is left with nothing; he tears his clothing, shaves his head, and falls to the ground, but the narrator assures us that “in all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.” Rather, he blesses the Name of God! (1:20-21)

Which brings us now to our reading for today and the second scene in the heavenly throne room. Again, the court is assembled; again, Satan is there having come “trom going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” (2:2) Again, God asks if Satan has considered Job; and again, Satan makes a bet with God. It’s all well and good that he’s lost everything, but he’s still alive and healthy; “touch his bone and his flesh,” says Satan, “and he will curse you to your face.” (2:5) “Very well,” says God, “you can cause him illness, but do not take his life.” So Satan “inflict[s] loathsome sores on Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” (2:7) Job’s response is different from his actions in the first chapter; he engages in no new acts of mourning or worship. Instead, he picks up a piece of broken pot, scratches at his sores, and sits down on a pile of ashes. At this point Mrs. Job (she isn’t given her own name in the text) says to her husband, “Do you still persist in your integrity? Curse God, and die.”

One commentary points out that the concept of integrity in the Old Testament has two prongs. First, it “denotes a person whose conduct is completely in accord with moral and religious norms.” Second, it describes someone “whose character is one of utter honest, without guile.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. IV, Abingdon Press: 1996, page 356) Mrs. Job seems to sense that for her husband to “persist in his integrity” in this situation, he cannot do both. She seems to be arguing that “if Job holds on to integrity in the sense of conformity to religious norm and blesses God as he did before, . . . he will be committing an act of deceit. If he holds on to integrity in the sense of honesty, then he must curse God and violate social integrity, which forbids such cursing.” (Ibid.)

Job, however, tells her she is being foolish. In fact, the Hebrew here is rather stronger – the commentary notes that a more accurate contemporary translation would be that he tells her she is “talking trash”! Job insists that there is no conflict between religious integrity and personal honesty. We are again assured by the narrator that “in all this Job did not sin with his lips.” (2:10)

This is where our reading this morning ends, but it is not the end of Chapter 2. As the chapter ends, Job’s three friends – Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite – hearing of all of his troubles meet together to come to console and comfort him. On seeing his state, they tear their own clothes, weep loudly, throw dust upon their own heads, then sit down in the dirt with him. For a week they sit there with him in silence.

So what are we to make of these initial scenes from the story of Job. If St. John Chrysostom is right and there are “medicines for the soul” to be found here, what are they? I suggest there are a couple of things to be learned here which may be of some comfort in our modern age. The first is found in this book’s rejection of the facile answers of an older “wisdom religion” tradition.

I am sure that we have all, at one time or another, faced the death of a loved one, the loss of something or someone precious to us, or some other personal tragedy or difficult situation; or that if we have not, we surely will. And I’m equally sure that in such a situation we are all prone to ask an interior question along the lines of “Why me?” or “What have I done to deserve this?”

That older “wisdom religion” which runs through our faith tradition encourages that sort of thinking. Elsewhere in Holy Scripture, in the Book of Proverbs, for example, we are told:

Walk in the way of the good, and keep to the paths of the just. For the upright will abide in the land, and the innocent will remain in it; but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be rooted out of it. (2:20-22)

And again:

The Lord’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the abode of the righteous. Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he shows favor. The wise will inherit honor, but stubborn fools, disgrace. (3:33-35)

The message seems clear: “Do good, you’ll be rewarded with good. Do bad, you’ll be punished with bad.” It suggests a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this”) assumption that if something bad has happened to me, I must have done something bad to deserve it. And it’s not too far to the next thought, “I’ve not only done something bad, I am bad.” But post hoc ergo proper hoc is a logical fallacy and that line of reasoning is just plain wrong, as the story of Job clearly demonstrates.

Although this Book of Job is part of the “wisdom literature” and firmly grounded in the wisdom tradition, it offers a sound critique of that tradition. The character Job, an upright and righteous man, a man of integrity, is visited by loss and calamity through no fault of his own. He does not deserve what happens to him. His story avoids the clicheic simplicity of the older wisdom tradition and rejects that “Why me? What have I done to deserve this?” thinking to which we are all prone. His story “is, in fact, an impassioned assertion of the awareness that the simple moralism of most wise men is hardly enough.” (Jay G. Williams, Understanding the Old Testament, Barrons Educational Series: 1972, page 267)

Stuff sometimes happens in a person’s life, as it does in the story of Job, that he or she does not deserve and for which he or she is not to blame! Stuff sometimes happens in your life that you do not deserve, and you are not to blame for it! That is the first bit of medicine we find in these introductory scenes in the Book of Job. Give up the “Why me? What have I done to deserve this?” thinking, and stop beating yourself up over things you can’t control!

The second bit of “medicine” is the book’s apparent rejection of religious ritual as a touchstone of goodness and integrity. It is important that Job is afflicted with “loathsome sores” because, according to Jewish law in the Book of Leviticus, a person inflicted with a skin disease is ritually impure and an outcast from society. Such an individual is referred to in Hebrew as a metzorah. Jewish law as set forth in the Book of Leviticus requires the metzorah to be shunned; the person must live alone outside the confines of the community. In chapter 13 of Leviticus we read that he or she must show their sores to the local priest, and then

. . . shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head be disheveled; and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, “Unclean, unclean.” He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp. (Lev. 13:45-46)

Job, however, does none of this; he does not follow any of the Levitical requirements, nor do his friends. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar do not shun him, nor leave him alone outside the community. Integrity, this story assures us, does not rest in conformity to religious norms.

This should come as good news, as balm for our modern and postmodern souls, because, as Emerging Church blogger Drew Tatsuko has pointed out, “religions that make these exclusive claims to Truth demand conformity; religions that demand conformity tend to abuse non-conformists . . . ; and, in history God is [most frequently] revealed among the non-conformists.”

Now this does not mean that, in its rejection of the wisdom tradition, the Book of Job is telling to not live a good and honorable life, or that in its rejection of religious ritual as definitive of personal integrity the book is telling us to abandon our norms of worship and behavior. Rather, what we should take from the story of Job is that life is a set of questions. If there is truth to be found in this book, or in any of the books of the Bible, it is to be found in the process of struggling with those questions. We will wrestle with the questions of Job throughout this month during which our Old Testament readings will be drawn from it. The book has 42 chapters so, clearly, in four weeks of readings we are not going to cover it in depth. But I hope to demonstrate over the course of these sermons that, as my friend Greg Jenks who is Academic Dean at St Francis Theological College, Brisbane, Australia, says, Job “is a biblical text that celebrates the lack of a compelling answer, and instead calls us to faithfulness that sees beyond suffering to a meaning beyond human comprehension.”

I hope you will find, as I said at the beginning of this introductory sermon, that Job is a book which offers us a variety of remedies, a selection of alternative truths for whatever besets our spirits; it also provides a glimpse at the over-arching meta-truth that sustains our lives, namely the awesome power of God.

The Womb-Love of Mother God – From the Daily Office – October 6, 2012

From the Prophet Hosea:

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.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Hosea 11:8 – October 6, 2012)

Mother and Child DrawingThis passage is one of my favorites in the book of the prophet Hosea. (I’m a fan of that prophet for a number of reasons and this little-remarked verse is one them.) Hosea’s major metaphor for the relationship of God with Israel is that of marriage. Hosea portrayed God as Israel’s “husband” and condemend the nation because of the “adulterous” relationship it had had with other gods. As a “prophetic act” Hosea married a prostitute named Gomer, with whom his relationship parallels that of God with Israel. He tells of Gomer running away from him and having sex with another man, but he loves her and forgives her. Similarly, even though the people of Israel worshiped other gods, Hosea prophesied that Yahweh continues to love his people and does not abandon the covenant with them. This verse, however, departs from that metaphor and presents, instead, a maternal and feminine image of God.

At the heart of this verse are two Hebrew words, one of which is translated as “heart”; the other, as “compassion”. The first is leb and in Judaic understanding it refers not merely to the body’s physical heart, but to the innermost being of the human person. It refers to the center of personal life, to a human being’s psychic and spiritual energies upon which the whole moral and religious condition of a person completely depends. Here, it is God who has this sort of inner core of being, and the center of God’s Being is inextricably linked in this verse with God’s compassion.

Our English word compassion derives from the Latin for “suffering together”; compassion is the ability to share in the suffering of another, to be empathetic. The Hebrew word translated as “compassion” is rechemet, which comes from the Hebrew root rechem which literally means “womb”. The Hebrew understanding of compassion is deeply maternal, rooted in a profound metaphor of birthing and motherhood; compassion in Hebrew thought might best be conceived not as “shared suffering”, but as “womb love”. This word applied to God conjurs a beautiful image of God as our mother doing all the amazing and miraculous things a life-giving, birthing mother does. She protects her unborn child; she nourishes, cradles, and prepares her child. She gives birth to her child and after delivering her child, how can she give up or forget her child? “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb?” asks God in Isaiah, “Even these may forget, yet I will never forget you.” (Isaiah 49:15)

My father died when I was five years old and, though my mother remarried when I was ten, for five important formative years of my childhood my mother was the only parent I knew; so this maternal metaphor for God speaks loudly to me. I do not have a problem with patriarchal imagery and what hymnist Brian Wren called “kingafap language” (King-God-Almighty-Father-Protector) for God, but I know that many do. For them, Hosea’s and Isaiah’s maternal images may be even more powerful.

We must always remember that every word we speak, every image we conceive, every verse of Scripture we read about God is a metaphor and every metaphor is limited. Still, this often-overlooked verse from the prophet Hosea reminds us that we are God’s children and that at the center of God’s Being is the womb-love of a mother for her child, for us.

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Complacency Is Just Not an Option! – From the Daily Office – October 5, 2012

From the Gospel of Luke:

Jesus said: “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. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.”

Bookplate Engraving of "Sloth"Today I am forcing myself to get back in the groove with these daily meditations on bits of Scripture from the lessons of the Episcopal Church’s Daily Office Lectionary. I took a break two weeks ago about the time of my father-in-law’s death and funeral, a break which was just supposed to be a couple of days, and it stretched on and on and I got out of the habit. I tried, a couple of times (once with a bit from Judith and once with bit from the fourth chapter of Luke), but I couldn’t discipline myself to sit down, compose, and publish the thoughts in my head. I was slothful; in the words of medieval monks, I was suffering from daily, early-morning acedia. Acedia, one of the Seven Deadly Sins, according to Wikipedia is “a state of listlessness or torpor, of not caring or not being concerned with one’s position or condition in the world.” That is not the mental state exhibited by Jesus in today’s Gospel lesson from Luke, but I think he addresses it and, thus, today’s lesson has helped me out of my own torpor.

In today’s Gospel we have the Lukan version of the Beatitudes which differs in many respects from the more well-known and oft-quoted version in Matthew (Matt. 5:3–12). It differs so much that we refer to Luke’s rendition as “the Blessings and Woes” rather than as “Beatitudes,” and that title gives witness to the most distinctive difference, the addition of the “woes” addressed to the well-off. And it is those “woes” which I focus on today.

Each of these states of woe is introduced in the same way. In Greek the word translate into English as “woe” is ouai. It’s pronounced something like “oo-why” and is, according to something I remember reading in seminary but can’t find now, an onomatopoetic term expressive of a sigh . . . a sigh of profound sadness. So rather than being (as is often understood) Christ’s prediction of some terrible calamity that is to befall the well-to-do, the satisfied, the currently happy, or those who are lauded, these “woes” are statements of Jesus’ current sadness about them.

Why should Jesus be unhappy about this state of well-being? I suspect it is because well-being can lead to complacency or, worse, to efforts to maintain it at the expense of others. Complacency is a form of acedia. It makes people fear the unknown, mistrust the untried, and abhor the new; it makes people resist change. The complacent will stick to what they have always done even when it stops working. The theme-song of the complacent is, “We’ve always done it this way.” Jesus stands in opposition to “the way it’s always been done.” He calls us to new ways of behavior, new ways of being in community, new ways of caring for one another. No wonder he sighs so deeply with such sadness for the satisfied, for the complacent.

So this is where I find encouragement, inspiration, and energy in this passage . . . after heaving these profound sighs, Jesus doesn’t just sit there. He goes on with his teaching, issuing his call for changed behavior, and then goes on with his ministry; in the first verse of the next chapter, Luke tells us, “After Jesus had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.” (Luke 7:1) Immediately, he is confronted by a request for healing and then, shortly thereafter, he raises the son of the widow of Nain from death. For Jesus (and for us) complacency is just not an option! We may sigh, but there is always something to be done.

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Comprehending the Mind of God – From the Daily Office – September 25, 2012

From the Book of Judith:

Who are you to put God to the test today, and to set yourselves up in the place of God in human affairs? You are putting the Lord Almighty to the test, but you will never learn anything! You cannot plumb the depths of the human heart or understand the workings of the human mind; how do you expect to search out God, who made all these things, and find out his mind or comprehend his thought?

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Judith 8:12-14a – September 25, 2012)
 
God from Monty Python & the Holy GrailThe Book of Judith is part of the Apocrypha or Deutercanon, those books accepted as Holy Writ by part of the Old Testament by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, but rejected by Protestants and by rabbinic Judaism. As Anglicans, we Episcopalians adopt the position taken in the 39 Articles of Religion: they are the “other Books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Art. VI, BCP 1979, page 868)

The story of Judith is relatively simple. She was a widow living in the city of Bethulia when it is under siege by Holofernes, a general of the Ninvite king Nebuchadnezzar. Facing starvation, the people of the city demand that their rulers surrender. The elders of the town, named Uzziah, Chabris, and Charmis, calm them by promising to surrender Bethulia to Ninevites unless God helps rescues the city within so five days. This angers Judith who upbraids the town rulers (the selected verses are from her speech to the three elders). She then takes things into her own hands, wins entrance into the enemy camp, finds Holofernes passed out, drunk in his tent, and decapitates the general. She escapes from the camp, brings the head to the town elders, and saves the city.

While I find the book a wonderful story of faith in action, and its heroine a woman to looked up to, the verses I’ve quoted from its eighth chapter are troubling. I believe that it’s perfectly all right to put God to the test and that searching out God, trying to find out God’s mind, and seeking to comprehend God’s thought are worthy endeavors that God encourages. In the book of Prophet Malachi, when the people fail to pay their tithes, God says, “Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing.” (Mal. 3:10) I believe that it is not only in regard to tithes and offerings that God encourages us to “put me to the test;” God wants us to seek understanding, to try to comprehend God.

The Franciscan writer St. Bonaventure in his essay Itinerarium mentis in Deum (“The Journey of the Mind to God”) wrote of this comprehension or understanding as an ascent or journey and offered this advice:

He, therefore, who wishes to ascend to God must first avoid sin, which deforms nature. He must bring the natural powers of the soul under the influence of grace, which reforms them, and this he does through prayer; he must submit them to the purifying influence of justice, and this, in daily acts; he must subject them to the influence of enlightening knowledge, and this in meditation; and finally, he must hand them over to the influence of the perfecting power of wisdom, and this in contemplation.

Obviously, it takes effort and practice; it takes study and work. To make this effort is not (as Judith berated the Bethulian elders) to “set oneself up in the place of God,” but it is an endeavor to learn and understand. It is an effort blessed by God – we read in the Book of Proverbs:

My child, if you accept my words and treasure up my commandments within you,
making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding;
if you indeed cry out for insight, and raise your voice for understanding;
if you seek it like silver, and search for it as for hidden treasures –
then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.
For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk blamelessly,
guarding the paths of justice and preserving the way of his faithful ones. (Prov. 2:1-8)

So, as much as it pains me to disagree with a heroine of Scripture . . . Judith, you’re just wrong about this! You were right to cut off Holofernes’ head, but not to try to shut down the minds of those who seek to comprehend the Almighty!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

« Older posts Newer posts »