Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, May 1, 2011, the Second Sunday of Easter (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.) Lectionary Ruminations is also cross posted on my personal blog, Summit to Shore.

Acts 2:14a, 22-32
v. 14a Whom is Peter addressing?

v. 22 Are “deeds of power”, “wonders” and “signs” synonyms?

v. 23 “Definite plan and foreknowledge” – This does not sound like the same Peter portrayed in the Gospels

vs. 25-29 Where does David say this? How would you grade Peter’s interpretation of David’s words?

v. 30 Since when has David been considered a prophet?

v. 32 Is Peter arguing for the resurrection, or something else?

Psalm 16:1-11
v. 3 Who are “the holy ones in the land”?

v. 4 Whom is the Psalmist referring to?

v. 5 What is a “chosen portion”?

v. 6 I find this an interesting verse in light of the recent political history of the Middle East, especially regarding borders

v. 7 How does the heart instruct during the night? Is this a reference to dreams?

v. 10 What is the Pit” being referred to?

Why does the Psalmist seem to alternate between direct address to God and speaking of God in the third person?

1 Peter 1:3-9
v. 4 Is this “imperishable, undefiled, and unfading” inheritance being implicitly compared to any other inheritance?

v. 5 What does this verse say about Peter’s eschatology?

v. 6 what trials is Peter referring to?

v. 8 Is this verse evidence that Peter is writing to perhaps second generation Christians?

John 20:19-31
v.19 This reading might be for the First Sunday After Easter, but the narrative is from the events of Easter day. What is the significance of Jesus’ words?

v. 20 Did the disciples not recognize Jesus until after he showed them his wounds?

v. 21 How did the Father send Jesus?

v. 22 Did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit? If so, was it Jesus words or his breathing on them, or both, that allowed them to receive it?

v. 23 How shall we protestants deal with this verse?

v. 25 Would Thomas have said this if it were not for what is described in verse 20?

v. 26 Now we are dealing with events on the same schedules as we are, a week after Easter.

v. 27 Jesus invites Thomas to touch his wounds, but does Thomas do so? Was just being invited to do so enough to ignite Thomas’ belief?

v. 29 Whom is this verse referring to when it speaks of “those who have not seen and yet come to believe”?

v. 30 I wonder what “other signs” are being thought of. I think there is a novel or two waiting to be inspired by this verse. Perhaps Dan Brown will take up the challenge. I find it interesting that this Gospel refers to itself as a “book”.

v. 31 Who is the “you” being addressed?

Monday Blog Club - Easter!

Good morning!

Apologies for my absence. . . I was off doing this:

But now I'm back and happy to welcome the newest members of our web ring, Laila and Liz from Four for a Year!

"We are a Presbyterian pastor and a marketing consultant attempting to follow Miguel Ruiz's "Four Agreements" for one year. The agreements are: 1. Be impeccable with your word. 2. Don't make assumptions. 3. Don't take anything personally. 4. Always do your best. The agreements are about seeking truth and love in everything we do. They are not a religion in themselves, but they in fact dovetail beautifully with our Christian identity. We seek to follow Christ and to incorporate "love your neighbor as yourself" into our daily living, and the agreements can be a powerful tool to help us along that path. We initially began trying to follow the agreements while training for a half-marathon together. We'd choose one for a week and, in the wee hours of the morning as we ran, we'd talk about the experience. This task was surprisingly difficult and life changing. So life changing that we committed to following the agreements for one entire year. We decided to blog about it as a means to keep ourselves on task and to hopefully encourage others with honest (and often humorous) accounts of our experiences as we move toward a more positive and love-filled way of being."

Happy Easter!

Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, April 24, 2011, the Resurrection of the Lord (Easter Day) (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.) Lectionary Ruminations is also cross posted on my personal blog, Summit to Shore.

Hallelujah. Christ is risen! He is risen indeed!

The Lectionary for this day offers various alternate Readings. The First Reading may be Acts 10:34-43 or Jeremiah 31:1-6. The Second Reading may Colossians 3:1-4 or Acts 10:34:43. If you choose to use the Acts passage for the First Reading, you would of course use the Colossians passage for the Second Reading. If you choose the Jeremiah passage for the First Reading, you then have two passages to choose from for the Second Reading. There are also two options for the Gospel. Pick either John 20:1-18 or Matthew 28:1-10. Even though there are six passages, I will focus only on four.

Acts 10:34-43
v. 34 What is the context of this passage? What would it mean if God did show partiality?

v. 35 What do you think it means to “fear” God?

vs. 36-39 This reads like a brief synopsis of the life and ministry of Jesus.

v. 40 The Easter Proclamation! How do you understand “allowed”?

v. 41 What is the significance of eating and drinking with the resurrected Christ?

v.42 What is the difference, if any, between preaching and testifying?

v. 43 What “prophets” is Peter referring to?

Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24
vs. 1-2 A call and response.

v. 14 How shall Christians read “salvation” in the Hebrew Scriptures?

vs. 15-16 Is the Psalmist quoting a glad song of victory?

v. 17 How do we recount the deeds of the LORD? What are the deeds of the LORD?

v. 18 What do you thin was the nature of the Psalmist’s punishment?

v. 19 What are, and where are, the gates of righteousness?

v. 20 I would love to know how you interpret this verse in light of verse 19.

v. 21 A shift from speaking of God in the third person to speaking to God in the second person.

v. 22 Where will Christians hear this again?

v. 23 What is the LORD’sdoing?

v. 24 What is the day the LORD has made? How can we be glad in it?

Colossians 3:1-4
v. 1 An “if/then” statement even though the “then” implicit. What are the things that are above?

v. 2 Does it make any difference that the admonition refers to the mind rather than the heart?

v. 3 What does it that your life is hidden?

v. 4 I thought Christ has already been revealed in the life and ministry of Jesus. Must this, by necessity, refer to the parousia or to the final resurrection?

John 20:1-18
v. 1 What is the first day of the week? What does it mean that it was still dark? How did Mary see that the stone had been removed from the tomb if was still dark?

v. 2 Let’s speculate about the identity of the other disciple, the on whom Jesus loved. From the context, I think we can rule out Peter. Whom might Mary have meant by “they”? Why does Mary say, “we do not know”? Was she not alone?

v. 4 Peter, the slowpoke, quick to speak, slow to run.

v. 5 Why not go in?

v. 6 Peter might be slow, but he is not hesitant.

v. 8 I find it interesting that in reference to Peter, there is no mention of him believing. In this passage, it is this “other disciple” that is the first to “believe”.

v. 9 But based on this verse, what did the “other disciple” believe? That someone (they of verse 2) has taken the Lord out of the tomb?

vs. 10-11 Am anticlimactic verse. Then again, where else could the disciples have gone? Why did they abandon Mary, leaving her all alone? Were they simply typical men?

v. 12 How shall we moderns, or post-moderns, deal with angels when we encounter them in Scripture?

v. 14 How could, and why would, Mary not recognize Jesus?

v. 15 Both Jesus and the Angels (in verse 13) address Mary in the same way and ask the same question. But Jesus asks even more than the angels asked.

v. 16 Jesus address Mary by name rather than by “woman” and she calls him Rabbouni rather than “gardener”.

v. 17 Why would Jesus say this? What do we make of Jesus talk about not yet having ascended? What is the meaning of “brothers”? Why “I am ascending” rather than “I will ascend”?

v. 18 Does this make Mary the first post resurrection witness? Preacher? Perhaps, in recognition of the role played by Mary, the first words of any Easter liturgy ought to be spoken by a woman!

ADDENDUM

Do not forget the multi-valiant character of John’s Gospel. I think we may be tempted to become so engrossed by John’s description of the scene and dialogue of the first Easter that we may miss any deep structure. John has been highly structured and symbolic throughout. Why change at the resurrection account?

Grounded Scriptures: The Undoing of Creation

Matthew 27:50-54
Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”
An orderly creation is characterized by clear demarcations and separations. God separated the light from the dark, the waters from the land, and the clean from the unclean. The Temple is all about separations; the Gentiles excluded on the outside, the women excluded in one court, non-priestly men kept away one degree by a wall, and finally at the center a curtain to veil God’s presence.
We know that Jesus was in the business of re-drawing those lines of separation, and that many were scandalized because of how he did this – accepting women into table fellowship, extending miraculous work even to the Gentiles, touching the leprous, the unclean, and the dead. We know something about “the veil of the curtain rent in twain” signifying the end to the separation between God and humanity. But we can only wonder about the shaking of the earth. Is there no more distinction between rock and not-rock, between the permanent and the temporary, the animate and inanimate?

The rocks mourned Christ’s death, the sun refused to shine, and creation called loudly for people to pay attention to the tragedy unfolding. But then things returned to normal. Men went back to oppressing women, well-meaning bishops built a new temple and set the curtain back up again, and the rocks sat back and kept their silence.
It’s a cloudy, rainy, mourn-y kind of Holy Week where I am, which helps me to feel appropriately solemn. I have remembered so many years when I wanted to stay in the gloomy mood created by the Scriptures, only to have sunshine and happy birds and all kinds of natural distractions pull me into Easter a day or two early. “Happy” vs. “solemn” is only the tip of the iceberg, though. I wish the earth would re-enact for us the uncreating of creation, as it did at Golgotha. I want to remember the earthquake – the shaking, the un-doing, the erasing of boundaries, and the possibility of truly leaving our walls and dividing curtains behind. We need to be disassembled if we are to be created anew with the risen Christ.

Go Fish! This Easter be Hands, Feet and Ears

I’m going to be praying for the congregation of another church tomorrow morning. They won’t know it; they’re thousands of miles away and only a few people from there know me. I’m praying for them because they are doing something very brave that I wish my church would do.

They’re going door to door inviting their neighbors to church on Easter.

A couple of months ago I visited this church while on a trip. I filled out the guest book and gave them my email address, and now from time to time I receive the pastor’s updates to the congregation.

The other day I got an email about what’s happening at the church during Holy Week. One of the things that impressed me most about the schedule was that on Saturday – tomorrow – the congregation is walking the surrounding neighborhood to invite neighbors to Easter services.

At the end of the email the pastor included a script that walkers will use. It starts asking if the person is familiar with the church on the corner (the church is hard to miss, so I’m assuming most people will at least be familiar with the building). It includes a gracious invitation to Easter services.

My favorite part of the script is this question:

“We also want to be a good neighbor so today we are asking if there is anything you think we should know about the neighborhood?”

I love that question for a couple of reasons. One, it establishes and frames the relationship. “We’re neighbors, and not only that we want to be ‘good’ neighbors.”

Second, it asks an open-ended question that allows the neighbor talk, and requires the congregation member to listen.

I can see from the community activities this church is already involved in that the church leadership actually cares about the answers to this question. I don’t think this is an idle question that’s being asked for show. I think the church is actually interested in what neighbors will have to say.

So I will be holding them up in prayer tomorrow, celebrating their willingness to go out and meet the neighbors, as well as their willingness to listen to what their neighbors have to say.

And while most of us won’t be going door-to-door inviting neighbors to Easter services, some of our neighbors will find their way inside our sanctuaries on Easter. In preparation for guests we’re putting on our “Easter best”, getting the church cleaned up, hanging celebratory banners, displaying the Easer lilies, and preparing our best sermons and Alleluia choruses.

We obviously have something to say on Easter: “He is risen!” But are we ready to listen? Are we ready to hear what our neighbors have to say is what’s most important to them?

My encouragement to all of us would be to not just speak on Easter Sunday, but to also listen. If you have the opportunity, plainly ask: “What do you think is something we should know about this neighborhood? What’s important to you and your family?” And then really listen.

If that doesn’t feel natural, at least take the time to engage guests in conversations and listen for clues about who they are and what’s behind their decision to come on this Easter.

We like to talk a lot in the church about being Christ’s hands and feet. On this Easter, let’s be his ears, too.

Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, April 17, 2011, Palm Sunday (Passion Sunday) (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.)


For those who chose to observe the bifocal nature of this Sunday, there are six appointed Scripture Readings rather than four, and for one of the Readings there is a shorter (relatively speaking) alternative. I will focus on the shorter option.

Matthew 21:1-11
v. 2 Must we have BOTH a donkey and a colt?

v. 5 What prophet is quoted and why does it appear that the author of Matthew does not understand Hebrew poetry?

v. 8 Was it palm branches that were cut?

v. 9 Where have we (and those in the crowd) heard this before?

v. 10 Is this not the question we seek to answer?

v. 11 Is this a satisfactory answer to the above question?

Psalm 118:1-2, 19-29
The choice of this “Liturgy of the Palms” Psalm (say that three times) is obviously dictated by Matthew, in the “Liturgy of the Palms” Gospel Reading, which in verse 9 quotes Psalm 116 verse 26. I think it can be argued that whenever the new Testament quotes a verse or two from a Psalm that the entire Psalm is drawn into the interpretation, as in an oral Jewish culture most of the audience would likely have known the Psalm and thought of it even if only one verse were quoted. We experience the same when someone today quotes a line from a familiar poem, song or document.

Note the refrain of verses 1 in verses 29.

How does this Psalm influence our interpretation of Matthew 21:1-11 and vice versa? How does this Psalm influence our view of Jesus?

Isaiah 50:4-9a
It seems that verses 6-9 are why this passage was chosen for this Sunday, but what about verses 4-5? I usually think of the teacher’s role being to educate, not “sustaining the weary with a word.”
Not only has the Psalmist been given the tongue of a teacher, the Psalmist’s ear has also been wakened to “listen as those who are taught.” Are the best teachers the teachers who are also students? By corollary, are the best preachers those who are also preached to? Are the best worship leaders those who also are led in worship?

Psalm 31:9-16
A prayer for deliverance from personal enemies is an obvious choice for the liturgy of the passion. We can almost imagine hearing these words from the lips of Jesus as he was being crucified, or at any time during his passion. This Psalm reads like the thoughts and feelings of the dejected, rejected, and defeated. Nevertheless the Psalm, in the end, expresses prayerful trust.

Philippians 2:5-11
v. 8 recalls the passion while

v. 9 recalls the resurrection

v. 11 “Jesus Christ is Lord” is one of the earliest, if not the earliest Christian Confession. From this basic affirmation, how did we get to the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene, not to mention the Westminster Confession? There is something to be said for simplicity, but simplicity, rather than precision, leaves room for multiple interpretations and levels of meaning. I can live with that.

Matthew 27:11-54 (The shorter Reading)
(The longer reading is Matthew 26:14-27:66. While I usually think any reading of Scripture calls for interpretation through some form of proclamation, this may be one Sunday where Scripture, without interpretation, can stand alone. Rarely do we have the opportunity to hear read in one service the entire Passion narrative. With a little effort, this reading could be presented as a dramatic reading with members of the congregation reading various parts.)

vs. 11-14 Why would Jesus not answer these charges?

v. 15-23 It it mere coincidence that both prisoners were named Jesus?

v. 18 What do you make of this “jealousy”?

v. 19 Another example of a truth telling woman.

v. 24 This hand washing is perhaps what Pilate is most remembered for.

v. 25 How shall we deal with this verse that could be interpreted as being anti-Semitic?

vs. 27-31 Biblical material for Mel Gibson.

v. 32 we all have our own particular cross to carry, and if a Roman soldier asks you to carry a cross one mile, offer to carry it two.

v. 34 Why would Jesus not drink?

vs. 38-44 Was there anyone who did not deride, mock, or otherwise taunt Jesus?

v. 45 Is it in anyway significant that the darkness lasted three hours?

v. 46 Is Jesus by any chance quoting something? What does he quote?

v. 51 What is the symbolism of the torn curtain?

v. 52 Saints?

v. 54 Truth not from the disciples, not from a woman, not from any of the Jews, but from Roman soldiers.

Grounded Scriptures: grateful for apricots

Gratitude. A visiting scholar from UC Davis, Dr. Robert Emmons, made two presentations at my school last week about gratitude and its power upon our lives.
Gratitude is an expression of thanks to someone or something for a benefit given to us, which we did not deserve or earn. Regularly reflecting on gratitude (an activity as simple as keeping a journal, and each night writing down 5 things for which we were grateful that day) has well-documented positive effects on our lives, moods, actions, and health.

Psalm 147:7-9
Sing to the LORD with thanksgiving;
make music to our God upon the harp.
God covers the heavens with clouds,
prepares rain for the earth,
makes grass grow on the hills.
God gives food to flocks and herds,
and to the young ravens when they cry.
Gratitude is an important part of our Biblical tradition. If the creation stories of the Bible don’t tell us exactly how the earth was made, they do tell us one important thing: we didn’t make it ourselves. Neither did we do anything to deserve the earth and its richness. We are not entitled to it – we are privileged to enjoy it.

I had a moment of gratitude last weekend. My housemates and I were on retreat, and picnicked by Limantour Beach. We set up a picnic blanket in a relatively grassy spot surrounded by wild douglas irises. We had some oranges, a loaf of bread, almond butter, and two jams. One jam was from Trader Joe’s (blackberry preserves). The other was an apricot preserve. It was made by the elderly mother of an SFTS professor, who harvested the apricot tree in the backyard, sliced, cooked, and canned dozens of jars, and gave us some as a gift. Both jams were delicious. However, only one elicited feelings of gratitude. I was entitled to the blackberry, because I handed a few dollars to the clerk at TJ’s. I had no such claim on Grandma Betty’s Apricot Special.

What are you grateful for today?
What have you received as a gift?

...and I wonder what life would be like if we did less buying and selling, and more giving and receiving.

Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, April 10, 2011, the Fifth Sunday in Lent (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.) Lectionary Ruminations is also cross posted on my personal blog, Summit to Shore.

Ezekiel 37:1-14
v. 1 What does it mean for “the hand of the LORD” to come upon a person, like it “came upon” Ezekiel. Has the handoff the LORD ever come upon you or upon someone you know? I interpret this reading as a vision experienced by Ezekiel, certainly not an account of anything that happened in real time and space, but only within the psyche of Ezekiel.

v. 3 Is there any significance that Ezekiel is addressed by the LORD as “Mortal” rather than by name? Does the LORD ask a rhetorical question? I think the “mortal” passes the buck with his answer.

vs. 5-6 What linguistic and theological moves are being made by connecting breath with life?

v. 8 Oh no! No breath!

v. 9 What do you know about the four winds? Personally, I cannot read this passage without thinking of Native American spirituality.

v. 11 Oh, so these were not bones at all, but a living nation feeling dried up, proof positive that this is a vision.

v. 12 Is this verse about a physical resurrection or a spiritual resurrection.

v. 14 IMHO, this is a verse that many aging congregations and congregations of the aging, often feeling “very dry” and completely cut off, need to hear and reflect upon. Are they willing, REALLY willing, to have the LORD put the spirit within them?

Psalm 130
This, and Psalm 121, are my favorite Psalms. Along with the 23rd Psalm, Psalm121and 130 were the first three Psalms I committed to memory.

v. 1 What sort of images rise to the surface in your mind when you read or hear “out of the depths”. I cannot but help but interpret “depths” from a Jungian perspective. You might be more inclined to take a psychoanalytic reproach. How many of us are NOT think of one form of depression or another?

v. 2 When we implore the LORD to hear our voice, is it really to catch God’s attention or to focus our own?

v. 3 So, does the LORD mark iniquities, or not?

v. 4 Forgiveness, and Grace! I like the translation “revere” as I think the KJV and RSV was “feared,” suggesting a wrathful, rather than an awesome, God.

v. 5 What does it mean to “wait for the LORD”? How do you “wait” for the LORD? In a culture of fast food and instant gratification, this verse might be more poignant today than ever before. I am thinking of the contemplative tradition here, as well as centering prayer.

v. 6 Is there something more going on here than poetry? What does it mean for the morning watch when the morning arrives? What does it mean for the person waiting for the LORD, hoping in God’s word, to see and witness the arrival of what one has been waiting for?

v. 7 Note the shift from the first person biographical to the direct address admonition. What is “steadfast” love? What is “great power to redeem”?

v. 8 In other words, wait for no one or nothing else. Place your hope in no other person or no other thing.

Romans 8:6-11
v. 6 This reads like a proverb and can almost stand on its own. What does Paul mean by “flesh” and “spirit”? What does he mean “death” and “life and peace”? Must we read this as a dichotomy? Does it make any difference that Paul was writing before Descartes and we are reading after Descartes’ mind/body split?

v. 9 If we are indeed “in the Spirit” as Paul says, then why did he have to say what he said in verses 6-8?

vs. 9-11 Does Paul use “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” synonymously? How many mainline Christians, especially staid Presbyterians, find Paul’s focus on the Spirit unsettling?

John 11:1-45
Spoiler alert: If you do not know how the Easter Story ends, this might give it away. Is there any way to make this 45 verse Reading shorter while still maintaining its integrity?

v. 3 I dare you to unpack this verse! In light of verse 5,, however, maybe the dare is not worth it.

v. 4 Jesus’ response sounds much like his response in last week’s reading, chapter 9 verse 3. What is this”Son of God” language doing here? I would expect to see “Son of Man” language.

v. 6 Why the two day wait?

vs.9-10 Is there a hint of Gnosticism here?

vs.11-14 Was Jesus simply using a euphemism for death, or is there something else going on here?

v. 16 Thomas does not seem to doubt his resolve to follow Jesus to his death.

v. 17 What is the significance of four days?

v. 20 A typical Martha/Mary response?

v. 21 Way to place the blame, Martha.

v. 23 Again?

v. 24 What is the matter, Martha, is not the promise of resurrection on the last day enough to comfort you in your grief?

v. 25 One of Jesus’ ”I am” sayings. Where do we find the others and what are they?

v. 27 This reads, and sounds, like an early Christian confession of Faith.

v. 28 I did not hear Jesus calling for Mary, did you?

v. 32 Mary joins the blame game. At least the sisters agree on something.

v. 33 Why would seeing tears disturb and move Jesus in a way he had not yet been moved and disturbed?

v. 34 “Come and see” sounds like something someone would say about Jesus, not Lazarus. Maybe that is the point.

v. 35 And what do we know about this verse?

v. 37 More than a rhetorical question?

v. 38 déàja vu or foreshadowing?

v. 39 Is there any significance to the fact that it is Martha, rather than Mary, who comments about the stench?

v.44 How did Lazarus come out if his feet were bound with strips of cloth? How did heseewhere to go if his face was wrapped in a cloth? Could there be more to the command “Unbind him, and let him go” than meets the eye? Maybe Jesus was referring not just to the strips of cloth.

ADDENDUM
There are many connections among all four readings, perhaps too many. Countless sermons can be preached and lessons taught on any one of these texts, or any permutation of them, that the preacher/teacher might feel over whelmed. Add to this the fact that this is the Sunday before Palm/Passion Sunday. Thus, we seem to have a perfect storm of homiletical and educational responsibilities.

Grounded Scriptures: Wisdom and Milk

Exciting new developments in the world of biotechnology: Cows can now produce human milk. That's right. Read all about it on the UK's Telegraph.
Leaving aside issues of veganism, animal rights, and whether it's really desireable to nurse from other animals, when we were weaned off our human mother's milk decades ago... there are other questions.

Really, the bazillion dollar question is. "Just because we can, should we?"
We know how to do it. Well, sort of. More than half the first batch of genetically modified cows died, for unknown reasons, but that's probably a minor glitch in the system that can be worked out, eh?
We know that there are certain nutrients found in human milk that are lacking in cow's milk and in most baby formulas. For babies in need these are crucial. We can now turn cattle into living factories for essential nutrients. Awesome?

Genetically modifying plants and animals is a whole can of worms. My Material Theology class did a lot of work on debating their merits and dangers. My side (arguing against genetic modification) acted it out: we placed ourselves in a divine council, and God heard arguments against the dangers of GMO agriculture. In our heavenly council, there was an American farmer who had lost his land due to the monopolization process, an Indian farmer whose land was ruined by bad farming practices, and an activist talking about the agricultural-military-industrial complex. Jesus finally took center stage (in a kilt, to keep a bit of a gender balance - this is the GTU after all) and reminded people of the lessons of Job... to which I now turn.

The book of Job is in the genre of wisdom literature. It is a long debate about the merits of various theologies. How can you explain when bad things happen to good people? Job and his friends debate this for 37 long chapters. Then finally God speaks up:

YHWH answered Job out of the whirlwind:
“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man,
I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements--surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone
when the morning stars sang together
and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?

God further interrogates Job - he may know about domestic animals, being a man of many herds and flocks, but is he such an expert on the wild animals?

“Do you know when the mountain goats give birth?
Do you observe the calving of the deer?
Can you number the months that they fulfill,
and do you know the time when they give birth,
when they crouch to give birth to their offspring,
and are delivered of their young?
Their young ones become strong, they grow up in the open;
they go forth, and do not return to them.

We have plenty of the "words without knowledge." We can talk an endless talk about how we think the world works. Yes, we may understand enough to perform open-heart surgery, and fertilize ourselves in vitro, and drill for oil, but when the next earthquake is coming we really don't know. We can splice the genome apart and together again, but even the best-cared-for pregnancies often miscarry, and no doctor can explain it. We can attack HIV, but we certainly cannot conquer it.

In the face of the wonders created around us, we ought not to stifle our own creativity. But let us never forget the limits of our knowledge. Knowing that there is a God, a power higher than our best intelligence, reminds us to be humble with our creations.

The cows who survive long enough to produce the wonder-milk may have any number of health defects - we simply do not know what we have done to them when we spliced their genes. But for that matter, we choose not to know a lot about animals, as long as they do what we want them. We purposefully ignore the details of their gastrointestinal systems, feeding cattle on corn because it's cheap, and because given the right amount of antibiotics they'll survive anyhow. We know how to manipulate animals to our desires, but we truly do not know, with God's masterful knowledge, what it is that makes them healthy.
God is painted, in Job, as a caring and skillful creator. God is the one who DOES know when a wild deer crouches to give birth, and what a raven needs to eat, how to bring forth grass on the earth, and where the stars travel.

God is the one who truly knows. Let us not be satisfied with the kind of knowledge that gets results, well enough - but let us seek for the true wisdom that God can impart to us through intimate and compassionate ways of living with creation.

What does it mean to be a human being?

Most of us believe that humans are different than other animals. We know that fish are different than birds, which are different from reptiles. There are distinctions between these animal groups, which is why we can call some creatures "Swordfish" and other creatures "Robins" and not be confused about which is which.

Animals can do some amazing things that we can’t do. Breath underwater, fly, use echolocation, migrate long distances to someplace they have never been before without getting lost, jump several times their height, smell all sorts of odors we can’t. We could go on and on. At the same time, certain abilities cross over classes. Birds and bats (mammals) fly. Fish, mammals and birds swim. Insects and reptiles and mammals can jump. Certain abilities are found in multiple kinds of quite different animals.

Humans have always wanted to claim we have particular abilities which are unique to humans. What would those abilities be? What makes us uniquely different than other animal?

Tool making?

Language?

Culture?

Learning?

Morality?

Well,i the interesting news is that scientists can find examples of all these traits in animals. These abilities, just like the ability to swim or fly, cross over classes.

Some would claim that the differences between animals and humans are of degree and not kind. Other animals make and use tools but human made tools are much more complex than anything any other animal makes. Animals communicate but none have the complexity of human language and certainly none (that we know of) have a written form of language. A wolf pack might enforce ideals of right and wrong behavior but the level of sophistication of human morality is far beyond any animal moral code. For some, what makes us distinct is the complexity of our language, culture, tools, morality, etc. But is complexity enough to claim distinction?

Are there qualities that humans have that no other animals have?

I'm not sure that we ought to expect science to illuminate what makes us uniquely human. Based on all that we have learned, even just the past 20 years, it seems the trend in science may well be to blur the distinction between humans and other animals. We may not be as biologically unique as we think we are. Which suggests that we ought to look somewhere else in our search of the location of our unique status in the world.

Additionally ethologists are discovering forms of culture and morality in animals, so the answer may not lie there either.

I want to suggest that our human distinctiveness is found in our relationship with God, and specifically our vocation given from God. I would be very reluctant to hold the position that humans are the only living creatures with a relationship with God. At best, all I can say is I don’t know. It is certainly not beyond the abilities of God to be in relationship with other animals.

What I would claim is that we humans have been given a particular vocation by God and this is what makes us unique and human. Humans are given responsibility for creation. We named the other creatures( Gen 2:19-20). We are charged to till and keep (Gen 2:15). I think it is our calling which makes us unique. As those who bear the image of God, we are called to care for the earth as God cares for it. This calling appears to be ours alone. Other creatures don't have this responsibility and this power. We can nurture or we can destroy. Godlike power has been given to us.

Would we act differently if we understood our humanity to mean responsibility for the planet? Would we act differently if we believed that to be created in the image of God meant we ought to care for creation in the same way God cares for us? Would we act differently if we stopped thinking we were the best and smartest creature, the reason the world exists and began thinking we were here to serve and protect and nurture others?

I wonder. What do you think?

*******

This topic, what it means to be human and the ways humans, animals and God interact has been an interest of mine for a long time. If you are interested, I have written more about this on my blog, www.conversationinfaith.wordpress.com. Probably the best way to find the posts is to look under the categories "animals" and "human". Here is the first post on this topic.

Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, April 3, 2011, the Fourth Sunday in Lent (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.) Lectionary Ruminations is also cross posted on my personal blog, Summit to Shore.

1 Samuel 16:1-13
Out of Genesis and into 1 Samuel

v. 1 God calls the shots, and chooses the Kings.

vs. 1-2 I think these verses might read a little differently than three years ago in light of recent political events in the Middle East and North Africa.

v. 4 Why did the elders of Bethlehem tremble?

vs. 1-5 I think there is some fascinating political intrigue being alluded to in these verses. This sounds like nothing less than the makings of a coup d'état

vs. 6-7 Good advice both for political parties as well as Pastor Nominating Committees, or any nominating committee.

v. 10 Do you see any symbolism in there being seven rejected sons?

v. 12 How does this verse read when juxtaposed with verse 7?

v.13 What do you make of the spirit of the LORD coming mightily upon David AFTER Samuel anoints him?

Psalm 23
What can we say about the most popular passage in the Bible that we have not already said?

v. 1 Does it serve any theological and homiletically purpose to point out that “The LORD” is not a reference to Jesus but to the LORD God? How many Christians hear this Psalm as a Psalm about Jesus rather than a Psalm about God? The shepherd imagery draws upon verse 11 of the First Reading.

v. 4 Do you prefer the “darkest valley” of the NRSV or the “valley of the shadow of death” of the KJV and RSV?

v. 5 What does it mean to have one’s head anointed with oil and one’s cup overflowing. Can we really speak of overflowing cups when in the Eucharist we barely fill little plastic cups containing less than a shot glass? Can we speak of being anointed with oil when most congregations rarely, if ever, practice it? I argue for anointing with oil at the time of Baptism as well as the laying on of hands associated with prayers for healing and wholeness. If we practiced more anointing with oil, this popular Psalm might actually mean even more to some people.

v. 6 What does it mean to dwell in the house of the LORD all one’s life? Is “house of the LORD” a reference and/or allusion to the Temple, or something else?

Ephesians 5:8-14
v. 8 Can we put this verse in conversation with Psalm 23:4? What does it mean toliveas childreb of oflight?

v. 9 I love this verse. It sounds like something Gandalf might say to Bilbo, or Frodo might say to Sam.

v. 10 And how does one find this out? Does Paul have a scavenger hunt in mind?

v. 11 Can one expose works of darkness without shining light on them? I am thinking of Christian muckrakers, whistleblowers, and gadflies.

v. 12 What secret things do you think Paul has in mind? Id this a reference/allusion to mystery religions, or something else. Let us not forget the rumors that were spread about cannibalistic Christian rites when non-Christians were dismissed from the Eucharist.

v. 14 What is the author of Ephesians quoting here?

John 9:1-41
vs. 1-41 This is one really loonnngggg Reading? Are you going to shorten it? I think I will use only verses 1-12.

v. 2 What is wrong with this question?

v. 3 What is wrong with this answer?

v. 4 We?

v. 5 What is Jesus when he is not in the world?

vs. 6-7 Why was the man not healed until after he went and washed?

v. 11 Is there any significance to the construction “the man called Jesus”?

v. 14 Oh no! Not the Sabbath? Surely there must be a law against making mud on the Sabbath.

v. 16 Imagine that, religious authorities having a divided opinion! Let’s put it to a vote.

v. 17 A radical proposal - let the one whose life was changed have the final word.

v. 21 Plausible deniability or passing of the buck?

v. 22 Let us not forget that most scholars agree that John is the latest of the four canonical Gospels, perhaps here reflecting the historical split between Judaism and Christianity. What did it mean, what would it have meant, for a Jew to “be put out of the synagogue”?

v. 24 And what do we know?

v. 27 Sarcasm or acerbic wit? I think the Pharisees doth protest too much.

v. 28 Is this the only reference in Scripture to “disciples of Moses”?

v. 29 But we know where he has come from, don’t we?

vs. 30-33 An astonishing application of logic and astonishing testimony from who is turning out to be an astonishing man.

v. 33 Perhaps the key verse?

v. 34 The typical authoritative response to questioning and challenging authority.

v. 35 After 34 verses of narrative, “Son of Man” terminology is raised. Why the change? Here is the progression as I see it:
     v.    1 Rabbi
     v. 17 Prophet
     v. 22 The Messiah
     v. 33 Man from God
     v. 35 Son of Man

v. 38 And another step in the progression . . . . Lord.

v. 40 And the answer to this question is?

ADDENDUM
In the John Reading, there seems to be some relationship between blindness, sight, and sin. The man born physically blind receives his physical sight, while the Pharisees born physically seeing are spiritually blind and refuse to have their third eye opened. The man was not a sinner while the Pharisees are portrayed as sinners. I think this is the nature of John’s Gospel, often confusing us with the interplay of the physical and the spiritual as it compares and contrasts the two realms. This is pre-modern stuff. There is no mind/body split in the John. Both the spiritual and the physical seem to exist in the same world but operate on different planes of awareness.

Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, March 27, 2011, the Third Sunday in Lent (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.) Lectionary Ruminations is also cross posted on my personal blog, Summit to Shore.

Exodus 17:1-7
v. 1 Let us not make no more of the name of the location than necessary. This is a geographical location, not a theological condition (even though it seems otherwise). Why would anyone camp at a place where there was no water to drink? Perhaps we can put this verse in conversation with the Gospel Reading.

v. 2 I empathize with Moses. What does it mean to “test the LORD”?

v. 5 Not all church leaders are blessed with such a staff. I am envious of Moses.

v. 6 Will Moses see God standing on the rock? What is so special about Horeb? Is it significant that Moses did this “in sight of the elders” rather than alone, with no one watching?

v. 7 I have yet to find a congregation named “The Massah and Meribah (put your denominational moniker here) Church” yet there are probably many which can rightly claim the name.

Psalm 95
v. 1 Is it too obvious to see connection between “the rock of our salvation” and the “rock at Horeb” in the first reading?

vs. 1-2 This sounds like a call to worship.

vs. 3-4 Depths, heights, sea and land: what else is there?

vs. 6-7 Still another call to worship. Why do most main line protestants hardly ever bow down and kneel? Are our knees too old and arthritic?

v. 8 This obviously points back to the First reading, which argues for an intentional linguistic and theological connection using the word “rock: in verse 1. Also, note that verses 1-7 were in the third person. With verse 8 the Psalm shifts to the first person and God becomes the speaker.

v. 11 Based on this verse, why might so many churches be struggling these days with declining membership and financial resources?

Romans 5:1-11
v. 1 I hate it when Readings from the Pauline corpus begin with “Therefore”. It means are missing the initial points of the argument. On the other hand, justification by faith is a keystone of protestant theology.

vs.2-3 Where is all this talk about “boasting” coming from? See also verse 11.

vs. 3-5 sufferings . . . endurance . . . character . . . hope . This argument reminds me of the concept of disciplined training in the sense of “no pain, no gain.”

v. 6 Who are the ungodly and what does it mean that Christ died for them (or us)?

v. 7 I confess that I have never been able to wrap my head around this one. It seems that it should be the other way around.

v.8 Following Paul’s argument, how did Christ’s death prove God’s love for us.Doe this statement assume we are the “ungodly” of verse 6?

v. 9 It seems that we are already justified but not yet saved from the wrath of God.

v. 10 Similarly, it seems that we are already reconciled but not yet saved.

John 4:5-42
vs. 5-6 Is there anything significant about the setting? What once happened at Jacob’s well?

v. 6 Note that in last week’s Gospel reading, and just prior to this in the Gospel, Nic came to Jesus by night. Now it is noon, when the sun is at its highest point in the sky and when it barely casts any shadows. Think about the temporal setting of this reading juxtaposed with the temporal setting of last week’s Gospel Reading. What is John trying to communicate by this juxtaposition?

v. 7 Can we consider this John’s version of the Parable of the Good Samaritan?

v. 13-14 I think this is the heart of the reading, a reading as deep and multivalent as Jacob’s well. Like last week’s Gospel Reading, I cannot help but interpret this reading, especially this verse, from a Jungian perspective.

vs. 16-26 What do these verses add to the story? Could we not stop reading at then of verse 15 and still get the point?

v. 23 What does Jesus mean when he says “the hour is coming”? What does it mean to worship “in spirit and truth”?

v. 26 Does this verse require us to read this passage in the context of and in conversation with all the other “I am” sayings in John, not to mention Exodus 3:14?

v. 29 Can we categorize the woman’s speech as a witness? Evangelism? Preaching? And the answer to this rhetorical question is?

vs. 31-34 First, Jesus was thirsty. Now his disciples are worried about him being hungry. Why all this emphasis on Jesus’ thirst and hunger when, I assume the point of the passage, is our spiritual thirst and hunger?

vs. 35-38 These verses sound a bit apocalyptic. What does it mean to enter into another person’s labor?

v. 39 So the woman was a witness and evangelist!

v. 40 Why do you suppose Jesus stayed, depending on your perspective, as long as two days, or as little as two days?

v. 42 Is this not what all teachers and preachers long to hear?

ADDENDUM
The John Reading is longer than most Gospel readings and I am considering shortening it by ending it at with verse 15. What do you think about this?

Grounded Scriptures: Responding to Catastrophe

The prophetic book of Joel is all about disasters.
It is kicked off dramatically by a huge locust invasion:
(1:4) What the cutting locust left,
the swarming locust has eaten.
What the swarming locust left,
the hopping locust has eaten,
and what the hopping locust left,
the destroying locust has eaten.

The first response is mourning for the loss of agricultural produce.
(1:5) Wake up, you drunkards, and weep;
and wail, all you wine-drinkers,
over the sweet wine,
for it is cut off from your mouth.
And even mourning on the part of the land:
(1:10) The fields are devastated,
the ground mourns;
for the grain is destroyed,
the wine dries up,
the oil fails.
Just as the plants themselves wither, so does the joy of the people, shrunk to a bare ghost of itself. They cry, they wail, they mourn loudly as if to get God’s attention. Then they appeal to God’s kindness. The people do this first, calling for a solemn assembly (1:14), and then so do the animals:
(1:20) Even the wild animals cry to you
because the watercourses are dried up,
and fire has devoured
the pastures of the wilderness.
The locusts appear to attack again (or maybe Joel’s just being poetically repetitive) and then finally Joel reports God’s response to the frantic pleas for help, with words of consolation.
(2:21-23) Do not fear, O soil;
be glad and rejoice,
for YWHW has done great things!
Do not fear, you animals of the field,
for the pastures of the wilderness are green;
the tree bears its fruit,
the fig tree and vine give their full yield.
O children of Zion, be glad
and rejoice in YHWH your God;
for God has given the early rain for your vindication,
and poured down for you abundant rain,
the early and the later rain, as before.

God’s blessing and consolation is seen in the return of things to their “natural order,” the seasonal rains as expected. God’s word is in the disruption, and God’s word is in the reconciliation.
The reconciliation part is easy to “get.” God loves us and wants to heal our world.
But it’s hard to get your mind around the idea that God may have deliberately SENT the army of locusts…(Joel doesn’t say why)… especially in a world recently rocked by natural disasters, where people say earthquakes are God’s punishment on our sins. I believe it is offensive and wrong to claim God punishes us like this, but nonetheless the idea is represented in scripture: Joel calls the locusts “God’s army.”

I think it is important to listen for God’s word in the world around us. We all know how to learn from experience, and that may be the best way to listen for God’s word. I mourn the tragic events in Japan without calling them divine punishment, but I still hope that perhaps we can hear God’s wake-up call that asks us to question the safety of nuclear power.
One lesson I think we can always learn from the major disasters of the earth is humility – knowing that the world doesn’t revolve around humanity. I kayak in Tomales Bay, which lies right on top of the San Andreas fault. If that fault were to open, the bay water (creatures & kayaks and all) would go cascading down right into it. This is a risk I take on my kayaking days. Although it is scary to think about, I know that my life is, cosmically speaking, smaller than the importance of the continental plates maintaining balance against one another. The continental plates are important, too. The ocean is important, and Good, even when it hurls vast quantities of water up our shorelines. Even Joel’s villain, the locust, is God’s own creature, and treasured in God’s sight. We live in fragile co-existence with many natural powers greater than ourselves – from locusts to tectonic plates. May we learn to live within our limits, to keep ourselves (and others) from perching on those risky edges, and to honor the goodness in all created things.

Welcome Mat

Good morning!  I apologize for not being around much over the past few weeks. RingSurf has been temperamental, and I've been distracted with a little spring nesting.  But I'm here today with good news: we have a new member of our webring! 

I'm thrilled to welcome Abbie Watters, who blogs about her journey out of Dallas and into RETIREMENT! at "No Longer Not Your Grandfather's CPA."

In her own words:

"I am an elderly Presbyterian Elder looking at life, the Church, grandchildren, and the weather. I started this blog when my husband and I were trying to sell our house in Dallas and move to Tacoma. It was originally just an outlet to moan and groan about the state of the housing market and our lack of success in selling. Since then it has evolved into my thoughts on everything that is going on around me, and since most of what I'm interested in is going on at the church, I have opinions about that. I report on Presbytery meetings I attend, and comment on whatever tempest in a teapot is currently brewing in the church. I also talk about my grandchildren and remember family times from the past with pictures dug out of shoeboxes. Last December I did a month-long series on "Reclaiming Joy", and currently, during Lent, I'm doing a series on "Words Matter" taking my cues from the Lenten study published by the National Council of Churches. I have also recently taken up the spiritual discipline of "Praying in Color" and occasionally post my doodles. Finally, I've embarked on a long overdue diet and I'm using the blog as accountability."

Welcome, fellow Presbyterian Blogger!

Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, March 20, 2011, the Second Sunday in Lent (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.) Lectionary Ruminations is also cross-posted on my personal blog, Summit to Shore.

Genesis 12:1-4a
This is one of the shortest First Readings we have seen in awhile.

v. 1 How do you think the LORD said this, in a dream, a vision, or what? Note the spelling of the name “Abram”. The archetypal call narrative.

v. 2 In retrospect, it seems the LORD has delivered on this promise.

v. 3 This verse, alone, ought to be enough to combat anti-Semitism.

v.4 Why did Abram take Lot with him?

Psalm 121
v. 1 I recall there are various interpretations of this Psalm, one being the “nature’ interpretation that sees in the hills evidence of the LORD’s presence, the other that suggests this verse is setting up a comparison between the local mountain deities, which do not provide help, and the LORD, which does. One such diverse interpretations present themselves, how do we decide?

v. 2 Regardless of which interpretation you follow, this assertion still follows.

v. 3 What does it mean that our foot will not be moved? So what that God never slumbers?

v. 4 Is there any difference between “slumber” and “sleep”, or this simply an example of Hebrew poetic construction?

v. 5 What does it mean for the LORD to be a “keeper”? “Shade”? “Right hand”?

v. 6 I love this verse, but while I can recall some hot summer days when it seemed like the sun was striking me, I cannot recall the moon ever striking me

v. 7 Now here is a verse I can treasure!

v. 8 What is the “going out” and the “coming in” being referred to and does it make any difference that they appear in this order?

Romans 4:1-5, 13-17
v. 1 Obvious connection to the First Reading. It would seem that Christians of non-Jewish background cannot claim Abraham as our ancestor, as Paul did.

v. 2 If, but he was not.

v. 3 What is Paul quoting? Where does Scripture say this?

v. 4 Except in the church!

v. 5 I like that trust is connected with faith, a theme emphasized in the PC(USA) A Brief Statement of Faith.

v. 15 How does the law bring wrath?

v. 16 What is “it”? Faith is connected with grace, and with grace there is a guaranty.

v. 17 Following Paul’s theological reasoning, perhaps we should be considered “Abrahamians” rather than “Christians”.

John 3:1-17
This passage is so nuanced and so multivalent, I am not sure where to begin. I prefer a Jungian interpretation, but does that preach?

v.2 What is the significance that Nic comes at night? I see a literary and theological connection with the woman at the well, at noon, and wonder if we can only interpret both passages in dialogue with each other. I suspect this is not the Royal “we”, so who else is Nic speaking for?

v. 3 Seeing from above, a bird’s eye, or angel’s eye view.

v. 4 Nic is confusing obstetrics and gynecology with theology.

v. 5 Jesus connects water and spirit.

v. 6 Jesus separates flesh from spirit.

v. 8 What is Jesus comparing everyone born of the spirit to: the wind, our hearing of the wind, or our not know where it comes from and where it goes?

v. 9 Thanks, Nic, for asking the question we have all been wanting to ask.

v. 10 Touché

v. 11 Who is the “we”. What do “we” know and what have we “seen”? What is the nature of religious and spiritual knowledge, when we are post enlightenment interpreters of pre-enlightenment scripture?

v. 13 Does this verse reflect a post ascension perspective?

vs. 14-15 Here is a passage worth exploring from a Jungian perspective. Consider the rod of Asclepius. Be sure to read the Hebrew scripture alluded to.

v. 16 no comment

v. 17 I wish some hell, fire, and damnation preachers would remember this verse.

ADDENDUM

I made a prior commitment somehow to tie this Sunday’s sermon in with Celtic Christianity. I think I will focus on the Psalm and the story of Patrick building the Easter Fire on Slane, across the valley from and in defiance of the High King of Ireland building his fire on Tara.

Grounded Scriptures: our ancestor the land

This is a small point but an important one.
Leviticus, again – sorry to you who are Leviticus-haters – here we have a concluding chapter, where the blessings and are laid out – the blessings as reward for good behavior, curses as recompense for unfaithfulness. Blessings are abundance, fruit, grain, and peace. Curses are enemy armies, pestilence and wild animals, and the wasting and withering of your crops and fruit trees. But even after many curses, the land is given a “sabbatical” to rest, and if the people repent, God’s favor will return:
Lev 26:40-42 But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors, in that they committed treachery against me and, moreover, that they continued hostile to me—so that I, in turn, continued hostile to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; I will remember also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

These fine fellows usually appear in age order: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Num 32:11, Dt 1:8 and throughout Deuteronomy, Kings, Chronicles, Psalm 105:9, I could go on and on). Some people look at this verse in Leviticus and say, ha, isn’t that funny, they reversed the order! Here it’s Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham.
Don’t laugh it off. There must actually be a reason for this. In the context of such a land-loving book, it is not enough to command gentle and holy treatment of the land. One must be reminded that God has a long-lasting and important relationship with the land. Here, in reverse order, they begin with the most recent covenant (jacob), move back to his father’s covenant (isaac), and HIS father’s covenant (abraham) – but the relationship older and more important than any of the above is God’s relationship to the land. There is no covenant between the land and God, but the land itself is a kind of covenant, a living, adapting, changing token of the relationship between God and humanity. For a people defined by their ancestors, to put God in the place in a lineage where Abraham’s father should be is a high honor indeed. It’s as if the land itself were their original ancestor, and God’s original partner in the relationship to humanity.

Lectionary Ruminations for Sunday, March 13, 2011, the First Sunday in Lent (Year A)

Posted each Thursday, Lectionary Ruminations focuses on the Scripture Readings, taken from the New Revised Standard Version, for the following Sunday per the Revised Common Lectionary. Comments and questions are intended to encourage reflection for readers preparing to teach, preach, or hear the Word. Reader comments are invited and encouraged. All lectionary links are to the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible via the PC(USA) Devotions and Readings website, but if you prefer another translation, feel free to use that instead. (Other references are linked to the NRSV via the oremus Bible Browser.) Lectionary Ruminations is also cross posted on my personal blog, Summit to Shore.

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-7
2:15 This verse places us within the second account of creation. If you do not know what I mean by that, post a question.

2:15-17 What is so special about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Was it poisonous? Please note that there is no mention of what sort of fruit tree this was. It was not necessarily an apple tree.

3:1 Note that the antagonist is a “serpent” but not necessarily a snake. Is the serpant playing word games, or what?

3:2-3 The woman seems to offer an honest defense, although she seems to recount God saying more than we were originally told. Did God actually say all this, or has the woman embellished the original admonition?

3:4 Depending on what “death” means (Bill Clinton?), it seems that the serpent can be judged truthful. On the one hand, the man and the women will eventually die a biological death, but not immediately. On the other hand, I think it can be argued that the man and woman are about to die a spiritual death.

3: 5 So, knowing good and evil makes one like God? Is this why the woman eats of the tree, to be like God? Or simply to know good and evil?

3:6 It seems wisdom is associated with knowing good and evil. The amateur philosopher in me is beginning to squirm. How can we relate this story to Plato’s analogy of the cave?

3:7 The metaphor of “open eyes” representing knowledge seems more Indo-European than Semitic, yet this second account of creation almost certainly comes to us from the Semitic oral tradition. For those who appreciate a little risqué Biblical humor, here is a joke I learned from one of my college Religion Professors. Q: If Eve wore a fig leaf, what did Adam wear? A: (go to the Addendum of Lectionary Ruminations for the Answer)

Here is a more serious question. How much of our interpretation of this text is influenced by Augustine’s doctrine of original sin having been imposed upon this text and us for centuries. For a different perspective, look to Matthew Fox’s Original Blessing.

Psalm 32
v. 1 An appropriate Psalm if one reads the Genesis account within the framework of original sin. In light of this verse, I wonder: did the man and woman of the Genesis Reading sew fig leaves together and make loincloths primarily to cover their genitals or to cover their sin?

v. 2 I read no deceit in either the man or the woman of the Genesis Reading. Did you?

v. 3 How can someone “keep silence” while at the same time “groaning”?

v. 4 What does God’s heavy hand feel like? What do you and your congregation do with the “selah”? Do you ignore it, read it, or interpret it musically?

v. 5 Confession is good for the soul as well as the psyche. Does God forgive the guilt of our sin without forgiving the sin?

v. 6 How does the “therefore” leading to an admonition follow from an individual’s experience?

v. 7 What does it mean that God is a “hiding” place? Would Marx accuse believers of turning to opium as a way of dealing with trouble rather than trying to change the trouble?

v. 8 Who will do the instructing here?

v. 9 How do we read this and the previous verse in light of the Genesis reading? I have known a few horses and mules. Sometimes I myself can be an ass.

v. 10 From you experience, does it ring true that the wicked are tormented?

v. 11 I hear a Call to Worship in this verse.

Romans 5:12-19
v. 12 It does not seem right to begin a Reading with “Therefore”. We are not given the premise of the argument. What was it that Paul was saying? Is Paul speaking literally or in a mythical sense? If death spread to all because of sin, then did sin spread like a virus? Viral infection offers a different image than sin being passed on through procreation.

v. 13 So if we had no law, we would not be aware of our sin?

v. 14 What does it mean that death “exercised dominion”? Portraying Adam as “a type of the one who was to come” is a significant theological move. Why does Paul play?

v. 15 How is the free gift not like the trespass? What is the “free gift”?

v. 17 It sounds as if now, people exercise dominion if life, whereas before, death exercised dominion.

v. 19 Note the verb tenses.

What does it mean to think of and talk about Jesus as “the second Adam”?

Matthew 4:1-11
v. 1 I cannot help but read this account, and its parallels, without thinking of Martin Scorsese’s 1988 film adaptation of Nikos Kazantzakis’ controversial 1960 novel “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Why would the Spirit lead Jesus into the wilderness? What does the wilderness represent?

v. 2 What does the forty days and forty nights remind you of?

v. 3 what do you make of the fact that “the devil” and “the tempter” are apparently used interchangeably? Might the tempter be attempting to sow seeds of doubt?

v. 5 Was this a literal “taking”? What warning is there in the fact that the devil could correctly quote Holy Scripture?

v. 7 Is there more going on here than proof-texting?

v. 8 A week after the Transfiguration of the Lord, I might be hearing this verse a little differently then I would on any other Sunday.

v. 10 First it was the devil, then it was the tempter, now it is Satan. Should we read “Satan” as a name or a title?

v. 11 Here comes the Calvary, even if a little late. What does it mean that the angels came and waited on Jesus.

How do you understand this passage: as a description of real events in time and space or the description of a spiritual wrestling within Jesus, more of a visionary encounter or recounting?

ADDENDUM: The answer is: A hole in it.

Grounded Scriptures: Hosea and Gomer - Don't Try This at Home.

At SFTS we are “giving up silence for Lent” – at least in the particular context of silence about violence. This is important. I remember once having a conversation with a very conservative Christian, and domestic violence was mentioned, and he felt the need to clarify that we were talking about “problematic” or “unhelpful” violence. I assumed this was as opposed to the kind that “builds up” or “teaches” or “strengthens” the woman.
I kick myself when I remember this conversation. How did I not explode with the loud truth that all violence is harmful, and that there is never a good place for violence between adults in a loving relationship?
So today I say it, and I write it. There is simply no legitimation for violence against a spouse or loved one.
And I have to pick up some pieces of the Bible and deconstruct them. Because there you will find what is apparently a legitimation for domestic violence – at least in metaphorical terms.


The prophet Hosea and his “wife” Gomer.
Hosea 1:2-8.
When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD.” So he went and took Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

The two of them go on to have children and to name them all kinds of prophetic names (“not pitied,” and “not my people” among them). In case this doesn’t tip you off that it’s a STORY and not a reality, I have good word from real Biblical scholars that “Gomer” is in no ways a woman’s name. It’s a man’s name, and “she” stands here for the nation of Israel (in the same way that her children do).

2:2-3
Plead with your mother, plead--
for she is not my wife,
and I am not her husband--
that she put away her whoring from her face,
and her adultery from between her breasts,
or I will strip her naked
and expose her as in the day she was born,
and make her like a wilderness,
and turn her into a parched land,
and kill her with thirst.
2:5b-6.
For she said, “I will go after my lovers;
they give me my bread and my water,
my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.”
Therefore I will hedge up her way with thorns;
and I will build a wall against her,
so that she cannot find her paths.

The plot thickens. “She” is unfaithful. She loves the “lovers” (or foreign trading partners) who provide her with food. God proposes some wilderness solutions, to the point of starving her in the desert. These are interesting. They have real connotations of real economic situations – are the people of Israel remembering the God who fed them manna in the wilderness, or are they relying on the deceptive abundance of other kings?

No matter how we take the metaphor, it all looks like a nice case for the therapeutic values of violence. The [prophet’s wife / God’s people] is unfaithful to [the prophet/God], and so [the prophet / God] remedies the solution by making her suffer until she repents. Someone could try to preach it straight up: we are bad, so God will make us suffer until we repent. I’ll take that back. People DO preach that. Preachers legitimate suffering and violence all over the place. They call this a story of unconditional love, and say that the line “kill her with thirst” is spoken in love. They say that the sinful person must be loved back into obedience, through violent “tough love” and plenty of suffering.
You cannot preach this story without legitimating violence. So we must preach against it. We must tell people that this is horrific. That’s one of the problem with the detached, ungrounded way we read Scripture. We don’t even realize when it’s terrible, and we accidentally swallow a legitimation of violence. We read it all in “stained glass language” and couldn’t possibly hear it as sarcastic, or biting, or ironic. We’re blind to the harsher aspects of the text – and so we unwittingly accept the unacceptable.
Prophets speak from a place of desperation and urgency. The stakes are so high that they try to scare people into doing what is right. Sometimes this works. But even if it does, when it has costs as high as this we must not read such prophecy as sacred. It is indeed the story of God’s people struggling together with God and God’s prophets – but God is not the abuser, and violence is never okay.

Creation: It's all about us! Or not?

What is the proper motive for caring about the environment?

We have a responsibility to the earth. The Bible seems pretty clear about that. But is it

to care for or

to have dominion over or

to tend or

to subdue the earth?

As the list above suggests, we seem to have at least two different reasons that motivate us to care for the earth.

Some of us read Genesis and other Biblical texts and come to the conclusion that the creation has value and needs to be cared for by us because of what creation can do for us. Everything in the world has been given by God to us for our use. In this view the earth and everything in it exists for us. Things in the natural world have value because we can use them for our own good. Usefulness to humans is what gives things in nature their value. Certainly we need to use nature wisely, but that wise use is defined by our needs.

Others would read Genesis and others Biblical texts and say, while we certainly do use minerals, plants and animals to our benefit, these things have value and worth apart from their utility to us. In this view the natural world is loved and valued by God because God loves and values what God has created. Creation's worth and value come from God and are not located in usefulness to humans. Our use of natural resources must take into account the intrinsic value of creation.

On one level this is an interesting philosophical and theological question. But it also has real world implications. How many times have you heard someone say, "Why did God create mosquitoes? What good are they?" Since mosquitoes serve no readily apparent use for humans and in fact cause us discomfort and disease, why do they exist? What possible purpose could mosquitoes have? This is a trivial example but we seem to expect even the insect world to be "on our side".

There are of course, more serious examples. Should designated wilderness areas be off limits to any human use? Should there be designated wilderness areas at all? Can we require people to move out of wilderness areas? Should farmers be allowed to graze cattle on public wilderness lands? Should we open ANWAR to oil drilling? Is it important to have an endangered species list and to spend resources to preserve those animals? You can add you own questions to this list.

It seems to me, that before we tackle these quite difficult questions we need as a society, to spend some time thinking about the more basic question. So I'm asking, what is the proper motive for caring for the creation?