Question me an answer
Commentary
Object:
There is an old show tune, made popular by Bobby Van, whose chorus goes like this:
Question me an answer bright and clear.
I will answer with a question clear and bright.
Even though your answer may be wrong,
My question will be right.
The "Question Me an Answer" approach has been made more popular by the game show, Jeopardy. Answers are revealed on a money board and the contestants try to be the quickest to respond with the correct question. As with Bobby Van's song, oftentimes the contestant's question does not match the predetermined answer.
That can also happen when one tries to interpret a biblical text. This is especially true when the interpreter arrives at the text's answer before he/she asks the appropriate questions of the text or when the questions are shaped to support a predetermined conclusion.
Today's texts offer the interpreter an opportunity to question some answers even as she/he answers some questions posed by the scripture passages. Remember, let the questions guide the conclusions for even though your answer may be wrong, your question will be right.
Genesis 12:1-4a
Don't you just love a good mystery? There is something about the tension between knowing some things, but not knowing everything; between the art of misdirection and the clues being hidden in plain sight that make mysteries such fun to read. In today's Genesis lesson we are presented with the opening chapter of a marvelous mystery.
The major characters of this mystery are Abram (Abraham), Sarai (Sarah), and God. There is a whole host of supporting characters, each of whom add to the story a complication to the mystery's unraveling. The plot is fairly simple -- God calls from a family of Mesopotamian wanderers one individual, Abram. To Abram God makes three promises: a promise of land, a promise of offspring, and a promise of blessing. The land represents more than real estate -- it is the hope of rootedness and belonging. The offspring represent more than a headcount for the family reunion -- they are the guarantee that one's name, indeed one's self, will live on beyond mortality. The blessing represents more than a divine rabbit's foot -- it is the promise that one's life will have significance.
The mystery is this: Will the promises of God find fulfillment? One after the other, in circumstance after circumstance, the survivability of the promises are threatened. Will God remain true to his word? Will Abram give up before he gives out? Will the mystery be solved in a way that provides hope for the reader?
As every mystery reader knows, the best way to enjoy the story is to live with it as it unfolds and to not read the last page prematurely. To receive the blessing offered by this Genesis mystery, the reader may need to suspend her/his knowledge of the story's conclusion and live with it in all its twists and turns. The promise of blessing, of immortality and of significance still await a faith-filled discovery.
Romans 4:1-5, 13-17
Amidst the crude and suggestive comments and drawings on the public restroom wall was some soul's attempt to introduce the profound into the profane. "Christ is the answer" was the scrawled message. Someone other, who was a wit by a half, could not refrain from adding, "Really, so what's the question?"
In spite of this attempt at irreverence, the point raised is an important one. It is difficult, especially for the interpreter, to satisfactorily arrive at an answer without knowing the question being asked. Equally important is asking the right question, because if one asks the wrong question of the text then the answer will not coincide with the author's intent. Adding to the difficulty are the layers of tradition and (mis-?) interpretation through which the interpreter must sift in order to ask the most appropriate question.
Paul's letter to the Roman Christians is a prime example of the importance of asking the appropriate question. Interpretations abound over what exactly it is Paul is trying to say. Traditionally, questions are asked of the letter to the Romans, which result in an answer that pits Jewish belief and practice against Christian belief and practice. When asked, "What does Paul mean by the term 'law'?" the answer comes back equating law with legalism and both with Jewish practice, and therefore receiving Paul's condemnation.
What I am suggesting that the interpreter do with today's text is to spend time trying to decipher the question being asked before rushing forward with an answer that may not be the most appropriate for the text. Is the question being addressed one that challenges the law's validity? Not according to Romans 3:31. Is the question one that excludes the Jew from the promises of God? Not according to Romans 4:16. Is the question such that faith is the only thing that matters and that how one expresses that faith (works) is of little consequence? Such an answer would be in conflict with other portions of scripture.
So, what is the question? Let me offer a suggestion (you are of course free to disagree). The question is: Upon what basis is a relationship with God established? The two options Paul considers are faith and works. By "faith" Paul means the unmerited acceptance that God offers an individual based solely on the desire and character of God. By "works" Paul means any individual effort that seeks to establish a quid pro quo arrangement with God.
Paul's example that best illustrates his understanding of faith is the Abraham-God encounter. Abraham was counted as righteous based solely on God's grace -- nothing more, nothing less. Paul's example that illustrates his understanding of works is anyone who relies on obedience to a set of doctrines as the means toward acceptance by God.
Is Paul charging the Jewish faith with a righteousness based on works? I don't think so. Paul is not arguing specific cases of Jew vs. Christian, but Paul is saying that right standing before God for Jew or Gentile is the result of God's grace and that either Jew or Gentile is misguided if they believe that God's favor can in any sense be earned.
God's grace is the answer, but the question really does matter.
John 3:1-17
The story of the encounter between Nicodemus and Jesus is a familiar one. The storyline (with variations) goes like this: Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council known as the Sanhedrin, came to Jesus under the cover of darkness so as not to be discovered by his co-religionists. He attempts to engage Jesus in conversation, using flattery as an icebreaker. Jesus, who sees through Nicodemus' intentions, cuts through the small talk and raises the central issue of Nicodemus' need for a rebirth. Nicodemus is either innately obtuse or else is pretending not to understand to avoid facing the obvious implications of Jesus' words. So Jesus makes another attempt to explain to Nicodemus what is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God. Once again Nicodemus seems not to understand and thus betrays not only his own lack of knowledge, but also the intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy of other teachers of Israel (like himself). Finally, Jesus confirms that Nicodemus (and with him the Jewish religion) is spiritually dense. The passage concludes with an affirmation of God's love and a proclamation of God's willingness to receive whomsoever comes to the divine in the appropriate way.
If this summary appears a bit harsh, I would argue that it is no less harsh than John's intention. Usually the interpreter approaches this text as an honest dialogue between Jesus and a seeker. If so, it seems like a strange way to carry on a conversation. Rather than engaging in communication, Jesus and Nicodemus appear to be talking past each other. And by taking this encounter as an honest dialogue, the interpreter is left to explain the oddities of the text in a somewhat similar way to what I have done above.
I suggest that the interpreter look at this familiar text in an unfamiliar way. Begin with the assumption that John is not presenting an honest dialogue, but a dishonest dialogue. Nicodemus, then, is not a genuine seeker, but rather a foil against whom John is making his theological points. (Another way of looking at this is that if a true seeker is a type, then Nicodemus is an anti-type.) If this is seen, then, as a dishonest dialogue in the way I have suggested, it seems that the interpreter could gain fresh insights by focusing on the dialogue of Nicodemus.
If John were using Nicodemus to represent the negative side of faith, what would be the positive side of faith? Let me offer a few suggestions, which, I hope, will aid your own thinking. Nicodemus begins with a statement (v. 2) affirming God's activity in Jesus' actions. This affirmation is based on the observable "signs" witnessed by Nicodemus and others. Jesus' rebuff might be John's way of saying that reliance on the supernatural is an insufficient basis for faith. The next speech of Nicodemus is in the form of a question (v. 4) challenging the possibility of a pre-natal experience. John's point here might be that faith's reality will not always fit neatly within the bounds of the theological or the rational. Nicodemus' final words, again in the form of a question (v. 9), are an expression of bafflement. Perhaps the truth here is that faith that can be explained ceases to be faith.
To consider that John is using dishonest dialogue is not to diminish the story, but simply to ask different questions of a familiar text.
Application
Moses had been leading the Israelite wanderers for almost forty years and hardly a week had gone by without some element of the people complaining about something. Usually the complaining had to do with either not enough food or an insufficient water supply. When the people complained to Moses, Moses turned to God and God would instruct Moses about what needed to be done. The complaint about a lack of water produced what became a routine response. The people said to Moses, "No water." Moses said to God, "No water." God said to Moses, "Strike the rock with the rod in your hand." Moses struck the rock, water came forth, and everybody was happy.
One day, God changed things up just to see if anyone was paying attention. The people said to Moses, "No water." Moses said to God, "No water." God said to Moses, "Speak to the rock." Moses having been through the drill so many times and knowing the answer before he asked the question, did not listen carefully to God's command and struck the rock. According to the text, Moses' presumption was a pivotal factor in his being forbidden to enter the Promised Land.
Presumption is a cancerous attitude. It was for Moses. It is for the police officers who presume the likelihood of one's guilt or innocence based on racial characteristics. It is for the nationalist who presumes the character of the immigrant or foreigner. It is for husbands and wives who presume the disaffection of the other and begin their own withdrawal based on that presumption. It is for the reader of scripture who approaches a text presuming to know its meaning without engaging in a careful reading of the text.
Presumption is a close cousin to clairvoyance and is about as reliable. Presumption forestalls communication. Presumption renders listening unnecessary. Presumption gives answers before the question is asked.
Because we know the end of Abraham's story from the beginning, we feel no need to live within its mystery. We feel no need to share in its drama. We feel no need to reflect carefully on the text. Our presumptions about the text keep us from realizing that the issues at stake in the text are really issues that speak to the heart of our existence.
Because we presume to know that Paul's theology was one of Jewish rejection and Christian supersessionism, we have no reason to question the text concerning Paul's relationship to his religious heritage. We shape the questions to fit the answers we have presumed to be correct in the first place. The most difficult texts in all of scripture are the ones most familiar to us. The presumptions we make about the "truth" of the text inhibit our freedom to ask creative and fresh questions about the text and prevent us from hearing a new word from God.
Because we have heard the story of Nicodemus so many times we have presumed an understanding of it that may work to hinder the Spirit moving as it chooses within our lives. To question the text anew without the presumption of an answer may lead to a rebirth of heart and mind.
Laying our presumptions aside, let each of us as faithful interpreters approach every text as though we are reading it for the first time. Only then will a true dialogue with the text occur -- only then will we avoid striking the rock of sameness.
Alternative Applications Genesis 12:1-4a. In every community there are ministry needs that go unmet because either no one has recognized the need or having recognized it, no one has done anything about it. One novel approach to this text would focus on God's sending of Abram into the unknown. To give the congregation a flavor of what that sending was all about, the pastor could prepare mission assignments for the congregation, place the written assignments in unmarked letter envelopes and at the end of the sermon, distribute the assignments to each member present. This could be called their Abraham Adventure. During the week the congregants are to journey into the unknown by completing their mission assignments. The following week time could be allotted in the service for members to report back on how God used their call to the unknown to bring about a blessing.
Romans 4:1-5, 13-17. In proclamation, oftentimes the concepts of grace and works are pitted against each other. If a Pauline text is used, then grace is emphasized over works. If a James text is used, then works is emphasized. Seldom are these two concepts brought together in a creative tension in one sermon. If our right standing (righteousness) with God is a consequence of God's grace, how is that right standing lived out on a day-by-day basis? If works are a demonstration of faithful obedience to God, is grace no longer a part of the equation? If Paul is unwilling to overthrow the law by means of faith (3:31), what then is the appropriate relationship between the two? A sermon that weds these two biblical concepts with creativity would perform a needed service to a congregation serious about its relationship to God.
John 3:1-17. A careful reading of this text reveals that Jesus never gave a direct answer to Nicodemus' questions. If we were the one asking the questions, would we be satisfied with the answers Jesus gave? Was Jesus being purposefully vague? If so, why? Is there something about faith that invites our questions but leaves us with incomplete answers? Are incomplete answers the nature of faith? Are complete answers in some sense faith inhibitors? Are our strivings after answers acts of faithlessness? What does it mean to live with the ambiguity of God's vague responses to life's questions?
Preaching the Psalm
Psalm 121
by Schuyler Rhodes
Help!
Anyone who reads this, and even those who don't, will be able to attest to this much. Sometimes help is needed. In the unfolding of life everyone stumbles, falls, or runs headlong into that moment when they just can't get it done alone. Everyone, sooner or later, needs help. The high school student struggling with algebra, the alcoholic wrestling with addiction, the preacher fresh out of ideas for a sermon on a Saturday night, all of them need help.
This psalm jumps in, though, and asks the next question that accompanies the realization that help is needed. Who do I ask? Where do I go for help? Help, it turns out, is everywhere. There are various places available for help, depending on what is needed. Department stores have customer service. Online resources have the "help" key. Car companies have road-side assistance and the list of therapists and counselors for the emotionally troubled is endless.
The help sought for in Psalm 121, though, is different from the kinds of help we usually seek. This isn't about exchanging a gift or figuring out the latest software. It's not about flat tires or deflated egos.
The help sought here is absolute. It is the aid needed by someone who's at the end of their rope. "I lift my eyes to the hills…." This is gesture of someone out of options. There's no help here on the ground. The gambit self-help books and pop psychology haven't worked. All the usual avenues of aid are exhausted and luck, like everyone else has headed for the exits. In frustration, in desperation the head is lifted up and the question moaned out loud. "From whence does my help come?"
And then dawn breaks loose as the answer occurs. "My help comes from the Lord." It doesn't arrive from the mouth of the latest guru or talk show host. It doesn't emerge from a new government policy or program. Nope. My help comes from the Creator of heaven and earth! My help comes from One who cannot be moved. My help comes from One who always has my back. This one never sleeps and always watching out for me.
For us, this is an important thing to note. As we navigate the waters of economic recession we all must confront hardship. Unemployment, foreclosure, loss of savings, and the dissolution of dreams are but a small portion of what people are dealing with every day. From whence does our help come? Do we honestly and earnestly seek our help in God? Do we trust in God to see us through our struggles? These are questions worth asking. The answers are worth finding.
Question me an answer bright and clear.
I will answer with a question clear and bright.
Even though your answer may be wrong,
My question will be right.
The "Question Me an Answer" approach has been made more popular by the game show, Jeopardy. Answers are revealed on a money board and the contestants try to be the quickest to respond with the correct question. As with Bobby Van's song, oftentimes the contestant's question does not match the predetermined answer.
That can also happen when one tries to interpret a biblical text. This is especially true when the interpreter arrives at the text's answer before he/she asks the appropriate questions of the text or when the questions are shaped to support a predetermined conclusion.
Today's texts offer the interpreter an opportunity to question some answers even as she/he answers some questions posed by the scripture passages. Remember, let the questions guide the conclusions for even though your answer may be wrong, your question will be right.
Genesis 12:1-4a
Don't you just love a good mystery? There is something about the tension between knowing some things, but not knowing everything; between the art of misdirection and the clues being hidden in plain sight that make mysteries such fun to read. In today's Genesis lesson we are presented with the opening chapter of a marvelous mystery.
The major characters of this mystery are Abram (Abraham), Sarai (Sarah), and God. There is a whole host of supporting characters, each of whom add to the story a complication to the mystery's unraveling. The plot is fairly simple -- God calls from a family of Mesopotamian wanderers one individual, Abram. To Abram God makes three promises: a promise of land, a promise of offspring, and a promise of blessing. The land represents more than real estate -- it is the hope of rootedness and belonging. The offspring represent more than a headcount for the family reunion -- they are the guarantee that one's name, indeed one's self, will live on beyond mortality. The blessing represents more than a divine rabbit's foot -- it is the promise that one's life will have significance.
The mystery is this: Will the promises of God find fulfillment? One after the other, in circumstance after circumstance, the survivability of the promises are threatened. Will God remain true to his word? Will Abram give up before he gives out? Will the mystery be solved in a way that provides hope for the reader?
As every mystery reader knows, the best way to enjoy the story is to live with it as it unfolds and to not read the last page prematurely. To receive the blessing offered by this Genesis mystery, the reader may need to suspend her/his knowledge of the story's conclusion and live with it in all its twists and turns. The promise of blessing, of immortality and of significance still await a faith-filled discovery.
Romans 4:1-5, 13-17
Amidst the crude and suggestive comments and drawings on the public restroom wall was some soul's attempt to introduce the profound into the profane. "Christ is the answer" was the scrawled message. Someone other, who was a wit by a half, could not refrain from adding, "Really, so what's the question?"
In spite of this attempt at irreverence, the point raised is an important one. It is difficult, especially for the interpreter, to satisfactorily arrive at an answer without knowing the question being asked. Equally important is asking the right question, because if one asks the wrong question of the text then the answer will not coincide with the author's intent. Adding to the difficulty are the layers of tradition and (mis-?) interpretation through which the interpreter must sift in order to ask the most appropriate question.
Paul's letter to the Roman Christians is a prime example of the importance of asking the appropriate question. Interpretations abound over what exactly it is Paul is trying to say. Traditionally, questions are asked of the letter to the Romans, which result in an answer that pits Jewish belief and practice against Christian belief and practice. When asked, "What does Paul mean by the term 'law'?" the answer comes back equating law with legalism and both with Jewish practice, and therefore receiving Paul's condemnation.
What I am suggesting that the interpreter do with today's text is to spend time trying to decipher the question being asked before rushing forward with an answer that may not be the most appropriate for the text. Is the question being addressed one that challenges the law's validity? Not according to Romans 3:31. Is the question one that excludes the Jew from the promises of God? Not according to Romans 4:16. Is the question such that faith is the only thing that matters and that how one expresses that faith (works) is of little consequence? Such an answer would be in conflict with other portions of scripture.
So, what is the question? Let me offer a suggestion (you are of course free to disagree). The question is: Upon what basis is a relationship with God established? The two options Paul considers are faith and works. By "faith" Paul means the unmerited acceptance that God offers an individual based solely on the desire and character of God. By "works" Paul means any individual effort that seeks to establish a quid pro quo arrangement with God.
Paul's example that best illustrates his understanding of faith is the Abraham-God encounter. Abraham was counted as righteous based solely on God's grace -- nothing more, nothing less. Paul's example that illustrates his understanding of works is anyone who relies on obedience to a set of doctrines as the means toward acceptance by God.
Is Paul charging the Jewish faith with a righteousness based on works? I don't think so. Paul is not arguing specific cases of Jew vs. Christian, but Paul is saying that right standing before God for Jew or Gentile is the result of God's grace and that either Jew or Gentile is misguided if they believe that God's favor can in any sense be earned.
God's grace is the answer, but the question really does matter.
John 3:1-17
The story of the encounter between Nicodemus and Jesus is a familiar one. The storyline (with variations) goes like this: Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council known as the Sanhedrin, came to Jesus under the cover of darkness so as not to be discovered by his co-religionists. He attempts to engage Jesus in conversation, using flattery as an icebreaker. Jesus, who sees through Nicodemus' intentions, cuts through the small talk and raises the central issue of Nicodemus' need for a rebirth. Nicodemus is either innately obtuse or else is pretending not to understand to avoid facing the obvious implications of Jesus' words. So Jesus makes another attempt to explain to Nicodemus what is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God. Once again Nicodemus seems not to understand and thus betrays not only his own lack of knowledge, but also the intellectual and spiritual bankruptcy of other teachers of Israel (like himself). Finally, Jesus confirms that Nicodemus (and with him the Jewish religion) is spiritually dense. The passage concludes with an affirmation of God's love and a proclamation of God's willingness to receive whomsoever comes to the divine in the appropriate way.
If this summary appears a bit harsh, I would argue that it is no less harsh than John's intention. Usually the interpreter approaches this text as an honest dialogue between Jesus and a seeker. If so, it seems like a strange way to carry on a conversation. Rather than engaging in communication, Jesus and Nicodemus appear to be talking past each other. And by taking this encounter as an honest dialogue, the interpreter is left to explain the oddities of the text in a somewhat similar way to what I have done above.
I suggest that the interpreter look at this familiar text in an unfamiliar way. Begin with the assumption that John is not presenting an honest dialogue, but a dishonest dialogue. Nicodemus, then, is not a genuine seeker, but rather a foil against whom John is making his theological points. (Another way of looking at this is that if a true seeker is a type, then Nicodemus is an anti-type.) If this is seen, then, as a dishonest dialogue in the way I have suggested, it seems that the interpreter could gain fresh insights by focusing on the dialogue of Nicodemus.
If John were using Nicodemus to represent the negative side of faith, what would be the positive side of faith? Let me offer a few suggestions, which, I hope, will aid your own thinking. Nicodemus begins with a statement (v. 2) affirming God's activity in Jesus' actions. This affirmation is based on the observable "signs" witnessed by Nicodemus and others. Jesus' rebuff might be John's way of saying that reliance on the supernatural is an insufficient basis for faith. The next speech of Nicodemus is in the form of a question (v. 4) challenging the possibility of a pre-natal experience. John's point here might be that faith's reality will not always fit neatly within the bounds of the theological or the rational. Nicodemus' final words, again in the form of a question (v. 9), are an expression of bafflement. Perhaps the truth here is that faith that can be explained ceases to be faith.
To consider that John is using dishonest dialogue is not to diminish the story, but simply to ask different questions of a familiar text.
Application
Moses had been leading the Israelite wanderers for almost forty years and hardly a week had gone by without some element of the people complaining about something. Usually the complaining had to do with either not enough food or an insufficient water supply. When the people complained to Moses, Moses turned to God and God would instruct Moses about what needed to be done. The complaint about a lack of water produced what became a routine response. The people said to Moses, "No water." Moses said to God, "No water." God said to Moses, "Strike the rock with the rod in your hand." Moses struck the rock, water came forth, and everybody was happy.
One day, God changed things up just to see if anyone was paying attention. The people said to Moses, "No water." Moses said to God, "No water." God said to Moses, "Speak to the rock." Moses having been through the drill so many times and knowing the answer before he asked the question, did not listen carefully to God's command and struck the rock. According to the text, Moses' presumption was a pivotal factor in his being forbidden to enter the Promised Land.
Presumption is a cancerous attitude. It was for Moses. It is for the police officers who presume the likelihood of one's guilt or innocence based on racial characteristics. It is for the nationalist who presumes the character of the immigrant or foreigner. It is for husbands and wives who presume the disaffection of the other and begin their own withdrawal based on that presumption. It is for the reader of scripture who approaches a text presuming to know its meaning without engaging in a careful reading of the text.
Presumption is a close cousin to clairvoyance and is about as reliable. Presumption forestalls communication. Presumption renders listening unnecessary. Presumption gives answers before the question is asked.
Because we know the end of Abraham's story from the beginning, we feel no need to live within its mystery. We feel no need to share in its drama. We feel no need to reflect carefully on the text. Our presumptions about the text keep us from realizing that the issues at stake in the text are really issues that speak to the heart of our existence.
Because we presume to know that Paul's theology was one of Jewish rejection and Christian supersessionism, we have no reason to question the text concerning Paul's relationship to his religious heritage. We shape the questions to fit the answers we have presumed to be correct in the first place. The most difficult texts in all of scripture are the ones most familiar to us. The presumptions we make about the "truth" of the text inhibit our freedom to ask creative and fresh questions about the text and prevent us from hearing a new word from God.
Because we have heard the story of Nicodemus so many times we have presumed an understanding of it that may work to hinder the Spirit moving as it chooses within our lives. To question the text anew without the presumption of an answer may lead to a rebirth of heart and mind.
Laying our presumptions aside, let each of us as faithful interpreters approach every text as though we are reading it for the first time. Only then will a true dialogue with the text occur -- only then will we avoid striking the rock of sameness.
Alternative Applications Genesis 12:1-4a. In every community there are ministry needs that go unmet because either no one has recognized the need or having recognized it, no one has done anything about it. One novel approach to this text would focus on God's sending of Abram into the unknown. To give the congregation a flavor of what that sending was all about, the pastor could prepare mission assignments for the congregation, place the written assignments in unmarked letter envelopes and at the end of the sermon, distribute the assignments to each member present. This could be called their Abraham Adventure. During the week the congregants are to journey into the unknown by completing their mission assignments. The following week time could be allotted in the service for members to report back on how God used their call to the unknown to bring about a blessing.
Romans 4:1-5, 13-17. In proclamation, oftentimes the concepts of grace and works are pitted against each other. If a Pauline text is used, then grace is emphasized over works. If a James text is used, then works is emphasized. Seldom are these two concepts brought together in a creative tension in one sermon. If our right standing (righteousness) with God is a consequence of God's grace, how is that right standing lived out on a day-by-day basis? If works are a demonstration of faithful obedience to God, is grace no longer a part of the equation? If Paul is unwilling to overthrow the law by means of faith (3:31), what then is the appropriate relationship between the two? A sermon that weds these two biblical concepts with creativity would perform a needed service to a congregation serious about its relationship to God.
John 3:1-17. A careful reading of this text reveals that Jesus never gave a direct answer to Nicodemus' questions. If we were the one asking the questions, would we be satisfied with the answers Jesus gave? Was Jesus being purposefully vague? If so, why? Is there something about faith that invites our questions but leaves us with incomplete answers? Are incomplete answers the nature of faith? Are complete answers in some sense faith inhibitors? Are our strivings after answers acts of faithlessness? What does it mean to live with the ambiguity of God's vague responses to life's questions?
Preaching the Psalm
Psalm 121
by Schuyler Rhodes
Help!
Anyone who reads this, and even those who don't, will be able to attest to this much. Sometimes help is needed. In the unfolding of life everyone stumbles, falls, or runs headlong into that moment when they just can't get it done alone. Everyone, sooner or later, needs help. The high school student struggling with algebra, the alcoholic wrestling with addiction, the preacher fresh out of ideas for a sermon on a Saturday night, all of them need help.
This psalm jumps in, though, and asks the next question that accompanies the realization that help is needed. Who do I ask? Where do I go for help? Help, it turns out, is everywhere. There are various places available for help, depending on what is needed. Department stores have customer service. Online resources have the "help" key. Car companies have road-side assistance and the list of therapists and counselors for the emotionally troubled is endless.
The help sought for in Psalm 121, though, is different from the kinds of help we usually seek. This isn't about exchanging a gift or figuring out the latest software. It's not about flat tires or deflated egos.
The help sought here is absolute. It is the aid needed by someone who's at the end of their rope. "I lift my eyes to the hills…." This is gesture of someone out of options. There's no help here on the ground. The gambit self-help books and pop psychology haven't worked. All the usual avenues of aid are exhausted and luck, like everyone else has headed for the exits. In frustration, in desperation the head is lifted up and the question moaned out loud. "From whence does my help come?"
And then dawn breaks loose as the answer occurs. "My help comes from the Lord." It doesn't arrive from the mouth of the latest guru or talk show host. It doesn't emerge from a new government policy or program. Nope. My help comes from the Creator of heaven and earth! My help comes from One who cannot be moved. My help comes from One who always has my back. This one never sleeps and always watching out for me.
For us, this is an important thing to note. As we navigate the waters of economic recession we all must confront hardship. Unemployment, foreclosure, loss of savings, and the dissolution of dreams are but a small portion of what people are dealing with every day. From whence does our help come? Do we honestly and earnestly seek our help in God? Do we trust in God to see us through our struggles? These are questions worth asking. The answers are worth finding.
