My other car is a UFO
Commentary
Are you planning a vacation to visit the relatives? If so, then make sure that you visit the side of the family that settled in Roswell, New Mexico. What? You didn't know that you had relatives there? Well, let me introduce you to the family you never knew.
Roswell is the place where a UFO is alleged to have crash-landed back in the 1940s or 1950s. Not only was the spacecraft supposedly recovered, but the bodies of alien beings were also recovered. Military scientists conducted experiments on these extraterrestrials, but alas the scientists were unable to figure out what made these aliens tick. These ETs are now in cold storage in some top-secret military compound awaiting technology advanced enough to unravel the mystery of their being. Every effort was made to keep this whole episode secret, but intrepid reporters (most notably for the National Enquirer) were able to secure photographs of these aliens and have printed them from time to time. However, I must say that after seeing these photos I am hard-pressed to recognize the family resemblance, but that we and the ETs are related I have no doubt.
Still confused? Here's the connection. As Christians we can be described as aliens or, as Stanley Hauerwas might say, resident aliens. As Christians we do too belong to this world even though we are of it; our evaluations of this world are not the same as those who do not share our faith; and our actions (we hope) reflect a different ethic than the society in which we live. We are aliens and the world has a difficult time trying to figure out what makes us tick.
The texts, which we will consider today, shed insight on our alien status. See if you discover any family resemblance.
Acts 17:22-31
The contemporary environment in which the church operates has been variously designated as post-Christian and pre-Christian. By post-Christian is meant that the church no longer enjoys its dominance as the guardian of the ruling worldview. The heyday of Christian faith (at least in more developed societies) is over, giving way to other belief systems and faith practices. Although still practiced by many, Christianity is nevertheless a mere shadow of its former self. Its grave is dug; the organ is playing the funeral dirge; the church is wearing its burial suit. All that remains is for the eulogy to be pronounced.
Those who identify contemporary society as pre-Christian do not disagree that the Christian faith has lost its priority standing, but are more optimistic about the future. They see the current times as a throwback to the first century with the same sort of challenges and opportunities as those faced by early believers. Whether post-Christian or pre-Christian, the fact remains that Christian belief is no longer the default belief of contemporary society.
Rather than bemoaning faith's demise, I would like to suggest that what has taken place is a good thing. For much too long Christianity has been the 800-pound gorilla in the market place of ideas. It has maintained its dominance not through the power of its ideas, not because of the Christ-likeness of its adherents and not because it answered life's questions in a more cogent way, but simply because its adherents were more numerous. Now please do not misunderstand. I, for one, do believe that there is potent power in Christian ideas; and I do believe that there are many who seriously try to follow the example of Jesus; and I do believe that the Christian faith offers reasonable and fulfilling answers to life's most pressing questions - I just think that the church has been operating on autopilot for so long that she has forgotten these things about herself.
In this passage from Acts, Paul is willing to take the message of Jesus into the market place of ideas and argue for its rightful inclusion, not because it deserved special status, but because Paul was convinced of its truthfulness and was willing to risk getting in the ring and mixing it up with competing ideologies. Paul dared to think that the resurrection faith could hold its own with Stoicism and Epicureanism and Platonism and unknown god-ism. He was "foolish" enough to say that other philosophies and ideologies had legitimate points to make, but that in his opinion none were as all-encompassing and fulfilling as the way offered by Jesus. To be sure, the folks at Athens did not fall all over themselves to embrace Paul's message, but he stood on philosophers' hill, made his point with courage and conviction and a few were persuaded enough to join the Jesus movement.
In this post-, pre-Christian era when the resurrection faith stands as only one ideology among many, Paul provides us with a workable model to follow. Affirm what is good, be gracious toward what is not good and proclaim one's faith not out of a sense of superiority, but out of the conviction that what one says, one believes and what one believes, one lives.
1 Peter 3:13-22
The real estate mantra that "Location! Location! Location!" are the three most important considerations in marketing a property has a corollary in biblical interpretation. That corollary is "Context! Context! Context!" Understanding the social, political and/or religious context of a passage is essential in accomplishing the first element in the interpretive task, which is "What was the writer saying?" Only until the interpreter has a handle on what was meant by the author can he or she move on to consider how the ancient word has contemporary relevance.
Let's take a well-known and well-used verse from today's epistle as an example. Verse 15 states, "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you." All of the sermons based on this text that I can remember being preached (my own included) have approached the passage as an admonition always to be alert for opportunities to bear witness of one's faith, so that when someone came up and asked what one believed, a ready response was at the tip of the tongue. The beauty of this interpretation is its passivity. It requires of us no initiative. All we need do is wait around for someone to ask the right question and then we can present our canned response. This interpretation presupposes a context much like our own where folks are free to believe what they choose and is built on the milder phrasing of the KJV, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you...."
The context for Peter's admonition is not a laissez faire religious climate, but rather a climate in which Christians were in some sense being made to suffer (4:16). The paragraph that precedes our text and upon which our passage depends speaks of a proper response to "evil" and "abuse." In the passage before us Peter is concerned that his primary readers be willing to suffer for doing what is right rather than to respond in kind to mistreatment. It is in this context of suffering and threat that Peter says to be ready to make a defense (not just give an answer) of one's faith when demanded (not politely asked). The difference in context - religious freedom vs. religious persecution - creates a difference in emphasis and thereby a difference in interpretation and meaning. The contemporary application of the passage would also shift from a passive, wait-until-you-are-asked witness to an active, do-not-fear-to-defend what you believe when the times or situation demands it.
So, in the context of Peter's initial audience the question is: "How should one respond to an injustice directed against one's person?" Peter's answer is to do what is right and good, even if it means additional suffering (vv. 13-14a); to act courageously and not to be intimidated by fear (v. 14b); to temper one's bold and unequivocal faith with gentleness and reverence (vv. 15b-16a); and to remember that following the example of Christ is an act of the heart (v. 15a) long before it becomes an act of the will.
If context is the first element in the interpretive task, another element (though not the second) is to know one's limits. There are times when one must simply admit that the meaning of a text is elusive beyond comprehension. Too often an unwillingness to confess ignorance leads the interpreter to fanciful and outrageous interpretations. Verses 19-20 present this writer with an unfathomable challenge. Even Martin Luther claimed not to understand what Peter meant or what he was trying to say. One must be careful not to build an entire theology on an obscure and singular reference. Sometimes, the less said, the better.
Finally, Peter reminds his readers that it is one's desire to share in the resurrection power of Jesus Christ, as symbolized by baptism that provides one with the spiritual resources necessary to withstand personal injustice.
John 14:15-21
One organizational framework interpreters have used to understand the Gospel of John is to see in this Gospel a series of seven "signs" (see John 20:30) performed by Jesus and either preceded or followed by lengthy discourses. The passage before us is part of a lengthy discourse begun in 13:1 and not concluded until 17:25. The "sign" to which this discourse is attached is the act of Jesus washing the feet of the disciples (13:1-11). Note that in John it is this servant symbol, and not the Last Supper, that takes center stage. The reason for this is John's theological intention to have the Crucifixion occur on the same afternoon as the slaying of the Passover lambs rather than having Jesus share a Passover meal with his disciples, as do the writers of the synoptic gospels. Therefore the meal in John is an ordinary meal and secondary in importance to the foot washing.
In the discourse(s) that follows Jesus' attempts to prepare his disciples for the events soon to follow, especially for their life apart from his physical presence. It is in this context that we read today's Gospel lesson. Two concerns arise in this text - that the disciples not interpret Jesus' departure as abandonment and that the disciples demonstrate their love for Jesus by their obedience to his teachings.
Each of us experiences a series of leave-takings in life, many of them mini-traumas. Who can forget the leave-taking associated with going off to college? Whether it is sitting in the dorm room by oneself after all of the good-byes have been said, or the tear-filled drive home knowing that the family dynamic will never be the same again, there is an aloneness that creeps over us that feels a lot like abandonment. Or who can forget sitting by the bed of a loved one as the final breaths of life are taken? The grief one feels is made all the more wrenching because this leave-taking is so final. Despite one's resurrection hope, death's separation can walk discomfortingly close to abandonment. The first day of kindergarten or first grade, the marriage of a son or daughter, a divorce in the family or among friends - the list of leave-takings goes on and on.
Jesus understood the effect his leave-taking would have on his disciples. They, like we, are sensorialy dependent. That which cannot be confirmed by the senses becomes less real, less dependable. Under such conditions, the reality of Jesus could fade into a vague memory or even an imagined experience. To offset our sensorial dependence, to combat feelings of abandonment, and to provide a divine presence to guide one toward the purposes of God, Jesus promised his disciples (including us) a Paraclete - one to walk with us down the paths of life. Although not verifiable by the senses, this Spirit of truth is nonetheless experienced in the life of the believer in such a way that to deny the Spirit's presence is to deny reality itself.
The second concern of this text follows upon the first. Those who feel abandoned and alone can easily lapse into an attitude of lethargy and resignation. Nothing much matters any longer. Life loses purpose and direction. Mere existence becomes its own reward. However, the recognition that one is not abandoned, but is provided with the spiritual resources sufficient to one's calling does not necessarily lead to a life of faithful obedience. One can opt for the rather odd lifestyle of passive love - a love long on profession and short on action; a love that knows the love songs, but does not know the one to whom the songs are sung. Therefore, Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments," and "They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me."
It is easy for love to dissolve into sweet sentimentality and for commandments to be transformed into suggestions, especially when living faithfully is difficult. But Jesus allows no room for weasel words. If one claims to love Jesus, that claim is either confirmed or disconfirmed by one's actions. Obedience to the commands of Jesus is the sole definition of love in the dictionary of Christian faith.
Application
How does one effectively present the claims of the Christian faith in a post-Christian world? This is a question congregations, pastors, church-growth consultants and church theologians grapple with constantly. Various models present themselves for consideration and adoption - many of them claiming to be the salvation for the post-modern church.
There is the worship model. All that is needed is a reformation of worship and the church will be relevant once again. The problem is that no one can agree which worship models works. Some follow the Starbucks model with contemporary music, informality, user friendliness and commercial appeal. Others follow the neo-Gregorian model, harkening back to an ancient form of worship with high ritual, formal order and an intentional sense of the mysterious. Others attempt a reform somewhere between these two extremes.
There is the damn-the-torpedoes-full-steam-ahead approach. The torpedoes in this instance are any tradition, committee, organization or person that does not grasp the life-or-death condition of church survival. What is needed, according to this model, is strong leadership with vision and the uninhibited authority to carry out that vision. Strong leadership is the language moderns understand and it is to strong leadership that they will flock.
The believers in the early church faced some of the same issues, namely how does one present the Gospel in such a way that others would be attracted to its message and more than that to commit themselves to its cause? For Paul it was an "all things to all people in hopes of saving some" approach. That is why he was willing to engage the philosophers of Athens on their own turf. For Paul, faith is confirmed and congregations are established not by avoiding the hard issues of the day and not by denigrating those with whom one might disagree, but by proclaiming with conviction what one believes and respectfully inviting the other to entertain that belief as well. Therefore, perhaps one element of what it means to be a postmodern church is respectful conviction.
When Peter confronted this same issue of the church being an alien community within society, he was concerned that the fellowship of believers be people of character. The majority society operated by a set of rules and principles that made a certain sort of sense because these rules and principles worked. Do good to those who do good to you and strike back at those who don't. If someone maligns or abuses you, give it back to them doubled. Such attitudes may have been celebrated by the majority, but for Peter and for his community of faith such attitudes were unacceptable. For Peter, one lived out the ethic of Jesus no matter how one's peers decided to live. Therefore, perhaps another element of what it means to be a postmodern church is living out a counter-cultural ethic.
John also was concerned about how to be a follower of Jesus in a hostile environment. It was clear to him that some within his community felt alone and alienated and often at odds in a culture that did not recognize the significance of Jesus Christ. No doubt the temptation to abandon one's faith in Jesus and to slip into a mild conformity with the surrounding culture was very real. John, therefore, reminds his community of Jesus' promise to send a walk-along-beside presence to accompany these believers in their loneliest moments. He also reminds them that connection with Jesus was inseparable from obedience to Jesus. What he might say to us postmoderns is that being church means living lives in spirit-led conformity to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Being church in this postmodern world is not easy, but then being church in any age has not been easy. There are no magic bullets guaranteeing success for today's church, only pointers provided by the likes of Paul and Peter and John.
Alternative Applications
1) Acts 17:22-31: As Paul walked through the Areopagus he saw an altar with the inscription, "To an unknown god." I sometimes wonder if such an inscription might also be appropriate for the faith of folks who inhabit our congregations. Biblical literacy, probably never very high, is at an all-time low, while church attendance remains at respectable levels. All of which leads one to ask the question, "How well do you know the God that you worship?" Do we worship the God of the Christian tradition because we know something about this God or because we have inherited our faith from family or culture? Is, in fact, knowledge of God any longer important? Does faith exclude knowledge or is knowledge essential for faith? And assuming that knowledge is somehow important, how does one gain this knowledge of God? Unless the Christian community is content to worship an unknown God, it seems to me that these questions are important.
2) 1 Peter 3:13-22: Baptism is important in every Christian tradition, albeit different denominations give a differing emphasis to baptism. Congregations celebrate baptism at various times in its worshiping experience, but it may be that little attention is given to explaining what baptism means for a particular faith community. I have found that the assumption that everyone was on the same page with an understanding of tradition was not an accurate one - especially since folks move back and forth so freely from denomination to denomination. This text might offer a good opportunity to explain once again the meaning and tradition behind how and why baptism is practiced.
3) John 14:15-21: In verse 18, Jesus draws a contrast between the world's (unbeliever's) inability to see him and the believer's ability to see him, even after he is no longer present in the world. Assuming that we are believers and that the promised "Spirit of truth" is within us, how is it that we see Jesus? In what ways and in what places does one see Jesus? How is it that we recognize him? What is the purpose of seeing Jesus; what might Jesus want us to take away from those experiences? How does the world's not seeing and the believer's seeing affect how each approaches life? It would seem that our ability to see Jesus has implications for how we interpret and respond to life events.
First Lesson Focus
Acts 17:22-31
Religion has always been a source of contention in the world, with faction fighting against faction, sometimes quite bloodily. I suppose that is because what persons believe often involves their deepest emotions, their resulting actions, and the way they view their world. But these days it seems as if the divisions, even within Christendom, are more pronounced, being highlighted by polls and publications and instant communications. It's easy in our time to know what "the other side" is saying and doing.
The result is that many of us tend to denigrate those whose faith differs from our own. As one leading liberal newspaper characterized the evangelicals, "They are poor, ignorant and easily led," while those of more conservative bent often label such liberals as unbelieving deserters of any biblical authority. Additionally, the wave of so-called "spirituality" now sweeping the country, sometimes calls forth scorn of its vague and subjective manifestations. Those of faith, of whatever camp, often look down on those whose commitments vary from their own.
It is not difficult to see in our scripture reading a similar situation. The Apostle Paul has been traveling across ancient Macedonia (Greece) in his mission to Gentiles, preaching the suffering and resurrection of Christ. And in both Thessalonica and Beroea, he manages barely to escape with his life, staying just one step ahead of those Thessalonian Jews who contest his views (vv. 1-13). His "brethren" therefore send him on his way to Athens, the cultural and intellectual center of Greece. There Paul finds a city "full of idols" (v. 16), and we might expect him to attack the ignorant spirituality of such a place, as we often attack our religious opponents in our time. Especially we might expect such an attack when some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens label him as a "babbler" (v. 18). But surprisingly, Paul gives an address that identifies in several ways with the views of his opponents.
Paul makes his speech at the Areopagus, at the gathering place of philosophers of all kinds, where views are exchanged and debated. And the first thing he does is to compliment his hearers. "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious." We could say that to much of our populace, couldn't we? "Americans, I see you are very spiritual." Paul then goes on to describe the character of God as it is known to most of his hearers.
God is the one who made the earth and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth (v. 24), and not many in our time would argue with that. Even the doubters of the lordship of Christ would agree that Someone made the world; atheistic scientists who hold that it all just came about by chance are rather few among us.
Further, it is clear that such a Creator is not captured in shrines made by human hands (v. 24), that he is far beyond any building, any crystal, any pyramid, any sacred pillar or place in which his presence is sensed. Most would agree, as did the ancient Greeks, that there is a transcendence to God, that is not solely contained in a constructed shrine.
Then too, Paul continues, as Creator of all, God has given life and breath to every creature (v. 25). And so it is no accident that when illness strikes or death draws near, so many persons pray to God to sustain and preserve life. There is a tacit assumption that God holds life and death in his hands. And equally, God has created peoples to live on specific continents - the Africans, the Asians, the Hispanics, the Europeans - all have their God-given place (v. 26), while God-given weather and providence often has determined their subsequent migrations and movements and mixtures.
Common, too, runs Paul's argument, is human seeking after God (v. 27), for every people has some sort of religion, and most folk will acknowledge that there is a power or person beyond them. Indeed, Paul even quotes the philosopher-poet Epimenides to point out that such a God can be found, because "in him, we live and move and have our being" (v. 28). That is, God is not in us, but we are in God, and are dependent upon him for life, movement and breath - a reverse of some Stoic philosophy. And because God has made us, and we live in him, we are, says Paul, his offspring. So our relationship with God is not simply that of Creator and created, but of Parent and child, and that statement again agrees with some of Greek philosophy.
So Paul, to this point, has been very circumspect in his language, agreeing with views of his Hellenic hearers, but also setting forth understandings of God that are now commonly found in the scriptures. God is indeed, according to the Bible, the Creator and Lord of all, giving to all creatures life and breath and placing them in their places on earth. And God is not found in us, but we are found in him, and finally the purpose of our lives, is it not, is to have fellowship and communion with him, despite the fact that he is always beyond any shrine we construct where we seek to know him. After all, he is our Father and we are his children, and as Augustine once said, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless till they rest in thee." Our common goal is to know the One who made us.
At this point in his speech, Paul reiterates that idols and shrines made by human hands cannot contain such a God (v. 29). In short, Paul contradicts the views of a populace whose city is "full of idols." But his contradiction is a gentle admonition, not a harsh attack, and he assures his hearers that God has always before overlooked their "ignorance." But now, Paul says, the situation has changed. And the reason is that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead. God has now fully revealed his nature in his Son. Now the truth of the Father has been manifested. Now God has done a new thing (cf. Isaiah 43:19). And so, given the Resurrection, God now calls for repentance of idol worship, of ignorance, of errant philosophies and spirituality (vv. 30-31). For there is coming the Day, announces Paul, when Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead. And now all persons are accountable for the truth that is Jesus Christ.
Two notes mark this remarkable speech by the Apostle Paul. One is the fellow-feeling, and indeed love, with which he approaches the non-Christians, a love for our religious opponents that our Lord Jesus Christ also bid us bear. Second, is the earth-shaking difference made by the resurrection of our Lord. That event, that victory, that concrete happening changes everything, including God's requirements of us and our relationship with God. We may be religious, we may be spiritual, we may worship something. But now God's reality has been revealed, and we are bidden to find our faith, our lives, our truth about the Father in God's risen Son.
Preaching The Psalm
Psalm 66:8-20
Psalm 66 is a song of communal thanksgiving, probably originally composed to celebrate some national deliverance. Because of the personal language of verses 13-20, there is some speculation that this psalm was originally two hymns, but as it stands, it contains a combination of corporate and personal prayers, both appropriate in worship.
Verses 8-12 talk about the troubles - some from other peoples (v. 12a) and some from unspecified sources - which have a refining effect (v. 10). The fire-and-water symbol of trouble in 12b is similar to that used by Isaiah in 43:2 and picked up by the hymn writer in "How Firm a Foundation." The notable thing here is the absence of any satanic force as the source of these problems. This is a good time to remind listeners that the Old Testament has no fully developed concept of the Devil vs. God. As far as the singers of this psalm were concerned, although the trouble came through other peoples and situations, ultimately God was both the source of the troubles (v. 10: "For you, O God, have tested us"; v. 11: "You brought us into the net"; v. 12: "you let people ride over our heads") and the deliverance from them.
While we would not want to promote the idea that God capriciously does cruel things, the Old Testament's assertion that all things come from God does at least testify to God's full sovereignty over the creation. When a child dies tragically, we may be inclined to defend God by saying, "God didn't take your child," but that leaves open the frightening question, "Then who did take my child?" The people of Israel had no such concern. God was the source of all.
Of course they saw that God did not leave in troubles those who revered him, and the third phrase of verse 12 provides interesting vocabulary to talk about the abundant life God gives: "you have brought us to a spacious place" (emphasis mine). According to the NRSV footnote, the Hebrew here can be read as "you have brought us to a saturation." This concept is also found in Job 36:16: "[God] also allured you out of distress into a broad place where there is no cramping, and what was set on your table was full of fatness" (RSV).
Roswell is the place where a UFO is alleged to have crash-landed back in the 1940s or 1950s. Not only was the spacecraft supposedly recovered, but the bodies of alien beings were also recovered. Military scientists conducted experiments on these extraterrestrials, but alas the scientists were unable to figure out what made these aliens tick. These ETs are now in cold storage in some top-secret military compound awaiting technology advanced enough to unravel the mystery of their being. Every effort was made to keep this whole episode secret, but intrepid reporters (most notably for the National Enquirer) were able to secure photographs of these aliens and have printed them from time to time. However, I must say that after seeing these photos I am hard-pressed to recognize the family resemblance, but that we and the ETs are related I have no doubt.
Still confused? Here's the connection. As Christians we can be described as aliens or, as Stanley Hauerwas might say, resident aliens. As Christians we do too belong to this world even though we are of it; our evaluations of this world are not the same as those who do not share our faith; and our actions (we hope) reflect a different ethic than the society in which we live. We are aliens and the world has a difficult time trying to figure out what makes us tick.
The texts, which we will consider today, shed insight on our alien status. See if you discover any family resemblance.
Acts 17:22-31
The contemporary environment in which the church operates has been variously designated as post-Christian and pre-Christian. By post-Christian is meant that the church no longer enjoys its dominance as the guardian of the ruling worldview. The heyday of Christian faith (at least in more developed societies) is over, giving way to other belief systems and faith practices. Although still practiced by many, Christianity is nevertheless a mere shadow of its former self. Its grave is dug; the organ is playing the funeral dirge; the church is wearing its burial suit. All that remains is for the eulogy to be pronounced.
Those who identify contemporary society as pre-Christian do not disagree that the Christian faith has lost its priority standing, but are more optimistic about the future. They see the current times as a throwback to the first century with the same sort of challenges and opportunities as those faced by early believers. Whether post-Christian or pre-Christian, the fact remains that Christian belief is no longer the default belief of contemporary society.
Rather than bemoaning faith's demise, I would like to suggest that what has taken place is a good thing. For much too long Christianity has been the 800-pound gorilla in the market place of ideas. It has maintained its dominance not through the power of its ideas, not because of the Christ-likeness of its adherents and not because it answered life's questions in a more cogent way, but simply because its adherents were more numerous. Now please do not misunderstand. I, for one, do believe that there is potent power in Christian ideas; and I do believe that there are many who seriously try to follow the example of Jesus; and I do believe that the Christian faith offers reasonable and fulfilling answers to life's most pressing questions - I just think that the church has been operating on autopilot for so long that she has forgotten these things about herself.
In this passage from Acts, Paul is willing to take the message of Jesus into the market place of ideas and argue for its rightful inclusion, not because it deserved special status, but because Paul was convinced of its truthfulness and was willing to risk getting in the ring and mixing it up with competing ideologies. Paul dared to think that the resurrection faith could hold its own with Stoicism and Epicureanism and Platonism and unknown god-ism. He was "foolish" enough to say that other philosophies and ideologies had legitimate points to make, but that in his opinion none were as all-encompassing and fulfilling as the way offered by Jesus. To be sure, the folks at Athens did not fall all over themselves to embrace Paul's message, but he stood on philosophers' hill, made his point with courage and conviction and a few were persuaded enough to join the Jesus movement.
In this post-, pre-Christian era when the resurrection faith stands as only one ideology among many, Paul provides us with a workable model to follow. Affirm what is good, be gracious toward what is not good and proclaim one's faith not out of a sense of superiority, but out of the conviction that what one says, one believes and what one believes, one lives.
1 Peter 3:13-22
The real estate mantra that "Location! Location! Location!" are the three most important considerations in marketing a property has a corollary in biblical interpretation. That corollary is "Context! Context! Context!" Understanding the social, political and/or religious context of a passage is essential in accomplishing the first element in the interpretive task, which is "What was the writer saying?" Only until the interpreter has a handle on what was meant by the author can he or she move on to consider how the ancient word has contemporary relevance.
Let's take a well-known and well-used verse from today's epistle as an example. Verse 15 states, "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you." All of the sermons based on this text that I can remember being preached (my own included) have approached the passage as an admonition always to be alert for opportunities to bear witness of one's faith, so that when someone came up and asked what one believed, a ready response was at the tip of the tongue. The beauty of this interpretation is its passivity. It requires of us no initiative. All we need do is wait around for someone to ask the right question and then we can present our canned response. This interpretation presupposes a context much like our own where folks are free to believe what they choose and is built on the milder phrasing of the KJV, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you...."
The context for Peter's admonition is not a laissez faire religious climate, but rather a climate in which Christians were in some sense being made to suffer (4:16). The paragraph that precedes our text and upon which our passage depends speaks of a proper response to "evil" and "abuse." In the passage before us Peter is concerned that his primary readers be willing to suffer for doing what is right rather than to respond in kind to mistreatment. It is in this context of suffering and threat that Peter says to be ready to make a defense (not just give an answer) of one's faith when demanded (not politely asked). The difference in context - religious freedom vs. religious persecution - creates a difference in emphasis and thereby a difference in interpretation and meaning. The contemporary application of the passage would also shift from a passive, wait-until-you-are-asked witness to an active, do-not-fear-to-defend what you believe when the times or situation demands it.
So, in the context of Peter's initial audience the question is: "How should one respond to an injustice directed against one's person?" Peter's answer is to do what is right and good, even if it means additional suffering (vv. 13-14a); to act courageously and not to be intimidated by fear (v. 14b); to temper one's bold and unequivocal faith with gentleness and reverence (vv. 15b-16a); and to remember that following the example of Christ is an act of the heart (v. 15a) long before it becomes an act of the will.
If context is the first element in the interpretive task, another element (though not the second) is to know one's limits. There are times when one must simply admit that the meaning of a text is elusive beyond comprehension. Too often an unwillingness to confess ignorance leads the interpreter to fanciful and outrageous interpretations. Verses 19-20 present this writer with an unfathomable challenge. Even Martin Luther claimed not to understand what Peter meant or what he was trying to say. One must be careful not to build an entire theology on an obscure and singular reference. Sometimes, the less said, the better.
Finally, Peter reminds his readers that it is one's desire to share in the resurrection power of Jesus Christ, as symbolized by baptism that provides one with the spiritual resources necessary to withstand personal injustice.
John 14:15-21
One organizational framework interpreters have used to understand the Gospel of John is to see in this Gospel a series of seven "signs" (see John 20:30) performed by Jesus and either preceded or followed by lengthy discourses. The passage before us is part of a lengthy discourse begun in 13:1 and not concluded until 17:25. The "sign" to which this discourse is attached is the act of Jesus washing the feet of the disciples (13:1-11). Note that in John it is this servant symbol, and not the Last Supper, that takes center stage. The reason for this is John's theological intention to have the Crucifixion occur on the same afternoon as the slaying of the Passover lambs rather than having Jesus share a Passover meal with his disciples, as do the writers of the synoptic gospels. Therefore the meal in John is an ordinary meal and secondary in importance to the foot washing.
In the discourse(s) that follows Jesus' attempts to prepare his disciples for the events soon to follow, especially for their life apart from his physical presence. It is in this context that we read today's Gospel lesson. Two concerns arise in this text - that the disciples not interpret Jesus' departure as abandonment and that the disciples demonstrate their love for Jesus by their obedience to his teachings.
Each of us experiences a series of leave-takings in life, many of them mini-traumas. Who can forget the leave-taking associated with going off to college? Whether it is sitting in the dorm room by oneself after all of the good-byes have been said, or the tear-filled drive home knowing that the family dynamic will never be the same again, there is an aloneness that creeps over us that feels a lot like abandonment. Or who can forget sitting by the bed of a loved one as the final breaths of life are taken? The grief one feels is made all the more wrenching because this leave-taking is so final. Despite one's resurrection hope, death's separation can walk discomfortingly close to abandonment. The first day of kindergarten or first grade, the marriage of a son or daughter, a divorce in the family or among friends - the list of leave-takings goes on and on.
Jesus understood the effect his leave-taking would have on his disciples. They, like we, are sensorialy dependent. That which cannot be confirmed by the senses becomes less real, less dependable. Under such conditions, the reality of Jesus could fade into a vague memory or even an imagined experience. To offset our sensorial dependence, to combat feelings of abandonment, and to provide a divine presence to guide one toward the purposes of God, Jesus promised his disciples (including us) a Paraclete - one to walk with us down the paths of life. Although not verifiable by the senses, this Spirit of truth is nonetheless experienced in the life of the believer in such a way that to deny the Spirit's presence is to deny reality itself.
The second concern of this text follows upon the first. Those who feel abandoned and alone can easily lapse into an attitude of lethargy and resignation. Nothing much matters any longer. Life loses purpose and direction. Mere existence becomes its own reward. However, the recognition that one is not abandoned, but is provided with the spiritual resources sufficient to one's calling does not necessarily lead to a life of faithful obedience. One can opt for the rather odd lifestyle of passive love - a love long on profession and short on action; a love that knows the love songs, but does not know the one to whom the songs are sung. Therefore, Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments," and "They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me."
It is easy for love to dissolve into sweet sentimentality and for commandments to be transformed into suggestions, especially when living faithfully is difficult. But Jesus allows no room for weasel words. If one claims to love Jesus, that claim is either confirmed or disconfirmed by one's actions. Obedience to the commands of Jesus is the sole definition of love in the dictionary of Christian faith.
Application
How does one effectively present the claims of the Christian faith in a post-Christian world? This is a question congregations, pastors, church-growth consultants and church theologians grapple with constantly. Various models present themselves for consideration and adoption - many of them claiming to be the salvation for the post-modern church.
There is the worship model. All that is needed is a reformation of worship and the church will be relevant once again. The problem is that no one can agree which worship models works. Some follow the Starbucks model with contemporary music, informality, user friendliness and commercial appeal. Others follow the neo-Gregorian model, harkening back to an ancient form of worship with high ritual, formal order and an intentional sense of the mysterious. Others attempt a reform somewhere between these two extremes.
There is the damn-the-torpedoes-full-steam-ahead approach. The torpedoes in this instance are any tradition, committee, organization or person that does not grasp the life-or-death condition of church survival. What is needed, according to this model, is strong leadership with vision and the uninhibited authority to carry out that vision. Strong leadership is the language moderns understand and it is to strong leadership that they will flock.
The believers in the early church faced some of the same issues, namely how does one present the Gospel in such a way that others would be attracted to its message and more than that to commit themselves to its cause? For Paul it was an "all things to all people in hopes of saving some" approach. That is why he was willing to engage the philosophers of Athens on their own turf. For Paul, faith is confirmed and congregations are established not by avoiding the hard issues of the day and not by denigrating those with whom one might disagree, but by proclaiming with conviction what one believes and respectfully inviting the other to entertain that belief as well. Therefore, perhaps one element of what it means to be a postmodern church is respectful conviction.
When Peter confronted this same issue of the church being an alien community within society, he was concerned that the fellowship of believers be people of character. The majority society operated by a set of rules and principles that made a certain sort of sense because these rules and principles worked. Do good to those who do good to you and strike back at those who don't. If someone maligns or abuses you, give it back to them doubled. Such attitudes may have been celebrated by the majority, but for Peter and for his community of faith such attitudes were unacceptable. For Peter, one lived out the ethic of Jesus no matter how one's peers decided to live. Therefore, perhaps another element of what it means to be a postmodern church is living out a counter-cultural ethic.
John also was concerned about how to be a follower of Jesus in a hostile environment. It was clear to him that some within his community felt alone and alienated and often at odds in a culture that did not recognize the significance of Jesus Christ. No doubt the temptation to abandon one's faith in Jesus and to slip into a mild conformity with the surrounding culture was very real. John, therefore, reminds his community of Jesus' promise to send a walk-along-beside presence to accompany these believers in their loneliest moments. He also reminds them that connection with Jesus was inseparable from obedience to Jesus. What he might say to us postmoderns is that being church means living lives in spirit-led conformity to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Being church in this postmodern world is not easy, but then being church in any age has not been easy. There are no magic bullets guaranteeing success for today's church, only pointers provided by the likes of Paul and Peter and John.
Alternative Applications
1) Acts 17:22-31: As Paul walked through the Areopagus he saw an altar with the inscription, "To an unknown god." I sometimes wonder if such an inscription might also be appropriate for the faith of folks who inhabit our congregations. Biblical literacy, probably never very high, is at an all-time low, while church attendance remains at respectable levels. All of which leads one to ask the question, "How well do you know the God that you worship?" Do we worship the God of the Christian tradition because we know something about this God or because we have inherited our faith from family or culture? Is, in fact, knowledge of God any longer important? Does faith exclude knowledge or is knowledge essential for faith? And assuming that knowledge is somehow important, how does one gain this knowledge of God? Unless the Christian community is content to worship an unknown God, it seems to me that these questions are important.
2) 1 Peter 3:13-22: Baptism is important in every Christian tradition, albeit different denominations give a differing emphasis to baptism. Congregations celebrate baptism at various times in its worshiping experience, but it may be that little attention is given to explaining what baptism means for a particular faith community. I have found that the assumption that everyone was on the same page with an understanding of tradition was not an accurate one - especially since folks move back and forth so freely from denomination to denomination. This text might offer a good opportunity to explain once again the meaning and tradition behind how and why baptism is practiced.
3) John 14:15-21: In verse 18, Jesus draws a contrast between the world's (unbeliever's) inability to see him and the believer's ability to see him, even after he is no longer present in the world. Assuming that we are believers and that the promised "Spirit of truth" is within us, how is it that we see Jesus? In what ways and in what places does one see Jesus? How is it that we recognize him? What is the purpose of seeing Jesus; what might Jesus want us to take away from those experiences? How does the world's not seeing and the believer's seeing affect how each approaches life? It would seem that our ability to see Jesus has implications for how we interpret and respond to life events.
First Lesson Focus
Acts 17:22-31
Religion has always been a source of contention in the world, with faction fighting against faction, sometimes quite bloodily. I suppose that is because what persons believe often involves their deepest emotions, their resulting actions, and the way they view their world. But these days it seems as if the divisions, even within Christendom, are more pronounced, being highlighted by polls and publications and instant communications. It's easy in our time to know what "the other side" is saying and doing.
The result is that many of us tend to denigrate those whose faith differs from our own. As one leading liberal newspaper characterized the evangelicals, "They are poor, ignorant and easily led," while those of more conservative bent often label such liberals as unbelieving deserters of any biblical authority. Additionally, the wave of so-called "spirituality" now sweeping the country, sometimes calls forth scorn of its vague and subjective manifestations. Those of faith, of whatever camp, often look down on those whose commitments vary from their own.
It is not difficult to see in our scripture reading a similar situation. The Apostle Paul has been traveling across ancient Macedonia (Greece) in his mission to Gentiles, preaching the suffering and resurrection of Christ. And in both Thessalonica and Beroea, he manages barely to escape with his life, staying just one step ahead of those Thessalonian Jews who contest his views (vv. 1-13). His "brethren" therefore send him on his way to Athens, the cultural and intellectual center of Greece. There Paul finds a city "full of idols" (v. 16), and we might expect him to attack the ignorant spirituality of such a place, as we often attack our religious opponents in our time. Especially we might expect such an attack when some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens label him as a "babbler" (v. 18). But surprisingly, Paul gives an address that identifies in several ways with the views of his opponents.
Paul makes his speech at the Areopagus, at the gathering place of philosophers of all kinds, where views are exchanged and debated. And the first thing he does is to compliment his hearers. "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious." We could say that to much of our populace, couldn't we? "Americans, I see you are very spiritual." Paul then goes on to describe the character of God as it is known to most of his hearers.
God is the one who made the earth and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth (v. 24), and not many in our time would argue with that. Even the doubters of the lordship of Christ would agree that Someone made the world; atheistic scientists who hold that it all just came about by chance are rather few among us.
Further, it is clear that such a Creator is not captured in shrines made by human hands (v. 24), that he is far beyond any building, any crystal, any pyramid, any sacred pillar or place in which his presence is sensed. Most would agree, as did the ancient Greeks, that there is a transcendence to God, that is not solely contained in a constructed shrine.
Then too, Paul continues, as Creator of all, God has given life and breath to every creature (v. 25). And so it is no accident that when illness strikes or death draws near, so many persons pray to God to sustain and preserve life. There is a tacit assumption that God holds life and death in his hands. And equally, God has created peoples to live on specific continents - the Africans, the Asians, the Hispanics, the Europeans - all have their God-given place (v. 26), while God-given weather and providence often has determined their subsequent migrations and movements and mixtures.
Common, too, runs Paul's argument, is human seeking after God (v. 27), for every people has some sort of religion, and most folk will acknowledge that there is a power or person beyond them. Indeed, Paul even quotes the philosopher-poet Epimenides to point out that such a God can be found, because "in him, we live and move and have our being" (v. 28). That is, God is not in us, but we are in God, and are dependent upon him for life, movement and breath - a reverse of some Stoic philosophy. And because God has made us, and we live in him, we are, says Paul, his offspring. So our relationship with God is not simply that of Creator and created, but of Parent and child, and that statement again agrees with some of Greek philosophy.
So Paul, to this point, has been very circumspect in his language, agreeing with views of his Hellenic hearers, but also setting forth understandings of God that are now commonly found in the scriptures. God is indeed, according to the Bible, the Creator and Lord of all, giving to all creatures life and breath and placing them in their places on earth. And God is not found in us, but we are found in him, and finally the purpose of our lives, is it not, is to have fellowship and communion with him, despite the fact that he is always beyond any shrine we construct where we seek to know him. After all, he is our Father and we are his children, and as Augustine once said, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless till they rest in thee." Our common goal is to know the One who made us.
At this point in his speech, Paul reiterates that idols and shrines made by human hands cannot contain such a God (v. 29). In short, Paul contradicts the views of a populace whose city is "full of idols." But his contradiction is a gentle admonition, not a harsh attack, and he assures his hearers that God has always before overlooked their "ignorance." But now, Paul says, the situation has changed. And the reason is that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead. God has now fully revealed his nature in his Son. Now the truth of the Father has been manifested. Now God has done a new thing (cf. Isaiah 43:19). And so, given the Resurrection, God now calls for repentance of idol worship, of ignorance, of errant philosophies and spirituality (vv. 30-31). For there is coming the Day, announces Paul, when Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead. And now all persons are accountable for the truth that is Jesus Christ.
Two notes mark this remarkable speech by the Apostle Paul. One is the fellow-feeling, and indeed love, with which he approaches the non-Christians, a love for our religious opponents that our Lord Jesus Christ also bid us bear. Second, is the earth-shaking difference made by the resurrection of our Lord. That event, that victory, that concrete happening changes everything, including God's requirements of us and our relationship with God. We may be religious, we may be spiritual, we may worship something. But now God's reality has been revealed, and we are bidden to find our faith, our lives, our truth about the Father in God's risen Son.
Preaching The Psalm
Psalm 66:8-20
Psalm 66 is a song of communal thanksgiving, probably originally composed to celebrate some national deliverance. Because of the personal language of verses 13-20, there is some speculation that this psalm was originally two hymns, but as it stands, it contains a combination of corporate and personal prayers, both appropriate in worship.
Verses 8-12 talk about the troubles - some from other peoples (v. 12a) and some from unspecified sources - which have a refining effect (v. 10). The fire-and-water symbol of trouble in 12b is similar to that used by Isaiah in 43:2 and picked up by the hymn writer in "How Firm a Foundation." The notable thing here is the absence of any satanic force as the source of these problems. This is a good time to remind listeners that the Old Testament has no fully developed concept of the Devil vs. God. As far as the singers of this psalm were concerned, although the trouble came through other peoples and situations, ultimately God was both the source of the troubles (v. 10: "For you, O God, have tested us"; v. 11: "You brought us into the net"; v. 12: "you let people ride over our heads") and the deliverance from them.
While we would not want to promote the idea that God capriciously does cruel things, the Old Testament's assertion that all things come from God does at least testify to God's full sovereignty over the creation. When a child dies tragically, we may be inclined to defend God by saying, "God didn't take your child," but that leaves open the frightening question, "Then who did take my child?" The people of Israel had no such concern. God was the source of all.
Of course they saw that God did not leave in troubles those who revered him, and the third phrase of verse 12 provides interesting vocabulary to talk about the abundant life God gives: "you have brought us to a spacious place" (emphasis mine). According to the NRSV footnote, the Hebrew here can be read as "you have brought us to a saturation." This concept is also found in Job 36:16: "[God] also allured you out of distress into a broad place where there is no cramping, and what was set on your table was full of fatness" (RSV).
