Texts for the 26th Sunday after Pentecost [32nd Sunday of Ordinary Time]
November 9, 2008
Joshua 24:1-3a, 14-25
Psalm 78:1-7
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Matthew 25:1-13
Texts for the 27th Sunday after Pentecost [33nd Sunday of Ordinary Time]
November 16, 2008
Judges 4:1-7
Psalm 123
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
Matthew 25:14-30
Monday, November 3, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
First observations: Matthew 20: 1-16
Some people live their Christian lives from an early age. Others never even learn of Christianity or Divine purpose until they are aged. Do the one who start earlier earn longer in heaven or better accommodations there. In this story everybody began work as soon as told.
Why were workers idle in the marketplace? Was this where they would be expected to look for work? And, if so, why weren’t they there earlier. Were they lazy? Or had they already completed other work?
The first workers did not work until they knew what they were getting. The later ones agreed to work after only being promised what the master thought just and right.
Was a denarius per day a good wage or minimum wage?
Why did the master pay them in reverse order of hiring? Doing things in the reverse sequence would have avoided a discussion.
I remember hearing a song when I was a child. I haven’t heard it in years, but the title was “Will there be any stars in my crown?” The song seems to tell us that we can better our position in Heaven by what we do there, leaving the implication that there will be eternal demonstration to all up there of our earthly spiritual superiority. Keeping up with or ahead of the Joneses seems strange in a place where we would presume that envy will not exist. Verse 16 suggests that there may be a lot of surprises.
The Message renders v. 15 as saying, “Are you going to get stingy because I am generous?” It seems somewhat reminiscent of last week’s parable of forgiveness.
Can we infer that the first ones called were the Jews and the later ones the Gentiles?
Following this passage, the mother of James and John comes to Jesus seeking a better place for her sons in the Kingdom. Had she not heard the parable? or had she missed the point?
Why were workers idle in the marketplace? Was this where they would be expected to look for work? And, if so, why weren’t they there earlier. Were they lazy? Or had they already completed other work?
The first workers did not work until they knew what they were getting. The later ones agreed to work after only being promised what the master thought just and right.
Was a denarius per day a good wage or minimum wage?
Why did the master pay them in reverse order of hiring? Doing things in the reverse sequence would have avoided a discussion.
I remember hearing a song when I was a child. I haven’t heard it in years, but the title was “Will there be any stars in my crown?” The song seems to tell us that we can better our position in Heaven by what we do there, leaving the implication that there will be eternal demonstration to all up there of our earthly spiritual superiority. Keeping up with or ahead of the Joneses seems strange in a place where we would presume that envy will not exist. Verse 16 suggests that there may be a lot of surprises.
The Message renders v. 15 as saying, “Are you going to get stingy because I am generous?” It seems somewhat reminiscent of last week’s parable of forgiveness.
Can we infer that the first ones called were the Jews and the later ones the Gentiles?
Following this passage, the mother of James and John comes to Jesus seeking a better place for her sons in the Kingdom. Had she not heard the parable? or had she missed the point?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Texts for September 21 and September 28
September 21
Exodus 16:2-15
Psalm 105:1-6, 37-45
Philippians 1:21-30
Matthew 20:1-16
September 28
Exodus 17:1-7
Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16
Philippians 2:1-13
Matthew 21:23-32
Exodus 16:2-15
Psalm 105:1-6, 37-45
Philippians 1:21-30
Matthew 20:1-16
September 28
Exodus 17:1-7
Psalm 78:1-4, 12-16
Philippians 2:1-13
Matthew 21:23-32
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
First observations: Exodus 14:10-15:21.
This week’s Old Testament reading is Exodus 14:10-15:21. [Later comments appended in black.]
I imagine that it brings visions of Charlton Heston to most of us as we read of Moses leading his people across the Red/Reed Sea although I never saw the movie until many years after first learning the story.
When I was a child in Sunday School we marveled at the power of the Almighty to part the sea and accepted unquestioningly and with jubilation when the sea was then turned back on the Egyptians. Even though the Sunday School I was attending was of a tradition that believed in a literal hell where the Egyptian soldiers, it never seemed to occur to us to ask why the Egyptian soldiers had to meet such a judgment so soon. And I imagined Moses smirking a bit at the suckers on whom he had helped wreak the obviously merited divine punishiment. Yet the narrative tells us that Moses did not extend his arm until after the Egyptian soldiers had said, "Their God is too much for us. Let's get the [blank] out of here." Was it really necessary to exterminate them if they were going back, anyway.
When I was a child in Sunday School we marveled at the power of the Almighty to part the sea and accepted unquestioningly and with jubilation when the sea was then turned back on the Egyptians. Even though the Sunday School I was attending was of a tradition that believed in a literal hell where the Egyptian soldiers, it never seemed to occur to us to ask why the Egyptian soldiers had to meet such a judgment so soon. And I imagined Moses smirking a bit at the suckers on whom he had helped wreak the obviously merited divine punishiment. Yet the narrative tells us that Moses did not extend his arm until after the Egyptian soldiers had said, "Their God is too much for us. Let's get the [blank] out of here." Was it really necessary to exterminate them if they were going back, anyway.
And as I age and look back I wonder why Moses did not ask God why he had to extend his arm over the sea and destroy the Egyptians. Moses had to know that God could have done it Himself and did not need Moses as an accessory. We can concede that Moses’ playing such a role make the people trust in him as well as of God, but did Moses think that would happen and if he did, wouldn’t he think it a bit blasphemous?
And when it was over, the people of Israel sang and danced. [15:1-21]
And even now people sing, “Oh, Mary. Don’t you weep. Don’t you mourn. Pharaoh’s army got drownded.”
One can imagine Osama on September 11, 2001 sayingt "Praise Allah! He has brought his vengence upon the oppressers."
We are approaching September 11, a day when men who thought themselves holy warriors justified to themselves killing the innocent and uninvolved as part of some kind of holy effort.
I noted before with interest the juxtaposition of this anniversary with this week’s gospel text on forgiveness. I guess that this juxtaposition is just one more curiousity.
I noted before with interest the juxtaposition of this anniversary with this week’s gospel text on forgiveness. I guess that this juxtaposition is just one more curiousity.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
They know different Gods?
Susan K. Smith, senior pastor of Advent UCC on Columbus, Ohio writing in the Washington Post/Newsweek On Faith site reminds us of some of the amazing things religious and political leaders have done saying that God wanted them to. She is especially concerned with Gov. Sarah Palin’s approach on this, concluding her post with
Should Sen. McCain win, and something happen to him during his term, this fundamentalist woman, who believes in the divine endorsement of the Iraqi War, will be our president. I would imagine that as she would fight to end all abortions, and stop same sex marriage, as well as allow more and more people to carry guns, probably without background checks, that she would do so with the mantra that "God" was telling her to do it.
Whose God?
The judgmental, evil-endorsing God of the governor is not the same God I have come to love. The God I know would never have told us or any nation to provoke a war based on lies. The God I know would be weeping at what we, God's children, do to each other.
Monday, September 8, 2008
First observations: Matthew 18: 21-35
First observations on Matthew 18: 51-35, Gospel text for 9/14/08
I used to wonder about debtors’ prison. When I was a child, it seemed such a strange concept that I wonder if I did not miss much of the story’s message.
It is a lot easier to be forgiven than to forgive. But it is a lot more difficult to ask for forgiveness. And it is very hard to keep an accurate count to 491, which is what one would have to count to if one forgave the first seventy times seven. Some newer scholarship looking at older texts suggests that the magic number at which forgiveness is not longer necessary is 78, one more than seventy-seven. But in either case counting is difficult.
Seven and seventy are, of course, “magic” numbers in the Bible. Twelve, forty, and three also seem to pop up a lot. [I heard it suggested that the traditional legal age of majority was set at 21 because it is 7 times 3. I really don’t know and I think that it is highly speculative, but it is off topic for this week anyway.]
The forgiven man was unforgiving. He paid the consequences from his forgiver. The Message notes that the king ”was furious and put the screws to the man until he paid back his entire debt.” [We don’t get translations so vivid all the time.]
Since God has forgiven the worst that we do, how can we not forgive the little that somebody does to us? Well, somehow don’t we all manage to do it? Even though debtor's prison seems such a bad place, we still fail.
It is a lot easier to be forgiven than to forgive. But it is a lot more difficult to ask for forgiveness. And it is very hard to keep an accurate count to 491, which is what one would have to count to if one forgave the first seventy times seven. Some newer scholarship looking at older texts suggests that the magic number at which forgiveness is not longer necessary is 78, one more than seventy-seven. But in either case counting is difficult.
Seven and seventy are, of course, “magic” numbers in the Bible. Twelve, forty, and three also seem to pop up a lot. [I heard it suggested that the traditional legal age of majority was set at 21 because it is 7 times 3. I really don’t know and I think that it is highly speculative, but it is off topic for this week anyway.]
The forgiven man was unforgiving. He paid the consequences from his forgiver. The Message notes that the king ”was furious and put the screws to the man until he paid back his entire debt.” [We don’t get translations so vivid all the time.]
Since God has forgiven the worst that we do, how can we not forgive the little that somebody does to us? Well, somehow don’t we all manage to do it? Even though debtor's prison seems such a bad place, we still fail.
Two questions arise: Is our forgiveness revocable? Do we wait until somebody asks before forgiving?
During this week we will be observing the seventh annivesary of Septemeber 11, 2001. What is it that we say about forgiveness? Just checking.
Monday, September 1, 2008
First observations: Matthew 18:15-20
Things I had not really noticed before
1. The NIV, NRSV. CEV, Amplified, and the Message [to name just five I looked up quickly] all use the word “church” in this passage. I guess that it seems strange to see the word attributed to Jesus, although that it might not seem so strange to Roman Catholics since I do recall Jesus telling Simon that he would build his church upon him.
I guess I always thought of church as something that developed in Acts, after the believers received poor welcome in the temple and synagogues.
2. The approach to dispute resolution seems like something that might be suggested even in some Christian against non-Christian conflicts, but I don’t know that it would always work, although it usually seems smart to try to settle a dispute by talking to the one you have the beef with first.
A question to those of us who are not taking our brothers to task: Why aren’t we? Is it because we are told to forgive our brothers seventy times seven times and we have lost count before 491? Or are we too chicken to face somebody one-on-one and face earthly repercussions that might bring? Are we weaseling out questioning our ability to know who the members of the “church” are? After all, we may know the roster of our own congregation or even our own denomination, but how do we really know who is a member of the one, true “church,” especially since we have been admonished not to be judges?
And how do we treat somebody like an unbeliever or tax collector? I suspect that traditions which have practiced shunning or excommunication might be using this text for justification, but Jesus was repeatedly rebuked for socializing with tax collectors and “sinners.”
These are just my first observations as I start studying the Gospel passage for next Sunday. Anybody who has a comment is welcome to share. And I may amend my questions/comments or partly answer some of them later, so you might wish to check again.
1. The NIV, NRSV. CEV, Amplified, and the Message [to name just five I looked up quickly] all use the word “church” in this passage. I guess that it seems strange to see the word attributed to Jesus, although that it might not seem so strange to Roman Catholics since I do recall Jesus telling Simon that he would build his church upon him.
I guess I always thought of church as something that developed in Acts, after the believers received poor welcome in the temple and synagogues.
2. The approach to dispute resolution seems like something that might be suggested even in some Christian against non-Christian conflicts, but I don’t know that it would always work, although it usually seems smart to try to settle a dispute by talking to the one you have the beef with first.
A question to those of us who are not taking our brothers to task: Why aren’t we? Is it because we are told to forgive our brothers seventy times seven times and we have lost count before 491? Or are we too chicken to face somebody one-on-one and face earthly repercussions that might bring? Are we weaseling out questioning our ability to know who the members of the “church” are? After all, we may know the roster of our own congregation or even our own denomination, but how do we really know who is a member of the one, true “church,” especially since we have been admonished not to be judges?
And how do we treat somebody like an unbeliever or tax collector? I suspect that traditions which have practiced shunning or excommunication might be using this text for justification, but Jesus was repeatedly rebuked for socializing with tax collectors and “sinners.”
These are just my first observations as I start studying the Gospel passage for next Sunday. Anybody who has a comment is welcome to share. And I may amend my questions/comments or partly answer some of them later, so you might wish to check again.
NEWS: Wesley diaries
People in the various Wesleyan traditions [UMC, AME, CME, AMEZ, Nazarene, Wesleyan, Free Methodist, others] may be upset. It is probably too early to tell. But it has come out that Charles Wesley kept a secret diary written in a secret code for twenty years and an Anglican scholar has now deciphered it.
The work is scheduled for publication soon. There may [apparently will] be some embarrassments. But I would suggest that we remember what we have had to remember so often lately, that the message is often stronger than the messenger.
And we will have to check up on this later. Philadelphia Bulletin story
The work is scheduled for publication soon. There may [apparently will] be some embarrassments. But I would suggest that we remember what we have had to remember so often lately, that the message is often stronger than the messenger.
And we will have to check up on this later. Philadelphia Bulletin story
We can discuss best those matters we phrase best
The role churches have in matters in how to react to homosexuality and those who might engage in homosexual acts is a matter of discussion in several religious communities, Christian and others. My church and its denomination have gone one way, most go the other but many of them are asking questions. I am sure that many on both sides are praying that they have interpreted correctly and that most of the people of good will on both sides understand the complexity of the matter.
But it seems to me that the question has always been, “Does God really condemn homosexual thought and/or conduct?” and not “Has God changed His/Her mind on this matter?” The first question seems to ask whether two millennia of church thinking might be in error. The second question seems to imply that God has no fixed standards.
But Kermit Rainman of Focus on the Family is quoted as saying, "Gay activists and their allies have made no secret of their strategy to convince Bible-believing Christians and Jews that homosexual behavior is no longer sinful in God’s eyes." [link]
The United Church of Christ says that God is still speaking. Mr. Robinson's seems to be saying that God changes the message on the way. Somehow I would rather discuss the first question than the last.
[There is a third possibiliy that one churchperson mentioned to me a few years ago, which would be to conclude that the Bible does not condemn lesbian sex but does condemn male homosexuality. I don’t know how many scholars or theologians conclude things this way and of course it really is somewhat irrelevant what the numbers would be, but it seems that even if one takes this position that one still cannot how the question is phrased. And I wonder if the thinking isn’t a bit flawed.]
But it seems to me that the question has always been, “Does God really condemn homosexual thought and/or conduct?” and not “Has God changed His/Her mind on this matter?” The first question seems to ask whether two millennia of church thinking might be in error. The second question seems to imply that God has no fixed standards.
But Kermit Rainman of Focus on the Family is quoted as saying, "Gay activists and their allies have made no secret of their strategy to convince Bible-believing Christians and Jews that homosexual behavior is no longer sinful in God’s eyes." [link]
The United Church of Christ says that God is still speaking. Mr. Robinson's seems to be saying that God changes the message on the way. Somehow I would rather discuss the first question than the last.
[There is a third possibiliy that one churchperson mentioned to me a few years ago, which would be to conclude that the Bible does not condemn lesbian sex but does condemn male homosexuality. I don’t know how many scholars or theologians conclude things this way and of course it really is somewhat irrelevant what the numbers would be, but it seems that even if one takes this position that one still cannot how the question is phrased. And I wonder if the thinking isn’t a bit flawed.]
Sunday, August 31, 2008
RCL texts for 9/7/08
Revised Common Lectionary texts for September 7, 2008 [23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time] are
Exodus 12:1-14 [The Passover foretold]
Psalm 149
Romans 13:8-14
Matthew 18:15-20 [Where two or three are gathered]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)