RCL readings for April 26, 2009

Revised Common Lectionary texts for April 26, 2009

[Third Sunday of Easter, Year B]

Acts 3:12-19

Psalm 4

1 John 3:1-7

Luke 24:36b-48

When the calendars meet

Sometimes the scriptures the liturgical calendar the Revised Common Lectionary provides have no easily noted connection with the calendar we all use in daily life.  This week seems to be a fortuitous exception.

 

This morning’s gospel selection does include that nice passage on forgiveness.  As our news media have been reporting anniversaries of Blacksburg, Waco, Oklahoma City, and Columbine this week and how survivors are coping or not coping, the importance of forgiving and letting go seems more important than ever.

 

The church I attend was observing the Second Sunday of Easter as Holy Humor Sunday instead, and while I admit there is something to learn with that approach too, I admit being disappointed although not surprised at our church’s choice.

 

But I hope that in the places of grief that pastors and teachers were able to help survivors and friends and acquaintances. 

First observations: texts for April 19 [Easter B2]

Ten of the eleven were shown Jesus’ hands and sides, so maybe Thomas’ request does not seem so extreme.

 

If we forgive somebody his sins, it must mean that the sins are forgiven as far as we are concerned.  It certainly cannot be that we have control over whether there is Divine forgiveness.  And if we are truly forgiving we don’t have to do it again, they are indeed gone for good as far as we are concerned.

 

The origin if the phrase “doubting Thomas” clearly comes from the gospel passage.

When Thomas does see the Savior his does not insist on inserting his hand into the wounds.  The presence of Jesus was enough to sway him.

 

Wouldn’t it have seemed so much simpler to us if more of the miraculous signs and wonders were recorded?  But on second thought, would we accept things better?  Yet the Acts passage would seem to tell us that even after Pentecost the disciples were wanting more miraculous signs.

 

The epistle seems to fit in.  The writer discusses revelation and personal experiences with it [“We saw it, we heard it, and now we’re telling you . . . (The Message)]  While the gospel text talks of the ability to forgive, this passage discusses the need for and availability of forgiveness.  [If we claim that we're free of sin, we're only fooling ourselves. A claim like that is errant nonsense. On the other hand, if we admit our sins—make a clean breast of them—he won't let us down; he'll be true to himself. He'll forgive our sins and purge us of all wrongdoing. (Message)]

 

People have used the part of the Acts text after v. 32 as a basis for forming utopian communal societies.  It does seem ideal, but even before the Acts were over that people in the church did indeed have private property, apparently without shame.  I guess I had never made the connection between the shaking of the meeting place and trembling of the believers [v.31].

 

RCL texts for April 19, 2009

RCL texts for April 19, 2009

[Second Sunday of Easter, year B]

 

Acts 4:32-35

Psalm 133

I John 1:1-2:2

John 20:19-31

RCL texts for February 22, 2009

RCL texts for February 22, 2009
Transfiguration Sunday

II Kings 2:1-12

Psalm 50:1-6
II Corinthians 4:3-6
Mark 9:2-9

How tolerant are we?

The various ceremonies surrounding the inauguration of President Obama featured prayers and messages from people of an amazingly broad spectrum of religious traditions – Protestant of almost all stripes (Pentecostal, Evangelical, Liberal main line), Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish. Although there was some flak about the placement of some of these, especially Rick Warren at the inauguratal ceremony, nobody seemed to mind this reflection of American religious diversity and tolerance for others’ beliefs.

Which is one reason that I find this story interesting.

Oklahoma is a place with which I am not familiar, but one would think that people there would want the records of their legislative bodies to be correct, even if they did not all like what happened.

But I guess the matter is not clear cut, after all. According to the web site of the United Church of Christ Rev. Scott Jones, pastor of Cathedral of Hope – Oklahoma City gave an invocation for the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

After Mr. Jones gave the invocation, the House actually debated on whether to include the prayer in the journal and 20 voted against putting it in.

The pastor is gay. The congregation is primarily gay and lesbian. And the church is in the capital city of the state. Surely people knew this before inviting the man. The pastor’s denomination is upset and its leaders are screaming “bigotry.” I think I can safely assume that his congregation is less than happy.

My first thought is that there is a whole lot of unnecessary ugliness here. But after thinking more about it, I am wondering if maybe we should be glad that even though it is a shame how some reacted, that fact that the leadership appreciated religious diversity enough to invite Rev. Mr. Jones in the first place is an encouraging thing.

(In Minnesota Ojibway shamans have given invocations, even being allowed to light the otherwise taboo tobacco in the chambers in preparation. I don’t think that there are any members of the legislature who practice Ojibway religion and almost all of them are clearly anti-tobacco, but they are accepting enough to welcome the shamans.)

link to story

The state is still the state

I am not of the Anabaptist tradition, but have always admired the Mennonite commitment to peace and justice, even as I hedge through life in the main line. And I doubt whether there are any groups who have been as strong on the separation of church and state as they have been.

I recently saw this post on an Anabaptist blog from somebody called DAVIDC which was posted the day after President Obama’s inauguration.

It is a great oversimplification for me to put it this way, but DAVIDC seems to say that, although the inauguration was indeed a turning point, that the state is still the state. He notes with some apprehension that with the changing of the guard that many “will start to put our faith in the ideals of the state and our hope in its progress.”

He sums his own post up with “In this time of celebration, may we not forget that the state is still the state. And we are still called to be the church.”

Link to the article.