So, um, this is a weird one. In both Bible conversation groups on Wednesday, we read the text aloud, as is our custom, and then stared at each other for a few moments. What is Jesus trying to teach us in this parable? Verse thirteen seems to be a nice, simple summary statement, “you cannot serve God and wealth.” OK, good, that makes sense. Jesus was always telling the rich to give away all their possessions. But how do we get to verse thirteen from the parable?
“Jesus said to his disciples, there was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought against him that this man was squandering his property.” Not unsurprisingly, the rich man fired the mismanaging manager. The parable then enters into the internal monologue of the manager. And the manager is like, I know what I’m going to do. I’m going to call in all my master’s debtors and cut their debt, so that when I’m unemployed, they will welcome me into their homes. Which, commentators have tried all kinds of work arounds to make this seem like the logical and ethical choice, maybe he was taking off the interest imposed on the debt against Jewish law, maybe he was cutting his own commission. But, one, all these work around require knowledge of the incident the parable doesn’t give us. And two, no matter how you slice it, solving the problem of squandering the master’s property by cutting the debts owed just doesn’t make any sense. Then to make the whole thing even weirder, “his master commended this dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly.” Wait, so the guy squanders his master’s wealth, fixes the problem by cheating the master further, and the master commends him for is actions? Yep, Jesus says, and in fact, “make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth, so that when it is gone they may welcome you into the eternal homes.” Does this not sound to anyone else like, “use money to make friends and influence people,” or the exact opposite of everything else Jesus has taught in the Gospels up to this point? What are we to do with this text?
So at the morning Bible chat I was totally stumped. And we ended up having this really great conversation about money, and how we manage money, and it was honest, and interesting, and I still wasn’t sure what I was going to do with this text as a sermon. Right after that, with our conversation still percolating in my mind, I came across an article by Pastor Leah Schrade that broke the whole thing wide open for me. So, apologies to the morning group that I didn’t read it sooner.
Pastor Schrade translates the word “shrewd” as “prudent.” So, in her summary, “what we are seeing here is a man who had squandered what had been entrusted to him, but in a moment of crisis redeems himself by following the most prudent course of action. Does it make up for the sins of his past? No. But he has at least salvaged what was left and made the best of a bad situation.” In Pastor Schrade’s interpretation, the master’s praise of the manager was because the manager had shown resourcefulness in a crisis. The master will not get all of his investments back, but he will get some, and some is better than none. “Now his boss can say: See what happened here? See what you’re capable of?”
Once I read the text with that perspective, suddenly the whole thing opened up for me. And with this perspective in my mind, I started to think about wealth. Because this parable is absolutely about wealth. Wealth was one of Jesus’ favorite topics. Jesus talked about wealth more than he talked about prayer, or faith. In fact, the only thing Jesus talked about more than wealth was the kingdom of God. Jesus had a lot to say to his followers about how they were to use money. So I started to work backwards through the sayings at the end, to see if I could make sense of it. “You cannot serve God and wealth” seemed like it had to be the key to the whole thing, because one, it sounded the most like other things Jesus said, but two, Greek rhetorical style always puts the most important point either first or last. The word translated “wealth” is in Greek mammon. And mammon is wealth personified. This is different from the property in the parable. Property is a thing, but wealth, mammon, is a character. I think part of the reason the master might have commended the manager was because he treated property like the tool that it was. By giving it away he used the property, rather than letting the property use him.
The parable said the master commended the dishonest manager, “for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their generation than are the children of the light.” “Children of the light” is a term used in the New Testament to refer to the followers of Jesus. Jesus’ observations about his followers in his time, still rings with some truth for his followers today. Because, we don’t really like to talk about money in the church. I mean, we talk about it in loose terms. And actually, at Trinity we do a better job of it than many, partially because our budget’s always pretty tight, so it’s important that we are all aware of how we’re doing as a congregation financially. But we don’t have many opportunities to talk personally about our own financial situations. Once a year, we have our stewardship season, and a couple of people stand up and tell you why they support the church financially, and we turn in our pledges, and no one but Doug and God ever know what you pledge. That always felt very normal to me, good even. Pledges should be between us and God, and for practical reasons, the financial secretary.
But while I was home in California I met with a financial planner. He is an old family friend, he actually got his start as my grandfather’s financial planner, so he’s been managing my family’s money since before I was born. And we had a great conversation not just about money, but about values, and how I could manage my money in support of my values. I was open and honest about my hopes and dreams, and also my fears and concerns. I left the conversation feeling more at ease about money than I think I ever have. I had a plan for what my money should do, and how to best use it not just for my own benefit, but to benefit others as well.
This parable got me wondering, why aren’t we having those sorts of conversations in the church. How come the first time I had a conversation like that, where I felt like I truly understood how to use money as a tool to reflect my values, it came from outside the church. “The children of this age are more shrewd… than the children of the light.” I think for me, the reason those conversations never happen in church is because I am so concerned about the power of wealth, of mammon, that I am afraid to talk about it, for fear it will consume me. The irony, of course, is that by not talking about something, we actually give it more power. And so, with the idea that “those who are faithful in a very little are faithful also in much,” I’m going to give you my own little stewardship temple talk, in hopes that it will encourage you to start your own conversations.
I put ten percent of my paycheck into an ELCA-managed retirement account. This happens automatically, before the check even comes to me. It makes the bookkeeping a little more complicated for Bob and Eileen, so I appreciate them for doing that for me. The ELCA account is steady, though not the most aggressive for growth. But it’s important to me that I continue to support the ELCA’s plan, because it feels like a way that I can support the greater ELCA clergy community. I also trust Portico to carefully check their investments against a variety of screens, so I can trust that the money is invested in corporations that support my values.
Once I get my paycheck, I write a check for the same amount that goes to Portico to Trinity. I got paid this week, so the check is in an envelope in my worship folder. After the offering comes up, I put my check in the plate while the worship assistant is getting the communion elements. I do it that way for two reasons. One, because it feels like I am participating in the community more by putting my offering in with yours. But two, for the totally practical reason of at my last call I tried to put my offering in the safe during the week, and I was terrible at remembering. Putting it in on Sunday is the only way I can guarantee I won’t forget and just have the check sitting in my bag for weeks on end. Once those two things are done, the remaining eighty percent I use for my monthly expenses. My budget is built around only having eighty percent of my paycheck, it’s just how I’ve planned for it.
This system works for me because my expenses are low enough, and my income high enough, to make those decisions. It wasn’t true in grad school, when I was trying to stretch a student loan payment through the end of the semester. It may not be true for you right now. Maybe you give and save five percent, or two, or you give five and save ten, or maybe right now you are living paycheck to paycheck, and after expenses there’s nothing left for giving or saving. The point of this parable isn’t to set some level of appropriate financial stewardship. The manager’s rather arbitrary cutting of fifty percent of one person’s debt and eighty of another seems more arbitrary than anything. Rather, I think this parable seeks to remind us that money in and of itself is a tool. And tools are neither good nor bad, they are just tools. It is only when it becomes mammon, a character that controls us of it’s own volition, that it becomes a danger.
We squander all kinds of things. Wealth, as this parable addresses, is certainly a huge one. But so too are relationships, power, opportunities to speak truth, chances to give service. And it is all too easy, once we notice the mistake made, to become paralyzed by failure and unable to move forward. What the mismanaging manager did that set him apart was he did something. He did not let the mistakes of his past paralyze him into being unable to try something new.
So let this parable inspire you to be bold, dear people of God. To give away your wealth to someone who has less. Or share the wealth of your time with a relationship you thought was lost. To work for equal wealth for all God’s children. To call out those who, through systems of inequality, have taken what is not theirs and are not faithful with what belongs to another. It may be a bold move, or a small one. It may even be the wrong one. But the only real squandering is to squander the opportunity to try again. Amen.
Works Cited:
Schrade, Leah. “Salvaging the Squandered.” EcoPreacher. Blog. <http://ecopreacher.blogspot.com/2016/09/salvaging-squandered.html>. Accessed 14 September 2016.
The extraordinary can look so ordinary
Monday, September 19, 2016
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Conversation Points for Luke 16:1-13
Study Format:
1. Read passage aloud. What did you notice in the reading? What words or phrase caught your attention?
2. Read passage aloud a second time. What questions would you ask the text?
3. Read passage aloud a third time. What do you hear God calling you to do or be in response to this text?
Interesting Ideas to Consider:
• Warnings about wealth have been a recurring theme since setting out to Jerusalem. 11:39-41 Jesus denounced the greed of the Pharisees, 12:13-21 the parable of the rich fool, 12:42-48 the parable of the prudent slave, 14:33 Jesus’ disciples must give up all their possessions, 15:13 the prodigal son “squandered” (same word as 16:1) his property.
• The characters in the story seem to be an absentee landlord and a steward in charge of managing the property in the landlord’s stead. The land has apparently been rented out to various tenants to work it in exchange for a cut of the proceeds, which the steward was to collect and manage.
• Verse one signals a change in audience. Unlike the previous parables about the lost which were directed at the Pharisees, this parable is for the disciples. What is unique about this parable that Jesus only intended it to be heard by his followers?
• Like the parable of the rich fool and the parable of the prodigal son, interior monologue plays an role as a significant turning point in the story. Like the rich fool, the dishonest steward asks himself the question, “What will I do?” and finds his own solution internally.
• The size of the reductions don’t seem to have any reason, as arbitrary as the steward’s actions to begin with. But these are extensive amounts, commercial transactions rather than household ones. The first debtor owed 100 baths of oil, a bath being equivalent to 9 gallons. The second 100 kors of grain. The size of a kor is unclear, but it is somewhere between 6.5 to 10-12 bushels.
• The trouble with interpreting this parable is we don’t know what the steward was doing. Possibilities include 1) cheating the master by reducing the size of the debts. 2) Acting rightly by excluding the interest figured in the debt, which was prohibited by Deuteronomy 23:19-20. 3) Reducing the debt due by the amount of his own commission. Option 1 is illegal, option 3 is legal, option 2 is complicated.
• In option two, the steward could be seen as showing goodness on behalf of the master to the debtors, by complying with the scriptural prohibition, even though such commercial transactions were common. The debtors would praise the master, who could then not easily restore the debt. The problem is 100% interest on oil would be excessive, even for the ancient Near East, and the difference in interest rates doesn’t make sense either.
• Culpepper prefers option 1 as both the simplest and the one that gives the greatest punch, the steward is dishonest and thus continues to cheat the master by arbitrarily slashing the debts.
• Which option (or another option) makes sense to you?
• Culpepper thinks the original end of the parable was 8a, with the master commending the manager for his actions. The manager’s move, whether an illegal lessening of the debts or a just returning them to the proper amount, both lifts up the master in the image of his debtors and honor-bound the debtors to the master, while also providing for the manager’s future.
• “Children of the light” shows up in later writings about the followers of Jesus in Paul and John. The writer seems to be making a distinction between those who follow Jesus, “children of the light” and those who do not “children of the world.”
• “Dishonest wealth” is better translated as “mammon of wickedness.”
• On verse 10, a beautiful reflection by Fred Craddock: “Most of us will not this week christen a ship, write a book, end a war, appoint a cabinet, dine with a queen, convert a nation, or be burned at the stake. Most likely the week will present no more than a chance to give a cup of water, write a note, visit a nursing home, vote for a county commissioner, teach a Sunday school class, share a meal, tell a child a story, go to choir practice, and feed the neighbor’s cat. ‘Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much.’”
Works Sourced:
Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Gospel of Luke.” The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
1. Read passage aloud. What did you notice in the reading? What words or phrase caught your attention?
2. Read passage aloud a second time. What questions would you ask the text?
3. Read passage aloud a third time. What do you hear God calling you to do or be in response to this text?
Interesting Ideas to Consider:
• Warnings about wealth have been a recurring theme since setting out to Jerusalem. 11:39-41 Jesus denounced the greed of the Pharisees, 12:13-21 the parable of the rich fool, 12:42-48 the parable of the prudent slave, 14:33 Jesus’ disciples must give up all their possessions, 15:13 the prodigal son “squandered” (same word as 16:1) his property.
• The characters in the story seem to be an absentee landlord and a steward in charge of managing the property in the landlord’s stead. The land has apparently been rented out to various tenants to work it in exchange for a cut of the proceeds, which the steward was to collect and manage.
• Verse one signals a change in audience. Unlike the previous parables about the lost which were directed at the Pharisees, this parable is for the disciples. What is unique about this parable that Jesus only intended it to be heard by his followers?
• Like the parable of the rich fool and the parable of the prodigal son, interior monologue plays an role as a significant turning point in the story. Like the rich fool, the dishonest steward asks himself the question, “What will I do?” and finds his own solution internally.
• The size of the reductions don’t seem to have any reason, as arbitrary as the steward’s actions to begin with. But these are extensive amounts, commercial transactions rather than household ones. The first debtor owed 100 baths of oil, a bath being equivalent to 9 gallons. The second 100 kors of grain. The size of a kor is unclear, but it is somewhere between 6.5 to 10-12 bushels.
• The trouble with interpreting this parable is we don’t know what the steward was doing. Possibilities include 1) cheating the master by reducing the size of the debts. 2) Acting rightly by excluding the interest figured in the debt, which was prohibited by Deuteronomy 23:19-20. 3) Reducing the debt due by the amount of his own commission. Option 1 is illegal, option 3 is legal, option 2 is complicated.
• In option two, the steward could be seen as showing goodness on behalf of the master to the debtors, by complying with the scriptural prohibition, even though such commercial transactions were common. The debtors would praise the master, who could then not easily restore the debt. The problem is 100% interest on oil would be excessive, even for the ancient Near East, and the difference in interest rates doesn’t make sense either.
• Culpepper prefers option 1 as both the simplest and the one that gives the greatest punch, the steward is dishonest and thus continues to cheat the master by arbitrarily slashing the debts.
• Which option (or another option) makes sense to you?
• Culpepper thinks the original end of the parable was 8a, with the master commending the manager for his actions. The manager’s move, whether an illegal lessening of the debts or a just returning them to the proper amount, both lifts up the master in the image of his debtors and honor-bound the debtors to the master, while also providing for the manager’s future.
• “Children of the light” shows up in later writings about the followers of Jesus in Paul and John. The writer seems to be making a distinction between those who follow Jesus, “children of the light” and those who do not “children of the world.”
• “Dishonest wealth” is better translated as “mammon of wickedness.”
• On verse 10, a beautiful reflection by Fred Craddock: “Most of us will not this week christen a ship, write a book, end a war, appoint a cabinet, dine with a queen, convert a nation, or be burned at the stake. Most likely the week will present no more than a chance to give a cup of water, write a note, visit a nursing home, vote for a county commissioner, teach a Sunday school class, share a meal, tell a child a story, go to choir practice, and feed the neighbor’s cat. ‘Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much.’”
Works Sourced:
Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Gospel of Luke.” The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Finding the Lost: A Sermon on Luke 15:1-10
Ah, the parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin. Such beloved and well-known stories, reminding us that Jesus goes after the least of us, that no one is beyond Jesus’ searching. What could the Pharisees possibly be so angry about?
Well, a lot of things, actually. We know these stories so well that the shock value of them has worn off a little bit. Let’s really think about these stories for a minute. First off, this chapter picks up with the Pharisees grumbling about Jesus welcoming sinners and eating with them. It’s easy with our modern worldview to wonder what the Pharisees are so uptight about, but think about it from their perspective. In their minds, their entire identity, their very value as people, is built on their ability to properly follow the morality codes as they had interpreted them. We can argue about whether they had the correct interpretation, and from my personal study of scripture, they didn’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that in their minds, their self-worth was dependent on their ability to keep these codes. So when Jesus came in and started breaking all the rules of who was in and who was out, it didn’t just challenge their power, it and of itself a hugely threatening thing, it challenged their very identities as people.
And then in response to their grumblings, Jesus told them these parables. Which, let me tell you what, especially the first one, really did not help their mood at all. Why was the first one so offensive? The first parable in our minds probably calls to mind all the beautiful image of God as the Good Shepherd that we think of in the Old Testament. Psalm twenty-three, “The Lord is my Shepherd,” Isaiah forty, “[God] will feed his flock like a shepherd,” we could go on. These are the images that come to mind for us, because we do not have experience with actual first century shepherds. The Pharisees knew the biblical images, for sure. But more real to them were the shepherds they saw in front of them every day. And those shepherds, actual, real-life shepherds, were shiftless, thieving, and untrustworthy. Shepherding was listed among the despised trades by the rabbis, so Pharisees would have had an especially low view of the profession. So it felt pretty offensive for Jesus to follow up their grumbling about sinners and tax collectors with a story where the hero was a shepherd.
The other problem, of course, was the Pharisees would have considered themselves among the ninety-nine. Remember what we’d talked about earlier, their entire identity, their self-worth as individuals was built on this idea that they followed the rules, lived rightly, and thus were good in the eyes of God. So it hurt when Jesus started telling a story about how God was more interested in the people whom they saw as less than, who didn’t seem to be trying as hard as they were. If, and that in and of itself was a big if, but if they were going to accept this image of God as a shepherd and them as sheep, then at the very least that shepherd ought to be staying and protecting them, the good sheep, the sheep who did what they were supposed to do, and not wandering all over creation leaving them alone with no protection against thieves or wolves to look for some slacker sheep that had wandered away.
Similarly with the coin parable, the coin in question is a drachma, in other places in scripture it’s called a denarii, so about a day’s wages. We’re not talking about an excessive amount of money here. It’s not like the woman misplaced her million dollar lottery ticket. The looking for it is fine, sure. But if God is this woman, and the Pharisees the coins, does it make sense that God would spend more coins throwing a huge party to celebrate the lost coin being found? Doesn’t it make more economic sense to just be happy with the coins you’ve got?
Of course it does. In these parables, neither the shepherd nor the woman makes the smarter economic decision. These are bad decisions. Unless, of course, you are the sheep. Unless, of course, you are the coin. Unless, of course, you are the one lost, alone, and in an unfamiliar place. Unless you are the one who wandered off; or the one whom the flock wandered off from, and you don’t know where to go, what to do, how to get back. When that happens, when you are the sheep, when you are the coin, then these parables matter a lot.
As today is the fifteenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I’ve been thinking a lot about that day. That memory is an important turning point in my life, because I was eighteen on September eleventh, two-thousand and one. It was my third week of college, I had just moved twelve-hundred miles from home, and nothing, no one, in the school, city, or state I lived in was familiar to me. I remember waking up to the sound of my roommate’s cell phone ringing, and her sleepy one-sided conversation with her boyfriend in Alaska, and assuming there must have been an earthquake in Anchorage, because what other twin tower could possibly have fallen? I remember standing in the communal bathroom brushing my teeth, when my neighbor walked by and remarked with total seriousness, “well, I guess we’re at war.” I remember skipping class, because how could something as meaningless as Critical Thinking 101 still be happening in a world such as this. I remember walking to the blood bank, and being turned away, because there was in fact not a need for blood donations in the Pacific Northwest. I remember standing at a vigil that night, arm-in-arm with a woman I barely knew, who I don’t think I ever saw again, looking up at the oddly silent night sky and feeling so very much alone. The strange silence of a planeless sky reminded me that home, without air travel, was an impossible distance away. I felt like the sheep, like the coin, alone without the flock that I had wandered away from, and that was now cut off from me, with no way to get back.
We’ve all had those sheep/coin moments. That moment where the world shifts beneath our feet and we cannot find our way back to where we were before. Maybe for some of you, like for me, 9/11 was that moment. Maybe for you it was the middle of the night phone call, the doctor’s diagnosis, the pink slip, the words spoken in anger that, once released, could not be taken back. For the Pharisees, this was that moment. That moment when everything they thought they knew, everything they’d built their lives on, was gone in an instant, and they didn’t know how to get back to where they were before. Their anger prevented them from seeing the ironic truth that Jesus spoke this good news for them. Because that is the promise of this parable, that no matter how lost you find yourself, whether you wandered away from the flock or the flock wandered away from you, nothing, not nothing, will stop the Good Shepherd from seeking you out. Nothing, not nothing, will stop the Patient Housewife from searching for you. And when you are found again, and you will be found again, for persistence is the hallmark of the kingdom of God, what a celebration there will be! Everyone is invited to the party, because the lost, the precious to God, have been found again.
Parables always have this deeper level, this description of the nature of the kingdom of God. But they also always have a surface level interpretation, a lesson on how we live together in this life. And I think the surface level message for us in this parable is that because God always comes and finds us, because no matter how lost we may feel, we can trust in the promise that Jesus seeks and finds us, then the work we do seeking and finding others, matters. The work that we do seeking and finding brings the kingdom of God to earth. Yesterday we joined with Lutherans all over the country in being God’s hands and feet in the world. We painted, we cleaned paths, we sorted clothes, we wrote cards, we’re actually still writing cards, and in fact, if you’d like to take some cards home with you to write, please do. We did a lot of work yesterday! And that work matters. That work made a difference in the world. Every new outfit, cleaned trail, painted room, opened envelope, told someone, hey, you are worth finding. You matter to us and to God, and you are worth finding. And so, dear sheep, dear coins, you are not lost, but you have been found. And today we celebrate with friends and neighbors, saying “Rejoice with me, for God has found what was lost,” and we got to be a part of the finding. Thanks be to God. Amen.
Well, a lot of things, actually. We know these stories so well that the shock value of them has worn off a little bit. Let’s really think about these stories for a minute. First off, this chapter picks up with the Pharisees grumbling about Jesus welcoming sinners and eating with them. It’s easy with our modern worldview to wonder what the Pharisees are so uptight about, but think about it from their perspective. In their minds, their entire identity, their very value as people, is built on their ability to properly follow the morality codes as they had interpreted them. We can argue about whether they had the correct interpretation, and from my personal study of scripture, they didn’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that in their minds, their self-worth was dependent on their ability to keep these codes. So when Jesus came in and started breaking all the rules of who was in and who was out, it didn’t just challenge their power, it and of itself a hugely threatening thing, it challenged their very identities as people.
And then in response to their grumblings, Jesus told them these parables. Which, let me tell you what, especially the first one, really did not help their mood at all. Why was the first one so offensive? The first parable in our minds probably calls to mind all the beautiful image of God as the Good Shepherd that we think of in the Old Testament. Psalm twenty-three, “The Lord is my Shepherd,” Isaiah forty, “[God] will feed his flock like a shepherd,” we could go on. These are the images that come to mind for us, because we do not have experience with actual first century shepherds. The Pharisees knew the biblical images, for sure. But more real to them were the shepherds they saw in front of them every day. And those shepherds, actual, real-life shepherds, were shiftless, thieving, and untrustworthy. Shepherding was listed among the despised trades by the rabbis, so Pharisees would have had an especially low view of the profession. So it felt pretty offensive for Jesus to follow up their grumbling about sinners and tax collectors with a story where the hero was a shepherd.
The other problem, of course, was the Pharisees would have considered themselves among the ninety-nine. Remember what we’d talked about earlier, their entire identity, their self-worth as individuals was built on this idea that they followed the rules, lived rightly, and thus were good in the eyes of God. So it hurt when Jesus started telling a story about how God was more interested in the people whom they saw as less than, who didn’t seem to be trying as hard as they were. If, and that in and of itself was a big if, but if they were going to accept this image of God as a shepherd and them as sheep, then at the very least that shepherd ought to be staying and protecting them, the good sheep, the sheep who did what they were supposed to do, and not wandering all over creation leaving them alone with no protection against thieves or wolves to look for some slacker sheep that had wandered away.
Similarly with the coin parable, the coin in question is a drachma, in other places in scripture it’s called a denarii, so about a day’s wages. We’re not talking about an excessive amount of money here. It’s not like the woman misplaced her million dollar lottery ticket. The looking for it is fine, sure. But if God is this woman, and the Pharisees the coins, does it make sense that God would spend more coins throwing a huge party to celebrate the lost coin being found? Doesn’t it make more economic sense to just be happy with the coins you’ve got?
Of course it does. In these parables, neither the shepherd nor the woman makes the smarter economic decision. These are bad decisions. Unless, of course, you are the sheep. Unless, of course, you are the coin. Unless, of course, you are the one lost, alone, and in an unfamiliar place. Unless you are the one who wandered off; or the one whom the flock wandered off from, and you don’t know where to go, what to do, how to get back. When that happens, when you are the sheep, when you are the coin, then these parables matter a lot.
As today is the fifteenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I’ve been thinking a lot about that day. That memory is an important turning point in my life, because I was eighteen on September eleventh, two-thousand and one. It was my third week of college, I had just moved twelve-hundred miles from home, and nothing, no one, in the school, city, or state I lived in was familiar to me. I remember waking up to the sound of my roommate’s cell phone ringing, and her sleepy one-sided conversation with her boyfriend in Alaska, and assuming there must have been an earthquake in Anchorage, because what other twin tower could possibly have fallen? I remember standing in the communal bathroom brushing my teeth, when my neighbor walked by and remarked with total seriousness, “well, I guess we’re at war.” I remember skipping class, because how could something as meaningless as Critical Thinking 101 still be happening in a world such as this. I remember walking to the blood bank, and being turned away, because there was in fact not a need for blood donations in the Pacific Northwest. I remember standing at a vigil that night, arm-in-arm with a woman I barely knew, who I don’t think I ever saw again, looking up at the oddly silent night sky and feeling so very much alone. The strange silence of a planeless sky reminded me that home, without air travel, was an impossible distance away. I felt like the sheep, like the coin, alone without the flock that I had wandered away from, and that was now cut off from me, with no way to get back.
We’ve all had those sheep/coin moments. That moment where the world shifts beneath our feet and we cannot find our way back to where we were before. Maybe for some of you, like for me, 9/11 was that moment. Maybe for you it was the middle of the night phone call, the doctor’s diagnosis, the pink slip, the words spoken in anger that, once released, could not be taken back. For the Pharisees, this was that moment. That moment when everything they thought they knew, everything they’d built their lives on, was gone in an instant, and they didn’t know how to get back to where they were before. Their anger prevented them from seeing the ironic truth that Jesus spoke this good news for them. Because that is the promise of this parable, that no matter how lost you find yourself, whether you wandered away from the flock or the flock wandered away from you, nothing, not nothing, will stop the Good Shepherd from seeking you out. Nothing, not nothing, will stop the Patient Housewife from searching for you. And when you are found again, and you will be found again, for persistence is the hallmark of the kingdom of God, what a celebration there will be! Everyone is invited to the party, because the lost, the precious to God, have been found again.
Parables always have this deeper level, this description of the nature of the kingdom of God. But they also always have a surface level interpretation, a lesson on how we live together in this life. And I think the surface level message for us in this parable is that because God always comes and finds us, because no matter how lost we may feel, we can trust in the promise that Jesus seeks and finds us, then the work we do seeking and finding others, matters. The work that we do seeking and finding brings the kingdom of God to earth. Yesterday we joined with Lutherans all over the country in being God’s hands and feet in the world. We painted, we cleaned paths, we sorted clothes, we wrote cards, we’re actually still writing cards, and in fact, if you’d like to take some cards home with you to write, please do. We did a lot of work yesterday! And that work matters. That work made a difference in the world. Every new outfit, cleaned trail, painted room, opened envelope, told someone, hey, you are worth finding. You matter to us and to God, and you are worth finding. And so, dear sheep, dear coins, you are not lost, but you have been found. And today we celebrate with friends and neighbors, saying “Rejoice with me, for God has found what was lost,” and we got to be a part of the finding. Thanks be to God. Amen.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
Conversation Points for Luke 15:1-10
Study Format:
1. Read passage aloud. What did you notice in the reading? What words or phrase caught your attention?
2. Read passage aloud a second time. What questions would you ask the text?
3. Read passage aloud a third time. What do you hear God calling you to do or be in response to this text?
Interesting Ideas to Consider:
• Once again, in the style of Luke, we see two paralleled parables. First about a man, then balancing, about a woman. Both follow the same structure: 1) a question, 2) a story of losing and finding, 3) a celebration with friends.
• Chapter fifteen opens with the results of the meal stories of chapter fourteen, the Pharisees grumbling because Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them,” a violation of purity codes.
• The word translated “grumbling” is in the Greek diagongyzĹ, the same word used in the Septuagint for the Israelites “murmuring” in the wilderness against Moses (Exodus 16:7-12). It also shows up in similar contexts in Luke 5:30 and 19:7.
• The first parable about a sheep reflects the agrarian lifestyle, and calls to mind the description of God as a shepherd in the Old Testament (Isaiah 40:11, among others).
• In contrast to the positive image of shepherds in scripture, first century shepherds had the reputation of being shiftless, thieving, and untrustworthy. Shepherding was listed among the despised trades by the rabbis, so Pharisees would have had an especially low view of the profession. Especially considering Jesus responded to their critiques about tax collectors and sinners by telling a story where the hero was a shepherd.
• Verse 7 connects the parable to the Pharisees’ experience. The shepherd’s joy in finding the sheep mirrors God’s joy in the ones the Pharisees found contemptible. While they could see themselves as part of the 99, their “righteousness” did not make God rejoice, because it had become a barrier separating them from others.
• The coin referenced in the second parable is a drachma, worth about a day’s wage. So ten drachmas, while noticeable to a subsistence income, would not have been a significant amount of money. This is important, the point of the parable would have been lost if the woman was searching for a large amount of money.
Works Sourced:
Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Gospel of Luke.” The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
1. Read passage aloud. What did you notice in the reading? What words or phrase caught your attention?
2. Read passage aloud a second time. What questions would you ask the text?
3. Read passage aloud a third time. What do you hear God calling you to do or be in response to this text?
Interesting Ideas to Consider:
• Once again, in the style of Luke, we see two paralleled parables. First about a man, then balancing, about a woman. Both follow the same structure: 1) a question, 2) a story of losing and finding, 3) a celebration with friends.
• Chapter fifteen opens with the results of the meal stories of chapter fourteen, the Pharisees grumbling because Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them,” a violation of purity codes.
• The word translated “grumbling” is in the Greek diagongyzĹ, the same word used in the Septuagint for the Israelites “murmuring” in the wilderness against Moses (Exodus 16:7-12). It also shows up in similar contexts in Luke 5:30 and 19:7.
• The first parable about a sheep reflects the agrarian lifestyle, and calls to mind the description of God as a shepherd in the Old Testament (Isaiah 40:11, among others).
• In contrast to the positive image of shepherds in scripture, first century shepherds had the reputation of being shiftless, thieving, and untrustworthy. Shepherding was listed among the despised trades by the rabbis, so Pharisees would have had an especially low view of the profession. Especially considering Jesus responded to their critiques about tax collectors and sinners by telling a story where the hero was a shepherd.
• Verse 7 connects the parable to the Pharisees’ experience. The shepherd’s joy in finding the sheep mirrors God’s joy in the ones the Pharisees found contemptible. While they could see themselves as part of the 99, their “righteousness” did not make God rejoice, because it had become a barrier separating them from others.
• The coin referenced in the second parable is a drachma, worth about a day’s wage. So ten drachmas, while noticeable to a subsistence income, would not have been a significant amount of money. This is important, the point of the parable would have been lost if the woman was searching for a large amount of money.
Works Sourced:
Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Gospel of Luke.” The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Conversation Points for Luke 14:25-33
Study Format:
1. Read passage aloud. What did you notice in the reading? What words or phrase caught your attention?
2. Read passage aloud a second time. What questions would you ask the text?
3. Read passage aloud a third time. What do you hear God calling you to do or be in response to this text?
Interesting Ideas to Consider:
• This passage leaves the meal setting and returns to the motif of journeying. These sayings are addressed to the large crowds following Jesus. Rather than softening his message to attract followers, Jesus tried to dissuade followers by telling the truth about the difficulties of discipleship.
• V. 26 is a difficult one to understand, considering Jesus’ commitment to love. However, a literary style of the period was to exaggerate a contrast in order to see it more clearly. So to “hate” is not to create anger or hostility, it is instead to recognize that discipleship must always come before human relationships. Also, early Christianity was a wandering band, so a disciple needed to be willing to leave ones family.
• V. 27 – another reference to Jesus eventual crucifixion as we journey to Jerusalem.
• V. 28-32 – No one would enter into a building (or a war) without being sure they could finish the job (or, ok, let’s be reasonable, no logical person would, certainly plenty of people do). In the same vein, God will not enter into the work of redemption without seeing it through. The parable is not about building stronger armies, it’s about finishing what you started.
• In verse 33, Jesus demands disciples must “give up all your possessions.” The sharing of goods for the betterment of all in Acts probably demonstrates how Luke saw this command to be lived out.
Works Sourced:
Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Gospel of Luke.” The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
1. Read passage aloud. What did you notice in the reading? What words or phrase caught your attention?
2. Read passage aloud a second time. What questions would you ask the text?
3. Read passage aloud a third time. What do you hear God calling you to do or be in response to this text?
Interesting Ideas to Consider:
• This passage leaves the meal setting and returns to the motif of journeying. These sayings are addressed to the large crowds following Jesus. Rather than softening his message to attract followers, Jesus tried to dissuade followers by telling the truth about the difficulties of discipleship.
• V. 26 is a difficult one to understand, considering Jesus’ commitment to love. However, a literary style of the period was to exaggerate a contrast in order to see it more clearly. So to “hate” is not to create anger or hostility, it is instead to recognize that discipleship must always come before human relationships. Also, early Christianity was a wandering band, so a disciple needed to be willing to leave ones family.
• V. 27 – another reference to Jesus eventual crucifixion as we journey to Jerusalem.
• V. 28-32 – No one would enter into a building (or a war) without being sure they could finish the job (or, ok, let’s be reasonable, no logical person would, certainly plenty of people do). In the same vein, God will not enter into the work of redemption without seeing it through. The parable is not about building stronger armies, it’s about finishing what you started.
• In verse 33, Jesus demands disciples must “give up all your possessions.” The sharing of goods for the betterment of all in Acts probably demonstrates how Luke saw this command to be lived out.
Works Sourced:
Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Gospel of Luke.” The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)