Category: Lectionary

Family Values and the Resurrection – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 25C

Family Values and the Resurrection – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 25C

November 6, 2016

Luke 20:27-38 Common English Bible (CEB)

27 Some Sadducees, who deny that there’s a resurrection, came to Jesus and asked, 28 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies leaving a widow but no children, the brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first man married a woman and then died childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third brother married her. Eventually all seven married her, and they all died without leaving any children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 In the resurrection, whose wife will she be? All seven were married to her.”                 34 Jesus said to them, “People who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage. 35  But those who are considered worthy to participate in that age, that is, in the age of the resurrection from the dead, won’t marry nor will they be given in marriage. 36 They can no longer die, because they are like angels and are God’s children since they share in the resurrection. 37 Even Moses demonstrated that the dead are raised—in the passage about the burning bush, when he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 He isn’t the God of the dead but of the living. To him they are all alive.”

********************

20161016_105852Jesus often found himself in the cross-hairs of contemporary debates. Although he had tangled with Pharisees earlier in Luke’s story, now that he has arrived in Jerusalem, he faces a different group of questioners—Sadducees. When this encounter takes place, Jesus has already entered the city in triumph (Luke 19:28-40). He has cleansed the Temple. He has been facing a variety of questions about his authority. The Sadducees formed one of several Jewish religious parties in first century Palestine. You might call them the religious conservatives, because they sought to protect older theologies, including understandings of the afterlife. They were also aristocratic, who were the source of the priesthood. Their primary rivals at the time of Jesus were the Pharisees, who like Jesus embraced the doctrine of the resurrection.

In this encounter, this group Sadducees try to test Jesus. In fact, they seem eager to mock him. They probably had motive to embarrass him, since Jesus had earlier visited the Temple and turned over a few tables and freed some animals. We call this the cleansing of the Temple, but the priests and their allies among the Sadducees would have been rather irate at the way this upstart from Galilee messed with their Temple.  So, why not ask a question that could embarrass. That had to do with marriage and resurrection.

The question they posed was this. Given the ancient practice of levirate marriage, which required that if a man died without leaving an heir, it was up to his younger brothers to fulfill that obligation by marrying his widow and hopefully producing a child, what would happen if none of seven brothers provided an heir. Who would the wife belong to in the resurrection.  The point of levirate marriage was the eternal value of one’s legacy—that is one’s male line (in a patrilineal society). Things could get messy as is seen in the story of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38).

We no longer practice levirate marriage, but many of the concerns that gave birth to that practice remain with us. We seem to have a need to perpetuate the family tree.  My father, for instance, was quite interested in our family’s ancestry. He was also concerned about his legacy. He had produced two sons, but what might happen after that. He was pleased when Cheryl and I produced a male child. For at least one more generation the Cornwall name would continue.  Of course, my cousin David, the son of my father’s older brother, also produced a male heir. I don’t know if my uncle’s line has continued beyond David’s son, and as for my father’s, well only time will tell. Legacies are important, except that Jesus doesn’t agree.

So, the question posed to Jesus, a question meant to show the ridiculous nature of the doctrine of resurrection, concerned the status of a wife given two seven brothers through levirate marriage. In the resurrection (if there’s such a thing), who did she belong to if no child was ever produced?  That seemed like an unanswerable question, except that Jesus turned the question on its head.  What if in the resurrection there isn’t marriage and family? If that’s true, then the question of who one belongs to is a moot point. It doesn’t matter if there is no marriage or giving in marriage in the heavenly realm. In the next life, we’ll all be like angels!

Point well taken, Jesus wins the argument. Resurrection still stands. But, what about family values. How does Jesus’ answer affect the way we view marriage and family? It is common in weddings to pledge one’s covenant loyalty to the other “until death do us part.” That would seem to suggest that we understand the bond to hold as long as we “both shall live.” As for the next life, who knows? We say the words, but as life goes on and family takes hold, the hope emerges that this bond forged in life will continue in the next life. When we gather at funerals we envision being reconnected with our loved ones. We picture taking up where things were left off. Second marriages and blended families don’t factor into the equation. We don’t worry about the intricacies; we just want to take up life again. That is one of the reasons why Mormon theology of marriage consecrated in the Temples is so attractive. It also answers the question of to whom one is married in the resurrection. It’s the one to whom one is sealed in the Temple, and as far as I know that can take place only once. Alas, for the rest of us, we don’t have the theological legacy to stand on. What we have is this message from Jesus.

I take up this passage in my book Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016). I made this passage the concluding chapter in the book, which I titled “Beyond Marriage and Family.” I address the question of security. If you have security in this life, as the members of the Sadducees party like had, then there’s less need for an afterlife. Having those heirs. That’s good enough. But, if you don’t feel secure in this life, then perhaps the next will provide it.

In our modern context questions raised about the resurrection are different from the first century. They’re mostly intellectual ones. Since we can’t prove the existence of an afterlife, then why bother with believing in one.  If we do believe in the resurrection, the question of to whom we’re married in heaven probably doesn’t even come to mind. Yet, at least on an emotional level, a good majority of Christians expect to take up life as usual in the heavenly realm. We want to believe we’ll be reunited. But Jesus sets that aside, which is a good reminder that while family is important, it’s not ultimate.

On the matter of resurrection, which is the real issue at hand.  Jesus affirms it, and he backs up this affirmation with a bit of scripture. He notes that when God appeared to Moses at the burning bush, God revealed God’s self as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). According to Luke’s Jesus, that meant that these three Patriarchs still lived, and therefore God is the God of the living and not the dead. Death has lost its sting. Death is not victorious, because Jesus has conquered death through the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:54-55). That is what is ultimate!

bobcornwallRobert Cornwall is the Pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church in Troy, Michigan and is the author of a number of books including Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016) and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015).

Righteous Humility – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 23C

Righteous Humility – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 23C

October 23, 2016

 

Luke 18:9-14 New Revised Standard Version(NRSV)

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

*********

What does it mean to be righteous? Does it mean that you are religiously devout and follow all the protocols of the faith to the letter? Or does it involve humble submission to God? These are questions that emerge from this parable. It’s one encounter and one more parable that redefines what God is looking for from us. The characters in the parable stand as far apart as is possible in ancient Jewish culture. The Pharisees were upstanding religious leaders; tax collectors were not only collaborators with the Romans they often robbed from their own people to benefit Rome and themselves. The Pharisees were respected; tax collectors were reviled. It should be noted that both Pharisees and tax collectors tended to be wealthy. We know where the tax collectors got their wealth. It’s less clear how a Pharisee got his wealth, though perhaps it was inherited wealth.

5445613926_85169104aa Two people from opposite ends of the social spectrum, even if not from different economic ones, come to pray, and their attitude to God and to each other are worlds apart. When we read about the Pharisees as Christians we must always acknowledge the possibility of anti-Jewish sentiment creeping in. The Gospel writers have a tendency to portray them in bad light, and we needn’t embrace that sentiment. At the same time the Pharisee in this story does exhibit the self-righteous tendencies that can afflict many a religious person. And here is the question for us—while we judge on the basis of outward things, God isn’t bound by our judgments or even our criteria. That seems to be the message of this parable.

Self-righteousness isn’t simply a religious sentiment. It emerges in a variety of contexts when we feel morally superior to those who do not follow our lead. We see this in our political stylings. We see this in the myth of American exceptionalism, where in the name of patriotism Americans (and I’m an American) feel superior to other nations, and this can lead us to a place where we are blind to our own faults. We believe that we can do no wrong. The Pharisee in this parable exhibits these tendencies. He looks down the line and compares himself with the tax collector and feels good about his superior morality and spirituality. He can take pride in his fasting and his tithing. He’s not like those “other people,” who are “thieves, rogues, adulterers,” and of course tax collectors. He is righteous and he wears it on his sleeve! Does this describe you? Or me?

In contrast to the Pharisee who is satisfied with his spiritual place, the tax collector seems contrite. He’s self-aware. He understands that he has fallen short of God’s best. He might even look across to the Pharisee and envy his uprightness. He can only wish that he was in the other’s shoes, but he’s not. He knows that despite his wealth, the people around him despise him. Not only that, but he feels as if God has similar feelings toward him. Thus, he comes to the altar in a spirit of repentance. He wants to change things. While God receives the tax collector with grace and mercy, there is the expectation of change.

It is probably helpful to take note of the encounter that will follow in Luke’s Gospel. Jesus will encounter a tax collector, one named Zacchaeus, and Zacchaeus gives evidence of his changed heart. In a reading that will appear a week from now on the 24th Sunday after Pentecost in the year C, Zacchaeus will search out Jesus, and will give evidence of a changed heart (Luke 19:1-10). Of course, that is next week’s reflection!

Before we get to Zacchaeus, we need to address the vision of God with regard to the “righteous” and the “humble.” The Pharisee represents self-satisfied self-righteous moralism. He’s got the religious system down. He knows how to play the game—something many of us have learned over time. But in his air of superiority he forgets who God is. The tax collector on the other hand may not have the same theological pedigree but he seems to better understand God’s nature.

Miguel de la Torre reminds us as well that those who are marginalized, and this tax collector probably made the decision to collude with the Romans because he knew that it was one of the few ways to survive, make decisions that enable survival not morality. We make those kinds of decisions, that may appear unrighteous, but are the result of systems that oppress. So he writes: The salvific message of the gospel that the publicans of the world, the pimps and prostitutes of today, need to hear is that they are precious and are due dignity because they are created in the very image of God. Jesus understood that part of his liberating message was to humble the proud and uplift the lowly” [Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, 2:136]. So the message of today isn’t really about the humble prayer of the tax collector (publican), but the superior airs of the self-righteous religious person.

 

The question becomes, how do we who are religious and hopefully seek to do what is right, that is achieve righteousness, respond to our neighbors who find themselves marginalized by systems beyond their control. Sometimes elections reveal voices of people who feel unheard, and while we may not like what we hear, there is something important revealed by their cries. In our day there are numerous voices that aren’t getting heard. That may have something to do with the attack on the “elites,” and if I’m honest I live among the elites. The reason populist demagogues get a hearing is that they tap into feelings of abandonment on the part of those with power. So, while I may not like to admit that I live within the world of the elites, due to education and privileges accorded to me due to religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, I can be deaf to the cries of my neighbors.  The good news is that God is not deaf.

The difference between the Pharisee and the tax collector is that the tax collector has come to recognize his need for grace. He hasn’t let exceptionalism take hold. He’s ready to receive God’s blessing. Are we? How is this expressed? Could it be in the way in which we treat one another?  Could it be that it starts with recognizing our need for God? As Cynthia Hale puts it:

Admission of human weakness and failure is taboo in our culture. It is not cool to admit your mistakes or you need help. This admission gets the attention of God, though, and it is God’s attention and approval that we need and want. [Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, 2:138].

Righteousness isn’t the same as “morality.” That is, it’s not about fulfilling our moral and religious obligations. Righteousness is rooted in justice. It has to do not with right observance, but right relationships that begin with God and spread outward. By recognizing this truth, we put ourselves in a position to be justified.

bobcornwallRobert Cornwall is the Pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church in Troy, Michigan and is the author of a number of books including Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016) and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015).

Being Church-May 11, 2014

Fourth Sunday of Easter Year A
(Good Shepherd Sunday)
John 10:1-10 and Acts 2:42-47

anjolie-ela-menon-good-shepherd-paintings-oilThe fourth Sunday of Easter is what has generally been called Good Shepherd Sunday. Several Passages talk about Jesus or God as a shepherd. In John 10 where Jesus refers to himself as the Good Shepherd. We can look at this passage as being about God being the shepherd and that we sheep are to be good followers. But it can also mean  God’s relation with God’s church. God cares for us and looks after us in ways we can’t imagine, because God is in love with us; God has a relationship with us. A community that is loved by the God of the universe is called to care for one another- not because it’s something we have to do, but because it’s who we are. And when people see a local congregation living as a Christ-led, hospitable community, they will take notice.

Acts 2:42-47 says the church is called to be a place where we learn to be a follower of Christ. The church is a place where we have fellowship with each other, where we care and love each other. The church is a place where we realize that our material possessions are not the goal in our lives, but to use what we have to help those in need, especially those in our community, but also those outside of it. The church is a place where we come together and break bread in table fellowship together, realizing that it is Christ that calls us to the table regardless of who we are. The church is a place where we are happy in Christ and are generous to friends and strangers.

Download this week’s lesson.

Marching Orders- May 4, 2014

May 4, 2014- Third Sunday of Easter, Year A

Luke 24:13-25

breaking bread emmausFood doesn’t just bring needed nourishment to us, but it’s a context that brings people together. I remember eating arroz con pollo and talking in Spanish to my abuela, or grandmother. I remember eating so much soul food that I probably needed angioplasty at a family event in Louisiana a few years back, but it was also a wonderful time to get reaquainted with my southern relatives.

Here in Luke 24 we encounter another story concerning the ressurection. It’s the road to Emmaus where Jesus appears in disguise to two of his disciples. They had thought Jesus was the one that would save them, and now their savior was dead. They told this disguised Jesus that it was already the third day since his death and in Jewish tradition, this meant that the soul had left the body, meaning there was no hope that Jesus would ever come back. These two had lost hope and were alone. They had placed their hopes on this one called Jesus and it had all ended so badly.

Jesus is kept hidden from the two disciples.  We don’t know why that is, but it is only at the breaking of the bread that they discovered Jesus was with them all along.

If you want to know who Jesus is, look at the meals Jesus ate.  These are the places where he reveals himself to the world.  The calling of Matthew the tax collector, the “sinful” woman who annointed Jesus, Zacheus and other events showed a God that cared for the lost, hurting and broken.

This is the savior we worship, one that is made known to us in meals. As followers of Jesus, do our meals, at our communion tables and at all of our tables reveal the something about the Risen Savior?

Sermon: “The Healing Power of Collard Greens”

Sermon: “The Healing Power of Collard Greens”.

I love good food, and it probably shows.
emmaus
I consider myself lucky to be born in the family that I’m in, because I grew up with two wonderful cooking traditions. On my father’s side is the African American tradition of the Deep South. It’s a tradition of fried chicken, collard greens, mac and cheese, cornbread stuffing and sweet potato pie. It is all fattening and it’s all good.

Continue reading  Sermon: “The Healing Power of Collard Greens”.