[A sermon based on Psalm 14
Preached Sunday August 18 at First Mennonite Church, Winnipeg MB]
Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
. . .
There is no one who does good,
no, not one.
[A sermon based on Psalm 14
Preached Sunday August 18 at First Mennonite Church, Winnipeg MB]
Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”
. . .
There is no one who does good,
no, not one.
“Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’” (Mark 15:37-38)
“Creation was subjected to futility. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves . . . groan inwardly while we wait for the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:20-23)
This second quote is not our reading for the morning, but it is what came to mind as I reflected on our text and reflected on Lent as we draw closer to Easter. Paul is coming a little late to the story. He was not a disciple during the life of Jesus and does not seem to have been present during the events surrounding Easter. And perhaps for that reason Paul seems to be hit all at once with the futility of creation and how humanity exists within it.
There is a certain type of futility that must be faced as we approach Easter. At Palm Sunday crowds are ecstatic, celebrating their potential Messiah, their king, but Jesus does not mount a war horse rather he ambles in on a donkey. Pilate, the one in charge, examines Jesus and seems to be more interested in the crowd’s response then in executing justice. The soldiers let off some steam adding insult to injury with their mocking punishment of Jesus. The whole story seems to be a practice in futility. No one really gets what they want. The people do not get what they want and they do not give Pilate what he wants. And Jesus seems to be deliberately instigating a denial of these desires. Jesus evades the religious, social, and political expectations imposed on him that keep us from feeling the futility around us. To recognize Jesus then, it seems would simultaneously be to recognize a certain futility, the futility of trying to build a kingdom that does not fit creation.
In light of this context what sort of recognition did the centurion offer staring at the cross and the dead Jesus? The words out of his mouth were simple, This person really was a son of God. Some scholars read the statement as an extension of the soldier’s mocking of Jesus. Jesus dies, the whole trial and ordeal is over and here, this man who couldn’t even last on the cross as long as other convicts, have a look everybody this man is truly a son of God. The irony and the mocking continue. The centurion remains hardened, he has probably seen it all before and at some point it always ends up this way. Hopes are ignited, expectations are frustrated, and the powers re-assert themselves. Another reading of the text interprets this statement as the very first conversion after at the death of Jesus. At Jesus’s death this Gentile centurion sees the light of salvation, makes his confession of faith, and becomes a member of the kingdom of the God of Israel.
I think these two interpretations reflect our tendencies in how we encounter the seeming futility in life at times. Sometimes we simply buckle under it. We resign ourselves to the fact that nothing changes and nothing will change and so we find our expressions tainted with cynicism, sarcasm, and despair. The other tendency is to respond to possible futility by creating beautiful and symbolic visions that can help transport us out of some of our more difficult material realities. We have hope in what is possible through faith expressing itself in work, prayer, and imagination. This position does not buckle under the futility but it can also lead us into illusions and denials about some of the realities in the world.
So which was it? Was the centurion’s statement a hardened cynicism or an enlightened confession? There are grounds for both interpretations. On the one hand it is truly hard to imagine a centurion uttering these words affirmatively because it equals treason as Caesar the ruler of the Roman empire is called the son of God. And second, there seems to be no implications to his statement. The centurion goes about his work following Pontius Pilate’s orders in the following verses. On the other hand it is also clear that early interpretations of this passage viewed the centurion as offering a faithful confession of Jesus as divine. While still open for interpretation both Matthew and Luke offer slightly different accounts that seem to view the centurion as being much more affirming as a confession of faith.
This morning I want to consider the centurion as someone stuck between the possibility and futility of the world. In the Roman army a centurion is essentially one step up from a regular soldier. A centurion commands a group of one hundred soldiers. Centurions were often soldiers promoted from within the ranks. As a soldier there was a chance for advancement. A centurion would have known and experienced that change and improvement was possible. It was possible to imagine and work for something within the larger faith of the Roman Empire.
But there seems to have been catch with becoming a centurion. The pay and standard of living would have improved somewhat, but with that advancement you became the most accessible target of a soldier’s frustration and unrest. The first century Latin historian Tacitus offers several accounts of how soldiers direct their discontent against their centurion leaders. At one point Tacitus refers to centurions as “the customary targets of the army’s ill-will, and the first victims of any outbreak.” But in reality the centurion seemed to hold little authority beyond his small group of soldiers. In fact the blame could also be passed down onto the centurion from higher ranking figures. After Caesar Augustus died under unknown circumstances Tiberius become the new Caesar and leader of Rome. After Tiberius became emperor it so happened that one of his rivals also died. When the death was investigated the centurion who killed the man was called to testify. The centurion said that he was following the orders of Tiberius. And as you might guess we find out that Tiberius said that he never gave the orders.
So with the centurion we seem to have someone who can experience very real change and yet, in the end, may still find it hard to believe that anything really changes. At the cross he saw the soldiers under his charge mock and abuse Jesus and he saw Pontius Pilate above placating to the crowds and he was in the middle of it, striving for advancement but forever the target from below and at the whim of those privileged above. The soldier in doing his job well becomes a centurion and this promotion makes him the scorn of former comrades and the scape-goat of his superiors. And so maybe there was something about this event and encounter with Jesus that simply proved too much to take and something changed.
Thinking about the story in this light the centurion reminded me a little of the characters in some of Franz Kafka’s novels. Kafka was a German novelist who wrote in the early twentieth century. What I have noticed in Kafka’s novels is that they often start with some dramatic change but the implications and awareness of that change are not fully evident. In his novels The Trial and Amerika the protagonists both find themselves in completely new situations, in The Trial Joseph K. is placed under arrest without being told his crime and in Amerika Karl Rossmann leaves his native Germany in disgrace and arrives alone in the United States. In both these stories the protagonists believe, in good faith, that the place and the system they find themselves in will yield positive results so long as they learn and abide by the proper rules. But in each case the rules themselves are always able to steer and bend things away from their favour. Kafka is devastatingly relentless in how far he will depict people willing to work with the system only to find themselves further under the system’s power. And, in turn, how a system (like the legal system or like a country’s culture) is able forcibly, even if subtly, to bend your will and change your beliefs, like the centurion who believed in the work and possibility of Rome.
So if for the centurion his encounter with Jesus is a confession and a conversion experience then it is a strange one, one that we don’t know how to talk about anymore. It is not yet the promise of Jesus lifting the burden but may be a conversion to the full and crushing awareness of the burden that the world exerts. It is to be with Paul who hears and utters the true groaning of creation under a system and power that is able to reach and apply its pressure on all people. This is what Paul calls sin, and it is pervasive.
Towards the end of Kafka’s The Trial we find Joseph K. who experienced just how deep and smothering the legal system is and how it thwarted any good work and intention he might throw at it. Joseph is talking with a priest, who is also a prison chaplain, someone inside the system of the law. The priest tries to explain some aspects of this system telling him that it is not truth but the belief that it is necessary that is important. Joseph responds to the priest saying, “Depressing thought. It makes the lie fundamental to world order.” This might be one way of interpreting the centurion’s confession. In seeing Jesus’s death the centurion also sees clearly the system that surrounded and imposed itself on him. And perhaps like some Kafkaesque character the centurion has changed but does not fully know it himself.
In perhaps his most well-known novel The Metamorphosis Kafka depicts a character waking up one morning only to find out that he is now a giant bug, a monstrous vermin in some translations. The change is stark, extreme, and definitive but the character does not yet know what to make of it. He tries to go about his day as usual but he cannot, his body does not work the same, he does not fit as he once did, despite his continued attempts to fit under the old conditions.
So the centurion continues his duties after his confession not understanding what happened. But maybe he begins to notice that his helmet does not fit properly anymore. Maybe his spear that was once an extension of his arm now looks foreign and strange. The commander’s voice that directed his every action was now emptied of its authority. The gods that watched over Rome become impoverished images and meaningless rhetoric. He begins to see that in this situation he will always be despised from below and rejected from above.
For the centurion and for anyone who encounters the way this cross, this death, this person who brings into focus the order of the world, the question becomes how you will live out of the change. How much and or in what way will we continue to invest in trying to fit into in a system that seems to be based on a lie.
As we encounter the death of Jesus and the opening of the Temple curtain how do we continue to try and fit within the world? I used to think I knew some of those answers. I used to think I had to change myself but what if, like in Kafka, the change has already happened and we are trying to figure out how to live into it? And here we need to take Kafka seriously. In his stories some characters will go to any length believing they will find redemption in the order and system established around them. Many of these stories do not end well.
So do not stifle the groaning you feel at the parts of this world that do fit the form God has given you. Do not stifle the groaning that others feel at the forces that push down on them to try and conform or distort them into something they are not. You are not alone if at times you feel like some monstrous vermin in the light of the powers and the pressures of this world. It is, after all, a false light. So continue this Lent as we approach the darkness, lose your orientation to the light of the world’s powers, and wait.
Amen.
I am beginning to wonder about a fairly fundamental orientation of the church. The church has largely understood and accepted the role of being or bringing Christ to the world. I do not want to rehearse the misguided ways that the church has understood this mission, namely through colonial disbursement. It is not hard to understand how people can come to the conclusion that contemporary global capitalism is an extension of an earlier theology. In both practices there is a message of hope that is articulated by the saved/wealthy and in both cases the message never seems to play out as being truly good news for the pagan/poor.
I came across a sort of ominous foreshadowing of this orientation to the church’s message in The Epistle to Diognetus (2nd century). In upholding love of neighbour the author of this text states,
[H]e who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God.
Now to be sure the early church was not in the same position as it was to rise to in the 4th century but the logic of disbursement is already elevated to a strong paternalistic even divine tone. While we are uncomfortable with saying that we ‘become a god’ in this imitation, that is essentially what we are saying theologically when we talk about imitating Christ, isn’t it?
In any event, this Sunday I preached on the presentation of Jesus in the Temple in Luke 2. This is a story of reception, of receiving the Messiah. And how does Simeon the priest receive Jesus?
Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying,29 “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace,according to your word;30 for my eyes have seen your salvation,31 which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,32 a light for revelation to the Gentilesand for glory to your people Israel.”
This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed (sign of contradiction) so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed.
So what does it mean to receive Jesus as a sign of contradiction? I did a bit of research on this phrase and found that the Catholic Church has an entire doctrine based around it. This doctrine holds that the church is to be a sign of contradiction; that the church in its holiness it will be rejected or opposed. There is an element of this doctrine that I can appreciate. I believe that to live out the vision of the Gospel will lead to contradiction and opposition in the world. But as I understand it there is a destructive assumption at work in this expression. The assumption is that it is the church the has the privileged knowledge of how Jesus becomes present in the world. This doctrine assumes that it is no longer the church that needs to receive the sign of contradiction. In trying to hold this doctrine the church itself can actually become immune to the presence of Christ. . . . When you believe that your way of life has a privileged or even exclusive access to ultimate human truth then it will be near impossible to receive a sign of contradiction; you control the rules of the games and determine the value of those around you.. . .The church, and particularly the Mennonite church, has elevated the call to discipleship, the call of being like Jesus in the world. Mennonites have fought theological wars over this matter. When other churches focused simply on the death and resurrection of Jesus, or the centrality of Communion the Mennonites demanded that we also give attention to Jesus life, how he taught, what he did, how he treated people. But where is the theology that asks how we might receive the presence of God precisely from outside our theology and our expression? How does our theology and our practice prepare us to receive something that contradicts our theology and our practice?
. . .
Our tradition affirms that the church is the body of Christ and yet Christ must remain fugitive. Already as a child in the Gospels Jesus flees to Egypt after Joseph received a vision of Herod’s plot to kill Jesus. The French activist and philosopher Simone Weil is quoted as saying, “We must always be ready to change sides, like justice, the eternal fugitive from the camp of the victors.” We cannot secure the place of Christ, but we can hope to receive Christ. Our vision remains universal because there is no place we will not seek this Christ. Our theology and practice remains fragmented because we are never so Christ-like that we cannot receive again this child, this man, this saviour, this God. Our theology and our faith is only as healthy as it is able to receive from outside of its expression. I am wondering if we have made a fundamental error in our basic understanding of the church’s mission. We go out not to bring the message of Christ. We go out to receive it, to encounter the fugitive.
Here is last Sunday’s sermon on the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. I welcome feedback and pushback.
31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
This is a rough draft of my sermon on Sunday (Mark 1:9-15; 1 Peter 3:18-22). I will likely make some more edits and developments but I am curious if there is any feedback that I should take into consideration here.
At times the church gets criticized for holding on to outdated and backwards views of the world. And we do need to be open to these criticisms and concerns. But it is interesting to note that while many churches on the one hand are working hard to remove unhelpful ideas about mental illness being some sort of evil spirit or of heaven and hell as literal places in the clouds and in the center of the earth on the other hand we find so-called enlightened western culture fascinated with movies about books about zombies, vampires, demons, ghosts and all sorts of hellish creatures. Out of curiosity I went online to search for videos on YouTube about demon possession and exorcisms and I found plenty, some with millions of views. What is going on here? How do we discern these matters as a church? Is there a relationship between our current curiosities and interests in evil spirits and other hellish matters and what is happening with Jesus and the Devil in the wilderness and Jesus message to the spirits of the dead in prison? I think there may be a connection but I think the connection is in their opposition to each other. Let’s start by looking at our current and ongoing fascination with the realms of the dead.
Continue reading “The Devil, Hell, Demons, and Excorcism (enough to interest you yet?)”
The readings for this Sunday included the following:
Genesis 1: 1-5 – creation
Mark 1:4-11 – the baptism of Jesus
Acts 19:1-7 – an account of Paul baptizing believers and the believers receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues and prophesying.
My sermon last Sunday began with tracing the trajectory that connects creation in Genesis to Jesus’s baptism in Mark. The imagery of creation (chaotic waters/deep, wind/spirit moving over them, dry land/body appearing) has to be one of the best candidates for helping to form a ‘biblical theology’. I spoke of the culmination of this imagery in Jesus’s baptism and how the words of creation that are now spoken are ones of love. However, I went on to say that the trajectory does not end there and continues into Acts 19. Here is the second half of the sermon,
I became an ordained minister this past Sunday. While it is not always the tradition to do I decided to speak at my own ordination. The preparation for this ‘sermon’ was different than how I had prepared for a sermon in the past. My guiding thought was not about communicating the meaning of some particular text but in communicating a sense of how I understand my role and my calling. As such the sermon developed more along the lines of ‘imagination’. It was, I guess, poetic. I sat somewhat uneasy with that direction. I became concerned that it was too pious or was just some pretty window dressing. My hope was that it was an inhabitable imagination that would draw, challenge, and invite change for those who heard it.
Well, in any event, here it is. Based on Psalm 42:1-2, 7-8.
Mark 11:22-25
Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.”
It is a delicate task to speak about mountains being cast into the sea on the 10th anniversary of 9/11. I choose this passage because its initial impression on me was that it spoke about something powerful, something significant. As we acknowledge what this day marks we also look forward to what in many ways stands as the beginning of the year for the work of the church. As pastoral staff we decided to develop a series this Fall that would help us face various topics and issues that we shape and that we are shaped by. Over the weeks we will look at the environment and economics, technology and inter-religious relations. Squarely facing the pressures that come from these areas can often feel like facing a mountain. Even more challenging is that in the Mennonite church we attempt to face our mountains without the traditional means of dynamite. We attempt, whether or not we succeed, to approach the mountain without violence. We affirm in fact that it is at the mountain that we un-learn violence. As First Mennonite Church’s vision statement reads we seek to be instruments of God’s grace on earth. So what of these instruments, these tools? And what of the mountain before us?
Continue reading “Obligatory posting of sermon preached on 9/11 – Instruments of grace”
I would say the most concerted and continuous effort that I made in formal studies was in the area of biblical Hebrew. This is a sort of sad statement given the level of proficiency I have maintained. Recently though I have taken to preach on the OT passages of the Lectionary and, being summer, I find myself with a bit more time to work in the ‘original text’. This Sunday will be Exodus 1:1-2:10. I have greatly appreciated the small (and significant) nuances that have emerged from even a basic walk through the Hebrew.
Many of the observations can be made from the English as well. The most clear is the precedent of ‘creation’ as a guiding motif in the Moses narrative. We find Joseph and his brothers dead but the Israelites remained “fruitful and prolific” a common refrain in the creation story.
In light of this expanding foreign race Pharaoh decides to deal ‘shrewdly’ with them so they do not join the enemy. The word join is a play on the name Joseph (to be added to) a figure of blessing for Egypt who has now been forgotten and his descendents are deemed a threat.
Pharaoh sets slave-drivers over the Israelites in work of ‘mortar and brick’ which is an allusion to the building of the Tower of Babel.
In response to Pharaoh’s increasing pressure on the people (and their increasing expansion) there is an order to kill the male children in child-birth. Here we find the famous mid-wive’s of civil disobedience who do not follow the law. What I find interesting is that their names, Shiphrah and Puah, indicate a type of ‘signalling’ of what is coming. Shiphrah is a feminine form related to the Shophar which is a trumpet that is often used to refer to the coming of the presence of God (Ex 19:16). Puah, as near as I can figure, is a variation on an onomatopoetic verb used to describe the sounds of a woman in labour, again ushering in the presence of something new. The women here stand as the vanguard in the revolt creating space for the liberation of their people.
Verse 12 of chapter one contains two interesting expressions. The NRSV reads,
the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites.
‘Spread’ is a suitable translation but does not have the visceral connotations as the Hebrew does in which there seems to be some implied ‘breach’ of a clear boundary. When used in the relation to a holy space the word is often translated ‘break’ as in the Lord will ‘break out’ upon you. ‘Dread’ is also a curious translation. The word is not used often in the Hebrew Bible. The term is used in several instances to refer to a sort of naseous sickness over a given situation. It is the way the people feel after having eaten manna for too long. It is the way a person can literally feel sick with fear. Given some of the recent readings on abjection I picture this verse to be saying that the Egyptians tried to crush the Hebrews like a bug and ended up splattering guts all over them.
Thinking about the abject as neither subject (self) nor object (enemy) also led me to consider another image that was not really illuminated by the Hebrew but important nonetheless. Verse ten of chapter one reads,
Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.
In this construct the Israelite is neither self nor object. They form a type of appendage to the Egyptian kingdom. The abject is a part of what sustains the subject so long as it does not ultimately become the object (or worse become its own subject!). So long as it does not ‘break out’ of the boundary set by the subject (read: colonialism).
And of course one of the more well known observations is how the ‘vessel’ that Moses is set adrift on is the same word for Ark used in the Flood account.
So anyway, we’ll see if this takes me anywhere closer to a coherent sermon.
When [a religious person] speaks it is only a monologue; occupied only with himself, he speaks aloud, and this is called preaching; if there is anyone listening, he knows nothing about his relation to them except that they owe him nothing, for what he must accomplish is to save himself. Such a right reverend monologue that witnesses Christianly, when in its animation it moves the speaker, the witnessing, because he is speaking about himself, is called a sermon. World-historical surveys, systematic conclusions, gesticulations, wiping of sweat from the brow, a stentorian voice, and pulpit pounding, along with the premeditated use of all this in order to accomplish something are easthetic reminiscences that do not even know how to accentuate fear and pity properly in the Aristotelian sense.
. . .
The religious speaker who purifies these passions through fear and compassion does not in the course of his address do the astounding thing of ripping the clouds asunder to show heaven open, the judgment day at hand, hell in the background, himself and the elect triumphantly celebrating; he does the simpler and less pretentious thing, the humble feat that is supposed to be so very easy: he lets heaven remains closed, in fear and trembling does not feel that he himself is finished, bows his head while the judgment of the discourse falls upon thought and mind. He does not do the astounding thing that could make his next appearance lay claim to being greeted with applause; he does not thunder so that the congregation might be kept awake and saved by his discourse. He does the simpler and less pretentious thing, the humble feat that is supposed to be so very easy: he lets God keep the thunder and the power and the honor and speaks in such a way that even if everything miscarried he nevertheless is certain that there was one listener who was moved in earnest, the speaker himself, that even if everything miscarried and everyone stayed away there was still one person who in life’s difficult complications longed for the upbuilding moment of the discourse, the speaker himself.
. . .
Therefore, says the religious person, if you were to see him in some lonely, out-of-the-way place, deserted by everyone and positive that he accomplished nothing by his speaking, if you saw him there you would see him just as inwardly moved as ever; if you heard his discourse, you would find it as powerful as always, guileless, uncalculating, unenterprising, you would comprehend that there was one person it was bound to upbuild – the speaker himself. He will not become weary of speaking, for attorneys and speakers who have secular aims or worldly importance with regard to eternal aims become weary when what they accomplish cannot be counted on their fingers, when crafty life does not delude them with the illusion of having accomplished something, but the religious speaker always has his primary aim: the speaker himself. (Stages on Life’s Way, 463-465)
However one might interpret this suggestion more broadly I am coming to see it as a fair characterization of Kierkegaard’s authorship. Through the various pseudonyms that he employs and often brings in conversation with each other (particularly in CUP) one is let in on what Kierkegaard was interested in no matter the audience. No doubt he was affected by his literary reception or lack of it but I still get the impression he would have done this work even if he did not have the means to publish them or to the extent he could carve out time to do it.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that there is an appropriate ‘selfishness’ that is the best way we can possibly hope to love our neighbour. This selfishness can keep us from objectifying our neighbour, keep us from vanity, and allow us a creative productivity freed from external ends. Life is never so uncomplicated but I see this route as far more inspiring, liberating and motivating than duty and law. It is the appropriate inverse of what we commonly perceive as Jesus’s call. Jesus called us to lose our lives that they might be found. But what is life lost? Might it not be the one constructed by local law, custom and structural power? To lose it then is to find it in the selfishness of particularity and in the process see your neighbour through those new eyes.