When the Gospel Gets Risky: Nov 19, 2023

 Year A, Pentecost 25                                  Matthew 25:14-30                                                                                         

If you were so inclined, you could read 10 different commentaries about this gospel reading and discover 10 different theories about what this text means.  I am not going to pretend to have the definitive answer on what this should mean for you.  But here is what I keep coming back to.  Risk. This is a story about risk and what or who enables us to take risks. 

In our parable for today, we hear about a man who entrusted three slaves with an incredible amount of money. He gave one slave 5 talents, another 2 and another 1.  A talent was a unit of measure and one would have been worth about 20 years wages for an average day laborer.  That’s a significant amount of money to leave a servant or a slave, or really anyone for that matter.  It would seem that this man had a lot of confidence in these three slaves.  This man didn’t provide them much direction. He didn’t tell them what to do with the property or even how long he would be gone.  It just says that he entrusted his property to them. If it were me, I would have wanted a lot more information and direction.

The slave who received 5 talents traded with them and doubled his money.  The slave who was given 2 talents also doubled his money.  Not bad.  The 3^rd slave dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.  When the master returned, he rewarded the slaves who were able to double the money they were entrusted with and the third was punished for…for what? That’s what I am not clear on.  It would be easy to assume that the third slave was punished for not making money, but given that this was Jesus talking, it’s has to be more than that. 

In order to figure out why he was being punished, I kept looking at what the master said to the third slave before he cast him into outer darkness.  However, the answer might be more easily discovered not in the reprimand of the third slave but in the accolade for the first two slaves.  To the first two the master said, “Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.” They were not commended for the money that they made.  They were commended for being trustworthy in what they were given. They had taken what they were given and they had used those things well.

The other clue is in how the 3^rd slave addressed the master. The others met the master by simply saying, “Master, you handed over to me five talents, but I have made 5 more talents.”  The 3^rd slave told the man on his return, “Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.”

            He was afraid of his master.  He perceived him as a harsh man with questionable business practices.   But it would appear from the way the two others addressed the master (and maybe even by the way that they acted in his absence) that they didn’t fear the master.  If they had feared him, they probably would have not had the confidence to take the risks that they did.

Was the master as bad as the slave described him?  It would seem that the master affirmed what the 3^rd slave said, but not necessarily.  The master did not say, “You are right, I am all of those things you said I am.”  No he said, “You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter?” It was a question, almost a challenge.   He was challenging the way the slave perceived him. You see, I don’t think the issue was his trust of the slave, as much as the slave’s trust of the master.

The slave was anticipating a harsh and unfair man, and that was what he got.  Because that was what he was anticipating…because that was the master he knew, he didn’t have freedom to actually use what the master gave him.  No, instead he buried it.  He had no desire to serve the master…he simply wanted to keep what had been given secure.  That provided not only security for the talent, but security for him.  His main priority was protecting himself.

            I confess I struggled with the language of slave and master.  But remember, parables were meant to be understood by the people who were hearing them at the time. This would have been familiar language to people in the first century.  Jesus was constantly trying to teach people another way of seeing things.  At the time, many people perceived God as a harsh master who punished without good reason.  But Jesus wanted people to know that God wanted more out of God’s relationship with humanity.  Yes, there is judgment.  The text right after this is the story of God judging those who did not care for the poor and the suffering. 

However, God’s relationship with humanity is more than judgement and punishment.  It’s a relationship that involves trust in God and in ourselves.  God has given us each gifts.  We can look at it more broadly and consider that God has given us the gift of life or love.  Or we can look at it as the unique gifts that we each carry.  I am not sure it matters. The point is that these gifts are meant to be used---sometimes…in ways that challenge us and others.

I am a risk adverse person. I hate taking risks. I definitely don’t do it as much as I should.  If we never take risks, then we are saying that we have no confidence in God’s call to us.  It’s saying that we don’t believe that we can actually be God’s hands and feet on this earth.  It’s saying that we care more about how other people perceive us, then how God judges us.  I am definitely guilty of that. 

You know when I was first working on this sermon, the thing that kept nagging at me was not why this 3^rd slave got punished, but I really wanted to know, what would have happened if he had trusted his master and then lost the money.  That is the question that haunted me.  Do you know why that question was bothering me? Because I just really wanted an excuse not to take a risk. I kept thinking, well of course these other two were rewarded, because they succeeded. And this other was reprimanded because he refused to risk.  But what about the one who took the risk and failed.  What happens to them?  Where are they in this story?

They fail. And then they try again.  I wonder how long the master was gone. I wonder how much money the slaves lost before they gained anything?  Ultimately this is a story about the 2^nd coming of Jesus Christ-- when Jesus comes back.  This isn’t a few months we are talking about.  This is a lifetime.  We have a lifetime of opportunities to use the gifts that God has given us, to take risks, to fail, to fail again and maybe eventually to get it right. The only real failure is when we stop trying.  I am talking about us as individuals, but also as a church. If we aren’t taking risks.  If we aren’t failing a little.  We aren’t living the Gospel.

 

 

What God Thinks of Our Worship: Nov. 12 2023

 Year A, Pentecost 24                             Amos 5:18-24                                                                                       

God is awfully grouchy today…at least in our Old Testament reading. None of the readings are warm and fuzzy, but today I want to talk about the most grouchy of them all, Amos.  Not much is known of the prophet Amos.  He lived about 700 years before the birth of Jesus and seemed intent on calling out the Hebrew people on hypocrisy and exploitation of the poor.  He was preaching in a period of relative calm which might have led people to be a little more complacent than they should have been. Apparently this period of calm enabled some people to do quite well for themselves….which created more space in the chasm between the very poor and the very rich

            He starts by talking about the day of the Lord.  By itself, “the day of the Lord” can mean a lot of different things.  Here, it probably means the final judgment.  Amos talked a lot about judgment which few Episcopalians like to hear.   Yet God’s role as a judge is all over the scriptures. Most people have a lot of negative associations about judgment.  I think if we were to drill down into our negative feelings about, we will find most of the negative associations come from people judging one another, often unfairly. That was and is not the kind of judging God does.  God’s judgment is fair and merciful.

Amos said that day of the Lord was not a time to be anticipating with joy.  It was a day of darkness.  Why? Because the people Amos was talking to were not following God’s commandments.  According to other parts of Book of Amos, the rights of the poor and marginalized were being trampled. There were human judges who were accepting bribes, which meant the ones who were judged harshly were not those who were the bad operators but those who had no resources.  It would seem that the people who were participating and enabling this corrupt system were supposed to be the followers of the one true God.  They should have known better.  Amos wasn’t the first prophet to tell them they had veered way off course. But they had gotten far too comfortable.

            Then Amos provided a list of the things God detests--their festivals, their solemn assemblies, their animal sacrifices, their feasts, and even their music.  Everything, God was hating every form of worship that they were providing.  Now, I get it that God was angry, but why take it out on worship? It’s not like they were worshipping a golden calf or erecting altars to false gods. This was all the kind of worship that God had asked for.  These were traditions they had been following for years.   It would be like God coming down and saying: I hate Christmas and Easter. I detest your candles and your bells. I really loathe those little hosts you call bread.  And the preaching…please just stop.  I think a few of us would take that personally.  Of all the things to complain about, why would God complain about worship?

            The problem wasn’t the worship itself.  I am sure God didn’t have a problem with harp music.  It seemed that participating in worship and seeking holy places had become and end unto itself.  Earlier is the chapter God said, “Seek me and live, but do not seek Bethel, and do not cross Gilgal or cross over to Beer-sheba.”  It had become too much about the place and the presentation and not enough about just being in God’s presence.  People were isolating their worship to a certain time and place, rather than a state of being.  

Amos was talking to the Hebrew people, but I am sure that Christians have been accused of the same thing.  We occasionally use Sunday worship as a box to check off rather than a place to encounter the holy.  And we’ve seen politicians over the years use their church attendance as proof that they are good and moral, even when their behavior is anything but Christian.  And most of us, have our moments of hypocrisy.  It’s important to acknowledge that. Because if we can acknowledge that and be honest about our own failures, then we can move past them and even improve.  Some people have told me that they are uncomfortable in worship because they are not sure how much they believe and isn’t that hypocrisy? No.  Hypocrisy is when we use worship as a cover or an excuse rather than an attempt to connect with God’s presence. It’s not the same as doubt.

            So fine, God wants more than worship.  What is it?  The very last line is one of the most famous verses of the Bible because it was often quoted by Martin Luther King.  “But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.”  I have heard that so often and you know, I have never really thought about what it means.  Why the analogy to water?  Consider the symbol we use for justice in America.  It’s a blindfolded woman holding a set of balances.  It is supposed to indicate impartiality and fairness.  It’s a static symbol.  But the image that Amos depicts is a powerful and cleansing stream.[1]  Water brings life. It also cleanses us. It’s chaotic at times, but when channeled it can do so much good.  God didn’t want justice to be confined to places like courts that administer justice.  God wants us all to be conduits for this life giving water. 

            What about righteousness? That is part of this too.  It’s another word we don’t like because we associate it with self-righteousness.  In the Bible righteousness is more about the relationship between the person and God, or the person and others.  It’s right relationship.  And that makes sense, we can’t be conduits of God’s mercy, love and justice if we aren’t in right relationship with one another, and with ourselves.

            That brings me back to worship.  It’s true that worship should not be the end goal.  We can’t just build and maintain lovely buildings and let God worry about the rest.  Worship is an opportunity to build ourselves up, to be fed and nourished with all we need to face what the world is throwing at us.  I feel like so much of what happens in the world sucks us dry.  It leaves us withered and exhausted.  Yet when I hear the bells, the organ, your beautiful singing.  When I drink from the cup and share the bread with you all, I feel like my parched soul is getting the water it needs.  How can we be conduits for justice and righteousness if we don’t have the water ourselves? The church is also the place where we form relationships, often with people who are different from us.  And maybe each one of us only has a few drops of water to spare….but together we can form that ever flowing stream that Amos prophesied thousands of years ago and the world desperately needs today.   

---

[1] Interpretation Commentary: Hosea-Micah. Limburg. Pp. 105-109

Did Jesus have a platform?: October 22, 2023

 Year A, 20 Pentecost                                               Matthew 22:15-22                                                        

At some point in 9^th or 10^th grade, I became obsessed with politics.  I think it was the presidential election that got me interested and living in Northern Virginia, which was so close to Washington DC. I remained obsessed all the way through high school and majored in political science. My honors thesis senior year was on religion and politics. For a long time I have been fascinated by the intersection of religion and politics. One of the things that drew me to the Episcopal Church is the way that it’s governed.  The structure of the Episcopal Church was created at the same time as the structure of the United States government.  It was even created by the same people in the same city---this city. While they were creating that government, they worshipped at this church.        

Despite all of that, I have always been wary of getting too close to politics in the pulpit.  I try to preach the Bible and how it applies to our lives.  Sometimes there is overlap with politics, but I will never tell you how to vote or what I think of our current tax structure. Jesus was willing to confront the political and religious leadership of the day.  He had the right to do that as he had absolute moral authority.  He deserved that right. Well at least that is what we believe now. At the time, very few people thought he had that right.  And you know what’s kind of interesting…when a lot of people hear Jesus’ words today, they perceive them as political. Funny how that is…

This Gospel reading is a familiar one. People like to depict it as Jesus’ definitive stance on the separation of church and state—as if Jesus had a political platform and this was part of it.  “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  The popular interpretation is that Jesus was telling people that there are two spheres with a clear wall in-between them--religion and the government. 

            There are a few problems with this interpretation.  First of all, we cannot compare the political environment of Jesus’ day to ours today…and thank goodness for that.  We live in a democracy, an imperfect democracy, but a democracy none the less.  Jesus was a Jew living in an occupied territory.  Israel was under the control of the Roman Empire. Because they were a people in an occupied territory, they had no rights.  They didn’t get a vote on who their leader was.  Even the Roman citizens didn’t get to choose their leader. They had an emperor—not an elected official. To complicate matters further, the Roman emperor considered himself a god and demanded the devotion of a god. There was no separation of religion and government.  That is impossible when the leader of the government portrays himself as a god. This put the Jews in a very difficult situation because the first commandment is to worship no other god but the one true God. 

            The Romans, while not known for their overall sensitivity, were fairly tolerant of other religions. They knew that the Jewish people would never worship another god.  The Jews would revolt before they did that.  The Romans were able to keep some modicum of peace by not forcing the Jews to worship the emperor.  But they did make them pay taxes…lots of taxes.  Those taxes were controversial because they actually supported the Roman occupation of Israel. The Jewish people were paying to be subjugated.  

In our story for today, there were two groups who came together to challenge Jesus.  We don’t know much about the Herodians.  There is only one other reference to them in the Bible.  People assume they were supporters of Herod who represented the Roman leadership. If that was the case, it was odd that they were teaming up with the Pharisees in trying to trap Jesus.  The Pharisees didn’t usually associate with Herod’s people. It just goes to show how threatening Jesus was to every power structure that existed at the time. 

            They thought that they had the perfect question to trap Jesus. “Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor?” If Jesus answered the question in a way that indicated that he supported the tax, he would alienate his Jewish followers.  If he said that they shouldn’t pay the tax, he could be accused of rebelling against Rome.  Instead of answering whether it was lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, he asked for the coin…the coin that would be used to pay this particular tax.  He did not have the coin.  The people asking the question did.  That is an important detail to note.

            They brought him a denarius.  It had a picture of the emperor with the inscription: “Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus Pontifex Maximus.”  Augustus was a smart man and a very effective emperor.  When he took power, he made himself not only political leader, but a religious one as well.  When he died, he was a declared a god, making his son, the son of god.  It was his son’s picture on the coin.  Even possessing this coin was considered idolatry in the Jewish faith.  It broke the first commandment. The Pharisees should not have even had the coin, but they did.  When Jesus asked for the coin, he was proving that he was not the pawn of the Roman government, they were…especially if they were allying themselves with the Herodians.  Even if they were not pawns, they were certainly complicit.  It was a brilliant way to point out their hypocrisy.

            Jesus’ answer to the question wasn’t clear.  I am not sure he meant it to be.  “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s and to God, the things that are God’s.”  Jesus paid his taxes.  We know that from chapter 17 of Matthew.  We also know it because otherwise he would have been arrested a lot earlier.  It would have been impossible to remain in a land occupied by Rome and not pay taxes.  That doesn’t mean Jesus respected the emperor or agreed with the tax. He just knew that was what he had to do.  The more important part of this response from Jesus is the 2^nd half, the half people don’t quote nearly as often.  “Give  to God, the things that are God’s.” We know (in theory) that everything is God’s.  Everything in creation is God’s.  This isn’t Jesus demarcating a separation between God and the government.  Everything is God’s.  Caesar can have his coins, but that’s because God is allowing it.  God doesn’t want part of our love and commitment.  He wants all of it—not just the change in our pockets.

            One commentator summed it up like this, “Live with the emperor but live for God.”[1]  We live with and within the government.  We might ally ourselves with a political party or a certain leader, but that is not our identity---that is not the heart of who we are.  Our heart is with Jesus. We can never stop living for God, because then we lose ourselves. 

When we say that God doesn’t have a place in our government or that our faith and our politics can never touch, then I fear that we are missing the bigger picture.  God has no interest in a portion of our loyalty.  He wants all of it and he wants all of us.  Politics is occupying a large part of our attention these days.  Can you imagine if we spent as much time worshipping and serving God as we do complaining about politics or really anything for that matter? Try it. Just for a day.  Then maybe we will understand what it means to “Live with the emperor but live for God.”

---

[1] http://www.workingpreacher.org/craft.aspx?m=4377&post=5458