I'm feeling very angry about the state of the church. I read the draft of the Covenant for the Anglican Communion and the Communique from the Primates' meeting in Tanzania. You can download them both here.
My response was to write the following sermon for Sunday, based primarily in Luke's gospel, Luke 4:1-13, where Jesus is being tempted in the desert by the devil after his baptism.
Lent 1 ~ Ontonagon, MI
In this morning's reading from Luke's gospel, Jesus is driven into the desert where he is tempted by the devil for 40 days.
How does the devil tempt Jesus? Certainly, he does so by dangling before him things that might be useful to a man who A) has been in the desert without food and water for 40 days and B) wants to bring about radical change in the world.
First, the devil suggests that Jesus turn stones into bread, then he offers him power over all the world, and finally he tells Jesus that if he throws himself off the height of the temple, God will protect him.
It's what happens in that last temptation that I want to focus on this morning. When the devil tempts Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple, he quotes scripture to bolster his argument. Hear that again: The devil quotes scripture to tempt Jesus.
Popular culture has fed us a host of images of the devil. The devil is nearly cartoon-like, sort of a red dude with horns and a pointy tail. He's got a lear, a goatee, and an evil smile. The devil is the stuff of Halloween costumes.
It's harder and much more frightening to realize that the devil might come amongst us as one of us. Maybe the devil comes to church every Sunday. Sits in our midst. Leads our churches. Has the best intentions in the world. Or not. Either way, the devil may be harder to recognize than we think.
When the devil tempted Jesus, he used some verses from Psalm 91 to suggest that if Jesus were to throw himself from the top of the temple, God would protect him because he is the Son of God. However, a full reading of Psalm 91 shows that the devil is using this scripture passage in a VERY limited way. In Psalm 91, God assures those who find their strength in Him that God will offer protection. God promises to keep safe those who rely on God. There's nothing in Psalm 91 that says that if you act recklessly, God will keep you safe. There's nothing to suggest that in all circumstances God will keep you from harm. What gives you safety in Psalm 91 is loving God.
The devil accomplishes his tempting using a shady technique called proof-texting. He pulls a couple of verses of scripture totally out of context and then uses them to try to persuade.
It happens all the time in the church. We pull out a bit of scripture and hold it up above all others. We fail to check one line against another to see if we are getting the fullest or most accurate meaning.
Or, we fail to pay attention to things like genre. Is the text quoted an allegory? Poetry? History? What setting was the text was written for? Is it addressing a particular issue? Does it have broad application?
In the history of The Church, people have used proof-texting to justify all sorts of bad behaviour - slavery, the ill treatment of women, discrimination against gay and lesbian people, odd dietary choices, war in the Middle East, really the list goes on.
In terms of full disclosure, I have to confess to you that, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm feeling a bit fired up about scriptural interpretation this week. I've been affected by the primate's meeting in Tanzania last week and recent events in our church and communion. I'm watching certain segments of the church level accusations, rework Anglican polity, or leave their dioceses all because of what clearly seems to be bad scriptural interpretation. It's breaking my heart.
It's nearly impossible for me to think of Archbishop Peter Akinola, or Bishop Robert Duncan, and not think that we're back in the desert with Jesus and the devil is quoting scripture to tempt us. In this case, the devil is quoting scripture in our churches.
The men (and some women, as well) who would ask the Episcopal church to limit who is fully welcome in the church, to limit who has access to holy orders, and to decide whose relationships can be blessed by the church are doing just what the devil did when he tempted Jesus. They are looking at small parts of scripture in isolation and then using them to tempt us to behave wrongly.
These devils pull a few verses out of Leviticus or from the letters of Paul. They hold these verses up to bolster their tempting. And because it is scripture and because they speak with authority, many many in the church listen to them.
What is required here, is that we be discerning listeners. We must weigh what we hear using a broad variety of tools. A host of options are available to us. There's the Anglican stool where we use four "legs" to examine things - Scripture, Tradition, History and Reason. Responsible scriptural interpretation also requires us to look at the context of a particular passage. For example: Why was the book of Leviticus written? What situations were being addressed by its authors? Do we give equal weight to all parts of the book? How about the passage in Romans? Is there any connection between what Paul was addressing in that book and the situations we find today?
And finally, here's the really bad news. We are as likely to be the devils as those who disagree with us. Honestly, I am as capable of wrongly interpreting as anyone else. All that we can do is try to be faithful.
The Trappist Monk, Thomas Merton, wrote a wonderful prayer that can help to guide us as we look carefully at questions of faith and interpretation. He said:
MY LORD GOD, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone. AMEN
About Me
- Fran
- Milan, New Hampshire, United States
- I'm an Episcopal priest who loves the outdoors and being creative. In my work life, I find joy in helping others to learn that they are theologians. I believe that each of us is called to work for God's justice in the world. My husband David and I live in Northern NH, next to a beautiful state park, with our standard poodle Ollie.
5 comments:
Hey Fran, Welcome to my crazyness. I have no end of trouble justifying my life in the Christian church. I feel like I'm living in a total life of replicating "The Scream"
The problem all together is that everybody "cherry picks" and uses the scriptures that work for them. If we all accepted every bit of the scriptures we'd all be wingnuts...and totally whacked ones at that.
But how can we each say I agree with this one but not that one, or how can we say that this was written then and this is now. It is cherry picking either way. Believe it all or accept none of it.
We liberals are just as good ( or bad) at it as the Fundi-creepos are. There is no picking and choosing. All or non, otherwise, BONK, not Christian.
My basic question ( was and is) what does a thinking person find in a faith based on a person ( Jesus) when that person has been idiolized and interpreted by other people with many other agendas and also continues to be interpreted and professed by people of very narrow minds?
I disagree with them as do you, but they aren't listening and they don't fell they have to. OK, leave them to their house of cards, it's funny that the Christians will bring on the Armeggedon. But nor shocking in any way. Perverts.
Anyway. the bible stories were written by scribes. They were kept people with certain skill sets. Their keepers were people of power and influence and if the scribe wasn't willing to write what the boss wanted, out of a job or dead were the consequences. Just like Harlewuin romance writers of the current time..write or die.
I agree with you that the African version of modern Christianity is taking us back to the 1400's ( but so is W. ) and that is exactly where the Anglican church is heading. So why, oh why, dear friend did you ever subscribe to any of it?
They do not want to recognize you as a child of God, they want to tell you that you ( and us) are unholy..rather than argue, I say "screw them" and walk away. I will not argue with bigots.
You have to make your living among them but keep i ind the idiots are going to win. The last election proved it.
I know, this sermon in particular is good and uncovers how the untruths happen. But happen thet will and with much more animosity or out and out hatred as time goes on. My own vote is that more people should leave churches and learn to be free thinkers.
Much love, thanks for putting your blog out there.
Laur.
Well, well. I'd have thought you were at EFM today! My Year 1 group had Amos and Hosea today. I'm stuck in this rut of wondering just who are the true prophets of my lifetime. Could it actually be that the "orthodox" group are the true prophets... ranting at me to repent, return to the Way? I believe the pathway to God is broader today than ever. Technology has brought me more neighbors to love, more of God's way to understand and a larger group of prophets whose words require discernment. I do know there is more room at God's Table than some people would like me to believe!
Testify, Fran! I love you!
Martha
First, rock on girlfriend!
Second, what gives me hope is that on a snowy Sunday, we still show up for church. I am hopeful when a small gathering of Episcopalians in Heathsville stands up to disagree with their former rector and will go forward as a new incarnation of a very old church. I am hopeful that about 100 people of The Falls Church Episcopal have said "no" under terrible pressure to say "yes" and are now moving forward as a new incarnation of their community with faith and discernment.
What scares me most is being asked to agree for the sake of agreement, just to "get along". I think we should be able to disagree and get along. If others feel they can't disagree and get along, then there's not much we can do.
Great stuff Fran! :)
-=Tim=-
Laur,
Good thoughts! Cherry-picking began moments after Jesus ascended it seems. In Acts the very earliest church is already choosing up sides for who believes what. Humans! We never change. While I believe coming up with a theory and then trying to 'cherry-pick" verses that support it are wrong, one has to look at the Bible with some historical knowledge and understanding of why and when things were written. (Especially all of the old laws...No one needs to be stoned anymore for mixing two different types fabric together..although some fashion choices make it tempting!)Our pastor was asked why he spent so much time preaching on Love, and so little time talking about sin, when clearly that's what "we" (actually I'm sure they meant everyone else not "we" at all)need to hear. He said Jesus spoke about sine once to every nine times he talked about loving each other, so what better model is there to follow?
Post a Comment