Author: Sara Palmer

  • Getting Your Sibilant Right: The Evangelical Shibboleth

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 29

    Getting Your Sibilant Right:

    The Evangelical Shibboleth

    Judges 12:1-6; I Corinthians 1:10-31

    Walter Brueggemann

    Cincinnati, Ohio

    “Sibilant” is an “s” sound; the word comes from the Latin that means “hiss.” The Hebrew alphabet has four sibilants: samek, stade, sin, and shin. A “sin” looks like a three-pronged candle stick with a dot over one corner. A “shin” looks the same, except that the dot is over the other corner. Say these four sibilants: samek, stade, sin, shin.

    I. I tell you this so that we can read the text from Judges knowingly. The narrative concerns a conflict and eventually war between the Israelite tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Gilead led by Jephthah. Over time fugitives from Ephraim fled east across the Jordan and proposed to sign on with the enemy Gilead led by Jephthah. While the Gilead army needed recruits, it was highly suspicious of these fugitives, fearing that they could not be trusted. In order to trust their identity and their loyalty , the Gileadites devised a linguistic test, asking the fugitives to say the word “Shibboleth” with a shin, the three candle letter with a dot over it. When the fugitives tried to pass the test of dialect, they were in fact Ephraimites and so enemies; they mispronounced the test word because they had the wrong sibilant and said, “Sibboleth.” They used the wrong sibilant, sin, the three-pronged candle with a dot over the other corner. The narrative reports, “They could not say it right.” And so they were identified as outsiders who did not know the tribal mantra, and they were executed. The text says 42,000 were killed. It was unacceptable and dangerous not to know the right sibilant and not to know the tribe-identifying dialect. The narrative ends with the report that Jephthah governed and died, a conclusion that sounds affirmative. To be successful he had to identify those who had the wrong sibilant.

    II. Then I got to thinking: I wondered if the church might have a dialect that we expect people to get right, as with the correct sibilant. After that I concluded, well yes, we have such a shibboleth that is known to insiders and that can easily identify outsiders who do not know the language, practice, or the wonder of the gospel. Paul begins his First Letter to the Corinthians with an honest recognition that there is a division in the congregation there. Its members have chosen up sides following different leaders, variously Paul or Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ. They have divided up the gospel, championing their own clichés, ideologies, and party lines, none of which had the right sibilant or the right tribe-identifying mantra. Paul condemns those who have false dialects and are ignorant of gospel truth. He scolds those who do not know enough to get it right. And then Paul, with a deep breath, gives us what is surely the most eloquent and


    Page 30

    authoritative presentation of our tribal code as his summation of the gospel. It is in three parallels. First, the membership identifying mark is this: Th & foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom. What a mouthful! Paul knew about human wisdom. He was a learned Jew. He had engaged with the worldly wisdom of the Greek philosophers . He knew about the organizational genius of Rome. Were he alive now, he would have mastered the electronic arts of computer, I-pad, facebook, and twitter. He knew his way around the world! But he understood that the foolishness of the cross contradicted all of that capacity for mastery. For the cross, emblematic of Jesus’ entire life, is a totem of risk-taking self-abandonment. Against his erstwhile stringent orthodoxy, Paul understood that God is self-giving and self-risking and self-emptying, and that Jesus is an agent of such self-giving, self-risking, self-emptying foolishness who could not possibly cut any ice in the real world. It is so foolish to give one’s life away for the world. It is so stupid to give one’s self away for the neighbor. And so the church, from the outset, was tempted already at Corinth to be wise, shrewd, and effective, to imitate the way of the world, to package the mystery of the gospel in human reasoning that can yield certitude and compelling conclusions that will withstand the reasoning of the world. It has turned out, however, that when the church imitates the wisdom of the world, it forgets its summons to evangelical foolishness; it becomes prudent and calculating in a way that mocks the foolishness of its own gospel truth. Second, the membership identifying mark is this: The weakness of God is stronger than human strength. What a mouthful! Paul knew about human strength. He was quite familiar with the Roman legions and sometimes appealed to Rome for his own safety and security. In the book of Acts, he is often in communication with Roman authorities, and he surely knew the gospel narrative of the Roman governor and the Roman centurion, and the Roman execution on a Friday afternoon. He knew that such power would prevail. But for less than forty-eight hours! Only from Friday afternoon until Sunday at dawn. He knew the Easter recital of the earliest church. At the end of this epistle, moreover, he will report that “last of all, the risen Christ also appeared to me.” He was fully aware of the power of the world but was fully convinced that the weakness of Chr ist had prevailed in the face of the empire. The authorities who managed such mastery were regularly bamboozled by this weak, vulnerable Jesus, so that his cross has become a totem for the truth of God’s self-emptying vulnerability. That effective vulnerability, however, is a great embarrassment in the church. It is an embarrassing scandal to imagine that such self-emptying weakness could prevail over real power. It is an intellectual impossibility, so that we make every interpretive maneuver we can imagine; it is a myth; it is a metaphor. We can easily see that the earliest evangelists were bamboozled by the prevailing of Easter vulnerability; it did not fit their explanatory categories any more than it does ours. So they tried to say it in many ways, and it nearly cannot be said. It defies our intellect. But more than that, it defies our pragmatic common sense. We appeal to a business model for his church. We reduce the mystery to program and budget and building and membership rolls; they all turn out to be empty of transformative potential, because they have been too much grounded in an alien sibilant. Thus we learn over and over many times that the true sibilant of the weakness of God has transformative power. We appeal to Mother


    Page 31

    Teresa and Martin Luther King and the all-stars in vulnerability that have made such a difference. We do not need, however, to look so far. The weak ones are active among us everywhere; they are those who are naive and innocent and vulnerable and self-giving, who never make the vestry or the session, but who persist in self-giving generosity… because they know the correct sibilant. Third, the membership identifying mark is this: The poverty of God is richer than human wealth. What a mouthful ! I did indeed transport this third element to our text from II Corinthians 8, because it completes the evangelical triad. In that chapter Paul is busy making a fund appeal to help the needy church in Jerusalem. In a most stunning statement in which Paul asks for money, he makes a Christological appeal. Here is his formulation that contradicts our assumed supply-side economics: “For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Chr ist, though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (v. 9). This lyrical formulation is a monetized version of the Philippian hymn: “He was in the form of God… though he was rich; He emptied himself… for our sake he became poor; God has highly exalted him… That by his poverty he might make many rich. ” Who knew that self-giving could enrich others? Who knew that instead of fear of contamination from touching a leper, touching a leper with gospel flesh would heal? Who knew that by taking no thought to what you would eat or where you would live, it turns out that your heavenly Father knows what you need and all these things will be added to you? There is an urgent reason that so many of the parables of Jesus are cast in economic matter—the rich fool, workers who came late, the banquet for all, Lazarus and the rich man, and so on and on. Jesus is effecting a transformation of the economy away from the wealth of the world that of itself has no life-giving capacity. But of course that evangelical poverty that makes others rich is very hard for us. It is hard for us who are depression babies. It is hard for those of us who are young and want it all now. It is hard for Boomers who expect well-being to keep growing to maximum share. It is hard for all of us now who need to “update” all the old luxuries that have become indispensible necessities. So we devise excuses that justify our parsimonious wealth. And then Pope Francis shows up in a Fiat to remind us that we know better. What an evangelical shibboleth!

    The foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom; The weakness of God is stronger than human strength; The poverty of God is richer than human wealth.

    And we, to the contrary, do not have our sibilant right! We imagine our better way:

    Do not be foolish; be prudent; Do not be weak; work from strength; Do not be poor; because nice guys finish last.

    But we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks,


    Page 32

    Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength, (vv. 23-25)

    III. We know enough about this true evangelical shibboleth to know that this sibilant is too dangerous, too costly, and too demanding. It contradicts everything we know; it contradicts the need to be smart in the ways of the world; it contradicts the need to be powerful in the ways of the world. It contradicts the need to be rich and masterful in the ways of the world. Asa result, we tone down, we compromise, we explain away by a rule of prudence, privilege, and parsimony: Prudence as wisdom; Privilege based in power; Parsimony that lets us pretend generosity. We have, moreover, done this rendering with the wrong sibilant long enough that it seems proper and faithful and persuasive to us. For that reason it sounds ok to us to say “sibboleth” when the right tribal identity marker in our own dialect is “shibboleth.”

    IV. The truth, however, is that people like us… we preachers… are designated to lead communities that know and trust and believe and practice the faithful evangelical shibboleth. We are called to live right in the midst of that contradiction that we know so well in our own lives. We are called to stand by and with folk who walk, often inadvertently, into that contradiction and are bamboozled by it. I do not need to tell you that the dominant way of wisdom, power, and wealth has not kept its promise and is not able to keep its promise. It is a credible argument that the mess we are in… about race, environment, violence, and poverty… has come from our uncritical reliance upon worldly wisdom that knows too much, upon worldly power that controls too much, and upon worldly wealth that owns too much. So this could be our time when we embrace a metric other than that imposed upon us by the world. That evangelical metric is not about members or dollars or program or pensions . It is about the neighborhood. Thus Paul can write in this same chapter:

    Consider your own call, brothers and sisters; not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. (vv. 26-29)

    God chose what is foolish, people like us in the church. God chose what is weak in the world, people like us in the church. God chose what is poor in the world, people like us in the church. God chose us with the true shibboleth of foolishness, weakness, and poverty to offer an alternative to the deathly way of the world. Paul concludes: “He (God) is the source of our life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, ‘ Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord’” (vv. 30-31). God is the source of our life in


    Page 33

    Christ, not our wisdom, not our strength, not our wealth. Paul, in these verses alludes to Jeremiah who said it this way: “Do not let the wise boast in their wisdom, do not let the mighty boast in their might, do not let the wealthy boast in their wealth, but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the Lord; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight” (Jeremiah 9:23-24). Sisters and brothers, take a deep breath and give thanks. Our assignment is not for the sake of wisdom, strength, or wealth. Our ministry depends upon the things of God… righteousness, justice, and steadfast love. The fugitives in the book of Judges could not pronounce it correctly. But we can—and we do! This table is precisely for the foolish, the weak, and the poor; those are the marks of new life, and we bear them gladly.

  • Renounce, Resist, Rejoice: Easter Preaching in the Age of Trump

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 3

    Renounce, Resist, Rejoice:

    Easter Preaching in the Age of Trump

    Michael Coffey

    First English Lutheran Church, Austin, Texas

    The task of preaching, at least in my lifetime, has never felt more challenging, profound, and necessary as it does now in the age of Trump. Easter of 2017 was perhaps too soon after the election and inauguration of Donald Trump as the forty-fifth president of the United States to fully prepare for what it means to preach resurrection in this time of empire gone awry and extreme disorientation. Now that many of us have moved from shock and anger into a more settled despair, and sit on the verge of hopelessness when it comes to the pressing issues of our failing democracy, could the task of preaching be more daunting and essential? Yet, how easily preaching, especially during the seven weeks of the Easter season, could avoid the hard truth and sound hollow, with easy rejoicing and shallow praise. Like empty words spoken to one who is grieving, attempting to offer quick comfort, Easter preaching could offend more than transform. We are wise to be reminded of the prophet’s warning about worship and celebration when living in a time of naked injustice and idolatry:

    New moon and sabbath and calling of convocation—I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. (Isaiah l:13b-17)

    To explore the theme of Easter Preaching in the Age of Trump, I am using the theme of my recent book Renounce, Resist, Rejoice: Being Church in the Age of Trump. First, though, it is worth asking what we mean by “the Age of Trump” and “Easter” and “Preaching,” in that order.

    In the Age of Trump If worship that whitewashes injustice is wearying to God, it is also wearying and dispiriting to those living under injustice (and dare I say, it is for those enacting and supporting injustice as well). Many of our people have no room or energy left in their lives for vapid smiles on preacher’s faces that mask the deep displacement they are experiencing today. Whatever Easter preaching is in this time of Trumpism, deep division, and despair on all sides (even those who support President Trump, because their despair is surely what is driving them), it must risk going deep into the truth and the pain, deeper than perhaps we have dared go before, so that the profound good news of resurrection might once again have the power to shock us into new life.


    Page 4

    We might begin, therefore, by backing up a bit before daring to speak resurrection . In any given year, the faithful who show up on Easter Sunday and throughout the fifty-day season have likely not heard the full account of Jesus’ challenge to political and religious power, his rejection, suffering, and death. If there is any true transformational power in preaching Easter, it is in preaching resurrection that comes through the cross. Backing up in the story of Easter means making this cross-centric truth plain and speaking it unadorned. Its ugliness is its power. Its truth-telling is its redemption. Backing up and telling the truth of Jesus, the truth of the cross that precedes resurrection, also means backing up and telling the truth about us, our naked ugliness , our personal and social rejection, our participation in the ways of the empire that resist the kingdom. This kind of truth-telling is not about placing the ballast of guilt on people until they sink. That only reinforces a self-centered Gospel that traps people in bad news and drives them to a politics of despair. This transformational truth-telling is for opening the way for something new to be envisioned, embraced, and trusted—the newness of the reign of God in our midst. Many may resist hearing and confessing the truth we are obliged to tell, but for those who welcome it like necessary chemotherapy, it becomes the rough medicine that leads to healing and new life. Therefore, we must name and describe what it means to be living in this era, the age of Trump, even at Easter. The specifics of what kind of world is being forged by the current occupant of the White House, those who prop him up, and the social forces that empower him must be named and confronted. In some settings, spending too much time naming ‘Trump” will not preach well. Whether the preacher names him or not, artfully naming these growing forces is required of honest preaching:

    Energized white supremacy and racism Immigrant shaming and refugee blaming Misogyny normalized Unapologetic moves to shift wealth further upward Actions to strip health care from those who need it most Blatant and constant lying without shame from those in power Growing acceptance of uncivil discourse Partisan divides growing further entrenched Malignant narcissism and its dangerous foreign policy implications Permanent structural economic changes that leave many behind Festering nationalism that overrides baptismal identity and care for the other

    There are more disturbing trends to be named. Which to name and how is the challenge of this urgent preaching moment desperate for truth-telling that leads to Gospel?

    Easter What do we mean by Easter at this point in Christian history? What does talk of resurrection stir up in people? The expectations on Easter Sunday are high for something powerful and joyful to be preached, but it is not always clear what we mean by resurrection. Is Easter day and season a time to tell the story of long-ago spectacular events that call us to flatly believe in them? Do we live in an age when


    Page 5

    we must explain away the resurrection of Jesus so it does not offend our scientific, rational, and settled minds? Do we look for a metaphorical/poetic meaning of resurlection that offers hope but no expectation of any act of God to transform? Do we preach baptismal identity that says we are living a new life now because of Christ’s death and resurrection? Each of these questions leads to a path for preaching resurrection, and each has its appealing answers and multiplying questions. I propose that right now, Easter preaching, resurrection talk, needs to be a bold and daring claim. Easter preaching is claiming something that we might not believe if it were not preached with power and Spirited conviction, because otherwise it simply is unbelievable. I propose that in this age of Trump, Easter preaching means engendering a profound trust in God’s capacity to bring new life out of death, especially new life out of the death we must face now under empires of death, as we renounce them, resist them, and rejoice in the Gospel despite them, accompanied by our resurrected brother and Lord Jesus, the crucified one.

    Preaching All of this requires us to reassess what we mean by preaching. In my own Lutheran tradition, we often mean preaching Gospel that overrides the truth of sin exposed by the Law. In other traditions and practices, preaching might be for moral admonishing, social justice advocacy, or inspiring story-telling. Those all have their place. In its greatest power, preaching is about offering an alternative truth to the truth we already know and have invested much in preserving. I propose that preaching in the age of Trump is preaching the alternative truth of God’s resurrection power precisely in the moments when it seems empty of power, in the moments when the empire’s crosses appear to have won. What epitomizes the left and right in this age of Trump is a shared sense of cynicism and hopelessness in the political process to accomplish its higher goals. That might in fact be correct and may not be something we need to correct or soften or buoy. We might be tempted to do that in Easter preaching, tempted to preach a comforting resurrection and a hope rooted in something other than the paschal mystery, but that is not what preaching is for. We may indeed have reached the end of our American political story as far is it is capable of creating a more just and life-giving world. Perhaps in this shared despair of conservatives and liberals, only poets, musidans , image creators, and preachers can dare envision an alternative, life-giving world worth hoping in. And perhaps only preaching can make a profound claim that this alternative world has already begun to emerge from the dank tombs of this world, the tombs of war and greed and nationalism and hatred, the tombs of Jesus and his followers, the tombs that God empties with resurrection power.

    Renounce, Resist, Rejoice I am framing the call to the church in the age of Trump as the call to renounce, resist, and rejoice. The call to renounce is rooted in the ancient baptismal ritual that includes renunciation of evil and all that opposes love of God and neighbor. Baptismal identity is rightly rooted in a grace-centered, humble claim that we have mysteriously been included in God’s community through Christ. But in this time, it surely means returning to that ancient call to renounce. When it comes to forces that oppose God,


    Page 6

    forces that kill and diminish life for many, there is no room for gentle negotiations. The only fitting response to white supremacy and racism is renunciation, bold, naked, and loud. The only appropriate rejoinder to blaming vulnerable people for our problems , such as immigrants and refugees, is to say, “No!” The only faithful response to fearful clinging to guns and nuclear weapons as our only security is, “I renounce them!” I imagine the baptismal ritual of renunciation being done not in hushed and reserved voices, but in shouts and exclamations and tears. Much like the ancient ritual of facing west and renouncing, and then turning east and claiming Christ, it is time for such dramatic speech, ritual, and action, or else baptism may lose its power and no resurrection of any consequence will emerge. Perhaps this means the Easter liturgy or the sermon itself includes a ritual of renunciation as a preparation for reclaiming the new life we have in Christ’s resurrection. Imagine the assembly bodily facing west, or away from the cross or altar, and decidedly saying no to all these deathly forces that have been given prominence and approval by the president of the United States and those who empower him. Trump did not create or start them, but his rise has given them an equivalent rise to power. Someone has to say “No!” Let it be the church in its courageous Easter faith. The church in the age of Trump must surely practice creative and costly resistance. Preaching at Easter cannot avoid talk of resistance to the empire if such preaching embraces the cross. Jesus’ ministry is a strong witness of resistance to empire and religion that want to pervert God’s reign into one of self-interest, disregard for the weak and rejected, and accumulation of wealth and power for their own sakes. One can re-imagine in a sermon what Jesus’ resistance looks like in our time. Is his confrontation with Temple merchants a confrontation with religion that degrades the poor today? Is his truth-revealing conversation with Pilate a resistance to the alternative facts of today’s political players? Is his table fellowship with sinners and tax collectors a community-building with immigrants on the verge of deportation or a picnic in the middle of a refugee camp? Funding the church’s imagination for resistance today through Jesus’ own resistance is encouraging to an assembly gathered before the cross of Christ and pondering a mysteriously emptied tomb. There can be no true Easter without some soul-stirring rejoicing, a celebration that comes not from shallow places in our hardened hearts, but from the depths of our wearied and grieving souls. Preaching resurrection as God’s determination to bring new life by God’s infinite mercy and unending justice can only ring true with rejoicing that equals the truth-claim of the Gospel. Perhaps this means finding ways to transcend safer modes of rejoicing and predictable patterns of celebration. Much like a typically reserved white preacher invited to preach in an African-American congregation with a rich culture of exuberance (an experience I am grateful to have had), we might be called to transcend what we thought rejoicing was, because the grief is so overpowering and the resurrection message so needed, so ungraspable, and yet so excruciatingly wonderful. How can the preacher do that in her own context? This is the challenge for each preacher and liturgist to ask within the culture of their assembly.

    Preaching the Text Easter preaching flows from the resurrection text that coaxes us to place our trust in a new reality ushered in by God in the body of Jesus. Which text we use strongly


    Page 7

    shapes the sermon preached (or it should). Since there are four Gospel accounts, and each is wildly different, some thoughtful consideration should be given to which one is read in the assembly and shapes the sermon. For lectionary preachers, 2018 is Year B, the year of Mark. Lectionaries often have a choice between the synoptic Gospel’s Easter story and John’s. In many years, John is favored for its colorful story of Peter and the Beloved Disciple, and Mary’s touching encounter with Jesus in the garden. However, I would argue that preaching in the age of Trump makes Mark’s Gospel a strong choice. I am assuming that Mark’s ending at 16:8, with all its mystery and unresolved questions and lack of a resurrection appearance, is the original ending. There are many scholarly debates about this and several other textual endings that fill in the blanks. Regardless of the answer to the question of original ending, the ending at 16:8 is clearly the earliest attested, and if there is more to the original work, it is not one of the longer endings available to us from later manuscripts. Beyond all questions of textual criticism, I want to argue that Mark’s Gospel and its enigmatic ending at 16:8 is the most significant text for preaching Easter in the age of Trump. If I were to characterize Mark’s Gospel in one short phrase, I would say it is the Gospel of faith overcoming fear. Fear is a major theme in Mark, with much of the motivation and challenge that characters in the story experience being rooted in their fear. What they fear throughout is trusting God as Jesus does, because it feels like losing: losing wealth, losing self, losing status, losing political and religious power, and above all, losing life in the call from Jesus to follow his way of the cross. One important verse that names this fear/faith tension comes after Jesus calms the wind and the waves. He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” (Mark 4:40). Thinking about this existential struggle with fear throughout Mark and the faith one is called to have in God’s kingdom as Jesus announces and inaugurates it, we might be tempted to think that Jesus’ resurrection is the ultimate motivator for faith to overcome fear. But here, Mark’s ending confounds and ratchets up the tension in the reader:

    As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (Mark 16:5-8)

    The women come to the tomb grieving and afraid. The angels announce the resurrection and instruct the women to go and tell the other disciples. The women flee from the tomb afraid and speechless. The good news of resurrection does not break through for them. The power of God is too awesome to comprehend. Fear and empire power seem more believable and strangely more comforting compared to the incomprehensible God of resurrection who won’t leave us alone. The story ends with silence, fear, and an open-ended question for the hearer: How will you respond to this God of resurrection? Fear or faith? Perhaps both?


    Page 8

    The power of this ending is its ability to leave the reader in a state of wonderment, dissonance, and deep inner questioning. It raises a sense of obligation in the hearer to consider her own response to the announcement of a raised and living Jesus beyond the crucified Jesus of the empire’s doing. Mark’s Gospel does not expect that simply hearing about the resurrection will create faith that overcomes fear. The fear is too deep and dreadful. The messenger ’s sermon at the empty tomb falls flat. There is more wrestling to do. Yet the reader knows, because Mark’s Gospel exists, that someone said something somewhere. Somehow, they overcame their fear, and the good news was shared. In some mysterious way, faith gave power to speak and act, but when? And how? The ending challenges the reader: Go and wrestle with this ! Listen to your own inner struggle with fear and your own desire to trust God’s resurrection good news. This Easter Gospel from Mark is what we need for preaching Easter in the age of Trump because it speaks to our deep, cynical, pessimistic, despairing moment, and says to keep wrestling with it. Don’t accept any easy religious answer to this age’s challenges. Your fear of our empire’s disassembling of ways that lead to life and neighborly care is profound because the challenge is grossly profound. Even Jesus’ resurrection will not be your easy answer. Only a searching faith that dissects the fear we still cling to can move us from silent acquiescence to joyful speech and action. We are living in an age that feels like the period at the end of Mark 16:8, and the good news we expected feels cut off. We wonder where the rest of the current chapter is, let alone the next chapter. We don’t know how to go on with the story. So this is my proposition for Easter preaching in the age of Trump: preachers speak a bold, unapologetic word about God’s power to bring life out of death, and preachers let the assembly recognize their own fear, ambivalence, and unsettled questions about whether we even want resurrection to be true. What did the resurrection of Jesus do but transform his followers from fear to faith, from despair to radical hope, from timid hiding to bold action in the public realm? Resurrection is the last thing we want to be true, because it validates the cross and everything Jesus said about it. If Jesus had merely died on the cross and stayed dead and quiet, his call to following his way could be nicely forgotten. Jesus’ resurrection makes everything he calls his disciples to live true and unavoidable. Jesus ’ resurrection makes the church dangerous to those who prop up an empire of death. In many ways, American Christianity in the twenty-first century has not been well-formed for a time such as this. We have been overly comforted, cheaply graced, syncretized with nationalism, and excused from taking up the cross and facing death. This has been true generally for middle-class and wealthy white churches and for evangelical churches and for preachers of growth and prosperity. Notable exceptions to this are African-American congregations deeply connected to their history and struggle with oppression, immigrant churches, poor churches, and churches strongly aligned with those on the margins. The challenge of preaching Gospel at all today, let alone the Easter story, is greater and more necessary than many of us have known in our lifetimes. Preachers should know that their task is both frighteningly important and potentially transforming of the current gathering of the faithful and the fearful. All of us assembled to hear the Gospel word and share the meal of the crucified and risen Jesus on Easter day are surely both faithful and fearful. Let the preacher urge us toward deep trust in the God


    Page 9

    of resurrection, though we are unsure if we want resurrection to be the truth. The church is an Easter community created out of the crucified and risen body of Jesus, enveloped by empires, but not overwhelmed. The church is a graced gathering that has been transformed by the good news of God’s life-giving reign. The church is the assembly in which the holy and mysterious presence of Christ Jesus is welcomed. The church on Easter Sunday, throughout the season culminating in Pentecost and at every gathering, is called to trust in this good news so deeply that it renounces all that opposes it, resists all that seeks to upend it, and rejoices in God’s gracious resurlection power that changes everything, even this current age. Preach to the church, preacher. Preach Easter in the age of Trump. All are awaiting resurrection while we endure this tomb.

  • Once When We All Were White

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 42

    Once When We All Were White

    Nibs Stroupe

    Decatur, Georgia

    The election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 sent shock waves through this country and around the world. As I write this article, his presidency is still unfolding , and it is indeed scary. Many reasons have been given for his victory—one is the refusal to elect a woman, Hilary Clinton, as president. A second reason given is the long and continuing history of the power of race in American culture and history. After 8 years of an African-American president, white folks were eager and ready to take the country back and “make America great again.” A third reason is the lingering but significant pockets of unemployment in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan. While much has been made of Trump’s winning these Rust Belt states, he also had the solid white vote in the South. In the former Confederacy, only the state of Virginia went for Clinton. Three recent books have sought to address a fourth reason: the alienation of the white working class. All three were written prior to the 2016 election, but they each catch a dimension of this often overlooked reason: the feeling of marginalization among white working class people in America. Two books in the early 1990s are also helpful on this: David Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness and Thomas Edsall’s Chain Reaction. These three recent books approach this subject from different perspectives. White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg does just as the title implies—it is a sweeping history of working class and poor whites in America. Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance is a story of Appalachian mountain culture as seen through the lens of one person and his family. The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality by Justin Gest is a sociological study of white workers in Youngstown, Ohio, and in a district in London, England. Γ11 be looking at the contributions of these authors and their implications for preaching in these dangerous times. First, in regard to preaching, it must be noted that the church is rarely mentioned in any of these books. Vance addresses it a bit in Hillbilly, but by far these authors see the church as unimportant in these various stories. That absence and silence shouts out to us about preaching in our mainstream and maybe even in our tributary churches. The church has often sold our birthright for a bowl of porridge, especially in regard to working class people classified as “white.” We are not seen as relevant by or for a group of people who are angry and feeling marginalized. As we shall see, this has profound class and racial implications for all of us. Isenberg’s history of “White Trash” begins with the dilemma that has been at the heart of American life since our European beginnings: trying to balance the ideology of equality with the reality of race and class in our midst. Isenberg makes a strong case through history, story, and statistics that this ideology of equality has prevented us from seeing and acknowledging that we have always created what the English called “waste people,” people who came to be known as “white trash.” Isenberg indicates that we have been screened from this knowledge for two primary reasons. First, English society in the 1500s and 1600s wanted to rid itself of those it called “waste people,”


    Page 43

    people who were being displaced because of the Industrial Revolution. Since decent housing or imprisonment or even execution were not viable options, when America opened up, it became a place to send these marginalized folk. The second and more important reason was that the new American landscape needed such “waste people’’ to cut down the trees, dig the ditches and canals, plant and work the crops, fight the natives, and generally supply the cheap labor so that the entrepreneurs and adventurers could make more money. This idea of waste people and cheap labor would obviously have profound implications for the development of America’s peculiar institution of slavery. In this early period, the colonies would become “one giant workhouse,” a place where the poor of England could be turned into economic assets. Isenberg takes us through the rest of American history and makes a strong case that these original perceptions have held sway throughout our story, including the present day. She notes especially the post-Civil War era in which working class whites in the South were convinced that their interests were better served by claiming their “whiteness” over the economic benefits of joining with former slaves to develop a free labor economy in the South. Though she does not mention this, it is based on WEB Dubois’s insight of what has come to be known as the “wages of whiteness.”1 She also points out the shameful episode of eugenics in our history, which was used by both conservatives and liberals to sterilize poor white people and black people. It was the result of the continuing struggle over the ideology of equality and the reality of inequality—those who were poor were variously seen as inept, lazy, and subhuman. What came to be questioned was not the fabric of greed in American culture, but rather the humanity of those who received inequitable treatment. She also notes the harsh reactions that have come when attempts are made to improve the conditions of the poor in America: “Whether it is New Deal policies or LBJ’s welfare programs or Obama-era health care reform, along with any effort to address inequality and poverty comes a harsh and seemingly inevitable reaction.” 2 In Hillbilly Elegy!, J.D. Vance boils Isenberg’s history down to his own story and the story of his family. He was bom in Appalachian mountain culture in eastern Kentucky , but then transplanted to Ohio. Here the focus becomes the dissolution of his family and his culture, and his finding redemption through the loving dedication of his maternal grandparents and dedicated teachers in his life. His story makes clear the ties between the voting blocs that gave Donald Trump the presidency: southern white culture and transplanted Appalachian whites who tipped the scales in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Vance’s story is a powerful one of internalized oppression in which we see a multigenerational accumulation of a desperate situation turned inward and then acted out. In this book, Vance shares a narrative of complex people trying to find their way through the maze of economic exploitation and oppression. In the midst of being targeted as a ripe market for drug use to anesthetize the pain, in the midst of a culture whose values center on a proclamation of self-reliance and independence, he notes the need to be vulnerable and to find a loving community. Because of the exploitation of white labor in the mines of Appalachia, many fled to the cities of Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania where economic circumstances were better, especially in the steel mills. As these industries began to collapse in the 1980s and 1990s, the same patterns deepened. There is a sense of being pushed out to the margins; there is deep anger; and there is despair. Rather than taking on the


    Page 44

    systems that cause this, Vance’s family and culture internalize the oppression and turn on themselves in a litany of violence, drugs, and dissolution. It is a personalized version of the history that Nancy Isenberg gave us in White Trash. Vance is in his early 30s, so we do not know how his story will continue to unfold, but his “Hillbilly Elegy” could actually be “Hillbilly Redemption” in terms of his own journey. Through his own will and through the love of complex members of his family, especially his grandmother, he is able to hear a different definition of himself and his possibilities. Rather than being white boy trapped in poverty and oppression , he is able to hear that he is the child of love and equity. Through love, through education, through hard work, through the Marines, through college at Ohio State and grad school at Yale Law School, he is able to hear that there are other narratives of himself and of life, narratives that offer a path to life rather than to the ravages of internalized oppression. His story is impressive, but he falls into the trap in which many who believe in independence and self-reliance find themselves in seeking to explain the disconnect between systemic oppression and personal responsibility. Although he acknowledges the powerful economic forces that have pounded on white working class people and others, his main explanation for the marginalized status of Appalachian whites is their lack of personal responsibility. Like Clarence Thomas before him, Vance experienced the struggles of an oppressed people and has heard a different definition of himself. Like Thomas, he lays most of the ills of his cultural crisis at the feet of the welfare state, which he claims has created personal irresponsibility. Here his ideology seems to take over his analysis. While there are undoubtedly people who are personally irresponsible , he would do well to have used Isenberg’s analysis of the marginalization of working class white people from the beginning of our history. The truth is that the source of the cultural crisis of working class white people and other cultures in our midst is a combination of economic and capitalistic forces, of the longstanding indifference of our society to those in need, and of the diminishment of the individual human spirit that so often occurs in response to these factors. Vance also fails to understand the depths of the “wages of whiteness” in himself and in his culture. DuBois’s insight on this is profound. Part of the internalized oppression of white Appalachian culture is that they have failed as “white” people. They are able to receive the psychological boost in our society from being classified as “white,” but that boost seems to have fizzled for them because they too feel marginalized and oppressed. As Vance puts it so well, when he read William Julius Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged, about black people trapped in inner cities, he felt that it was written about hillbilly transplants from Appalachia. Yet, like Wilson and later Charles Murray, Vance attributes this marginalization to the failure of individual Appalachian transplants. He does not address their sense of failure as “white people,” or the long, grinding, and deliberate history of setting up this system that is now crushing his culture. In The New Minority, Justin Gest’s sociological study of failing white districts in Youngstown, Ohio, and in the London, England area, Gest does begin to name this complex of factors that drove the working class whites into the arms of Donald Trump. He bases his thesis on economic crisis—both places have lost thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs. The original white populations have lost their jobs and their livelihoods and now their majority status. Their tacit agreement to partici­


    Page 45

    pate in the wages of whiteness worked well until the jobs left, and now they face the unpleasant news of American history—their cheap labor and being a buffer between middle and upper class whites and African-Americans below them, no longer brings them the benefits that it once did. With this loss has come a sense of marginality, of moral and race failure, and of being overwhelmed by immigrant laborers who are willing to do the jobs previously reserved for working class whites. Gest calls these areas, of which there are many, “post-traumatic cities (PTC)/’ meaning that they are exurbs and urban communities that lost signature industries in the mid to late 20* century and have never recovered. These PTC are often nostalgic and backward looking. Rather than adapting to the post-traumatic future, they seek to reinstate the pre-traumatic past. As white people, they were not supposed to end up this way. This sense of deprivation drives white working class people to see African-Americans, and especially recent immigrants, as their primary antagonists. Rather than building coalitions with the “other’ to engage the corporations and upper classes who have used their labor and deserted them, they chose to ally themselves with the upper class whites, maintaining their race loyalty. Despite this loyalty, Gest makes it clear from his studies that white working class people are now feeling cleavage from “white, elite, co-ethnics, who exploit working class people in the market/’3 Yet they also feel caught, because they continue to long for solidarity with the behavior of the wealthy. At the same time, they double down hard on welfare recipients, whom they identify as African-Americans and immigrants. For them, “welfare’’ is framed as “cash assistance,” not unemployment, Medicaid, disability, or food stamps, all of which some of them receive. The narrative now is a “litany of stories about heartbreak, desperation, disappointment and betrayal—recounting the tragic steps leading to a world where white working class people have been displaced to their society’s periphery.”4 Like Isenberg in White Trash, Gest notes that this narrative that white working class people were once closer to the center is a false historic construction, and therein lies the tale. In a section in which he is talking about developments in Britain, he notes the reality that a global, capitalist meritocracy that features even greater inequality now drives Western economies. This model shifts production to cheaper overseas venues and then recruits immigrants to fill the skilled positions that nationals are unqualified to take, while also recruiting (or encouraging) immigrants to take the unskilled positions that nationals are unwilling to take. This certainly seems to be the case in the American context. He notes that in the American context, we are permeated by a repertoire of individualism, self-sufficiency, and mobility. These factors enhance the decision by white working class Americans to see more solidarity with white upper classes than with the working class ethnics who are in their same situation economically and class-wise. Thus enters Donald Trump, a wealthy white man whose corporate policies have been part of the displacement of working class whites. As a master manipulator, he was able to speak to the acute sense of loss for working class whites, and while being part of the establishment, he was able to get these folk who now feel marginalized and now “racialized” to support him and to give the finger to the establishment. As Gest points out, Trump ‘s call to “make America great again” was a call to reinstate the pre-traumatic past, when jobs permitting upward mobility seemed plentiful for white unskilled workers, and when those of other racial categories, who would threaten to


    Page 46

    permeate that mobility, were safely where they should be—both geographically and sociologically—at the back of the bus and at the bottom of the ladder. There are at least five implications for preaching that flow out of these three insightful books. All of these implications must be understood in light of my earlier comment that none of these three authors sees the church or its ministry as a significant factor in these issues. That should give all of us preachers and ecclesiastical types a major pause, and it should cause us to re-consider our outreach to working class white folks. Few mainline denominations now consider working class white people as a goal for their membership recruiting. I assume that most readers of this article are middle and upper middle class white folks, and because ofthat assumption, these five implications are addressed to preachers and churches in this context. The first implication is based on the idea that we have access to the movers and shakers of society, or at least that part who still participate in church life. The inequities addressed in these books have been developed and are maintained by our church members. We are called to be prophets and pastors to those who rule and shape our culture. I often tend to think of white working class people as ignorant and mean, and these books remind me that while they may be the spearhead of the resurgence of racism and meanness, they are not the cause of it. The pastoral dimension of our preaching should remind us of the connection to all people, and the prophetic dimension should remind us that whether we affirm those connections or not, God does and expects those of us who claim Jesus Christ as Lord to live our lives in authentic and life-giving connection to one another. The second implication is the intersectionality in American history of race and class. One of the sources of the deep anger of working class white people is that they are feeling excluded from the benefits of being “white/’ These books are a reminder that part of the longing for the “pre-traumatic” past is a desire to receive some of the goodies of being classified as “white’’ in American culture. There is a longing for a time when once we all were white, meaning that the “wages of whiteness” no longer seem relevant to those white folk suffering deep economic inequity. The third implication is that because we have allowed capitalism to run amok since the fall of communism, we call forth people like Donald Trump. The horrid tax cuts bill passed last year are a vivid reminder that we have not heard the wisdom of our Christian tradition or of history that when materialism rivals God or even supersedes God in our hearts, the results are simply horrific. The voices of Martin Luther King, Jr., Reinhold Niebuhr, Letty Russell, and others all cry out to us to find some balance in relation to materialism in our lives, if not to put materialism back in its rightful place as subservient to God. In the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments , we hear the harsh words for those like us who willfully disobey the first two commandments: “I the Lord your God am a jealous God… “(20:5). Jesus adds the dimension of our captivity in the Sermon on the Mount: “You cannot serve God and wealth” (Matthew 6:24). The fourth implication is that we must enable our congregations to hear the call for a commitment to economic resources for all. The real threat to working class whites (and the rest of us) is not jobs going to China, but robotics coming to America. We are only at the beginning of a stunning robotic revolution in the workplace, similar to the Industrial Revolution, a change that will displace hundreds of thousands of workers. Where will they go? From whence will come their income? These three books ham-


    Page 47

    mer home the theme of a collection of wealth among the few while the many are left displaced and inappropriately blaming themselves or others for the displacement. Our current ideology of independence and self-reliance must be replaced by a sense of connection and community, lest we all perish. This implication calls on us to renew the 1970s conversations about guaranteed annual incomes for all citizens. In an article in Journal for Preachers in 1992 entitled “Preaching on Covenant in an Age of Individualism/’ I indicated that because of our emphasis on independence and individualism in America, we were in great danger of falling into tribalism.5 That slide into tribalism seems to have come true as we now experience the huge divide in our national and political lives. This is the fifth implication of these books: we are falling apart as a community, and individuals are simply not able to bear the weight of the human dilemma without bonding with others. Our preaching should focus not just on the “oughtness” of these connections, but also on the absolute certainty of them, like gravity or the roundness of the earth. This bonding should be an authentic community that acknowledges human frailty while also affirming our connections to one another. Most often, and even now, that bonding becomes a destructive tribalism which sees the other as the enemy who must be excluded or even destroyed. Our Christian tradition is clear on this, and our preaching must re-affirm that clarity. Jesus summed up all the law and prophets in this insight: “Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself’ (Matthew 22:34-40). Jesus also reminded us in the story of the Good Samaritan that by “neighbor,” he means not the ones whom we choose, but the ones whom God chooses (Luke 10:25-37). These three books remind us that the Trump phenomenon is not an aberration of American history, but rather a consequence of it. The factors that called forth Donald Trump are viable and powerful in our life together in America: racism, exploitation of the working class, the collapse of the power of authentic community, and the power of materialism and greed in all of our hearts. It is to these areas that our preaching should be turning, if we are not already there.

    Notes 1 W. E. B. Dubois, Black Reconstruction in America 1860-1880 ( New York: Macmillan, 1935), p. 700. 2 Nancy Isenberg, White Trash: The 400 Year Untold History of Class in America (New York: Penguin Books, 2016), p. 312. 3 Justin Gest, The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an Age of Immigration and Inequality (New York: Oxford University Press), 135. 4 Gest, p. 150. 5 Gibson Stroupe, “Preaching on Covenant in an Age of Individualism,” Journal for Preachers 15 (1992) 23-26.

  • To Tell the Truth

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 20

    To Tell the Truth

    Exodus 20:17; Acts 4:36-5:11

    John W. Kuykendall

    Davidson, North Carolina

    “Pilate asked him, ‘What is truth?’” (John 18:38) One of the most troubling passages of the story of Jesus for me is the description of his encounter with Pontius Pilate which is recorded in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus had just been telling Pilate that his mission in the world was “to testify to the truth,” to testify to the faithful and consistent presence of God as the source of meaning in human life. Jesus said, “I came into the world, to testify to the truth.” So Pilate said, “What is truth?” Ships passing in the night (at least it looks that way to me). In fairness , though, it’s hard to know what Pilate even meant by that question, given the evidence at hand. Frederick Buechner in his famous riff on Pilate supposes that he asked the question “because in a world of so many truths and half-truths, he is hungry for truth itself, or failing that, at least for the truth that there is no truth.”1 Maybe so. What do you think? What motivation for the question “What is truth?” Indeed the question may have come from any of a number of internal moods or persuasions: skepticism, cynicism, curiosity, perhaps even some agonized quest for meaning in life. All kinds of speculation about that little question: why it was asked, when it was asked, and by whom it was asked in that particular time. But there it is; and it’s really hard—and maybe unprofitable—to go beyond what we know. According to the Fourth Gospel, the basic fact is this: Pilate put the question on the table, and either he wasn’t willing to wait around for an answer, or the only answer he was to receive was a profound and enigmatic silence. So he left the question for the rest of us in generations yet unborn to ponder as we seek to find a path through the day to day.

    I This is a sermon about the significance of truth in our lives. Correct me if Γ m wrong, but it seems to be a timely topic. We are not in a particularly happy season these days when it comes to a common understanding of that word truth. The cover story in Time earlier this month carried a banner which probably summed up the mood of our circumstance: “Somebody’s not telling the truth.” What a quaint understatement ! Terms such as “false news” and “alternative facts” and “disinformation” and “fact checkers” and “Pinnochios” and “pants-on-fire ratings” and the consequent and frequent use of such flagrant words as “liar!” have become a part of our everyday discourse about people in the public eye. This is not necessarily a situation unique to these few years of our lives—or in the life of this old world of ours, come to that—but it is no less distressing to many of us nonetheless. It is a truism, I think, that “you do not just live in a world… ; a world lives in you;”2 and the world that inhabits each one of us just now is one in which the coin of the realm, both in public and private discourse, seems a failure to tell the truth, spoken openly without apology as though it were a matter of necessity and habit. To resurrect an old saying you may have heard growing up: “Seems like there


    Page 21

    are some folks who will tell a lie when the truth would serve them better!” (Please do not misunderstand me; I intend all this as a cultural, not a political statement!) And couple with that the further cultural observation that revolutions in technology within the lifetime of almost every person in this room have made it possible for anyone to disseminate any information without or even against considerations of its truthfulness; and the consequences are truly unknown and unknowable. So what’s a Christian to do? Where can any disciple of Jesus Christ—or anyone who aspires to be— stand “in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side?”3 What does what you believe have to do with what you say—and hear—in an age and situation in which the line between truth and falsehood is being so vigorously and variously drawn and challenged? What is truth? Does it have anything to do with our faith? The Westminster Shorter Catechism (which some of us learned at—or over!—our mothers’ knees) gives this definition of God: “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable, in… being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and …truth.” “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in…truth.” But here we are: finite, temporary, and very, very changeable, trying to relate to a God who is the God of truth. And that truth which is part of the nature of God is expressed in God’s faithfulness, God’s trustworthiness, God’s dependability, God’s saving and caring presence in our lives and the life of all God’s creation. And Jesus came declaring that he was bearing witness to the truth, testifying to that aspect of God’s relationship to us ; and more, he was personifying that truth in and through his own presence. He said on more than one occasion that he was/is/is to be himself the truth: “the way, the truth, and the life.” So let’s stipulate at the outset that the basis of truth in the life of any one of us who claims to be Christian is the truth that comes from God, the truth made incarnate in the person and work of the Christ. And further stipulate, if you are able, that it is the task and obligation of discipleship to discover ways to express God’s truth in a world which falls short, to find the point of connection between Truth (capital T) and truth in the way we live our lives and tell others of our understanding of life.

    II It goes without saying, I suppose, that the Bible has quite a few things to say about telling the truth. Open it anywhere and chances are the topic of telling the truth comes up in some regard within a few pages one way or the other. I choose two examples today; others can choose differently and even better. Take first of all that one of the Ten Commandments I quoted as our Old Testament lesson this morning, ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. ” It sounds like instructions for a judicial process—and it is—but don’t let archaic language throw you off the point. “False witness” is any assertion that falls short of the truth. Here’s a gloss on it from our Heidelberg Catechism:

    Question 112: What is required in the ninth commandment? Answer. That I do not bear false witness against anyone, twist anyone’s words, be a gossip or a slanderer, or condemn anyone without a hearing. Rather I am required to avoid, under penalty of God’s wrath, all lying and deceit as the works of the devil himself. Injudicial and all other matters I


    Page 22

    am to love the truth, and to speak and confess it honestly. Indeed, insofar as I am able, I am to defend and promote my neighbor’s good name.

    It sounds like our forebears were right serious about the matter, doesn’t it? And they surely had scriptural warrant for their intensity. As the Book of Deuteronomy amplifies the “Ten Words” from Sinai, the penalty mandated for breach of this commandment reads as follows: “If the witness is a false witness, having testified falsely against another, then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other. So you shall purge the evil from your midst…. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand; foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). It is serious business indeed to tell a he in the community of Israel, or so it would seem. Truth is of the essence of God’s being and of God’s relationship with humankind. The point is that failing to tell the truth is potentially—and quite essentially—destructive of life in relationship to God and God’s created order. You simply can’t tell lies to one another or about one another and expect to live together in peace and harmony. Lesson number one: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Period.

    Ill Then one other lesson on this matter of telling the truth: Have you ever heard our New Testament lesson read in church before? Well, I haven’t, lo these 79 years of church-going; and God knows—I mean that faithfully and literally—God knows I never thought of preaching on it before now. Ananias and Sapphira, what a bizarre story! But before we go any further, let me say that I don’t believe this is just a cautionary tale about keeping up to date on your church pledge! (Though that’s not a bad idea.) Clearly there’s much more at work in the telling of this tale than that. The writer of the Book of Acts makes a special effort to remind us ever and again that the new community of believers brought together in Jerusalem after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and after the coming of Holy Spirit into the midst of infant company of faith—that that community was born to be different, born to be holy, set apart, born to be “the body of Christ.” Among other things, those first disciples pooled their resources to be sure that no one suffered need. The text says, for instance, that Joseph, nicknamed “Barnabas,” “son of encouragement,” sold a field and donated all the proceeds to the Church. Then comes this strange story: A man called Ananias (otherwise unknown to us… and maybe for good reason!) and his wife Sapphira conspired to deceive the community and take credit for more than their due. And the rest of the story might be a sort of cartoon were it not for the sudden and shocking outcome. First Ananias, then Sapphira , confronted with the reality of the he—a lie, Peter says, told not to the Church but directly to God!—each of them drops dead! Not exactly a story which is in keeping with “the era of good feelings” that we usually associate with that first devout, Spirit-filled cluster of Christians. It raises all sorts of questions. You might want to talk about this over lunch today. Or not. At any rate, there it is. And sort it out and try to explain it any way you wish—goodness knows, people have tried to find Gospel in it—but one salient and unmistakable moral to the story has to be that the telling of lies in the community of faith poses a real and serious threat to the health and even to the existence of the Church; and that might well hold


    Page 23

    true for the Church in any place in any generation. The telling of the truth (little t) within and among the body of believers is the only adequate way to honor Truth (capital T) which is a part of the very nature of God. Anything less has the savor of death about it.

    IV Now let me go back to the basic question I raised earlier (and this is where I may stop preaching and start meddling). What’s a Christian to do? What do we do, you and I, as disciples (or disciple wanna-bes) living in a world which seems to lack motivation to prefer truth over lying as a modus operandi? We can’t simply tell a politician or a polemicist or a bloodshot partisan, “Hey, buddy, you’re lying. Tell us the truth.” Or maybe we can; maybe we must, if we take our faith seriously. Maybe we must, as we listen and as we talk, and as we have dialogue with those from whom we differ, and also, perhaps, with whom we agree. Maybe we dishonor the faith we profess if we don 7 make it clear that we intend to speak the truth insofar as it is within our ken, and in turn, we expect the truth to be spoken to us. Now, it occurs to me that such intentions start at home: truth-telling with yourself and those nearest and dearest. Let’s not get sidetracked just now into a petty discussion of “white lies.” (“No, that bowtie doesn’t make you look foolish” or “Yes, this apple pie is better than my Mama used to make.”) Let’s leave aside such peripheral matters and also forego the philosophical questions as to whether or not you should tell the truth to the murderer at your front door whose intended victim is hiding in your coat closet.4 The real issue is how you as a faithful person come to terms with truth in your own life. Consider the possibility that telling the truth to yourself about yourself may be the hardest thing to do? Indeed, it is entirely possible that the greatest lies we tell are lies to ourselves about ourselves as we try to craft reality so that it conforms to our needs and expectations. N. T. Wright comments on the story we have read that “the real deep-level problem about lying is that it misuses or abuses the highest faculty we possess: the gift of expressing in clear speech the reality of who we are, what we think, and how we feel.”5 Life depends upon telling the truth. Life in the human community, beginning with ourselves and our families, is premised upon telling the truth. I have a dear young six-year-old friend who recently became a bit too creative with magic markers on the wall of her bedroom, and for three days it was her steadfast contention that the appearance of the graffiti was nothing short of a miracle wrought by some magical intruder. Finally, the truth came out, and she subsequently sent this note to her parents (spelling excused!): “Γ m sory I told a lie. I will never tell a nother lie unless I have a surprise. Γ11 try to ern your trust back by telling the truth from the start. I will follow the rules and not be sneky. Love Anna” (not her real name). Telling the truth needs to begin at home, in the closeness of family: “telling the truth in love.” But that cannot be where it ends. So I beg you to ponder the following statement from your own point of view. (And if you think T m about to address “the elephant in the room,” maybe I am; but let me just say that I know that there are elephants and donkeys and more than a few zebras here. So you need to name the beast for yourself!) But what do you make of this statement: We have an equal obligation to tell the truth within the larger human family, those known and unknown, and also to live with expectant insistence upon being told the truth in return. Please don’t wait


    Page 24

    for me or anyone else to tell you when or where such things become necessary. You must decide for yourself. But do recollect as you make that decision that as heirs of the Reformed heritage, we come from a tradition that has more than occasionally found it necessary to speak truth to power and done so candidly and without apology. Be it a domineering church or an authoritarian political power over nearly five centuries in places such as Switzerland and France and Hungary and Scotland and England and colonial American and even this “sweet land of liberty” in which we are privileged to live, in all those times and places, women and men of faith have been bold in telling the truth, sometimes in clearly adversarial circumstances, and they have also insisted upon hearing the truth from friend and foe alike. So when and if such an occasion arises, God grant us and all faithful people the courage to say, “Tell us the truth. ” It is an act of faith and discipleship.

    Notes 1 In Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy and Fairy Tale (San Francisco: Harper, 1977), 14. 2 Ibid., 3. 3 James Russell Lowell, “Once to Every Man and Nation” (poem). 4 For ideas here and elsewhere in this section, see Joy Davidman, Smoke on the Mountain (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1955), 97-105. 5 N.T. Wright, Acts for Everyone, Part One (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. 2008), 81.

  • With Head Held High: Preaching Hope in a Noisy Time

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 2

    With Head Held High:

    Preaching Hope in a Noisy Time

    Thomas W. Currie

    Georgetown, Texas

    “There are people who think it frivolous and Christians who think it impi­ ous to hope for a better future on earth and to prepare for it. They believe in chaos, disorder, and catastrophe, perceiving it in what is happening now. They withdraw in resignation or pious flight from the world, from the responsibility for ongoing life, for building anew, for the coming genera­ tions. It may be that the day of judgment will dawn tomorrow; only then and no earlier will we readily lay down our work for a better future.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer1

    “Put not your trust in princes… ” Psalm 146:3.

    I Of all the tasks to which the church is called to undertake, the one that makes the least obvious sense is to hope. Faith may well be the conviction of things hoped for, but convictions are surprisingly easy to summon up, and many if not most can be held with “passionate intensity.” Love may well be the “greatest of these,” but this virtue also has the advantage of engaging concretely with the beloved or even the beloved enemy. Hope, on the other hand, seems a poor thing, often inarticulate in the face of real adversity, and even more often dismissed as pious wishing or impossibly vague. Yet of these three virtues, hope is the most public, the most courageous, and the most engaged with the future. It is also the easiest to lose. What makes hope strange and strangely elusive is that it comes to us, as it did to those discouraged disciples on the way to Emmaus, when we have given it up, and just so, its presence in our midst unerringly reveals our emptiness. Hope comes to us when we have grown used to and even prefer our quiet resignation or comfort­ able disbelief to the rigors of feeding again on some word of promise. The famine of the word of which Amos speaks (8:11) is something we have shown a remarkable ability to manage. There are other sources of nourishment upon which we can feed and even stuff ourselves. We work hard not to be hungry. And the emptiness we feed upon, whatever else it is, is rarely silent but instead quite noisy. It is filled with the hopelessness of political rhetoric, with those hawking the salvihc blessings of afflu­ ence, with those promoting the spiritual consolations of self-exploration, anything to keep us from hearing this word of hope. So why is something so elusive so threatening to us? If hope is so poor and weak and beside the point, why do we flee from it so instinctively? Perhaps because we suspect, rightly, that hope is another name for God’s intrusive presence in our world, and we fear, again rightly, that that presence will disturb us, revealing the inadequacy of all our efforts to feed ourselves and creating in us a hunger we cannot satisfy. Worse, it may well take us to places we have had no intention of going. Scripture is full of such instances (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul, Ananias,


    Page 3

    Israel). Indeed, disciples shaped by a hope that takes them where they did not intend to go seem to be the only kind of disciples there are. Hope is the way God bothers us, even seduces us, into becoming disciples and seeing the impossible extent of the kingdom that is coming into our midst. Sanctihcation, that is, to be grasped by hope, does not conduce to faintness of heart or timidity of spirit.

    II Still, we have ways of dealing with that. And nearly all of these ways reduce hope to something more manageable. Amidst the noisy emptiness that constitutes so much of our public life, we often seek to insulate ourselves from the intrusions of hope by reducing it to something more strategic. The political option is, perhaps, the most compelling of all our contrivances, especially today, because it feeds on the polity of the kingdom that hope reveals, and it seeks to address manifest evils that are deeply corrupting of the body politic and the human spirit. This effort to derive the meaning of our lives from a politicization of hope has been taken up by many in the 20th cen­ tury (e.g., in Russian, Germany, China, and elsewhere) whose aims, always inspired by the most righteous of visions, have resulted in untold misery and massive loss of life.2 The danger, of course, is that in such a context, we will hnd hope merely useful. That is, trusting in our own self-righteousness and in the stupidity and viciousness of those “others,” we will soon enough turn away from hope’s humbling contradictions and settle for something more clear-cut, like our victories and their losses. We will preside over our own end, the goal of every form of self-justihcation. Just so does our hope become even more passionately hopeless and the presence of the kingdom something quite false indeed.3 Yet even here, hope refuses to retire. That is the thing about hope: it is not something we “have” so much as it is something that intrudes upon us, even claims and directs us.4 We hope because Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. That event is the source and substance of all hope. And we had nothing to do with that. And in truth, if Jesus had remained in the tomb, we would never be bothered with something as intrusive and unrelenting and comprehensive as hope. But his resurrection, his triumph over death, disturbs our settled certainties about “the way things are” and breathes life into discouraged disciples, enabling them to preach with the same conhdence of that prophet of old whose words rattled dry bones together into a living people. Just so does hope, as the work of the Spirit, create its own polity, seeping through our tightlyknit structures with the mysterious gift of life. Such a gift cannot be extinguished by gulags, death-camps, or even American political campaigns. Hope can even thrive in such frightening circumstances. Indeed, poverty, lack, not-having, losing—none of these things are hindrances to the work of hope. Affluence, however, often is such a hindrance and at times seems more preva­ lent if not more powerful than the various ideologies of hope. Having much can be a real threat to the church’s preaching. The message of hope begins to sound hollow when we who preach it lack so little and have so much. Our self-sufficiency serves to insulate us from the radical needs of others and prevents us from perceiving our true solidarity with them precisely in those needs. So do we gradually lose hope, particularly for this world, and settle instead for charity, occasional good works, and various forms of spiritual consolation. Losing hope is not particularly painful. There is a kind of pleasant American form of nihilism, often resembling a domesticated


    Page 4

    Christianity, that is quite comfortable in its hopelessness. There is also more than one kind of “prosperity gospel,” but the hopelessness that pervades its preaching is always the same. Affluence, it is claimed, or the prospect of same, is what gives meaning to a life and is in fact what God intends for those who are blessed. This counterfeit is actually very good. To hope in Jesus Christ is to grasp a vision of the abundant life. It is a vision of human flourishing. Those desiring such are not to be belittled or despised, especially by others who have much of the world’s material goods themselves. Still, the gospel of Jesus Christ is not about having, and the abundance which he promises, whatever it contains, is not a means of shielding us either from the limits of our own humanity or the cost of his discipleship. Rather, precisely in those limits and in the company of other disciples does the abundant life begin to reveal itself. Just as hope can be politicized, so can it be materialized into something less, something that resembles the real thing but before long is indistin­ guishable from hopelessness. Looking toward politics or wealth to give our lives meaning may be obvious forms of hopelessness, but there is a more pernicious and painful source of our malaise today which is just as hopeless and in some ways much more daunting. Loneliness is a characteristic of “the way we live now,” a much-documented feature of modern life.5 One might think that loneliness is more a symptom of hopelessness than a counterfeit or cause. But the kind of loneliness that modernity engenders is not that of being stranded on a deserted island or sent abroad to a foreign country so much as it is an aloneness that resembles a lostness, an aimlessness, disconnected and unrelated to others. To some extent, the affluence we enjoy can make this loneliness not only bearable but for many, preferable, persuading us that just so we will avoid many of the hurts and betrayals intimacy and friendship so often bring. However, another side of this feature of modern life is the quiet despair that pervades our conversations and manners and often renders our preaching timid. We come not to expect much. Our loneliness has taught us a kind of comfortable hopelessness that narrows our vision and settles for less than the fullness that the hope of the gospel intends. But the loneliness of modern life has more insidious effects, many of which ironically shed light on the communal nature of Christian hope. The French revolu­ tionaries were right to hunger not only for liberty and equality but also for fraternity, something much more difficult to achieve. Already in the 18th century, the loss of common life was perceptible and the longing for some form of life together palpable. Today, that longing emerges from a deracinated sense of loneliness and has given rise to tribal groups of various sorts: gangs, terrorist groups, racist movements, even political factions. Loneliness like this is the seedbed of resentment, with which our culture is rife. And it is resentment that seeks allies and eagerly constructs out of its own loneliness a kind of hopeless hope that can neither build nor plant, but only destroy.

    Ill If these counterfeits of hope feed upon the hope revealed in the gospel, then what is the nature of that hope and how does it manifest itself, and, more to the point of this article, how is it to be proclaimed? In scripture hope both comes to people and also keeps them. That is to say, the risen Lord, who came and who lives and who will come again is also the one who bars


    Page 5

    the door against hopelessness, who refuses to allow death to be taken as seriously as it would like. That, in fact, is the source of nearly all our hopelessness, not so much our fear of death, but our acquiescence to its power. It is our end, we think, and at best we struggle, however vainly, to agree to its terms, whether political, material, or spiritual. It is this idolatry of death that makes our resentments sharper, that renders our opponents enemies, that tempts us to worship the principalities and powers that we think will rule in the end. It also threatens to empty our memory of hope’s particular story, robbing us of both the past and the future, denying the grace that gives rise to gratitude. But the gospel of hope refuses to give death that much power. How can it, given that the one who was raised and who lives is also the one who is to come? This is how memory becomes the mother of hope. He will come to judge “the quick and the dead.” Not just the dead! Scripture (I Thess. 4:17!) and our own creeds insist that death does not own or define our end. That he will judge the living as well as the dead is a great sign of hope, claiming as it does that death is not the final judge of all. Our end belongs to the one who comes, Jesus Christ.5 And that is the one whose Advent we await, whose coming into the world is the hope of the world. Being open to this coming is what it means to live into hope. It is to stand over an open grave and speak of the resurrection and the life. Such an openness is less a form of optimism than it is a daily prayer to be given the strength not to give in to the forces of death. Yet such a strength can only come through the advent of him whose persistent, relent­ less, and intrusively faithful coming engenders that kind of radical hope, making a way where there is no way and enabling visions that subvert the settled “realities” that seem unmovable. So does hope inspire new ventures that might seem otherwise impossible and establish solidarity in the place of isolation. Preaching Advent hope is confident preaching because the one who is to come is precisely the one who has defeated death and whose life unveils a vision of community, of life together, even of politics based not on the binary choices we make but on the persistent faithfulness of him who will not be without “the least of these.” This hope is not grimly strategic but is rather surprisingly joyful, summoning us to “rejoice in hope,” even as we are counseled to “be patient in suffering” and perseverant in prayer (Rom. 12:12). Such an Advent hope is countercultural in its piety. The principalities and powers that seem to rule our politics and guide our intellectual and moral currents are joyless in their death-dealing strategies. To them the proclamation of Advent hope must seem a kind of pious optimism having little to do with the way the world is run. Rather like Brueghel’s painting of “The Numbering in Bethlehem,”7 the real action, we so easily think, is elsewhere and the holy couple dragging in to be registered is hardly noticed. But then that is the way hope seeps into our world, is it not? Just as Luke portrays it, with Caesar decreeing for the whole world and Quirinius governing his little patch of it and hardly anyone noticing the bedraggled couple trudging into Bethlehem. So does hope slip into our world almost unnoticed, creating a community that includes shepherds and angels drawn to a baby cradled in a manger, forming a more joyful and more encompassing polity than Caesar’s. Proclaiming such a joyful hope is the particular gift given to the church, a gift that makes the church itself a sign of hope in the world. Such a gift is not merely instrumental but inheres in the life together that the church embodies. To that extent, the church is the seedbed of hope in the world. And just so does hope reveal itself


    Page 6

    to be deeply communal in nature, not the province of religious virtuosos but the life together that is connected by sinews and tendons of common work and witness, common suffering and loss, shared memories and joys. How much of the courageous struggle of the Civil Rights movement was funded by the worship and work of the African American church? The witness of the Confessing Church in Germany, as weak and as compromised as it was, was nevertheless the only institutional exception opposedto Hitler’s Gleichschaltung and the only articulated vision ofadifferent, more hopeful future. The pacihstic ministry of Andre Trocme that helped rescue over 3,000 Jewish children by housing them in the homes of the poor farmers in his congrega­ tion in Le Chambon, France, was sustained by the worship of the “temple” people of the French Reformed congregation and their memory of being persecuted for their Huguenot convictions.8 More recently, the courageous and costly witness of French monks in North Africa to the reconciling grace of Jesus Christ whose love compelled them to love the world of Islam and see in it a hope-filled space for a genuine life together—this witness was clearly rooted in and sustained by their commitment to peace and their beautiful worship together in their monastery in Tibhirine.9 There is a danger in citing this roll call of hope, given the dramatic canvass on which the story of these lives are depicted. One should not desire such drama. And in truth, the hope that summons us to bear witness in our own day, small as we might think it, will be and is hard enough. Our day’s own trouble will be quite sufficient for the day. But these examples do show clearly what it means for the church to be seized with that resurrection hope that begins to be announced and glimpsed during Advent. As some of the Advent texts make clear, this hope also has a terrifying aspect: “Who can endure the day of his coming and who can stand when he appears?” (Mai. 3:2). The advent of this one does threaten earthly powers. It always has. And, like the demons of old, they are remarkably faithful witnesses to its power, often more perceptive in their assessment of this One who comes than those who are called to expect him. And we too might well be frightened by such an advent, for we too are complicit in “the way the world is run.” Only because the one who is to come is the crucified and risen Lord who has dethroned the power of death itself do we dare to walk in hope toward his coming with “head held high,”10 confident that his judgment, whatever it will be, will be a grace not only for the whole world but also, strangely, for us.

    IV Hope perseveres. Hope does not whine. Hope is content to work on small things in light of the big thing it knows. And hope works publicly, not just privately or spiritu­ ally. Hope is committed to the good of the community and is concerned particularly with the local community. More than the global or even national contexts, though not to their exclusion, hope cherishes the local and seeks to nurture and sustain the life that is rooted there, especially attending to the life that is most vulnerable. In particular, hope is concerned with the community that is gathered around the word each Sunday that lives by and expects to hear a word of hope proclaimed. The Sundays of Advent are occasions for this hope to be announced with urgent joy and sobering clarity. In a time of political and social turbulence, a time when words seem to mean less and less and if anything, have become weaponized to hurt


    Page 7

    and destroy, what is needed is that word that refuses to recognize the power of death over this world and instead finds its voice in the witness to the risen Lord who in­ sists on showing up. His coming is announced in various ways, some prophetically outrageous, others almost lost in the noise of the world. The word of his coming has often been overlooked by the powerful and not taken that seriously, until they realize the threat he represents. That a little child could be so threatening is an indication of hope’s unsettling work, just as it is a powerful witness to the way the kingdom of God slips into the world. Such a small gift. In such an out of the way place. “Who can endure the day of his coming?” Who can even preach it? Only those who have been taught by hope to remember such strange gifts and have learned that “to rejoice in hope” is the proper work of Advent. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

    Notes 1 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “After Ten Years” in Letters and Papers from Prison (The Bonhoeffer Reader, Minneapolis, Minn., Fortress Press, 2013), 774. 2 To cite but one witness who lived through the results of such a hopeless enterprise and has written eloquently about it, see Nadezhda Mandelstam’s memoir of her husband’s exile and death under Stalin, entitled, Hope Against Hope ( New York: The Modern Library, New York 1999). 3 For an extended description of this option, see Jacques Ellul’s False Presence of the Kingdom (New York, Seabury Press, 1972). 4 “No one can ‘have’ hope; rather, when someone is ‘seized’ or ‘grasped’ by hope, that person lives in hope.” Gerhard Sauter, What Dare We Plope, (Harrisburg Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1999), 21. 5 The most referenced text is Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), but there are many others. 6 See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/3/2, 926ff. “According to the New Testament death has no such monopoly in principle. It is limited by that other form… of the end [Jesus Christ].” 926. 7 See W. H. Auden’s poem, “Musee des Beaux Arts” for a theologically perceptive comment on this phenomenon. 8 See Philip Hallie’s Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed (New York: Harper Perennial, 1994) for an account of this remarkable venture in hope. 9 See John Kiser’s The Monks ofTibhirine (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002) and the remarkable movie directed by Xavier Beauvois, Of Gods and Men. 10 See Q.52 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

  • All Happy Families

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 34

    All Happy Families

    Genesis 4:1 -16

    Leigh Stuckey

    Westminster Presbyterian Church, Greenville, South Carolina

    The narrative of Cain and Able is a juicy story. Well known but rarely preached, it is the scripture’s first death and not inconsequently its first murder. It is incomplete and tantalizing, giving us little more than vocations, relationships, and names. It is foundational for three faiths, packed full of meaning, consequence, and history. The Book of Genesis as it comes to us today has been cobbled together from at least three sources spanning five centuries. The author of this section, which encompasses the second creation story through the flood, was very likely written around 950 bce, during the height of Israel’s power. David built up the empire, Solomon solidified it, and people found themselves secure enough to do some soul searching. Scribes in the Royal Court and Temple began to codify and synthesize Israel’s oral history. They looked back in order to look forward, understanding their God by tracing the line of God’s faithfulness through the tenuous reign of Saul, the disorder of the Judges, the conquest of the holy land, and the exodus. They looked back to understand themselves too. Chapters two, three, and four of Genesis, wherein we can safely say that factual veracity is subsumed to greater Truth, extrapolated from individual experiences of humanity fundamental truths about the human condition. By telling stories about individuals and relationships, they consider why we think, act, and respond as we do. In their remembrance, the Scribes looked back and back and back, all the way to the garden, where God walked with Adam and Eve. And then, pausing for a moment, they considered a pair of brothers, one a farmer, one a shepherd. In the Garden, the Scribes reminded us of the fundamental disorder in our relationship to God. In Cain’s field, the lesson is just as poignant, though I’m afraid all too often forgotten. “All happy families are alike,” wrote Leo Tolstoy in Anna Karenina, but “each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,”1 The story of Cain and Abel is the original unhappy family: missing parents, brooding brothers, a God with distinct preferences, sin crouching at the door. T ve never much understood sibling relationships-I’man only child, happily so. And being an only child—or at least being me—is the very best. I never once had a sibling hover a finger above my arm announcing repetitively that they were not touching me. I had the entire back seat (yes, back seat of a car!) to myself 100% of the time. No one intruded into my personal space, stole my toys, or ate my food. It was a paradise of one, with occasional check-ins from parents with whom I shared a mutual agreement: I will do my chores, and we’ll leave one another alone. I was not particularly spoiled; I was simply provided space, and by virtue of my relative independence, I developed a healthy certainty that I was indeed the center of the universe. Everything I saw was mine: my parents, my room, my yard. No competition, no struggle. What I do know about families of four or more is that two siblings spell trouble, especially in Genesis, where the elder often finds himself displaced, outshone by the


    Page 35

    wit, guile, and general likability of a younger brother. Just ask Easu. Or Isbmael. That said, things start off normally for Cain and Abel. The elder takes after his father and ploughs the land, and the younger tends sheep. The elder decides to provide an offering to God. Copying big brother, the younger follows suit. Cain brings grain. Abel’s offering is more elaborate, the firstlings of the flock, carefully prepared. God takes pleasure in Abel’s offering. Cain feels himself rejected. We could spend an eternity sorting out why Abel’s offering pleased God: perhaps it was the effort spent dressing the offering, perhaps it was his disposition, perhaps the wafting scent. At the end of the day, we have no idea why God looked kindly upon Abel’s offering . We only know that in that moment, God preferred meat to grain. But pay close attention: despite Cain’s perception, the choosing/or Abel’s offering was not against Cain. Like the father running to greet his Prodigal Son, leaving his elder son to till the field, God lavished one while remaining steadfast to the other. And not unlike that other Elder Brother, the Father’s love for the younger deeply threatened the elder. It physically changed Cain; his face fell. Yet still God persisted, warning Cain against the anger simmering in his chest: “Sin is at the door, waiting to overcome you, to work violence thr ough you. You can open the door. Or you can persist. Go to your brother, reconcile with him. Your fate is not determined, you are free, but you are responsible in that freedom.” What makes this story so tragic is, I think, that choice. It could have gone another way. Cain and Abel could have been another happy family. Generic, uninteresting brothers who experienced love, jealousy, joy, and sorrow but were fundamentally bonded by their being toward one another. But Cain couldn’t stomach God’s generosity toward Abel. The text is mercifully sparse: Cain calls his brother; Cain kills his brother. Death enters our history, not as a sadness at the end of old Abel’s life, but as an unredeemable, unnecessary act of violence. Darkness all the way back. Cain couldn’t blame the devil, couldn’t blame a snake or a society’s ineptitudes. Cain opened the door, and he got what he wanted. Now Cain was by himself, master of his fate, and he had God all to himself. That’s the thing about being an only child—for as good as it is, you can only blame the cat so much. At some point, your parents are going to realize that the cat, who doesn’t have opposable thumbs, is an unlikely candidate to have lifted $10 from the money jar or set the curtains on fire. Your isolation exposes your wrongdoing. Years before the Abel debacle, in the garden of Paradise, God, while Adam was hiding in shame, asked Adam where he was. Adam was accountable then only for himself. Now, in the field, God asks Cain where Abel might be. “Where is your brother, Abel?” The identifier is totally unnecessary; Cain knew Abel was his brother, he didn’t need reminding. But it’s repeated over and over. In the space of three verses, God refers to Abel as “brother” four times, even as Cain refuses to say his name. The author wishes to remind us seven times in 16 verses, that the two were bound to one another. “Where is your brother?” God inquires. Cain arrogantly, defensively replies, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Had he asked me, I would have told Cain that crying was the ticket. Break down, don’t mention the cat, fess up. When you’re an only child, odds are you did it, but Cain chose to obfuscate. God’s horror is palpable. God knows where Abel is, God has heard Abel, whom death could not quiet, crying out


    Page 36

    for justice from the land which once yielded Cain its bounty. So why is this story here at the beginning of our shared story? In God’s question and Cain’s misguided answer, we see the way things ought to have been, what life outside of Paradise was meant to be. God’ sisa social question: “Where is the one I have set before you, the one I have called your brother? Where is the one in whom I delight, for whom you are absolutely responsible?” Were I setting out to tell an origin story, to explain how things got to be the way they are, I think Γ d find a more upbeat one, one where Cain and Abel live full, happy lives. Instead the scribes wrote the most fundamental truth about humanity apart from God: there is a brokenness in each of us, a brokenness in the root of our being. In his failure to account for Abel, Cain separated himself from God. These many ages later, we, in brokenness, do too. God reaches out to each of us and demands that we account for the brothers we have left behind in our race to the top. God hears their voices crying out from the land, from dark alleyways and refugee camps, from welfare lines and detention centers, from emergency rooms and unemployment offices . “Where is your brother, Church? Where are your sisters? Where are you, and what are you doing?” The elder brother seethed when his father brought in the prodigal son, feted, and celebrated him despite his failures. Joseph’s brothers were threatened by their precocious but weak sibling. That’s the problem with siblings, at least as far as I can tell. They’ re disruptive. They intrude, bursting open our self-centered, self-sustaining narratives. They hover an inch above us and demand our attention. They show plainly that the world is not ours alone. And they remind us that their keeping is our utmost priority. And the problem with God is that through the fellowship of Christ, we are called to be brothers and sisters to all. In order to be faithful to God, we are responsible for the well-being of God’s diverse, demanding household, a household full of annoying, obnoxious, beloved siblings held to account for one another. Cain’s story is our story, it teaches us who we are all the way down, and it exposes our instinct to self-preservation and jealousy. But it also proclaims something much greater: ours is God in whom justice and mercy perfectly relate. God judged Cain, but where there was judgment, mercy followed quickly behind. God’s mercy always has the last word. The mark granted Cain protection. He would never fully escape the consequences of his action, but he was given new life even where he denied his brother the same. What we affirm week after week in confession and in baptism is that there are no only children in God’s family. Everyone we meet is our brother, our sister, our kin. The waters of baptism, which signal the judgment of sin and the grace of new life, are thicker than the marrow in our bones or the blood in our veins. To your left, your right, beyond the doors of this holy place, everyone who hovers, pokes, moves us by pity or plain annoyance reminds us of the universal call of kinship in the house of God. When we stand before God, it is not to account for our greatness, for how unique and wonderful our achievements might be, but for how we have treated our kin. The question echoes from a bloodstained field East of Eden: Where is Abel, oh Church; what have you done? Being an only child is nice, but it’s ultimately a bit of fantasy. Mom and Dad, the cat, heck, the entire house—it’s all yours. Do whatever, go wherever, pinch $10


    Page 37

    here, test the lighter there, trust that everything you do will be most pleasing, most accepted. But isolation, a universe of one, is not how the Triune God, eternally in fellowship, intends our fellowship to be. We’ re accountable for how we treat the poor, how we respond to the immigration and refugee crises. We’re responsible for how we treat farmers and miners. We’re responsible for one another. And that is a gift, because it means someone is responsible for you too, you whom God has called his own. We got you, and you got us. And when we fail, as we certainly will, God will not remove the mark of protection. God will chastise, will call us to account, but the God of creation, of brothers and sisters and fields and cattle, is everywhere merciful, pouring out blessing even on self-righteous sinners such as we are. Back in the very beginning, a grown man wanted to be an only child, to have everything for himself. He acted, fatally and selfishly, and he was cursed to wander, but was marked as one of God’s own. I imagine when he finally came to see God’s kingdom, it looked a lot like a mini-van full of strangers whom he recognized as siblings, a van impossibly, joyfully full, a long banqueting table set into infinity, a picture of life everlasting.

    Note 1 Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina (New York: Penguin Books, 2002), 1.

  • Preaching Repentance in Lent: An Imitation to the Observance of the Lenten Discipline

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 3

    Preaching Repentance in Lent

    An Imitation to the Observance of the Lenten Discipline

    Joseph S. Harvard

    Durham, North Carolina

    Friends in Christ, every year at this time, we celebrate our redemption through the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Lent is a time to prepare for this celebration and to renew our life in the paschal mystery. We begin this holy season by acknowledging our need for repentance, and for the mercy and forgiveness proclaimed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. We begin our journey to Easter with the sign of ashes. This ancient sign speaks of the frailty and uncertainty of human life and marks the penitence of the community. I invite you, therefore, in the name of Jesus Christ, to observe a Holy Lent by selfexamination and penitence, by prayer and fasting, by works of love, and by reading and meditating on the word of God.1

    During an Ash Wednesday service, this liturgy marks for me and the congregations I have served the beginning of the Season of Lent. My practice was to repeat the “Invitation” on the First Sunday of Lent because the attendance on Ash Wednesday was often sparse. (As one parishioner told me, she was “not into the ashes thing.”) Herein lies the challenge of preaching repentance in Lent. We live in a culture in which most of us and our parishioners are “not into the ashes thing!” Our culture encourages us to have a positive self-image and not to dwell on the negative about ourselves and what is going on around us. Therefore, even when we give a verbal commitment to seek to observe a “holy Lent,” it flies in the face of a culture in denial of our need for repentance. In response to the invitation to repent during the season of Lent, I think most of us will take a pass. It sounds like an invitation to have a root canal. Even if absolutely necessary, it’s not something you embrace. Let me be honest. I have a difficult time acknowledging my own need for repentance, must less preaching to others about their need to repent. Carlisle Harvard, my wife of 54 years, describes me as someone who is “often wrong but seldom in doubt.” Does that sound like someone who can easily acknowledge the need for repentance? So the challenge to preach repentance is out of step personally and culturally for me and for many of you. So why consider engaging in a practice which puts us in conflict with ourselves and our culture? Lent is the season when we as followers of Jesus Christ are called upon to do some uncomfortable things like take a hard look at our personal lives and our common life in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in preparation to celebrate the incredible reality of Resurrection. God’s love endures all things, even death, and nothing can separate us from God’s love. How do you get ready to celebrate the power of God’s love to set things right in a broken world? The good news of the Gospel begins with the cry of John the Baptist in the wilderness : “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 3:2). John the Baptist is like the unwelcomed guest who always shows up at the worst time to throw a wet blanket on our preparation for a Merry Christmas. Every Advent we have


    Page 4

    to listen to him call us “a brood of vipers.” Who would include this character on your guest list for your holiday party? John is not alone in this call to repent. After his baptism by John in the Jordan River, Jesus begins his ministry with the same message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 4:17). If we heed this call to repentance during Lent, what are we asking our congregations and ourselves to do? I like the way Lamar Williamson describes it in his commentary on Mark: “What is the meaning of repentance? The Greek word means ‘ to change one’s mind.’ Behind it lies the Hebrew verb ‘to turn around,’ that is to change one’s heart, will, and conduct.”2 To repent in the biblical sense is something much bigger than acknowledging all the bad things you have done and your feeling guilty about all of your past misdeeds . As Tom Long suggests in his commentary on Matthew, “Repentance is a basic reorientation of one’s life. In repentance, one turns from one framework of meaning to another, from one way of thinking about self, others, God, and life to another competing and compelling vision. ”3 It reminds me of the story Will Willimon tells about an incident when he was Dean of the Duke Chapel. A young freshman visited the chapel during orientation. He had been raised in the church and had a strong church background. He seemed like a great candidate to be an active participant in the life and ministry of Duke Chapel. Will did not see him again until in his junior year when they met crossing the campus. “I have missed you at the chapel,” Will told him. The student responded, “I have not been there because I know what you are all about. You want to change me, to get me involved in ways to help others. I am content with my life on campus with studies and my fraternity. This is a comfortable and enjoyable life as it is!” Will told the student that his was the best reason not to be involved in the church he had heard. Will suggested that they put a big sign in the front of the Duke Chapel saying, “Caution: Do Not Enter Here If You Do Not Want To Be Changed!” Preaching repentance is risky business because it is an invitation to have your life changed. It is important to be aware of the way this call to repentance comes to us. The way that Jesus issues the call in Mark’s Gospel is crucial: “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). Preaching repentance is not about a human endeavor like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Repentance is a gift from God made possible by God’s intervention into our lives to transform our world. We are only able to repent because of the prior action of God “coming near to us in Jesus Christ.” Without God’s intervention, we would be stuck in our own best intentions without hope that things would ever change or that we could change. Back in the day, we were taught in seminary that with God, the indicative precedes the imperative. The call for us to repent is possible only because of what God has done for us in Jesus Christ. This is the heart of repentance. We are called to look at the world in a different way because of what God has done, is doing, and promises to do in our lives and our world. Do you get it? The good news of preaching repentance in Lent is that we can be transformed because of the transformative presence and power of God made known to us in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without this orientation to life in the light of God’s presence in our world, we would be stuck.


    Page 5

    God’s people have always needed to be reminded of this reality which shapes our reality, particularly in difficult times. At one point in our ancestors’ journey of faith, they had been taken by the Babylonians in exile for over fifty years. They were living in a culture that seemed to deny all that they held sacred. Then the Prophet Isaiah reminded them of who and whose they were with these words: “Why do you say, ‘ My way is hidden from the Lord and my right is disregarded by my God’ ? Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. God does not faint or grow weary; God’s understanding is unsearchable. God gives power to the faint, and strengthens the powerless” (Isaiah 40:27-29). So the first question to be raised in preaching penitence in Lent is this: Are you able to be transformed by the radical counter-narrative to conventional wisdom that life is a tale told by an idiot who has no belief in God’s truth and justice? These are tough times when the values we hold dear, like compassion and hospitality, are under attack. It is tempting to be afraid that the center will not hold. Can you believe that underneath the harsh realities of multiple natural disasters, leadership whose behavior repudiates the core values of our faith, and personal lives that seem so vulnerable, in such a time as this, we are able to hear and believe the counter-narrative that God is at work in this world building the Beloved Community where there is a place and a future for all God’s children. How do we know this? Because in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, something happened that was and is a game changer. When you come to the awareness of this reality, that God’s love has been let loose in the world, things are not the same. It leads to a change of heart and to a new way of living in the world. Because the forces that seek to counter this reality are so strong, it needs to be retold in liturgy and sermon: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near, repent and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15). If you can believe this incredible Good News which is the essence of the gospel, then you are on your way to repentance, to being transformed by the Good News that God who claimed us in the waters of baptism has not given up on us and the world Christ came to redeem. Occasionally, people and events come into our lives showing us what it means that the presence of God is near so that we are empowered to repent and believe the good news. This happened for me during Lent last year during a Community Lenten Service at the First Baptist Church in downtown Charleston. At the time, I was the transitional pastor at First Scots Presbyterian Church. Because of the events in our neighborhood that took place at Mother Emanuel AME Church on June 17,2015, and the responses, we had a series on Grace and the Power of Forgiveness. The speaker on that Wednesday at noon was the Reverend Anthony Thompson, whose wife, the Reverend Myra Thompson, had been leading the Bible study and was killed. I encourage you to read the remarkable sermon by the Reverend Anthony Thompson in this edition of Journal for Preachers. Hearing him deliver that message in Charleston was a transformative moment for me and the congregation gathered there. The next Wednesday, we were meeting at another neighborhood church, St. John’s Lutheran, and the speaker was to be the newly installed mayor of Charleston, John Tecklenburg. John is a devout Roman Catholic and also a good friend. I thought John had a difficult assignment following Reverend Thompson. We gathered outside the church at noon, ready for the procession. No Mayor Tecklenburg! I called him on


    Page 6

    his cell phone—no answer! The procession began, and then the host pastor began the service. During the first hymn, Mayor Tecklenburg slipped into the pew beside me. He was out of breath, but he had his Bible in hand. He whispered that he had been held up in traffic. He began his remarks to the group by expressing his profound grief with Reverend Thompson for the loss of the nine lives murdered by white racist Dylann Roof. He expressed deep gratitude for the response to this horrific act and for the message we had heard the previous week. The genuineness and emotion of his words were moving. Mayor Tecklenburg then recounted his own history of being raised in a segregated Orangeburg, South Carolina, where he and his family had worked against discrimination and injustice. The environment was permeated with racism, and change was slow and difficult. After the experience of the massacre at Mother Emanuel, the response of victims’ families demonstrated the power of God at work in them to bring healing. It reinforced for him that love and forgiveness are more powerful than hate and violence. It was his conviction that it was time for us as individuals and as a city to repent of racism that has haunted us in the past and still surrounds us. It was a powerful statement. At this point, he opened his Bible and said that to simply say we repent of racism is a good start but is not enough. He turned to the Book of Acts and read these words from the Apostle Paul giving his testimony before King Agrippa about his message to the people “that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance” (Acts 26:20). The Mayor was then bold enough to suggest some “deeds of repentance” for our racism:

    1. Ensuring that all children in Charleston, especially the most vulnerable have adequate schools and receive good educational opportunities. 2. Ensuring that affordable, safe housing is available for those with the greatest need. 3. Ensuring that law enforcement and the criminal justice systems provide safety and justice for African Americans and Latinos.

    The Mayor said this was a good place to start with what John the Baptist called “deeds worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3:8). In his message, Mayor Tecklenburg made us aware that the preaching of repentance involves change which can be painful and risky. But it leads to a new way of looking at God, ourselves, our neighbors, and the world, and enables us to be transformed and live with hope and courage. Will you accept the invitation to observe a Holy Lent by preaching repentance? It is an invitation to invite others to join you into following the One who is always transforming our lives and giving us new hope, the One who is inviting us to be agents of God’s steadfast love and reconciling presence in these divisive times. It is the invitation of the One who said, “The Kingdom of God has come near, repent and believe in the good news.”

    Notes 1 Book of Common Worship, 2223. 2 Lamar Williamson, Mark: Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1983), 31. 3 Thomas G. Long, Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 27.

  • Moveable and Steadfast Feasts

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 33

    Moveable and Steadfast Feasts

    Thomas Lynch

    Milford, Michigan

    My old dog Bill will be dead by Easter. God knows, he should have been dead before now. The now of which I write—the moment to hand—is that no man’s land of days between Christmas, New Years and the Epiphany. I ’ve gone beyond fashionably late with this essay which I promised for the twelfth day of the twelfth month of the last year—an essay on Easter with an Advent delivery. I’ve promised it now for little Christmas, hoping that like the magi of old, I’ll come to see things as they are. A member of the reverend clergy told me that the formula old preachers used to prepare their homiletics included three points and a poem. Montaigne would string his essays on a filigree of Latin poets. He worked in his library, and when stuck for some leap into a fresh paragraph, he’d often quote Virgil or Catullus or Lucan and carry on as if the poem were an aperitif readying the reader for another course. Which puts me in mind of the twelve days of Christmas I spent downstate being paterfamilias for our yuletide observations. This poem came into being in contemplation of a carol we always sing this time of year.

    Twelve Days Of Christmas

    Some pilgrims claim the carol is a code for true believers and their catechists, to wit: four colly birds, four gospel texts, eight maids a milking, the beatitudes, and pipers piping, the eleven left once Judas had betrayed the lamb of God— that partridge in a pear tree, the holy one and only whose nativity becomes in just a dozen days the starlit eve of three french hens with their epiphanies huddled round the family in the manger, tendering their gold and frankincense and myrrh. The whole tune seems to turn on “five gold rings”— the Pentateuch, those first books of the Torah in which ten lords a leaping stand in for the ten commandments cut in loaves of stone which Moses broke over his wayward tribesmen. Two turtle doves, two testaments, old and new. Six geese a laying, creation’s shortened week, the swimming swans, gifts of the Holy Ghost whose fruits become withal nine ladies dancing. Twelve drummers drumming, the Apostle’s Creed: a dozen doctrines to profess belief in. Still, others say it’s only meant to praise


    Page 34

    fine feathered birds and characters and rings, our singing nothing more than thanksgiving for litanies of underserved grace, unnumbered blessings, the light’s increasing, our brightly festooned trees bedazzling.

    Montaigne, the father of all essayists, himself a sort of preacher, was anxious to understand the human being and condition. It was, thanks be, his lifelong study. In his marvelous essay “Of Repentance,” a Lenten read and Easter anthem, he wrote in French a point that Englishes In every man is the whole of man ’s estate, by which he meant we are all at once the same but different; to know the species, know a specimen. To understand the Risen Christ we’d better reckon with the wounds and miracles, betrayals and agonies. Study the scriptures and the poems. The men in my Bible study took the day off after Christmas last week, but we met for the day after New Years today, in the early morning dark at the funeral home, as we have been doing now for years. The price is right, the coffee’s free; its quiet in the early o’clock. Except for the ones gone to their time shares in Florida or the ones homebound with the seasonable woo, the turnout is a good one, and we’ re glad to have survived into another year. We were reading from the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew when Jesus is giving the disciples a list of the signs that the end times are nearing. Wars and rumors of wars, false prophets, nation rising up against nation, earthquakes and famines in various places. The sky has been falling through most of history. And for everyone predicting doom, the doom is certain. Whether we die en masse, in cataclysms of natural or supernatural origin, we die in fact, a hundred percent. Possibly this is why one of us eases the talk around to declaring a win in the War on Christmas, reporting that people are saying “Merry Christmas” now in a way that political correctness prevented up until now. Another fellow heartily agrees. I mention that The War on Christmas was invented by a cable news host to divert attention from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which were coming, alas too late, under scrutiny in the middle Naughties. I suggest they go home and Google Barack Obama and Merry Christmas. And I wondered aloud, it being the feast of the Octave of Christmas which used to observe in the Christian calendar, the Circumcision of Jesus, why these old white male and much aggrieved Christians weren’t willing to serve in the War on Circumcision. Why should we wish each other Happy New Year when Happy Circumcision is the more Christian, more religious greeting? They were tilting their heads at what I was saying the way that Bill does when he hears an oddly pitched noise. But I digress, I was trying to relate Easter to Bill’s slow demise. This is not about birth and circumcision and magi, rather betrayal, passion, death and burial, and then the Easter we claim to believe in. He’s lived well past the expectations—Bill, the dog—half again beyond his “use by” date. These latter days have all been bonus time and have taught me gratitude in the stead of the “poor me’s” and the “why me’s” and the “give me’s,” which have always seemed my usual nature. I’m easily beset by resentments and begrudgeries —a character flaw from which I’ve achieved irregular remissions over the years, occasional dispensations. I’m living through one such dispensation now, watching old Bill in his withering and bewilderments as the mightiness of his shoulders and


    Page 35

    hindquarters, the deep menace of his guardian bark, and the fathomless pools of his big brown eyes have given way to lame waltzing on his “last legs,” a kind of castrato’s cough at threats he senses but cannot see through a cloud of cataracts nor hear in the dull chambers of lost itching ears. His nose still works its cold damp magic. He finds his food and good places to squat to the duties of his toilet. His soft black curls of fur are full of dander and dry skin beneath, despite the designer mash of essential oils and my wife’s tender correctives. So long as he eats and craps and can be medicated against the pain, I willn’t exercise the lethal dominion over him I wish I did not have. Yes, dead by Easter I’d wager, or sooner, much sooner, as the gyre of demise works its tightening, ineluctable damage. Back when I was researching his breed, the Burnese Mountain Dog, or as I joked when he was a puppy, “an AKC registered Pain in the Ass, the Wikipedia on my old laptop promised six to eight years of life expectancy for dogs of his prodigious size. All to the good, I remember thinking: at least I’ll outlive him so. I was fifty-seven years old that late winter I got him, now twelve years ago. I was well into my last trimester of being. My father, my grandfathers, the men in my line had all died in their sixties, of broken hearts: a bad valve, clogged arteries, congestive heart failure, some embolism—quick, convincing “failures,” or “attacks,” or “infarctions.” Bill’s gone half again older than we expected. And even that might have been a miscalculation. My wife never really wanted a dog. After the kids were grown and gone and out on their own on automatic pilot, throwing in with partners of the same species, taking mortgages, signing leases, making plans and car payments, after we breathed the sigh of relief that they all seemed poised and provisioned to outlive us, Mary settled in with Law and Order reruns, and I kept to my old customs of splitting my time between the day job undertaking and the preoccupation with language, writing, and words. I remember sitting with her one Sunday afternoon, watching the episode where Bennie and his estranged daughter Kathy meet up for lunch—she keeps her distance because of his drinking and the two failed marriages, one to her mother. The episode, “Aftershock,” involves Lennie and Ray Curtis, his young partner, along with Jack McCoy and Claire Kinkaid, the legal team, witnessing an execution of someone they put away. Lennie’s life was always complex. And I was thinking what a good thing a dog would be to get me out of the house and walking on a regular basis, and I said, on one of the commercial breaks, “What would you think about my getting a dog?” “Are you out of your (expletive deleted) mind?” she responded. “Linally we have the place to ourselves, we come and go as we please, we’ve got some peace and quiet, and you want a dog!” I took this to mean she didn’t want one. In those days I would occasionally write a poem that borrowed from a more famous poem for the kernel of creation that brought it into being. This is how T d come to write a poem called “Corpses Do Not Tret their Coffin Boards,” which borrowed unabashedly from William Wordsworth’s sonnet “Nuns Tret Not at Their Convents Narrow Rooms,” which I’d encountered that morning, possibly on the radio, listening to the voice of Garrison Keillor who used to do “The Writers’ Almanac,” a five minute diamond of daily bits and pieces that ended with the reading of a poem. Wordsworth’s sonnet is in praise of sonnets, in observation of the truth revealed to him some centuries back, that formal constraints—“the narrow rooms”—often produce an unpredictable freedom. The sonneteer knows all too well the work in words


    Page 36

    to make a sonnet is but fourteen lines of ten or so syllables, organized to rhyme in some predetermined way—a code which poets map out as A ABB &c. or AB AB, or maybe, as Wordsworth did for his wee sonnet, ABBA, with the twist that the sound of A in lines one and four, repeats itself in lines five and eight. There are other embellishments of sound and sense to bring it to an end in line, but what I can say is that one comes to the close of a sonnet with a sense that it must have been a loving God that brought old Wordsworth into being to speak to me years after his demise in a different century, millennium, and nation. Wordsworth affirms the snug hugging and liberation of the sonnet’s terms in the last half of his, to wit:

    In truth the prison, into which we doom Ourselves, no prison is: and hence for me, In sundry moods, ’twas pastime to be bound Within the Sonnet’s scanty plot of ground; Pleased if some Souls (for such there needs must be) Who have felt the weight of too much liberty, Should find brief solace there, as I have found.

    My own sonnet, while crediting Wordsworth, albeit sub-titularly, has less to do with space and nature than with time and money, preoccupations of my advancing years.

    Corpses Do Not Fret Their Coffin Boards after Wordsworth

    Corpses do not fret their coffin boards, nor bodies wound in love their narrow beds: size matters less to lovers and the dead than to the lonely and the self-absorbed for whom each passing moment is a chore and space but vacancy: unholy dread of what might happen or not happen next; this dull predicament of less or more’s a never balanced book, whereas for me, the worth of words is something I can count out easily, on fingertips—the sounds they make, the sense, their coins and currencies— these denouements doled out in tens, fourteens: last reckonings tapped out on all accounts.

    Fresh from its typing, this is the page I posted to the fridge with a kitchen magnet back in the day before stainless steel appliances made magnets redundant, the better for my missus to see it in her own good time and possibly ink some edits in as marginalia . I loved it when she read my poems and commented for better or worse because it sang to me a song of hope beyond the everyday desolation of long consortium, often marked by romantic indifference and connubial blahs in the stead of bliss.


    Page 37

    But days after I ’ d posted the draft, alas, no corrections or comments had appeared. No cross-outs or smiley faces, no affirmations scribbled in passing, no nothing. It was another Sunday afternoon when, being as I am a man of habits, I said into the general silence of the day that was in it, “What would you think about my getting a dog?” To which she replied without enthusiasm, “Maybe you could name it Wordsworth.” My heart leaped inside my bosom. I couldn’t believe my ears. What meaning ought I take from this expletive-free and contingent utterance? Surely, it seemed, she had read my poem, or at least the title and citation line. Was this some signal of approval, some sign that my efforts had not been for naught? At the very least it was not disapproval, no rhetorical about the state of my (formerly expletive ridden) mind. No, this was, if not full throated approval, a willingness to consider the prospect, a nod towards tolerance if not the full embrace of the notion. I moved immediately into my office where my computer, ever at the ready, soon had me Googling for “Bernese Mountain Dogs, Michigan.” Two days later I was driving up the highway with my middle son to mid Michigan where a man claimed to be weaning a recent litter. “What about ‘No!’ didn’t you understand?” she said, when I brought the puppy in the door. “But honey,” I coaxed her, “we can call him Wordsworth! Just like you said. William Wordsworth.” “Lets just make it ‘Bill W,”’ she said insinuating the name of the founder of the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous, a fellowship to which we both belonged. Was she insinuating that the puppy might shake the serenity that our long sobriety had produced? It is hard to know, but “Bill” it has been ever since—from the eleven pound puppy he was that Ash Wednesday of 2006, that first of March I brought him through the door on the day of my only daughter’s birthday, to the hundred and ten pound giant of kindliness he in time became, to the withering, arthritic, ninety some pound geriatric pooch snoring on the floor next to my shoes as I type these truths into the computer. In the twelve years since, so much has happened. If I take stock, it is an inventory of losses. My daughter, now in her middle years, has disconnected from her family. She is estranged from her mother, my first wife, and from me, her step-mother, her brothers, and her brothers’ families, her aunts and uncles and cousins, everyone from her family of origin. Her family of choice, near as I can figure, includes her husband, her horse, her dog, some friends? Before this happened, I spent two years in weekly therapy with her in an effort to discern what might be done to let this cup pass. The shrink thought we’d arrived at a plan for what to do to keep us in each other’s futures. But soon after that, my daughter wrote to say her well-being required that she keep her distance from us all. I said I wanted her to be well. It feels like a death without any of the comforting, buffering infrastructure of mortality—a known cause and certification, ceremony, a grave, a place I can go and weep. There’s none of that. Her absence, her choice of absence, her riddance of us all is everywhere. On holidays and birthdays there’s a text that comes more or less as a proof of life. For years it seemed I was left with a choice between assigning this sadness to evil or mental illness. I chose the latter. There is no succor in it. Whether this grief is coincident with, correlated to, or the cause of our lackluster marriage—the second one, or maybe the first—I do not know. But what I do know is


    Page 38

    we’ve lost our way. We live, for the most part, separate lives and have slowly ceased to share our lives, our dreams, our meals, our bed, our whereabouts, our hopes and fears, our plans for the future. The desolation is as palpable as our bliss once seemed. All of this after many years of joyous intimacy, shared purpose, real partnership makes it more the pity that we both live now like widowed people, bereft of a spouse that, though still alive, is gone from us in measurable ways. We share bank accounts and an estate plan and rise to the occasion for holidays, but otherwise are, in every meaningful way alone, and what has grown between us is what Heaney called a “silence beyond silence listened for.” It seems I’ve ended up like Lennie Briscoe—a two-time loser at marriage, estranged from a daughter who chooses to remain out of contact with or from her family of origin. We text our affections or proclaim them to anyone in earshot, but it makes no difference. When I compare my lot to men I’ve buried, whose flaws and imperfections seemed amplified compared to mine, and yet whose wives still went along for the ride, whose daughters doted on them till the end, like a hurt dog howling at the emptiness, I shake a fist in the face of the god I don’t quite believe in anymore. The poor me and why me lamentations, variations on the book of Job, leave me with a choice between hurt and anger. I tend towards the latter and fear the worst. I keep working the program, the fellowship and twelve steps of A. A., because it keeps me from adding a class A depressant to the gathering sadness, the tears of things. I do not want to live in fear. My pal George is what we call a “sponsor”—someone in the fellowship to reach out to when the ways of things threaten to overwhelm. He’s been sober longer than anyone I know. And he’s bookish and very well educated: he’s a J.D. and C.P.A., and for a good few of my books was the proofreader I sent the roughest of drafts to. He’d fix the spelling and punctuation and errors of thought and construction. We’ve been friends and neighbors for decades now. For years he’s been losing his shortterm memory. The arc of his infirmity has been slow but steady. Dithering gave way to a sort of discombobulation, which in time gave way to chronic disorientation which became what seems now a cruel advancing dementia. Beyond the indignities of age, his condition rightly frightened his family. They got him into assisted living. Attendant nurses see to his meds and meals. There are bingo nights and socials. I call and visit when I can. I live upstate now three weeks out of four, at a lake house with Bill for whom the remove and the quiet are like balms. He doesn’t have young suburbanites to bark at out the windows as they stroll by with their toddlers, infants, and designer dogs. Downstate, my wife occupies the house next to the funeral home where I lived for 45 years and into which she moved when my sons and daughters were school children or teenagers and I was the family court’s designee as the “more fit” custodial parent—all of us hobbled some by the end of the marriage that brought them into being. I call George a couple times a week to see how he’s doing. When I asked him how he was adjusting to living there, he told me what I guess I needed to hear. “I’m doing fine,” he said. “You can’t be angry all the time.” It makes me believe in a loving God when deep in my resentments about living alone, I hear my sponsor, though addled and beset, bewildered really, and yet making perfect sense to me. Good to have just such a sponsor. You can tell him anything and he’ 11 likely forget. Sometimes I think it might be a gift except when I see the thousand yard stare he sometimes


    Page 39

    gets, like combat soldiers who have seen too much or keep getting a glimpse of what they can’t remember anymore. I took him to the movies a couple months ago. We saw Dunkirk, ate popcorn and Milk Duds. It was fun. On the way out of the theatre he quoted some lines from Churchill’s speech to Parliament regarding Dunkirk: “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, ” something he’d remembered from his lifelong studies and erudition. By the time I dropped him back to his quarters in the care facility, he could not remember what movie we’d seen. Surrender’s a big part of staying sober. “Let go,” we alkies often say, “let God.” LG, LG! Or, “not our day to watch it,” meaning we are not in charge. It’s why I address my supplications to Whoever’s in Charge Here, because the article of faith I hold to is provisional, to wit, if there’s a god, it isn’t me. The fellowship has ruined my religious certainty—that One True Faith-ism we all are raised with. But the fellowship of wounded, variously damaged goods who’ve shared their experience, strength, and hopes with me have illumined for me, however dimly, a life of faith. It’s made me wary of certainty and open to hopes and loves I never before imagined. It’s made me grateful and rheumy eyed so that I find myself weeping at the ways of things, De Rerum Natura Lucretius called it—the glimpses of godliness we sometimes get in the otherwise quotidian, dull happenstance of life. Lucretius was a disbeliever, whereas I’m a happy ignoramus—in either case, we do not know. The things George still remembers best are often things that happened years ago, like the woman who told him at his mother’s funeral how his mother “understood life’s higher callings.” He remembers that as the high praise it was of a woman who took to heart the hardships of others and did what she could to make their situations better. I tell him I think he has that too, an understanding of life’s higher callings, how he’s been a source for me of good orderly direction, if not the voice of God, at least a goodness in him that is undeniable. He looks out the window at the birds in the snow—chickadees and nuthatches, titmice and a cardinal—and asks if I believe it means an angel is near, to see a bright red cardinal in the chill of winter. Perhaps, I tell him, it’s his mother, or mine. He looks away, I’m getting rheumy eyed. I had Bill’s grave dug two years ago, fearful as I was of getting caught by frost deep in the ground with a dead dog on my hands in Michigan’s winter. And I started collecting the soup bones, littered everywhere over the yard, which he had worked the marrow out of over the years. It got to where I’d have them custom cut at the butchers, a few dozen at a time. I found a couple hundred of them and strung them on a line of rope and wound some solar powered lights around the rope and hung the whole assemblage from the fulcrum which overhangs the waters edge and by which the former tenants’ dock was swung out into place each spring. The bone rosary is what I call it, this blinking string of bones and lights that’s meant to mark the spot where Bill will be interred sometime in the coming spring, I reckon, when his age and infirmity come to the certain end all living things come to. T ve even written a brief lament and asked my son to have it cast in bronze so I can bolt it to a stone over his grave.


    Page 40

    Little Elegy for a dog who skipped out, and after XJ Kennedy

    Here lies loyal, trusted, true friend for life, Bill W., named for Wordsworth and the guy by whose twelve steps I’ve stayed dry,

    sober even, these long years, like the good dog buried here who could bark but never bit; never strayed too far or shit

    indoors; never fell from grace. God, grant him this ground, this grave, out of harms’ way, ceaseless rest. Of all good dogs old Bill was best.

    They laugh at me, of course, my sons, for all the planning for Bill’s demise—the hole at the corner of the lot, the rosary of bones blinking in the dark over the water’s edge, the stone, the little poem. Preparing for Bill’s death they figure is a way of preparing for my own or diverting my attention from fears about what lies ahead, in the way that Easter has, for true believers, been a blessed assurance of eternal life, a contingent balm, in its alternate narrative, in the gaping maw of mortality. I’ve a friend who says we’ve lost our “eschatological nerve,” the certainty that heaven awaits the good and perdition, the evil doers. With the loss of a sense of eternal reward or damnation producing justice in a world so often unfair, we’ve begun to uphold the so-called prosperity gospel, to wit, success as a sign of God’s favor, as if grace was deserved or earned like the poverty the poor are said to have coming to them. The good news formerly proclaimed by the evangels has been replaced by their enthusiasm for Donald Trump and his zero-sum, winners and losers agenda. This year Easter falls on April Fools. Some feasts are movable, some steadfast. It’ll also be, if my friend George remains, as he has since April 1, 1974, quit of the booze that made him crazy, his forty-forth A. A. birthday, proving, as he often says, that any fool can get sober if he or she works the program. Whether March Madness or April Fools, Easter is for those who believe in second acts and second chances, another go, mulligans, and do overs. Easter is for repentance and forgiveness, amends and abundant life. Easter is when the lost are found and the dead arise, transfigured, glorified by what is possible. The Easter I believed in as a boy’s a sort of zombie apocalypse. It never mattered much to me whether Jesus was really raised from the dead. Like Lennie Briscoe, I was damaged at the specter of the capital punishment. The broken, bloody body of the Christ that hung center stage in Catholic Churches was more a spectacle to me than narrative. Perhaps that’s sacrilege. Maybe not. Nor have I much interest in whether the Moral Influence or Substitutionary Atonement models of redemption most apply. My faith in a loving God, keeping a count of the hairs on my head, comes and goes with changing realities. It is as if I blame every outrage, every evil not averted, every sadness that might have been undone, on the


    Page 41

    God I hardly believe in anymore. Some days I see the hand or hear the voice of God implicated in the things that happen; others not so much. Begrudgery and resentment are the crosses I bear, and I find them much heavier than just giving thanks. This Easter I’m not looking for an empty tomb, triumphant savior, or life eternal. Rather some spiritual progress instead of perfection; a little repair if not redemption, some salvage south of full salvation. “No appointments,” an old timer used to tell me, “no disappointments. ” No expectations, no vexations. Truth told I see sufficient triumph in the way that Bill still makes the climb upstairs at night, despite his sore hips, cloudy eyes, and the withered muscle mass in his shoulders and hindquarters. It comes with age. Is he driven by loyalty or an old fear of sleeping alone? Is it love or fear of loss? Impossible to know. He carries on but does not speak. I see an Easter in George’s getting through another day of his assisted but nonetheless bewildered living, in good humor though utterly out of sorts. I sense it in the texts I get from my long estranged daughter, those proofs of life; the flickering of tenderness I still feel towards my distant wife, our genial courtesies. The meeting I go to on Sunday nights up at the lake is in the basement of Transfiguration Church. And that’s what I’m after this Easter, I think. That’s what I’m after most of the time, the momentary radiance of the divine beaming out of God’s creation. Old dogs can do it, old friends, old wives; old sorrows borne patiently, old grievances forgiven, old connections restored. New ones too, like the other night at the meeting when Lilah was talking. She’s the youngest pilgrim at the table. She ’s paid her dues and is working on sobriety. She ’s talking about how she came to know that she was beloved when her girlfriend, noticing how badly sunburned Lilah got when they were gardening one August afternoon last summer, she did not scold. Rather, she carefully pealed the dry shr eds of skin off of Lilah’s reddened shoulder, bent and tenderly kissed the spot, and held the desiccated remnants of her darling’s flesh in the palm of her hand, like viaticum, a sort of holy grail which she brought to her mouth, ate and swallowed them. Her sharing this intimacy and its intelligence quickened my breath and then caught it up. Gobsmacked is what I was, my mouth agape as if trying to hold my breath and let it go. My eyes were getting red and rheumy yet again, welling with a glimpse of the divine, the beautiful, the redeemed and atoned for, manifestly forgiven beings, all of us assembled round the table, we had shown up broken and bewildered and disconnected and were suddenly beatified, illumined and made new, transfigured in the shimmering moment; my catching breaths were shortening, and I was fearless suddenly, cavalier about the scene I was on the brink of making. It was then I was remembering that Jesus wept.

  • “Really?’

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 14

    “Really?”

    Jeremiah 1:4-10; Romans 8:26-39

    Mark Ramsey

    Macedonian Ministry, Atlanta, Georgia

    This is the final sermon I preached as pastor at Westlake Hills Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas. The events in Charlottesville, Virginia, had taken place the day before.

    Introduction to the text—Romans 8:26-39 Unless God intervenes in my life again, while I will continue my calling in ministry, I am being called to a different form and venue for that calling, and this is probably the last Sunday I will serve in parish ministry. Here’s what I love most about serving a specific congregation: We never get to have a Sunday set apart. Our worship can never be a museum piece or an heirloom. The plans were set for today: It’s my last Sunday—and you have been so full of grace in how you are recognizing that. Plus, you are gearing up for fall programs and electing a search committee. But we don’t get today to be a special, protected, stand-alone day. We never do. We gather for worship for one reason—to be equipped by the gospel of Jesus Christ. What happened in Charlottesville yesterday was not just bigotry and hate, not just violence (and certainly it was not violence “on all sides” as our government tried to tell us). It was not “free speech.” It was white supremacy—the primal stain on our society made manifest once again by those who want to continue to privilege whites over blacks, whites over Jews, whites over the “other,” whites over anyone who by how they live or what they believe threatens whiteness. This is an affront to citizens and a direct challenge to Christians. White Supremacy says whites get everything, and everyone else—blacks, Jews, any whoare “other”—are disposable. So… we get to come to worship today—to be equipped. This work doesn’t care that it’s my last Sunday or that you are gearing up for the fall. We need to be equipped with God’s love, and we need to resist this evil which persists in eroding our society. We don’t gather for worship to obtain our individual spiritual commodities so we can go live our life in peace and comfort. We are here to be a community that resists this fear and these lies and this evil, and equipped by God, we are to show forth the love and justice of Jesus Christ. In that Spirit, how fortunate today to have this reading from Romans 8, an unsentimental, equipping text about the powerful love of God. The renowned writer and actor Sam Shepard, who died last week, famously hated endings. As a playwright, he felt “the temptation towards resolution, towards wrapping up the package, seems to me a terrible trap.”1 Temptations abound to mangle Romans 8 to fit our needs. To have it make sense of things. To have life fit together neatly. To see a coherent plan in everything…even though this is never the Bible’s aspiration nor faith’s promise. There is a church leader who said this week that bombing North Korea is God’s will because “it would handle that situation.” Really? The news from Charlottesville and my beloved alma mater yesterday is horrific and heartbreaking and brutal and


    Page 15

    wrong. Those who love God were injured in that crowd yesterday. This is working together for good? Really? In the nineteenth century, congregations heard sermons about slavery that claimed that all would be all right since God was working good through it all. Really? “All things work together for good for those who love God….’’ On the face of it, I don’t agree that all things work together for good when faced with devastating illness of ones we love. We would not quote that to someone in the grip of addiction. We shouldn’t dream of speaking that into situations of loss, despair, or hopelessness. “You cannot conceive, nor can I, of the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God” Graham Greene once wrote in one of his novels.2 That’s closer to the Bible’s truth than our manipulation of familiar verses to meet our needs. God’s love is real, pervasive, steadfast, and trustworthy, but often, far from fitting things together neatly, that love is appallingly strange to us. What is Paul doing here in Romans 8? Paul begins by using the word everything, as in “everything works together for good for those who love God and are called according to God’s purpose….” Paul ends here by using the word nothing: “Nothing in all creation will separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Both the everything all working for good and that nothing will ever separate us from God’s love can lead us to say …really? Because between that everything and that nothing, we live our lives. We participate in the life of the world where the love of God seems often in very short supply. There are days when the reverse makes more sense: that nothing is working together for good, and everything in the world is at work to separate us from the love of God. Has Paul stopped digging down to a faith that genuinely sustains us through pain and death and fear and instead gone to work composing sentimental greeting card platitudes? Has he just put on rose colored glasses so he can join those who persistently deny the harsh realities of our world? How we understand this text hinges on how we see the word good and how we deeply experience the love of God.3 Romans 8 is a good corrective in a pattern we often sink into in how we think about God. We know life isn’t always fair or easy, and we can’t have everything we want. But that doesn’t stop us wishing that could all change. God can often become the name for how we think that all that can change. Because of Jesus, we hope we get everything we could possibly want forever. That’s the deal. God becomes a device that secures for us what we somehow feel entitled to. So, when we get sick or our relationships fall apart or our financial situation collapses or our future prospects look thin, we think the system has failed. Either we haven’t been keeping our side of the bargain, or God hasn’t. But Paul is saying that was never the bargain.4 When he says “all things work together for good,” good doesn’t mean a decent home, a healthy family, a rewarding job, or a long life. Paul has a very specific definition of “good.” His definition of good is “looking like Jesus.” Paul gives five verbs that describe the way we come to look like Jesus. God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Paul says, those whom God foreknew “God also predestined,” and right there we gallop off into “predestinationworld ,” but listen to the whole sentence ! “God also predestined to be conformed to the image of God’s Son.’’ In other words, that was what the whole purpose of God among human beings was always all about: making us and remaking us to look like Jesus. That’s what good means. That’s what we hope for. That’s the bargain. We get


    Page 16

    to look like Jesus. There is nothing here about having a healthy family or a long and happy life, nothing about having comfort or having a growing church or a growing bank account or safety from loss or protection from pain. Jesus didn’t get any of those things—a stable family life or decent home or worldly success or at least a lack of public embarrassment . Nothing about protection, security, or absolute clarity. Jesus didn’t have any of those things. This is the deal: we are conformed to the image of Jesus, who was homeless, rejected, betrayed, tortured, and executed. We can’t be surprised if we get a taste of these things too. In fact, if we are able to pass by these things, we have to wonder if we’re still cooperating with the process of getting to look like Jesus. The first verses of Jeremiah open with the call of God to Jeremiah. Calls are big deals, and Jeremiah has a right to be honored and excited. Until he hears the deal: “See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant. ” Nothing about honor, popularity , success, piety, protection; nothing about safety, progress, or peace. Pluck up, pull down, destroy, overthrow.. .build, plant. Six actions, four negative, two positive (which is the rough proportion of Jeremiah’s life). It describes a life without status quo or comfort or equilibrium, but a life for and with God. A life that foreshadowed the life of Jesus. That is Paul’s biblical understanding of good, and it is Paul’s lived understanding of good. That’s how we can faithfully comprehend that “all things work together for good for those who love God….” Of course, understanding that faithfully means we need a deep experience of what the love of God truly is in our life. “My father was a preacher who believed it was important to memorize verses of the Bible, ” Craig Barnes, president of Princeton Seminary, wrote recently. “On Mondays he’d give my older brother and me a verse written out. We were expected to recite it from memory at the end of the week when our father would point to one of us and say something like ‘Romans 8:28.’ If we didn’t start chirping away with ‘for all things worktogether for good for those who love God,’ we’d have to leave the table. By the time I was a teenager, I had memorized a lot of the Bible… .1 never paid attention to the words. But they were still in me. ” Barnes continues,

    When I was not quite seventeen, my parents’ marriage broke apart. My mother left to live with her sister in Dallas. My father left the church he had started and just disappeared. My big brother dropped out of college, got a construction job, and helped me finish high school. Together we got by. Oddly, my brother and I didn’t talk about how our world had crumbled. Mostly that was because we couldn’t afford emotion. We were too worried about the next meal and a place to stay. The following Christmas, my brother and I decided we would go to Dallas to visit our mother. We didn’t have the money for a plane or bus ticket, so we did what young people sometimes do when they’ re not thinking clearly. We decided to hitchhike from Long Island to Dallas. By the end of the first day, we were somewhere in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia on Interstate 81. It was snowing hard, the sun was long gone, and we stood on the entrance ramp with our thumbs sticking out, on a road that (we learned later) was already


    Page 17

    closed. We stayed put on the side of the dark highway in the blizzard. After months of hustling to make our life work, my brother and I were finally forced to talk to each other. We took a stab at describing our situation, but it didn’t go very well after I mentioned that we were basically disposable to the people who were supposed to love us. We tried to pass the time by quizzing each other on sports statistics. Neither of us had ever been very good at that. Then my brother pointed to me and said, “Romans 8:28. ” We spent much of that night asking each other to recite the verses of the Bible we had memorized but never truly heard. I found myself saying the precious lines of Isaiah 43: “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you . . . .Because you are precious in my sight, and honored, and I love you. ” By the time I finished, I was crying. That night a passage about the sustaining love of God casting out fear became the turning point in my life. . . . When you find God at the bottom, it’s possible to enjoy life’s highs and lows without fearing you’ll fall beneath the love of a Savior. No one can be fully alive, and no one can lead, without getting rid of that fear.5

    It is a potent temptation, in everyone I have ever known, to think there is a way to experience God’s love that exempts us from the fear or the hardship or the loss. I am here to tell you, after 35 years of ministry, that I have yet to meet anyone who has a magical formula to experience God’s love except through the fear, through the hardship, through the loss. It’s through all of it that we get to resemble Jesus Christ. There are no exceptions and there are no short-cuts. In that light, Paul exhaustively talks us through no less than 17 kinds of exceptions for why we might think we are in an unusually difficult place. Ready, here are all 17: hardship, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, height, depth, anything else in all creation. Hardship, distress, and persecution. You could say these are the predicaments we find ourselves in through our own mistakes, the trouble that comes upon us through bad luck or the ill will of others. That is a lot, but there are still 14 more. Famine and nakedness, lack of two of our most basic needs; Peril and sword, danger from adverse circumstances or violent attack; death and life, between them covering most eventualities; angels and rulers, both those who’re in charge of this world and the next; things present and things to come, everything our imagination can comprehend and everything it can’t. Finally, powers…and anything else in all creation, just in case we’ve left anything out. On this list are all things that Jesus himself was exposed to: hardship, distress, persecution, hunger, nakedness, peril, sword, death, life, angels, rulers…and all the rest. Paul gives us a list of everything Jesus went through, saying there’s nothing we could go through that Jesus hasn’t first gone through. By the end of Paul’s list, we’re exhausted, but we’re also stripped of all our exceptions. All, that is, except one. There’s a lurking suspicion in the hearts of many that the problem of being separated from God isn’t one of these 17 things. It’s that God has turned away from you. That God is punishing you, turning away from you, that God is angry with you or has lost patience with you, or that somehow there is something you have done or simply


    Page 18

    someone you are that falls outside God’s favor or choice. Paul knows that this fear is the most isolating fear of all. But Paul shapes his whole argument to insist that this fear is finally, wholly, utterly groundless. God isn’t against us. Any of us. God is for us—all of us. Why else would Jesus have gone through hell and high water for us?6 Jesus’ death is proof that God is for us, and Jesus’ resurrection is proof that nothing can separate us from God’s love. “Here’s my list,” says Paul. “Bring on yours.” But also if the point of life isn’t to have a designer degree, home, job, family, spouse, leisure time, friendship circle, church, or fabulous experiences to post for all to see—if the point of life is to look like Jesus, then this is the kind of hell and high water you can expect to go through if you’re going to end up looking like Jesus. If you’re in distress and you feel God’s broken the bargain that was supposed to make you permanently content or safe, you’re wrong. There never was any such bargain. The bargain was that you become like Jesus. If you’re facing hardship and you think it’s because God’s against you, you’re wrong. God is for you. Always was and ever shall be for you. Nothing can separate you from the love of God. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing. God is with you at every step, and Jesus has faced everything you’re facing and you were with God in the very beginning of all things, you are now, and you always will be. And I have learned well that being with God in hardship is always better than being separate from God in comfort. Raymond Carver died 30 years ago at age of 50, after a hard, tumultuous, tortured life that—once he got clean and sober—offered him just a decade of peace and love before he died of a brain tumor. His last poem was just a fragment. It is his epitaph:

    And did you get what you wanted from this life, even so? I did. And what did you want? To call myself beloved, to feel myself beloved on earth.7

    And God says, of course…nothing was ever going to keep you from feeling beloved in my creation. A kindred spirit of Ray Carver, Flannery O’Connor died at age 39 after suffering terribly from lupus for years. In a letter to a friend not long before she died, she wrote: “I can, with one eye squinted, take it all as a blessing.”8 Of course she did. Because her deep, hard experience of the love of God led her to know that all things worked together to let her become like Jesus. And in a world where nothing can ever separate us from the amazing, mysterious, appallingly strange, powerful, steadfast, penetrating love of God, blessings are everywhere.

    Notes 1 http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/peter-travers-on-sam-shepard-the-cowboy-mouth-poet-ofstage -and-screen-w495095, accessed August 9, 2017. 2 Graham Greene, Brighton Rock ( Penguin Classics, Reprint 2004). 3 This section and the framing of this sermon owes great debt to Sam Wells’ sermon at St Martin-inthe -Fields, London, preached September 25, 2011. 4 Sam Wells’ framing of this text, again. 5 M. Craig Barnes, “Finding God at the Bottom” Christian Century, (August 26, 2017).


    Page 19

    6 Sam Wells’ work here, again. 7 “Last Fragment” from All of Us: The Collected Poems of Raymond Carver (Visalia, California: Vintage, 2015). 8 Flannery O’ Connor, The Habit of Being: The Letters of Flannery O ’Connor (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1979.

    Easter 2017

  • Easter Continued

    This text was converted from the original print edition for full-text searchability. Formatting may differ from the original. Consult the PDF for citation and presentation details.

    Page 10

    Easter Continued

    Acts 5:27-32

    Will Willimon

    Duke Divinity School, Durham, North Carolina

    About this time of year during my first year as Dean of Duke Chapel, a group of students, The South Africa Divestment Coalition, met with me. I had spoken on behalf of their efforts earlier and had been a sort of advisor to them. “We want your help with a letter to President Sanford,” they said. “We have written a letter to President Sanford asking him, politely, to support divestment from South Africa here at Duke. He rejected our appeal, but we’ve rewritten our letter and would like your advice on how to plead our case.” I, aging student activist and trouble maker from the Sixties, viewed the students with… contempt, thinking, “You little wimps, when I was your age, we wouldn’t have asked the administration; we would have presented a list of twelve non-negotiable demands, taken the President’s wife hostage, smoked his cigars, drunk his bourbon, and….” But then I said to myself, “Wait, I am the administration.” So I lectured the students on how complicated these matters are, how these things take time, how President Sanford knew so much more than they, etc. On that day the Sixties ended for me, and I also found myself on the wrong side of God. Hey, it’s the First Sunday after Easter, we’re in the Acts of the Apostles, andonee again I’m out of step with God. Something’s afoot. Trouble brewing. The security threat is Orange. There’s been an unexpected shakeup, an in-your-face challenge to the government—the resurrection of crucified Jesus. The authorities, hoping to keep public order, to maintain civility and stability, call a state of emergency. Troublemakers are rounded up and brought to court. The Bigwigs order Peter (otherwise known as The Rock by his comrades) to shut up about Jesus and his resurrection. So here’s the Sunday after Easter Question: Why would the authorities be threatened by a post Easter sermon? I’ve been a preacher for four decades, and no politician has ever been made uneasy by my sermons or thr eatened me with jail time for talking about Easter. Well, the bigwigs toss the apostles into prison. But an angel delivers them, ordering , “Go, stand in the temple and tell the people the whole message about this life” (5:20). So the apostles go right back to the temple at daybreak (This was the same time of day that Jesus rose from the tomb. Is there a connection? I think so.) and begin to mouth off again about the resurrection. “We gave you strict orders not to teach about Jesus and the resurrection!” Peter smart mouths, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. We’re going to keep telling people about Easter, keep healing the poor without a medical license, keep stirring up trouble in the ghetto, and to heck with the police. ” “When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them” (5:33). Get it? What the bigwigs did to Jesus, they now want to do to Jesus’ followers; what God did to the bigwigs in resurrecting Jesus, God now does to the followers of Jesus. Why would you want to kill someone to stop an Easter sermon? They’re just preaching. Religion is just a personal opinion. I’ve got my strange personal opinions


    Page 11

    about Jesus and you’ ve got yours. Ours is a diverse campus. It’s just spirituality. Now, what harm could that do? If you’re surprised by the rage of these Easter-denying authorities, if you think the folks in power are making a mountain out of a molehill, wanting to kill somebody for nothing more than religious words, then that suggests to me that you have never been in authority. You have never borne the burden of power. You have never borne responsibilities for public safety and order. As somebody who has been an “authority,” let me explain it to those of you who have not. What is the most important thing you powerless people ask people in power to do? Public order. Safety. Security from external threats. In the run up to the last US Presidential election, the candidates had their differenees , but one thing united them all. Every candidate claimed to more powerful than the other:

    I will protect our borders from them. I’ll build a wall. I’ll give you free college . I’ll heal you for nothing! I’ll make deals. I’ll carpet bomb Syria. I’ll punish Doctors! I’ve been Gov. of Ohio! I’ll protect women in restrooms. I’ll make sure none of them get to a ballot box. I’ve got big hands! Now, we may have to curtail some of your freedom, but you won’t mind, because you want security. You won’t mind if we authorities overstep some of your rights because we—those of us who are authorities—know that you worship safety, prosperity, and security more than God.

    I teach at the Divinity School. I’m a gatekeeper for persons attempting to be ordained as preachers. So I’m the authority who skillfully takes these yokels and makes ’em sweat, take tests (theological and psychological), read books, and write papers to see if they can chin up to the bar. Some goofy, starry eyed, sappy student says, “God called me into the ministry.” I say, “We’ll see about that.” If you think I’m too severe, I assure you that if you didn’t have people like me policing those who presume to speak up for God, you would have ecclesiastical chaos. You should thank me, as a theological authority, for keeping you safe from being victimized by goofy preaching! Oh it’s easy for you powerless laypeople to criticize the governing authorities, to complain about the people who run things up at the front office, but as someone who has been a governing authority, someone who has small hands but a very big desk in the front office, I can tell you it’s quite a heavy responsibility protecting you, doing all the things to keep you safe, things that God (I’m sure God’s got good reasons) doesn’t seem willing to do for you. The Dean of the medical school could explain to you that people can’t just go around practicing medicine, dispensing drugs, just because some are too poor to get access to health care. Dispensers of health must be credentialed, vetted, and certified. Without somebody in charge, it would be medical chaos. And that’s what bothered the authorities about Peter and the other apostles speaking up and speaking out, performing miraculous signs and wonders. Acts 5 portrays the governing ecclesiastical authorities as buffoons, keystone cops. Carl Icahn thinks that just because he owns our president, he owns us ! The bigwigs up in the front office always think they are in charge, the functional equivalent of God, so


    Page 12

    they think they can silence uppity Easter speech, put an end to the Post-Easter commotion among the rabble. And the bigwigs might have gotten away with it if not for Easter when God raised crucified Jesus. God only raised one person from the dead—a poor, homeless, unemployed Jew named Jesus, crucified by a consortium of religious and government authorities. Crucifixion was the First Century Roman equivalent of American lynching—public intimidation to keep poor, powerless, voiceless people in their place. Resurrection is when God said to all those who are kept in power by intimidation or flattery or lies or violence, “No!” Resurrection wasn’t just “God has brought a dead man back to life ! ” Resurrection means “God raised tortured-to-death, poor, powerless Jesus from the dead. ” Troublemaker, rabble rouser, preacher so truthful the government wanted to kill him, Jesus, the only one God ever raised from the dead. Resurrection was vindication that Jesus’ way was God’s way. It was as if, in the resurrection God said, “You want to know who’s really in charge? You want to know whose side I’m on? You want to know who I’m gonna put down and who I’ll lift up when my kingdom comes and my will gets done on earth as in heaven?” On Good Friday, the people in charge tried to shut Jesus up; Easter Sunday, Jesus broke out, appeared to his astonished disciples, and took charge of the revolution: “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by crucifixion… Go! Get out of here! Go, tell somebody the truth of who God really is, on whose side God is on, and what God’s up to, who’s in charge.” Just like they tried to shut Jesus up, so they shut up Peter with threat of jail. And just like God released crucified Jesus from the dead, an angel freed good-as-dead Peter. Remember? Night before the crucifixion, Peter couldn’t say a word except “I didn’t know Jesus” when confronted by the maid in the courtyard. Now Peter is preaching, strutting his stuff before the most powerful people in town. What kind of miracle happened to make a cowardly, voiceless person like Peter into public enemy number one just because of the way he talks? Not only has crucified Jesus been raised, victorious over the powers that thought they had made a victim of him, but also (Listen up, Donald.) there is a power let loose, a God who works from the bottom up, a divine power for good that cannot be contained, accredited, channeled, or stifled by the powers that be. Hey, if you thought the resurrection was a one shot deal that happened only to Jesus, think again. Easter continues. Those who think they are in control are shown to be powerless. And people on the bottom, dismissed as “ignorant and unlearned” (Listen up, all you trying to get power by beating up on the most vulnerable!) and shouting, speaking up, speaking out, unmasking the authorities, are making them look like fools. In response to outrage over police shootings of young black men, alleged evangehst Franklin Graham posted this:

    Listen up—Blacks, Whites, Latinos… .Most police shootings can be avoided. It comes down to respect for authority, obedience. If a police officer tells you to stop, you stop…. If a police officer tells you to lay down [sic] face first with your hands behind your back, you lay down face first….It’s as simple as that. Even if you think the police officer is wrong—you obey…. The Bible says to submit to your leaders and those in authority “because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. ”


    Page 13

    I’m busy right now, but would one of you go tell Mr. Graham to read Acts 5 and oh yes, mention that God raised crucified Jesus from the dead? Listen up! Graham, it’s Eastertide. You’re on the wrong side! If you were in my preaching class, I would smack you for your abuse of Scripture, were I not such a nice person. Good, white, church-leading liberals like me, including my predecessor as Bishop of Birmingham, made a public statement urging Martin Luther King to go slow, to back off his pressure on the city, chiding him for fomenting unrest, telling King that there could be violence if he didn’t tone town his rhetoric. King responded from his jail cell with some of the greatest words in American history:

    There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed…. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, people in power became disturbed… .But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were called to obey God rather than man (quoting this morning’s scripture)….Things are different now….The contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice… an arch defender of the status quo… .The power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s… sanction of things as they are.

    Listen up, church. I got to ask: whose side am I on? Would I be sitting behind the desk, telling the “ignorant and unlearned” to be careful what they say and to act more docile when instructed by their betters? Or, would I be out with the apostles, in the streets, down at the ghetto, going about performing mercy for free among the marginalized and dispossessed? Would I believe so much in the power of the resurrection that even I might get uppity with the authorities, refusing to shut up and pipe down? Listen up, church. It’s Easter. This Jesus thing hasn’t ended; it’s just begun. Jesus is on the move, and we can’t be with Jesus unless we’re willing to be on the move with Jesus, talk like Jesus, act like Jesus.

    Note As Hitler rose to power in Germany, Karl Barth urged preachers not to waste valuable pulpit time condemning a “nothing” like Hitler. Barth famously said that we must preach “as if nothing has happened ,” aiming our artillery “beyond the trenches of immediate relevance.” Barth was a strident vocal opponent of Hitler, but he thought it important not to unintentionally give the Nazis any undue glory or sanctification by lambasting them from the pulpit. It’s my judgment that in the present political hour, we preachers cannot let Trumpism dominate our pastoral imaginations. Sure, I’ve interrupted about two dozen sermons in the past year in order to say as clearly as possible that the Trumps, Inc. are unworthy of any Christian support. However, I also think that Trumpism is best addressed by allowing scripture to smack the authorities when it chooses and not to give false sanctity to this kleptocracy by speaking too much about it directly from the pulpit. The Sunday after Easter, with the appointed lesson being Acts 5, seemed to me a time to help a congregation think about politics by thinking primarily about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.