The Nature of God Counts for Something

 

The Nature of God Counts for Something

 

1 Samuel 2:1-10

My heart exults 

 

2:1 Hannah prayed and said, "My heart exults in the LORD; my strength is exalted in my God. My mouth derides my enemies because I rejoice in your victory.

 

2:2 There is no Holy One like the LORD, no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

 

2:3 Talk no more so very proudly; let not arrogance come from your mouth, for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

 

2:4 The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble gird on strength.

 

2:5 Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry are fat with spoil. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn.

 

2:6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

 

2:7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low; he also exalts.

 

2:8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.

 

2:9 He will guard the feet of his faithful ones, but the wicked will perish in darkness, for not by might does one prevail.

 

2:10 The LORD! His adversaries will be shattered; the Most High will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king and exalt the power of his anointed."

 

In 1992, I was appointed as an associate pastor to St. Paul’s United Methodist Church in Allison Park, PA. That church was also getting a new lead pastor (or “senior pastor,” as we called them back in the day), the Rev. Dr. Ronald Hoellein. Having served as a solo pastor (what is now called “senior pastor,” interestingly, by the appointment cabinet) for seven years, I knew this would mean an adjustment, on my part. The “good news” was that Ron Hoellein turned out to be the best pastor I have ever personally witnessed, and serving as one of his subordinates (a term HE would never use, by the way) was a great joy. As “associate” pastor, I joined a full-time Director of Christian Education, who was herself finishing seminary and planning for ordination as an Elder, and a retired former district superintendent, who served as our “minister of visitation.” And while my portfolio as associate pastor included a very vital and active youth ministry, Dr. Hoellein rather quickly discovered my administrative skills, and used these gifts to help “reorganize” St. Paul’s considerable “stable” of ministries, which numbered over 121, at that time. And that didn’t count the North Hills Community Outreach Center, which St. Paul’s had been integral in founding in the mid-1980s. It operated out of a building on our campus, and was growing rapidly, eventually eclipsing the operating budget of St. Paul’s! 

 

I offer this background so you can understand how important my five years of working with Ron Hoellein was to forming my ministry, going forward, after my tenure at St. Paul’s ended, at least at that time. I learned much from Ron’s wisdom, but I’m not sure any specific thing was more pronounced than what I learned from his astute and well-honed understanding of human psychology. It was the basis not only of his counseling ministry, but was woven into his interpretation of scripture and his preaching. As one who loved to “teach” the Bible in my own preaching, I came to see how important it was to “make the connection” with my listeners at levels they could truly grasp, especially when it came to feelings, personal needs, and “affectiveness.” And this is where we make the leap to what may be the most important thing I learned from Dr. Hoellein: How do we understand the NATURE of God?

 

I know I’ve brought this topic up numerous times before in these “retirement” sermons, but I guess its importance is so paramount that it just keeps “rearing its head,” as I peruse the lectionary in preparation for writing these weekly sermons. How DO you—YOU—understand the nature of God? Is your view of God that “he” is “the man upstairs”? Or is God the high, holy “judge” who is watching us, and will mete out rewards and punishments based on how we behave? Or, do we believe God IS love? And if so, what does this mean? While we who like to think “theologically” typically rebuff the temptation to “write ourselves on the heavens and then call it God,” it may be redeeming to have a view of a benevolent God who prefers to “rescue the perishing” rather than sink their boat and call it “justice.” How we “see” God may truly define how we act in the PRESENCE of God, and it most certainly may define how we treat OTHERS on this journey.

 

Ron Hoellein always said that our view of the nature of God set the tone for how we related to God, to OTHERS, and even to ourselves. Believing he is correct in this psychological/theological assessment, this brought a whole new perspective into my personal spiritual journey. I took time—still do—to assess this within myself. What IS it I believe about God, and how do I reconcile the scriptures and my own history to it? This concept certainly breathed new life into Outler’s famous “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” for me! Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason are the tools for this personal process of reconciliation, guiding our insights about God, me, and yinz all. It married quite well with Buber’s famous “I-Thou” analysis. 

 

All of this is why this week’s passage from I Samuel chapter 2 tripped my trigger. In this passage, Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel,” is giving her famous (and quite prophetic) speech, praising God and setting forth the broad field that will be plowed by her beloved offspring. Her view of the nature of God is profoundly progressive, well ahead of its time, and accurate of the view of God one should receive from a learned and careful view of, you guessed it, Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason! Her speech is perhaps once of the most profound narratives one may find in the Hebrew Bible, and it comes from a woman, which should make some of these testosterone-laden, modern “evangelicals” quake in their cowboy boots. Hannah largely succeeds in laying out a biblical view of the nature of God Almighty. Let’s look at it.

 

Hannah had been upstaged by her husband’s other wife, Peninnah, because she was apparently extremely fertile, while up to this point, Hannah had been barren. Now that Hannah had “miraculously” borne Samuel, she had to tell God what she thought of the Divine, and be thankful for her “deliverance,” to the glory of God. So, part one of her view of God’s nature was that God is a delivering God. She is quite exuberant in her praise of God for offering her God’s favor.

 

God is a God who exalts the humble, lifts the downtrodden, and boosts the poor, while also knocking the “high and mighty” down a few pegs. Human history has clearly shown that when humans are “winning,” we tend to too quickly sing our own praises and give “the big I” praise for all that we have accomplished. Not only do we naturally tend to push God to the side, but we also may use our newly acquired “throne” to cast aspersions on others who now are “less” than we have made ourselves to be. God is the opposite of this, and God tends to not abide humans when they “queue” in this manner. It is truth that one of the saddest realities of human practice is that when an oppressed group finally gets a few rungs up the ladder of deliverance, they “queue” themselves ahead of the next lower oppressed group. As Whites have oppressed Blacks in America, for example, so once Blacks began to make a few gains, they have sometimes turned their ire toward Hispanics. Again, God in Hannah’s speech is a God who doesn’t abide this “queuing” behavior.  

 

The commentators flag the highlighting of “sovereignty of God” issues in Hannah’s speech. Given that I attended a seminary that was organized around the Reformed tradition, God’s sovereignty was foundational to this understanding. The question is: Is there ANYTHING that is not in the purview and “power domain” of the Almighty? The Reformed and typically orthodox answer to this question is a resounding “NO.” As a Wesleyan Christian, I’m guessing John Wesley didn’t spend much time debating or defending God’s sovereignty for one simple reason: If one posits a “God” who created the universe INCLUDING humanity, why even question that such a god is all powerful and master of all domains? If we choose to believe in Yahweh, then we accept this as a given. The Wesleyan question becomes: How then shall we live? And the issue here, at least for Mr. Wesley, was going about the requisite moral/ethical life driven not by “fear” of a vengeful God, but motivated by gratitude for the love and grace extended to the creation by a benevolent God. This “difference” is key to how we perceive the nature of God, isn’t it? If I do something nice for my neighbor out of fear for being punished if I don’t, as opposed to doing it out of love of my neighbor, and out of wanted to glorify God though a benevolent act that “mirrors” God’s own love of me, is this Christian behavior? (I suppose one could argue the point that loving others because God first loved me might be seen as just a variation on the “fear” theme. Is there a higher genuineness in loving others just because they are my neighbors and fellow siblings on the path of life?) Here’s another thought that I personally believe trumps the “sovereignty” question: God created us in God’s “image,” which is a God of love, forgiveness, mercy, and compassion; these are, therefore, the natural “engrams” upon which my being is erected, and it is “natural” to live with them as my personal “core process.” 

 

Scholars point out the “prophetic foreshadowing” in Hannah’s speech. Is it also in our understanding of God’s nature that this “prophetic” manifestation of God’s action among humans is designed to guide our steps, warn us of impending hazards and pitfalls, and keep us both safe and heading toward the “abundant” life Jesus talked of? This view diverges from a more common one of the Hebrew Bible’s prophetic “ministry” being more warning Israel that bad days are coming because they have again screwed up. Hannah’s speech, in my opinion, bolsters the former view of prophecy, and has many have pointed out, seems directly related to the speech we have come to know as the “Magnificat of Mary” in the New Testament. So, God’s “ultimate” nature hasn’t changed between these two prophetic speeches? Who knew? Oh, and it’s important to point out that the two speakers, who seem to so clearly hone in on the actual nature of the divine are WOMEN.

 

All this to say, dear ones, that our view of the nature of God should COUNT FOR SOMETHING! And that “something” has to do with how we understand our relationship TO God, to God’s creation, and to our human siblings, worldwide and next door. But possibly just as importantly, it has to do with how we see ourselves and how we govern ourselves in the affairs of life. Hannah’s speech reminds us that the poor will be exalted, the righteous will reap the benefits of a blessed life, and those who mete out evil will be judged and will likewise “reap” what they have sown. God’s grace is available to all, but the “power” to reject all such benevolences is still granted to the people God has created. Our “free will” gift may be used for good OR for evil, and may even be squandered by us in our most foolish moments. We have within us the seeds of God’s own nature—a God who “wishes that none should perish.” The Incarnation of Jesus Christ is the most perfect reflection of God’s desire to be in a loving relationship with the created. We seem to be doing an adequate job of squandering that, too. On the downside, I would say that the church has more to fear from this, than from the proverbial “gates of Hell.” On the upside, we have been given the power to bring fulfillment to the prophetic speeches of these two great women of the Bible: Hannah and Mary, the mother of Jesus. God’s “nature” certainly counted for something for each of them. Do thou likewise, Beloved. Amen.