Occam's razor

 

Occam’s Razor

 

Matthew 21:23-32

A parable of doing God's will 

 

21:23 When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?"

 

21:24 Jesus said to them, "I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things.

 

21:25 Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?" And they argued with one another, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why, then, did you not believe him?'

 

21:26 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' we are afraid of the crowd, for all regard John as a prophet."

 

21:27 So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

 

21:28 "What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.'

 

21:29 He answered, 'I will not,' but later he changed his mind and went.

 

21:30 The father went to the second and said the same, and he answered, 'I go, sir,' but he did not go.

 

21:31 Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.

 

21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him, and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.

 

Choices can be a trap. My wife, who tips the Enneagram scale at “One,” regularly says she can be paralyzed by “too many choices.” Now that we are living in a bit more “rural” of an area, I often turn to Amazon Shopping to look for some gadget I “need,” and am absolutely mesmerized by the plethora of choices that confront me. I can get my widget in any color, size, or price I may want, and then can choose how fast it gets here, and by whom, in many cases. Our grocery stores paralyze us with ten different “styles” of yogurt, an entire aisle-full of breads and rolls, and at least seventy-five types of breakfast cereal. Have you shopped for a good bottle of wine, recently? (I’m also amazed that, in spite of the HUGE offering of differing beers available, including enticing craft brews, the most popular one is “Coors Light.” If anything summarizes the intelligence malaise we are in as a nation, this fact might.) Most “guests” to America from other countries are stupefied by our wide variety of choices, at the supermarket, on the boob tube, and even at the carwash. When it comes to having to choose, we are a decadent people.

 

While my personal concern (shared by many with more than three synapses firing) regarding our national governance is the current administration’s tendency to apply overly simplistic “solutions” to the highly complex problems facing our nation and the world, the average American faces an almost opposite challenge. The explosion of choices facing us when it comes to buying snacks or sneakers takes a simple problem and turns it into a complex, confounding, and often constricting array of options. I need a new pair of size 12 (yeah, I know, a five-foot-eight man with giant feet; at least I’m steady in high winds) sneakers to wear on my daily walks, and I’d be quite satisfied to find a pair that fits nicely in a simple color like black or white, but NO, I am entranced by a menu of fifty-thousand shoes, manufacturers, styles, treads, and ways to keep them on your feet. My wife actually just got a pair that mimic the shape of your toes! (Maybe if we had just stayed at the “ape” stage of evolution, things would be easier? We could even take the present crop of politicians back with us, for they would rule a race of simians just as effectively, I’m sure.)

 

We are far from the days when it was said about Henry Ford’s boast: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” Some psychologists have indeed suggested that they see patients so confounded by the explosion of choices surrounding us that they have turned pathological about it. When we turn to the scriptures, we get a very different picture of what choices may govern our lives at a critical level beyond our palates or our piggies. Remember Joshua telling his people, “Choose this day whom you will serve,” contrasting the worship of Yahweh with the “shopping list” of foreign gods that had become popular among many of the folk? Contrary to some popular streams of theological thought that suggest that God is fully “in charge” and “pre-ordains” the outcome of human events, the Bible makes clear we humans DO have choices to make. Deuteronomy 30:19, Moses, speaking for God, urges Israel to “choose life.” This seems like an obvious choice, but not a day goes by that we don’t witness persons—even collections of them—denying this choice. How very sad.

 

In today’s text from Matthew, Jesus himself brings “choice” to the fore, employing a kind of “Occam’s Razor” thinking to a question asked of him by the chief priests and elders. Also known as the “law of parsimony,” Occam’s Razor says that if two competing theories explain an event or what happened, the simplest explanation is most likely the best. Otherwise, “keep it simple, stupid,” as we said in my earlier days. Now, we know that simple is not ALWAYS best, and in the case of more complex problems, there often IS no simple solution. However, Occam’s Razor suggests that simple explanations should be investigated first, as adding too many layers early on may multiply what may already be a complex scenario. In the case of today’s text, these chief priests and elders who are already plotting to “trap” Jesus to an answer to their inquiries that will be self-indicting, throw this one out to him: “By what authority are you doing these things?” (miracles, healings, and attracting hundreds to hear his teachings), and “Who gave you the authority?” I’m sure these ecclesiastical geniuses figured that they “had” him, regardless of how he answered. If he said it was “his father, God” who gave him the authority, they would nail him as a blasphemer. If he said he did it on his own authority, they would brand him either a crackpot or a sorcerer, if not both. They saw their inquiry as a “win-win” for them. Their “trap” reminds me of what was called “yellow journalism,” when I studied communications in college. The “yellow journalist” would structure questions to “trap” a public figure into giving an answer worthy of a headline. “Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Senator?” is an example of this heinous form of inquiry. It’s unanswerable, without “stepping in it,” as they say. Obviously, crafty yellow journalists could form more nuanced questions than that, but their aim was to garner a headline, not a truthful report. The chief priests and elders in today’s text were yellow journalists, indeed, but were after far more than an “above the fold” headline.

 

Jesus, in possibly one of the earliest examples of the Occam’s Razor principle, turns it around on them with a simple challenge: I’ll ask YOU a question, and if you answer it correctly, I’ll tell you by whose authority I do these things. And then he drops a simple interrogatory bomb on them: “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?" Seems like a simple question, but hiding in it is the same self-indicting flaw their question to Jesus had. They recognize this, arguing among themselves. If they said “from heaven,” Jesus might say, “Then why didn’t you believe him?” If they said of human origin, they feared how the crowd might react, as they saw John as a prophet. Suddenly, Occam’s Razor had painted THEM into the corner they had designed for Jesus. Now, normally the answer, “I don’t know,” is an honest one, and should be employed by more people than is currently the case. There are so many things we just don’t know, especially when we are being questioned randomly. We pastors are wise, when asked complicated theological or biblical questions by a parishioner, to be honest, when we don’t know. “Let me look into that and get back to you,” is a legitimate answer by someone who understands her or his position as a spiritual leader with a working brain. To try to fake one’s way through such questions, especially if it is just to look “learned,” is never a good approach. However, in the case of the chief priests and elders here, their “We don’t know” answer is a copout, and Jesus calls their bluff and tells them he will not answer THEIR question of him regarding authority. 

 

That’s not the end of it, though. Jesus tests them again with the little “two sons” story. It’s easy to miss what is going on here. The first son tells the father he will not go to work in the vineyard, but later acquiesces, and goes. The second son says he WILL go to work, but never does. Jesus asks the chief priests and elders which son did the will of the father, and when they answer correctly that it was the FIRST son, Jesus indicts THEM for knowing the answer to such a simple moral question, but missing the importance of the ministry of John the Baptist. Some have been confused by this narrative, thinking that Jesus believed they answered wrongly that it was the first son who did the will of the father, but that is not the case. Again, Jesus is using a simple question to shut down a plot to trap HIM, and instead, traps the chief priests and elders in front of the crowd, in order to demonstrate that their religious leaders were “straining gnats and swallowing camels,” so to speak. They missed the prophetic word that John the Baptist, and now the Son of God, were trying to bring to them.

 

As a pastor, I confess to often missing something “simple” the Holy Spirit of God was trying to do right in front of me. While I laud my theological studies as giving me great depth and breadth of understanding of serious biblical studies, theological reflection, ethics, pastoral care, and relevant preaching, it also often caused me to miss the simple stuff God was either doing or was trying to do, especially when it was bubbling up through a parishioner who had little to no theological sophistication. I worked so hard to combat this tendency, as I have always loved and respected the people God called me to serve, but many of us are prone to a kind of premature elitism born of academic proficiency. Thankfully, God has a way of cutting to the quick and disarming this usually temporary pomposity on the part of us modern religious leaders. God takes the Occam’s Razor approach, and the wisest of us admits our stunting faults. The Holy Spirit is the great equalizer in the Kingdom of God, indeed.

 

Let me suggest one more way that the Occam’s Razor principle can be helpful to you in nourishing your faith journey, especially when it comes to understanding the Bible. Believe me, the Bible is a wonderful book—the story of God and humanity, inspired by the Spirit, but filtered through human experience and recollection, both of which can be flawed. When we read it, it is best to keep things simple, but this does NOT mean “taking it literally” or coming to the belief that it needs “no interpretation.” Taking a simple approach means asking these questions: “Why is this [story, text, rule, command] here? What is God trying to tell us?” This investigation may unlock more meaning than taking the text at face value. Such was Jesus’ question to the religious leaders about which son did the will of the father in his little parable. The “right answer” was not as revealing as the fact that the leaders demonstrated that they could GET the right answer, all the while missing the “big picture” God was trying to give them through John and Jesus, himself. We fall prey to the same error, Dear Ones. 

 

The moral of this sermon is that we should keep Occam’s Razor handy, if it can help us get the profound, simple truths that nurture our Spirit, and “cut out” the chaff and crap we couch in empty doctrines, rules, and “scriptural authority.” The authority of scripture needs no more defining and defending that what the Holy Spirit is already doing with it in the church and in the “simple” lives of the people we serve. Occam’s Razor can be a wonderful scalpel in the hands of the Great Surgeon, instead of producing a “close shave” when wielded by someone looking for a “winning” answer. Amen.

LISTEN to this message...

Editorial Cartoons

 

 

Jonah 3:10-4:11

God's concern for Ninevah 

 

3:10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them, and he did not do it.

 

4:1 But this was very displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry.

 

4:2 He prayed to the LORD and said, "O LORD! Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning, for I knew that you are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from punishment.

 

4:3 And now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live."

 

4:4 And the LORD said, "Is it right for you to be angry?"

 

4:5 Then Jonah went out of the city and sat down east of the city and made a booth for himself there. He sat under it in the shade, waiting to see what would become of the city.

 

4:6 The LORD God appointed a bush and made it come up over Jonah, to give shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort, so Jonah was very happy about the bush.

 

4:7 But when dawn came up the next day, God appointed a worm that attacked the bush, so that it withered.

 

4:8 When the sun rose, God prepared a sultry east wind, and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint and asked that he might die. He said, "It is better for me to die than to live."

 

4:9 But God said to Jonah, "Is it right for you to be angry about the bush?" And he said, "Yes, angry enough to die." 

 

4:10 Then the LORD said, "You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night.

 

4:11 And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left and also many animals?"

 

 

I wrote a major paper in seminary on the topic of “editorial cartoons,” suggesting that much of the prophetic voice of contemporary society had passed on to the best of those who drew and syndicated editorial cartoons that lampooned politicians, public officials, and pretty much all elected bodies, when they either fumbled their public duty, scandalized themselves or their office, or otherwise used it as a pathway to corruption that benefitted them, personally. The first major editorial cartoonist was Thomas Nast, who is credited with creating (or at least cementing in place) the Republican Elephant and the Democratic Donkey as symbols for America’s two major political parties. His submissions to “Harper’s Weekly” helped bring down Tammany Hall’s Boss Tweed. Pat Oliphant was one of my favorite editorial cartoonists, but I confess to being particularly informed and entertained by the two best “Pittsburghers” in the list: Tim Menees, and Rob Rogers. A good editorial cartoonist can in one panel capture what should be the object of public outrage, when a typical politician is being a typical politician, but they may also express in that same single panel the grief or fear of a nation in time of war, or during an horrendous event like the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some even employ a few extra panels and some superior humor to ridicule bureaucrats and policy wonks alike, such as what Berkeley Breathed has done for decades in “Bloom County.” One of the very earliest editorial cartoons is the one pictured in my image with this sermon posting—the woodcut of a snake cut into eighths, with each segment labeled with the initials of one of the American colonies or regions. This cartoon first appeared in Benjamin Franklin’s “Pennsylvania Gazette” in May of 1754, and became a symbol of the need for organized action against the threat posed by the French and their native allies during the Seven Years’ War. Cartoons, while usually thought of as a form of child’s literature or a short piece of entertainment, can say a lot, when employed by skilled commentators and communicators. They may even be prophetic, especially when they develop a wide audience.

 

So what does this have to do with the story of Jonah in today’s lectionary passage from the scriptures? Lots. The Bible is filled with myths and stories that capture complex, social, spiritual, and even political issues in a small collection of words. The first few chapters of Genesis give us images of the creation that aren’t meant to be history, but intend to communicate that we and our world are not accidents of the cosmos. Stories like the literary masterpiece we call “Job,” and the truly “editorial cartoon” of Jonah and Ninevah, offer us truths too deep for a mere historical telling of them. As I profiled in another recent sermon, a Bible “myth” has nothing to do with whether the account is of a “real event,” or not. A Bible myth imparts a truth that is not contingent on the historicity of the story. Think of the parables of Jesus. The “Good Samaritan” is no less powerful as a lesson in ethics and compassion if we understand it as a fable. Is it any less impactful if there never was a specific “Samaritan” who encountered a robbery victim along a road? The “Prodigal Son” (or more appropriately, the “Loving Father”) and its lesson about wise choices, paternal love and forgiveness, and compassion for another’s tragedy, is no less “true” whether or not there ever was a real father, a rebellious son, and a jealous, bitter “older brother.” I confess to having an obviously stupefied look on my face when I have encountered persons who claim that if these stories had “not actually happened,” then they wouldn’t be in the Bible. What makes them “true,” friends, are the lessons and/or insights they impart, and what makes them BIGGER than life is the fact that they are not meant to be actual historical accounts of persons who experienced these things. The “editorial cartoon” nature of these Bible myths is what makes them universal and timeless.

 

The whole of Jonah is this kind of biblical “cartoon” that quickly captures and exposes one of our most basic human failings, as well as a universal truth of the Divine. Whether there ever was a “real” Jonah who was sent by God to offer a saving and prophetic word to people of a region known as “Ninevah” is, at best, ancillary to the story. Were this an historical account by the author of a “real” event, it’s lesson to the rest of us would be no more amplified, than if it were a kind of parable. If you can get this, you have the beginning of an understanding of the power of the biblical myth. Some anchor their faith in the belief that God must be a God of specific, historical happenings wherein God and humans have built a lesson on a kind of “trial and error” basis. Those of us who understand God more as a “first cause” of great stories and narratives that shine a light on the best and worst of the human heart, are not only comfortable with “myths,” but prefer them, as one doesn’t have to “defend” some “date and time” when they occurred, or seek to prove that they did. The near “constant” search for Noah’s Ark is good example of this. For some, if the Noah’s Ark story can’t be proved as “real,” then maybe God isn’t “real,” either, nor should we trust the rest of the Bible. But what if the “true” truth is that stories like Noah’s Ark are just God’s way of getting us to clean up our act, and to realize how hard it might be to create a just world? Or to understand how destructive selfish, human greed and lecherous behavior can be to a people who will best thrive in a caring, shared community? Even as editorial cartoons strive to imagine a “just” society where the values of equality and freedom prevail for all persons, so the biblical myths such as this Jonah story prophetically challenge us to “think out of the box” when it comes to judgmental behavior vs. mercy and forgiveness, God’s desire for the attributes of the Kingdom of God, which is trying so hard to break into our human existence. 

 

In the Jonah text today, God sees that even with Jonah’s less-than-enthusiastic preaching of the prophetic “warning” to the people of Ninevah, these people DID “turn from their evil ways,” and God decides to honor God’s promise of forgiveness and reconciliation toward them. Jonah, who had hated the people of Ninevah for probably some of the very same reasons we “hate” people today who are of differing nations, faith, ethnic groups, or politics, or because we don’t “approve” of their behavior, was not at all happy that God was actually going to redeem them. Jonah is so torqued that he pretty much admits that he “ran” from the initial assignment of preaching the word of repentance to Ninevah, mostly because he “knew” God WAS a God who was willing to forgive and redeem. This is an important admission, as so many of Yahweh’s adherents today won’t admit that it is this characteristic of God—especially as demonstrated in Jesus Christ—that angers them. How many times have you heard someone say, “If I were God…” before pronouncing a word of judgment upon someone they believe is “evil.” (I confess that I, too—the preacher—has felt this way about some of the shenanigans and goings on in the political realm, today, and I’m still not bending much toward God’s “way” of forgiving and praying for a redeeming balm upon those perpetrating it.) So, how does God reach Jonah…and US?

 

Interestingly, this text contains a “parable” within the myth! We have this story of a bush that grows up and provides shade and comfort to Jonah, but when God “punishes” the bush by sending the worm, Jonah loses his mind. In this text, Jonah is akin to the “elder son” in the Prodigal Son story, angered by the Father’s forgiveness and reconciliation with the younger, “undeserving” son. When Jonah shows more compassion for a measly bush, while hoping for Ninevah to “get what’s coming to them,” God calls him on it. God writes his own little “editorial cartoon” to spring on the stubborn, selfish Jonah. And we should not forget that the larger corpus of the Jonah story includes that mythical “whale ride” to “nudge” him to comply with God’s call! Who, in his right mind, would be the victim of such an adventure, only to turn and reject such a clever and fantastic example of “divine intervention”? Jonah does. We can, and often do. Is there a whale ride in OUR future? MY future? I guess I had better clean up my act. How about you?

 

When we call these wonderful stories “myths,” we are not at ALL degrading neither their value, nor their truth. Likewise, masters of the editorial cartoon use that one panel as a kind of “myth bearer” to jar us into seeing a truth we have been missing, or taking a glance into a clearer mirror to see ourselves as we truly are. Sometimes the “cartoon” is a well-turned and pregnant phrase. Think of Benjamin Franklin telling the signers of the Declaration of Independence, “We must hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately!” Or Nathan, after telling his own “editorial cartoon” story to King David about his sin with Bathsheba, and his unjust “murder” of her husband, Uriah, ending with that climactic line, “YOU are the man!” So often in the Bible, and in the history of our faith, “less is more.” 

 

If you are one of those folk who like to read the Bible from Genesis to maps once a year, how about trying this one as a new tact in your reading: rather than assuming that everything you read is “fact,” pretend that it is there to teach you something about yourself, humanity, the creation, and God. Focus on the “gotcha” of the narrative, rather than reading it like it is an historical account. Imagine the whole Bible as a giant parable—an “editorial cartoon” in one panel, meant to make you think, to ponder, and to act upon the insights you receive. You might find it more transformational than professing a belief in the “infallibility” or “authority” of scripture. Just go for its truth, instead. You get the picture. Amen.

Listen to this message HERE

The Grunge of the Grudge

The Grunge of the Grudge

 

Genesis 50:15-21

Joseph reconciles with his brothers 

 

50:15 Realizing that their father was dead, Joseph's brothers said, "What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong that we did to him?"

 

50:16 So they approached Joseph, saying, "Your father gave this instruction before he died,

 

50:17 'Say to Joseph: I beg you, forgive the crime of your brothers and the wrong they did in harming you.' Now therefore please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father." Joseph wept when they spoke to him.

 

50:18 Then his brothers also wept, fell down before him, and said, "We are here as your slaves."

 

50:19 But Joseph said to them, "Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God?

 

50:20 Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.

 

50:21 So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones." In this way he reassured them, speaking kindly to them.

 

Most people of faith know the Joseph story, if not from the Bible, then from Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical, “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.” In today’s episode from Genesis 50, the story has advanced to where Joseph’s brothers are about to meet with him—now an Egyptian official—for aid during the famine. They are concerned that Joseph may hold a “grudge” against them for selling him into slavery and then telling Dad a lion got him. Ya THINK? Brilliant reasoning, on their part. Most of us would hold that grudge, had we been in Joseph’s situation, and especially now that he was in a position for the ultimate payback. Human nature, being what it is, especially in this day when even a President of the United States is using his power to bring retribution on his “enemies,” one would certainly bank on Joseph holding a really “grungy” grudge.

 

None of us likes to be wronged. It is often hurtful, emotionally, or even hard on the pocketbook. The problem with it is that “being wronged” can be a complicated thing. Think about it. What does it “mean” to be “wronged?” In the case of the Joseph story, his brothers are jealous of the favoritism their brother is being shown by their father, Jacob. The Bible DOES make it sound like it is actual favoritism, however, those of us old enough to remember the Smothers Brothers, know Tommy’s accusatory line he would use on Dick: “Mom always liked you BEST!” Not all “favoritism” is equal, especially when it comes to parental love. My parents raised three boys, and did their best to “equalize” their treatment of each of us. However, our needs were different, as were our interests. It was a natural thing that, when one of our interests intersected with an interest one of our parents held, that son would get a little special treatment. Still, I don’t think any of the three of us ever developed a grudge over one of the others getting “extra” preferential treatment. (I obviously can’t speak for my brothers, but I’ve never heard anything to dispute my assertion.) Dara and I made a point to assure our two children that we loved them both to the Moon and back, but that there may come a time when one of them might have a need that would require extra attention, and that as good parents, we would do our best to meet that need. We also told them that we would do our best to give them each opportunities to explore all that life had for them as they were growing up, but that, too, could mean that for a season, one might “get a bit more” than the other, either emotionally or economically. We were blessed that neither of our two children had any special needs that required medical or psychological attention beyond the “norms” of childhood, but obviously this is not the case in many other families. It is good for parents to explain why this is important and necessary to the other children in families with a special needs child. “Equal love” doesn’t always mean “equal treatment.” When a child feels “wronged” by a sibling getting some necessary special treatment, or having an unusual opportunity due to a unique interest, it is not the same as your brothers throwing you into a pit and selling you into slavery. 

 

Some people have a more natural tendency to feel they are getting the short end of the stick, even when it isn’t true. I suppose this is a form of paranoia, or some other negative pathology born out of a past hurt or slight, but I’m not a psychologist, so I’ll just leave that there. The point is that not everyone who “feels” wronged is a victim, but this fact may NOT stop a grudge from being formed in that person, even one that may isolate them from others or cause what had been closer bonds to someone to falter. It is quite sad when this happens. As a pastor, I have seen WAY too many families and friendships disintegrate over an alleged “wrong” or what is actually just a misunderstanding. Counseling can help in these situations, but it often cannot restore what once was, in a relationship, at least fully. From the Joseph story, I would suggest to parishioners in these situations to do their best to refrain from over-reacting. Pits and slavery should be the very last resort, in all cases.

 

Grudges are like a cancer, honestly. When we develop and carry them, WE are the ones getting almost literally eaten alive. They form a “root of bitterness” in us that is near impossible to eliminate, even if the offense itself may be resolved, and forgiveness applied. I saw this most in marriages when an infidelity had occurred. In these cases, when this was uncovered in pastoral counseling, I would refer couples to professional marriage counselors, as dealing with it was beyond my pay grade. I offered my prayers and pastoral support, but a deep wound had been created, and it needed special treatment. Again, the offended partner would often hold a grudge way beyond the event horizon, even after all the best remedies had been applied. In each of these cases, God had a lot of extra hours to put in. 

 

Here’s the sad truth, though: the most hurtful grudges I have witnessed were often over really simple or “stupid” stuff. People, when they feel slighted, can run to that reptile brain very fast. In our minds, we take what may have been a simple mistake or an unintentional oversight on someone’s part and turn it into a premeditated hostile act against us. Then we begin building a serious case against the “offending” party. Our grudge gets grungier and grungier, the longer it goes being unresolved, even to the point that when the offending party is made aware of the alleged slight, and attempts to make amends, that grudge makes like the Great Wall of China, and cuts off the attempt at reconciliation. If there really is a devil, the grudge is one of his most effective tools, believe me. 

 

When I read the Joseph story, I am led to believe that Jacob “favored” Joseph for one of these “intersecting interests” reasons. Given that the “prize” Jacob gave Joseph was the colorful coat, one might believe that Joseph was a creative sort, possibly artistic in some way that the old man truly appreciated. Sometimes a parent has had an interest in life that life simply got in the way of ever pursuing. When a child comes along that shares that interest, the parent is naturally tempted to “feed” it, which might look like favoritism to a sibling. That colorful coat leads me to believe this is what happened in the Joseph incident. As you see, it gave the brothers all a powerful grudge against “the dreamer,” and their solution to assuaging that grudge involved pits and slavery. An over-reaction? I’d say, but then emotions can be very powerful things. Students have shot up their schools over feeling “wronged” in some way by their peers. The moral of THAT story is that parents, teachers, and others should do our best to help our kids through these difficult points of growth and development. Take what kids tell you seriously, don’t just “pooh-pooh” it when a kid feels threatened or otherwise rejected in a social situation. Avoiding the development of grudges and that “root of bitterness” may save more than a child’s sensitive ego.

 

As adults, it is also incumbent upon us to “take inventory” of our own cupboard of grudges we may have on the shelves of our psyche. I am convinced that much of what is being called “political division” in our nation is actually a result of unresolved relationship pathologies playing out, thanks to a national “leader” who is, himself, a bundle of unresolved pathologies with power. The church is no different. Enough people in the United Methodist Church felt “powerless” against what they saw as an unresponsive (or errant, as they would say) hierarchy that when, given the chance, they bolted. Was the disaffiliation that occurred in our denomination an over-reaction to a long-carried grudge? What do you think? As one who believed that inclusiveness was more important in the church of Jesus Christ than “doctrinal purity,” I would have hoped for more understanding and less pits and slavery, but here we are, picking up the pieces. 

 

Yes, Joseph’s brothers had every right to believe they could be facing the grudge-based retribution of a brother they had truly wronged. Joseph’s response was a shocker, not only to them, but to any student of human nature. Joseph expressed more joy in reconciling with his brothers than in any short-lived jollies he might have received from throwing them into the slammer, or sending them away empty-handed, perhaps to succumb to the famine. Joseph even went one step FURTHER, which I believe to be the ultimate lesson in this great biblical tale. He gave us that great “What YOU meant for evil, God meant for GOOD” line, challenging us all to look for something much more life-changing than the proverbial “silver lining.” This “teaching moment” is there, I believe, as a sign that God desires that people of faith start looking more for what GOOD can come out of bad experiences, rather than whom to blame for them, or how to punish the perpetrators. “What can I learn here?” or “How can this make me a better person?” are better, more formative spiritual questions than “Is this pit deep enough?” Think about the “cultured hatred” that is happening in our nation right now over immigrants, most of whom are productive, god-fearing, and law-abiding people just looking for an opportunity and a better life. But a great “national grudge” has been invented and “nurtured” by some as a political scam that has resulted in government forces moving violently against people—families—who could be great national assets, in more “normal” times. Grudges are powerful and destructive things in the individual; in nations, they can bring down the very fabric of a just and fair society. ICE is digging pits and deporting poor souls into slavery.

 

Friends, God wants the best for us. What we have often done to the countless opportunities the Divine has given us to be better, stronger, and more loving people is WAY too often criminal. God wants to transform the “wrongs” into “goods,” not grudges. Grudges are what put the Son of God on the cross, friends. May we learn from Joseph, one who WAS truly wronged, and yet forgave, reconciled, and even edified his offenders, believing THIS is where the Spirit of God was leading. How about you? How about us? May we shed the grunge of the grudge and be washed in the flow of God’s “new” thing instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ! Amen.

[To listen to a recording of this message, use the link below.]

LISTEN...

...Loves You, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...

 

…Loves You, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah…

 

Psalm 149

Sing praise in the congregation 

 

149:1 Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the faithful.

 

149:2 Let Israel be glad in its Maker; let the children of Zion rejoice in their King.

 

149:3 Let them praise his name with dancing, making melody to him with tambourine and lyre.

 

149:4 For the LORD takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with victory.

 

149:5 Let the faithful exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their couches.

 

149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands,

 

149:7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples,

 

149:8 to bind their kings with fetters and their nobles with chains of iron,

 

149:9 to execute on them the judgment decreed. This is glory for all his faithful ones. Praise the LORD!

 

I was in fourth grade when the Fab Four of Liverpool made their initial appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show on Sunday night. The next day in school, this is all anyone could talk about. The girls in my class were totally ga-ga over the mop-haired songsters, with each one already having picked a “favorite.” The boys, while certainly jealous of the attention Ringo, Paul, George, and John were getting, talked about both the music (which we liked) and the eccentricities of each Beatle. Ringo wore all those rings, and kept a nasty beat on the trap set; Paul played his bass guitar “backwards” (he’s left handed); George seemed quiet, distant, but certainly played a mean lead guitar; and John seemed “out of place,” kind of like the proverbial science nerd among football players (probably due to his being almost blind without his glasses, which he did NOT wear on the Beatles’ American TV debut). It was clear from the outset that these guys had captured the attention of the country’s “youth,” including those of us who were still in “grammar school.”

 

“She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah,” they sang, as their “Beatle cut” hair bounced all over. The lyrics certainly weren’t Shakespeare (or even Weird Al Yankovic, for that matter), but there was something “catchy” about the music. And BOY, did we catch it! Their “stock” started out high on Ed Sullivan, and just kept rising. By the time the “simple” band from England with the silly name of the “Beatles” broke up and went their separate ways, they had conquered the music world. They had made a handful of entertaining films, including “A Hard Day’s Night,” which was critically acclaimed, and holds up royally, to this day. It is still one of my favorite films, and I’m a “movie buff.” Their music DID become the “Shakespeare” of the recording room and stage. Everybody tried to copy it, but no one succeeded. Oh, other great bands (the Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, et. al.) made it big, for sure, but no one and no-thing could ever eclipse the phenomenon called “Beatlemania.” I’ve often said that two reasons I have lived a great life, are the Beatles, and being around for the Apollo Moon landing. I do believe what the Beatles accomplished at least equals that “one small step” made by Neil Armstrong.

 

Here we are today, a long way from “She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah.” The world’s great orchestras have all played some arrangement of a Beatles tune. Their music has been translated into every language on earth. And even “elevator music” features songs written by Lennon and McCartney, gone “Mantovani.” As we know, one of the Fab Four—John Lennon—died tragically, having been assassinated by Mark David Chapman outside Lennon’s apartment building, the Dakota. George Harrison died way too young, of causes possibly exacerbated by his alternative life style choices. Ringo is still with us, and still happily married to Barbara Bach, the actress, for over 45 years! Paul McCartney? He’s a living legend. Still performing, still churning hearts at first sight, and still with that unique sparkle in his eyes that have not gone dim at all at 84 years of age. “She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah,” indeed. 

 

Of course, most of their music went galaxies beyond that, and “I want to hold your haaaa-nd.” “Give Peace a Chance,” “Let It Be,” “Hey, Jude,” and iconoclastic albums like “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” are masterpieces that have cemented “the boys” into the history of music into the next several millennia, or as someone has said, “As long as humans survive on Earth.” I expect to be around, though, when the last Beatle shuffles off this mortal coil, and it will be a very sad day for something I was around to see its beginning. Why such a giant “introduction” to a sermon about a text from Psalm 149? You’ll see. One more part of the back story, though. Way back in 1975, I was hired by Grace United Methodist Church in Rocky Grove, PA to be a part-time staff person working with their Youth Club program, AND to be involved in their impressive radio ministry. Their Senior Pastor, the Rev. Lloyd Sturtz, was truly a forward-thinking religious visionary, having built a growing church around a vivacious music ministry, a powerful preaching/teaching ministry, and a daily, 15 minute radio show on WFRA, Franklin’s radio station. Rev. Sturtz truly had a “way” with radio, recording a week’s worth of “Faith for Today” daily broadcasts in one weekly recording session. “Preach,” as we called him, was a kind of “Paul Harvey” of the Christian set, spinning yarns of religious history, and exciting, yet simple testimonies of faith. His knack for making “religion” and the Bible practical and timely made these daily programs the most popular 15 minutes on local radio. He also had a vision for a weekly, half-hour radio program that could speak to young people, and that’s where I came in. I had a background and experience in both radio AND journalism, so the church sponsored my show, which we called “Resurrection.” The first two programs I devoted to a “Beatles” special wherein I played important Beatles’ songs that addressed some of humanity’s ills, and I juxtaposed these “secular” songs with tunes from the brand new world of Christian rock and roll that seemed to be attempting to answer the questions the Beatles were “asking” in some of their music. It was a successful “launch” of a program that aired on Friday nights in Franklin for several years, at least until I went off to seminary.

 

So, for these two “related” reasons, Psalm 149, that opens with “Sing to the Lord a new song,” seemed a natural to be set alongside the band that made “new” a watchword in the music realm! I like that the ancient author of this psalm is thinking “new” in a faith that too often gets bogged down in trying to “stay the same.” “New” is a good thing, and this psalmist knew it, even when he was talking about worshipping God, which is both one of the oldest things humanity attempts to do, AND the one thing the church has generally fought against making “new,” in any way.

 

Historically, worship could best be summed up in the “Spoonerism” of the old hymn “My Faith Still Holds,” which is convoluted by some into “My Faith Holds Still.” Worship traditions generally like to “hold still.” Most of you know that J.S. Bach was rejected by the church for daring to write religious music for the pipe organ, which had been dubbed an “instrument of the devil,” due to its popular debut in secular society. Sound familiar? When I was a teen, any kind of guitar or drum was anathema in the church. I remember when a “long-haired band” made up of students from our one our Methodist theological seminaries came to my home church to play a concert on a Sunday evening. There were four of them, and they played and sang religious rock to guitar, bass, and drum accompaniment. You see where they got the idea! They were fantastic; us youth LOVED them; and the “old people” in our church ignited a proverbial “fire storm” over it, proclaiming that they would “never let something like that” happen in their church again. Where was the Psalm 149 guy with his “new song to the Lord” then? Do you know which Christian sect first embraced “contemporary” music in the sanctuary? It was the Roman Catholics, who, after the Second Vatican Council in the mid-1960s, were allowed to offer services in “the language of the people,” rather than just in Latin. Young, progressive priests like Father John Santor in Oil City, PA took this occasion to launch “Folk Masses” that featured “new” music and drums and guitars! It would be YEARS before this happened in most Protestant churches! (Father John Santor, the “Beatles” of priests, in my book, died in Erie, PA in December of 2025.) 

 

Bringing up the subject of Christian worship and how it tends to be resistant to change, begs another question: what IS worship, and why do we think God “needs” it? We currently are experiencing political figures who seem to want allegiance and “bowing down” to them in a kind of worship, so I have a hard time equating the God whom I believe loves ME enough to have sent his Son into the world to redeem me with these characters! Does God really “groove” on having us “worship” the Divine? I know I’ve gone over this ground before in countless other sermons, but it bears repeating. Why does God desire God’s people to worship? My life and study have led me to believe worship serves two primary needs:

 

First, it is a common focus that breeds “community.” The Bible makes clear that God desires God’s people to live together “in community,” not as scattered (diaspora) individuals. In community, we offer mutual support, care for those who are hurting and marginalized, and provide a gathered forum for various kinds of “mission work” the Holy Spirit may call us into. “Mission” might include heralding the Good News of Jesus Christ, or as John Wesley would say, “Offer them Christ.” Mission might include benevolent acts such as feeding the hungry, building homes for shelter (or fixing up existing ones), or building schools and clinics in developing societies. And for some of us, “mission” may mean working for social justice, ranging from protesting INJUSTICES, to seeking to install just leaders, governments, and pass laws that offer justice to all of God’s people, not just the well-heeled, or “abled.” There are quite a variety of creative, community-enabled tasks that could qualify as “mission.” In one church, a group of folk collected used prom dresses and opened a free “shop” where economically-challenged young women could choose a nice dress for their high school prom. In another church, a group of seamstresses made “prayer quilts” for persons who were ill.

 

Secondly, worship provides the individual believer a way to make deep, inner connections “happen” between themselves and God. Diverse ways of doing this may still happen in the gathered, worshipping community. Some enjoy the silent moments of communal worship, while others revel in the music and praise. Others still, may appreciate the times of guided prayer and meditation, or be particularly “connected” through the celebration of the sacraments. That which makes this spiritual connection between God and persons may be highly individualistic, yet be juxtaposed with group worship. The old chestnut, “I don’t have to go to church to worship God” does not pass muster in the Judeo-Christian tradition. One may certainly praise God in private, or enjoy meditation in solitude, but the kind of worship God desires happens in a gathered community, even a small one. Remember this: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I will be in the midst of them?” And do you remember who said it?

 

Regarding our individual preferences in worship, I do believe the Holy Spirit has led our religious communities to a wide variety of worship experiences, liturgy, and musical “styles.” I, for one, like the verbiage of the hymns, even though many of them need “reinterpreted on the fly” like the latter words of Psalm 149, while some of the newer ones exhibit profound theological viewpoints. One of my favorite services we held at St. Paul’s was a choreographed “Jazz Worship Service,” wherein we had a professional jazz combo lead us musically, mixed with readings and liturgy that mirrored some of the improvisational element of jazz music. My point here is that gathered worship may be of all varieties, touching the hearts of diverse persons, who may purpose to gather as one people. This will be what the “endpoint” of the Kingdom of God will look like, in my opinion—a kind of religious e pluribus unum—out of many, one.

 

God “desires” God’s people to worship together because God wants us to find common ground and “partners” to act in Christian mission. God desires worship to be a place where God’s people come together to “enjoy” a worship experience and be edified by it. Overall, I believe, God LOVES it when God’s people get together in a kind of regular, “family reunion.” In this, as I’ve said before, God sits like one of those beaming, proud grandmothers at earthly family reunions, so happy to see her family putting aside their differences and being blessed by each other’s presence and “catching up.” Is this not precisely what the language of Psalm 149 is about?

 

Oh, I know that some of this Psalm sounds like “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war,” but again we have to put it in historical context. The “warring” language can be seen as justice seeking, which can get very messy, indeed. The goal is to build a just, gathered, and God-fearing community. (I realize that one must stretch the “battle” language of this Psalm to see this, but held up against the rest of scripture, I do believe it is appropriate to do so.)

 

And this all brings us back to the Beatles, with a Divine twist: “GOD loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, and you know you should be glad!” And being “glad” is both a highly individualized AND inherently “corporate” thing, in the unfolding Kingdom of God! Yeah, yeah, yeah! (How the Beatles might say, “Amen!”)

 Listen to this message...