Spirits in Prison...

 

Spirits in Prison

 

1 Peter 3:18-22
3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit,

3:19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison

3:20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you--not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

 

Lent is upon us. As a local church pastor for 36 years, those words typically struck fear into the hearts of me and my church staffs. We used to joke that first came Advent and two days later, Lent, or at least so it seemed. For the uninitiated (laity), the Advent/Christmas season and the Lenten/Easter cycle were the most intensive activity times in the church planning year. Not only are there a raft of events to plan for, but there was also a strong compulsion on the part of those of us who live and breathe theology, ministry, and inspiration to want to make each of these two seasons bigger and more brimming with “spirit” each year. I know it wasn’t really true, but I could almost “hear” the voices of my gathered parishioners speaking a line from one of Woody Allen’s films: “My God, my God, what hast thou done LATELY?” To borrow a cultural phenomenon that may be easier for you lay persons to understand, the Lenten/Easter cycle is the church’s Super Bowl. Lent and Holy Week are like the game; Easter is the rousing halftime show. I don’t MISS this feeling, the stress it induced, and the hours of planning involved. I think this is why I tended to enjoy the Advent/Christmas season more—secular society had so kidnapped it that those of us in the church could “ride the wave” of excitement the culture built! Just adding a few poignant, “head-turning” moments of spiritual inspiration to the childlike fervor of the weeks around Christmas was usually welcomed by the congregation, and affirmed by it. Easter benefitted from no such hype. Bunnies, chocolate, and egg hunts were for kids; the adults just looked to US and asked, “My God, my God, what hast thou done LATELY?” 

 

So, what does a retired pastor write about Lent in a sermon? Escaping the pressure to pump up a congregation over it, I think I’ll do what I always do—look to the lectionary texts and see if there are interesting phrases that “pop out,” and cause me to question. This weekend’s text from First Peter has several of those. First off, I should state that I’ve always treated the “epistles” of Peter as sermons, for I believe this is what they were, not letters. Oh, someone may have heard them and wrote them down so as to share them with others, but they certainly READ like sermons. Of course, the “role” of sermons is similar to that of scripture. The author of II Timothy gives us that somewhat well-known “other” 3:16 passage:

 

¹⁶ All scripture is inspired by God and is^[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…

 

A decent sermon carries some “inspiration,” if not directly from God, at least from its author. A good sermon may be a “teaching” about some element of our faith or our walk of discipleship. A meaningful sermon may “correct” or “reprove” the hearers of errors that have crept into our understanding of what it means to BE a Christian, or corrects an errant “interpretation” of scripture that may cause us to use it as a club against those we don’t like, or just simply don’t understand. All sermons should impart SOME “training in righteousness,” in my opinion, for if they don’t, why are we giving them in the Christian church? Of course, a “healthy” debate can be had over what constitutes “righteousness,” with some wanting to nail down “orthodox doctrines” or clearly define “sin,” while others will want to stress the imparting and reception of grace, and hawk “reconciliation” as the gold standard of dikaiosune (NT Greek for “righteousness”—there, that’s  a “teaching”). John Wesley would probably say that “righteousness” is just RIGHT LIVING, or living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m good with that. 

 

With this in mind, why am I focusing on the phrase in this text, “spirits in prison”? Let’s explore that a bit, shall we? Now, some will take it pretty literally, suggesting that during the three days Jesus was “dead” to us and in the tomb, he was actually “visiting” with the souls of the dead who were in Sheol (Hell), or some form of after-death “purgatory” where they were awaiting God’s “final solution” to the problem of separation from God, Jesus BEING now that solution. The ancient writers of the Apostles’ Creed went there, as one of the lines of the creed says, “He descended into Hell.” Frankly, speculating about this is WAY beyond my pay grade, so I choose to look at this verse symbolically. 

 

The ”spirits in prison” might be ANYONE who finds themselves “bound up” by stuff that: limits joy; destroys or harms one’s psyche; leads to a harmful and/or life-threatening addiction; poisons relationships; blinds one to anything except one’s own selfish desires; robs reason and substitutes foolishness; or just wholly beats down a child of God so severely that he/she/they would have to climb a tall ladder to kiss a snake’s heinie. These “spirits in prison” may never see the Bible’s “Hell,” for they are in one right here and now. It may well be a Hell of their own choosing and design, or they may be an oppressed victim of the ones society (or narcissistic others) has created, but it is a “prison,” just the same. And this is not to discount the literally prisons where our nation locks away the highest number of folk—many for small crimes—than any other country. Christian people—“church people”—should align themselves with the struggle for justice for those who do NOT deserve to be “rotting” in our literal prisons, and as Mr. Wesley believed, we should ALSO care for those whose crimes deservedly put them there. Prison should never be a place devoid of human hope and civilized treatment and provision. We’re not doing so well with that, though. When the church engages in benevolent, hope-bearing ministry to those imprisoned, it is literally following the example of Jesus mentioned in this scripture text! And when we work for justice and humane treatment in our prisons, we are possibly engaging in one of those things Jesus promised in the Gospel of John: “GREATER THINGS you will do when I go to the Father.”

 

In this text, Jesus “makes a proclamation” to the “spirits in prison.” What does he say to them? I think the Gospels are actually FULL of the kinds of things Jesus proclaimed to these “captives.” The message? They are all children of God; Christ came that they might have life, and even life abundantly; Jesus is a healer for their wounds and a balm for their fears; their sins are forgiven; the Holy Spirit has been “lavished” upon them; the hope and promise of eternal life in the presence of God is theirs for the receiving; they are some of the “last” that will be brought to the front of the line; NOTHING will separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus their Lord. And this is just the “short list.” How about this one that ANYONE who feels trapped would want to hear: “I will never leave you nor forsake you…Lo, I am with you ALWAYS, even to the end of the age.” 

 

The proclamation Jesus Christ has for ANY “spirit in prison”—regardless of what that “prison” may be—is that their life COUNTS for something, and that God desires to “free their spirit” from any oppressing force. This may not mean that they will not “reap what they have sown,” if their activity has caused others (or themselves) harm, but it DOES mean that God desires and demonstrates in the Christ Event that they don’t have to STAY in a “spirit prison.” If they HEAR and YIELD to God’s proclamation of freedom—“Those whom Christ has freed are FREE INDEED”—their soul may still have “wings, their life may rediscover its purpose, and they will be reconciled to God and the others they love. 

 

With God’s help, and the support of a caring community, people can be freed of addictions, psychological diseases and syndromes may be healed or at least brought under control, relationships can be restored, and the “still small voice” of God can be heard once again. As the text says, through the death and resurrection of Christ, they can have their “good conscience” restored, and that may be the most freeing thing of all.

 

I like that the “preacher” in this text uses the example of God’s “rescuing” of the animals and Noah’s family. Not that any of us have to believe that particular biblical story as historical, but it IS a good example of God’s desire to rescue, even when society goes really, really bad, as was the case in the Noah story. (I like the idea the story gives us that God chose to save a whole variety of ANIMALS, but I was never too impressed that only one “chosen” human family was spared. This is one reason I have believed this to be a kind of parabolic tale.)

 

One of the other lectionary texts for this weekend actually gives us the “promise” of the rainbow as a sign that God will no longer flood the earth. Interestingly, that text from Genesis says that the rainbow is a “sign” or “reminder” to GOD not to do that! Even God needs to be reminded to rain kindness not flood waters upon us, so I guess we have a little grace when we get on our high horse and unfairly “condemn” other sinners because their “sin” is far worse than ours! But like God, when we see the “signs,” we should be reminded of grace, not judgment.

 

Are you feeling today that your spirit is “imprisoned” in some way? Remember, when we are experiencing something like this, it is REAL to us, even though our travail may pale in comparison to what others face. When I was in full time ministry, I would sometimes counsel with a person whose life was really coming apart, followed closely by another parishioner who was weeping elephant tears because they had a blowout on a new tire. I remember feeling that this was my chance to “play God” and offer both grace and comfort, when it might have been easy to unfairly differentiate between the two. God really IS like that! And we’re trying…

 

If you ARE feeling painfully “confined,” listen to the great proclamation the Lord Jesus offers to ALL of the “spirits in prison.” Start with the OTHER 3:16 from John: “For God so LOVED the world that God gave the only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in him shall not PERISH, but have EVERLASTING life.” Don’t let your current “prison” perish you, and know that “everlasting” life means good stuff can start NOW, not just in the afterlife! Believe the greatest promise of God, that in Jesus Christ, God is truly “Emmanuel”—God IS with YOU! Shalom, Beloved! Amen.

Perish the Rescuing...

 

Perish the Rescuing…

 

2 Corinthians 4:3-6
4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.

4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

4:5 For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake.

4:6 For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Paul has a unique way, doesn’t he? His gospel is so simple—God loves us, God saves us, we serve God out of gratitude, and witness our salvation because God’s love and grace compel us to invite others to the party. Pure and simple. 

 

The early church complicated Paul’s gospel. The invitation that went out to all brought in some, shall we say, “interesting” characters. Former pagans who had trouble letting go of the “former” label, former Jews who had trouble letting go of the “former” label, as well, and a few who were attracted to the “power” the gospel might afford them, should they have a silver tongue and a penchant for making friends and influencing people (Apollo, anyone?) The upstart church in Corinth was a nightclub full of these kinds of people. The good news was that the gospel WAS for all people, and the “heavy lifting” of redemption had been done by the totality of Jesus Christ. 

 

I say “totality” of Jesus Christ, in that the Christ event is one package: the eternal Son of God born into the world in what theologians would label the “incarnation”; the “fulcrum” events, such as his baptism by the Jewish repentance preacher, John the Baptist, “handing him off” as the budding Savior of the WHOLE world, and the “win” over the devil and this world’s temptations of power; his teachings that were truly “other-worldly,” including “turning the other cheek” and “forgiving seventy times seven”; carrying his own cross to his death on Golgotha; and his resurrection on the third day, a final “win-win” over death and eternal condemnation. “Jesus paid it ALL, ALL to him [we] owe.” Paul’s gospel, all wrapped up in and by Jesus, like a “Hello Fresh” entrée; no other ingredients needed.

 

The trouble with this is, anyone can be a witness, and the message can remain simple enough for anyone to be transformed by it. Thanks to the “human” element, the church quickly began to shake out both individual power seekers, and to develop a hierarchy that would provide them with an office and its perks. When Paul talks in this passage of “unbelievers,” he may not have been addressing those who had not yet heard his simple gospel, or those who had heard the first edition, but who had thus far rejected it. He may well have been addressing those who it first attracted and brought into “the family,” but who were now enjoying the status and influence it brought to them, as they assumed leadership positions.

 

Paul tips his hand in verse four: “For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake.” Subservience and humility was a long way from what Paul had to oppose in the Corinthian church, as he attempted to keep it from falling into egotistical ruin at the hands of manipulative, less-educated, but power-savvy converts. Paul, the brilliant writer and purveyor of the simple gospel that welcomed all into the fold of faith, had a tiger by the tail in Corinth.

 

Fast-forward to the 21^st century. In Tim Alberta’s new book, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism, he details the contemporary “evangelical” movement and its Corinth-like prostitution of the simple gospel of Jesus and his dramatic convert, Paul the Apostle. This is a sordid tale of power, lust, money, and political intrigue that smacks of Antichrist and his minions. From Franklin Graham to Jerry Falwell, Jr.—the headliners—to lesser known leaders like Charlie Kirk, Alberta dissects their hijacking of love and justice, substituting in its place the Kingdom of Trump and the “branch offices” of a plethora of independent and Southern Baptist churches who have peddled a complex gospel that reigns over those who seek God’s pardon, influences what they believe and for whom they vote, and hides lustful sins, because, after all, “enjoying their bodies are the reward for giving [themselves] for the gospel.” (This latter statement was that of the late Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologeticist celebrated by evangelicals, who was found after his death to have been a major lech.) 

 

Whatever moral beliefs some Christians may have about abortion, many of these spiritual high-rollers have distorted them and parlayed them into a political powerhouse; the same game applies to the condemnation of persons in the LGBTQ community, especially those who are transgender. They have convinced millions of modern “believers” that such persons who engage in these “practices”—even those who ally with them—are not “eligible” for inclusion in the gospel. Their version of the gospel, not the simple “All-y, All-y in free” gospel of Paul. And the horror of this movie doesn’t end, according to Alberta. They are gearing up for “round two,” after a large majority of Americans and not a few believers in a God of love and redemption voted out the leader of a heinous, chaotic “round one” that exploded on our TVs on January 6 of 2021. Most of Alberta’s “evangelicals” were allies of IT, and a few were even represented on the Capitol steps that day.

 

I would be far less than honest if I didn’t say that reading Alberta’s book was a gut punch to a person who has given my all to offer the simple, inclusive gospel of Jesus and Paul to the people I served over 36 years as a pastor, and a number of years as a church member and lay Christian witness before that. As a fan of the original “Star Trek” TV series, I recall an episode wherein some “alien force” occupies the body of a 24^th century man, causing him to willy-nilly murder people “just for fun.” The science minds of that episode trace the galactic “travel” of this blood-thirsty entity to a path of planets that experienced horrible, unexplained killings, and leading all the way back to Planet Earth, and a series of murders perpetrated by “Jack the Ripper.” Reading Alberta’s The Kingdom, the Power, the Glory, and holding his 21^stcentury research up against Paul’s writings in Corinthians, reminded me of this weird “Star Trek” episode. It would seem that the same “evil spirit” that was at work distorting God’s truth in Corinth in the first century is at work in the worst of the right-wing, “evangelical” movement. Maybe it is.

 

These same “evangelicals” have built a whole control structure around what was offered by Christ as a simple gospel. HOW one appropriates the gospel, HOW one “is saved,” and how one VOTES after they are saved has been codified into a process known as “being a Bible-believing, born again Christian.” They have been diligent “gatekeepers” of how one becomes a Christian, how one must “behave” as a Christian, and even more specifically what “doctrines” one must believe. Those who do not buy the whole package are disregarded (and disrespected) as the “liberal elite.” Sadly, some of this mindset have infected Methodism and brought about a schism—Methodism, a sect founded by a Paul-like, highly educated man who preached a simple gospel and offered the “hand of fellowship” to any who believed that simple gospel, what he called the “essentials of faith.” 

 

This “ratcheting up” and complicating of the simple process of redemption is part and parcel of how these people maintain control of the movement. “Rescuing the perishing” has turned into big business, political power, and personal aggrandizement, in so many cases, according to Tim Alberta, whose own pastor/father started to get caught up in this power struggle before he died. (This was a motivating factor of Alberta’s in writing this book.) “Rescuing the perishing” has become quite a lucrative market, spawning huge “churches” of like-minded parishioners and voters. One mega-church pastor profiled by Alberta actually started maturing in his faith, reading the Early Church Fathers, and later scholars and theologians such as Miroslav Volf and N.T. Wright, and dropped the “evangelical” scam, preaching anew the simple gospel and its application to living the Christian walk. His church shrunk from 1,500 on Sundays to less than 150, because it had been a house built on the sinking sand of a politicized gospel promising power and prosperity. Actual Christian living and believing didn’t carry as much appeal, I guess.

 

Sorry for being so negative in this message, but I do believe it is TIME to PERISH THE RESCUING (supporting the convoluted, power-controlled religion now labeled “evangelical”) and offer once again the inclusive, simple gospel instituted by Jesus Christ the Savior and written about by Paul the Apostle. Thankfully, there have been countless servants and heralds of this gospel throughout the centuries, furthering and preserving the church. But, the church is now endangered (and is beginning to recede) because of this “Rescue the Perishing” gospel business. Broad swaths of the American populace are now seeing “Christianity,” Trump’s MAGA movement, and these loud-mouthed evangelist/”super pastors” as totally in cahoots with one another. And they are leaving the church behind. It is worth noting that this is just coming to America; it’s been going on in Europe for decades, thanks largely to the hierarchical, patriarchal “rule” of the Roman Catholic Church, and the ineffective efforts of the Protestant mainline. A rebirth of the simple gospel may save us all, if it is not too late. From our lips to God’s ears. Amen.

 

Christ Chameleon...

 

Christ Chameleon

 

1 Corinthians 9:16-23
9:16 If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel! 

9:17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. 

9:18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel.

9:19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 

9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 

9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. 

9:22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 

9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

 

 

Question: Is “becoming all things to all people, that I might win some” an ethical strategy? Let’s explore this question a bit today.

 

My wife used to say that I drove her crazy by seeming to be able to carry on a conversation with about anybody, about anything. As we moved around the varied “audience” of the congregations I served, she just didn’t believe I could “know” enough to do that, without a lot of gaslighting and faking. For example, if I was chatting with a NASCAR enthusiast, I could talk about some of that group’s history, or about the kinds of cars now running their tracks. If I was conversing with someone in the medical field, I could discuss an article about some new advancement in medicine that was getting attention. Or if the topic was sports—almost any sport, including obscure ones like Irish hurling, I could hold my own. The one that caused her to “go off” on me one day, though, was when I was discussing welding techniques and hardware with a professional welder. “There is NO WAY you can POSSIBLY know something about all of those things!”, she would exclaim. Fact is, I did, and I often do, but it is not because I’m some kind of genius (believe me, I’m NOT!), but because I like to read news articles and what used to be known as “periodical literature.” When you combine a person with a voracious reading appetite, but one who isn’t as much into reading fiction, you get a proverbial “Jack of all trades, master of none” character. That’s me. The other two attributes I manifest is that I was “raised” on television shows—as many documentaries and science programs as could be found—because my dad was fascinated by the emergence of TV technology; AND I was blessed with a weird memory that just doesn’t forget too many trivial and seemingly unrelated facts. “Useless knowledge” abounds in my cranium—useless, except when used as fodder for “cocktail hour” conversations, or those before/after church ones around the coffee station. Now, if any of these casual conversations might meander its way around to theology or philosophy, the floodgates could open. THAT, my wife got, in that I was an awarded academic during my college and seminary days, and I have “kept up” my academic reading and learning. But “brush techniques” in oil painting? The latest ideas about diets and healthy nutritional practices? (I got those from some of her professional journals she left lying about.) 

 

I share this story not to boast, but to illustrate that it IS possible to take interest in a broad array of “useless” information, and even become sort of a “master” at it. Now, would it be ethical to use this information to capture the interest of some “innocent bystander” for the purpose of manipulating the conversation around to religion, for the purpose of attempting to convert them? THAT, I would struggle with. As a people-loving extrovert, I have found my “gift” most helpful in fostering conversation and in making friendly “connections” with people. Did any of these conversations, especially with parishioners, “build” any extra rapport with them, or elevate their assessment of my credibility, such that they would take more seriously the Gospel I preached? I doubt it. It might cause them to remember me, like I remember obscure knowledge, I suppose. I will say that a few of those coffee-klatch conversations that naturally DID come around to religion MAY have provided an opening for a pastor to share encouraging theological information with one of my people. All of the conversations were edifying, though, except for my wife, who DID eventually come to believe that I wasn’t “making stuff up” to foster them. (Of course, as any of you who know me KNOW, I have never been bashful about sharing my OPINIONS about things!)

 

Regarding knowledge, it is clear the Apostle Paul was WAY out of my league, having been educated under one of the most celebrated academics of his day, and having been “singled out” by the Son of God on the Damascus Road. But in this narrative, and in a couple of others where similar strategies are shared by him, it is clear that Paul goes beyond conversation in attempting “gospel” connections with folk. He actually “adopts” certain positions or behaviors, in order to get their attention, and in this regard, I’m not sure he isn’t being a bid disingenuous. Does he “pretend” to be under the Jewish law in order to sway a Jew to hear his message? If so, this may be more devious and manipulating, than clever or benevolent. And his “boast” of seeing his faith-induced humility and servanthood as the equivalent to those who were actually enslaved? This may be more delusion than disclosure. 

 

Do I believe that “saving souls” is so important that engaging in what may be a type of deception to push for a religious commitment is justified? I’m just not sure I can go that far. First of all, I believe the Spirit of God is working to bring people into a redeeming relationship with Godself. The Holy Spirit doesn’t need my “cleverness” to complete the evangelization process, and the “God’s time is not OUR time” caveat applies, as well. The assertions that “the time is short” and “the harvest is ripe” were written over two thousand years ago, and during a time of immense persecution. They don’t necessarily apply in 2024. Our human attempts to “rush the process” of introducing people to Jesus Christ may not bear the fruit we believe they will. Worse yet, they may introduce “fear” into the equation, which is rarely a productive motivator for a sustainable relationship with a God who loved us so much God sent the Only Son into the world to redeem us. In short, if we believe our efforts are ultimately essential to someone’s having a relationship with Christ, we are probably the most deluded element in the equation. 

 

So, am I trying to hang Paul out to dry? Not really. I believe what Paul is “selling” in this narrative is the idea that the church “ought” to want to share the Good News with people that we are willing to “sacrifice” ourselves to do so. I’m sure Paul is not selling deception as a strategy. After all, we are “selling” the love and grace of God, not collecting pelts. (This is why I have always winced at the term, “soul winning.”) Paul believed so profoundly in the Gospel that he believed it should be the driving “force” behind everything the church does, from feeding the poor to teaching its members the faith. Our love and benevolence is best propelled by the “wind” of God’s love behind us. This understanding helps us mature as truly humble servants of this love. False humility results when WE think we’ve gotten pretty good at “doing good” and/or “convincing” someone of their need for Christ. True humility seeks to “come alongside” folk, understanding their needs, their suffering, and “who they are” to such a degree that we can both empathize with them AND help them find the resources and connections they need to experience spiritual, physical, and emotional healing. “One beggar helping another beggar find bread,” as one wise preacher once told me. 

 

I believe Paul is “peddling” genuine love and the kind of relationship building he found helpful to himself. As a pastor, who prided himself on his scholarship and theological insights, I was often most effective LISTENING to others and serving coffee at church dinners. These and other manifestations of servanthood may have best modeled God’s love and the love God had given ME for the people I was serving, than any profound sermon or cogent, intellectual “point” I ever made. I think THIS is what Paul is trying to tell us. Others might call Paul’s suggestions, “identification.” Demonstrating God’s love, grace, and acceptance is best done by this “coming alongside” people and trying diligently and genuinely to understand their perspective and status, not in criticizing them, or “proclaiming” how wrong they were, even when that is what we may have believed.

 

To translate the Greek word, kerdaiso, translated in this passage “win,” probably doesn’t help our case. We are such a sports-crazy (and now politically polarized) society that “win” means “beat” a foe, or “prove” that we are RIGHT and the other is WRONG. This has nothing to do with the Gospel, which is precisely what I think Paul is trying to tell us! Kerdaiso has more to do with “gaining” the other, or in other words, welcoming them into our community, and even into our faith. “Identifying” with them where they are, coming in the door, also will help us meet their needs, going forward. Expecting them to “be like us” is not representing the Gospel effectively, or even appropriately. After all, we follow the one who performed the ultimate act of “identification,” which we dub the “incarnation.” As Paul well describes in Philippians, Christ “emptied himself” of the privileges of being God to come alongside humans, in order to “gain” us, or to reconcile us all to our Creator. This identification process not only fertilizes the “field” for evangelization, but it also paves the way for the kind of diverse community the church will become, necessarily. 

 

Paul is not saying that we are to become “Christ Chameleons” in order to “fool” others into believing. Instead, we are invited to come alongside others—“identify” with them in their own Sitz im Leben. This opens the door for the Holy Spirit to do her work in their lives, not only to bring them TO faith, but to then begin the process of “sanctification,” or growing INTO that faith—joining us precisely where WE all are! Amen.

Concerning Food...

 Concerning Food…

 

1 Corinthians 8:1-13
8:1 Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

8:2 Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge;

8:3 but anyone who loves God is known by him.

8:4 Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one."

8:5 Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as in fact there are many gods and many lords--

8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

8:7 It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

8:8 "Food will not bring us close to God." We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.

8:9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

8:10 For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols?

8:11 So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed.

8:12 But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

8:13 Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.

 

 

Food has become a sort of preoccupation with me since last Easter. You see, I like to eat (don’t we all?), and since COVID invaded, I have been learning how to cook—something I had initially planned to do as a retirement activity. I never thought I was  “big” eater, as some might say, given I’m married to a dietitian, who has tried to give me good “food” vibes over our 46-plus years together. But as a pastor, with a more sedentary lifestyle that comes with this calling, I had slowly added material to my body that gravity seem to really appreciate. Over the past few years, at each of my annual physicals, my Doc would say something like, “You could stand to lose a few pounds,” to which I would smile and respond, “No, I CAN’T stand it!” I went several years resisting his suggestion, buoyed by the evidence that I had not gained weight between those office visits. Then came 2023: I was up four pounds. I had been noticing that my ties seemed to be getting sorter, and my suit jackets were “shrinking,” and those four pounds set off an alarm. I started “being more careful” with what I was eating in the days following, and then we were off to Louisville to spend Easter with our daughter and her family.

 

At our first meal together, I made a comment about how I was “trying to cut down.” This prompted a response from my daughter, who reported that she had lost almost 25 pounds of “baby fat” she had been carrying around after having her children. She DID look good, so I asked if she had a secret—of COURSE she did. She told me about a free app she used to keep track of her daily calorie intake, demonstrating how it had a convenient database of most foods (making this easy), and settings that one could dial up a goal of like losing a pound a week. Dara always said that weight loss was best done gradually like this, and that any resulting loss would be more sustainable, if this was the method used. I downloaded the app, and began my anti-blimping journey,

 

The rest is history, as they say. I was able to stay with the app, was painfully honest with each food item entry over the following months, and by Thanksgiving, had reached my target weight, which was over 40 pounds less than what I had weighed at my Doc’s office in February. My target weight was decided by consulting the BMI/health charts readily available on the Internet. A “healthy” male my age, height, and weight should weigh between 155 and 165 pounds, with a BMI of 25 or less. I settled on the upper number (165), given that I do a bit of weight and resistance training, with the help of our “Silver Sneakers” gym membership and a Bowflex unit here in my study. After reaching this target weight, I set the app to “maintain,” but only have added in half the calories it suggested, as I know myself, and how my body handles food. So far, so good! I’ve been several weeks now, right at 165. By the way, the app I used is called, “MyNetDiary.com” It is free, although they do offer a “premium” edition that performs all kinds of “food contents” analyses, such as levels of carbohydrates, fats, sugars, etc. I was personally never interested in these things, as I just wanted to track basic calorie consumption in the food I was consuming. My favorite dietitian always preached moderation—eat whatever you want, just don’t eat as MUCH of it, and stay away from routinely eating “seconds” (or thirds…). 

 

How do I feel? Great. I DID have to buy several new pairs of pants, new blue jeans, and a few new shirts. My ties are suddenly longer, and my polo shirts are no longer making me feel like a breakfast sausage. At retirement, I donated several of my best suits to Goodwill, only keeping two that were too tight, with the hope they would encourage me to engage a weight-loss program. Now, at the successful conclusion of one, I pulled out the “tightest” of those two suits to wear to a funeral service this week. Believe it or not, it was WAY too large on me, not even wearable, honestly! I guess my recent “battle of the bulge” is what triggered my interest in this I Corinthians 8 text from the lectionary.

 

Weight loss was not what was troubling the folk the apostle is addressing in this scripture. In question was meat that was from animals sacrificed to idols by one of the pagan groups that were common in the Greco-Roman culture. Since Peter and Paul had both “heard” from the Lord through the “kill and eat” vision and the big sheet coming down from heaven, the “doctrine” of the faith was that there was no longer anything that was restricted, in terms of cuisine. Paul would argue, however, that if eating meat that had been sacrificed to pagan idols would cause some to “stumble” or otherwise be disillusioned in their faith, one should refrain from doing so in their presence. Note that Paul doesn’t have a problem with eating this meat, per se, but only when it may produce a negative witness to those for whom it would be anathema. 

 

In our day, this might be like refraining from drinking alcoholic beverages in the presence of those who could be negatively affected by its consumption, or by the temptation it may offer. A majority of committed Christians have come to believe that persons who are attracted to those within their same gender is a perfectly normal manifestation on the spectrum of human sexuality. However, there are those for whom this “sin” is counter to their understanding of scripture. Might this be the same kind of thing? Some think so. The problem with this comparison, however, is that what is “caught in the middle” are human beings and their lives, not alcohol or meat. Is it appropriate to ask persons in the LGBTQ community to disregard what is normal or natural for them—for the rest of their lives—just to placate other believers, or to affirm their interpretation of scripture and moral “law,” especially when how to interpret scripture is a much debated and varied science? Might it be prudent for LGBTQ individuals and their allies to be more sensitive to the faith and related “beliefs” of those who struggle with their “acceptance?” Probably. As is often the case in human affairs, one of the great “equalizers” is a close affiliation with a person who has publicly stated their LGBTQ status. It may be a close friend, family member, or even a sibling, child, or grandchild. This may be a good example of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “life together,” where such a close relationship breaks down our prejudices and necessarily causes us to rethink what we at one time believed to be immutable principles. 

 

Throughout the history of religion, new vistas discovered by human knowledge required such a rethinking of doctrinal positions. Galileo was excommunicated by the church because he dared hypothesize that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and not vice versa. It wasn’t until 1992 that Pope John Paul II stated that Galileo “may have been unjustly treated” by the church. Medical and psychological science have affirmed that human sexuality is on a continuum, not merely and “either/or,” as some believe. They have taught us that whether a person manifests a heterosexual attraction or a homosexual one—or anything in between—is normal, and should be accepted as a very personal and life-long orientation. Laws, too, should fairly allow for normalization of personal human sexual orientation as an individual right, protected BY the law. Fifty years from now (hopefully MUCH less!), this will be the case, as science and medicine continues to learn and society evolves, but for now, members of the LGBTQ community suffer harassment and alienation, at the least, and legal persecution or even a death sentence (in some countries), at most. About this gap in knowledge—or at least the acceptance of it, Paul would say, “It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge…” Like Galileo’s heliocentrism, it may take a while for the church to come around.

 

In our politically polarized and charged time, those with a greater degree of emotional intelligence are appealing to us all to be in dialogue about our differences and stop the name-calling and labeling the “other side” as just plain wrong, or proclaiming them “ignorant.” As one of my reading group partners said the other day, the dialogue will only be fruitful if our goal is not persuasion, but relationship fostering and nurturing. Like it or not, we ARE in this together. If we just keep choosing sides, nothing good will come of it. History will record that “final solutions” such as the mass-disaffiliation movement that has crippled the United Methodist Church will not ultimately serve the Body of Christ. Deciding to end dialogue and “taking their ball and bat and going home” will cost money, sever precious relationships, hurt our Christian witness, but will eventually cause us to eventually wind up right where we are now. Some wise souls have already predicted this, and have tried to build into the “permissions” that made disaffiliation possible, the seeds of reconciliation. Only time will tell if these will bear fruit.

 

The issue of meat sacrificed to idols didn’t plague the church for very long, as we don’t hear much about it beyond this text in Corinthians. The church seems adept, however, at finding other issues over which to fight, split, and reconcile, although there have clearly been fracturing issues that still haven’t “matured” to the reconciliation stage! (Witness the continued existence of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches.)

 

One wonders what Jesus Christ must feel about these squabbles and divisions? Is it not true that he CAME to absolve us of the sins that fracture us, and to heal and restore the love (agape) originally gifted to humanity by our Creator? Of course, it were these very issues that took him to the cross at the hands of persons who feared his efforts to exorcise our hatred and lust for personal power, wasn’t it? I’m guessing Jesus understands the cross was just a launchpad, not a final winner’s platform, and that his efforts to reconcile humanity to God and to each other are still ongoing and current. We can pray so. We can hope so. And we can work like we believe it to be the will of God, that this reconciliation is the end game.

 

May we be guided by what Paul tells us in verse one of today’s passage: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” Amen!

The God With a Malleable Mind

 

The God With a Malleable Mind

 

Jonah 3:1-5, 10
3:1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time, saying,

3:2 "Get up, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I tell you."

3:3 So Jonah set out and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly large city, a three days' walk across.

3:4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day's walk. And he cried out, "Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and everyone, great and small, put on sackcloth.

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

 

 

The story of Jonah and his “battle” with God over the people of Nineveh is one of the richest—and one of my most favorite ones—in the whole Bible. Jonah didn’t LIKE the people of Nineveh, and the LAST thing he wanted to do was to give them God’s word of grace that if they were to just repent of their sin, God would forgive them. Jonah was in the “fry ‘em, Lord” school, and grace was not part of that equation. We all know the “juicy” part of the Jonah story that involves a “big fish,” or WHALE in good storytelling vernacular, and that a brief “submarine ride” changed Jonah’s travel plans, but NOT his hatred for the people of Nineveh. We also know that when he gave a half-hearted “message” of repentance to the Ninevites that they passionately DID repent and embrace the divine grace being afforded to them, much to Jonah’s chagrin. But there are other interesting things to consider from today’s lectionary text out of this fanciful book. Let’s examine a few of them.

 

First of all, God must have liked Nineveh, calling it a “great city,” in his call to Jonah to go there and deliver a message. Did God just mean it was a “large city,” as is related in the next verse? Or did God see the POTENTIAL for what Nineveh could be, coupled with getting their moral acts together and accepting God’s offer of forgiveness? I’m guessing the latter. God has a way of seeing the potential in God’s people, if given half a chance, and God seems willing to give CHANCE after CHANCE! In sending God’s Son into the world, even with the threat of retribution against him and his message, even knowing the devil would have easy access to him, even knowing that there was a cross on a hill called Golgotha for him, God was giving God’s people, created in God’s own image, a fresh chance to experience reconciliation. We often think of Christ’s “sacrifice” on the cross as a big deal—and it is—but the ultimate sacrifice was God “baring” Godself to all of humanity and the dark forces of the universe, just so “save” us. You see, God saw something “great” in us, just like Nineveh. And God knew that to get the message across, a death and resurrection would be necessary to drive the point home. Is this not what happens in the story of Jonah? No one could survive in the gullet of a sea-going mammal for three days. Jonah died in that beast, and God didn’t just have the animal spew him out onto the beach like a reluctant passenger. Jonah was spit out like a piece of dead bait, and God must have raised him up from the dead to bear the message to that “great city.” One look at Jonah, and those people KNEW what God had just done, in order to offer redemption to them. And as reluctant as Jonah was to give the “word of the Lord,” Jonah knew, too.

 

However, the other thing I want to focus on in this message is this idea that God CHANGED GOD’S MIND about the “calamity” that God was going to inflict upon these people for their behavior, and spared them. Verse 10 introduces two unique ideas here for us to ponder:

 

*God HAS a “mind”

 

*God—a divine being—CHANGES God’s mind

 

On point number one, isn’t it a bit strange to think about God having a “mind”? What does that mean? Our minds help us understand our “place” in the universe, to form thoughts and words to both understand AND to communicate with the world around us, and to linearly and logically order our lives. Our minds are like a personal computer that interfaces with our “real world” bodies, and “interconnects” us with others in whatever forms of “community” we may find ourselves. Regarding the first two descriptions of what our mind does for us, if we apply these to the divine, we might come to the conclusion that God IS a mind, pure and simple. In terms of the “computer” descriptor, including the “interfacing” and “interconnecting” parts, we can see how Jesus Christ performed these functions as his part of the Godhead, via the incarnation. Still, it’s rather stifling to comprehend the idea of God having a “mind” like we do—a center of consciousness and a place where our inner dialogue takes place. Is this what’s happening in the scriptures when we read—such as in the creation story in Genesis—“let US make…”? (Most theologians do NOT believe this language is a reference to the Trinity, by the way.) 

 

Paul talks about us being able to tap “the mind of Christ” as part of our Christian discipleship. Is the “mind” of Christ kind of a virtual “placenta” between the divine “mind” and our more finite minds? Like the writers of scripture, we are reduced to anthropomorphizing our understanding of God and how God “thinks” and acts in God’s dealings with the creation. The danger is that in doing so, we “limit” God to the linear, time-locked abilities and functions of the human mind. If we believe in the existence of some all-encompassing, all embracing, limitlessly creative divine “being,” we must realize that such an entity would NOT be thus limited to “thinking” like we do. Trito-Isaiah gets it right here:

 

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
    nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. (Isaiah 55:8)

 

But it’s not just the “bigness” or scope of the divine that makes this hard for us to fathom, but the timelessness of God. God is necessarily a being outside of time. God has the “ability” to see ALL time, simultaneously, OR to enter a moment in time to relate to US. This is precisely what Jesus Christ represents—God entering into a moment in time. Galatians 4:4 says that Christ stepped into our world “in the fulness of time.”

 

How God’s “mind” works is a difficult thing to ponder, but it IS an interesting endeavor. We are nudged into it by interesting passages of scripture such as this one from Jonah. Storytellers and screen writers have had a field day with how God “thinks,” and how God has connected with humans, as witnessed by such films as “Oh, God” and “Bruce Almighty,” both comedies, because this may be the only “safe” way to approach an unanswerable question! Fundamentalist/Evangelical friends might suggest that all we can EVER know of the mind of God is what is in the scriptures, and what has been revealed in Jesus Christ. I can buy the second idea, for the church has largely affirmed the concept that God’s “fulness” is demonstrated in the person, witness, and ministry of Jesus. However, even here is a mystery, for how we interpret the teachings of Jesus, and the historical and theological ramifications of the totality of the Christ Event from Bethlehem to Calvary, to resurrection and ascension, and even through the apocalypse, have always been open to debate. A timeless God stepping into history with eternal consequences—wrap your mind around that!

 

It gets worse. Look at the second asterisked point—here in Jonah (and numerous other places in scripture, such as God’s dealing with Moses and the people of primitive Israel), God is said to CHANGE God’s mind! Flippantly, we could say that God can do whatever God WANTS to do, including change the divine mind, but if we embrace the intricacies of the possibilities we have already raised, HOW and WHY would God ever NEED to “change” God’s mind? This, again, may just be a case of over-anthropomorphizing what is really happening, on the part of the author here. (I know this is hard, if not impossible, for those of you who take a much higher “inspired” or “revealed” view of scripture to accept this possibility.) Here's one way to think about it: if WE are created in the “image” of God, maybe our ability to weigh what is before us, study the facts of a situation, apply the great gift of reason to it, and change OUR minds about something, based on our analysis, observation, and where necessary, a loosening of our “immutable” views or beliefs, why can’t God? Maybe the variable at work here is not just TIME, but FREE WILL? 

 

When you give someone freedom to choose—whatever this encompasses—you also give up control of the choice they will make. Unless you are some sort of a Svengali, your only recourse to “affect” their choice in a direction that you would like to see them go is discourse—making an appeal. Some might say “persuasion,” but this can—and often is—manipulative, even controlling. If we love and respect the one we have given the choice to, we will let this love guide and govern the way we make this appeal, with its motive being the GOOD of the person in question, not that of our own. Oh, we may be appealing for a given choice that we believe would benefit the wider community, as well, but we must first come to terms with our own motive, and how strongly we feel about it. Rules and mores are adopted to provide boundaries. In the best of worlds, they nurture and empower persons and communities to live their best lives in peace and harmony. In the less-than-best scenarios, they provide protection, offering practical resistance between those who might use their choices to exploit for their own benefit, and those who may be the targets of this exploitation. Now, let’s go back to that “mind of God” business…

 

The writer of this text wants us to believe that the “evil” done by the people of Nineveh had God so upset that God was going to bring calamity upon them. (We don’t have the details of this “calamity” here like we do in the Exodus narratives, where God tells Moses that God is so TICKED at the people, God is considering wiping them out, keeping Moses, and just starting over!) But the text tells us that when God “saw” how the people repented and changed their ways, God changes the divine mind to offer pardon and acceptance. (Again, in Exodus the language is stronger, where it says that “God REPENTED of the evil God was going to do against Israel”—now THERE’S one to look at sometime—God REPENTING!). 

 

The Good News is that God, however God does it, sorts this all out and reconciles with the human creation. It’s a good thing, for this is what we believe God is all about, at least in the community of faith!

 

Maybe all of this “God bringing calamity” and “God changing God’s mind” about the “evil” God is thinking of doing to people who have committed evil themselves ARE just creations of the HUMAN mind, trying to make sense out of cosmic and eternal issues. How DO we understand our relationship to the divine AND the “Mind of God”? It IS a fundamental belief of the world’s major religions—certainly at least for the three “biblical” ones—that God IS a loving, creating, and forgiving God, and that the one thing that God wants of us—especially in light of God having given us the gift of FREE WILL—is to live together in harmony with each other, and at peace with God. Parsing through the sometimes crude language of scripture, this is what we “see” as the end-product of the divine/human relationship. And this is CERTAINLY easier to see in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus made it very clear why he came, and what the “mission” of God would be through the totality of the Christ Event, and in the work of the Holy Spirit of God. One wonders what the Christian church might look like if we took John 3:16 HALF as literally as we have other passages of scripture we take to mean God has set US up as judges on the earth. And Christ’s proposition to “Love thy neighbor” doesn’t come with qualifiers, does it?

 

Still, there is something quite comforting about believing in a God whose mind is capable of change, and of pondering how even GOD has to rely on “an appeal” to us to make wise choices, instead of threats or “calamities.” Process Theology is a model of “God-thinking” that imagines God “out ahead of us,” both illuminating our pathways, and “luring” us toward better choices and harmonious relationships with each other and Godself. In this model, our missteps are not “punished,” but just little alarms that bring the benevolent, prehensive God to us to help pick up the pieces and get us back on the journey and headed in a less chaotic direction. 

 

I’ll say “Amen” to that! Keep the faith, Dear Ones! Shalom!

Search Me?

 Search Me?

 

Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18
139:1 O LORD, you have searched me and known me.

139:2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far away.

139:3 You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways.

139:4 Even before a word is on my tongue, O LORD, you know it completely.

139:5 You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me.

139:6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain it.

139:13 For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

139:15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

139:16 Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.

139:17 How weighty to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!

139:18 I try to count them -- they are more than the sand; I come to the end -- I am still with you.

 

When we were kids, and were being quizzed about something that had “transpired,” (usually something bad, or at least mischievous), and asked if we had anything to do with it, our answer was often, “Search me?” It was a very non-committal way of being defiant, and not “ratting” on a friend, or admitting guilt, personally. In today’s text—one of the Bible’s Psalms—it begins with the psalmist saying, “O Lord, you have searched me and known me.” It’s hard to hide any of ourselves from God, especially since God has a built-in “body camera” within each of us—the human heart and conscience.

 

The Psalmist here was either very paranoid, or just quite aware of both the scope of God’s ability to keep tabs on each of us—at a very intimate level—and God’s interest, in doing so. The “fingerprint” individuality of God’s human creature is something to behold. Even Jesus told us “every hair on your head is numbered” by God (I used to tell my bald parishioners that this meant the hair follicles, for them). 

 

I don’t often pick a Psalm to write a sermon about, probably because I have typically seen the Psalms as very personal “meditation” texts. When I have something to cry out about—in anger, joy, or just frustration—there is a Psalm that cries with me. When I am inspired to marvel at some aspect of God’s creation, there is a Psalm that marvels alongside me, and even offers language that may not arrive at my tongue. Or when I just need to know “You are HERE,” like those directory signs in the shopping malls tell you, but about my life, not my physical location, there is a Psalm that shows me my “current reality,” thusly. This Psalm is one of these “You are HERE” Psalms.

 

I hope it is a comfort for you to know that God knows all of this stuff about you and keeps track of you, day by day. It should be, even when you or I engage in thoughts, activities, or temptations that aren’t on the “approved” list, as these are the times when we most need God’s presence, watchful eye, and Holy Spirit who nudges our conscience to wake up and do something about it. By watching us and convicting us of these moments, God is also automatically pardoning us, which is exactly what Jesus said God would do. Even when we are in that childish “Search me” denial mode—and even when it is with full awareness and an attempt to deceive that we are—God’s grace prevails. The only danger to us comes when we persist in rejecting the promptings of God’s Spirit to straighten up our act, and we follow through on some action that causes harm (physical or emotional) to ourselves or another. Then we REALLY need to believe God is still watching and “searching” us! For without God in these more extreme, “sinful” moments, we might very well perish.

 

There are two things that some have taken away from this Psalm that I truly believe are in error. The first is that Psalm 139’s “you knit me together in my mother’s womb” assertion is a prohibition against abortion, as most anti-abortion activitsts do. I do not believe this Psalm is saying that God is “predetermining” our destiny from the moment of conception, nor that God is already planning our lives at this stage. Like the Reform Jews, I believe that these activities only begin when we arrive on this side of the womb and begin interacting with those nurturing us, and building relationships with them, and God. As a United Methodist, I ascribe to our denomination’s view that abortion is something to be avoided, if at all possible. Science and medicine has given us numerous ways for women and men to avoid pregnancy, if this is not in their plans at the time, and even our own moral choices may help us be more careful with our sexual urges and activities to this end, if we are not yet in a covenant relationship. (Don’t take that I’m advocating for “abstention” as a substitute for the other medical or physical means of birth control—I’m not—but our moral choices MAY help us not behave like our backyard bunny rabbits all of the time!) However, there certainly ARE times when a pregnancy results that is NOT prudent, and the circumstances of it—either medical, financial, or emotional—lead to a termination of it as the best choice. We United Methodists believe this choice is best left to those involved, and not the government, and that it is between them and God. We do not condemn persons for making these very hard choices, and I am in agreement with this. There are those in the anti-abortion movement who propose carrying a child to term and putting it up for adoption is an “easy” way to end the medical practice of abortion, but they have little knowledge of the financial and emotional pitfalls on both ends of this “solution.” Carrying a child to term so often leads to a “bonding” process that is very hard for an emotionally compromised woman to ignore, which is essential to do, if she is to give up the newborn for adoption, AND, our legal and social structure does NOT make adoption an easy thing for any couples wishing to adopt. It is a beautiful thing when it happens and meets the needs and realities of both parties, but it is nothing that should ever be forced, or EN-forced by laws and courts. Again, Psalm 139 is not fodder for outlawing abortion. It is merely a statement that part of what “brought us into the world” was this miraculous process of procreation, for which the Psalmist is engaging in wonderment. It is NOT an assertion that God is pre-ordaining the life of a ovum, zygote, or fetus. The Psalmist is just grooving on the fact that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made,” as an act of gratitude and praise.

 

The second thing Psalm 139 is NOT is a statement of predestination, in my Wesleyan, “free will” mind. In words of verse 16, and in the totality of the context of the other verses, it is easy to see how one could get this idea. However, we must remember that the Psalmist is “reviewing” her/his life, and taking stock of the myriad ways God has been “searching” it. It stands to reason that, as a living, breathing person with years of experiences and history behind it, one would “look back” and postulate that God was in it, all along. This is the real “bugaboo” about the ”free will vs. predestination” argument—it depends on one’s perspective. We Wesleyan Christians believe God has given humanity free will to make our own choices, and God’s wisdom and grace to guide us. However, when any of us looks back on our life as does this writer, it is easy to “see” how God HAS been leading, guiding, and even (we may believe) intervening along the way. The real theological questions are: has God been “pushing us” along a predetermined pathway? Or has God been “luring” us and lighting options along our pathways to keep us from stumbling in the darkness? I think of how I raised my own children. I never attempted to “predetermine” or “predestine” what direction their lives would take. I loved them too much to do what would have been an almost exclusively self-serving thing like that! Instead, I did my best to protect them from harm, provide for their basic physical and emotional needs, offer them as many options as our circumstances and checkbook could afford, and guide and encourage them to make the wisest choices they could, along life’s way. When they stumbled, I was there to help them back up, comfort them in their pain, and help them move on to “what’s next.” And I also did my best to offer them my faith, not just as I believed it, personally, but as I best understood it, and as I attempted to live it in an exemplary fashion. I also never shied away from admitting my WAY too often unknowing and error-filled ways of fatherhood. I was fond of saying, “I really don’t know what I’m doing, because I’ve never done this before, but I DO have to do this ‘Dad’ thing…” They would chuckle at this, it would break the ice, and we could have an honest conversation over whatever the issue was. Might our God—the God of Psalm 139—be just this way, too? Only in God’s case, it would probably not be that GOD was “unknowing” or “inexperienced,” but that God would not condemn US for the fact that WE were! THIS is what I see the Psalmist rejoicing over in Psalm 139.

 

This year I will turn 70 years of age—the Bible’s “three score and ten,” which are my “numbered” days. In short, I’ll graduate to what the vernacular often calls “borrowed time.” This Psalm is shouting out to me that: 1. God’s interest in continuing to “search” my life and persist in offering guidance to it is as abundant as the grains of sand in the sea; and 2. Even to the very end of my life, we will walk this journey together. How wonderful and rich is that? Talk about a promise that will not “allow” me to fear either life OR death! Psalm 139 is such a promise, Dear Ones!

 

I end this week’s sermon with a “modern” hymn that for me completely summarizes what the Psalmist is trying to tell us. This hymn showed up when our United Methodist hymnal supplement called “The Faith We Sing” came on the scene, and I STILL can’t get through singing it without breaking down into tears of joy, for the promise it offers, akin to this Psalm. It was written by John Ylvisaker:

 

I Was There to Hear Your Borning Cry

 

I was there to hear your borning cry, I’ll be there when you are old.

I rejoiced the day you were baptized, to see your life unfold.

 

I was there when you were but a child, with a faith to suit you well; 

In a blaze of light you wandered off to find where demons dwell.

 

When you heard the wonder of the Word I was there to cheer you on;

You were raised to praise the living Lord, to whom you now belong.

 

If you find someone to share your time and you join your hearts as one,

I’ll be there to make your verses rhyme from dusk till rising sun.

 

In the middle ages of your life, not too old, no longer young,

I’ll be there to guide you through the night, complete what I’ve begun.

 

When the evening gently closes in and you shut your weary eyes,

I’ll be there as I have always been with just one more surprise.

 

I was there to hear your borning cry, I’ll be there when you are old, 

I rejoiced the day you were baptized, to see your life unfold.

 

And now, through tears yet again, I say, “Shalom, Dear Ones,” and Amen!