A Super-Sized Children's Sermon

On this Christmas Eve, I chose to use the children's sermon to bring the full gospel, so while it was called "A Time with the Younger Church," I prefer to think of it as a Super-Sized Children's Sermon. Something happened along the way and the recording did not take, my apologies. On that note...

This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Marshall, Texas on December 24, 2012, Christmas Eve.

Isaiah 9:2-7
Psalm 96
Titus 2:11-14
Luke 2:1-20

My mom always said that it’s just not Christmas until she heard the story of the birth of Jesus from Luke’s gospel. Now, you all know that it you shouldn’t disagree with your mom so it’s OK to agree with me. I agree with my mom, I don’t think it’s really Christmastime until I hear this too.

One of my favorite holiday TV specials is “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” Charlie Brown finds himself having a hard time understanding what Christmas is all about. He gives Christmas cards to the whole gang, but nobody gives him one. He sees great and wonderful Christmas trees covered in tinsel and ornaments and big lights, but the only tree he can get is a scraggly old thing that falls under the weight of one ornament. Even his dog Snoopy gets into the act winning first place in a house decorating contest.

Finally Charlie Brown finds himself on the stage at school getting ready for the Christmas Pageant. He’s upset. He’s sad. He’s confused. Nothing seems right so he cries out, “Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?”

Charlie Brown’s best friend Linus walks up and answers him in the best way he knows:

Sure, Charlie Brown, I can tell you what Christmas is all about: “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, ‘Fear not: for behold, I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.’ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying,

‘Glory to God in the highest,

and on earth peace, good will toward men.’”

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

So, what does this tell us about Christmas?

It tells us first that Jesus loves the little children. Jesus loves the little children so much he became a little child. Just like little Kevin in the nursery, just like all of you, just like me, and just like Mr. Al, we were all babies once, just like Jesus. That’s why Jesus loves us so much. He was one of us.

Another sign that he loves children is that as soon as he was born, the angels went and told the shepherd boys. The angel didn’t tell the President, or Caesar the Ruler of Rome. The angel didn’t tell the leaders of the temple or the Session of the church. The angel didn’t go to anyone who most people would think is important, he went to the children.

Jesus loves the little children so much he was one and he told them first. That gives children a lot of credit as far as I’m concerned. If Jesus loves the little children then everyone should love the little children, shouldn’t they?

Do you feel like everybody who is here loves you? I hope you do because I know they love me too.

Now, Jesus has a lot of names. We call him Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace just to name a few. We call him those names because the prophet Isaiah does first. These names seem to be for a grown up for the baby Jesus, don’t they? Titus says “the grace of God has appeared,” doesn’t he? That sounds kind of complicated, doesn’t it?

Well, I’m gonna make it easy. As I told you, Jesus came because he loves us. He loves us so much that he came to save you and me. This is God’s Christmas present to us. Jesus is God’s present to us. How’s that?

Did you know there isn’t a better present? You might find all sorts of neat things under the tree tomorrow, but none of that stuff lasts forever. Now, I think presents are great, I like presents too, but they won’t last forever will they?

And then you have to write thank you notes don’t you?

The present we get that will last forever is Jesus. The gift he gives us is God. That’s where our salvation is too, in God through Jesus!

So, now we need to thank Jesus, do you know how? The first thing we need to do is say “Thank you, Jesus.” Can we do that together?

Then we need to thank Jesus by being good girls and boys. Not like those boys and girls acted toward Charlie Brown. We need to thank Jesus by helping others. We need to do this all the time because with all of these people around you, people who were babies once too, they love Jesus. They say “thank you” to Jesus, and they act like good boys and girls helping others too. So let’s thank Jesus together…

Dear God,

Thank you for your Son Jesus,

Who came as a baby,

To save the world.

Amen.

The Sons of Zebedee

This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on Sunday October 18, 2009, the 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Job 38:1-7, (34-41)
Psalm 104:1-9, 24, 35c
Hebrews 5:1-10
Mark 10:35-45

May the words of my mouth and the mediations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen

You know me well enough to know that sometimes, I get an image burned into my head that I just can’t get rid of until I share it. Sometimes it’s worth sharing, more often than not that’s the reason I keep them to myself or share them only with Marie. Well, the first part of this passage did just that.

I see the dreamy eyes of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, as they approach Jesus. In their minds eyes they are sitting next to Jesus, everyone wearing white robes, everyone’s hair flowing in the wind, riding on the back of a classic Ford Mustang convertible, the Homecoming King and the attentive court.

Actually, the image in my head was Homecoming Queen because my high school didn’t do a Homecoming King, but I don’t want to make this image any more unorthodox than it all ready is.

Still, you know, the wave: elbow, elbow, wrist, wrist, wrist. Smiling and waving at the appreciative crowd; riding on the back of the convertible along the parade route. Crowds of people along the way would be getting ready for the big game, but not before showing their undying love for the three in the car. Sure, Jesus is in the middle, surrounded by admirers and disciples, sitting in the honored seat. He is the one everyone adores the most; but everyone looks to the Sons of Zebedee, James and John, as the next most popular kids in the senior class.

Jesus can’t be matched, everyone knows that, but to be next to the Lord, that is the greatest place anyone could ever hope to be; a place that can’t be matched. James and John sit and wave and bask in the Lord’s reflected glory and know everyone wants to be just like them.

Suddenly, Jesus busts their dream bubbles asking, “You might think you can get in the car, but do you think you’ll be able to take the ride? Will you be able to wear the crown and the sash? Will you be able to take everything the crowds have to give, the love, the adulation, the jealousy, the envy, the hatred, the scorn?”

“Oh, yes, we most certainly will be able to take it all.” It’s almost as if they didn’t hear the second half of the litany Jesus laid out.

Jesus gives the blushing boys a nod and tells them the truth they don’t understand, “Well guess what; you will get to wear the crown and the sash and you will know the love, the adulation, the jealousy, the envy, the hatred, the scorn. But whether you’ll be riding in the classic Mustang or not, well, that’s not up to me.”

That’s when the rest of the homecoming court gets upset with the upstarts. You know the rest, kicking, scratching, hair pulling…

I can’t decide if my re-visioning of this passage is like a bad teen movie or the spoof of a bad teen movie. If this gives you the willies, just imagine what I share only with Marie and then imagine what I keep to myself.

As silly as my re-visioning of this scene is, what is even sillier is its context. The disciples are on the road going up to Jerusalem during this passage. Immediately before our reading, Jesus shares this with the disciples, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”[1]

This isn’t even the first time Jesus had predicted his Passion; his death and resurrection. This is the third time Jesus had told his disciples that he will be mocked, spat upon, flogged, killed, and after three days raised from the dead. It is completely absurd that immediately after this teaching, this repeat of this teaching; the Sons of Thunder ask if they can sit next to Jesus in his glory.

Perhaps what makes this entirely too sinfully human is that James and John ask to sit next to Jesus in his glory; this glory they anticipated would be far greater than any earthly kingdom. Their question, absent any reference to the Passion, would have been a request to sit as princes in this earthly kingdom. They were seeking power and glory; I hope they were also seeking the good things power and glory can bring.

They are anxious to be next to him in his ecstasy, but not in his agony. On the heels of his last Passion prediction, they ask Jesus if he will let them hear the cheers, but in this scene nobody asks to hear the cries.

It’s easy for us to swell with knowing as Jesus tells James and John that sitting at his left and right is not for him to grant. It is glorious to hear that those places are for those for whom it has been prepared. There’s a certain ethereal joy knowing there is a place is prepared for the Church Christ ordains. It gnaws at the pit of my stomach when I read that with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left.[2] People, we beg to be next to Jesus in his glory, but we hardly beg for a place at Golgotha, the place of the skull.[3]

In the meantime the rest of the disciples get angry with James and John. While scripture is particularly silent on the reason, I suspect that they were angry with them for their request. The others were probably angry that James and John had done an end-around on them and asked for the good seats. I wonder if they were angrier because they hadn’t thought of it first. I can’t imagine they were ticked because they wanted be the first to share in the terror Jesus predicted.

I wonder if they would have asked the same question if they knew what they were getting themselves into. How often do we remember the Passion when we hear Jesus say, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized.”

I hope James, and John and the rest were thinking about justice for the poor, care for the hungry, healing for the sick; things that a Godly kingdom brings. I hope they were thinking about the things Jesus talked about in his words on how Gentiles lorded power over one another. Jesus warned about exercising power like tyrants; warning against capricious laws, greedy taxes, and lustful appetites.

The Presbyterian Lay Committee is a group of Presbyterians who come together and share common concerns and seek common interests. There are dozens of such “affinity groups” scattered around the Presbyterian Church, running the political gamut from very liberal to very conservative. I do not think it is a disservice to categorize the Lay Committee as one of the more conservative affinity groups.

What follows is a commentary by the Rev. Parker Williamson from the September 4, 2009 edition of their newsletter, “The Layman.” Rev. Williamson is Editor Emeritus of “The Layman,” consultant to the Presbyterian Lay Committee, and an honorably retired PC (USA) minister.

Health care is not an entitlement issue. Those who frame public discourse on this subject in the language of “rights” – sadly, this is the approach employed by political lobbyists for the Presbyterian Church (USA) – reveal their ignorance of Scripture and of the human condition.

If human beings had a right to good health, then billions of us – ultimately, all of us – may file a grievance against our Creator. Some of us are unhealthy at birth. All of us are born hosting bacteria that under conditions beyond our control can result in illness and death. Scripture informs us that there is a time to be born and a time to die. These times are not set by us, and they most certainly should not be set by our government. They are the province of God.[4]

I can’t read that without sorrow. Williamson holds up the “human condition” in the same way antebellum American slave owners held up the “Curse of Ham” from Genesis 9:22 to say that Africans were cursed to be slaves. “God ordained their slavery; it says so in the Bible. The plantation is just one way to help every cotton-pickin’ one of them live into their godly office.” He holds up birth defects and grave childhood illness as an expression of Ecclesiastes 3:2, “Hey, there is a time to die, and some die sooner than later. Can’t stop it, God’s plan.”

In fairness, there are some valid points in the commentary. Williamson goes into the fact that for many, lifestyle is a factor in health, obesity for example. For these folk, he recommends a bootstrap approach. He quotes Jesus to the man at Bethsaida asking the, question “Do you want to be healed?” He implies that those who do not wish to take care of themselves in the first place really don’t want to be healed. Sure they want symptom relief, but not healing.

The article ends with this: “We [the Lay Committee] will respond to the Lord’s call for compassion, challenging the wisest among us to implement that compassion through policies that define reciprocal partnerships between donor and recipient.”[5]

This statement seems a bit unwieldy, so let me share what I think it means. I read “donor” as the one who pays for health care reform and “recipient” as the one receiving health care services. By virtue of his place in the organization, Rev. Williamson is saying the Lay Committee will support a call to compassion, but only one that calls people to lead a healthy life and that people be healthy before the “donor” pitches any pennies in their direction. The Lay Committee is willing to respond to the call for God’s compassion, but not willing to lead.

When I read Rev. Williamson’s words, what I see is not compassion; I see pity for people who do not live healthy lives. There is disdain for those who do not live up to his expectations. These folk may be pitiable creatures, but they do not deserve his helping hand.

I don’t read compassion for those whose injured lifestyle damages their health. I don’t sense the Lord’s call to compassion in his words. I sense blaming people for hurting themselves and taking money from his pocket to help subsidize their unhealthy lifestyle. I sense a laissez-faire approach to compassion; let them care for themselves first.

When I read his remarks, I read that he supports a program that calls for the Lord’s compassion. As for action, he is willing to say no to plans being considered right now, but not willing to suggest alternatives. He is not willing to go out and touch all of God’s children who are hurting right now where they are right now. It seems in this case he is not willing to say “we who are great among you must be your servant, for whoever wishes to be first must be slave of all.”

I say this is a shame. As the children of God, we must be willing to reach out. To be great means to be the slave of all.

James and John wanted to sit at the right hand of the Lord to bask in his glory and exercise his power. Jesus says that it is for the Son of Man to come, not to be served but to serve, and give his life for a ransom for many. Jesus knows that we cannot take on the obligation that he alone fulfills.

Jesus calls us, as his blessed children, to go following his example. Jesus sits with the poor; Jesus breaks bread with sinners; and yes, Jesus heals the sick. We are called not to be served, but to serve. Yet, we cannot save anyone; that alone is his work. He alone is the great High Priest. He gives his life for a ransom for many. We cannot save the world; instead we are called to be the hands, eyes, ears, voices, and hearts he will use to save the world.

We are called to live our lives in his service. We are called to live as the children of God, not the children of Zebedee.

[1] Mark 10:33-34, NRSV
[2] Mark 15:27
[3] Mark 15:22
[4] Williamson, Parker, The Layman, http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=26338, retrieved October 16, 2009.
[5] Ibid.

Telling God What To Do, Part II

Hosea 1:2-10
Psalm 85
Colossians 2:6-15
Luke 11:1-15

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.

There’s an old saying: there’s no such thing as a stupid question. But did you know that this question has a corollary: there’s no such thing as a stupid question, but there are plenty of stupid answers. Last week I ended with a simple question, how should we pray? I have heard some pretty stupid answers to this question. And if pressed, I am sure that I have given my share of pretty stupid answers to it too.

This question, how should we pray, is as old as humanity. From the moment we sensed, from the moment we knew there was a presence more powerful than us prayer of one form or another has been a part of life. Sometimes the answer has involved blood sacrifice—both animal and human, sometimes a sacrifice of praise. Sometimes it has involved memorized prayer recited by rote, sometimes spontaneous prayer lifted in the moment. Sometimes it is in the language of the priests, sometimes in the language of the people, and sometimes in the language of the angels. This is such a good question, it was asked by Jesus’ disciples.

In ancient Judea, it was common for Rabbis to teach their disciples how to pray. Based on what the unnamed disciple requested, John must have taught his disciples to pray a certain way. So if John can teach his disciples to pray, surely Jesus could teach his disciples to pray too. Teaching his disciples to pray, Jesus gives us five simple petitions:

“Hallowed be,” or “make holy the name of the Father.”

“The Father’s Kingdom come.”

“Give us the bread we need for today”. Though this could also be translated “Give us the bread we need for tomorrow.”

“Forgive our sins, for we forgive all who are indebted to us.”

And “Do not bring us into sin’s temptation.” Another way to say this is “do not bring us to a time of trial or testing.”

That’s it, five little petitions. Two or three of them (depending on how you translate the petition for bread) deal with the future, the end times when God’s kingdom comes.

In this time God’s name will be sanctified throughout the cosmos. In a time when people of the earth prayed to a Parthenon of gods, we pray that the name of the Lord alone be made holy. In a time when people put so much before the praise and worship of the one true God, whether it be nationalism, or economics, or some other thing, we are called to pray for a time when God’s name alone stands before us holy and as pure as light.

We pray the Father’s kingdom come. This part is a little tough, not everyone has good fathers, shadowing the view of a heavenly Father. When appearing before the Presbytery of Arkansas’ Committee on Preparation for Ministry I called the first person of the Trinity “Father” much to the chagrin of some of the members. They asked me if I thought it was appropriate to use paternal images in a world where not all fathers are present, much less good.

I know people who do not have good fathers, so imagining God as a good father is difficult for some. This leaves two choices; one is to find another name for “God the Father.” Any of you who followed last year’s General Assembly in Birmingham know the donnybrook that followed the introduction and reception of the report on this very issue. The report wasn’t even accepted, it was just received, and the fallout hasn’t ended yet. So while other images of the first person of the Trinity have value and validity, it is dangerous ground to tread, the Presbyterian equivalent of theological quicksand.

The other choice, and to me a more productive choice, is to rehabilitate the image of fatherhood through God’s fatherly presence. We have to learn that in prayer “we must ask for a response and expect that God will respond in a way above and beyond our human experiences with one another.”[1] We have to learn that God is a father who is better than our fathers have been and could ever be. In this turn we are called to be the children of God, children who follow our heavenly father in ways we could never follow our earthly fathers.

In one part of Jesus’ explanation he notes that if we were parents of a child asking for a gift, we would give good gifts. We would never give a snake instead of a fish or a scorpion instead of an egg. Even though we are evil, we know better than that. This whole “evil” word takes a beating, we are bound to hope and pray something like “yeah, we have a sinful nature, but do you have to say evil?” There is some conjecture that Jesus was exaggerating to make a point—evil is a harsh word and he intended to make a sharp comparison. Then again, compared to the Good Father, our Father in Heaven, we cannot be “good.”

We should note that the neighbor did not respond to the friend in need out of the goodness of his heart, he responded to his neighbor’s shameless persistence and out of what he feared his other neighbors would think of him if he had denied hospitality to another. He acted out of obligation, not goodness, so imagine the action of the Lord our God who acts out of perfect loving goodness.

In God’s kingdom is all of the bread we will need for tomorrow, in God’s coming kingdom we will never be hungry again. Still we must remember that the bread Jesus refers to is not some frilly loaf from a specialty baker. It’s more like a flatbread pita or tortilla than a fancy foccacia. No sundried tomato basil dill herb concoction. But with this simple bread, we will never be hungry again.

The other three petitions (again, depending on how you translate the petition for bread) deal with our most basic daily needs, bread, forgiveness, and (in a word) protection.

Bread was the most basic food made by the ancient Israelites. Asking for daily bread harkens us back to the days of the exodus when God provided the daily bread of manna for the nation. Every day, the people were told to gather as much as they needed, and no more, because they were to depend upon the Lord for their daily bread. The only exception to this was the day before the Sabbath when they were to gather two days worth, bread both for today and for tomorrow, since no work was to be done on the Sabbath. Everything that’s old is new again when God again provides daily bread for the people.

Forgiveness is, in its own way, bread for the soul, without it we cannot live. What’s unusual about this petition is that we ask for forgiveness “for we forgive all being indebted to us.” This looks like we ask God to give us what we have all ready given others. This would be true if we assumed we could fully forgive another in the sinful world we live in, but we know this is impossible. This is only possible in God’s kingdom, where we share in God’s good grace and receive God’s good gifts, including forgiveness.

Finally we pray not to be lead into temptation. On the way to the kingdom, the ancient Jews faced many trials and temptations, many of them coming from the many gods (that with a lower case “g”) of the ancient world. Temptations on the road to the kingdom distract us from the true goal of our lives in the Lord, and so we pray not to be distracted.

We look to the future of God’s kingdom while we live in the world today. Really there is nothing terribly complicated about this prayer. It’s a prayer for today and a prayer for tomorrow. A prayer for now, and prayer for what is not yet.

This can be a difficult prayer though.

We are called to pray “Our Father in heaven,” but fail to embrace all people as his children.

We are called to pray, “Your kingdom come,” without working for the kingdom on earth.

We are called to pray for our daily bread but do not recognize it as God’s good gift to the world.

We are called to pray for forgiveness for ourselves, but we fail to offer pardon to others.

We plead not to be led by God into times of trial, but walk willingly into temptations we find on our own.

We tend to honor God with our lips, but fail to honor God with our lives.[2]

We pray as we are taught, but with this prayer we are called to a way of life we often do not live up to. This kingdom of heaven, far from the condition we live in on any kind of permanence, is one still that we can live in for moments at a time.

I was talking on the phone with Rev. Lieu Smith[3] on Thursday and he was taking about working at the Loaves and Fishes Food Bank the previous day. He told me that on Wednesday, a fifty-one families came into the food bank seeking assistance. Fifty-one families, somewhere in the neighborhood of two-hundred to two-hundred-and-fifty people were served that day. Lieu estimated they distributed 2,000 pounds of canned food and another 4,000 pounds of commodities. Three tons of food left the food bank that day.

Lieu also told me that about 100 backpacks, almost 30% of the inventory left the food bank in the hands of children that day. The head of the food bank told Lieu she wished “the Presbyterians had been on hand to see the smiles on the faces of the children as they received their backpacks and school supplies.”

When we pray for the kingdom to come, we pray with an eye to when Jesus comes again. In the meantime, we are called to act in a way as if the kingdom has come. Doing this, we walk in the footsteps of Jesus in the way that he walked the earth. This is like lightening striking. It doesn’t last long, it happens in the blink of an eye. But when it happens, it comes with a thunder that announces its arrival. And the place where the lightening strikes is never quite the same.

When through the grace and bounty of the Lord we supply three-hundred-and-forty back packs of school supplies, we participate in the coming of the kingdom. We donated over a quarter-ton of goods to the inbreaking of the kingdom of heaven. Every smile on every child’s face, every bit of learning helped along by this effort, every dollar left in the pocket of an impoverished parent not spent on school supplies is a bolt of lightening striking from the kingdom of God for the kingdom of God. And the rumble of its thunder will be heard here in Berryville and in the kingdom for ages to come.

In the end, Luke gives us reassurance of God’s faithful nature. We are told to ask and it will be given; we are told to seek and we will find; we are told to knock and it will be opened, but the prayer makes it clear that we must ask and seek and knock in obedience to the five petitions. This is what Jesus tells us to pray.

So here we are again, we are telling God what to do. Being faithful servants of the one true Lord requires we pray. We are to pray in reverence and in love to a Father who loves us first. We are called to pray for our daily needs and for the coming of the kingdom. So when we pray, when we pray in accord with the Lord’s Prayer are we really telling God what to do? In a way we are, but when we are in accord with the Lord, we are praying in obedience to what the Lord wants for us for today and forever. Let God tell us what to do, and let us pray that God may do it through us.

There are no stupid questions. And I pray, by the grace of God, this isn’t a stupid answer.

[1] Douglas Strome, Joy, “Living by the Word, Prayer power,” Christian Century. vol 124, no 14, July 10,2007, page 19.
[2] This section is based on a Prayer of Confession found in Homiletics Magazine, online version, http://homileticsonline.com/subscribe.printer_friendly_installment.asp?installment_id=93000008 accessed June 11, 2007
[3] Lieu is the Pastor of the Community of Christ church in Berryville, Arkansas and very active in the Berryville Ministerial Alliance and the Loaves and Fishes Food Bank of the Ozarks. This information was relayed in a phone conversation on Thursday July 26, 2007.

The First Temptations of Christ

This sermon was presented at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on the First Sunday in Lent, February 25, 2007.

Deuteronomy 26:1-11
Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16
Romans 8b-13
Luke 4:1-13

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.

Written in 1951, The Last Temptation, or as it is more commonly known in America, The Last Temptation of Christ, is a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis. The central thesis of the book is that Jesus, while free from sin, was still subject to every form of temptation that humans face, including fear, doubt, depression, reluctance, and lust. By facing and conquering all human weaknesses, Kazantzakis argues in the novel's preface, Christ became the perfect model for our lives; he sacrificed not only on the cross, but throughout his life. He struggled to do God's will, without ever giving in to the temptations of the flesh.[1] This book places a great emphasis on the humanity of Jesus dueling with the divinity of the Christ. As you can imagine, it has been on many banned book lists since its publication.

You may be more familiar with the cinematic version made by Martin Scorsese in 1988 starring Willem Defoe as Jesus. The movie version tried to address the controversial subject matter by beginning with a disclaimer explaining that, “[the movie] departs from the commonly-accepted Biblical portrayal of Jesus’ life, and that it is not intended to be an exact recreation of the events detailed in the Gospels.” [2]

This version was so controversial that it was originally banned in many cities and picketed almost everywhere. Even two years after its theatrical release, when it made its cable debut on the Cinemax premium cable channel, many systems, including the one I subscribed to back in Colorado, chose to black it out. I don’t think you would find it surprising that while doing research for this sermon I was unable to find a copy at WalMart or Movie Gallery.

The idea that Jesus was tempted is controversial. People asked, what does it mean if Jesus can be tempted? The simplest answer to this question is that if Jesus could be tempted by the spoils of this world then he is fully human. And Jesus is so fully human that he is perfectly human, more human than we could ever be.

So filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus is in the wilderness fasting, eating nothing for forty days and forty nights. Verse two tells us that during the entire fast Jesus was being tempted by the devil.

One of the elements of fasting is that while the body abstains from food, the soul is fed. The fast becomes a period of general readjustment, of renovation from the outer sphere of life down to the roots of its innermost fibers.[3] Through the fast, prayer is reinforced and penance is paid.[4] The fast is more than the deprivation of our bodies; it is a means of spiritual preparation. But let’s face it, forty days and forty nights of temptation would be ruthless. Jesus perseveres this time of trial, preparing himself spiritually for his life to come.

So after forty days and forty nights, the devil needs to bring his best material if he is going to tempt Jesus.

Luke writes about three specific temptations. The scene begins with the devil saying, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a loaf of bread.” When looking at original text, there are two ways to interpret hunger. Jesus could have been hungry for bread or he could have been hungry for spiritual truth.

It kind of leaves this open for us, doesn’t it? The original text could go either way. But all translation involves interpretation, and our text says Jesus was famished. This translation implies Jesus could use a good meal.

Jesus’ response turns this interpretation on its ear. While the devil may have hoped Jesus would fall for bread alone, invoking the words of Deuteronomy 8:3, Jesus reminds us “One does not live by bread alone.” Jesus hungers for spiritual food.

The Devil offers the most human of needs, nourishment. But Jesus turns away from earthly satisfaction in favor of something more substantial. Recorded in the Gospel, Luke is teaching the readers that the need for bread is secondary to the fact that it is God alone who gives bread.[5]

Jesus teaches that the one who gives the gift is more important than the gift itself.

The devil isn’t out of temptations yet, there is more up his sleeve. So the second temptation is offered, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please.”

There is some hinky stuff in this passage. First, with this offer, we are reminded that the devil has power in the world, power that can be delegated and allocated as he sees fit. The devil offers this power to Jesus. Imagine if you will the power to do anything you desire. For Jesus, there is a lot of good that can be done with that kind of power.

But this power is given with a catch, “If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”

A catch doesn’t get catchier than this. Fly paper wishes it was this sticky.

But Jesus does not get trapped by political intrigue. He denies the devil his worship using the words of Deuteronomy 6:13, “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.” The devil offers power over this world, a world that is temporary, a world that is limited. Jesus knows that there is a greater power than the political domain of the devil and the price of the devil’s power is too high.

Jesus rejects the devil’s demand of worship insisting that the only real power comes from God.[6]

Jesus acknowledges that the source of power is more important than power itself.

So the devil has offered Jesus something to eat and all of the power in the world. What’s left?

The devil takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem. They are on the highest place of the high places of the Holy Land. And from there, the devil goads Jesus. “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.’”

This time, it is the devil’s turn to invoke scripture, Psalm 91:11-12. Now this is a good temptation. The devil uses something good to suit his own bad intentions.

In this case, the devil literally offers the oldest trick in the book. The devil asks Jesus to doubt the Lord’s sincerity. Paraphrasing Genesis 3:1-4, the serpent tests Eve saying, “Go ahead, eat from the tree in the middle of the garden. Sure, God said you will die, but do you seriously think that God will take your life?” In Luke the devil invites Jesus to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple because, after all, “God has promised to protect you. Do you doubt it?” In both, Eve and Jesus are tempted to wonder if God is serious. Eve falls victim to the temptation, Jesus does not.

Jesus responds in kind to temptation shrouded in scripture. Quoting Deuteronomy 6:16, Jesus tells the devil to shove off reminding him “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” The Old Testament reminds us that Israel tested the Lord time and time again, and in every case the Lord is faithful. It is said that scripture is best interpreted by scripture, and this is a shining example.

Jesus is invited to test the sincerity of the Lord; Jesus reminds us the Lord is not to be tested.

These first recorded temptations of Jesus, physical satisfaction, political power, and testing God’s sincerity, these are the things the devil puts on the table. Jesus passes these tests. Jesus does this by knowing what is important. Bread is not as important as the one who makes it.

Power is not as important as the one who creates and gives it. Testing God’s sincerity is not as important as knowing God is earnest and faithful.

But there is more at stake than this.

The devil prefaces the first and last temptations with this phrase, “If you are the Son of God…” So while it is easy to say that the temptations are about bread and sincerity, there is something more sinister happening. The greater, more subtle temptation the devil tries to place in Jesus’ mind is the doubt that he is the Son of God. Yes, on one level the devil asks if God will do what God has promised for the Son. But it is far more devastating if Jesus doubts whether he is the Son or not. If the devil can plant this seed of doubt, then everything else is lost.

But this seed has no purchase. Jesus will not allow the devil to define what being the Son of God means. The devil will not define what kind of Messiah Jesus will be, that is between Father and Son.

And as soon as we doubt that we are the children of God we are lost.

Jesus reminds us that being children of God is more important than anything else.

The very thought that Jesus could be tempted by fear, doubt, depression, reluctance, and lust put people in a rage. But in the past twenty years, some have begun to rethink their opinion of the movie, and of the temptations Jesus faced. In light of the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, some have begun to examine what it might have been like for Christ to be fully human, subject to all human weaknesses, while fully God, perfect and omnipotent. Some groups that originally condemned the film have even revised their opinions. Promise Keepers is the most notable conservative Christian group to come out and defended Kazantzakis and Scorsese’s interpretation of Christ’s temptation. Acceptance seems to be growing as many people begin to examine the difficulty of bearing the two natures of Jesus and how difficult it must have been for him to be faithful to the will of the Father with this world raging around him.[7]

The idea that Jesus was tempted is controversial. The thought that Jesus could be tempted is horrifying. Even more horrifying would be the prospect that Jesus would fall to temptation. To resist temptation, Jesus relies on scripture and his relationship with the one who gives us scripture. As we approach the cross through Lent, we need to be intentional about growing in relationship with the Lord our God, just as Jesus shows us how.

[1] The Last Temptation of Christ- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_last_temptation_of_christ, accessed February 19, 2007
[2] The Last Temptation of Christ-Film, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_%28film%29, accessed February 19, 2007
[3] Wesseling, Theodore, “The Cleansing of the Temple.” London: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1945.
[4] Jungmann, Josef A, S.J., “Public Worship: A Survey.” Howell, Clinton, translator. The Liturgical Press: Collegeville
[5] Cousar, Charles B., Gaventa, Beverly R., McCann, Jr., J. Clinton, Newsome, James D., Texts for Preaching, A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV, Year C. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, page 197.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid, The Last Temptation of Christ-Film.

Two Bits

This sermon was preached on Sunday November 12, 2006 at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas.

Ruth 3:1-5, 4:13-17
Psalm 127
Hebrews 9:24-28
Mark 12:38-44

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen

Last week, I ended the sermon with this:

God has offered us everything, and that is what the Lord our God expects in return from us, everything. These are the first thing. Hear, O Church of Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, the Lord is one, love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. This is what God expects of us…everything.[1]

Today’s gospel reading covers two different stories, the first is called “The Warning About the Scribes” and the second “The Widow’s Offering.”[2] The first contains a warning, the second; depending on how it is interpreted is either a condemnation of the system or a blessing upon the woman.

“Beware the scribes,” warns Jesus, “who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets!” Beware those who walk around like they are someone more special than you are and more important than they are. They like to eat the upper crust,[3] especially when someone else is buying dinner. Beware of those who are attracted to the things they do not deserve.

Beware them because they will take you for all you are worth. Sure, they will do what they are supposed to do; they will recite their prayers and even recite them in public. After all, it is impossible to attract attention for doing good works if they are done in private. But beware, the Scribes eat well, but they eat like a plague of locusts. “They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers.”

This part of today’s reading could not be more straight forward. Jesus is speaking plainly; there are no figures of speech used here. Jesus shows us how ludicrous the Scribes look, pointing out their absurdity. To see a Scribe walking around the marketplace in long robes would be exactly like me walking around the square or WalMart in my robe and stole. How presumptuous.

As straight forward as this passage is, we need to ask “are the Scribes the only people Jesus is warning us about?” The Scribes were the “Doctors of Law” of the day. They were Pharisees in training. They were the assistants of those who interpret the law. Some were lay members of the Sanhedrin.[4] In the day, they were politicians and legal clerks. As Jesus was warning us about church professionals, he was also warning us about others in powerful positions.

Long ago, I worked in a program to help current and future poverty-stricken and first generation college students get a college education. It was a federally funded TRIO program, part of President Johnson's War on Poverty.

Every year, programs take TRIO students to DC to meet local congressmen. It helps give students a look at government and the government a look at the poor.

In the 80's, when the Democrats held the Congress and the Republicans held the White House, TRIO people heard the same rhetoric every trip up Capital Hill.

The Democrats would tell the visiting students how important their work was and how important it was that TRIO Programs be fully funded. “There should be more programs and the current programs should have more funding.”

The Republicans would always say that they had their own funding priorities, and while TRIO Programs were important, they weren't on top of the list.

This ended in 1992 when Governor Bill Clinton was elected President.

The TRIO people returned to Capitol Hill with all of the markers they had received over the years and this is what they heard:

The Democrats told them that they had their own funding priorities, and while TRIO Programs were important, they weren't on top of the list.

The Republicans told them how important their work was and how important it was that TRIO Programs be fully funded. “There should be more programs and the current programs should have better funding.”[5]

The day I heard this story was the day I decided that there weren't too many Republicans in DC and there weren't too many Democrats.

This was the day I decided there are too many politicians.[6]

Given the results of the last election, please don’t blame me if I don’t get too excited. We still probably elected too many politicians.

There isn’t so much difference between politicos and Scribes. They are people in powerful positions who use their position and status to rule—sometimes well and sometimes not. We are called by Jesus to beware of them because they devour the widow’s home (Social Security and Prescription Drug Benefits anyone?) and for the sake of appearance make great speeches; or rather they say long prayers.

But we do not pass from the temple without another example, the tale of the widow’s offering.

Many rich people were putting large sums of money into the treasury. The way the treasury was set up, there were large horn shaped funnels that led to metal boxes where the worshipper placed their offering. When someone put a large offering into the horn, it caused a great racket. To our ears it would sound more like a Vegas slot machine paying off than the offering. But with a flourish, everyone within earshot would be able to discern who the rich folks are, and how extravagant their gift is. So when the widow placed two small copper coins in the treasury, hardly anyone took notice at all.

In relative terms, she did not give much, but she was not able to give much. Scripture tells us that she gave all she had to live on.

Now, let me take a pause here. She gave all she had to live on…so was Jesus praising her for her faith or was Jesus condemning a system which demanded every last cent from the weak members of the community?

It would be consistent with the first half of the reading if Jesus is condemning the system. Jesus lambastes the Scribes for being holier than thou. He takes them to task for flaunting their roles in the society and taking advantage of their status for personal gain.

They would be able to give extravagantly because they have received extravagantly. And don’t confuse extravagance with generosity. You can make more noise dropping thousands of pennies into the treasury box than you can putting a check in the offering plate; but where the first is extravagant, the second is more likely to be generous. I would not be surprised if this is what Jesus was pointing to; he had a habit of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Perhaps he was pointing to something else.

Jesus could have also been showing the disciples that the widow is a model to be followed. Another way to translate this phrase is that by her offering, “she gave all her life.” Literally, she gave her entire self to the temple and to the Lord. This is similar to what I said at the end of last week’s sermon, Jesus demands everything from us.

So, how should we interpret this? Both interpretations have merit. If you can give, give generously. And for you who do give generously, praise God. Praise God! If you are impoverished, if you are living on a minimal fixed income, if you are working class and taking care of children, and you hear me saying “forget your earthly responsibilities, pay the treasury!” then you should be suspicious. You should ask yourself (or shoot, ask me) are you demanding every cent from my purse? I hope the answer you hear is that you must care for yourself and your children, and you must also care for the work of the body of Christ.

An example of how both of these interpretations meet is found in the Paramount Pictures release Leap of Faith[7] starring Steve Martin as the Reverend Jonas Nightengale, an “evangelist” who is far more con man than man of God. When one of the Kenworth trucks in his caravan breaks down in Rustwater, Kansas, he makes the choice to turn lemons into lemonade by holding his revival there, instead of in Topeka.

Like any good con man, he finds the greatest need in town and exploits it. Rustwater is in a five year drought and if it doesn’t rain this weekend, the crop will be ruined again this year. On the first day of the revival, before the meeting, Jonas walks around town inviting everyone, promising miracles and wonders.

At the end of the movie, the sick are healed and the lame walk in Rustwater. Everyone praises God and says halleluiah. They have seen the signs and wonders and they give glory to God. But these healings are not the miracles.

As Jonas leaves the revival tent for the last time, he is met with the vision of a tent city on the revival grounds. People are camping, and sharing food. In their poverty, they share the abundance of God. A community founded in Christ rises out of the ash of Jonas’ deception. This is a miracle.

As Jonas hitchhikes out of town leaving his old life behind, it begins to rain. The people of Rustwater declare it a miracle, rain heaven sent. But this is not the miracle either.

The miracle is the redemption of a man in Jesus Christ. The miracle is in the relationship God initiates with creation and humanity. The miracle is Jonas’ response to the Almighty God.

Jonas Nightengale comes to town as the Scribe demanding the last two bits from every body in Rustwater, Kansas. Jonas leaves a believer, seeing the wonders of the Lord at work in the work of God’s people.

If you are able to give out of abundance, then by all means, give generously. Remember the Lord who has blessed you and return that blessing so that it may do God’s work through the church. And yes, hold the church accountable. For all of us, give in humility; don’t sound a ruckus with the treasury. Give whether it is from your wealth or your poverty.

This story is told in the introduction to one of my favorite books:

In a recent class discussion, a student mentioned a workshop she had attended in which an “image consultant” spoke to the gathered ministers (or church professionals as they referred to themselves). The consultant pointed up to the need for clergy to project a positive professional image. She told them that, because they are made in the image of God, they should buy only the best clothes, jewelry and accessories, and should make every effort to look as chic and smart as possible. After the student related her (all too true) story, I paused for a very long time. I was frankly appalled and, momentarily at a loss for words.

The students sat as the silence hung heavy around us. Finally, I said: “I guess what I’m trying to picture in my mind is this: how should we look if we are supposed to reflect the image of the God who has revealed himself to us in the tormented shape of a Jewish man named Jesus, crucified on a city dump and discarded by the powers of his world?”[8]

I am sure that this image consultant had the best interests of church professionals in mind when she gave this piece of advice to those who paid good money to attend her workshop.

Unfortunately, one way to interpret her advice is that church professionals are to behave like the Scribes of two millennia ago wearing expensive suits, walking around the square, and being greeted with the adoration of the little people.

As the children of God and the body of Christ, that is not our vocation. Our call is not to be like or even dress like the Scribes who seek the best seats in town. We are to give our time, talent and treasure in the service of God and to the people of God. We are to give in humility. We are warned; regardless of the era to beware the Scribes. Scripture reminds us that the Scribes will receive greater condemnation. Our vocation is to do as the widow, and give all our lives to the Lord. We are to be humble, and live like the widow who was willing to give her life for the body of Christ.

[1] “These Are the First Thing,” accessed from http://timelovesahero.blogspot.com/2006/11/these-are-first-thing.html preached at First Presbyterian Church, Berryville, Arkansas, November 5, 2006
[2] Heading titles in the New Interpreter’s Study Bible, Mark 12:38-40 and 12:41-44 respectively.
[3] The first draft said “high on the hog,” but that just wasn’t kosher.
[4] The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, “Scribe” entry.
[5] This story was told to a workshop at an ASPIRE meeting by Dr. Paul Thayer, then Director of TRIO Programs (The Center for Educational Access and Outreach) and Talent Search at Colorado State University, 1994. Dr. Thayer is now the Executive Director of Center for Advising and Student Achievement at Colorado State.
[6] A version of this story was originally published in my MySpace.com blog, http://blog.myspace.com/timelovesahero
[7] Paramount Pictures presents a Michael Manheim/David V. Picker production of a Richard Pearce film, Leap of Faith, 1992.
[8] Jinkins, Michael, Transformational Ministry, Church Leadership and the Way of the Cross. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 2002, page xi.

Labels

This sermon was preached at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on October 29, 2006.

Job 42:1-6, 10-17
Psalm 34:1-8, (19-22)
Hebrews 7:23-28
Mark 10:46-52

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen

It is the job of advertising and marketing people to put names on products for us to remember. You might remember this slogan, “With a name like Smucker’s, it has to be good.” The implication here is if you are going to saddle a product with the name “Smucker’s” you had darn well better make it a very, very good product. Considering their products have carried this moniker since 1897, it seems be working out pretty well for them.

So how did a company which produces such fine jams, jellies, peanut butter, and ice cream toppings (and you gotta love that Magic Shell stuff) come up with such a funny name? Like many other companies, it was named after its founder, in this case Mr. Jerome Monroe Smucker. And since that first day, the company has been operated under the family name, now four generations strong.[1]

Four generations of Smucker’s… this isn’t unusual in industry; many products are named after their founders. Then again, many of us are named after our founders. Take my name for example, Andresen. This has a Nordic variation on spelling, but its literal meaning is son of Andrew, or “Son of Man.”[2] As for Lucille Zimmerman, her last name comes from high middle German for “carpenter’s son.”[3] Also there is Alice Martinson. Martin is derived from Mars so Martinson can mean “Son of a Warrior.”[4] Some of our names seem fair enough, I suspect none of us have a problem with the meanings of our last names. If you have ever seen Alice work with a patient, you’d know she is a warrior herself.

Our gospel reading today has a lot of different labels. First comes a man identified as the Son of Timaeus. The word Timaeus is from the Aramaic meaning highly prized.[5] What a joy it would be to carry the name “highly prized” into the world. The one who bears this name would be welcomed and treasured. The person who has earned this name has received many blessings. Especially in ancient times, to have a son is a blessing, and Timaeus is blessed for having a son.

Unfortunately, this tag becomes ironic for his son, a blind beggar. The Son of Timaeus is forced to live in this irony, his name a mockery of his life. The blessings of Timaeus have not become the blessings of the son. The Son of Timaeus is left to the side of the road, only a cloak to his name. And truly all that he has is a cloak; he doesn’t even have a name of his own. Yes, we know him as Bartimaeus, but this Aramaic for Son of Timaeus. It is like being called “Junior.” We think that we know him so well, but in fact we don’t even know his name.

We learn in this passage that Bartimaeus carries the label “blind.” In scripture, this dreaded affliction is often the result of sin that can only be cured by God. Also possible is a curse which invoked blindness as a punishment for misconduct. While blindness makes life more difficult in our day and time, it is by no means the harsh affliction it was in biblical times. In Jesus’ time and place, poverty and hardship were the inevitable lot of the blind.[6] A man who is blind is not highly blessed. Being called Bartimaeus mocks him and his family.

This son of Timaeus has also become a beggar. Almsgiving is the responsibility of those who have been blessed by the Lord. Almsgiving is a means of giving thanks to the Lord for blessings received.[7] Oh, how the mighty have fallen: from being able to give generously to being forced to beg in one generation. The lot of this blind beggar Bartimaeus is cast in the way he is described by his label, a label so impersonal it does not even include his given name.

The next person who enters the story is Jesus of Nazareth. The first label he carries is a traditional name for biblical times. It is the name of the man and the city of his residence. He is Jesus of Nazareth. And at the time, Jesus was a very common name in Palestine, so having the city of residence is a way of differentiating him from all of the other men called Jesus.

But then we get a real kicker of a label, “Son of David.” This is a label! The Lord promised that it is the Son of David who will build the house of the Lord.[8] Of David it is written in the Psalms, “I will establish your descendants for ever, and build your throne for all generations.”[9] This is the first time in Mark’s gospel that the phrase “Son of David” has been used to describe Jesus. Other Messianic titles have been used, but this is the first time the words “Son of David” have identified Jesus of Nazareth. This is a momentous time of praise and affirmation.

These two labels, one very common and the other heavenly, describe our Lord in ways we have come to understand him. In this little exchange, Bartimaeus tells us—and he tells the world that Jesus is fully human—Jesus of Nazareth and fully divine—Son of David. As hard the concept of Jesus’ full and complete humanity and divinity is to grasp, it is fully and completely seen—by a blind man.

There is one more label given to Jesus in this story. Depending on the translation, Bartimaeus calls Jesus My Teacher, or Rabbi, or My Rabbi, or Rabboni.[10] Regardless of the translation, the blind man calls out to Jesus with a term of respect and reverence reserved for one of authority in the Synagogue. The word he uses is traditionally reserved for a religious leader. He cries out he wants to be healed by one with holy authority.

To think, the crowd was telling him to hush.

Blind Bartimaeus sees more than those who are sighted.

We all carry labels, some of them appropriate, some of them not. We are sons and daughters. We are mothers and fathers. We are siblings—brothers and sisters. Many of us are aunts and uncles. Some of us also carry these family relationships with grand or great-grand.

Many of us are identified by our jobs. Some of us work in health care, others in education, some in retail, others in service, and some in agriculture and others in food processing. Some of us are “retired” from work in the “real world” and work jobs that take far more time and energy than the “day job” ever did.

As for labels I have carried; for years, I have worn hats. This one is one of my favorites.[11] I purchased it at Brooks Brothers about 25 years ago and have worn it since. I have received similar hats, but this one fits me best. While working at the University of Arkansas, on a chilly day, people would see me walking in a trench coat and this hat and say, “Hey, Blues Brothers!” Well, I am a fan of John Belushi, and I might carry his shape, but this is not a pork pie hat like the one he wore in the movie and he didn’t wear a trench coat. Then one day a student of mine named Jeff saw me walking across campus, recognized me and cried out, “Hey, Uncle Buck!” I laughed out loud! He was right; it was definitely an Uncle Buck look and I am not unlike John Candy in character, shape, or demeanor.

What made this amazing was not that he was the only one who discerned this label (though he was), or the fact that he did it from fifty feet away (which he did). What was amazing is that he, like Bartimaeus, was blind. Jeff has only about 10% of his sight and saw only a narrow slit clearly. But on this bright sunny day, he was able to see my silhouette against the horizon, recognize me, and apply an apt label. Jeff was one of my favorite students because he showed me anything was possible with God.

This story is told by the PC (USA) Director of World Wide Ministries, the Reverend Doctor Marian McClure, in today’s entry in this year’s PC (USA) Mission Yearbook:

"Our inheritance contains not only the wealth of God’s grace but also the wealth of relationships our ancestors formed as they shared that grace in mission. One of my first experiences in discovering this heritage was during a trip to visit fellow Christians in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Presbyterians have been involved in partnership well over one hundred years. I was meeting with some of the pastors to hear about ministries at the grassroots of that church.
"Suddenly I was informed that according to local custom the eldest man in the room was going to discern a new name for me in the Tshiluba language. An elderly pastor interrupted us to say, 'Her name is Mama Dinanga,' which means love. That sounded really good to me. But someone disagreed! He said, “Her name should be Hope!” With this disagreement in the air, a diplomatic pastor stepped forward and said, 'Dinanga is the right name, because her love is our hope.'"[12]

Labels, some are appropriate, others are not. Some cast us in embarrassing ways, like the blind beggar Bartimaeus. Others graciously hit the nail on the head like Mama Dinanga. Some are in transition; Bartimaeus was no longer a blind beggar after his encounter with the Living God. Others change over time; like a child becoming a parent becoming a grandparent. Others hold for generations like Smucker’s. But there are other labels we must consider. I want us to consider our labels here today.

There is one family relationship which we must never forget. The label we all carry, each and every one of us, is the adopted child of God. God claims us before time begins. We have been the children of God since before we were the children of our parents.

We are labeled members of the Body of Christ. We are identified with Christ in the waters of our baptism. In these waters we take the same mark Jesus took so long ago, a mark Jesus took that we may take it ourselves.

We have received the gift of God’s grace through faith. We share the wealth of God’s grace and the wealth of relationships formed through this shared grace.

We are called respond, to be labeled, as good stewards to the gift of God’s grace. As a church, we bear this label giving to those in need. This congregation has offered over one-sixth of this year’s annual budget to the needy through the denomination, the Loaves and Fishes foodbank, Project Self Esteem, and others. Some give time, talent, and treasure at the food bank or the hospital, the Regional AIDS Interfaith Network, and here at the church. We respond as good stewards of God’s bounty by giving alms in response to the world’s needs.

The love of God is our hope. With the love of God, it is my hope that if you haven’t, you will consider joining Christ in the waters of baptism.

It is my hope that if you haven’t, you will consider joining this part of the body of Christ.

It is my hope that you will be a good steward of the grace God so wonderfully offers.

It is my hope that if nominated you might consider the call of ordained ministry as an Elder.

It is my hope that you will consider responding by giving alms to the church that the work of the body of Christ may continue and expand.

It is my hope that we will all be like the sighted Son of Timaeus.

It is my hope that we will all be labeled highly prized.

And it is my hope that as we gain our sight, we will follow Jesus.

It is my hope that we will consider these old and new labels: member of Christ’s body, recipient of Grace by faith, steward, Elder, but first and foremost—Child of God.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuckers
[2] http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/a/bl_name-ANDRE.htm
[3] http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/z/bl_name-ZIMMERMAN.htm
[4] http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/m/bl_name-MARTIN.htm
[5] Strong’s Concordance, word number 5090, edition unknown.
[6] Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1962, “Blindness” entry.
[7] Ibid. “Alms” entry.
[8] 2Samuel 7:4-14
[9] Psalm 89:4
[10] In order, the New Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the New Living Translation, and the New American Standard Bible
[11] A gray tweed hat from Block and Hatters made exclusively for Brooks Brothers.
[12] The Mission Yearbook for Prayer and Study, 2006. Louisville, KY: Presbyterian Distribution Service, PC (USA), 2005, page 304.

The In-Crowd

Sermon from October 1, 2006, First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas

Esther 7:1-6, 9-10, 9:20-22
Psalm 124
James 5:13-20
Mark 9:38-50

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen

Thanks to the Reverend Mark Lenneville for the title of this sermon. As for the rest of it…

There was never a truer statement than high school is a vision of hell. One of the best recent collections of the behavior that makes it seem this way is found in the 2002 book Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence by Rosalind Wiseman. Written as a help book, it is a guide for parents to help their daughters deal with the social rigors of high school in America. The chapters have titles like “Passport from Planet Parent to Girl World: Communication and Reconnaissance” and “The Beauty Pageant: Who Wants to Be Miss Congeniality?” For anyone who thinks this topic would make a cute little book with bullet points of tips and advice should read it, all 336 pages.

I don’t know if high school is any worse now than it was when we were young, but today everything happens quicker. We older folks may have faced the same sorts of people and things in school, but my school experience didn’t include security video surveillance, camera phones, or myspace.com. Also, those who were bullied back in the day never brought guns to school. Indeed hellish.

So, what is a young girl to do if she is the queen of Persia—the wife of Ahasuerus, the ruler of over one hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia—and hiding a deep, deep secret? What is a young girl to do if her Uncle Mordechai comes to her and says the horrible Haman, the Prime Minister of the court of the King of Persia, is planning the murder of an entire race of people—their people?

This young woman is crushed. Her choices are few and risky.

She can go to the King and plead for the safety of her people. But this is very dangerous. Even as queen, she could not approach the King of Persia without fearing for her life. If she approached the king and did not find his favor, she would be executed immediately.

If she did approach the King and he did grant her the favor of an audience, she would have to convince him that the very important Haman was up to no good. If she could not, surely this would cost her life.

Her other choice was to keep quiet, deny her Uncle and her extended family, and hope she would not be discovered. If she had been discovered, she would have been killed along with Mordechai and the rest of their people.

Hiding successfully may have preserved her life, but at a great cost. She might have kept her life, but lost everything else.

What’s a girl to do? I looked in the index of Queen Bees and Wannabes; there isn’t a section that covers genocide.

By now you may have imagined that I am leading you into our Old Testament reading from the book of Esther. Esther may have been the most popular girl in the harem, but she had a deep, deep secret, she was a Jew. She was a queen bee with a past. And Haman, who was a very important man, wants to exterminate Mordechai and all of the rest of his people. Esther would not have been safe. Esther made her choice, she risked going to the King with her request.

By the time of our reading, Esther had prepared not one, but two banquets for her King and his Prime Minister. The King was so enamored with Esther and her fine banquets that he offered her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom. So she told him what she wanted. Simply and wonderfully, she asks for the lives of her people.

“Let my life be given me—that is my petition—and the lives of my people—that is my request. For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated.”

She doesn’t seek revenge. She does not ask for the life of Haman in return for her life. She does not stand with rage and anger. She even tells her husband, her king that if her people had been sold into slavery, she would not offer this petition. She risks her life to save the lives of her people.

Finally, in the next section we did not read, Haman fears for his life. It seems the King decides Haman’s life is forfeit even without Esther asking for it. So he begs Queen Esther that he be spared. But to make matters worse, Haman’s pleas look more like an assault on Esther. Haman is hung from a gallows he erected to hang Mordechai, a gallows 50 cubits—nearly 75 feet—high.

When the King sought a queen, Esther drew the attention of one of his eunuchs. This servant of the king gave Esther the best of cosmetic treatments, the best food from the king’s table, and a staff of young women to attend to her needs while she prepared to become the queen. When Ahasuerus selected her, she became queen.

Esther was not a part of the in-crowd. She was a Jew in the exile. She was a stranger in a strange land. She was an orphan, being raised by her Uncle Mordechai. She was a wannabe who drew the eye of one of the King’s servants and became the queen bee. Her status was cemented when she was able to use her position (and popularity if you will) and use it to prevent the extermination of her people.

But this is not the only example of queen bees and wannabes we find in our readings today. Last week we read an example of the disciples being pretty full of themselves. Jesus reminded them that to be great, they must be least and servants of all. Based on this reading, the lesson hasn’t sunk in yet.

The disciples find someone who is doing works of power in the name of Jesus—and they tell him to stop it! This new person, this person spreading the good news—this evangelist—is not a part of the in-crowd. This is some outsider doing the works of power that they’re doing, but he isn’t a part of the club. Anybody who knows anything about social circles knows this is taboo, and the disciples want Jesus—their queen bee—to make this pretender, this newbie, this wannabe stop.

Jesus, as always, is the voice of reason: “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.”

Jesus implores us to do good works in his name. When we do, we will not be able to speak ill of him. He also says that people who give a cold drink to those who do good works in his name will not be lose their reward.

This is the joy of the glory of God, when we do good works for those who do good in his name, God’s reward will not be lost. But there is something just as important, the sentence which I left out of his statement from Mark’s gospel.

Whoever is not against us is for us.

The book Queen Bees and Wannabes was made into a movie in 2004. It would seem difficult to make an entertaining movie out of a help book. The writer of the script had to find a way to take a book without a story or narrative and create both—while maintaining the integrity of the original source. The screenwriter, then Saturday Night Live head writer Tina Fey, was able to do just that when she created the script for Mean Girls. The movie took many of the anecdotes shared by girls in the book and put them in the context of a suburban Chicago high school and experienced by the new girl. Many of the most horrible situations in the movie come directly from reports shared by the girls.

In the movie, a young girl named Cady begins her junior year of high school after years of being home schooled. Among her experiences was the drama of finding a place in the lunchroom. After some trial and error, Cady’s friend Janice Ian gives her a map of the lunch room. This illustrated map show the separation of the tables into their social spheres showing Cady where the "Plastic Girls", the "Varsity Jocks", the "Asian Nerds", the "Cool Asians", the "Art Freaks" and everyone else sits.

The worst part of the map is that by creating these lines, lines as hard and impenetrable as the skin on top of cafeteria pudding, a self fulfilling prophecy begins to develop. People are defined by where they eat lunch, with the queen bee sitting in the center of the hive. It is the queen bee who through devastating pressure refines and maintains social order. Her behavior is a cross between “I will oppress you all to maintain my standing,” and “whoever is not for us is against us” with devastating results.

In the eternal lunchroom of heavenly social status, Jesus casts aside the earthly paradigm. He reimagines the map. At the map drawn by our Lord there are no names of cliques on the tables. We are all members of the same group—The Children of God.

We are called to be salt in one another’s life. We are called to add flavor to life in the name of God. We are not called to rub ourselves in the wounds of others making matters worse. We are called to do the work of God in God’s peace through God’s grace. Anything less is just mean.

Today is World Communion Sunday. Today we celebrate the Lord’s Supper at the Lord’s Table with the children of God around the world. Today as we take the spiritual nourishment of the word and the body and blood of Christ we do so with millions of Christians around the globe.

Quite a lunchroom, isn’t it? So today, let us share the meal together. Let serve one another, doing wonderful things, wonderful works of power in his name. Let us be salt in one another’s life, nourished in, by, and through the person and work of Jesus Christ.