Words Twice a Week 9.30
If you are more into listening than reading, Words Twice a Week is available, along with other good stuff, as a podcast from St Paul’s Episcopal Church. Click here.
Words twice a week ex-
cept when sunlight on water
calls me from afar. (Well, from camp!)
Some thoughts on some of the lectionary texts for this Sunday – Proper 22
Job 1.1, 2.1-10
+ Job, the Lord, Satan, and later on, Job’s wife.
+ Satan, the Satan, Lucifer – is one of the heavenly beings. (The was a piece on NPR about a book – The Morning Star – or something like that. Apparently in the folklore of a variety of cultures, Lucifer was connected with Venus, the Morning Star.) Anyway, here Satan is The Accuser, The Voice of Doubt. Where do we see that in life today?
+ Satan suggests Job is good because his life is comfortable, God has been good to him. God claims Job is good because God’s goodness has given rise in Job to a love of goodness for it’s own sake. So between God and Job, the threat that suffering poses can only be overcome by the other party, and through most of the book they don’t talk with each other. They must trust in silence. God depends on Job to overcome Satan’s accusation. Does this also describe relationships between humans, between a husband and wife, between a parent and child, between strangers, between nations? Can we always assume the other has our best interests at heart?
+ “He (Job) still persists in his integrity.” (2.3) This is after Job has lost property and children in Ch 1, and commented “The Lord Gives, the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.”
+ Satan suggests Job would suffer more in his own body than in the suffering of his children. What do you think? I think most parents would rather suffer themselves than have the children suffer. Is this one of the ways Satan differs from God?
+ Job’s wife – “Why persist in your integrity?” The second time we have heard that phrase. What do you think it means? The Love People book talks about a “congruent life”. An authentic life? A life in harmony with the Creation?
+ Job accepts that good and bad both come from God. Is that how we think about it? Might Job have in mind something we might think more as “good and bad both are part of life”? Where does “bad” come from – Satan? God? Life? Humanity?
+ “God’s challenge to the Satan goes beyond action to include motive: Job is not only good, he loves goodness. The divine claim is not about God but about the effectiveness of God on humanity, which raises the question – Can humans be transformed to love goodness as an end in itself?” - Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary
+ Job’s choices
1) the wife’s – “Curse God and die” would mean Job was trying to manipulate God, being good so God would be good to him”
2) the friends (who will come) – You must have done something to deserve it. (Kind of the opposite to The sound of Music (Somewhere in my youth or childhood, I must have done something good!) Still trying to manipulate God – “if only I had not sinned” or
3) trust God in all things. God’s goodness has indeed given rise in Job to a love of goodness for it’s own sake.
+ How do we make Job’s choices?
+ We get more of Job in the next couple of weeks!
Psalm 26
+ a prayer for justice and protection for one falsely accused who has indeed “walked in his integrity.” That phrase again.
+ may have been part of a “Temple ritual”.
+ have you ever felt in sync with the psalmist here?
+ it’s pretty us/me vs them. Are we good with that, or is the psalmist perhaps fooling himself/herself. Is that something we might do?
+ vs 8 – “delight in the Temple.” Could be literal or metaphorical. If we say “delight in the Church”, what would we mean?
Genesis 2.18-24
+The ”man”/human is alone, and after identifying and naming all the animals, or even all the parts of Creation, is still alone. (My understanding is that in the ancient languages, “man” and “woman” were not as gender-linked as we take them today. [I could be wrong, but that’s what I remember somehow.] How would this story – and life and history itself, be different if “man” had more the female connotation and “woman” more of the male? We are going to get Jesus on divorce on the gospel, and commentators note we need to be conscious of the divorced and remarried folks in the pews. Here we need to be conscious of the LGBTQ folks among us.)
+ Anyway, moving on, God puts the “man” to sleep so that the creation/origin of the “woman” will be a mystery to him.
+ And the “man” gives up a rib. Does having a partner involve giving up something of yourself? What did you give up, would you give up?
+ These two were originally one flesh, and Mark says will eventually be one again. Full humanity is found in community – with God, and with others. Or, can a pet be an adequate, appropriate helper/partner? Where are you on that?
+ “A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife”, or to his several wives as the story continues?
+ Human sexuality is affirmed – it is not the cause/result of “a Fall”. Human sexuality can be beautiful or harmful, but in itself it is not evil!
Psalm 8
+ “O Lord, our Lord, how wonderful is your name in all the earth….” Just a really nice psalm – a good one to memorize if you are looking for one.
+ “A bulwark against the foes comes from the babes and infants.” What’s that about? Does it connect with the integrity of Job and Ps 26? Does it have to do with the innocence of children?
+ God has made humans “little lower than God” (what does that mean?) and gave (gives?) humans dominion over all. Was that a good idea of God’s part? Are the sheep and oxen and travelers along the paths of the sea comforted and reassured by our dominion? A piece on the radio this morning about species going extinct because we have destroyed their habitat.
+ One note from the Hebrews lesson (Heb 1.1-4, 2.5-12): in 2.8 the writer says “as of yet we do not see everything in subjection to the humans” – should we find that reassuring?
Mark 10.2-16
+ again, Jesus and the disciples are “on the way”, learning about the Christian way/life. And again, Jesus teaches publicly, then privately, then the disciples screw up!
+ again, a sensitivity towards those who have divorced and remarried. There was a delightfully faithful young woman in one of my churches, who had been divorced, and who as she took her turn at being a reader, at least twice was assigned to read this lesson! It was difficult. And then there were some couples in our churches where we all hoped the woman would divorce her husband. And maybe some the other way around! How has the idea of divorce changed in your experience, if it has?
+ The Pharisees quote Duet 24 which acknowledged that divorce was a reality and told “how” to divorce. Jesus pushes the conversation back to Gen 1,2 and talks instead about marriage. He frames it in terms of God’s will, not human experience. One writer says essentially our divorces indicate our divorce from God’s will – but I’m not sure about that.
+ In chapter 9 Jesus had talked about greatness while holding a child before them. Now the disciples want to sent them away. “These are men who argued over greatness and who had an appetite for power.”
+ So what is it about the children? “Two parts of Jesus’ angry retort to the disciples need highlighting. -
1) “It is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.” The disciples have bought into ancient society’s valuation of children – they are not important. Children have no status and no rights, and thus their presence is a nuisance. Jesus sees things differently. In fact, the rule of God (what I like to call the Time of God’s Peace) belongs to persons like this – powerless, vulnerable, weak persons, who are often deemed a nuisance. In rejecting the children, the disciples have not just made a slight error of judgment – they have missed the whole point of Jesus’ ministry. And
2) “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” Not only do the children serve as poignant examples of those for whom the rule of God is intended, but also their manner of receiving it becomes the model for adults. The weight in 10.15 clearly falls on the verb “receive,” which rules out the sentimental drivel (I like that!) about the innocence or naivety of children, often offered as explanation of this verse. (In fact, I was going to suggest just that!) The text does not idealize any particular characteristic of children. Instead it talks about the receiving of the kingdom by powerless persons, who have no claims to stake out and no demands to make. The rule of God (again, as I like to say “the Time of God’s Peace”) comes as pure, unadulterated grace, to hungry people at the crossroads and in the byways of life who are invited to attend a scrumptious banquet, and to children without status. They have no excuses to give, no dowries to offer, no bargaining chips. They are eager to be taken up into Jesus’ arms and be blessed.” - Texts for Preaching
+ So who would that be today? Where do we fit into that picture? “Adulterated” – that’s an interesting word!
A prayer -
Dear God,
it is so hard for us “adulterated” ones
to accept and welcome a Time of Peace
that rests on grace and not power.
With our eyes fixed on Jesus,
down by the riverside,
and wait quietly for Jesus to take us in his arms
and bless us.
That’s what I got for now…..
Comments are moderated – by me – and may take a day to appear
No comments:
Post a Comment