15th Sunday After Pentecost - Year C (Luke 14:25-33)

I have often been among those who loudly assert that there is no such thing as individual salvation or a personal savior. The church, for better or worse, is the ark and we are all on board together whether we like it or not. At first it might appear that Jesus directly contradicts that assertion by putting forward the image of disciple as rugged individual. The disciple stands alone with no ties to family or goods, absolutely free to live, or die, as his or her call demands.


But then again, perhaps this teaching directs the disciple not to rugged individuality but to a new kind of community. Each Christian emerges from the waters of baptism alone and, symbolically if not in reality, naked. The old order of relationships based on clan and tribe has been overthrown making a new network of relationships possible. The old economy of scarcity has been transformed, freeing the disciple from the tyranny of possessions. Blood and gold no longer determine belonging or status. All are welcome in this new ecclesia. Finally, after baptism, the disciple lives on the other side of death, no longer dominated by fear or the clutching after mere survival.

None of this is to suggest that the demands of discipleship are not difficult. The cross remains. The blessing is that we do not carry our crosses alone.

Fourteenth Sunday After Pentecost – Year C (Luke 14:1, 7-14)

Even though linked together by a common setting and theme, I think it is important to examine verses 7-11 and 12-14 independently. And so I begin with 7-11. While it might be amusing to see Jesus here as a first century Miss Manners, to do so would really miss the point. On the surface, It is true that the subject of Jesus’ parable does seem to be behavior and the appropriate humility befitting his disciples. What we discover however is that the banquet is a metaphor for our life before God and that the story is not so much about behavior as it is attitude. It is the host (God) who makes the seating chart and sets the place cards, not the guests. To do otherwise is to make presumptions about God’s relationships with others and ourselves that we are in no position to make. It is no accident that most Christian worship begins with an acknowledgement of sin and complete dependence on God’s mercy poured out in Jesus Christ.
The parable does suggest a hierarchy that makes many of us uncomfortable. It appears that while there will be no “haves and have nots” at God’s table there are some who are closer and others who are farther away. Verse 11, though, does seem to imply an eventual leveling out. Perhaps the hierarchal arrangement demanded by first century dining practices (and not uncommon in the twenty-first) needs to be replaced by the image of round table. And where does the host sit in such an arrangement? We must never forget that the host at this meal is also our true food and drink.
Verses 12 -14 have a slightly different focus. In this teaching, Jesus warns his hearers that the “haves” must not exclude the “have nots”. The Church is not a social club for the successful and the Eucharist is not a reward for meritorious service or good behavior. This teaching is about an inclusive evangelism that invites everyone to the table. It is a teaching that seeks to overturn our human tendency to assume scarcity rather than celebrate abundance. Being able to give without thought of getting is the ultimate test of faith in God’s providential care.

Finally, at the risk of indicting me and most of my readers, why in this nation of churches would it ever be possible to find on Sunday morning any one on the street, anyone hungry, anyone lonely, and anyone without a share of this nation’s bounty? Where are the literalists who demand that we take the scriptures at face value? Where are the liberals who insist that the Good News is for the poor and distressed?

Thirteenth Sunday After Pentecost – Year C (Luke 13:10-17)

For Martin Luther, the primary point of the third commandment for Christians is that there must be time set aside for the proclamation of the Gospel. In fact, he has little sympathy for the idea that people need a day of rest. As far as Luther is concerned, if a person is not in church on Sunday, they might as well be at work. The Gospel is preached by word and sacrament within the Christian assembly, the church. If you have not participated in that proclamation then you have failed to observe the commandment no matter what else you might have done or not done that day.
By his teaching and example, Jesus takes a similar (but perhaps less rigorous?) approach. For Jesus, the Sabbath provides an opening through which the Kingdom can insert itself into human history. Jesus uses the Sabbath as an opportunity to proclaim the good news of God’s reign to a woman who had been crippled for eighteen years by “setting her free” from her ailment. The Sabbath is not an end in itself and, turning again to Luther, the Law becomes Gospel.
I think that both Jesus and Luther teach us that we keep the Sabbath by providing a space in our busy lives where God has a chance to act. The Sabbath then, is not a burden but a source of freedom. Through our observance of the Sabbath we are set free from our addiction to control. We are set free from the subtle idolatries that make gods of our work, projects or goods. In that space, the good news of our salvation in Christ has a chance to be heard and believed.

Mea Culpa

I apologize for having accidently skipped a week by publishing the commentary for this week's Gospel as if it were for last week.

12th Sunday after Pentecost Year C (Luke 12:49-56)

Given the so-called culture wars, it is always bears repeating that Jesus was never the “family values” kind of fellow folks not familiar with the Gospels might believe him to be based on the propaganda. Both when confronted by issues in his own family or by larger questions of familial relationships, Jesus appears, in fact, to have small regard for the “traditional family”. For Jesus the only commitments that are ultimately important are his commitment to his Father and his disciples’ commitment to him. All other relationships, arrangements, and commitments, familial or otherwise, are subservient to these.


The cross is ultimately good news for the world but before it can be recognized as such it first has to be experienced by both Jesus and his disciples as bad news. Before it can be the instrument of peace and reconciliation it must be the instrument of torture and death that it most assuredly is. The cross is no easy fix, no divine Band-Aid for a wounded world. The cross is no less an option for the disciple as it was for Jesus.

Our families, traditional or otherwise, are important. I think Martin Luther’s attitude toward family is instructive. The same Luther who saw family as one of God’s greatest gifts was also able to say (sing) in his most famous hymn, A Mighty Fortress is Our God, that spouse and children might need to be “let go” for the sake of the Gospel. Luther is only able to say this because of his belief that God’s truth abides and that God’s reign is forever.

10th Sunday After Pentecost – Year C (Luke 12: 13-21)

I don’t think that this parable is really about wealth vs. poverty (although Luke/Acts as a whole certainly exhibits what Pope Paul VI called a “preferential option for the poor”.) The text is not even really about hoarding or even financial planning for that matter.



Notice that upon his death, the wealthy man is called a fool by God. In the Hebrew Scriptures, a fool is not a person without intelligence but someone who consistently fails to understand. At the end of this parable, Jesus implies that wisdom (the opposite of foolishness) is to be found in being “rich toward God”.


So what then does being “rich toward God” actually mean? One might see the parable as a suggestion that individuals should be concerned about collecting good works rather than possessions. No one is against the doing of good deeds, especially as they relate to assisting the poor, but I don’t believe that to be Jesus’ point. On the contrary, the parable seems to be a lesson about the futility of storing up anything, even good deeds. Being “rich toward God” then is the opposite of possessing. It is the recognition of our complete and utter dependency on God for not only life and sustenance, but for the ability to do or achieve anything good. The Psalmist says that the fear of the Lord is the first stage of wisdom. Fear of the Lord is the acknowledgment that God is God and that I am not, the acknowledgment of complete dependence.


All that having been said, there are financial implications to the parable. The wisdom of dependence allows for a freedom to be generous. If all is gift then no individual has final claim on anything. The gift of manna in the dessert was for the needs of the day and not a commodity to be stored or traded. In last week’s Gospel Jesus instructed the disciples to pray for their “daily” bread, no a life-time supply. We have earned nothing, not our possessions nor our salvation.

Ninth Sunday after Pentecost – Year C (Luke 11:1-13)

I know that this Gospel passage is most often read and preached as a message of hope. Upon serious reflection, however, it can be hard to take. Most of us have had the experience of asking and not receiving, searching and not finding, knocking and not having the door opened. There are three traditional pious responses to that situation. The first is that God has responded to our prayer, only in ways that we are not faithful enough, smart enough, and/or good enough to understand. The second is that, because we are not faithful, smart, or good enough, we have failed to ask for the correct thing, knock on the correct door or search for what is truly good for us. Finally, there is the notion that we have simply not been persistent enough. Unfortunately, none of those answers is particularly helpful to the person experiencing God’s apparent deafness.


Writers and preachers do their fellow Christians a disservice when they present this particular teaching and others like it, as a simple formula for answered prayer. The grieving parents who just lost a child to cancer should not have to contend with hearing that God knows better. The backsliding addict isn’t helped to hear that he or she has just not prayed hard enough. The lonely old person tired of living but afraid to die, finds no solace in the suggestion that their prayer for companionship is somehow misguided.

This is in no way to suggest that God does not, in fact, know better or that we pray hard enough or that our requests are not sometimes misguided. We are weak and sinful people. This is all the more reason, though, why the entire burden can’t be placed on the person asking, knocking or seeking. There are things for which God must give an account! Having been given this teaching by Jesus, we have a right.

Easy answers fill pews. When push comes to shove, however, and the easy answers fail to satisfy, the church has an obligation to be the place where it is O.K. to wrestle with God. Perhaps that is the ultimate meaning of this teaching. Asking, knocking, searching, pestering – these are not passive verbs. We must actively enter into the struggle and mystery of God’s provident love.