Year C, Proper 20, Luke 16.1-13, Shrewdness and Unrighteous Mammon

Please, pray tell, what on earth did you mean?

This would be my question for Jesus that this text provokes.  Commending the dishonest steward for being even more dishonest and self serving is not the stuff of good old Gospel preaching.  I've always struggled with this text, and am again today.  Some thoughts:

Shrewd:  "Having or showing sharp powers of judgment; astute."

Is Jesus calling on us to learn from the world 'best practices'.  An observation:  This is no way to run a business!  These words ring true for most of our congregations.  To put it differently, if businesses were no more effective at what they do, than the Church often is in what it does, the business would quickly be bankrupt.  

Know your market.  Know your message.  Invite (advertise) your business.  Deliver what you promise.  Keep ahead of the curve.  Innovate.  Efficient use of resources.  Avoid waste.  How many basic business principles would greatly enhance the Church's effectiveness if we simply applied to our mission, what is common  place in the world.

We Give thee but thine own,
whate'er the gift may be.
All that we have is thine alone,
A trust O Lord from thee.

Whatever we might make of the dishonest stewards motives and management, one point that comes through is that he was playing with the Master's  money.  And so are we.  If there is any truth to this wonderful hymn it is this, that all we have is God's and it is only entrusted to us to manage as stewards.  The gifts I give, the car I bought, all this is part of my stewardship.  

And finally, money is only a means to an end, not the end itself.  What we have been given is to be used to accomplish something.  Our wealth is to be used in the service to God, it is not to be the god we serve.  "You cannot serve God and wealth."  

Perhaps the best that comes from this text is not the answers that it offers, but the questions surrounding stewardship that it raises.  Can we wrestle faithfully with those questions and live our lives in the midst of the struggle.  What is so offensive about the dishonest steward?  And what does that say about our own stewardship.  What is to be commended.

Even to address the question of  stewardship at all, is to achieve something.  It's not ours folks.  And whate'er we do, we are to seek to be faithful.

Year C, Proper 19, September 11, 2-16, Would that there were no heroes

Would that there were no heroes

No soldier’s cross,

Or martyr’s loss,

Or liberating feat.

Would that there were no heroes

Answering the call

With valor, courage, grit.

Would that there were no heroes

No vengeance sought

Or justice served

Or battle cry called out.

Would that there were no heroes

                Men, women

Freedom’s best

Giving us their all.

A clear blue sky.

A day unfolds,

Like none we’ve ever seen.

One plane

Two planes

Three planes

Four

They flew, they crashed, and took their toll

As day turned into night.

Smoke billowed

Concrete crumbled

Steel twisted and collapsed.

People ran

While others jumped.

The faithful said their prayers.

First responders charged right in

Against the flood

Of frightened, anxious, folk.

They ran and climbed,

                Into the fray,

                Without a thought of flight.

Upon their foreheads, healing oil,

                A gift from Father, friend.

Anointed for their chosen task,

                They march onward toward their end.

There they died

                With those they tried

                So valiantly to save.

Crumbled concrete,

Twisted carnage, rubble, piled high—

A tomb for one and all.

By a placid pool,

Their names now writ

A silent witness to their plight.

Would that there were no heroes

No soldier’s cross,

Or martyr’s loss,

Or liberating feat.

Would that there were no heroes

Answering the call

With valor, courage, grit.

Would that there were no heroes

No vengeance sought

Or justice served

Or battle cry called out.

Would that there were no heroes

                Men, women

Freedom’s best

Giving us their all.

Ships sailed forth

And fighters launched

As a new breed joined the fight.

Shock and Awe the battle cry

Justice,

Vengance,

Liberating force.

They fought, they died,

For freedom’s cause

tenfold their sacrifice.

Nations fell, first one, then two

Casualties of the cause.

Nowhere to hide

For they would not abide

By the terrorist’s gruesome law.

A noose,

A bullet,

Justice served.

Flag draped coffins

                Returning home

                To mother, wife, and child.

Heroes one, heroes all.

Yet still no satisfaction wrought

For the victim’s lonesome cry

And a nation’s tears that linger here and will until the end.

Would that there were no heroes

No soldier’s cross,

Or martyr’s loss,

Or liberating feat.

Would that there were no heroes

Answering the call

With valor, courage, grit.

Would that there were no heroes

No vengeance sought

Or justice served

Or battle cry called out.

Would that there were no heroes

                Men, women

Freedom’s best

Giving us their all.

Would that there were no heroes,

Save one, that one,

Who alone was born to die.

His blood alone,

Could redeem and save,

A broken, troubled world.

No vengeance here,

Or justice there,

But forgiveness, grace, and love.

A call to live,

A call to love,

A call to let it go.

‘Tis in his hands,

We find our hope,

Hands that the nails pierced.

From a stone hewed tomb

He bid us come,

With him, to life,

Anew. 

A clear blue sky.

A day unfolds,

Like none we’ve ever seen.

Empty grave,

Open tomb,

And final victory.

And from the garden walks the One,

Whose life alone could save

Each one of us, from our dark selves, and warring madness craved.

Would that there were no heroes.

Save one, that one,

And peace.

Year C, Proper 19, Psalm 51, Luke 15:1-10, "Yep, we're THAT motley crew"

Its probably the angriest I've ever been in a congregational meeting.  

We were discussing the ELCA's decision to allow LGBTQ people in committed relationships to serve as pastors in our Church.  Hot button topic.  What provoked my anger was when a woman, having just cited Romans 1:26-27 as definitive proof that homosexuality was sinful, asked me what the Biblical basis for the ELCA's decision was.  

What followed was an incredibly forceful presentation of Paul's full argument and presentation of the Gospel from Romans 1:16 through 8:38 & 39.  From "noone who is righteous" to nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.  What provoked my anger was the assertion that because something/someone was sinful, it somehow precluded them from service in the Church.  My own sinfulness was probably on full display as I came out with both barrels blazing.  

It was a difficult time for our Church as many people chose to leave the Church as a result of the change of  policy that welcomed gay & lesbians in committed relationships into the ministry of the Church.  And some of the people who stayed were somewhat embarrassed by the decision.  It was seen as a great liability.  We all, in some way, find ourselves seeking to discern our response to such a bold action by our church.

The art of ministry is in taking what is a liability, and turning it into your greatest asset.

And so I find myself, now serving in a new parish, wanting to do just that.  We have one of those reader boards out by the road.  I'd love to start posting things on it like "Yep, we're that Church who welcomes all, and we mean all."

Currently, I've been greatly impacted by my experience in AA.  It's a most inclusive fellowship.  "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking."  From pastor to prostitute they come.  Some sober, some drunk, they come.  Some never have a drink again, others are in and out of the rooms over the course of a lifetime.  But they come.  And everyone is welcome.  We have a common problem, and there is a common solution.  "My name is Dave, and I am an alcoholic."  

I wonder if the Church ought to be a bit more like AA in that regard.  The only requirement for membership is a desire to grow spiritually.  Or the only requirement for membership is a desire to be forgiven.  

"This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them."

"Create in me a clean heart, O God, *
and renew a right spirit within me."
When we hear that Jesus welcomes sinners do we think of others, or ourselves?  When we hear David's prayer "Create in me a clean heart, O God." are we thinking of others, or ourselves?  The answer in both cases should be both.  We have a common problem and there is a common solution.  All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and all are saved by the God's grace.

What part of the word "all" do we not understand?  

No one is righteous, no, not even one.
What part of the word no one, do we not understand?

And nothing can separate us from the love of God.
What part of the word "Nothing" do we not understand?

Year C, Proper 18, Deuteronomy 30:15-20, “Choices”

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  Amen

Choices matter.

Choices have consequences.

And to not make a choice, is to choose.

Moses puts before the people of Israel, in the strongest terms possible, the choice that was before them.

“Choose Life!” was his admonition.

Of course the alternative is to choose death.

Underlying that choice is both a promise, and a warning.

It goes without saying that we are more comfortable listening to a promise.  Promises are good.  Make the right choice and wonderful things will happen.  We especially like the second part of that sentence:  “wonderful things will happen”.  “The Lord will bless you” Moses says.  We’d like to leave it like that.

What we often overlook is the first part of that sentence.

If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess.

If you obey –

If you make the right choices –

Then you will be blessed.

Choices, you see, matter.

They have consequences.

And we bear some responsibility.

Take, for example, the fourth commandment that God gave us:

“Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

This commandment is not about children obeying their parents, though that may be what we think about when we hear it.  This commandment is about how we take care of the elderly.  Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.  God promises a long life, if we honor our parents.

The flip side of that is the warning about what will happen if we don’t honor our parents.  Our own lives will be impacted when we are old.  Choices have consequences.

It’s not that God is hell bent on punishing us if we make the wrong choice.  God warns us of the consequences of making the wrong choice.

Let’s fast forward from ancient Israel to today. 

How do we honor our parents and care for them in their old age?  And what difference does that make?  And how will the choices we make today, affect our lives tomorrow when we are old?

Now, I’m going to tell you what you all know.  There are two major issues facing everyone as they grow old.  The first is how will they survive financially, when they are no longer capable of working?  And the second is how will they be cared for as they face the health issues that always come with old age?

Do you realize, that our answer to these questions is specifically related to the fourth commandment, and honoring our fathers and mothers?  God cares about these things.

To begin with, we have sought to address these issues as a society in two primary ways:  we have “Social Security” and “Medicare”, and if needed, “Medicaid”.

You know the basics:

We all pay into Social Security so that each of us will in turn receive at least a bare minimum income during our retirement years and into our old age. 

And likewise, all of us pay into Medicare and Medicaid so that as we age, we too will be able to receive the medical care that is needed.

On the surface, it would appear that we have “honored our fathers and mothers” by providing for these two basic needs.  But anyone who listens to the news knows that there are also problems.

We are making choices that will have consequences.

One of the choices that we are making, for example, is whether we raise taxes to pay for the increased cost of health care for the elderly, or simply reduce the benefits.

I learned a bit about this when the congregation I served in Sandpoint built Luther Park, a senior housing facility.  One of my dreams was that we’d be able to offer the best in senior care for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.  And then the painful reality set in.

What I discovered was that there were two major problems facing our residents.

The first was finding a doctor.

We had many residents who moved to Sandpoint from out of the area, and of course, when they got here they had to find a primary care physician.  The problem is that many of the primary care physicians in Sandpoint simply could not accept anymore Medicare patients.  It’s not because they didn’t like old people. The problem is that Medicare does not reimburse doctors enough to pay for the care that seniors require.  Doctors, as a result, can only allow a certain percentage of their patients to be Medicare patients, otherwise they will go bankrupt.  I have a friend who did go bankrupt because he could not turn away the elderly.

Second problem:  The high cost of care for assisted living and nursing homes is beyond what many seniors can afford.  The average cost of assisted living is between $3,000 to $3,500 a month, and if one needs nursing home care, you can easily double or triple that.  After a few years, what assets a person has are often gone, and then they are reliant on Medicaid.

But, there is a problem with Medicaid.  The amount Medicaid reimburses is not sufficient to cover the cost of providing that care.  Luther Park, for example, can only afford to have a few residents on Medicaid.  Otherwise it would have to shut its doors.

And so what happens to our fathers and mothers?

That’s the question.

Now what is the point of all this?

The point is:

Choices matter.

Choices have consequences.

And to not make a choice, is to choose.

Moses puts before the people of Israel, in the strongest terms possible, the choice that was before them.

“Choose Life!” was his admonition.

Of course the alternative is to choose death.

It would be nice if God would simply make everything right, regardless what choice we make, but it simply doesn’t work out that way.  The choices we make have consequences.

And God, in his love, warns us of the consequences.

God, you see, loves us enough that he would like to spare us the pain of dealing with the consequences that come from poor choices, and so warns us.  It’s not that he wants to punish us.  It’s that he doesn’t want us to suffer.  And so he puts the choice before us, and hopes that we will choose life.

There are all sorts of examples of choices that we will make that will have consequences.

Many of our young people are concerned about things such as Global Warming.  They, you see, strangely enough, are concerned about what the world we live in will be like in 50 years, because, unlike many of us, they will actually be alive in 50 years. 

It is easy to say that this is a political issue and to frame it in the differences between liberal and conservative politics.  Actually, it has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

Either the oceans are warming, or they are not.  It doesn’t matter if you are democrat or republican.

Either the ice on the polar ice caps is melting, or it is not.  It doesn’t matter whether you are liberal or conservative.

Either the weather patterns throughout the world are changing or they are not.  It doesn’t matter whether you live in a democracy, or a communist nation.

And either the choices we are making are having an impact on this, or they are not.

The reason scientists are warning us about global warming is that they actually stick a thermometer in the ocean and measure the temperature.  Novel thought.

The question that drives many of our young people crazy is whether we are willing to take responsibility for our actions, or not.

When God puts before us a choice, are we willing to base our actions on the promises he offers, and heed the warnings he gives? 

A number of years ago, I received a very personal warning.  I share it because it gets to the point of this whole matter.  I was going through a very deep depression, and my doctor was understandably concerned.  Suicide is too often the tragic outcome of depression, and so the doctor had a warning for me.  “The likelihood of dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wound is much higher if you actually have a gun.”

His point was that my choices, at that time in my life, might make the difference between living and dying. 

Make the right choice was his admonition.

Choose life!  God says.

Choose life, and surprisingly enough, you will live.

One of the gifts God gives us is freedom.

We have the freedom to choose. 

And our choices make a difference.

We are not the helpless victims of fate. 

God gives us his law to guide us in making the right choices so that we might live a good and blessed life.  But in the end, the choice is ours.

“See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess.”  “Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.”

Amen

Year C, Proper 18, Deuteronomy 30:15-20, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or "Choose Life"

Over the course of my ministry, I've often avoided entering into the debate surrounding abortion.  I do not like the polarity surrounding that conversation, and the seeming inability of either side to listen to the concerns of the other.  But mostly, within the public debate and the rhetoric I never found a fair representation of my position.  

You see, I am neither "pro-Life", or "pro-Choice", but maintain a position I would call "Choose Life".

I had a youth director who had an ectopic pregnancy.  I was with her in the hospital as the drug was being administered that would end that pregnancy.  Few would consider that to be an abortion, and yet, terminating a pregnancy is terminating a pregnancy.  I cannot imagine anyone who would choose to do anything other when an ectopic pregnancy is being treated.  And I would rather imagine that even Catholic Hospitals would allow the procedure to take place.

And then at the other end of the spectrum, I hear of late term abortions and partial birth abortions and I simply cannot fathom ever making that choice.  If the baby has developed to the point of being viable, why would not one resort to a live birth?  Even if a C-Section is required, is it too much to ask that the baby be allowed the chance at life?

And then in the middle are situations for which there is no clear moral mandate.  

One couple within my congregation had to face the tragedy of two of their children being born with Spinal Muscular Atrophy.  In the case of the first child, they did not find out about SMA until after his birth.  In the case of the second child, even knowing the genetic risks involved, they chose not to test for SMA and resolved to have the child regardless.  And so with each, they both loved the child dearly, but also had to watch their child loose all muscular function until they died within a year or two.  

I admire their choice.  If all they would have is a couple years with their child, a couple years it would be.  

At the same time, I would totally understand if parents, upon finding out that their baby had SMA, would choose to terminate the pregnancy and in doing so, sparing the child the experience of a slow death that starts at birth and lasts a year or so.  

My hope would be that in every situation these decisions would be made with a deep regard for the sanctity of Life.  More specifically, I would hope that had my wife and I faced such decisions, we would have been guided by our conviction that all life is sacred, the life of the mother, and the life of the child.  Those are my personal convictions.

The problem I have with the "Pro-Life" movement is that given the moral complexity surrounding these choices, I am deeply concerned about who makes that decision.  Perhaps its my own cynicism, but I am categorically uncomfortable with the government's ability to negotiate the nuances of some of the more complicated moral dilemmas.  There is a limit to what government can do.  (Does this mean I'm Republican, because I believe in limited government????)

One can simultaneously believe that the moral deliberation and choice in these matters should reside with the parents while at the same time hold fast to the belief that those parents "should" be guided by an awareness of the sanctity of life.  

Finally, as a matter of faith, I believe that God has granted us the freedom to choose, and then admonishes us to make the right choice in a particular situation.  "Choose life so that you and your descendants may live!"  It is both a choice, but a choice in which we are to recognize that life is sacred.  Sometimes the choice will be clear, at other times we will face a dilemma in which multiple factors contribute to a moral ambiguity that presents us with no clear mandate.  At such times, we do our best, guided by faith, and trusting in the mercy of God.

Year C, Proper 19, Exodus 32:7-14, Psalm 51, 1 Tim 1:12-17, Luke 15:1-10, "A Repenting God"

"And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people."

Here the King James translation is more accurate:  "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."  Grace, it seems, is not God's first inclination of how to respond to the evil in the world.  Thankfully, God's first response is not his final response.

In reading through Genesis, we quickly learn of God's first response.  Banning Adam and Eve from the garden and sentencing them to hard labor (two meanings to that phrase).  And then there was this flood.  And then confounding the speech so that humanity might never again act as one.  

And yet even within this rapid sequence detailing the sinfulness of humanity and God's judgment there is repentance.  Except it is not humanity that repents, but God.  A rainbow declares from the heavens that never again will God give into his desire to destroy all evil.  It didn't work.  God recognized that.  God repented.  "The best laid plans of mice and men (and God) go awry."  

It's not that God was and is not justified in his initial response to our sinfulness.  For the Israelites to fashion a golden calf on the flanks of Mt Sinai, even as Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments directly from God's hand-- well that was not going to go over well with the Lord.  His initial response, "Let me have at them, Moses."  And it is Moses who intercedes on behalf of the people, calling forth from God a gracious remembrance of the promises that God has made.  And God repents.  (Moses, too, would have his moment when he actually witnessed the depravity of the people, but that's another story.)

And then, in the wake of his repentance, is God's decision to be "a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing."  (Jonah 4:2)

God's inclination to grace towards us, is rooted in his own experience of repentance.  Many times God's wrath would be kindled against his rebellious and wayward people, and many time he would repent, and then, in the end, would respond by loving us even while we were yet sinful.  Is God's willingness to accept and forgive us a direct result of his own experience of desiring to rain down fire from heaven, and yet, letting go of the anger, and responding with love instead?  This is the witness of the scriptures.

For this reason, God doesn't give up on the likes of Paul.  Paul's initial response to the followers of Jesus was to seek to destroy these blasphemers.  Not altogether unlike God's response to the golden calf.  "Been there, done that."  

Enter Jesus.  Welcoming sinners and eating with them.  Grace abounds.  Gone is the righteous anger and indignation.  In its place is a love that is steadfast and transforming.  There is Paul, in one moment, supervising the stoning of Stephen and in the next, carrying the message of the Gospel to the world -- not to mention writing the bulk of the New Testament which of course defines the Christian faith for all time. 

Jesus came to save sinners.  God repented of the evil he intended.  And the result is Paul.  And the result is you and me, sinful though we be, gathered together as the body of Christ.  Thank God for repentance, especially, his own. 

On Spirituality and Religion

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that really made me think.

"Spiritual people inspire me, religious people frighten me."

How spirituality and religion got so divorced from each other that people would embrace such a saying is a good question.  I have heard before statements such as "I'm a very spiritual person, just not religious."

But I've never heard such a statement that so forcefully represented the dichotomy between spirituality and religion.  I'm left wondering what motivates such a statement.  What is the understanding of spirituality and of religion that gives rise to such a strong sentiment.  In a very patronizing way, I wonder if they truly understand what they are saying.  I think that such a person does not realize that underlying any spirituality is a religious belief, or doctrine, that defines that spiritual experience.  

I would imagine that when a person declares that "spiritual people inspire me, religious people frighten me" what they are probably thinking ties into the object of spirituality or religion.  By that I mean that a "spiritual person" is likely identified as one who has found inner peace and tranquility, a healthy 'soul', if you will, within themselves.  That inner peace is an inspiration to others, and a threat to no one.  

In contrast to that, I would imagine that when such an individual thinks of someone who is religious, they probably are thinking about those who would impose their belief system on others, who are aggressive about promoting "correct doctrine", mandating "righteous behavior", and who show little tolerance to those who differ from them in matters of faith.

One need not think too far to come up with examples of spiritual people and religious people by this definition.  On the spiritual side, I'd suggest that people would gravitate towards individuals such as Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela. At the other extreme, when one thinks about frightening religious people, I would suppose that Fred Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church, would epitomize that. I acknowledge that in making those distinctions I betray my own spiritual and religious bias.  

But my conviction is that even if we grant that Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela are great spiritual leaders, their spirituality did not exist in a vacuum.  Each had a profoundly 'religious' belief system that served as a foundation for their spirituality.  Mother Theresa without Catholicism is not Mother Theresa.  

For those of us who are part of a religious community the question that should captivate us in response to such a bumper sticker is how can we, as members of a religious community, grow in our own spirituality and manifest that healthy spirituality to the world around us, so that we might be a source of inspiration, not fear?