“The Garden of Eden in Context” based on Genesis…

March 1, 2020
by Sara Baron

Six years ago I
shared with the worshiping community in this church my learnings
about the Garden of Eden story. Some of you weren’t here yet, and
some of you don’t have perfect memories. The challenge of serving
THIS church, though, is that some of you DO seem to have perfect
memories, and I don’t want to bore you. So… if I do, I’m sorry. I
promise I’m getting to new and different points, but we all need to
get there together, and that requires reviewing the information about
the story first.

The Creation
story that starts in Genesis chapter 2 is the Yahwist version, which
means it is folk literature, aimed at explaining why things are they
way they are. Folk literature and shared communal myths are pretty
deeply related. While the entire rest of the Hebrew Bible never
comes back to mention the Garden, or Adam, or Eve again, the
Christian tradition has been quite obsessed with this story. That’s
likely due to the work of Paul in Romans, and the way that Paul’s
understanding became a normal way of understanding the point of
Jesus!

However, the
story itself makes the most sense when we look at it in context, and
the context for the story is the Ancient Near East, and the creation
stories of the Ancient Near East. For transparency’s sake, my
understanding about this text comes from the brilliant Roman Catholic
priest and scholar Addison Wright, who shared with “Ecumenical
Scripture Institute” in 2011.

The Canaanites,
neighbors and frenemies of the Ancient Israelites, have a creation
story centered around their tribal god, Baal. Baal
was for them the storm god and fertility god. He fought Leviathan in
order to bring order out of chaos. He dispensed well-being on the
earth. He is called rider of the clouds, and much of this is
appropriated for YHWH. Baal has a holy encampment on his holy
mountain after the intentional flood at the sea – like YHWH with
Sinai and Noah. Some text fragments of Baal’s creation story have
incantations against snake bites, with a story about a man in the
east near the Tigress called Adam who touched a tree he shouldn’t
have touched, and got bit by the snake, and by calling on the gods he
got the incantations to avoid death, and the enmity between humans
and snakes. That tree was the tree of death.

OK,
so hopefully I’ve done my job in convincing you that the early
Genesis stories that the Yahwist tells fit into the Ancient Near
East. Now, in the Ancient Near Eastern people believed that
you could EITHER be immortal OR reproductive. You probably can see
the problem – if you let immortals reproduce, you get to infinite
people very quickly. You can probably also see then, that for the
people who believed this, sexuality was inherently related to death
and mortality. The capacity to procreate came WITH the reality of
dying. And, lest we forget the rather long era of human history
before effective birth control, sexuality and children were tied
closely together. So again, parenthood and death was one option and
immortal life without sexuality was the other. One could not have
both, as they saw it.

Furthermore, in
Ancient Near East stories, paradise gardens are places that IMMORTALS
live. Thus, children do not live there. Given this assumption,
eating from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”
transformed Adam and Eve from being immortal, asexual beings into
mortal, sexual beings. That knowledge seems like it may have had a
lot to do with sexual maturity.

Now, when I
first heard this, I liked it a lot. Mostly I liked it because it
pulled us out of blaming women for everything, and out of a hyper
focus on sin. I wasn’t really convinced by it though.

Then, Father
Wright pointed out that the punishments given in the story fit this
understanding. After they eat, they see that they are naked, which
fits a burgeoning sexual awakening. We stopped reading before the
rest of the punishments, but they are: the couple is thrown out of
the Garden, the woman will have pain in childbirth, sexual desire
will complicate life, you will have to work to stay alive, and you
will now die. Which it turns out, all fits. Leaving the Garden is
what happens when you aren’t immortal. Pain in childbirth is only
relevant when childbirth is going to happen. Sexual desire IS
complicated, and wasn’t when they didn’t have any. Having to work to
stay alive isn’t necessary when you can’t die. Finally, being mortal
means death will come. Perhaps most interestingly, at the end of
the list of punishments, the woman is named for the first time. Adam
(whose own name means mud-creature) calls her “Eve, because she was
the mother of all who live.” Eve means to breath, to live, or to
give life.

At that point,
I was convinced that Father Wright was not only onto a cool
interpretation, his interpretation was superior to any others I’ve
ever heard. The only problem is that it doesn’t work with Paul’s
take in Romans, at least as it has been used through the millenia.
Paul argues that as death came into humanity through Adam, the sting
of death is removed from humanity by Jesus. In fact, Paul is sort of
taking on the whole Ancient Near East, because he is claiming that
with God’s work in Jesus, one can have children AND be immortal, just
not an immortality on earth. Paul is trying to make sense of Jesus,
and of the impact of his life, and this is how he does it. I don’t
think Paul meant to create quite the firestorm of misogyny and
sin-guilt that he accidentally did.

Which then
leaves us free to be rather grateful to Adam and Eve, since if they
hadn’t eaten of that tree, none of us would exist 😉 Moreso, it
gives us freedom to reconsider our understandings of both gender and
sin. It feels like a good reminder that by “sin” the Bible means
“missing the mark” which always feels a lot lighter than what I
would otherwise assume.

One of my
curiosities is about why we’ve held onto this story so tightly.
Again, the ancient Jews did not, and while Paul makes this argument,
we could have rather ignored it as well. Yet this story is still one
of the living folk narratives in our culture, for Christians and
non-Christians alike.

I’ve wondered
if it relates to a yearning for “paradise.” It is all sort of
interesting, right? Because once we bring Paul into it, paradise
comes back in the form of afterlife. And I think people yearn for
paradise, quite possibly because the world we live in is so full of
suffering and we’d like to consider other options. The Garden of
Eden itself though, according to the story, was quite small! It was
small enough for one person to tend to it, and it contained only two
people. That would be REALLY boring for ETERNITY. Exiting
definitely seems like the right option.

And yet, the
world is not as it should be. We know this in our bones. And we
YEARN for it to be better. Sometimes our yearning takes the form of
remembering the past in a way that cleans it up and makes it seem
closer to perfect than it was. Sometimes our yearning encourages us
to close our eyes to the pain and suffering around us. Sometimes our
yearning for better closes our eyes to the harm we are doing, and the
shame we live with. Sometimes our yearning for better erupts in
anger for how things are. Sometimes our yearning for better makes us
afraid of what is and what might come.

AND, sometimes
our yearning for better is how God works with us to make the world…
better. Isn’t it complicated that the same yearning can do harm and
do good? Oh, human life. I think there are two best ways to respond
to our shared yearning for a better world. One, as you might guess,
is to work with God and each other to make the world better. The
other is to put our energy on noticing the things that are already
good. There may be a natural desire for paradise, and we don’t live
in one, but we do live in a world filled with wonders, and when we
forget to attend to them, we can miss out on all the goodness that is
already with us. The kindom, they say, is already here in part and
is coming in completion. Let us pay attention to both parts – as
they are the work of co-creating that paradise with God. Amen

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
 https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

March 1, 2020

Sermons

“Afterlife?” based on Job 14 and Mark 12:18-27

October 13, 2019February 11, 2020
by Sara Baron

I want to start today by asking
for your trust – particularly from those who are here particularly
for the baptism. I do know that the first hymn and the scriptures
have been an odd match for a baptismal Sunday so far, and it is going
to get worse before it gets better, but it IS going to get better, I
promise.

The question of “what happens
after we die” is relevant to us for two separate reasons. One
reason is entirely personal: we want to know if we are simply mortal
and if we cease to exist when we die. The other may be just as
personal, in a different way: we want to know if the connects we
have to those who have died before us are still alive or if they only
feel that way.

Both of these are good reasons
to want to know, but nevertheless, we don’t know what happens after
death. And our believes about it end up being profoundly personal.
If we are looking at afterlife through the lens of the Christian
Tradition, there are three big questions people to disagree over:

Does afterlife exist?
If there is an afterlife, do
both heaven and hell exist, or just heaven?
If both heaven and hell exist,
how are people sorted between them?

While many people have deep
conviction about their answers to these questions, and believe their
answers to be the “normal” ones, the truth is that Christians
have disagreed about this for about as long as there have been
Christians.

For
centuries, Christianity has taught about afterlife and the existence
of heaven and hell, all while arguing about the means of sorting
people into each. Yet, there is also a large group of Biblical
Scholars who think that we’ve gotten those assumptions wrong. They
say that 1^st
century Jews, Jesus, and the earliest Christians did not believe in
heaven and hell the way we do. At best, heaven and hell were
temporary resting places while waiting for bodily resurrection that
would come along with the Kindom of God on earth.¹
More commonly, people believed that there was nothing until the
moment of universal bodily resurrection, which they expected to come
within the first generation after Jesus. For some others the
perspective of Job 14 was accurate: humans die but at least God
doesn’t.

For
the most part, I think afterlife is an aside to Christianity. The
goal is to build the kindom on earth, not in heaven. However, the
reality of deaths of those we love and the looming reality of our own
deaths don’t let us go. We really want to know, and for many people,
what they believe about afterlife profoundly connects to how they
understand God.

Now,
this is the fifth and final sermon in a sermon series
comparing the salient points of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, the
tradition of the Christian Right, and what I’ve been calling
“Jesus-followers”. (That final group is us.) Moralistic
Therapeutic Deism was discovered through sociological research on the
belief system on teenagers, and we have reason to believe it is the
default belief system of most Americans. Unfortunately, as we’ve
found, its a rather problematic belief system, at least in my
opinion. It consists of 5 intersecting assumptions:

“A
god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human
life on earth.”
“God
wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in
the Bible and by most world religions.”
“The
central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”
“God
does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when
God is needed to resolve a problem.”
“Good
people go to heaven when they die.”

Today we are looking at the 5^th
and final point, “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

Of course, if you asked most
people what Christians think, that would be a key part of the answer,
“good people go to heaven when they die,” but – of course – our
tradition is far more complicated than is generally known.

Historically,
I think the concepts of heaven and hell came into clarity in the 3^rd
or 4^th
century, as that’s when the fights over who went where really picked
up. So let’s look at our three questions:

Does afterlife exist?

Christians
of good faith disagree about this one. Some, including some in this
community, say, “no. This life is all there is, so let’s make the
best of it instead of pretending there is more.” Others, including
some in this community, say, “I think so. I’ve had some
experiences that lead me to that conclusion and/or it just feels
right.” Still others simply aren’t sure. Because the “word on
the street” about Christianity so profoundly conflates belief in
God with belief in afterlife, I feel the need to say this explicit:
all of these are faithful statements that are congruent with knowing
a loving God through Jesus.

So, the second question, which
presumes an answer of “yes” to the first one about afterlife
existing. The second question is:

2. If there is an afterlife,
do both heaven and hell exist, or just heaven?

I’ll admit that I nuanced this
one to lead to a particular answer. While I’m not always confident
about afterlife (and yet sometimes I am, it is a confusing place
inside my head), I never think there is a hell. It just doesn’t make
the tiniest bit of sense to me that over the long run anything but
God’s grace could win out. I read one time a suggestion that people
continue to have free will after death, and so if heaven is unity
with God, people can take AS LONG AS THEY WANT to get there, but in
the end, they will because grace wins. Put another way, I simply
don’t believe in a God of eternal punishment, it is incomprehensible
to me. That said, I think most modern Christians believe in a heaven
and a hell, and most of them think it is heresy not to. (oh. Well.)

I
think that for most people who believe that “good people go to
heaven when they die” and the unspoken but obvious corollary “bad
people go to hell when they die” there is a desire to believe that
there is fundamental justice in the world and that bad things are
punished and good things are celebrated and even if we don’t see
evidence of that on earth, it will get balanced out later. I can
understand a desire to believe that!

Now, for me the third question
is null and void, but since Christianity has spent the past 1600-1700
years fighting over it, I guess we should take a moment to hear the
arguments. 😉

3. If both heaven and hell
exist, how are people sorted between them?

Possible answers:

In order to get into heaven you
have to BELIEVE the right things ( “Justification by FAITH.”)
This is the primary perspective of the Christian Right, although it
intersects some with the next idea.
In order to get into heaven
you have do DO the right things. For many of those Christians there
is a list of good things and a list of bad things to guide behavior.
( “Justification by WORKS” or “Works Righteousness.”)
In order to get into heaven one
must be baptized. This is often even subconscious now. This is one
of the strongest arguments for infant baptism. It is also one of
the strongest arguments against it. Some in this mindset will claim
that only baptism in their PARTICULAR part of Christianity will
matter. However, when Christianity was much younger, this often
resulted in people refusing to be baptized until the very last
moment. (I think, in fact, this is the historical basis for the
Catholic ritual of last rites.) They thought that once baptized all
their sins were forgiven, and if it was done late enough they
wouldn’t have time to sin. I’m not kidding. This was very common
practice.
In
order to get into heaven we need God’s grace, and God’s grace given
to us results in our ability to have faith. (“Justification by
grace alone though faith.”) UMC option
Thus it is not what we do or do not do; nor what we believe or do
not believe that results in our welcome into heaven. It is simply
God’s nature. This does raise a rather large question about those
who do not believe in God though.

As
a reminder of how complicated all of this is, I do not think that
our Gospel lesson supports or disproves any of the schools of
thought. Rather, it urges humility. The Sadducees were trying to
trick up Jesus, and they brought him a tricky question in order to do
it. The question supported their belief about what happens when
we die, but Jesus’ answer did not let them trip him up. He says,
““Is
not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the
scriptures nor the power of God? For
when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being
raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about
the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is God not of the dead, but of the
living; you are quite wrong.”

This
passage keeps me humble. I don’t know what it means, I don’t know
what heaven is like,or if it exists, and that’s OK. Many of us are
not same worldview as moralistic therapeutic deism who say “good
people go to heaven when they die” or the Christian-Right who say
that and have clarity over who counts as “good.” Many of us
simply don’t know what happens after death.

I
think that at the core, the questions of if afterlife exists or not
and whether there is cosmic justice are really questions about
existential anxiety. That is, as beings who are conscious and who
know we are mortal, we struggle with the reality that someday we
won’t be (at least in this form) anymore.

I
think that our shared, all the way back to Jesus, Christian Tradition
offers Jesus-followers two ways we can respond to existential anxiety
and the claims of the other traditions. If we are about continuing
the work of Jesus – about building the kindom and inviting others
to be partners with us in building the kindom – then our work does
not end with our deaths any more than Jesus’ did. This is not same
as individual afterlife, but is really powerful in a different way.
Certainly the ways that each of us work towards the kindom is unique,
but the end goal is shared, and after we are gone others will be
following up on our work with theirs … until the kindom comes.

The
other piece of our response to existential anxiety is simply trusting
in God. Whether or not we cease to exist at the end of our lives,
God and God’s memory will still hold our lives, our loves, our
actions, our thoughts, and our feelings. And, whatever is on the
other side of the proverbial curtain – God IS and God is GOOD and
what will be is possible to trust in.

And
that brings us full circle to say, that while I know it is awful to
acknowledge death while celebrating a new life, I am happy to say
that the kindom building and the goodness of God will outlast even the life of the baby baptized today life and thanks be to God for that! Amen

(http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/13.36.html?paging=off)

Sermons

“Change Bearer” based on 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 and Mark 1:21-28

January 28, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

In the midst of all the news that swirled around this week, one little line caught my ear. A Congressman was accused of sexual harassment of a staff member, and within his reply was the idea that he didn’t think he had any power over her. He thought she could consent, or could reject his advances, because he ran an egalitarian office. In fact, he was quoted as describing his office saying, “There is no hierarchy.”¹

I’ve heard such malarkey before, and it infuriated me then too. Most significantly, at one point a District Superintendent informed me that he didn’t think of himself has having power “over” the clergy in his district. This came up in a conversation when I was indicating that I didn’t think he should date clergy he was supervising, and he was justifying his behavior. Simply denying the power one has isn’t the same thing as not having it.

To be fair, at almost the same time, I had an awakening that resulted in an ah-ha moment of my own. I was serving on the “Conference Leadership Team” for the Upper New York Annual Conference. I was regularly in meetings making big decisions, had regular time on stage during Annual Conference meetings, received subtle deference from colleagues because of my role, and had even shared in DRAFTING the structure of the Conference itself. AT THE SAME TIME, I was really unhappy with the way the conference existed in the world and felt helpless to make the changes I thought we needed. During an Annual Conference session, when I was on the floor with everyone else, someone mentioned feeling disempowered and uninformed in the Conference. I ALMOST empathized by saying “me too!” but JUST BARELY kept my mouth shut.

I realized that while I felt disempowered, uninformed, and generally cranky, I had about as much power in the system as ANYONE did. In particular, I had a heck of a lot more power than the person who was (rightfully) expressing his own concerns. And I realized that if I had spoken, and claimed to be as disempowered as he was, I’d have created a false equivalency. I simply wasn’t disempowered in that system at that time, even if I didn’t feel like I had the power to do what I wanted.

In that moment, I realized that I’d done a similar thing to the District Superintendent – I’d internally downplayed my own power. Downplaying, or ignoring, the power I held was dangerous because it made it much easier to abuse the power. Whenever a person ignores a power they hold, and pretends it doesn’t exist, that enables the person to wield it irresponsibility and ignore the consequences for those who don’t have as much power.

At that point I made a commitment to myself to ACKNOWLEDGE and NOTICE what power I do hold, and attend to holding it carefully, so that I wouldn’t do accidental harm with it. I wanted to operate differently than those I saw abusing their power, and I wanted to have more integrity than I started with, once I saw the error of my ways.

Sometimes it is uncomfortable to acknowledge power differentials. Actually, it is often uncomfortable. (Perhaps especially in progressive circles where hierarchy is less valued.) It is far easier to pretend away hierarchy and to claim that the limits on our power make it useless. However, it is irresponsible and hugely dangerous.

The District Superintendent was engaged in sexual harassment (at least), and his SELF-JUSTIFICATION for it was in pretending away his power. His power over those he supervised didn’t dissipate when he pretended it away though. It didn’t give those he supervised easy ways to ignore or dismiss his advances. It just meant he didn’t take that into account, and he got what he wanted without acknowledging to himself that he’d done so with the power he wielded. It meant he took away both others’ consent and his responsibility for having done so.

This congressman did exactly the same thing. It is hard to believe that anyone who has the power to hire and fire their staff could be under the impression that their office is egalitarian, but clearly this misconception benefited the congressman and in his head justified his actions.

I suspect that ignoring the power one has over another is a common part of justifying sexual harassment, and many other abuses of power.

There is, however, an even more sickening reality. There are also those among us who claim the fullness of their power and authority and use it to harm others. In this case I’m taking about the Larry Nassars of the world, who not only set himself up to be in a position over young girls, he ENJOYED the ways that he was able to harm and humiliate them.

Larry Nassar, the “medical doctor” who worked with USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University, who used his power to sexually assault more than 100 girls. Around Larry Nassar and those like him, are a set of people around them who functioned with their power in a third problematic way. Unlike that congressman who pretended away his power and thus allowed himself to use it inappropriately, AND unlike Larry who claimed his power fully to do harm, there are those who had the opportunity to use their power for good and didn’t. There are likely more reasons for this than individuals who didn’t act, but the results are all the same: more children traumatically abused.

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”² There have been many, many people in the world who have passively accepted evil, and even used their power to silence those speaking of it.

One of the many gymnasts abused by Nassar was Rachael Denhollander. She was far from the first to speak out, but she was the first one to do so with her evidence and accusations prepared to force herself to be heard. Those defending him tried to silence her in many ways, but she kept talking anyway. She spoke with clarity and authority during his sentencing hearing saying, “I believed the adults at MSU surrounding Larry would do the right thing if they were aware of what Larry was doing, and I was terribly wrong. And discovering that I could not only not trust my abuser but I could not trust the people surrounding him has been devastating. It is part of the consequences of sexual assault, and it needs to be taken seriously.”³

That is, Larry Nassar’s actions were an atrocity. So was the enormous cover up, people who decided that maintaining the status quo, or getting the next win, or keeping the organization from liability, or not upsetting the apple cart was more important than the protection of CHILDREN from sexual assault. Many, many people had the power and authority to step in and stop his actions, and they did not do it.

Thus far, I’ve mentioned three ways power and authority is misused:

by being dismissed or ignored, and thus held irresponsibility.
by being used directly and intentionally to cause harm.
by being held passively, not being used to help those in need, which functions to support an abuser over the abused. (In some cases this crosses the line into intentional harm as well.)

This is all very interesting to consider when we have a Gospel passage that takes note that Jesus held power and authority very differently than the religious authorities of his day! Oye ve. “He taught as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.” This the thesis statement of or Gospel reading! His authority is said to be amazing to the people who heard it, it was one of the first things that drew a crowd to him.

The early Christian communities whose stories of Jesus formed the Gospels may well have thought that Jesus’ authority seemed different because it was different. They may have thought that his connect to God was different than everyone else’s, and this may have been their point. Or, it may be that the scribes taught as if they were a bit removed from the text, teaching what other people had taught them, raising the historical questions, doing everything other than speaking about God from their own experience and claiming authority from their experience. (I may also be projecting myself onto the scribes, as I often choose that path.)

Or, perhaps it was something else entirely. When I listen holistically to the stories of Jesus, it seems that one of the themes is his work of empowering the people. Apparently “authority” in Greek means more fully “the freedom to express one’s powers.”⁴Perhaps he was using his “authority” to build up those he was speaking to. In this case, I’m drawing on the line from 1 Corinthians, “Knowledge puffs up, love builds up.” Authority used well builds up people, in love. It isn’t used for the sake of the one who holds it, it is used for the well-being of the community that gives it.

Jesus speaking in the synagogue would have been speaking in his own voice, not just that of the tradition, but I suspect he was using his voice and his authority to encourage others to claim their voices and their authority in building the kindom of God. He was building them up so they could build others up and everyone together could build the kindom.

That’s what it looks like to change the world. Power and authority used in the ways of the world are used to PUFF up the one who holds them, and to push down those who don’t. We’ve talked about many ways they can be used to do harm. But our goal is not only to “do no harm” but ALSO then to “do all the good we can”. (The first two of John Wesley’s “Three Simple Rules” as rethought by Reuben Job.) That means that ALL power and authority we have should be used to BUILD up.

This is a rather high calling. And it can be difficult. There are pitfalls in many directions, and discomfort to go along with it all. But that doesn’t mean it should be attempted. We are, all of us, leaders in building up the kindom, and the first work of the kindom is building others UP.

So, dear ones, may we follow in the way of Jesus, and find the ways to use our power and authority to BUILD others up. Amen

1Chris Cillizza, “Oh, Pat Meehan. No, no, no, no.” on CNN politicshttps://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/politics/meehan-analysis/index.html accessed on 1/25/18

2 https://paradoxologies.org/2010/08/28/martin-luther-king-jr-on-complacency-mlk/accessed on 1/25/18

3 Alanna Vagianos ”She Was The First Woman To Go Public About Nassar. Read Her Statement In Full” ttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachael-denhollander-nassar-impact-statement_us_5a690ef6e4b0e563007627aa 01/24/2018 08:46 pm ET accessed on 1/25/18

4The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 61.

–Rev. Sara E. Baron

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 15.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px ‘Helvetica Neue’; color: #444444}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 14.0px ‘Helvetica Neue’; color: #444444}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

January 28, 2018