“Three Days? Can You Count?” based on Hosea 5:15-6:6…

April 18, 2021
by Sara Baron

According
to the Gospels, Jesus was killed on Friday night. Easter was on
Sunday, and the first experiences of resurrection happened before
sunrise. That is a difference of about 36 hours. Which, if I’m
honest, is a VERY WEAK definition of “three days.” It is a
stretch to say, well, there was part of Friday, and all of Saturday,
part of Sunday, which is three different days.

Normally,
three days is 24 hours times 3= 72 hours. So Friday night to Monday
night. Or, you might say, Friday – then the next day is Saturday,
the second day is Sunday, the third day is Monday.

Am
I the only one who has been quietly annoyed by this for years? Yeah,
I am? I can live with that.

This
has made me curious though, as to why Friday night to Sunday morning
was defined as 3 days, because doing so was DEFINITELY an intentional
choice meant to fit Jesus’s story into an existent framework.
Otherwise it wouldn’t feel so forced.

(If
you are already bored, I invite you to stick with me anyway, it isn’t
going to take that long and it is more worth it than you might
expect.) It seems Luke was basing the 3 days off of the Hosea
passage

‘Come, let us return to the
Lord;
   for it is he who has torn, and he will
heal us;
   he has struck down, and he will bind us
up.
After two days he will revive us;
   on
the third day he will raise us up,
   that we
may live before him. (6:1-2)

This
clearly lists 3 days, but the meaning of the passage seems a little
bit ambiguous. However, if you either read all of Hosea to figure
out what this means, or trust the work of scholars who have done so
(I’ve done both), then it starts to make sense that what they’re
talking about is the renewal of God’s covenant with ancient
Israel. This is the theme of the whole book of Hosea. The
questions of Hosea center around what God is going to do since the
people have been unfaithful to the covenant. The passage we read
today is about God choosing to renew the covenant, despite the
people’s unfaithfulness.

And,
a reasonable person might ask, what does THAT have to do with 2 days
and 3 days? And really, what does it have to do with Jesus, or say,
us?

I’m
so glad you asked.¹

The
reference to 2 days and 3 days is based on the story of Moses sharing
the covenant in Exodus 19. Three months after the people had left
Eygpt, they got to Sinai, and Moses went up the mountain to be with
God. God told Moses to say, “You have seen what I did to the
Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to
myself. Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you
shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the
whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a
holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the
Israelites.’” (Exodus 19:4-6) Aka – you are going to be a
sign of my love to the world. That WAS the covenant, and as it
got expanded and explained more it becomes clear that living out the
covenant is about how they treated each other, and the vulnerable in
their midst, and eventually even their neighboring nations.

Exodus
19 goes on:

Then Moses had told the words of
the people to the Lord, the Lord said to Moses: ‘Go to the people
and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their
clothes and prepare for the third day, because on the third
day the Lord will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all
the people. You shall set limits for the people all around, saying,
“Be careful not to go up the mountain or to touch the edge of it.
Any who touch the mountain shall be put to death. No hand shall touch
them, but they shall be stoned or shot with arrows; whether animal or
human being, they shall not live.” When the trumpet sounds a long
blast, they may go up on the mountain.’ So Moses went down from the
mountain to the people. He consecrated the people, and they washed
their clothes. And he said to the people, ‘Prepare for the third
day; do not go near a woman.’ (9-15)

And,
at the end of those 3 days the people “met” God. The story says
the experience was like the mountain being wrapped in smoke, and
fire, and earthquake, and thunder. It appears it was quite awe
inspiring. Then Moses gets called back up the mountain and that is
when Moses was given the 10 commandments and the rest of the
expectations of God for how the people were to behave to each other
and in worship.

So
why did the early Christians chose to tell the story of the
resurrection of Jesus as happening on the third day? Probably
because it was awe inspiring like that experience of the people of
“meeting” God. Likely also because it fit into this framework of
restoration from Hosea, and Jesus’s teaching had been about restoring
the relationships between God and the people and the people and each
other. Likely, also, this relates to the early Christian
understanding that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was a
NEW covenant between God and the people, one the people couldn’t mess
up. As such, it made sense to tell it in the form of the most
important covenant story of the Scriptures as they knew them.

Thus
the choice to force Friday night to Sunday morning into a 3 day
framework.

In
Luke we’re told that A LOT OF THINGS happened on that “third day”
Sunday. The women found the empty tomb, they told the disciples,
Peter also saw the tomb, two other disciples walked to Emmaus –
experienced the risen Christ – and walked back, and our passage
today starts with “while they were still talking about this,”
meaning the story of those who’d walked to Emmaus. Today’s passage
is still set on that “third day.”

The
story wants to emphasize that Jesus wasn’t a ghost or an angel, but
rather than he’d been physically resurrected. The idea is that
ghosts and angels don’t EAT, but living beings do. Having eaten, the
story says, he explained, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is
to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that
repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to
all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24-46b-47) As this
is a story of the early Christian community, we can use it to help
ourselves understand how they saw this new covenant. They did a nice
job putting the “three day” thing there to help make sense of the
covenant, right?

This
new covenant, at least in this passage, seems to be centered on
“repentance” and forgiveness of sins, right? Repentance makes
easy sense to me, it fits with the teaching that Jesus was sharing in
his lifetime of ministry, “Repent and believe, the kin(g)dom of God
is at hand.” That is, turn from the fear-filled ways of the world,
get centered in God, and participate in the kindom of relationship,
sharing, compassion, and abundance, and as you do so, the kindom will
gain strength until it comes in completion.

However,
in the Jewish Annotated Bible it is mentioned that in Jewish thought,
God is always ready to forgive the sins of the repentant.²
So, what is this about? Why did the early Christian community think
that forgiveness of sins was so central? This feels REALLY
important, because I still hear many Christians who think the entire
Christian story is one of forgiveness, and I’ve always struggled to
understand why, especially when God’s forgiveness was already
available before Jesus.³

In
the commentary on the Hosea passage, Dr. Gail Yee wrote, “The
period of chastisement when God rends the people is intended to
motivate their repentance/return. This doctrine of correction is
particularly characteristic of deuteronomistic and wisdom literature,
in which the period of the Babylonian exile was regarded as a
traumatic time when the people recognized their guilt and returned to
God.”⁴
When I read that, a light went off. The Jewish people in the time of
Jesus lived a life of oppression under the realm of the Roman Empire.
This likely felt like a new form of Exile, an exile at home. So, as
their ancestors in faith had done before them, they told themselves
the story that their oppression was God’s chastisement, and that if
they returned to God’s ways they’d be freed again. Return and
restoration in this story are dependent on both the people’s
repentance and God’s forgiveness.

And
suddenly the Christian story itself makes sense. They’re thinking
about communal sin, and global politics, and trying to please God
into making their lives better. Which MAKES SENSE for faithful human
meaning makers to do. But knowing
that frees me to tell my own faith story, which is that God was with
them in oppression, and working towards freedom (including through
Jesus) but hadn’t been punishing them to begin with. God’s
desires for repentance were about wanting to gift the people with
full and abundant lives and building the kindom, … not about proof
of worthiness.

And
that, dear ones, brings us to today. We have been in our own “exile
at home” for more than a year now, and consciously or unconsciously
there have been a lot of questions of “why did this happen to us?”
Those are normal, healthy, human questions. I suspect there has
been some creeping fear that the answer is “because we messed up”
and challengingly, that seems true. But that doesn’t mean anything
about God punishing us. We messed up by not trusting scientists, and
not taking the long view, and not caring for the vulnerable, and not
putting lives before profits. This pandemic isn’t God’s punishment,
but it is reflective of our collective “sins” so to speak.

I
hope and pray that we, our communities, our country, and our world,
will repent (especially the “first world). I hope we will learn.
I hope we will remember how interconnected we all are and that if
anyone is vulnerable to illness, we are ALL vulnerable to illness. I
hope we will decide to transform the ways societies work, to care for
all and bring life abundant to all. I hope we will remember all of
God’s covenants, and work with God in building the kindom, the
beloved community, peace on earth.

The
good news, is that the resurrection story tells us that what seems
impossible (like global change into care and compassion) is possible!
May God help us, and may we help God! Amen

1 Can
anyone tell the Pastor misses preaching in person?

2 Amy
Jill Levine “Footnote on Luke 24:47” in The Jewish
Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible
Translation, edited by Amy-Jill
Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2011), 151.

3 Truthfully
I have a lot of critique of the idea, but not enough time to share
it. I’m happy to talk it over if you’d like.

4 Gail
Yee, “Commentary on Hosea 5:15-6:3” in The New Interpreter’s
Bible Volume VII ed. by Leander
E. Keck et al, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 249.

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

April 18, 2021

Sermons

“In the Midst of the Mess” based on 1 Kings…

August 6, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

By the time we get to 1 Kings, many of us are lost in the storyline of the Hebrew Bible. It has been an intense soap opera for quite a while, and the intricacies are often convoluted and subtle. This leaves me with the task of setting the stage for the story we just read, a task I’m not entirely sure I’m up to. Nevertheless, I’ll give it a try 😉

You remember the story of Moses, right? Well Moses led the people the the border of the Promised Land before he died. Then Joshua led the people into the land. What followed was about 350 years of various leaders emerging as needed, which was when the tribes were under threat. That 350 year period is described in the book of Judges, and archaeologists tell us that is the period when the people occupying ancient Israel were most consistently living out the rules of the Torah. All the homes seem to be about the same size, meaning that wealth was neither being accumulated nor lost. That’s a significant part of the goal of the laws of the Torah.

Then, there came King Saul. The Bible says that the people wanted a King, but God didn’t want the people to have a King. The prophets kept telling the people that God is their Ruler, but the people wanted a human one anyway. You may be shocked, but I don’t quite believe that one. I think it is much more likely that Saul wanted to be King, and once he was King he made sure that the story being told was that he was King because everyone wanted him to be. I do, however, believe that the prophets thought this was a terrible plan!

Then, somehow, David becomes King. I say “somehow” because the Bible tells several versions of this and they don’t make much sense individually or together. Basically, David led a coup against Saul with military leadership from Judea supported by external mercenaries soldiers. The Bible claims Saul was crazy. It is very difficult to tell if that is propaganda from David. (Then again, historians aren’t sure either of them ever existed, which could potentially resolve this issue for us. However, we’re going with the story as its told, even with ALL of its complications.)

OK. So David is King, which happens to mean he has a whole bunch of wives. Some of the wives predate his kingship. Many of his wives he “inherited” from Saul with the kingship. #sentencesIwishIdidnthavetosay Once David is serving as King in Jerusalem, he acquires more wives. The most famous story of his acquiring a wife is the story of David and Bathsheba. David’s palace was now larger and higher than the homes around his, and thus when Bathsheba was bathing herself on her roof top one day, David saw her and lusted after her. He had her brought to him, raped her, impregnated her, tried to cover for it, and then and had her husband killed on the front lines when the cover didn’t work.

In response, the prophet Nathan brought accusations against him. David turns to God in repentant prayer. David and Bathsheba’s infant son dies, which the Bible tells as if it is God’s punishment (you can tell from my phrasing I don’t believe that either). Bathsheba stays in the palace as David’s wife. She appears to remain his favorite wife according to the stories. Also, she ends up giving birth to 4 more sons, the youngest of which is Solomon. Please note we don’t know if she had daughters because they’re generally not worth talking about as far as the Bible sees it.

There, that wasn’t so hard, was it? We are caught up to the start of 1 Kings. Oh shoot! We aren’t. I need to remind you of another messy bit of this story, in order to make sense of this one. King David’s oldest sons were born to his earliest wives, before he was King. The oldest was Amnon. He was the one who raped his half-sister Tamar, who was a full-sister to the third son, Absalom. Absalom killed Amnon in revenge, years later. Absalom then attempted to claim the kingship of Israel in a coup and was killed by one of David’s generals. The 2^nd son is assumed to have died in infancy. The 4^th son was Adonijah, who was thus the oldest surviving son as of this point in the story. The Bible says there were about 20 sons, Solomon wasn’t one of the oldest 10.

According to normal inheritance laws, Adonijah had a far stronger claim to the throne than Solomon did. The Bible often tells stories that ignore normal inheritance laws. According to the beginning of 1 Kings, the parts we skipped, David was very old and impotent. A new young, beautiful wife, was brought to “warm his bed” but that didn’t work. Her name was Abishag. With awareness of David’s condition, Adonijah holds a coup and claims the kingship. He raises support from his father’s old guard, the part of David’s leadership that was Judea-centric and NOT representative of the whole kingdom of Israel. He excludes ONLY his brother Solomon, which I think would imply that he saw only his brother Solomon as a threat to his claim. David’s newer advisors refuse to attend, and seem to decide to thrown in their lots with Solomon.

The story says that Nathan approaches Bathsheba with a plan. Bathsheba accepts it and goes to King David’s bedroom to make her plea. There may be a new, young, wife in town but Bathsheba still has the privilege of entering David’s bedroom at will and being greeted with an offer to give her whatever she wants.

She takes Nathans suggestions and runs with them. She tells David that he promised her Solomon could be king after him (Nathan said she should SUGGEST it in a question), she tells him Adonijah has claimed the kingship and makes sure it sounds particularly insulting to David himself, she tells him who among his servants have supported his son’s coup, she implies that the whole nation of Israel needs his leadership and that Adonijah will only care about the southern part of Judah, and she names for him the threat to her life and Solomon’s if David lets the coup stand.

There is just one little issue with what she says: there is no reason to believe that David had promised the kingship to Solomon. It is never previously mentioned. The possibility of Solomon as a contender only emerges when Adonijah doesn’t invite him to his coup. Most likely, it wasn’t true. David is likely experiencing memory loss by this point, and Bathsheba manipulates him into doing what she wants. She plays the role of king-maker, and she makes sure it is HER kid who on the throne. Her role has changed a bit since she was first introduced.

Then Nathan backs her up, sort of. He at least backs up the fact that Adonijah has held a coup. He lets her stand on her own in terms of the claim that Solomon would be king. Based on their words, Solomon is named and anointed King.

Then Solomon promises his brother Adonijah that he can live as long as he keeps supporting Solomon’s kingship. David dies, and then comes the next bit of our story. Now, if this part of the Bible is historical, and if all these characters existed, and if things more or less went down the way this story says they went down, I STILL don’t believe this part. Under those circumstances, I think that either Solomon or Bathsheba make it up.

The story SAYS that Adonijah, the eldest living son of David, comes to King Solomon’s mother and asks her to ask her son King Solomon if he can have his father’s youngest wife as his own. Since the King’s harem is seen as part of the King’s rightful possession, getting to marry one of David’s wives would have strengthened Adonijah’s claim to the throne. I don’t quite believe he would have been stupid enough to ask for that, especially when his continued life was already tenuous. However, the story says he asked, and says that Bathsheba goes right to the throne room. Her son bows to her has a THRONE brought out to her, indicative of his affection for his mother (or perhaps of her power in his kingship), and she publicly tells him about this request. In response, Solomon orders the death of Adonijah. It seems a bit too easy, especially in the first days after David dies, and if the story stands as written, I only wonder if Solomon was in on Bathsheba’s plan or not.

All in all, this leaves us with a whole bunch of questions. The most difficult question is one that was posed in Bible Study: is Bathsheba a subversive woman? In terms of saying, “Yes! Of course she is!” we have the following evidence: she made a king, she eliminated his rivals, and she got what she wanted out of the leadership of the country. On the other side, the side that says, “Nope, not a subversive women” we have the following arguments: manipulating people for power and influence is one of the most normal of all human activities, and even more normal when it comes to royal lineage. That argument says that no matter how you worked it, doing the work to get your son on the throne is playing with power, not subverting it.

For me, both of those perspectives hold a lot of water. I kept her story in this sermon series because I love that she has such a complicated life story and significant character development, particularly from being a passive object of lust into being the most powerful agent of her own life and one of the most powerful agents in the country. However, she still mostly exists within those terrible constraints of oppressive power. She just moves from being oppressed to being the oppressor, she doesn’t change the way the game itself is played.

The other big question is: how can the kingship be such a complete and utter mess????? This is the time of history that the rest of the Bible looked to as the golden age. There are only three kings of the United Kingdom (of Israel and Judea) and they are: Saul, David, and Solomon. And all three, and their families, are total messes. They make modern soap operas look boring. They make truly broken modern families look picture perfect. If that was the golden age, heaven help the rest of the ages!

Actually, while the drama factor is higher in the Jerusalem palace, all of the characters of the Hebrew Bible are ridiculous messes. Some are richer than others, some are smarter than others, but they’re all messes. They don’t even look impressive as compared to average humans. (And I think most humans are struggling rather mightily.) And yet, the Bible contends, God CHOOSES to work with and through those messy people. God doesn’t just give up on them because they are terrible parents, or greedy rulers, or manipulative queens, nor manipulated kings. God doesn’t even give up on the ones who are murders (David and Moses). Yeah, think about that for a bit. And who are the most famous murders in the Hebrew Bible? David and Moses. Who are the most celebrated leaders of the Hebrew Bible? David. And. Moses.

God doesn’t give up on us. Ever.

And the Hebrew Bible makes it plain to see that we can’t be so messy that God ever will give up on us. Even better, God keeps working with us to take our messes and make them into something beautiful. Solomon was known for his wisdom. David was known for his Psalms of Praise. Bathsheba found a way to be an agent of her own life (and help a very wise man take the throne). God isn’t scared off by messes, God can work with whatever we are, and bring wonder and beauty out of it all. Thanks be to God for that. 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

August 6, 2017

Sermons

Untitled

April 30, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

On
April 4^th several of us went to the University of Albany
to hear Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Very early
in the evening she explained that she likes to be up and moving, and
she started wandering around the room while speaking. The wandering
wasn’t random. She systematically worked her way around the entire
room, stopping at every row of every aisle, and walking across any
front row entirely. While talking coherently. she allowed every
person who reasonably could do so to touch her. She just offered her
hand, and people in the outside 3-4 seats were able to physically
connect with her.

She
was clear from the outset that this is her preferred way of engaging,
but I was also aware that it was a remarkable way to fulfill the
needs of those who come to hear her speak. She is the third woman
appointed to the Supreme Court, and the first Hispanic/Latinx. She
is an inspiration to an enormous percentage of the population, and
her choice to let people touch her seemed like a way to take that
inspiration role seriously.

In
all the wisdom Justice Sotomayor has, knowing the importance of touch
seems like part of it, as does taking seriously the role of being a
bearer of hope. She offered her hand as a beacon, letting her touch
defy some of the brokenness of the world.

–
– – –

The
first gospel lesson today also centers on the power touch. Two
women, in very different life stages are transformed by it. The two
stories, told together, are intended to reflect on each other and
enhance the meaning of each other. The young girl was 12, the
anticipated age of maturity. The woman had suffered for 12 years,
emphasized as long enough for a baby to reach maturity. The young
girl was believed dead. The woman’s was in a living death of
isolation, poverty, and extinguished hope.

The
young girl wasn’t able to speak for herself, so her loving father
begged for Jesus’s help. The woman
wasn’t to touch anyone, and anything she sat on or laid down on (as
well as her touch) would make others unclean. This should have
impeded her capacity to speak for herself too. The story seems to
suggest that she doesn’t have family to care for her, because they
refer to her dissipated wealth as her own. No one could do it for
her. She definitely wasn’t supposed to spend time in tight crowds.

(Two
thoughts about this. As damaging as such a life would be for a
person, I think it makes some sense in context. The ancient Jews
believed that blood was the life force in a body, that’s what made it
sacred. They would be understandably concerned about continual
bloodflow. Secondly, in an era before germ theory or antibiotics
about all people knew for sure about medicine was that you could get
sick from sick people. In order to care for the community, you kept
people from passing along illness. It is awful for the individuals,
but better than letting the whole community die. I don’t want this
story to be heard as implicating ancient Jewish society as unloving.
It seems to me they were doing the best they could.)

This woman, whose 12 years of
life had been without human touch or connection, as well as without
without successful treatment, and was now without resources because
she’d tried to fix it; broke the rules. She moved in a tight crowd,
touching others as she went. She sought, intentionally, to touch
Jesus, EVEN THOUGH her touch would make him ritually unclean. Some
scholars suggest that such an action made her eligible to be stoned.
No one could speak for her, the laws made it impossible for her to
speak for herself, so she broke the laws, taking a huge risk, seeking
life again. She reached out to touch Jesus, not knowing what
would happen next, if she’d be healed or stoned, accepted or
violently rejected.

– – –

On Tuesday the Judicial Council
of The United Methodist Church met in Newark, New Jersey to hear oral
arguments about the election of Bishop Karen Oliveto. Bishop Oliveto
was elected this past July by the Western Jurisdiction of the United
Methodist Church in an unanimous vote that was uncontested. She’s a
gifted spiritual leader, a joy-filled human being, a natural church
leader, and a living example of grace. The issue is very simple:
Karen is married to Robin, and both Karen and Robin are women. The
Western Jurisdiction knew this when they elected her, Karen’s
decision to run happened after the Pulse Nightclub massacre. She was
reminded of all of the violence done to the LGBTQIA¹
community, and thought it was important to use her ministry to
visibly change some of the narrative (in the church and the world.)

The
United Methodist Church is officially a homophobic denomination. It
intentionally and structurally oppresses the queer community. By
putting herself forward for election, she offered the possibility of
giving hope to the queer community in the midst of its grief and the
multitudes of harms. This particular United Methodist Church, along
with 836 other United Methodist churches and communities, has taken
an official stance declaring that we believe that The United
Methodist Church is WRONG and that God’s love and the churches doors
should be open to people without consideration of their sexuality or
gender identity. This church, and 836 others, advocate for the full
inclusion of LGBTQIA people in the church and the world. The Western
Jurisdiction agrees, and they elected Bishop Oliveto because of the
gifts and graces she has for the episcopacy.

Despite the systematic
oppression of the church, as Kevin has explained in 20 page brief
(one of many filed) what they did was legal and appropriate. (The
fact that the Judicial Council ended up sort of disagreeing doesn’t
in any way make me doubt Kevin’s analysis.)

The Judicial Council meets twice
a year, and they always have several items on their docket. Two
other pieces this April related to the commissioning and ordination
of out queer clergy. Unfortunately, while there are MANY in our
denomination who agree with us about God’s love extending to all
people, there are also many willing to engage in witch hunts to
prevent the church’s blessing from falling on queer people. The
conservatives wanted to invalidate the ordinations of out queer
clergy!!!

On
Tuesday, as I woke up, people had already gathered in Newark. Bishop
Oliveto, her wife and her mother, queer clergy from across the
denomination, queer laity, and allies of all sorts were present,
visible, singing, and connecting to each other. I watched it on live
feed. Tickets were given to two rooms: one the room in which the
Judicial Council sat and the arguments would be made, and one for
overflow connected via a live stream. Laity and allies exchanged
tickets with queer clergy so that they could be together, sitting in
solidarity with Bishop Oliveto.

As I watched the live stream, I
saw the Queer Clergy Caucus²
enter the Judicial Council room, and kneel to pray. It took my
breath away. It looked like the hemorrhaging woman reaching her hand
toward Jesus. That group of beloved and beautiful people of God have
stayed in a denomination that has called them names and declared
their lives “incompatible with Christian teaching.” They have
courageously refused to leave, refused to be silent or invisible, and
continued to ask for the church’s blessing on their whole lives and
ministries. They have reached out to touch Jesus, knowing that the
laws stand in the way, that the crowd will judge them, that the
disciples would try to stop them, and needing to touch Jesus anyway.

They knelt to pray, to reach out
and touch Jesus and hoped the church wouldn’t stop them this time.
They’ve done it before. They’ll do it again. But every time it is
an act of courage. So far, every time they reach out, the church has
TRIED to stop them.

– – – –

In the Gospel, Jesus’s response
is grace-filled. He calls out the woman (who must have been
TERRIFIED), and by doing so publicly he is able acknowledge her
healing and restore her relationship with the community at large.
She was able to touch others again, she was able to connect, she was
able to be a part of the whole. She was afraid that by touching him
she’d bring him shame, but she took the risk anyway, and instead all
that separated her from the community was lifted from her.

That’s
what the queer clergy caucus was hoping the church could replicate.

The young girl brought back to
life when Jesus grabbed her hand becomes a metaphor for the life that
Jesus has to offer, and gave as well the hemorrhaging woman. The
touch of Jesus brings life – and hope – as well as healing.

– – –

In our second Gospel lesson,
people are also walking with Jesus, and their lives are also changed
by it. The story ends with people more alive than when they began.
The theologian John Dominic Crossan³
often says, “Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens.”
That is, he doesn’t think that it is a story reflecting actual
historical events, but instead reflecting deep Christian realities.
This year it occurs to me to wonder how literally the story is
intending to indicate that a third person actually showed up.

Perhaps, instead, the Holy
Spirit was with the two walking together, and together they started
piecing together the teachings of Jesus and the meanings offered.
Perhaps the collective (even of two) felt so much more than one and
one that it was as if there was another one leading their
conversation. I’ve had conversations like that. (I’ve had
conversations like that this week at the “Change Leaders Summit”
hosted by the General Commission on Religion and Race as we dreamed a
less racist church). I could metaphorically say that the some
moments of talking to another have been so sacred and eye-opening
that it was as if Jesus was the third person in the dialogue.

If that is one of the
metaphorical meanings of the gospel lesson, the it is potent. The
disciples are running away! They’re going in the wrong direction,
and even then Jesus is with them and guiding them. In the end they
turn back and return to the place they’d been frightened away from.
They move from fear back to life. In connecting with Jesus they
connect with their hope, their meaning, and the purposes of their
lives. They were reconnected to Jesus, and perhaps via the power of
the Holy Spirit to guide sacred conversations.

– – –

Returning
to face the fears is part of the inherent Easter story. So is the
transformation of the Body of Christ from the historical Jesus to his
followers throughout time. We are now expected to respond to the
world with his courage and grace, to respond to all the ways he
responded to the hemorrhaging women, the powerless girl, and –
however it happened – the frightened disciples

Those Queer Clergy praying in
the Judical Council hearing room were living out the Easter story.
They faced the fears of rejection, and went anyway. Others may want
to cut them out of the Body of Christ, but they believe that Jesus
responds to them with grace. They know enough to reach out for Jesus
and know that Jesus will see them and bless them, even if the church
will not.

It turns out that today Bishop
Karen Oliveto IS still a Bishop. Thanks be to God. Furthermore,
none of the commissionings or ordinations of our out queer clergy
siblings were overturned. Thanks be to God. Unfortunately, there is
also a lot of bad news that came from the decisions. The church has
attempted to crack down to gain control offer the resistances
movements that seek to include ALL of God’s people fully in the
church. (They seem to forget that their methods NEVER work over the
long run.) There are many in our church who are hurting and there
are many in our world who are hearing from our denomination that they
are not worthy of love.

– – – –

The denomination is wrong. It
can’t control or limit God’s love. Nor can it control or limit the
queer community and its allies. The people of God will keep reaching
for God, whether the church tries to stop them or not. When people
reach out, Jesus responds with grace. When people reach out we can
follow the lead of the Spirit who will guide us to bring hope and
grace to each other. God is faithful, whether the church is or not.
For that, I am mightily thankful to God. Amen

1 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual

2 https://www.facebook.com/UMQClergy/

3 Coming
to First UMC Schenectady on September 23-24. SQUEAL.

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

April 30, 2017

Sermons

“Taking Her Seat” based on Isaiah 58:1-12 and Luke…

March 5, 2017February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

In
all the times I’ve studied – and preached on – this little story
from Luke, I’ve never paid attention to where it falls in the Gospel.
I suspect I’ve been too busy trying to justify Martha or emulate
Mary to attend to such a basic factor. It turns out that the story
of Mary and Martha comes RIGHT AFTER the Parable of the Good
Samaritan. That’s a pretty significant location. The Parable of the
Good Samaritan is especially potent and it seems very likely that the
brilliant writer Luke would use the story that follows it to
strengthen and emphasize it, right?

Right.
They are meant to work together!

As
the Jesus Seminar puts it, “Both the Samaritan and Mary step out of
conventional roles in Luke’s examples. This is Luke’s reason for
placing the story of Mary and Martha in tandem with the parable of
the Samaritan. The Samaritan for Luke illustrates the second
commandment (“Love your neighbor as yourself”), Mary exemplifies
the fulfillment of the first commandment (“You are to love the Lord
your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your
energy, and with all your mind”).”¹
Other commentators point out that where the Samaritan “sees” in
the way Jesus wants his followers to see, Mary “hears” as a model
for how his followers should listen for God and hear Jesus. The two
characters complement and complete each other.

Alan
Culpepper in the New Interpreter’s Bible explains the two stories
together in this way:

“In
it’s own way, the conjunction of the stories about the good Samaritan
and the female disciple voice Jesus’ protest against the rules and
boundaries set by the culture in which he lived. As they develop
seeing and hearing as metaphors for the activity of the kingdom, the
twin stories also expose the injustice of social barriers that
categorize, restrict, and oppress various groups in any society
(Samaritan, victims, woman). To love God with all one’s heart and
one’s neighbor as oneself meant then and now that one must often
reject society’s rules in favor of the codes of the kingdom – a
society without distinctions and boundaries between its members. The
rules of this society are just two – to love God and one’s neighbor
– but these rules are so radically different from those of the
society in which we live that living by them invariably calls us to
disregard all else, break the rules, and follow Jesus’ example.”²
(NIB, 232)

It
seems this story may pack quite a punch! So, while remembering to
keep the Good Samaritan story close, let’s look at this text again.
Both stories are set in the beginning of Luke’s story of Jesus
traveling to Jerusalem, a journey that will be concluded on Palm
Sunday. This is part of a journey narrative.

For
some here today this is a new story, and for others it is very
familiar. Often, I hear people talk about which sister they identify
with, this is one of the stories people use to make sense of their
own lives! It is sometimes tempting to make the story overly
symbolic, but there are reasons to refrain from that temptation.
John Fitzmyer in the Anchor Bible Series says, “To
read this episode as a commendation of contemplative life over
against active life is to allegorize it beyond recognition and to
introduce a distinction that was born only of later preoccupation.
The episode is addressed to the Christian who is expected to be
contemplativus(a)
in actione.”³

The challenge of keeping this
story in perspective is that we are easily drawn into
particularities. Jesus likely traveled WITH a large group of
followers and Martha was thus expected to prepare a large meal for
all of them, in this case without help. We want to wonder if she was
trying to be too elaborate, or if Jesus was simply taking the side of
Mary because Martha triangulated, or if Mary was usually “lazy.”
It is easy to find ourselves in this story, but that makes it harder
to hear this story. This is a story that KNOWS that faithfulness to
God requires learning AND action. This is a story about Jesus, who
called people to change their whole lives. It isn’t about who is
stuck doing the dishes, even though we know that story well. And for
today at least (we’ll get to Martha in the future), it isn’t about
Martha at all! Today is all about Mary 😉

Mary appears deceptively passive
in this story. She doesn’t speak, she’s simply spoken about. In
fact, all we really know is that she sat and listened. Well, that
and her sister didn’t appreciate it. Is sitting and listening really
so radical?

Yes.

It is radical because sitting at the feet of a teacher, a rabbi, was
the position of a disciple.
And in that time, women were not usually allowed to be disciples.
As the IVP Women’s Bible explains, “In
the first century women usually had no part in organized education.
Few were literate. Their education was confined to domestic and
family matters. Thus the considerable evidence that women were
followers of Jesus and played a significant part in the disciple band
is in contrast to the accepted practices of the day.”⁴

Mary’s
action isn’t just reflective of her radical choice because it wasn’t
one that she could take on her own. Her action reflects the radical
inclusion of Jesus. Back to the IVP Women’s Bible, “Jesus welcomed
many different women as learners (Mary of Bethany, Luke 10:39, 42)
and encouraged them to engage with him in his theological
conversations (Martha, Jn 11:21-27; Canaanite woman, Mt 15:24-28;
Samaritan woman, Jn 4:7-26). This was in contrast to the rabbinic
practice of excluding women.”⁵
Throughout Luke, Jesus offered instruction in synagogues, homes, and
in personal conversations to WOMEN.⁶
Jesus was a radical teacher willing to accept many kinds of
students, and a radical student willing to claim her spot no matter
what others thought of her!

I’m
told that Jesus taking on abnormal disciples extended well beyond
Mary and the teaching of women. Most rabbi’s took on only the
brightest and best pupils and nurtured them from their childhoods to
be excellent scholars. Jesus took on adult men who had been making
livings as fisherman, thus clearly not the perfect pupils another
rabbi had snapped up. Jesus refused hierarchies – EVEN the ones
that might have been seen as reasonable and helpful!!

The
writers in the Women’s Bible also pointed out that Luke’s account of
Mary and Martha seems to reflect a slightly later Christian
tradition. By the time of Acts, it was common for evangelists to
travel around preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus. They were
often hosted by women, who were then responsible for two tasks:
hospitality AND discernment. Clearly if a wealthy woman was going to
use her resources to support a traveling preacher, she needed to be
able to tell if the preacher was worth learning from! The radical
inclusion of women extended into the early church. The Women’s Bible
explains it this way,

“In
accounts of the early church we are made especially aware of the
women who revived traveling evangelists into their homes (Acts 16:15;
40; 18:2-3). More often than those of men, we are told the names
women in those houses the early churches met (Acts 12:12; 16:13-15;
40; Rom 16:3-5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15). Theirs was the
responsibility not only to provide food and housing of the itinerate
missionary but also to assess the message that was brought (see2
John; 3 John). This required that the women must be carefully taught
and possess a strong understanding of the fundamentals of the gospel.
… The story before us presents a paradigm of the attitude and
activities of women who opened their homes for gospel ministry.”⁷

Thus,
in this story, Mary IS doing half of the work – she is learning and
listening so that she will be able to discern who is worth listening
to in the future!!

I
really appreciate this idea that the women who offered hospitality
also had to be careful about whose perspective they empowered. I
like the reminder that hospitality, and extending one’s home, is a
powerful and important action that these women played a curating
role in who got to talk!!! I also think it is helpful to think
of Mary as listening, learning, and sitting AT THIS MOMENT in time so
that she would be of GREATER USE later. This is often how I think of
YOU. FUMC Schenectady’s identity statement is, “We
are a church that loves to learn and yearns to be a gift from God to
our communities.” These are two connected statements. This church
loves to learn because this church loves being useful in building the
kin-dom and in being a gift from God to our communities. This is a
church who cares enough to do things WELL, and that often means
slowing down and listening before acting.

For
Mary, like for us, listening precedes service so that service can be
done well. And that’s imperative. Simply following our instincts
often means doing more harm than good. Those who created “Indian
Missionary Schools” and those who taught in them meant to do GOOD,
but they did harm that has been passed down through generations!!
They didn’t listen to those they were trying to help. In the past
few years I’ve been part of a group trying to rethink the global
structure of the United Methodist Church to eliminate colonialism and
become true partners around the world. A few weeks ago I got to talk
to members of the UMC from Africa and in one succinct sentence they
proved to me that the plan was fundamentally flawed. We didn’t
listen to the people we were trying to include!

Listening
and learning is an imperative first step to any acts of service.
Transforming the world, or loving our neighbors with the love they
really need, or responding to the needs of people around us, or even
finding the ways to be whole and peace-filled people whose presence
is a gift of grace requires listening and learning first – to God,
to ourselves, AND to others. The Hebrew Bible lesson today suggests
that the people of God were not listening to what God needed nor to
what people living in poverty in their midst needed. Listening
and learning are of equal value and importance to action and service.
Together Mary and her sister show us what it can look like, just as
together Mary and the Good Samaritian show us what it is like to see
and hear.

Mary
listened. Mary learned. It was radical and subversive of her to sit
at Jesus’ feet as a disciple, and it was radical and subversive of
Jesus to teach women alongside men. Yet Jesus defends Mary’s right
to listen and learn, claiming that it is a good way to be in the
world. As important as action and service are, rushed action that
comes before listening and learning is often more harm than good.
May we leave this place open to the experiences of listening, and may
we sit down to learn from those are good and worthy teachers. May we
listen, like Mary. Because she sat, let us learn to sit and listen.
Amen

1 Robert W. Funk, Roy W Hoover,
and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the
Authentic Words of Jesus (HarperOneUSA, 1993), 325.

2 R.
Alan Culpepper, “Luke” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. IX
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 232.

3
Joesph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV,
(Doubleday and Co.: NY, NY, 1985) p. 892-3.

4 Catherine
Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans, editors, The IVP Women’s Bible
Commentary (InverVarsity
Press: Downers Grove, Illinois, 2002), p 571.

5 Ibid

6 The
Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible
Translation,
edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011),124.

7 IVP
Women’s Bible Commentary, 574.

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