“SILENT Prayer!?!”based on 1 Samuel 1:1-20

December 4, 2016February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Hannah may be the most well-behaved woman in this Subversive Women sermon series. In this story she expresses exemplary faith and devotion for God. She a common example used for the idea of “taking it to the Lord in prayer.” All in all, she feels like enough of a goody-two shoes to be the mother of the king-maker. As we see time and time again, when you hear a birth stories, you know that you are getting the story of someone important. When you hear about a barren woman in the Bible (much less a virgin 😉 ) you know you are hearing the beginning of the story of someone VERY important. The baby born to THIS barren woman will be the last of the judges, one of the great prophets, and the one to anoint kings Saul and David. This story seems designed to prove that he came from good stock.

To be honest, the Young Adult Bible study found her a little bit boring. Hannah is presented as a weeping mess, having internalizing the cultural narrative that her value was based on her ability to produce sons. She is one of two wives of reasonably wealthy man. (No poor man could afford two wives.) Their family goes to the holy place to worship once a year – not three like the really faithful families – but also not less than once. They’re moderately faithful Jews. She has a loving husband, which in and of itself makes her unusual in the Bible. She believes that God is in control of the world, and she seems to believe that a blessing by God’s priest will help her get what she wants. She makes a vow with very serious consequences: she wants a child so badly that she offers the child to God. (This is, of course, a promise she makes good on. She brings Samuel to Eli as soon as he is weaned and then sees him only once a year when she brings him new clothing.) She is a bit of a naive heroine: good, sweet, doing what she’s supposed to do, and sad because her society says she is worthless.

Despite the Young Adult Bible Study, there are a lot of interesting things going on in this story. They’re just hiding rather well! Are there any people in this room who immediately zone out when you hear genealogies – you know, like the one in the very first verse of this story? Me too. However, this one has a point! Hannah’s husband was of the clan Ephraim (one of Joseph’s sons). That is a Northern Tribe, which fits as this is a northern story set in the north. He was of that clan, as were the 5 generations before him. Which means he was NOT AT ALL a Levite. And the Levites were supposed to be the priests and holy men. The baby who will be born will be raised as if he is a priest, but he isn’t one. He is an insert into the holy man tradition. This is particularly relevant because Eli (a Levite) has sons who are corrupt priests, but the clan of Ephraim raises up a good priest. Things aren’t going as they should be. The system is broken.

Like the genealogy, the location has some hidden interest. The story is set in the Temple in Shiloh. Which would be a pretty boring detail except for one piece of historical knowledge: there is no Temple in Shiloh. Shiloh was a worship center, and there would have been official priests working there, but there was no Temple. The Temple would be build by David, who Samuel would make King – and it would be in the Southern Kingdom. This story has the fingerprints of later Southern editors on it, ones who couldn’t quite comprehend a worship space other than the Temple.

Now I mentioned that Hannah was a beloved spouse, which was a bit unique. The expressions of adoration from her husband are totally unique. He asks her why he isn’t worth 10 sons to her – which seems to imply that she’s worth 10 sons to him! Furthermore, he gives her the “double portion” to use in sacrifice. That’s odd. The double portion is the portion the eldest son inherits, where the younger sons each get only one. Hannah’s husband treats her as if she is as valuable to him as his eldest son and heir. He values her as she’d value her eldest son. He sees values in HER. This is particularly interesting because Hannah lacks value in her society. Women were meant to bear male children. That was what they were FOR, and from which their worth was derived. And Hannah didn’t. But her husband didn’t care. He appears to love her for HER, as she is. That may be a reason for some to be jealous of Hannah, but it surely doesn’t make boring. Because being loved can be so transformative in human life, I wonder how much of Hannah strength comes from her husband’s love. She may struggle with what she’s supposed to be (and isn’t) but she also has an internalized sense of self worth. Her husband might have been part of that.

This question of Hannah’s value comes up in her interaction with Eli. But first, we need to mention a few truly subversive things that happened before and during that interaction. First of all, she entered the holy space. I don’t know for sure how the worship space was used in Shiloh, but I do know that women weren’t let very far into the Jerusalem temple. For Hannah, even entering the holy space pushed the boundaries of what women were supposed to be doing. I’m also not sure how appropriate it would have been for Hannah to wander off on her own in public space. I suspect she broke the bounds of normalcy on that too. Then there is the fact that she prays SILENTLY and without a sound passing by her lips. We can tell by Eli’s response that her silence wasn’t standard for prayer.

Now, if Hannah was trying to elicit a response from God, and her deal making surely suggests she was, then why wasn’t she participating in prayer the way it was known to be practiced? Was she simply too focused and authentic in her prayer? I don’t think so! I think humans of any faith tradition are deeply enculturated on how to pray, and one wouldn’t be likely to break out of that in a moment of deep prayer. Instead, I wonder if she wanted to have a PRIVATE conversation with God. She went off by herself, she went into a sacred space that was mostly abandoned, and she spoke to God only in her heart. It seems possible that what she was saying was entirely too personal for anyone to know it. I suspect there was even some shame in it, as would be expected for a barren woman begging God to help her.

Hannah also makes a deal with God, which is not generally recommended, and she makes one of the more radical ones. Her family is moderately faithful. She offers her son as a livelong nazirite, which is UNHEARD OF. The holiest of holy men were nazirites for a year or two. But she offers. (And she does it! – Hannah is faithful to her promises.)

OK. So now we are on her conversation with Eli. Eli comes up and shames her for her despicable behavior – one that he projects onto her rather than one she has participated in. Hannah ANSWERED. She answered the high priest of that place, and she defended herself. She didn’t walk away in shame. She didn’t hang her head. She defended herself and her VALUE. She WAS a worthless woman by the standards she lived in. But she demands respect from the priest anyway. “‘No, my lord, I am a woman deeply troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord. Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation all this time”

“I am not a worthless woman.” Am I the only one who wants to cheer for her??? Even better it works. Eli may have failed to identify authentic prayer, yet, he is willing to be corrected!! He’s really an OK guy and a good priest, even though me misses some major memos. Eli believes her. That is huge in and of itself, but he also responds to her with a blessing. The blessing clearly matters to her, it cheers her up, and the story seems to think it has to do with her later success in getting pregnant.

Hannah names her son, “God has heard” and says she does so because “I asked him of the LORD”. She sounds a bit like Hagar, naming God, “the God who sees” (even me.) Hannah, whose society has told her that she is worthless, has a partner who believes in her worth, and even with her internal struggles finds that she believes in her worth too. Then it is affirmed. It seems to me that by the time Hannah gets pregnant, she is already sure that she is of value in the world and in the eyes of God whether or not she has a child. In the end, I think that’s what is so subversive about Hannah – that she finds the way to claim her own worth, despite society! May we follow in her footsteps because we are much more useful to God when we realize that we are valuable – and of use in building the kindom. 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

December 4, 2016

Sermons

“On Bread” based on Deuteronomy 26:1-11, Luke 4:1-13

February 14, 2016February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

It does not require an advanced degree in logic, nor a working knowledge of Greek to have a big question about this passage. Here we go: as Jesus was alone in the desert until the questionable appearance of the Tempter, there was no one there to witness and tell the story. Furthermore, I’m comfortable guessing that Jesus didn’t tell his disciples so they could write it down later. It feels too brag-y for that. These two factors decrease the likelihood that this is the telling of a story that happened, and increase the likelihood that the story is being told to make a point (or points?).

The story shows up in Mark and Matthew as well, with some changes, meaning that a bunch of people found it worthwhile. So, what value is there in telling a story of Jesus’ temptation? Let’s start by considering it’s location in Luke. The story of Jesus’ birth and childhood take up Luke 1 and 2. Luke 3 mostly concerns John the Baptist – his ministry, teaching, and imprisonment – and then moves on to Jesus’ baptism and then Jesus’ genealogy. Then we get this story, which is followed by Jesus’ first teachings and then his first healing and THEN the call of the disciples. This story is really early, as if it is trying to clarify who Jesus is.

I found a few excellent theories on what is going on here. The Jesus seminar says, “Luke utilizes this story in the manner of a Greco-Roman biography: he has placed an ordeal story between an account of the hero’s remarkable birth and the beginning of his career, as a way of foreshadowing his life and destiny.”¹ That seems fair, yet still leave me wondering why THIS story is the one chosen.

Alan Culpepper in the New Interpreter’s Bible comes up with a number of theories, I’m going to share only the ones I found enlightening. He suggests that for those who had been expecting a Messiah, there were significant questions about what kind of Messiah would come. Would the Messiah be a royal Messiah bringing back the kingdom of Israel? Would the Messiah be a priestly Messiah purifying the rituals of the Temple? This story clarifies that Jesus won’t misuse his power and isn’t going to do party tricks with his power either. At the very least then, if he won’t misuse his power, he won’t be a bad king, and if he won’t do party trick with his power, he won’t be a bad priest.

It connects Jesus with the history of Israel (a theory we’ll return to) and gives the followers of Jesus a model for resisting temptation. Culpepper also offers an intriguing point about the gospel of John, which does not include this story. Instead, he suggests that there are stories in the Gospel of John that form a basis for Jesus being tempted and resisting temptation in each of these ways. Therefore, the Synoptic version is a condensed poetic expression of what to expect from Jesus.²

Amy Jill Levine in points out in The Jewish Annotated New Testament made extra clear the connections to the Hebrew Bible. First of all, having Jesus in the desert for 40 days “recalls Israel’s testing”.³ That I could have come up with on my own, but then she points out that it connects Jesus to Moses and Elijah. In Deuteronomy 9:9, Moses says, “When I went up the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that the Lord made with you, I remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.” 1 Kings 19:8 speaks of Elijah, “He got up, and ate and drank; then he went in the strength of that food for forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God.” Who knew that the Transfiguration was foreshadowed in Luke? (Not me.) Amy Jill Levine also helps with understanding the role of the Devil in this story. She says that Satan, in Jewish thought is a member of the heavenly court, his role is to test the righteous.”⁴ Now, this doesn’t FIX the story for me, nor does it make me comfortable talking about a personification of temptation, but it softens it enough to make it usable.

Let’s review. Basic theories as to why this story would be included in the Gospels: because Greco-Roman biographies included a story of testing, to clarify what kind of Messiah Jesus was, to show people how to resist temptation (although I’m not sure that quoting scripture really WORKS for this), to establish the trustability of Jesus, to connect Jesus to the history of Israel and Moses and Elijah. If a few of those are actually true, then the story seems to have sufficient reason to exist.

Now that we’re clear on that, I’d like to obsess over the first bit of the story – the temptation regarding bread. I’m still a little testy on this one. It helps a little bit to think of this story as Jesus’ vision quest, but I worry that Jesus simply didn’t have enough money to have enough excess fat on him to be able to survive so long in the desert without food. That is likely taking the story too literally though. More so, I’m concerned about the presentation of food as temptation, and the giving up of food as God-desired sacrifice.

Wandering for 40 days in the desert is certainly a way of recalling the desert wanderings of the people under the leadership of Moses – but they got manna to eat. Of course, both Moses and Elijah are said to go as long with out food, and I suspect the underlying point in both is that God will take care of them, just as the story of the manna in the desert is mean to imply. I am a bit distracted by the rocks that Jesus is said to be tempted to make into bread. I’m not sure why you’d start with rocks anyway, unless you were trying to connect the rocks to the ones that get mentioned in the triumphal entry into Jerusalem story. Remember? The crowds are cheering Jesus and, “Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, ‘Teacher, order your disciples to stop.’ He answered, ‘I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.” (Luke 19:39-40) While in the beginning of his ministry Jesus shows constraint in his power, it seems like the Gospel suggests that there is an unstoppable growth in the power and energy that surrounds Jesus. Perhaps, in fact, it suggests that while Jesus self-constrains, following Jesus has an energy of its own! I’m not sure, but I think it is interesting.

The passage from Deuteronomy is, like all of Deuteronomy, attributed to Moses as a speech. I think it is one of the more profound passages of the Bible. Moses speaks of the future, to the people who are said to be standing outside the Promised Land looking into it with wonder. Moses will die before they enter. He says them, when you have come into the land and posses it, and settled into it… and all of the instructions we hear today are for that time, although they are spoken to people who are not yet in the land. Deuteronomy tends to conflate generations in meaningful ways, moving backward and forward in time through them.

When a generation came who had settled the land and brought forth fruit from it, they were then to take the first fruits of the land to a priest with a particular story of remembrance. I want you to hear it again,

“Today I declare to the LORD your God that I have come into the land that the LORD swore to our ancestors to give us. A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down into Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous. When the Egyptians treated us harshly and afflicted us, by imposing hard labor on us, we cried to the LORD, the God of our ancestors; the LORD heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. The LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with a terrifying display of power, and with signs and wonders; and he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. So now I bring the first of the fruit of the ground that you, O LORD, have given me.”

Do you hear all the generations? There is the one bringing the fruit, and the ones who lived with the promise of the land, but outside of it. There is a reference to Abraham, the wandering Aramean (and PLEASE remember that this reference to Abraham with today’s national borders would make him a Syrian refugee), the sons of Jacob who went to Egypt, and the many generations who lived there, the generation of the exodus, and the generation who settled the land. All of them interact in this retelling of the story, and the speaker is all of them at once. The best part though, is the conclusion. After the first fruits have been gathered, and taken to the priest in ritual, “Then you, together with the Levites and the aliens who reside among you, shall celebrate with all the bounty that the LORD your God has given to you and to your house.” The people are all to eat together in remembrance and celebration.

The generations who knew wealth and plenty remembered what it was to know hardship and hunger, and the celebration of having food becomes the invitation to those who don’t have food to share the bounty. It is a bit like our Community Breakfast, isn’t it? It is a bit like the gifts we give to the church, also.

I’m struck by the contrasting ideas of bread. Granted, the first fruits may not literally have been bread, but let’s assume some of them were grain that may or may not have been baked into bread. It would become bread eventually, so go with me. In Deuteronomy the bread is a blessing, one that moves a person to rituals of gratitude and celebrations of sharing. The bread becomes the reminder of the times without bread, and is thus both a blessing and a symbol of humility. In the Gospel the bread is a temptation, it is a symbol of weakness that the human body would desire food. The comparative Hebrew Bible passages infer that food was unnecessary because of the presence and care of God, but the Gospel acknowledges Jesus’ hunger and need for food, but takes it as weakness. (And people wonder why I like the Hebrew Bible???) In this premise, where bread is temptation, Jesus is good because he doe not bending to the human need for nourishment. This is the same bread that is used in sacrament “This is my body” and in table fellowship, in the giving of the first fruits, and the sharing of the table with Levites and foreigners.

There are those who say that Jesus did well in resisting the temptation, because the temptation was to use his power for his own good. To them I reply: some of our power in life must be used for our own good, God would have it be that way. God does not want us to give away all of our life power and goodness. God calls for everyone to have a full and abundant life. Sometime a sacrifice is called for in order to care for the greater good, but there is no value in sacrificing what is wonderful JUST TO DO SO.

I’m going to assume instead that Jesus had been hungry in the desert long enough to be having delusions, and one of them was that a stone looked like bread. He responded to the delusion with a refusal to break his teeth on a stone, aware that his mind was playing tricks on him. I assume this because along with Deuteronomy and the Communion Table, I affirm that bread and food are good gifts from God with physical and symbolic value. When a person is hungry we are instructed to feed them. That includes ourselves. May we remember the wonder that comes with the food we eat, and the nourishment it gives us, and may we come to every table with gratitude for food and awareness calling us to feed those who are hungry. May we let go of the assumption that sacrifice is inherently good, and return to a sense of the holiness of every day items – including food. Amen

1Robert W. Funk, Roy W Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Autthentic Words of Jesus (HarperOneUSA, 1993), page 278.

2 R. Alan Culpepper, “Luke,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 9 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994): 97-98.

3Amy Jill Levine “Notes on Luke” 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), 106.

4Ibid.

–

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

February 14, 2016

Sermons

“John Wesley v. the iphone: Perfection”based on Matthew 5:43-48

August 17, 2015February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

This
is week 2 of a sermon series entitled “Would John Welsey Drive a
Prius” trying to consider how Wesley’s concepts, ideas, and even
just his words fit into our lives today. The topic of the week is
perfection, and I figured that since the founder of the Methodist
movement wrote only one book, called “A Plain Account of Christian
Perfection,” I should probably reread it for the 5^th
time.

The
book is short, and it is on point. John Wesley affirms his long held
belief that by God’s grace and the process of sanctification, people
can be filled with love and nothing else while they are still alive.
He called the end point Christian Perfection. Believing that a
person could reach Christian perfection in this lifetime was, for
him, the defining characteristic of being a Methodist.

To understand, we need to look at the word perfection.

This is the explanation of
Steven Maskar of the General Board of Discipleship:

When
people hear Christian and
perfection together,
the word impossible
immediately
jumps to mind. This response is common because the meaning they hear
in the English word perfection
is that of the Latin word perfecto.
This term is the perfection of the gods. It means one who is
perfect in all regards – in thought, word, and deed. Human beings
are, of course, not capable of such perfection. But this is not the
meaning of Christian
perfection.

Wesley,
and others who addressed the doctrine, took the meaning of perfection
from the Greek words teleios and
teleiosis.
… Several
English words are today used to convey the meaning of teleios:
whole, complete, mature, grown-up,
perfect.¹

This
doesn’t mean that people won’t make mistakes. Wesley is clear on
that time and time again. Mistakes will happen no matter what, they
are the defining characteristic of being human. But acting out love
is still possible: and the love is both for God and humans. Wesley
even goes so far as to say that God primarily experiences love when
we share it with other people.

Now,
John Wesley’s book is not actually my favorite. (The stories I’ve
heard about him lead me to liking him more than I do from his book.)
I find most of what he says outdated, redundant, and/or offensive.
When he gets around to a point that is sort of awesome, which he
does, I’m generally too annoyed with him to give him full credit.
Luckily, Marjorie Suchocki loves the book. Marjorie Suchocki is a
lay woman who has been dean and theology professor at multiple UM
seminaries. She was a professor emeritus when I was at Claremont,
and she attended Claremont UMC where I got to be Program Secretary.
I think she’s brilliant, and I take what she says very seriously.
She added a theological reflection to the end of “A Perfect Love”
– a modern language version of Wesley’s classic – in which she
shares her opinion the first time she read “A Plain Account of
Christian Perfection.” She thought to herself, “Why, this is the
merriest theologian I’ve ever read.”²

I
want to give Marjorie a chance to convince all of us of how wonderful
Wesley’s book is, and how “merry” he is. It is only out of my
utmost respect for her that I can do this without sarcasm. She
points out that in Wesley’s view humanity is highly regarded namely,
“God creates humans for the sake of flourishing, of full
development, and this development tends towards God’s glory.”³
(Which is also Love.) She also point out that neither bodies nor
minds are denigrated in Wesley’s theology. “God the creator is not
gloried through our denigration, but through the wonder of who we
were created to be. God created us with minds, and calls us to
develop them to the fullest. We are to rejoice in our ‘mindedness’
and learn all that we can, pushing our abilities to the very
limit…. In short, a Wesleyan understanding of what it is to be
human considers our intelligence, emotions, and bodies all to be a
gift from God, and thus we honor God insofar as we gratefully develop
the gift as much as possible within our circumstances.”⁴

She
takes from his book an understanding of God that I can get behind,
“God
is a fountain of pure love – not abstractly, not philosophically,
not in isolated splendor. Rather, God’s very nature is to love, and
through loving, to elicit our own loving nature in return. Love is,
of all things, relational; and the God whose name and nature is love
is relational, through and through. Out of the depths of divine
love, God loves us; and we are most wondrously created because of
that love, and for that love, and toward that love.”⁵
Now, I read the same book she did. And when she points this out, I
can totally see where she gets it from, and how all the redundant
statements get to that point. However, I couldn’t get past my own
annoyance to see the wonder of what he was saying. Thank God for
cheerful theologians looking for the good in what others say!! (And
who maybe, just maybe, use their own brilliance to explain the
slightly less exciting perspective of others.)

Suchocki
has a few other significant points that she draws out of Wesley’s
little book: “The remarkable thing about Wesley is that he figured
God couldn’t be stopped by human recalcitrance.”⁶
and, “Consider the nature of sin in a Wesleyan world. If God
intended us to develop ourselves fully under the criterion of the
love of God, then sin is anything that works against that goal.”⁷
Now, we haven’t covered Wesley’s book as a whole, nor Suchocki’s
reflections on it, but we’ve done enough to be able to have a
conversation on the concept of perfection.

One
of Wesley’s favorite scripture passages to promote this topic is the
one we read today, although he had many, many others. It is an
excellent passage because in addition to actually using the Greek
word for perfection/wholeness/completeness the passage calls for it
to be in love. The passages pushes for more love than people would
naturally want to give, and Wesley does too! He really jives on this
passage, talking about doing good to those who would do you harm. He
pushes Methodists to show love outside of their own circles, and to
engage everyone as a beloved child of God, and he lived it too.

Personally,
I’m pretty fond of this passage as well. Many scriptures that name
enemies end up claiming that God will punish those who do us harm,
and that always sounds wrong. This one doesn’t. This one points out
that sun and rain are gifts for everyone, no matter what their
behavior, and that the love we share is to be as unbiased as the sun
and the rain. It is even specific! It calls out people for not
wanting to greet others who they don’t know or like. Apparently
humanity hasn’t’ changed all that much in 2000 years. The passage
calls out the people who follow the way of Jesus, and asks them to
behave with MORE love than those who don’t. The way of Jesus isn’t
just another way of living the same sort of life, it is a more
generous, more inclusive, more connected, more relational, more
loving way of life. Thus, it is harder and more rewarding!

Like
Wesley, I’ve seen people live out love. The pastor I interned under
let me follow him around like a puppy dog two days a week for two
years. I sat in every meeting he sat it, I listened to him talk on
the phone, and I listened to him when people interrupted him when he
was on his way to get something important done. I heard him speak to
the District Superintendent, the lay leaders, the staff, people who
were homeless, people who I knew drove him nuts, his partner, his
children, and those who said to him that he was outside of God’s
grace. Finally, near the end of him shadowing him, I asked him how
he did it. In every conversation I saw over 2 years he was
UNFAILINGLY patient, loving, kind, and gentle. He looked at me
surprised and said, “We’re supposed to treat people with the love
that God has for them!” I looked back at him and replied, “Yes,
of course we are! But none of the rest of us actually manage to do
it!”

On
the off chance that Rev. Dr. Ed Hansen reads this sermon on Facebook,
I will admit for the sake of his humility that I’m not quite claiming
perfection for him. But I learned a lot about what it means to live
in love in those years of following him. He is an example for me of
how profoundly powerful it is when we seek to live out God’s love.
There are others, as well. Lots of them actually. In your unique
ways, almost of you have taught me as well (with the exception of
those I haven’t met yet… harder to make that claim before we meet.)
We can learn about love from all those we meet, if we are paying
attention to it, and around here it is even easy!

John
Shelby Spong, in his book “A New Christianity for a New World”
proposes that God is NOT a being (which is sort of a projection of
ourselves most of the time anyway), but rather the Source of Being.
He suggests that we consider God in new ways: “God is the ultimate
source of life. One worships this God by living fully, by sharing
deeply,”⁸
“God is the ultimate source of love. One worships this God by
loving wastefully, by spreading love frivolously, by giving love away
without stopping to count the cost.”⁹
“God is Being – the reality underlying everything that is. To
worship this God you must be willing to risk all, abandoning your
defenses and your self-imposed or culturally constructed security
systems.”¹⁰

Spong
is talking about God as I’ve known and experienced God. But, in
addition to what Spong offered, I would add a fourth: God is the
ultimate source of justice. One worships this God by seeking
equality and fairness for all people regardless of race, age, gender,
sexual orientation, country of origin, economic status, ability or
disability, language, health or sickness, annoyance or wonderfulness.
(You might be able to argue that Justice and Love are the same
thing for God, that because God loves all the people and seeks good
for all, that justice would follow. I’d agree, in theory, but in
practicality I want to mention it separately.) Spong’s theory is
quite different from many of the church’s historical teachings. It
refutes God as supernatural, as intervening in the world in physical
ways, as having favorites, or even of ensuring people’s safety.
Because of that, it frees us from old trappings and lets redefine
what it means to be people of God in more inclusive, prophetic, and
loving ways. Or, perhaps around here, it gives words and form to
what many of us already believed,

This
understanding, this perspective of the Holy One is both radically
different from what John Wesley wrote and EXACTLY THE SAME. It
boggles my mind how profoundly true both sides of this are. Wesley’s
understanding of God, in most ways, fits his 18^th
century context. So much of what he says is dated, and yet, he is
hyperfocused on this life. He is focused on making the world a
better place, on building the kin-dom of God, by guiding people into
the sorts of relationships with God that let love be built up in and
through them. His life and his writing are obsessed with helping
there be more love in the world in practical and real ways – ways
life food, shelter, heat in winter, clothes, and companionship. His
love wasn’t pie in the sky. It was practical, down to earth, and
extended to ALL the people.

John
Wesley’s understanding of God starts with God’s love that seeks
justice, and includes God’s enrichment of life. Without Marjorie I
might not have seen it, but he has some points that hold up as well
as the most radical of 21^st
century theologians. Oh, and the iphone? It is just a device that
is pretty close to perfection in the Latin version of the word.
Compared to the power of love, it doesn’t matter. Wesley for the
WIN. Love for the WIN. Thanks be to the Source of Life, Love,
Justice, and Being. Amen

1 A
Perfect Love: Understanding John Wesley’s ’A
Plain Account of Christian Perfection’
Modern Language Version and notes by Steven W Manskar (Discipleship
Resources: Nashville, 2004), page 10.
2 Suchocki p. 33 and 104.
3 Suchocki,
106.
4 Suchocki,
107-8.
5 Suchocki,
108.
6 Suchocki
110.
7 Suchocki
111.
8 John
Shelby Spong A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional
Faith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born
(HarperSanFrancisco, 2001) page 70.
9 Spong,
72.
10 Spong
72-73.

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady
August 9, 2015