God With Us

December 14, 2025March 17, 2026
by Sara Baron

“God With Us” based on Luke 8:22-25 and Matthew 14:22-32

(Jesus MAFA image)

This little story about a boat crossing a lake is one that has occupied a lot of space in my brain over the years. As a child I was mesmerized by it, awed by the power of Jesus and desperate to be one with more faith than those hapless disciples. As a seminarian I was taught about Greco-Roman myths of gods and goddesses walking on water and the New Testament narrative “our God is better than your god” which made me a bit dismissive. And then as a pastor I have often used this as a passage for Lectio Divina, giving people a space to listen for God’s nudgings through scripture and have been astounded time and time again at the layers of meaning people can find in the text. Our most recent confirmation class loved this passage and the experience they had with it in Lectio Divina, reminding me of the hard times of life and the powerful reminders to be found in the reality that God is with us.

Another time, when The United Methodist Church was at the height of its struggles in 2019, two Bishops at our Annual Conference seemed to have a battle over this text. Our Bishop at the time tried to convince us that the boat was sinking and it was time to exit. The visiting Bishop who was invited to preach at ordination preached “no matter how strong the wind, no matter how high the waves, since Jesus is in the boat with us, we will be ok.”

Perhaps some of the reason that this story has such resonance in our faith is that it is one of VERY few stories that shows up in ALL 4 gospels (although Luke lacks the walking on water part), and is thus a story we come across pretty often. I’ll admit, I’ve also spent a little bit too much time wondering about why THIS of all stories would be one of the few that are in all of the gospels.

And, one final connection with this story: when I had been appointed to this church but before I arrived, I had the chance to meet some church members at one of the Upper New York Camp and Retreat Centers when UNY Volunteers in Mission and the UNY Leadership Team did some work together. That was the day I met Pete and Jan Huston, and Pete came up to me greeting me with the words, “I hear you walk on water.” I spluttered. He continued, “But it isn’t that hard in winter.”

This Advent I’ve been focusing on Christian sermons preached during the Third Reich in resistance to Hitler and the Nazis. In January of 1934, Rev. Paul Schneider was a small town pastor who preached a sermon on this text to the church he had been serving for 8 years at that point, which had been the church his father served until his death. Rev. Schneider was a WW I vet, but a bit unique in that “Rather than the war making him hard and cold, it made him sympathetic and tender towards the suffering of others.”1 After his service in the war he went to seminary and did a practicum with coal miners whose life experiences challenged his faith. To keep us on our toes around here, he was a conservative preacher, and his experiences with the struggling coal miners led him to leave his liberal faith behind for a far more literal and conservative faith. In fact, for the most part, the churches in Germany during the Third Reich that resisted were fairly conservative, and they seem to explain it as rejection of the world because of their commitment to faith. I appreciate how this makes me a little uncomfortable.

Rev. Schneider chose these two texts, the story from Luke without walking on water and the one from Matthew where Peter joins Jesus in walking on water and preached on them as one. He used them to talk about the fear people were experiencing and what their faith called on them to do about it. So let me give you some of his word: “The little boat of the church of Christ is traveling on stormy seas.”2 “We cannot close our eyes to the high storm-waves we see surging towards our people in the Third Reich.”3 “We Evangelical Christians can never say that we agree with these things that many leading figures of the new Germany are voicing and declaring in speeches.”4 “We as evangelical parents, want to know that our children are unequivocally being raised in our evangelical faith and taught its content and we want to be sure that they have not been contaminated with the current racist religious spirit.”5

To be sure, many people are still asleep and have not recognized that it is the hour to rise up. They still think that since all around us things have changed, certainly in the church, of all places, things must remain exactly as they were before. Or perhaps they just want to subject the church to the political authority of the state and shape the life of the church to fit the current political views as the ‘German Christians’ are currently doing.

To be sure, they can only support this practice by preaching the heresy that the gospel does not rest solely on the good news of our savior Jesus Christ and the kingdom (Reich) of God, but that somehow race and the gospel together constituent the church.6…

Now, you Christian in your church, you are surrounded by waves that are coming over you from the church and from the nation and the state. And we are anxious and we are afraid. We are experiencing what the disciples were going through on the stormy lake. We call out, ‘Lord, help us, we are perishing!”7 “Where is the storm? It is not so much around you as in you, in your heart.

There, deep in your heart, you see, as Peter did, the heaving winds blowing against you, and you become afraid and begin to sink. But even then the Lord holds out to you his saving hand and holds you firm in order to strengthen your weak faith.” 8

And it is curious, at least to me, that he makes so many good points and does such good work this this text. That I can be with him so far into this sermon. And then at this point he goes on to say that a true Christian believes in miracles and trusts in God’s capacity to preform them, which is imperative to him. I can support and respect his faith and its perspective, even if I don’t share it. I love reminders like this, that differences in worldview sometimes don’t matter all that much. Finally, he says, “I would rather die for my faith than live a cowardly and cultured life with the rest of the world.”9

Rev. Schneider used this sermon as an introduction, I think. “Following the sermon was a reading of the Kanzelabkündigung (message from the pulpit) from the Confessing Church, which was read from many pulpits that Sunday: “We raise before God and this Christian congregation the complaint and charge that the Reich bishop in his decree has threatened violence against those who have been unable to keep silent for the sake of their conscience and their congregation concerning the present danger of the church. And in addition has set into force laws that run counter to our confession of faith which he had earlier lifted in order to satisfy the church. — We must hold the Reich bishop accountable to the scripture: ‘One must obey God more than men.” 10

Rev. Schneider was telling his congregation that the government was threatening Christians who weren’t supporting the work of the Third Reich. He was forced out of that pulpit the following month, was reassigned to a church more receptive to his message, and five years later became the first Protestant pastor to die in a concentration camp.

So, um, happy joy-Sunday from your pastor who knows how to make Advent really cheery.

I am awed by this self-described “simple country preacher” who simply refused to bend. Like prophets and martyrs before him, he stayed faithful in the face of persecution, told truth despite the consequences, and kept his heart focused on God and God-things. He took on powers and authorities far “above his pay-grade” because he was a follower of Jesus who didn’t care about pay-grades. I wonder about his transition from liberal faith to literal faith and how that impacted his capacities to stay true to God. (It is my suspicion he would have said it was imperative.) I’m horrified that he was killed, but also a little bit shocked that it was a “simple country preacher” that the powers-that-be felt the need to silence first. It almost seems like they made this point in this sermon, the boat may seem small but the church being faithful has great impact.

Like Jesus before him, and Martin Luther King Jr after him, and along with an unfortunately large great cloud of witnesses who did the same, Rev. Schneider stayed faithful to end, dying for his faith rather than quieting his voice for the comfort of the oppressors.

Thanks be to God for the people who follow God’s love no mater the cost, and may we not only follow God’s love, but also be part of changing the world so that this cost may someday not need to be paid. God help us. Amen

1Preaching in Hitler’s Shadow: Sermons of Resistance in the Third Reich, Dean G. Stroud (Grand Rapids: William B. Eardman, 2013) page 76.

2Ibid, 80.

3Ibid, 81.

4Ibid, 81.

5Ibid, 82.

6Ibid, 79.

7Ibid, 83.

8Ibid, 83.

9Ibid, 84.

10From the footnote on page 84.

December 14, 2025

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

Sermons

“A Powerful No” based on Esther 1:1-20

November 13, 2016February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

In 1802 a heterosexual, white, protestant couple got married – and the church freaked out. You want to know why, I promise. They freaked out because she…wore….a red coat! The couple was Abigail and Daniel Harkness, and Daniel was a part of the Society of Friends. They officially censured him for marrying her, both because she wasn’t a part of the Society of Friends and because of her coat (which they said made her a “worldly woman”). She refused to give up her coat. He refused to apologize for her coat. So they became Methodists.

Thank goodness they did. I sometimes have some feelings of envy for the peace-loving Quakers, but that one action they did all those years ago was really good for Methodists. Abigail and Daniel’s great-granddaughter was fond of telling that story, and made it a part of her story of formation. Their great-granddaughter was Georgia Harkness, the first woman to be a full professor at a theological school in the United States of America, a feat she accomplished as an active Methodist theologian. She was, truth be told, the first RECOGNIZED female theologian, and she was a member of the Troy Annual Conference. She had local ordination, but fought for women’s full ordination rights in the Methodist Church.

I do not have enough time to tell you Georgia Harkness’s full story today (I’m still learning it), but there are a few other details you need to know. She graduated from Cornell in 1912, after which she taught high school in Schyllerville and Scotia for 6 years (yes, OUR Scotia), but she got restless. After reading an advertisement in The Christian Advocate she went to Boston University (also a Methodist school) for her masters degree and then a PhD in the philosophy of religion. She then taught at Elmira College for 15 years. In 1939 she was hired by Garrett, breaking the stained glass ceiling. She was part of the movement toward full ordination rights for women in the Methodist Church, the social gospel, the creation of the World Council of Churches, and was eventually a General Conference delegate from the Troy Annual Conference (although Junice tells me this happened while she was a professor at Pacific School of Religion in CA and not everyone was thrilled about it.)

While she was teaching in Scotia, she was very active in her “local church” teaching Sunday School and working with youth groups. We haven’t yet verified which church was that was. Most likely, Scotia UMC, right? Given our history though, maybe it was us. (We’re looking!) In any case, a Methodist Church in the Albany District and Schenectady County sent Georgia Harkness off to her graduate education and to change the face of Methodism, academia, and the world.

Dr. Georgia Harkness attributed her courage to her great-grandmother, Abigail. When women graduate from Garrett-Evangelical Theological school, a United Methodist Seminary north of Chicago, they wear red shoes. They do it to remind themselves of their place in the world as courageous, outrageous women and to celebrate the rich tradition of female scholarship at Garrett-Evangelical.”¹ They do it because of Abigail Harkness.

Abigail Harkness refused to do what was asked of her, and in doing so she inspired great change. Her courage laid the foundation for Georgia’s. I think Abigail Harkness was to Georgia Harkness what Vashti was to Esther. Now, let me be clear. The book of Esther is a work of fiction. It was written down (no oral tradition) as a work of fiction, for the purpose of encouraging Jews living in the Persian empire to have hope and stay faithful. This story did not happen. History knows too much about the era. This is intentional historical fiction! As Sidnie White Crawford (professor of Classics and Religious Studies at University of Nebraka Lincoln) puts it in The New Interpreter’s Bible, “This is also a hopeful message to Jews living in diaspora; the status quo is never such and things can always change.”²

John Dominic Crossan likes to help people understand the Bible by saying, “Emmaus never happened, Emmaus always happens,” by which he means that he doesn’t think that there was an actual embodied living Christ who walked with the disciples to Emmaus and explained the Jesus movement to them and then disappeared as he became known in the breaking of the bread at dinner. Rather, he believes that it is in reflecting on history that we come to understand our present, and it is in the communion table that Christ is known. The literal pales beside the metaphorical. Similarly, the book of Esther didn’t happen, and yet Esther tells truths of humanity that keep happening.

White Crawford says, “The book, which was written for Jews living in exile, consistently lampoons their Gentile overlords. Ahasuerus is less an awe-inspiring ruler than an easily manipulated buffoon.”³ Obviously the Jews living in ancient Persia were the only people in the history of the world who need to make fun of their ruler to feel safe in the world, so we can’t understand it, but we can try ;).

The story starts out describing the excessive opulence of the King’s palace and grounds and his outrageous 6-month party for all of his officials. Granted, travel was harder in those days and he was king over a really big empire so you might want to take advantage of opportunites to be together, but who can really afford to both stop their government for 6 months AND have a ridiculous party at the same time? Clearly, he could! And he thought it was worth it. He was clearly very excited to show off his power and wealth.

Now, the author is very wise and quite intentional. The attention to detail wasn’t an accident. White Crawford says, “Through the description we get a glimpse of the Persian character: ostentatious, showy, unbridled. This is in direct contrast to the usual Jewish values of modesty and self-restraint (see Prov 11:2-4). Although disapproval is never directly voiced, the message is clear: Such opulence, while immediately awe-inspiring, hides an empty and probably corrupt core.”⁴ So, after this showy 6 month party, the King decides that he needs a new audience to show off to, and he invites everyone in the city to come to a 7 day party.

It is very clearly stated that at this party people were allowed to drink how they wanted, because usually the expectation was that everyone drank when the king drank. “The author is letting the reader now that everything in this court, including drinking, proceeds according to the whim of the king,” including allowing people to drink as much (or as little) as they wished!⁵

So, 187 days in to a drunken stupor, the king calls for his wife who is throwing a party of her own with the women. This isn’t particularly historical, but it does work for historical fiction! We’re told that, “Historically Persian women and men could eat together, but the women left when the drinking began. It suits the purposes of the author to have the men and women separate when the story begins.”⁶ It fits the story, because then the king can call for Vashti.

She is told to show up in her crown. She isn’t told what else to wear. Assumptions have long been that she’s not supposed to wear anything but her crown. So, the story sets it up: the king has has been having a six month long drinking party to show off all his wealth, his wife is with her female companions, and he beckons her to come out naked to be shown off before all of the officials of the land and every man in her city.

Now, we don’t know a darn thing about Vashti (mostly because she never existed) but I want to play with this idea a little bit. I have, at times in my life, been in the exclusive company of women. During those times, if a particularly inappropriate “request” were to come to one of those women from a man, a certain amount of shared indignation would erupt. The woman who received the “request,” who might have simply hung her head in shame and complied if she were alone, would be motivated to respond differently in the presence of other women. The atrocity of the “request” would be named. Other options would be raised. An assessment of the risk involved in refusing vs. the risk involved in responding would be done. Perhaps, if there were some, particularly powerful women in the group might offer their own resources as protection.

That is to say, that when oppressors make horrible demands of members of oppressed groups, they’re less likely to have their dictates followed when the demand comes to the individual while the individual is supported by other members of the oppressed group. Um. Duh. But, the king is presented as an idiot. So, he doesn’t know that. And I’m not trying to be subtle here. I’m encouraging all of us to act like the women that Vashti was with – naming injustice when we see it, assessing damage, coming up with alternative plans, using our resources for the vulnerable, and supporting whoever needs the support. I’m reminding us all that there is power in being together, and not in allowing anyone to be isolated. I’m particularly encouraging stand together in the face of unreasonable decrees by unjust rulers.

Vashti says “no.” The story doesn’t REALLY tell us what happens to her. She’s said to be banished. For most of history that’s thought to include being killed. However, I’ve had a hard week and I’m going to claim that some of those women she was with in her banquet took her in and she lived a lovely life of freedom and access to great books in her exile. It IS a work of fiction after all, and this is my fan-fiction addition for the sake of having some darn hope. 😉

However, before she gets banished a few things happen. First of all, her husband who just spent 187 days showing off his power and wealth can’t figure out how to respond her “no” and convenes a war council to try to figure out how to respond. The king’s councilors are also freaked out and horrified that once the story gets out (which it WILL when all the women were present to hear her “no” and all the men were present to see her not show up) all the other women in the empire won’t obey their husbands either. (May. It. Be. So.) The scholar reminds us, “the character’s reactions to events lead the reader to laugh. For example, Vashti’s refusal to obey one order is thought to threaten the stability of the empire and leads to a decree declaring, of all things, that husbands should rule in their own houses and speak their own languages.”⁷ Which happens. The greatest mail service ever known on the face of the earth to that time was put to the task of telling men to be the masters of their houses – in a society that was already a patriarchy – because the men were so freaked out that one woman would say “no.”

That’s a powerful no.

It also set up Esther to replace Vashti as queen and save her people from genocide. Vashti and Esther didn’t know each other, but we can guess that Esther knew Vashti’s story, and learned from it. She did her subversiveness in different ways, but she learned from the one who came before her. Vashti set up Esther to succeed. Abigail Harkness set up Georgia to succeed. Even the failures of one woman who seeks power can inspire the next woman to succeed.

And, beloved people of God, like Vashti and Abigail, we are not powerless. We have the power to say “no” to things that are wrong, and “yes” to opportunities for justice. Furthermore, we can act like the women at the banquet in counseling each other toward courageous acts and outrageous refusals of unjust demands. We are powerful. God is powerful. We can, and we will continue to move the world toward good. NOTHING and NO ONE, not even a narcissistic power-hungry “king” can stop us. Thanks be to God. Amen

1“Red Shoes” by “preacher mom” http://preacherparents.blogspot.com/2010/05/red-shoes.html, accessed 11/10/2016

2Sidnie White Crawford “The Book of Esther,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999): p. 858.

3Ibid, 858

4Ibid, 880.

5Ibid, 879.

6Ibid, 880.

7Ibid, 858.

–

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

November 13, 2016