“Hungry People, Frightened Disciples” based on 2 Kings 4:42-44 and…

July 29, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

I have a tendency to get caught up in miracles stories and miss their points. Were there really 5000 people there? Does that include or exclude women and children? Did this happen in the country, in a city, or in the Transjordan (as various gospels purport)? Are we to understand this as the loaves and fishes literally being expansive? Are we to assume that one person’s generosity enabled others to share as well? Or, is this really another way of explaining communion, and we are to attend to the ways that small piece of the bread of life can feed our souls?

(I think for John, this is the communion story. He doesn’t have communion on Jesus’ last night because he has footwashing. And the verbs fit. John has Jesus take the bread, give thanks, distribute them … and also the fish, which seems a solid variation on the cup.)

My questions are ones I’m interested in, BUT they’re distractions. However, as much as I want to make sense of the story by assessing the veracity of the details, the Bible doesn’t work that way! The Bible simply isn’t obsessed with factuality the way that moderns are. The Bible thinks that it is OK have 4 or 5 totally different versions of the same stories (like this one), and doesn’t mind the differences between them. That would seem to indicate that the details aren’t the point!! The Bible speaks in METAPHOR, because it speaks of things that are bigger than facts.

That being said, I think one of the easiest ways to figure out what metaphors and truths the Bible is trying to get to is to pay attention to the ways that stories are adapted as they are retold. One of the most common ways that the Gospels make sense of Jesus is by using references to Hebrew Bible leaders. For instance, the Gospel of Matthew spends a lot of energy constructing Jesus as the “new Moses” including having him come back in to the Promised Land from Egypt. Matthew and Luke each find a way to speak of Jesus as the “new David” by making sure to place his birth in Bethlehem. All of the Gospels also compare Jesus to the greatest prophets of the Hebrew Tradition, Elijah and Elisha, and this story is one of those examples.

Elijah came first. His story of miraculous feeding found in 1 Kings 17:8-16. That story tells of the prophet, who was on the run, being instructed to go to a poor widow’s house so that the widow would feed him. He was hungry and in need of food because of a drought, a drought that he had predicted would come, a drought that the Bible presents as an expression of God’s displeasure at royal behavior. Elijah wasn’t the only one who was hungry because of the drought. The widow he was sent to was also a mother, and she had only a small bit of meal and a tiny bit of oil left to her name. When the prophet asked for some bread, she responded, “As the Lord your God lives, I have nothing baked, only a handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a jug; I am now gathering a couple of sticks, so that I may go home and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.” (NRSV, v. 12) The prophet asked for some of the tiny bit she had left, and she gave it to him. Somehow, the widow, her child, and the prophet had enough to eat for many days, and survived.

The Bible is affirming in this story that God is with Elijah. It is also telling us that what seems like a small and insufficient gift can be quite useful and abundant when given to God.

When Elijah died, his mentee Elisha was given his mantle and sent to continue his work as a prophet. At that point, the Bible spends some time showing that the miracles God worked for Elijah, God also worked for Elisha, proving that the mantle had been passed metaphorically and not just physically. A mantle is a long, sleeveless cloak. In this case it represented the power of the prophet to function as God’s witness in the world.

So, in our Hebrew Bible reading today, Elisha is able to provide food for hungry people when there clearly isn’t enough. It is a very different story, yet the miraculous part where too little food is somehow still enough, is still there. This one starts with a man bringing his tithe to the prophet. The Torah has very specific instructions about how to live well in community, and one piece of that is that the first fruits of a harvest be given away. Sometimes they’re given to the priests so that the priests who are landless in service to God have food. Sometimes they’re blessed to be used for a feast or festival where all the members of the community get to eat together. That method also ensures that those who are food insecure have access to food.

Probably most people were not bringing their first fruits to to Elisha, because his role was as a prophet and not as a priest. But this man sees holiness in Elisha, and brings his offering out of faithfulness to God, to Elisha to be used. Now, Elisha has surrounded himself with a large number of followers. That was very different from how his mentor Elijah worked. Mentor Elijah was a loner, who on good days allowed mentee Elisha to follow him. Elisha was better at working in community. However, both were really unpopular with the leadership of the day, and had trouble accessing sufficient resources on their own, without Divine help.

Elisha uses the gift from the man’s first fruits to feed those who surrounded him in HIS community. It shouldn’t have been enough to feed the people, and yet it was more than enough. The Bible is indicating that God is with Elisha. It is also telling us that what seems like a small and insufficient gift can be useful and abundant when given to God.

God was with Elijah, God was with Elisha, and God was with Jesus. This story, this miraculous feeding a large crowd that sounds a lot like Elisha feeding, is the ONLY miracle found in all 4 Gospels. Clearly the early Christian community thought this story was central to understanding Jesus.

In the second story, Elisha’s servant names that what was given to Elisha wasn’t enough to feed the large crowd. In John, the disciples who are expected to understand what God and Jesus are up to, articulate similar concerns. The crowd is BIG, and they’re all hungry, and they don’t have the resources to feed them.

But one person, in this case one small boy, offers his meager resources. 5 barley loaves and 2 dried fish, the traveling food of the poor in that day, were likely all he had with them. He offered them to God and to God’s holy one, a lot like the man who had offered his first fruits to God’s prophet Elisha. It wasn’t enough. It wasn’t even close to enough.

But the Bible is indicating that God is with Jesus. It is also telling us that what seems like a small and insufficient gift can be quite useful and abundant when given to God.

There is another unique detail in John. The story opens telling us that Jesus “went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee which is also called the Sea of Tiberias.” (NRSV, v. 1). It isn’t called that. The Sea of Galilee just isn’t called the Sea of Tiberias. BUT, it is super meaningful to mention it that way. In 20 CE, the tetrarch of Galilee, Herod Antipas, created a new capital for himself in Galilee, on the Sea of Galilee, and named it for the Roman Empiror Tiberius. The goals seemed to be twofold: one to flatter the Roman Emperor Tiberius directly; another to commercialize the fishing on the sea, then building up the economy, and proving his powers as an good leader. Both of the goals were really aimed at trying to get access to lead more of the Roman Empire, as his father had.

Tiberias was a noticeably Roman city, one that offended the Jews as it was built on burial grounds, and represented the ways that the Empire sought to exploit the people for economic gain. To call the Sea of Galilee the Sea of Tiberias is to remind those experiencing the story of the social and political location of Jesus’ ministry. In fact, his miracle itself undermined the empire because it fed the hungry masses whose hunger the empire sought to exploit. The Sea of Galilee had been the primary food source for the people, but had become a source of income for the Empire, at the expense of the people’s primary food source.

On the shores of the Sea, Jesus fed the hungry and hurting people, both with food and with hope.

The initiating act of the miracle was the child who offered his meager bread and two small dried fish.

Those three characters shared what they had, despite it not being enough: that child, that man bringing his first fruits to a politically unpopular prophet, and that widow who shared her last meal. None of them did anything all that unusual. People share sometimes. People offer tithes. Desperate people make do and share what isn’t even enough for them over and over and over again. Many people have told me stories of their own parents limiting their food intake so they could eat enough as children. This happens.

But the Bible says that even little gifts can create significant good. That narrative is feeling really big right now, because the problems of the world feel really big right now, they feel like a hungry and frightened mass of 5000 people looking expectantly for food! Sometimes, for me, what I have to offer feels really small sometimes – a shoulder to cry on, a listening ear, a voice to raise in prayer, a presence in the midst of the struggle that stays calm and peaceful. They’re SMALL when the problems are BIG. But the Bible says that God can do a LOT with what we give to God, even when it appears that what we have to offer is a lot less than what is needed to solve the problem.

God isn’t asking us to give out of resources we lack! God asks for what we can give, no matter how small, and then God works with it.

In the midst of the really hard times of life, the things that pick us up aren’t usually big miracles. They’re still the small stuff! They’re the little indications that someone cares and we aren’t alone in the struggle. I encourage you to think about the hard times in your life and what picked you up. Was it big things? Or was it things so small that the person who offered it might not even remember?

The small stuff matters. A little tiny loaf of bread. A regular tithe offering. The simple supper of a poor child. Each became a means of grace in the world. God can work with what we have to give.

So, let us go from this place, offer what we have, and watch to see how God multiplies our gifts into signs of hope and grace. God is able, and so are we. 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

Sermons

“A Kiss and a Dance” based on Psalm 85:8-13 and…

July 15, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

What we do know about John the Baptist and Herod? Well, the Herod in this story is NOT the Herod in Matthew’s story of Jesus’s birth and immigration to Egypt. That one was Herod the Great, who was actually “King of the Jews.” This Herod is his son, Herod Antipas, and he ruled only ¼^th of what had been his father’s kingdom. He was a “tetrarch”, which literally means he ruled ¼^th of what would have been a kingdom if it was whole. He had other brothers who also had the first name Herod. Thus he was not a king, and it isn’t clear if Mark is unaware of that fact, or if he is rubbing it in with this story.

Herodias was a granddaughter of Herod the Great, who had been married off to Herod the II, son of Herod the Great, brother to Herod Antipas, and her half-uncle. Mark mis-states that her first husband had been Phillip, but got correct that it has been one of Herod Antipas’s brothers. Her second husband, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee was also her half uncle. Also her parents were cousins, but we’re now off topic. Both Herod Antipas and Herodias were each other’s second spouses, both of their first spouses were still alive and they’d each divorced them. The practicing Jews of the day would not have been chill about that. Herodias had a daughter from her first marriage, Salome. Mark also misnames her. To Salome, Herod Antipas would have been half-uncle, half-great uncle, cousin of some sort and stepfather. Observant Jews at the time would have found Salome and Herod Antipas’s familial ties too close for him to “appreciate her dance” quite so much. Of course, all of the marriages we have spoken about were intended for political gain.

Scholars are quite certain that Herod Antipas, the tetrarch whose area included Galilee had John the Baptist killed. John the Baptist had a ministry in Galilee, where he preached repentance of sins, and thus called people back to observant Judaism. Ched Myer’s in Binding Up the Strong Man points out that the story Mark tells about how John was killed was intended to teach important lessons about how the world works. Given the distance from the events, and how little Mark seems to know about the people involved, he took poetic license in telling a story that was true in essence, but not necessarily factual. The inaccurate names and roles seems to uphold this theory, Mark may not have known the right names, but it also seems like he doesn’t care that much. He’s telling a different kind of story than direct history.

Myers thinks that John the Baptist “here represents the view that to claim to rule over the Jewish people is legitimate only if Jewish law is recognized.”¹ This is relevant not only because of divorce or incest, but also because “Herod Antipas, however, was a staunch Hellenist and was notorious among religious Jews for his contempt of their religious practices. Indeed, he built his capital city, Tiberias, on an ancient burial ground, rendering the city religiously unclean to observant Jews”.²So Herod Antipas was ruling over the Jews, but didn’t live according to Jewish laws, and John the Baptist was a reformer calling on the Jews to reclaim the depth of their faithfulness and laws.

The story says that Herod was having a party with his “courtiers and officers and for the leaders of Galilee” (v. 21) for his birthday. Meyers says:

“Mark accurately describes the inner circle of power as an incestuous relationship involving governmental, military, and commercial interests.”

Yet among all these powerful men it is a dancing girl who determines the fate of the Baptist! At the center of the story is Herod’s ‘oath’ to Herodias’s daughter, stated twice for comic emphasis (6:22f.). This fiction is no more an attempt to excuse Herod from culpability in the death of John than is the fiction of Barabbas or the crowd’s demand an attempt to excuse Pilate from the death of Jesus. The dilemma created by the oath is a parody on the shameless methods of decision making among the elite, a world in which human life is bartered to save royal face: Herod trades the ‘head’ (symbolizing his honor) of the prophet to rescue the integrity of his own drunken oath (6:24-28).

Mark’s account of the death of John is scarcely apolitical! A more sarcastic social caricature could not have been spun by the bitterest Galilean peasants.”³

So, Mark tells a story that clarifies how little the elite value the lives of the peasants, a story that the peasants already know based on every other part of their lives. Jesus told a lot of stories like that too, to clarify how things really worked and to make sure that the propaganda that said otherwise looked ridiculous. John the Baptist was killed by an order from Herod Antipas, likely because Herod thought he was either too popular or his message was too threatening. This story just takes it a little bit further, and makes parody, or maybe a parable, out of it.

Of course, this isn’t just a story of the Roman Empire in the first century though. John the Baptist was preaching repentance in the wilderness, he was calling on the people to recommit themselves to God, which meant recommitting themselves to God’s covenant. As was true of the prophets before him who has called for people to follow the covenant, he met resistance. The people in power don’t like God’s vision for how the world should be, because it involves shared power and equitable distribution of resources. God’s covenant doesn’t make space for consolidated power and wealth. Prophets get silenced or killed. This is a universal story.. Those who threaten the power structures take risks with their lives.

Mark’s version, which makes parody out of the choice to kill John, emphasizes the power differential and the lack of respect for human life that can happen at the top of the power pyramid. This isn’t a pleasant story. It isn’t uplifting. It doesn’t have a moral, or at least not one that you can feel good about. It serves to foreshadow Jesus’s death by reminding the audience of what happens when God’s dreams meet humans in power who have reason to maintain the status quo.

Sometimes these days I wish the Bible was an easier book, by which I mean a less honest one. I want the Bible I was taught about in Sunday School. From what I could figure then, that Bible was full of understandable stories of good people doing good things connected to the Holy One. I’m stuck with this really honest one that articulates the brokenness of humans, of families, of communities, and most especially of domination systems. The Bible we have doesn’t let me stick my head in the sand, sing Disney songs, and pretend everything is OK anymore than watching the news or talking with our breakfast guests does.

I have a long list of things I’m worried about in the country and the world (as well as the church) right now. I suspect you do too. I’m not going to name any part of that list today. Sometimes we need a rest, a respite, a chance to recover from the worries instead of just watching the piles grow larger. Recently, I’ve been feeling more and more moved to give us all that respite in worship. I hear the exhaustion among us, I hear the fears, I hear the sense of moral outrage, I hear sadness and anger, disbelief and grief.

I hear a yearning for good news, and within that a yearning for better news than that John the Baptist was killed because domination systems don’t like God’s prophets 😉

So, let’s look at the Psalm for a moment 😉 The lectionary had us skip the beginning of the Psalm, which could lead us to miss how relevant it is. The beginning of the Psalm reminds God of what God has previously done for the people, and then begins to BEG of God that the Divine step in again. Things are all going wrong, and the Psalmist requests forgiveness, restoration, salvation, revival, and love. Everything is wrong and the Psalmist wants God to intervene. I think I can resonate with that.

Then we get to the part we read out-loud today. The Psalmist asks for God’s words, particularly for words of blessing and hope: that “shalom” might be spoken to the people. “Shalom is the comprehensive concept of well-being, peace, and welfare which includes love, faithfulness, righteousness, prosperity, and glory.”⁴ – and it’s corporate. “’If there is to be well-being, it will not be just for isolated, insulated individuals; it is rather security and prosperity granted to a whole community – young and old, rich and poor, powerful and dependent. Always we are all in it together.’”⁵ The Psalmist asks God to speak shalom to the people.

The last stanza of the Psalm is presented as that speaking of shalom. “Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet; righteousness and peace will kiss each other. Faithfulness will spring up from the ground, and righteousness will look down from the sky.” (v. 10-11) I’m going to give you a two tiny parts of the nuance of “righteousness” because like “shalom” it has a community emphasis that I don’t think we’re used to hearing. Righteousness “denotes not so much the abstract idea of justice or virtue, as right standing and consequent right behaviour, within a community.”⁶ Put another way, “Righteousness is about our accepting and living into the mutual, vulnerable, and interdependent reality of all relationships. It is about accepting the fact that from this reality, this righteous relationship, the life of God is experienced.”⁷

So, steadfast love and being in right standing with each other will meet; and treating each other mutuality will kiss with communal holistic well being. Faithfulness will spring up out of the earth itself without effort, and interdependence will fall from the sky like a gentle rain. It is a beautiful vision!

The Psalm puts together four of the most common qualities of the Divine: steadfast love, faithfulness (which is related to truth), righteousness, and shalom. Interestingly, they are also qualities of people who are working together to build the kindom of God. It doesn’t work without steadfast love, without honesty with each other, without being in good relationship, without an awareness that none of us can be truly well unless all of us are well!

Said a whole lot less poetically, the kindom of God is build on loving relationships. Good loving relationships are good in and of themselves and are the building blocks of the kindom. I’m not talking only about romantic relationships nor familial ones, although those count! I mean that loving each other – including loving our enemies (even the WCA) – is the way we reflect God’s nature in the world and build the kindom of God.

The work of advocacy, protest, and resistance is mean to be built on love and built through loving relationships, too. That’s actually where the hope is! When we can love each other, and when we are able to allow God to help us expand our hearts to love and be in relationship with a wider circle of people, the kindom of God is build.

Right now, it feels like a lot of things are going backward, and we can’t control all of them. It is scary and sad and frustrating and terrible at times! BUT, the key to it all is love: love God, love ourselves, love each other, and let the love expand. The kindom is build on loving relationships, and those are life giving in every way. May we go, and love. Amen

1Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Orbis Books: Maryknoll, NY, 1988, 2008), 216.

2Robert A. Bryant, “Exegetical Perspective on Mark 6:14-29” in Barbara Brown Taylor and David Bartlett editors of Feasting on the Word Year B Volume 3 (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville Kentucky, 2009), 239.

3Myers, 216.

4Marvin E Tate, Psalms 51-100 Volume 20; David A. Hubbard and Gleen W Barker, editors, World Bible Commentary series, (Zonderan, 1991), 372.

5Tate quoting Walter Bruggemann from Living Towards a Vision: Biblical Reflections on Shalom, 1982.

6N.T. Wright “Righteousness” from NTWrightPagehttp://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/righteousness/ accessed on July 12, 2018.

7Todd M. Donatelli “Homiletical Perspective on Psalm 85:8-13” in Barbara Brown Taylor and David Bartlett editors of Feasting on the Word Year B Volume 3 (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville Kentucky, 2009), 227

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

July 15, 2018

Sermons

“Speaking the Vision Anyway” based on Ezekiel 2:1-5 and Mark…

July 8, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

I grew up and went to school in a rural area that was pretty stable and unchanging. Teachers in my school district often taught multiple generations of the same family. It was normal for any of us to be referred to by our older siblings names, as our teachers had all taught our siblings before us. I attended the same school district k-12, and most of my kindergarten class graduated with me. Many of us, even, had gone to preschool together.

In a conversation one time about places like that, I heard a very wise reflection, “It is really great to have people you’ve known since 2^nd grade, but it isn’t always great that those people remember when you puked on the art teacher’s shoes IN 2^nd grade.” It is with this background, and with that wisdom, that I consider this story of Jesus trying to “go home again.”

The problem is that, as humans, we develop theories of who people are. The longer we’ve known them, the more certain we are about our theories. In stable and unchanging communities, people get locked into particular roles, ones that don’t necessarily even fit them anymore. In those places, there isn’t a lot of space for people to take on new roles or identities.

This can also be true in families. Family Systems Theory even says that when one person in a system tries to function in a different way, the entire system around them works to re-stabilize the system, BY pushing that person back into their former role. This is why we often revert to ways of being that we’ve otherwise abandoned when we are with our nascent families.

Nazareth thought they knew who Jesus was. They knew his mother. They knew his brothers and sisters. They knew his training. It wasn’t a big village. Likely they ALL knew how many times he’d puked at age 7, and where.

In their list of knowing who he is, and thus why he can’t be the same guy who is shaking up the world around them with his teaching and healing, they call him “Mary’s son.” As one scholar puts it, “even if his father Joseph had died by this time, to identify Jesus as his mother’s son rather than his father’s might have been intended as an insult, shaming Jesus by insinuating that he did not have a father.”¹ In fact, in the book of Mark, Jesus’ father is never mentioned. Mark is the first Gospel to have been written, which suggests that in the earliest stories told about Jesus, his father was not a part of the stories. It isn’t clear what this means. It may mean that the best memory of the community was that Jesus’ paternal parentage wasn’t known, it might just mean that an insult was launched at Jesus and was remembered. However, since Matthew and Luke attempts to “fix” the problem of Jesus not having a father, I think that may mean they were doing clean up work to try to gloss over this question.

Now, I don’t say this just to mess up our stories. I say it because I think it may be important. There has been so much emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God, which has distanced him from his humanity, and from the rest of us. There were rumors in early centuries that Jesus’ father was a Roman soldier, which would certainly be possible. What impact would that have had on Mary? On Jesus? It seems to me that a questionable parentage reminds us of Jesus’ humanity, and perhaps even reminds us why he cared so much about vulnerable people who appeared to be at the bottom of society.

In any case, it seems that in his village of Nazareth, the people don’t think Jesus was meant to break out of his roles as his mother’s son and as a day-laboring builder. He was NOT supposed to be a wisdom teacher, a healer, a leader. He was supposed to be a little bit ashamed, and humble. These people knew him, and his secrets. He wasn’t a big deal to them. In fact, to them he wasn’t supposed to be a big deal to anybody else.

I love the little detail that says, “And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them.” (verse 5) That indicates that the expectations of the people, the ways they saw him, impacted his abilities. It may mean no one asked anything of him. It may mean he tried, but couldn’t, not when faced with such disbelief from the people in front of him. In either case, it feels to me like that Family Systems Theory again. The roles people expect of us impact who we are when we’re around them! The energy in the room impacts all of us. I think he couldn’t, not there, not with how they saw him.

This matters for us too. How we perceive each other, and what space we make for each other to grow and change, impacts how we can able to grow and change! Perhaps, even more broadly, how we understand ourselves as a church likely impacts what we can be as a church!!

It seems that Jesus took the momentary setback of his hometown well. He takes the moment and uses it to give advice to his disciples as he sends them out. He seems to easily remember what it is like not to be heard, and tells them what to do if they aren’t heard. They are to shake the dust off their feet. Thus, they leave that place there, and don’t take any part of it with them as they go on.

Ezekiel, too, is about what is to be said whether or not the people hear. It is particularly direct about this, ending with the line, “Whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that there has been a prophet among them.” (verse 5) As one scholar puts it, ““The role of ‘hearing’ in a traditional society indicates more than an auditory event alone; it is a holistic response to the message. In Ezekiel’s case, the ‘hearing’ of the listeners does not affect the role of the prophet, nor does it require the acknowledgment of the audience. Even if they do not ‘hear,’ they will nonetheless know that there was a prophet in their midst.”²

In 597 BCE the king of Judah had miscalculated the outcome of the power struggle between Babylon and Egypt, resulting in a Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. That siege resulted in his removal, along with many of the leaders of Judah, “nobles, craftsmen, and smiths as well as ‘the men of valor’”³ to Babylon. The king of Babylon put a successor on the throne, one who also read the political winds poorly, which resulted in the nearly complete destruction of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE and a larger wave of exiles being taken to Babylon. Ezekiel was sent to be the prophet to the first group of exiled leaders. That group likely included his father, a priest. It included Ezekiel too.

As one scholar puts it, “There, in a foreign land, among a displaced people, God appears!”⁴ I don’t know that Ezekiel, or the exiled community expected that. At least in part, they thought of YHWH as the God of the Promised Land. And they thought of being exiles as being punished by God, or out of favor with God, or maybe proof that God wasn’t as powerful as they’d dreamed. Thus, they didn’t expect God to appear. At the start of this passage, after Ezekiel has experienced an initial vision of the Divine, Ezekiel is told to “get up.” He doesn’t. In fact, he doesn’t seem able to. He seems like he is in shock, or awe, or something. God has appeared when God wasn’t supposed to. So the Spirit has to get him up on his feet so that he can be sent off on God’s mission!!

This vision of God in the exiled land “assures us that we are never so far away that God cannot find us. Even in moments of exile, God remembers us and comes to us.”⁵That was good news for the exiles, and it is good news for us when we feel like exiles in our own land. God sent Ezekiel to speak to the leaders in exile. Neither their status as the upper crust nor their status as exiles prevented God from wanting to speak to them. Furthermore, their status as “unlikely to listen” doesn’t to matter either.

God sends Ezekiel to speak, and says Ezekiel is to speak WHETHER OR NOT they listen. His job is not to convince them of something, is not to make himself heard, nor is it to change their ways of doing things. His job is to speak. In speaking to them as a prophet, inherently, he is communicating that God is with them, God still cares, and nothing they do can shake God off. God sends prophets to those God loves.

I have to admit, I’m a bit preoccupied with this idea of being asked to do work WHETHER OR NOT it changes anything. (I nearly said whether or not it matters, which is likely what I really think.) What things are worth doing, even if they don’t change out comes? What things need to be said, even if they aren’t heard? What are we called to do and to be, EVEN if the world around us stays exactly the same?

I guess that’s another way of saying, “What is God wanting us to do or say?” because it seems that the things that could matter so much that they need to be done regardless of outcome would be things that are that important because God asks us to do them. What injustices need to be named, what alarm bells need to be rung, what cries need to be wailed, what joy needs to be exclaimed, what love needs to be exclaimed… whether or not anyone hears it, just because it has to be done?

Jesus went and preached in his hometown, which wasn’t likely to matter. They already knew what they thought of him. Ezekiel got sent to preach to the leaders in exile, and they weren’t going to listen. But they both went anyway. Jesus sent his disciples off giving them a way not to carry with the the failure of any group to listen to them. In doing so, he made it possible to remember that what needs to be said needs to be said regardless of who listens. Some will listen, some won’t, the message needs to be shared.

So, what is it that God needs us to say, regardless of who listens? (Answers welcome at any time.) Amen

1 Feasting on the Word, Exegetical Commentary on Mark 6:10-13, p. 215.

2Feasting on the Word, Exegetical Commentary on Ezekiel 2:1-5, page 199.

3Katheryn Pfisterer Darr “The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume VI, Leander E. Keck Covener of the Editorial Board (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2001), 1078.

4Festing on the Word, Homiletical Commentary on Ezekiel 2:1-5, page 197.

5Homiletical, 197.

–

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

July 8, 2018

Sermons

“Is the Body of Christ Intersex?” based on Genesis…

July 1, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

There are a lot of metaphors for the Holy One. Some Biblical metaphors are: rock, fortress, shepherd, light, Alpha and Omega, vine, bread of life, fire, breath, father, laboring woman, king, nursing mother, warrior, mother hen – to name a few. As evidenced, some of the metaphors are genderless, some are masculine, and some are feminine.

Most theists I know believe that the Divine is Spirit, and Spirit is beyond gender. At the same time, most of them use masculine pronouns for the Holy One, often unconsciously. As Rev. Dr. Michelle Bogue-Trost stated in a petition to this year’s Annual Conference entitled “Expansive Language,” “imagery conveyed by language becomes a teaching methodology as we articulate our understandings of humanity and of God, and influences our understanding of the nature of the Divine and of all creation, including all of God’s people.”¹ Thus, she said, “limiting our use of language and imagery to male-only naming for God or for humanity; … is hurtful to faithful persons of all varieties.”² The United Methodist Church already has a Resolution “encouraging United Methodist clergy and laity ‘to use diverse Biblical images and titles for God, including masculine/feminine metaphors; use language for humans that reflects both male and female; use metaphors of color, darkness, ability, and age in positive ways,’ and further, that we affirm the use of Biblical language and images in all their forms as appropriate for use in hymns, liturgy, teaching, and in all areas of our common life together.’”³

Her petition asked that “the Upper New York Annual Conference commits itself to use language and imagery about God and humanity in ways that are faithfully inclusive of the variety of humanity and myriad of understandings of God.”⁴ (It was more extensive, and even better, but that’s the succinct version.) To the horror of our church representatives, the resolution did NOT pass. There was anxiety in the Annual Conference about speaking of the Divine in expansive and inclusive ways. (Yes, it is OK to face palm at this point.)

That was a shame. When we limit our metaphors of Holiness, especially by associating the Holy One with the ones who hold disproportionate power in society, we do great harm. It was at the moment that the Expansive Language Resolution failed that Alice Nash suggested we take the time to celebrate in worship The Holy One who is gender non-binary. This church is blessed with wise lay leaders!

The another piece fell into place. Our delegation to the United Methodist Women’s Assembly had also returned and brought back with them a book entitled ‘Beyond a Binary God: A Theology for Trans* Allies” by Tara K. Soughers. Rev. Dr. Soughers offers some very helpful definitions, ones that I think we all need.

HOWEVER, before I can offer her definitions, I need to be clear that definitions of words around gender identity are not universally agreed upon. This is one set, even I can find issue with some of the words, and some people will find them inaccurate in meaningful ways. That said, I believe this would be true of any definitions, and we need to start somewhere. She says:

“Gender identity is the gender that the person knows oneself to be interiorly. Those whose self-understanding of gender is inconsistent with their biological sex or gender assigned at birth are known as transgender, the ’T’ in our list of letters. Trans– means “across” so transgender individuals are those whose gender is across from, or on another side of, the gender they were assigned at birth. Alternatively, those whose self-understanding of gender is consistent with their biological sex are known as cis-gender – in other words ‘on the same side.’ Some people do not identify with either masculine or feminine gender. Those people often identify as agender. Others identify with both masculine and feminine genders, and often consider themselves gender fluid. Collectively, those who do not have a singular gender identity are often called ‘gender queer’, a variation of ‘Q’⁵ … Non-binary trans* people are those who do not fit into the binary understanding of gender. They can present as masculine, feminine, or androgynous; sometimes they can present differently depending on the context. Often they prefer to use “they/them/theirs” as pronouns, or other non-gendered personal pronouns that are becoming more widely used.”⁶

If that was too much, let me repeat the most succinct line, “Non-binary trans* people are those who do not fit into the binary understanding of gender.” The binary refers to the binary of masculine and feminine, particularly when they are understood as opposites.

Our first Scripture gives us one of the best examples in Scripture of the Divine as gender non-binary. It is from the first creation story in Genesis, the priestly version, and our text comes from day 6 of creation. The core part of that story for our purposes are the words, “Then G-d said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, to be like us. … Humankind was created as G-d’s reflection: in the divine image G-d created them; female and male, G-d made them.” (Inclusive Bible, Genesis 1:26a, 27) Do you hear it? Female AND male are created in the image of the Creator, that the Holy One contains both what is reflected in the masculine and what is reflected in the feminine!! That would mean that the Divine fits the definition of gender non-binary. The Holy One presents as female at times, as male at times, as androgynous at times, and as non-personified at times too! The Divine doesn’t fit our human categories, but it is more than that. The Creator is fundamentally non-binary, and in specific, gender non-binary.

You may remember that in Genesis 1, creation happens by creating light, then separating light from darkness; then creating sky, and separating sky from water; then creating land which separating land from sea; then creating vegetation and so on, culminating in the creation of humans then the Sabbath. Rev. Dr. Soughers makes a further wonderful point about this passage, in the context of the first creation story:

“only day and night were created, but not twilight or dawn. Dry land and water were supposedly separated, but we also have marshes and swamps where dry land and water mix. Just because marshes or twilight are not mentioned in creation does not mean that either is impossible or excluded. The binaries were meant to suggest not only the extremes that are named, but everything in between. If that is the case with dawn and with swamps, why exclude the possibility of that also being true in the case of gender?”⁷

Thus, there is even more in this story than the Creator containing both masculine and feminine, there is space for both the Creator and the created to be both/and and to be neither/nor. The range of gender is in the image of the Creator, and the Creator is reflected in all varieties of gender identities. This also includes “agender”, which for many of us might be the easiest gender to associate the the Creator, who we think of as a Spirit beyond gender. In any case, we are blessed by the opportunity to expand our metaphors and see expressions we’ve previously missed about the Holy One.

Now, onto the question of this sermon, “Is the Body of Christ Intersex?” First, let’s get a definition, in this case from the Intersex Society of North America, “’Intersex’ is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.⁸ Depending on the breadth one uses with that definition, one can conclude that between 0.07% and 1.7% of babies born are born intersex. To be very clear, to speak of people who are intersex is to talk about biological sex, and not gender identity. In the past, intersex babies were often assigned a biological sex and surgery was preformed to conform their anatomy to the assigned sex. Luckily, this is much less common now. Today, intersex people are most often raised with a presumptive gender, one that the individual may or may not affirm later in life.⁹ By not preforming surgery at birth, the intersex individual can later decide if surgeries are appropriate to express their gender identity.

Our second reading today introduces the concept of the Body of Christ, of which we are all members. Each of us contribute our gifts, given by the Spirit, to the work of the whole. The continued living Body of Christ, doing the work that Jesus began in his life time, is the most profound explanation of resurrection I know. “And that Body is not one part, it is many.” (Inclusive Bible, 1 Corinthians 12:14). The passage goes on to pontificate about how the ear has a differentiated role from the foot; and that our suffering and joys are shared. Maybe I am extending the metaphor too far, but I tend to think that the Body of Christ is a real, full, and human like body. I think there is Holiness to bodies themselves, and they serve as a great metaphor for the Body of Christ.

When Jesus was alive, to the best of my knowledge, his body was male. However, I don’t think that gives us information about the gender (nor sex) of the current living Body of Christ. The answer to my question about the Body being intersex is “I don’t think so” because to be intersex never refers to being fully female and fully male at the same time, because that doesn’t physiologically occur in bodies. Yet, to imagine the Body of Christ in its fullness, for me at least, requires imagining the physiologically impossible. The Body cannot be the Body of Christ, a composite of all the humans who are a part of it, and lack the fullness of femininity, nor the fullness of masculinity. I can’t tell you with the gender identity of the Body of Christ (although I’d imagine gender non-binary and perhaps oscillating between a both and to masculine and feminine and neither/nor to the same), but I do think the full range of biological sex options have to simultaneously co-exist. I guess, then, that I have to revise my answer. I think the Body of Christ IS intersex, and female, and male, all at once.

And I think the Body of Christ reflects the Creator’s own self, which is broad enough to also contain all gender identities and biological sexes. And I think this is very, very good news for humanity, which has been created in the image of Holiness itself, which a wide range of diversity and variety. Not only does the full range of gender identity reflect the Holy One, all people in all gender identities are reflections of the Creator’s own self!!

May our images and metaphors for the Divine continue to grow and expand, along with our love for the Creator’s children and creation. Amen

1Michelle Bogue-Trost, 2018 Upper New York Annual Conference Journal Volume 1, for the May 2-June 2, 2018 session, page 96.

2Bogue-Trost, 96.

3Bogue-Trost, quoting the 2016 Book of Resolution, #8011, page 96.

4Bogue-Trost, 96-97.

5Footnote in the book says, “The Q in our alphabet of letters stands for queer or questioning. Queer, originally a derogatory term for the LBGT community, has been reclaimed by the community as a source of pride. It is often used as an umbrella term for those whose gender identity, gender expression/presentation, or sexual orientation deviates from cultural norms. Gender queer individuals are those whose gender identity is ‘queered,’ i.e. they do not identify with the gender binary.” Others would say that Q is an umbrella term for sexual orientations other than straight and that trans is a gender term for gender identities other than cis.

6Tara K. Soughers, Beyond a Binary God: A Theology for Trans* Allies (New York: Church Publishing, 2018) p. 16-17.

7Soughers, 71-72.

8Intersex Society of North America, What is Intersex found at http ://www.isna.org/faq/what_is_intersex on June 28, 2018.

9Intersex Society of North America, How can you assign a gender (boy or girl) without surgery? found at http://www.isna.org/faq/gender_assignment on June 28, 2018.

–

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

“Calm Seas” based on 1 Samuel 17:32-49 and Mark 4:35-41

June 24, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

In
seminary, I learned that the calming of the sea narrative was one of
many that was meant to one-up a story about the Greco-Roman gods and
goddesses. Specifically, in Aeneid,
the god Neptune calms the waters that had been raised in a wind
storm. I thought
that was really interesting. I also thought it was sort of
irrelevant to faith.

As
the years have gone on, I’ve revised my opinion. I still think a
competition of “my God is better than your god” is silly, but I
have come to suspect that significantly more is going on. There were
a whole lot of Greco-Roman gods and goddess, and they were said to do
a lot of things. Thus, I suspect there was intentionality in the
choices of which stories of Greco-Roman gods and goddesses were
one-upped. It is similar to when stories in the Hebrew Bible are
adaptations of stories told by their Ancient Near East neighbors.
Both the choice of the which stories to adapt AND the adaptions made
tell a lot about how our ancestors in faith understood God!

In
Aeneid, as the protagonists ships sail from Troy to Italy, the
goddess queen tells the god of wind to send a storm to capsize their
ships and prevent them from their task. The god Neptune feels
infringed upon, as he is the god of the sea, and decides to calm the
storm. The story in Aeneid sounds like this:

[Neptune]
spoke, and swiftlier than his word subdued
the
swelling of the floods; dispersed afar
th’
assembled clouds, and brought back light to heaven.
Cymothoe
then and Triton, with huge toil,
thrust
down the vessels from the sharp-edged reef;
while,
with the trident, the great god’s own hand
assists
the task; then, from the sand-strewn shore
out-ebbing
far, he calms the whole wide sea,
and
glides light-wheeled along the crested foam.
As
when, with not unwonted tumult, roars
in
some vast city a rebellious mob,
and
base-born passions in its bosom burn,
till
rocks and blazing torches fill the air
(rage
never lacks for arms)—if haply then
some
wise man comes, whose reverend looks attest
a
life to duty given, swift silence falls;
all
ears are turned attentive; and he sways
with
clear and soothing speech the people’s will.
So
ceased the sea’s uproar, when its grave Sire
looked
o’er th’ expanse, and, riding on in light,
flung
free rein to his winged obedient car. (Aeneid
book 1:142-156)

So
what does it mean that the early Christian community chose to adapt
stories about gods calming storms into a story about Jesus calming
the storm? And what else does our particular story seem to be
communicating to us?

There
are some similarities – Neptune spoke and the result was immediate.
The wind started the storm. There were multiple boats involved.
Overall, it is a similar enough story to be clear that there is a
connection. There are some differences too, there are helpers for
Neptune, and Neptune’s own life wasn’t threatened by the storm. I
find it potentially notable that Neptune’s actions were motivated by
a sense of being infringed upon. The ancient Greek and Roman gods
and goddesses had their own spheres of influence. Perhaps part of
the point is that YHWH, and thus Jesus, had no need for such jealousy
about spheres of influence because there is no competition and there
is no end to their spheres.

This
also fits with the many ways that stories are adaptations of the
stories of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses- the point is not that
Jesus was better than ONE of them, but rather that he was better than
ALL of them. In the Gospel narrative, the storm was simply a part of
nature (not the work of another deity). Furthermore, in this story
Jesus is leaving Galilee and thus leaving the lands of the people who
knew YHWH, and yet his influence remains. Jesus is not just powerful
in one small region of the world – his sphere of influence is not
limited. Thus, in adapting this story the Gospel writer is able to
claim that Jesus is more powerful than the forces of nature itself.
Thus, a theological turn on an older and well known story.

It
turns out this story is especially interesting because it seems to
both adapt and retell Hebrew Bible stories and Greco-Roman ones. We
remember the story of Moses leading the people out of Egypt, and
controlling the waters. One scholar explains the similarities:

Paralleling
Mark 4:35-41, with darkness looming on the horizon Jesus and his
disciples set sail. Later that night, they encounter a furious
storm on the Sea of Galilee.
At this critical moment Jesus is
found sleeping on a cushion and his disciples are in a state of
terror as the waves begin to break over their boats. They
awaken Jesus and cry out, “Teacher, don’t you care if we perish?”
(Mk 4:36). There is harmony here in all the Synoptic
narratives, but the next detail sets Mark apart from the others when
he tells us specifically what Jesus said to the wind and waves,
“Peace! Be still!” (Mk 4:39).

Returning
to Exodus 14, Moses is pressed for answers as the tension mounts and
the future of the children of Israel hangs in the balance. With the
crowds pressing him, he exclaims, “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and
you will see the deliverance the Lord will bring
you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see
again. The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still”
(Ex 14:13-14).

With
both Jesus calming the storm and Moses calming the Israelites, we
have two nearly identical moments involving imminent doom that is
tranquilized by the words “Quiet, be still” or “Peace be
still.”¹

We
start in this story on the seashore,
and the crowds have gathered to hear Jesus teach. Crowds were a
little bit dangerous to Jesus. They put a target on his back in the
Roman Empire, and yet they seemed to emerge anywhere he went. Jesus
was always trying to satisfy the people AND get away from the crowds.
So, in characteristic style, he decided to leave the crowd that had
gathered. To me it sounds a bit desperate, especially when getting
in the boats and going to the other side meant leaving Galilee and
thus leaving the Jewish homeland. Perhaps that’s part of the
metaphor. Maybe the disciples were stormy about where they were
headed, but Jesus was calm. Perhaps they were all stormy, because of
Jesus being worried about the crowds.

Now,
I’m not sure what to make of the idea that Jesus can sleep through a
ranging windstorm, of the sort that would sink boats with crashing
waves, but then again he had taught all day, and after just once
worship service I take a nap I call the pastor’s-coma. So maybe it
was just that? Or maybe it is just that Jesus can keep calm and
focused when no one else can? Or perhaps their panic was not his, as
he trusted all would be well? I’m not sure.

They
wake him up saying, “Teacher, do you not care that we are
perishing?” Do you hear how human this is? It doesn’t sound like
Neptune, it doesn’t even sound like Moses. Jesus, the human, was
sleeping, and had to be roused. His followers were terrified and he
hadn’t even noticed! They were horrified he wasn’t helping – I
suspect they might have expected him to participate in bailing!

Now,
when you hear this story, do you imagine it like a movie in your
mind? If so, how does it sound when Jesus “rebukes the wind”?
Does he actually yell at the wind? Does he just motion? Is he
annoyed? Or parental? Is the wind touching him until he rebukes it,
or is he excluded from it the whole time? Is he standing, sitting,
or still reclined on that cushion? Are the words “Peace! Be
still!” repeated for the wind and the sea, or just the sea, or are
his words for the wind not recorded?

I
don’t know what it means to rebuke the wind. But the wind and the
sea are said to go from roiling and threatening death to a “dead
calm.” Similarly though, both the storm and the people are settled
by the action! The storm isn’t just raging on the waters, the storm
has entered the hearts of the people and they are terrified.

The
people are not calmed as easily as the storm though. While the fear
of death from drowning has passed, their shock at what had happened
seemed to replace it. In this story at least, calming the sea with
words is not considered normal, and the supernatural isn’t considered
the way of the world. They were awed, which has a tinge of “scared”
to it. They were attentive to him and terrified by him. Jesus,
meanwhile seems not to understand why they were scared in the first
place, nor afterward. It is not the most empathetic story told about
Jesus.

So
why did they choose to tell a story about Jesus calming the storm?
One option is because he did so, but even if he did it raises the
question of why this story made the cut to be in the gospels while
others did not. As always with the Bible, my suspicion is that the
stories that kept being told and retold were the ones with great
metaphorical value and insight. In this case, the story tells us
that the storms of life will come, but God is more powerful than they
are. It is a story that encourages us to trust God, and trust in
Jesus’s power as well. Since human life comes with a lot of
metaphorical storms, there is a lot of value in a narrative that
tells us they won’t overcome us.

This
explanation also makes sense of the story of David and Goliath that
is presented to us in the Hebrew Bible lesson offered us today. In
many ways, it is a very similar story. Death, which was the
reasonably assumed outcome from facing a gigantic and successful
warrior, was avoided and even overcome with God on David’s side.
Both stories are told to remind us that God can overcome adversity,
and what looks doomed to humans may not be to God.

With
Jesus, with God, calm seas are possible. We aren’t doomed to live in
fear. We can even be freed from fear, to live in trust. Its pretty
good news, this adaption of an ancient story. Thanks be to God.
Amen

1Exodus
Muses: Jesus as a Type of Moses Calming
Storms & Drowning Legions First
Published JCF Newsletter April 2012 By Jon “Yoni” Gerrish
http://www.jerusalemcornerstone.org/resources/articles_main-page/calming-storms-drowning-legions

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

“Not Seen, Not Forgotten” based on 1 Samuel 15:34-16:13 and…

June 17, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

It must have been about a decade ago, more or less. I was jogging one evening, around dusk. It was a really beautiful evening, the sky had transformed into one of those dark yet vivid shades of blue that always delights me. The temperature was just right – I was neither hot nor cold. I’m not sure how it happened, but I got thinking about floating in a body of water that was also neither hot nor cold, but just right. Just easy floating in comfortable water.

Then I started considering how easy it is to move your body when you are floating in water. A flick of the wrist can shift you around. As I thought of that, I realized that in this envisioned body of water, there was a teeny tiny current. It was so small that a flick of my wrist could keep me from being moved by it, but it was enough that it could guide my way.

That was it. I had a conception of a warm, safe body of water with a tiny current that I could float in, and either allow the current to move me, or not, with great ease. It felt like a lot more though. It felt like a vision of wonder and grace that was a gift from the Divine. I experienced it as a reminder that I had the freedom to easily follow through with my own will, that God would not overpower me. And a reminder that there was guidance available to me, a path that I could let myself be led on if I choose. I need not be aimless if I wish to allow the current to lead. The balance of guidance and freedom co-existing together was powerful.

It was a relief to think about my relationship with God, my life decisions, and even my life itself as FLOATING. I have sometimes had a tendency to think of them more as a swim race across the English Channel. In this vision the floating was good. It was not only good because it was easy, although it was easy. It was also all that was asked of me. I could float where I wanted, or float along as the current lead me, but the current was too slow and gentle for me to find it swimming. All I had to do was float. And even then either choice was OK.

(The few times that I’ve had visions that I think are of/from the Divine I’ve noticed that the God I experience is profoundly nonjudgmental and supportive.)

All in all, for me, that vision reminds me of the experience of Centering Prayer. Centering Prayer is prayer based on the name of God, YHWH, which means something like “I am” “I am who I am” “I will be who I will be”. It is a prayer of BEING, rather than a prayer of doing, or thinking. It is silent prayer, but not just silent on the outside. Centering prayer is prayer that is silent on the inside too. It is simply BEING, along with the “Great I AM.” So much of life is about doing, or speaking, or listening. It is active, engaged, intentional. Centering prayer is like floating on the warm, mostly still waters of God’s care, and just enjoying being alive.

Or, at least, it is when it works. It can be really hard to be silent on the inside, and then it doesn’t feel at all like that when you are trying and failing.

The parables in the gospels seem to tell a similar story. They speak of God’s mysterious actions, ones that humans wouldn’t be able to replicate. We can sow seeds, the gospel says, but we can’t control if they germinate or not. We might as well go to sleep and let God do God’s mysterious things. Soil, water, sun, and air work their magic on the the seed, all giving gifts no human can offer. After all that, the human can cut it down and enjoy the grain. But the human can’t make the grain. (This was true in the time of Jesus, let’s give it to him.)

We also can’t always predict how things will go. “The mustard seed was a common metaphor in Palestine for ‘the smallest thing.’ The plant could grow as tall as a house, and birds seemed to love its little black seeds.”¹ The people knew about the disparity between seed size and plant size, talked about it. In the gospel, it is used to indicate how vibrant and abundant God’s work in the kindom is. What appears small and insignificant to human eyes is plenty to change a landscape and an eco-system.

God is at work in building the kindom. God can make big things happen out of a tiny start! God’s work is mysterious and happens out of our sight, and yet we can see the fruits of God’s labor and with it we are fed and nurtured. God is invested in building the kindom and God is capable of doing it. The planted seed is no longer seen, but is not forgotten as it germinates and grows.

But, this raises some significant questions. Another commentator names them this way:

“One suspects that the early Christian communities were often as puzzled by this parabolic presentation of the kingdom as we are. These two parables that Mark stitches together have generated may theological interpretations over the centuries. Does the kingdom come slowly, over the long haul? Should we understand the harvest in due season as the future event of the eschatological time? Are we to believe that God is in control of the growth and harvest, despite the evidences of the way the world is?”²

Another commentator offered a great explanation of the words themseves.

“Hē basileia tou theou, found fourteen times in the Gospel of Mark and usually translated ‘the kingdom of God’ or ‘the dominion of God’ is an ancient metaphor not easily translated into today’s culture. In the first century CE, power and dominion belonged to Caesar. Early Christians preached that Caesar’s domination had been overtaken by the domination of God. This was an in-your-face radical claim defining insiders not by Caesar’s proclamation, but by relationship to the community that followed Jesus. (cf. Mark 3:31-35) In various twenty-first century cultures, the claim of radical inclusion is seeking expression in terms reflecting the egalitarian relationship of God’s beloved community. To that end, we translate hē basileia tou theou as ‘the kin-dom of God.’”³

So, then God’s beloved community comes into being mysteriously, with God’s effort, and is able to grow big and strong even from humble beginnings. It is as if the beloved community itself is a gift from God for God’s people. Then, as a part of the beloved community we are able to share that love – and it doesn’t always have to be difficult – and sharing love is building the kindom. I know sometimes it is difficult, and that’s good too. But it doesn’t ALWAYS have to be difficult! It is OK to float along in the current of God’s love. It is OK, sometimes, to just be.

Now, in the Hebrew Bible story, God also acts in mysterious and unexpected ways. The first of which is when text clearly states that God changes God’s mind! 15:34 b, “for YHWH regretted making him ruler over Israel.” (Inclusive Bible Translation) I think it is helpful to notice when the Bible says God changes God’s own mind, it reminds us that we are allowed to also! As I was taught in Process Theology, it also indicates that God is responsive to us! What we do in the world impacts God’s own being, and God has to change and response to the realities that we have created.

The story goes onto say that Samuel thinks he knows what God is going to do next! Samuel is sent to make a king from one of Jesse’s sons, and Samuel figures it will be the oldest one, especially when he sees that the oldest one is tall and handsome. Samuel is terribly human in that way, assuming that stature and beauty have to do with competence and blessing. Samuel is said to be rebuked by God, who does NOT care about those things. Although, I have to admit, later in the passage David is described quite exuberantly as handsome, which sort of undermines the message.

In any case, all of Jesse’s sons were present, except one. The final one was the youngest, doing the task usually assigned to the youngest son, the one least likely to become the head of the family. He was herding the sheep. His father didn’t choose to call for him, to join them at the feast. David had work to do, and he was doing it. But one by one, Samuel assessed that none of the older brothers had been chosen to be king. Finally he had to ask if there were any more sons, and then David was called for.

David hadn’t been seen at the party, Samuel didn’t know him, his family wasn’t paying any attention to him. He wasn’t seen, but he wasn’t forgotten by God either. David in this story is presented as being a lot like that mustard seed – small and forgettable, almost invisible, and yet capable of greatness. God’s work in David is also presented as being like God’s work in seeds planted underground, God transforming what is possible into what is.

The story of David is of God choosing the unexpected one. The parables of Jesus are of God’s mysterious power. These are stories of God at work, NOT of humans at work. I tend to like to emphasize what we are able to do in the world, how we are able to transform the world with God’s love, how God is able to work with and through us. Those are true things. But they aren’t the only true things. It is also true that God works when we least expect it, in the places and people we least expect to be open to it. God’s mysterious work is a source of hope. Not everything is on our shoulders. Not everything good is hard. Sometimes it is OK to just float and trust in God’s love and guidance. Thanks be to God. Amen

1Nibs Stroupe “Homelitcial Perspective on Mark 4:26-34” found in Feasting on the Word Year B, Volume 3 edited by Barbara Brown Taylor and David Bartlett (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville Kentucky, 2009)143.

2Don E. Saliers “Pastoral Perspective on Mark 4:26-34” found in Feasting on the Word Year B, Volume 3 edited by Barbara Brown Taylor and David Bartlett (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville Kentucky, 2009)142.

3Judith Hoch Wray, “Exegetical Perspective on Mark 4:26-34” found in Feasting on the Word Year B, Volume 3 edited by Barbara Brown Taylor and David Bartlett (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville Kentucky, 2009)141.

–

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

“The Will of God” based on 1 Samuel 8:4-20…

June 10, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

https://workcollaboratively.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wc_needs-feelings-inventory.pdf

In
the gospel today, Jesus said that anyone who does the will of God is
his mother, brother, or sister. He defines his family by those who
do God’s will. Jesus also taught us that our God is a God of love,
which is the starting point for knowing God’s will. Jesus reminded
us of the great commandments. “Love
the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind”
and “Love
your neighbor as yourself.”

I’ve
had some very helpful nudgings from this congregation recently. Many
of them have been in your consistent reminders to take care of myself
since my knee injury, and collectively you’ve seemed to know that I
would need a lot of those reminders. Being patient with my body
isn’t easy for me.

There
were two more nudgings as well. One of you asked if I could say more
to acknowledge the pain people have and struggle with. That
certainly felt important. Then came another call, asking me if I
could preach about self-love.

I’ve
concluded that the Spirit herself has been at work in all of this.
Self-love is a very exciting topic to speak about! I’ve spent most
of my continued education time during my years as your pastor working
on this for myself, and I think I’ve learned a few things that might
be of use. Yet, this is also a nerve wracking topic to talk about,
both because it requires great vulnerability and because it is a
tender topic with which I might accidentally do harm.

Nevertheless,
it is time to talk about loving ourselves. When we say
“Love your neighbor as yourself,” we tend to
ignore the implicit assumption that we love ourselves contained in
the rule. To prepare for this sermon I asked on Facebook and through
some emails for people to offer definitions of love. I told them it
was for preaching, I did not share that I was going to preach about
loving ourselves!

The
answers were, of course, amazing. A lot of the responses reflected
careful consideration followed by a conclusion that defining love is
very difficult and perhaps impossible. I got wished “good luck”
rather a lot! Some tried to find the words anyway, and I think
you’ll find them useful for reflection. In order not to distract
you, I’m going to offer some of your definitions words without
attributing them.

Love
is more of an action than anything else. For example, I find making
the bed in the morning a complete waste of time, my husband loves to
come home to a made bed, when I make the bed, I do it for him
because I know it will make him happy, that’s love.
The
glue of the Trinity, spilling over into creation.
I
feel that love is a choice. It stems from a feeling, but it is a
solid, daily choice.
the
movement of goodness itself…
Spirit
is Love and Love is Spirit
Companionship; Communication; Accepting
each others thoughts and feelings; Reaching
a hand in church; In
the middle of the night reaching out to touch
love
cannot be defined because a definition automatically puts boundaries
and love is not bounded

One
can give examples of the affects of love on both the lover and the
object of that love (animate or inanimate) and the effects of
love-Love casts out fear

Finally,
one among you shared a set of profound thoughts, which I cannot
summarize or shorten without weakening it:

Love
can mean many things depending on the context.
I
think you mean love as it involves people or spirit rather than
things like ice cream or sports.

With
regard to people, love
is a state of unlimited commitment where
two people or even in some cases like a pet dog
become
so in sync with one’s feelings that the object
of love is an extension of the person and
foibles are overlooked or forgiven.

Then
there is spiritual love =the love of God or Jesus which is our rock
of support -it is often recognized in retrospect like in the
expression `If not for the love of God I would have suffered’.
When one recovers from a traumatic experience or accident one
is grateful for the love of the Divine.
I
know that scientists and
engineers
are often tagged as non-believers unless some measurement standard
can document the cause of an event. I don’t agree – there’s more
than mortals can conjure up that is involved.
So
these are my ramblings – I’ll be interested in the views of others
and
remain
thankful
for all the love I have experienced.

Another
among you has since reminded me to tell you that love is so powerful
as to be very dangerous. Since I was reminded of that I’ve been
trying figure out if that applies to self love or not. It seems to
me that romantic love is far more dangerous than self love, but then
again that the world as we know it would fall apart if we were good
at self love. (At least, the US economy would!) So perhaps self
love is quite dangerous as well.

Now,
the logical among you (and there are plenty of you!) are going to
wish that at this point I’d offer a definition of self-love, despite
the fact that I’ve just shown you by example how very hard it is to
define love at all. I’m going to give this my best shot. Self-love
is “loving yourself as you’d love your neighbor.” Or, perhaps it
might be better for some of us to say “loving yourself as you’d
want a dearly loved one to be able to love themselves.” I say this
because most people I know are far kinder to their loved ones than
themselves. We speak to ourselves in ways we’d never permit
ourselves to speak to anyone else.

There
are 4 girls in this world I consider my nieces, including one who is
biologically my niece. The two oldest are old enough to sometimes be
terribly hard on themselves, and life has sometimes given me the
chance to have heart-to-heart talks with them when they’re in the
midst of self-blame. Because of my deep love for them and because of
the training I’ve had in listening, I’ve sometimes been able to help
them translate their own self-criticisms. It turns out that “I’m
an idiot” usually means something else entirely, for instance, “I’m
feeling frustrated that I can’t find my long underwear, and I’m
afraid it is a fundamental flaw in my humanity that I could have lost
them.” Once translated, it becomes much easier to think together
about whether or not misplaced long underwear are really such an
enormous failure.

Now,
clearly, misplacing one’s long underwear does not an idiot make. We
all have the capacity to assure a beloved child of that. I’m less
confident about our ability to remember that when dealing with
ourselves. We jump from a small infraction of our ideals to an
enormous overstatement of our failures. We keep the self-criticism
tightly wound inside, most of us keep it so tightly wound that we try
to pretend it away even to ourselves.

The
jump from small infraction to utter failure is the work of an
internal “self-critic.” We all have them. These are parts of
ourselves that manage to jump to strong, universal, and nasty
criticisms at lightspeed. They sound like this: “I’m lazy.”
“No one really likes me.” “I’m stupid.” “I’m selfish.”
“Everything is wrong and it is all my fault.” “I’m going to
fail.” “I’m fat.” “I’m going to get fired.” “I’m ugly.”
“I’m unlovable.” “I don’t deserve to be here.” Most of us
have a lot of them, and they’re powerful. While they all sound more
or less alike, each of us have our own set with their own particular
refrains. Self-critics within say things we’d never allow others to
say to us – and would never say to others – and they say them
regularly.

The
most shocking thing I’ve learned this decade is that self-critics are
TRYING TO HELP us. They’re just really, really bad at it. They
actually want to protect and support us, but they have bad
communication skills. They think yelling at us and shaming us will
motivate us to do better. Instead, it can cripple us at times, it
keeps us afraid, and it doesn’t give us any sense of freedom.
However, it is possible to learn how to TRANSLATE the criticism!
Under the ugly words is a loving intention, and if you listen to that
self-critic the way you might listen to a beloved niece, you can find
it. The best part is that once you hear the loving-intention
underneath the criticism, the critic often stops yelling and gives
you some peace!

Listening
to our self-critics is terrifying. However, in my experience, it is
more frightening to contemplate than to do. Because the self-critic
always has a loving intention, and because that loving-intention
hasn’t usually been heard, it is actually sort of lovely! It is far
worse to hear the criticisms regularly yelled from within than it is
to hear the loving-intention!

One
of the harshest critics I’ve had in my life used to tell me quite
often that I was “too much.” This was extended to include, “too
loud, too big, and too pushy.” I heard it MANY times a day. With
the guidance of a loving teacher, I was able to hear beneath it. The
self-critic was still feeling the pain of being an unpopular
elementary school student, and was trying to help me control myself
in ways that might make me more like-able. The self-critic hadn’t
meant to hurt me! It really did want to help, it was just scared!
Once I heard the loving-intention, it toned down. I still hear from
her once in a while, but only in fairly extreme circumstances (when
maybe I should be keeping my mouth shut after all!). Even then, the
bite that once sought to control me isn’t there anymore.

There
is a quote I’ve always loved, “Love me when I least deserve it
because that’s when I really need it.” This applies to others when
they’re not able to behave well, and it applies to ourselves when
we’re not able to behave well, and it applies to our self-critics!
, Now, I don’t want to send you off to face your self-critics
without a bit more guidance. If you are ready to live without quite
as much internal yelling, then I suggest a few things. It helps a
lot to write things down. “I’m too much” was a terrifying,
almost heart-stopping thing to hear inside myself, but in black and
white on paper it looked a lot smaller. If you have a person you
trust, they are often quite helpful in working on translating with
you. (Including your pastor.) The process takes some time, so be
patient with yourself. It may sound silly, but it requires actually
listening to the self-critic in order to get to the loving intention.
And, as loud and hurtful as self-critics can be, they’re also sorta
shy. This is a good time to remind you of the “feelings and needs”
list found here: https://workcollaboratively.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wc_needs-feelings-inventory.pdf. It helps to remember that we
all have needs, the needs are universal, needs do not make us weak –
AND most self-critics are trying to help us meet a need!! A very
difficult to internalize reminder: we can actually get along without
self-critics. They are not the only reason we get anything done, we
are able to function and even thrive without internal yellers.

I
started this conversation with the precious moments I’ve had when
I’ve been able to help translate my niece’s fears. I started that
way on purpose. Our inner critics are a lot like hurting children,
and they respond best to patient, gentle, loving attention; and they
sometimes need some affirmation that we know they’re hurting before
they can trust us to work with them. The ways we seek to help
children when they’re hurting are the same skills we can use to be
more loving to ourselves.

Doing
the work to love ourselves is a part of God’s will. If God loves us,
then God doesn’t want us spoken to in hurtful and abusive ways.
Thus, the time it takes to find the loving-intention is time well
spent. Furthermore, love itself is a cool thing. Every time it
stretches out in a new direction, it expands its capacity. As we
love others more, we can love ourselves more. As we love ourselves
more, we can love God more. As we love God more, we can love others
and ourselves more.

Love
is the will of God.

Including,
self-love.

May
we do God’s will. 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

June 10, 2018

Sermons

“Sent” based on Isaiah 6:1-8 and John 3:1-17

May 27, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Rev. Sara E. BaronFirst United Methodist Church of Schenectady603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305Pronouns: she/her/hershttp://fumcschenectady.org/When
I was 7, my friend Becca was in a church that focused on “being
saved.” As far as I understood it, “being saved” involved
taking a teacher from her Sunday School into the church library,
proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and praying a specific
prayer. This, apparently, was not to be done too early or one might
not believe it with one’s whole heart, but should be done as soon
as possible so as to ensure eternal salvation.

Becca
was very excited that she had been saved and frequently asked me if I
had been. I always answered no. This answer always resulted in a
long lecture about why I should “be saved.” The lecture, in
turn, irritated me. One day I had a brilliant revelation… although
I had never “been saved” in Becca’s definition, I believed that
Jesus loved me just as I was. I didn’t think that there were
specific hoops to jump through in order for God to accept me. So,
the next time Becca asked me if I was saved I said yes! I wasn’t
saved in her world view, but I was in mine.

Becca’s
understanding of being saved is a part of our Christian tradition.
So was mine. In the years since, my perspective has gained more
knowledge and nuance. I now know that salvation is about God’s work
towards healing and wholeness in the world. I’ve come to believe
that God desires “salvation for all of creation” which isn’t
about afterlife at all, but about the kindom coming to earth. I’ve
also learned a lot more about how things were in Jesus’ day. Still,
as a whole, I’m at a peace with my 7 year old decision to answer as I
did.

In
the time of Jesus, most people believed that when you died, you
ceased to exist – from dust to dust in those days meant no
afterlife and no eternal soul. In the Greeco-Roman religion that was
dominate in the lands that surrounded Jesus, the gods
were immortal – and people became immortal only when they were
promoted to god-status because of an extraordinary life. The
Sadducees, who were the ruling party in Judaism, utterly denied the
possibility of afterlife. Neither in Jesus’ immediate community
nor in his world at large was afterlife considered a real
possibility.

Early
Christianity was novel in that its followers believed that they could
become immortal. Or, to name it in the Greco-Roman context, the
followers of Jesus all became “little gods”. They were immortal,
something true only of gods and goddesses. This was a very strong
statement – people who followed Jesus became like the gods of the
world that surrounded them!

Today,
many people consider heaven and hell to be contrasting opposites. At
that time, the alternative to joyful eternal live was not hell. It
was “perishing.” That is, if you followed Jesus, you gained
eternal life. If you didn’t follow Jesus, you ceased to exist at
the end of your life. That’s where this passage ends… with the
well known John 3:16-17. “‘For God so loved the world that he
gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not
perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not
send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that
the world might be saved through him.”

Thus,
the claim is made that those who believe in Jesus will gain eternal
life. My 7-year old friend Becca believed that there were specific
rules to guide what constituted “belief in Jesus.”
Understandings of afterlife have developed since the time of Jesus,
nothing stays stagnant! Early Christianity opened the door to eternal
life – instead of saying that only “gods” could live forever,
there was an affirmation of common people and our value.

While
are are thinking about that, let’s look more closely at the beginning
of this text. Nicodemus is named as a Pharisee, a group that gained
most of its power after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
BCE, and a group that was open to afterlife in some form or another.
(Not the way people today think of it though.) Nicodemus, as a
Pharisee, being in power at the time of Jesus is exactly the kind of
historically questionable stuff that reminds us to take John
metaphorically.. Anyway, according to John, this guy comes to Jesus
… at night. Why at night? So he couldn’t be seen! Its really
kind of a funny story, even to start out… we have one of the
highest ranking officials in Israel sneaking around under the cloak
of darkness in order to meet with Jesus.

He
gets to Jesus and starts the conversation by complimenting him.
Unfortunately for Nicodemus, he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.
He doesn’t “get it.” He ALMOST “gets it.” He wants to
learn from Jesus, which is why he has come to Jesus. But he is still
afraid of what others will think of him or do to him, and that’s
why he comes at night. In addition, he bases his faith on “signs.”
That is, he thinks Jesus is connected to God because Jesus is able
to perform miracles. Believing in Jesus because of his miracles is a
BIG no-no in the Gospel of John. The faithful are supposed to
believe because they believe, not because of the powers that Jesus
has to do miracles. So Nicodemus says, “Teacher, we know that you
come from God because of what you can do…” And right there, as
John tells it, Jesus knows that Nicodemus wasn’t convinced to
follow him fully, yet.

Jesus
begins to teach… and he says… LISTEN CAREFULLY!…he says “No
one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”
And Nicodemus says, “How can anyone be born again
after having grown old?” Did you hear that?

Jesus
says “born from above” and Nicodemus says “born again.” How
did he confuse that? Well, he wasn’t that ridiculous actually…
in Greek the word for “again” and “from above” is the same
word. Jesus is talking about the deep meaning of being born from
above, which is “from God”¹
and Nicodemus is understanding the superficial meaning – born
again. Nicodemus is being presented as foolish, or at least because
he didn’t have full faith he was too foolish to understand Jesus.
The image of a grown man re-entering the womb is meant to be funny.
It is meant to be as ridiculous as it sounds, because it is making
fun of the misunderstanding. Being born again is NOT AT ALL what
Jesus is talking about. Being born again is the MISUNDERSTANDING
that Nicodemus pulls out.

Being
born “from above” is having a spiritual birth. That could be
seen as something that all people have – as all people ahave
spirits – or as an eye-opening event that occurs when individuals
connect with God. It would make some sense, given the rest of Jesus’
teaching to think of being born “from above” as being connected
to God and therefore committed to building the kindom. Being born
from above is to live as God would have a person live, to share love,
to exude compassion, to see a better world. To be born from above,
then, is to live the prayer, “your kingdom come on earth as it is
in heaven.”

This
is a Gospel reading with many opportunities for misunderstanding. It
is one I am tempted to avoid, simply to not have to deal with them.
However, being informed about our scriptures and how they has been
used to do harm, and what they actually mean is part of what we need
to know to bring healing. Luckily, this passage has a lot of gems as
well as a history of being used badly. Verse 8 reads, The
wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do
not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with
everyone who is born of the Spirit.
There is a double meaning here – the wind is at once the Wind and
the Spirit of God. We do not know the beginning of the wind or of
God, but we are able to watch what the Spirit of God does in the
world. This is one of my favorite descriptors of the Spirit. If the
Spirit is truly the Spirit of Love (I think that’s fair) then it
reminds us that the demands of love can take us in rather unexpected
directions!Some
of the ancients thought of the wind as God’s breath.²
I suspect some of us moderns do too, at least in particular moments.
It has times when it is a potent metaphor.

The
passage continues though, in a rather weird turn. As another
commentator puts it, “The overlap of
crucifixion and exaltation conveyed by v. 14 is crucial to Johannine
soteriology because the Fourth Evangelist understands Jesus’s
crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension as one continuous event.”³
So, when the metaphor is drawn to “lifting up” it isn’t just
about Jesus’ death but about the end of his life and the beginning of
the life of the believers as the Body of Christ. (If you don’t know
the Moses reference, I promise, you don’t want to. It won’t help.)

Finally,
this text turns to one of the more abused verses in the Bible. It
is actually good news, no matter how it has been used to abuse others
in Bible bashing. The
good news is: “God loves the world SO MUCH that God
seeks to heal it in every way God can.”
In the words of a wise commentator,
“what if we are all called to “join in the creation of a
community in which God’s love was regarded as not being in short
supply, open only to those who have seen and confessed Jesus as the
Christ, but rather as poured out upon the entire world?”⁴

Taken
in continuity with John 3:17, “Indeed,
God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in
order that the world might be saved through him,” while remembering
that the first meaning in the Bible of salvation is healing, we get
to: “God loves the world SO MUCH
that…that God keeps moving creation to wholeness AND God pushes
and prods us in hope that we’ll learn deeper love. Nothing can
separate us from the love of God… because God loves the world THAT
much.”

Do
you ever wonder what it means to say that “God loves the world”?
It is startlingly unequivocal. It isn’t, “God loves the good
people.” Or, “God loves it when things are going right.” It
isn’t even, “God loves the world, but hates the brokenness.”
John 3:16 claims God loves the world. God gives gifts to the world.
God seeks healing and wholeness for the world. And the world isn’t
just humanity, it is all of creation.

God
LOVES the world.

For
me, that’s a bit of a relief. It reminds me that God’s love isn’t
contingent on us getting it right, love is already a part of it all.
It is a reminder that we can’t mess it up. Love is the starting
point of all creation, it has a power nothing else can match. For
me, at least, gratitude for this reality is what motivates me to work
with God for the building of the kindom. But it starts with love.
God loves the world. Unlike my childhood friend, I think there is a
full stop there, no conditions.

God
loves the world and all the beings in it. As. They. Are.
Salvation is a gift God willingly offers to us all.

Thanks
be to God. Amen

1Ernst
Haenchen John 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1-6
(Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible) (Vol
1) (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, January 1, 1988).

2
Raymond E. Brown Gospel According
to John.
Anchor Bible. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966-70.)

3
Gail R.O’Day, “The Gospel of John: Introduction, Comentary,
and Reflections.” In New
Interpreter’s Bible,
vol. 9. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995).

4Ibid.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

Sermons

“Resonance” based on Genesis 11:1-9 and Acts 2:1-15

May 20, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

I have a lot of questions about Pentecost. I wonder what “divided tongues as of fire” might be trying to explain. I’m curious how a bunch of men from Galilee with the two or three languages they likely spoke could communicate effectively with people who spoke many other languages. I wonder what other names and words they used to try to describe the Spirit, and what the Spirit meant to them them, a number of years before the church created the concept of “Trinity.” Moreso than with most stories, I can’t tell what the kernel of it really is, what likely happened that day that they’re telling about with such passion.

There are a few things I can make good guesses on from Acts 2. It seems to be a story that is told to reverse of the Tower of Babel story. In doing so, it suggests that God has the power to connect us. It speaks of the power and mystery of the Holy Spirit, and explains that the Spirit is able to connect people across seemingly impossible barriers. Beyond that, I’m not really sure what it means, but I find those two pieces worthy of attention.

Let’s look at the Tower of Babel story, to make sense of my claim that Pentecost “undoes” it. The story is set in Babylon, and seems to make reference to the temples of Babylon to their god Marduk. Those temples were ziggurats, sort of rectangular towers with ramps. They are look like segmented pyramids. They were made of bricks, and could easily be called towers.

Ancient Israel’s history with Babylon is complex. Babylon was located in one of the early centers of human civilization, Mesopotamia. According to Genesis, Abraham himself left that area when he came to find the Promised Land, and the patriarchs’ spouses also came from there. So, it was a motherland to ancient Israel perhaps similar to how Great Britain is motherland to the USA (even though many of us don’t have British ancestry). Like the complicated history we have with Great Britain, so too did Israel and Babylon. Babylon defeated Judah in 587/586 BCE after an extended siege, destroyed the temple and the city gates, and took the leaders into exile as slaves in Babylon.

I believe, that the Hebrew Bible itself was written during and immediately after the exile. The stories, commands, and prophecies were usually much older, but they came into their current form at that time. They were both told and edited to answer the question “why did this happen to us?” alternatively phrased, “If our God is powerful, how did we get defeated (by Babylon)?”

In the story of the Tower of Babel, the story ends calling the tower “babel” which in Hebrew is “balal” which means “to confuse.” I think the story aims to diminish the power of Babylon by demeaning their temples, and at the same time tries to give an answer to a big human question: “why can’t we understand each other?”

It is a good and big question. It is much larger than even confusion about why various human languages exist, or why language itself keeps changing. Even when we speak the same language, it can be VERY DIFFICULT to understand each other. In this story, the confusion is said to be a punishment to limit humankind. It is funny though, isn’t it, that the diverse and wonderful cultures and languages of the world are perceived as a punishment?

Sometimes the challenges to communicate and understand each other are really frustrating. I guess they could reasonably be seen as a punishment. The ways that we as humans feel disconnected from each other feels wrong. Furthermore, we often feel incapable of changing it.

I can sense in the Tower of Babel story a quest to understand the human condition. The Pentecost story in Acts, by inverting the Tower of Babel story, says that the Holy Spirit changes the human condition that keeps us separate from each other and unable to understand one another! Even better, in the Pentecost story, the vast diversity of human language continues to exist, it just ceases to be a barrier.

The more I thought about this story this week, the less I was distracted by the “whys” and “hows” of it, and the more I found myself thinking about that mystery of the Spirit. The story says that the Spirit came and changed everything, connected them to each other, and made possible what had seemed impossible. That is, it says the Spirit is a Spirit of connection.

One of my all time favorite books is “A General Theory of Love” written by Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon, all of whom were professors of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine at the time they wrote it. It is a book about love and human connection, from the perspective of brain science. They spend a lot of time explaining the function of part of the human brain that we share with other mammals: the limbic brain. The limbic brain is the brain that connects. Because of it, mammals are inherently social, and we impact each other, deeply. As they say, “A mammal can detect the internal state of another mammal and adjust its own physiology to match the situation—a change in turn sensed by the other, who likewise adjusts.”¹ That’s pretty amazing.

We mammals have the capacity for “limbic resonance—a symphony of mutual exchange and internal adaptation whereby two mammals become attuned to each other’s inner states.”² Not only can we do it, it is our normal and constant state! General Theory of Love explains, “So familiar and expected is the neural attunement of limbic resonance that people find its absence disturbing. Scrutinize the eyes of a shark or a sunbathing salamander and you get back no answering echo, no flicker of recognition, nothing. The vacuity behind those glances sends a chill down the mammalian spine.”³ Among humans, “Because limbic states can leap between minds, feelings are contagious, while notions are not.”⁴ Feelings are contagious! We do know this, when someone in a terrible mood walks into a room, we all feel it. The same happens with someone in a great mood. It happens on more subtle scales too. This may even explain some of why we get so much out of worship – we are able to build on each other’s good feelings and joy in seeing each other.

Of course, while we are able to connect to all mammals, but we only form attachments to some. They say, “It is attachment that makes familiarity trump worth. A golden retriever thrills only to his owner. He is amiably and helplessly indifferent to passersby who may be kinder, fonder of walks, quicker with treats—he does not, he cannot value them. Everyone is in the same limbic boat as those patient, expectant dogs.”⁵This is, in part, because bodies aren’t as stand alone as we think! We as humans can’t function alone. They say, “Most people assume that the body they inhabit is self-regulating— that their own physiologic balance occurs within a closed loop.”⁶ However, “The mammalian nervous system depends for its neurophysiologic stability on a system of interactive coordination, wherein steadiness comes from synchronization with nearby attachment figures.”⁷ Or, to put it another way, “But because human physiology is (at least in part) an open-loop arrangement, an individual does not direct all of his own functions. A second person transmits regulatory information that can alter hormone levels, cardiovascular function, sleep rhythms, immune function, and more—inside the body of the first.”⁸ Given this information, they say human “Stability means finding people who regulate you well and staying near them,” and “This necessary intermingling of physiologies makes relatedness and communal living the center of human life.”⁹

This mammalian attachment stuff applies to partners, to parents and children, to friends and neighbors, and even to church community. Also, as most of us know from experience, it applies to pets. General Theory of Love says, “Somehow the attachment architecture is general enough that a human being and a dog can both fit within the realm of what each considers a valid partner. And the two can engage in limbic regulation: they spend time near each other and miss each other; they will read some of each other’s emotional cues; each will find the presence of the other soothing and comforting; each will tune and regulate the physiology of the other.”¹⁰

Now this information has some serious implications for our lives! We need other mammals who help us regulate well. We can’t function on our own!! General Theory of Love says, “Being well regulated in relatedness is the deeply gratifying state that people seek ceaselessly in romance, religions, and cults; in husbands and wives, pets, softball teams, bowling leagues, and a thousand other features of human life driven by the thirst for sustaining affiliations.”¹¹ Now, that makes sense, huh? But!!! They continue, “Some cultures encourage emotional health; others do not. Some, including modern America, promote activities and attitudes directly antithetical to fulfillment.”¹² They also tell us why: “The simple equations of love. Like this: relationships live on time.”¹³ They say, “A culture versed in the workings of emotional life would encourage and promote the activities that sustain health —togetherness with one’s partner and children; homes, families, and communities of connectedness. Such a society would guide its inhabitants to the joy that can be found at the heart of attachment.”¹⁴

Isn’t it fun when scientists use their own methods, words, and theories and then come around to something that sounds remarkably like the kin-dom of God? Also, it is very good to have reminders to seek out those mammals we love and savor the time we have to be near them!

I want to expand their theory a little bit though. They talk about mammalian limbic resonance, and I am hoping we can consider the capacity for resonance to be one of the functions of the Spirit. After all, God is love; and God is the one in whom we live and move and have our beings. I think power and wonder of attachment and connection is a part of the mysterious loving power of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, I think it is worth considering the Divine as…. mammal-like. At least as far as we could consider the Divine to be another being with whom we share love and intimacy, whose capacity to form attachments with us and resonance with us would be an additional source of health and joy! And, we’re told, relationships thrive on TIME. That would indicate that spending some time aware of the wonder of the Presence of the Divine and attending to it might be a very good use of time.

The Spirit resonates. Perhaps we could say that the Spirit IS resonance, and that’s how all mammalian connection is possible! The Spirit helps us connect, to bring us joy, health, and fulfillment. We can also seek resonance directly with the Spirit. Our brains are already designed to do it, to seek connection through resonance. Through the Spirit we are connected to all that is, and more. Resonance is a language we all speak, and it requires no translation. Perhaps that’s a part of the Pentecost miracle. Thanks be to God. Amen

1Thomas Lewis, Fari Amini, Richard Lannon, A General Theory of Love (New York: Vintage Books, 2000) page 60.

261.

361.

462.

5158.

682.

782.

882.

984.

1096.

11155.

12189.

13202.

14206.

–

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

May 20, 2018

Sermons

“Without a Doubt” based on John 20:19-31

April 23, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Being a teenager in 2018, I have the opportunity to encounter people of all different levels of belief–whether that be through school or through various church activities. In both church and school I have met people my age who are struggling to grasp the teachings of whatever faith background they come from. I can’t speak for all of them, though I think that this question of belief is a product of the age in which we live. I think that many of my peers are wary of putting their trust in anything that they are not certain of. And can you blame them? In a time such as this, with people shouting “Fake News” at both legitimate and illegitimate news sources, it’s not easy to distinguish the voices that one can trust. That alone has led to many an existential crisis in people I’ve encountered. Add to that the political figures coming on TV and giving conflicting accounts of the “facts,” and the stars and moguls who have been facing slews of sexual assault and harassment allegations, and the reason for this lack of public trust becomes clearer and clearer.

But it doesn’t end with the media and the politicians. Many people I’ve talked to reject the whole idea of faith because of what they have seen so called people of faith doing in the world. They see people in both Church and State exploiting a Tradition of love and justice for their own personal gains. They see so-called people of faith turn a blind eye to the immorality of political leaders when it suits their agenda. They see that, and that is the image that many today associate with the Church. They cannot imagine that God is just or loving or accepting because that is not what the world has shown them.

It is difficult to imagine such a world as is described in the passage from Acts because that is the opposite of what we see in the world. I look around at where we are as humans, and we are not living into the vision that God has for the world. If we take Acts 4 as the vision for God’s Kindom, the ideal world, that is not what we see. I would say that what we see is quite the opposite, in fact. The passage speaks of a world without greed, a world in which every possession is held in common. It speaks of a world in which every need is satisfied. Why? Because their wealth, the capital, the means of production, are distributed on the basis of need. Not based on where you were born. Not based on the color of your skin. Not based on gender, or age, or who your parents are or who you love. Based on what you need. This is a world in which people take care of each other.

So, why is this so hard to believe? Perhaps it is because we are all Thomas, waiting for that visible proof, that wound we can touch to make us believe that God’s world is possible. But is it really so bad to be a Thomas? Yes, he questioned the accounts of the other disciples, but could you really blame him? Between Peter denying Jesus and Judas overtly betraying him, not to mention the Roman authorities who had just arrested and executed one of his closest friends, how could Thomas know who to trust? In a lot of ways, Thomas is just like all of us. Aren’t we all looking for something solid, a starting place? Aren’t we looking for some little glimmer of hope that this world that God envisions is not only possible but will happen? Even the most devout disciples look for that assurance. Even the most faithful amongst us looks for that sign of a worthwhile investment. Because that’s what it is to be a disciple of Jesus. It takes time. It takes people. It takes speaking out despite the consequences. It takes money, and yes, sometimes it takes your life.

But perhaps the most difficult part of being a follower of Jesus is that there isn’t always that tangible guarantee. There’s no promise of money or fame. Being a follower means suffering with those who suffer. It means resisting oppressors. It means working tirelessly to bring our reality in line with God’s reality. A reality in which no one has more or less. A reality in which no one starves. No one is left out. No one fears for their life, or their safety, or the safety of their children. A reality without fear. I think that’s the hardest part to believe for so many people today. We are surrounded by violence, in our schools, our places of work, our places of worship. Afraid to leave the house and the safety of like-minded people. Our doubt fuels our fears, making us like the disciples who cowered in that house. But there’s one disciple who wasn’t hiding with the rest. Thomas. Famous for the doubt that he had. We seem to overlook, however, that he wasn’t in the house where the disciples were hiding. Now, there could be any number of reasons as to why he wasn’t there, but I find it more than plausible that he was out in the world trying to do some good–in spite of the fear that confined the other ten disciples to that house. But even if he was just out grabbing a snack or visiting his mother, he left the house in spite of his fear. Any introvert here knows how challenging even that can be. But Thomas gets past the fear and does things. That alone is commendable. Thomas doesn’t let fear control his life. He pushes past it and lets his life go on.

For many, a life without fear is the hardest concept to grasp. Because the world sells us fear by the ton. Fear is what drives military spending, and discrimination, and war, and corporate greed, and personal greed. This is what the world looks like. Fear, everywhere you turn. People causing fear, and exploiting fear, and doubt, an unbelief to create chaos and to destroy any hope of trust or faith.

It is this fear that controls our lives, that keeps us locked in the house, afraid to speak out. It is this fear that closes our borders and our minds and our hearts. Fear is what isolates us from the rest of God’s world–fear is what prevents us from living into God’s reality. What I believe is one of the most significant parts of this Gospel passage is that despite the disciples locking themselves away, Jesus still enters.

Jesus cannot be kept out by any barrier–whether it be physical or mental. Christ cannot be kept out by fear. He is bigger than that. Where those in power use fear to divide us and to keep us under their control, Christ breaks through that fear and helps us to push out of the confines of the house and into the world.

But the question still remains: how? For all those struggling to find that reason to believe in the future that God envisions for us, there is one. Jesus. He is the proof, the symbol of hope. He is the sign that the world as it is now is not as good as it gets. He is the evidence that love is more powerful than death, and that God is more powerful than fear. Because it is only through Christ that we can overcome our fears and make God’s reality our own. And we can only do this by letting go of the material possessions that we hold dearest and following the example of Jesus and the apostles. We are called to take care of one another as children of God. That takes rejecting the way that the world works. That means rejecting the political and economic systems that lead to the inherent discrimination and disenfranchisement of women, minorities, and anyone that is different. It means rejecting a system that turns a profit by pitting individuals against one another using fear as an incentive to abandon fellow human beings. Because these systems are exploitative. These systems force us to dehumanize each other. These systems force us to compete rather than cooperate. These systems are obstacles along the path to God’s reality. It is our job to have hope, and to be the hope, for the world. It is our responsibility to be Christ’s body and, in doing so, to be the proof that God’s reality is possible.

There is no one I can think of who better embodies the resistance of fear or the rejection of these systems than my younger sibling. My sibling has been through a lot in the last year, starting at a point of crippling anxiety. They were only comfortable around a few people, preferring to keep to themself. However, about a year ago they felt so secure in themself that they came out as being non binary. They were feeling confident enough the be their own authentic self. Their new, authentic life has really helped them to become even less anxious all the time. In fact, they are so secure in their identity that they have become something of an advocate, both for themself and others like them. They are even advocating for more inclusive policy changes on the Conference level. They’ve come such a long way from their former anxious self. They’ve gone from anxiety to authenticity to advocacy, breaking out of the house and into the world.

We are people of faith. We have the responsibility, if we truly are followers of Christ and believers in God, to be the reason the people believe. We need to show the world the transformative love of Jesus, the transformative love that will bring about God’s reality. All we need to do is break through our fears and our doubts and and live fully into the community of believers that God intends for us. Maybe then, everyone will have something to believe in. Amen.

Sam Smith

April 8, 2018