Devotional

The Day of the LORD

[As I have said in the past, the text of my sermons are not really meant to be read since they are more like a detailed outline than proper prose.]

Year A
Proper 27
RCL

Amos 5:18-24
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Matthew 25:1-13

The Day of the Lord

Thus says the Lord, the God of hosts, the Lord:  Alas for you who desire the day of the LORD!  Why do you want the day of the LORD?  It is darkness, not light.

We are all, I am sure, far more familiar with the last portion of our Old Testament reading from this morning, those words made fresh for the last 40 years by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. “let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.” But as powerful as those words are, they do not have their full meaning unless the preceding verses are read with them. And they begin with an odd even paradoxical challenge from the prophet, declaring that the day of the Lord is darkness and not light. Surely that cannot be right! That is not how we think of the “day of the Lord” is it? Actually, that is a good question, how do you think of the “day of the Lord”? (more…)

Latterday Latitudinarians Lumbering over the Limen

Oct 19th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

George F. Will has an excellent and fair summary of where the Episcopal church finds itself. You can find the article in the Washington Post: A Faith’s Dwindling Following. The summary is fairly straightforward:

As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.

He is, of course, not saying anything new or that we have not observed before. I have often marveled at how the so-called “progressives” in our church (I say “so-called” because such a term, like so many in politics, is used not to define oneself, but the other; the opposite of “progressive” is, of course, “regressive”) are so confounded as to why evangelical churches with a fairly straightforward message of repentance, acceptance of forgiveness, and Bible study have been growing so rapidly while our numbers dwindle. The answer is simple. Very few people want a religious community where “anything goes.”

People fundamentally understand that not everything can be equally right. We go to churches, synagogues, and mosques to hear guidance and direction. We know we aren’t perfect and recognize there must be a better way. The last thing we want to hear is “your OK just the way you are, don’t change a thing” because we know that we are not OK. A newer generation won’t get the reference, but we might say “I’m not OK and you’re not OK and that’s OK.” At the core of all the Bible and the Gospel particularly is the assertion that we and this creation were made for something much, much better than what we are now. We need clarity of message so that we can decide whether or not we agree with it. Say what you will about Willow Creek Bible Church, you know what they believe. You may not agree with them, which is fine, but you know what they believe. What does the Episcopal Church believe? Hmm. That’s a tough one….

In many ways I think that the Episcopal Church would be far, far better off if it simply decided to draw a clear line in the sand regarding the role and authority of Scripture. The church would probably lose members and it might gain them, but at least being decisive would allow those seeking a community of faith to know upon what (or whom) the Episcopal Church based their faith. Be hot or be cold, but no one finds luke wark palatable.

Charlie Brown, what is the purpose of man?

Aug 16th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

No comments yet

That is the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (that I had to study and reply to before I joined the Presbyterian church as a youth).

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]

I am sure that you all are aware of Charles Schultz’s (1922-2000) personal Christian convictions and that it seeped into his Peanuts strip from time to time. This week’s reruns have CB addressing just this question, but his answer is hardly catechetical.

It seems to me that Lucy and Linus’ responses are rather profound, given CB’s view that our purpose is “to make others happy.” If that is our sole or primary purpose then indeed somebody (everyone) isn’t doing their job. Now on the other hand, I suppose we could say that this is just “the second great command” put in new terms and I would accept that, but it is given primacy in this account. I think the order (love God first then we are able to love our neighbors, and even ourselves, properly) is rather important.

The Sign of Jonah (and a stone tablet)

Jul 9th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

4 comments

I have not been following the various stories very carefully about the so-called "messiah tablet" (but Jim West has a nice collection of links and his usual trenchant comments here ). Reading the Time article , however, I was struck by Israel Knohl’s quote regarding the origins of the three day resurrection model.

But, as Knohl told TIME, maybe the Christians had a model to work from. The idea of a "dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism," he says. "But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus." If so, he goes on, "this should shake our basic view of Christianity. … What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

Like the tablet, we do not know the full context of Knol’s quote but I think even without this tablet we can safely assume that the disciples at least looked at the story of Jonah as an antecedent or lens through which to interpret the events of the cross and empty tomb. Jesus is attributed with rebuking the "evil generation" that looked for signs but would only receive "the sign of Jonah" (Mark 16:4, Luke 11:29).

The fact that this reference to Jonah is present in the text certainly attests, if nothing else, to the importance of citing Scripture to justify the belief in a 3-day "descent" and resurrection. This is a fact of early Judaism that is often stated with regard to rabbinic teaching and halakhah yet often ignored with respect to Christian teaching. Originality is not a positive trait of teaching in first century Judaism.

That being said, I have often said that no one expected the immediate (relatively speaking) resurreciton of the Messiah. If this text really does refer to such a belief and if it is legitimate (something that will be very difficult to prove at this point) then it certainly adds new data to the discussion and will alter my teaching, but I am not sure that it changes or would challenge the Christian faith in any substantial way.

Just kill me now, Lord.

Jun 17th, 2008

by Christian Brady.

No comments yet

I was doing the Daily Office this morning, something I admit to not doing daily, and as is often the case, the readings were particularly relevant. (It is amazing what a difference it makes to actually be receptive to what you reading.) The reading from Num. 11:1-23 was interesting in light of current events in our parish.

Our parish is going through a transition, the rector of 14 years has retired and while I am not on any of the transitional committees I am a “resident member of the clergy” so I get to meet with our candidates for interim priest. My wife is on the vestry and so she met with the candidate last night. Last night she and I discussed not so much the candidate but where our church and the ECUSA in general is headed. We have a fairly mixed parish, more on the moderate side than radical activist end of the spectrum (either end of the radicalness, I should add). There are many times when I wonder just why we should stay engaged with the national church.

So, today I read Num. 11. It is the passage where the Israelites in the wilderness are grumbling again, this time because they want meat. Real meat, not this carroway-like wafer stuff. This time not only is God upset, but Moses is pissed and complains to God, saying that it is not like he gave birth to them. Why should he have to deal with them and their whining? Not to put too fine a point on it, Moses asks God

Num. 11:15 “If this is the way you are going to treat me, put me to death at once-if I have found favor in your sight-and do not let me see my misery.”

I laughed out loud when I read that. “Kill me now, Lord, kill me now.” Well, I am no Moses, nor is my wife. I won’t pretend to draw any direct line of meaning, but I think a general premise that God will work with and through his people (and its leaders) in spite of their thick heart and headedness is clear.

I certainly believe that one clear lesson from Moses (and Abraham and the psalms and the prophets) is that we are allowed to be honest with God. If you think about it, they all showed incredible chutzpah in talking back to God, challenging why he was asking so much of them or not dealing with an injustice that was so obviously in need of smiting. We should not let our humility before God keep us from being honest with him and therefore ourselves about our frustrations and anger.

So I don’t know what the future holds for our parish or the ECUSA and I don’t even know what is my future in these institutions. For the shortterm much will depend upon who we end up calling. “All politics are local” is a truism in the church as much as in the state. In the meantime, keep us in your prayers.