I might have to take a page from the Red Stick Rant book and put this website into temporary(?) hibernation. The last 2 weeks have been working 10-12 hours/day which is fine. Hard work is part of congregational ministry. But has not left me with much extra time or mental/spiritual energy for posting. As for politics the situation is so bad what more is there to say? The health of this nation – by which I mean liberty opportunity responsibility prosperity security and charity – will not improve until the political-cultural left is removed from power by legitimate democratic means.

And now I have been offered the chance to teach Intermediate (Biblical) Hebrew at Louisiana State University as an adjunct starting this semester. Which is fantastic. But also means less than 5 weeks to prepare! So in addition to (1) full time congregational ministry which has become more demanding as our new co-pastors provide new direction and leadership and (2) part time computer/network support – which lately has been unusually time consuming because of the issues involved with getting two Mac computers to play nice with our Small Business Server 2003 network environment – add (3) teaching one course at the university which means both class time and extensive preparation.

Maybe I could just get in one or two posts a week. But cannot promise that.

Before turning off the light – hopefully temporarily – let me list some of the things I was hoping to address. Just so you know what I have been thinking and reading about.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Die Walkuere” by Richard Wagner. Quick summary = One does not normally expect to enjoy 5 1/2 hours of Wagnerian opera! But truly this performance/production will go down in history as one of the great triumphs in the history of opera.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Madame Butterfly” by Gioachino Rossini. Quick summary = Fascinating and excellent performance. An utterly heartbreaking and tragic story that raises cross-cultural issues as well as the (past?) problem of American colonialism.

Review of “Super 8″. Quick summary = Loved it so much paid to see it twice.

Review of “X-Man First Class”. Quick summary = Awesome.

Review of “The University in a Single Atom” by the Dalai Lama. Which I read primarily because it was a gift from my sister. Quick summary = Excellent and illuminating. Christians who are interested in (a) the relationship between science and religion and/or (b) understanding Buddhism do well to read this.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions on immigration and ministry to (illegal) immigrants. Quick summary = Rather surprising and leaves many people in the odd situation of regarding those Southern Baptists as too liberal!

Allen West versus Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Quick summary = There are more effective ways to rebuke the political-cultural left.

Modest proposal for how English language Bibles should translate Hebrew tsdaqa(h) and Greek dikaiosyne.

Terence Fretheim on the book of Exodus and to what extent scholars and pastors and teachers may misunderstand and even misrepresent biblical law and covenant theology.

One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

Note – These are my notes from Evensong last night. I apologize that all this is in note form. I will add the text of the quotes – which are important – later.

Was planning to talk about ecclesiology/church in 1 Peter
But Genesis 22 – might be one of most important
repeat some of this morning but expand

Difficult challenging story
David Regenspan in Muhammad and Rise of Early Islam
“Don’t preach this text. Stay away. Too dangerous”

But we must not avoid/stay away
What it shows about (a) faith (b) God (c) way of relationship w God

Context
life of Abraham – basically Genesis 12-22 (technically 11-25 = prologue/postlogue)
lek-lka in Genesis 12 and 22
what Genesis 12 begins Genesis 22 finishes
powerful impossible promises
struggle and wait for 25 years
finally Isaac is born!
and now God wants A to offer him as sacrifice?!?
threatens(?) to destroy and undo past(?) and future

Pause
if we only have Genesis 12-21 what is faith? way of relationship with God?

Why does the story disturb and bother us?
because of context – will God undo everything so far?
only place God asks for human sacrifice?

How can we unpack story to understand what is happening / what it teaches?

“Through Isaac the child of the impossible promise. And now God tells Abraham to offer this child as a sacrifice. What will happen to everything that God has promised and everything God has done?

Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the first thing we learn from the story.”

Cannot remember what is point / thing we learn

Literary structure
Walter Brueggemann
3 times call-answer-statement
God-Abraham-command
Isaac-Abraham-question-statement “The Lord will see to it”
angel-Abraham-command
(in every case Abraham is the focus – the one who answers)
what stands out? what is extra / does not fit pattern
verse 8 is key – “The Lord will see to it”

Beginnings and endings
The Lord tests… “Now I know”
“Take your only son whom you love” … “Have not kept back your only son whom you love”
both cases – what is in the middle? what holds the beginning and ending together?
no matter how we approach the story verse 8 is the center – “The Lord will see to it”
what does this mean? why is it important?

What is faith / way of relationship w God in Genesis 12-21?
conversation with member of University Baptist
faith and prayer
faith makes a difference
“your faith has saved you”
“help my unbelief”
faith has something to do w God answers our prayer (does/gives)
something to do w what we see / experience / understand

Whole new understand of faith in Genesis 22
stretches / challenges -> deeper understanding of biblical faith
Abraham does not understand (a) command (b) how will God keep his impossible promises?
(some will debate #b – does Abraham know? does he know how?)
be careful not to bring in Hebrews 11 – not yet
try to understand text on its own terms

does not know / does not understand

Faith beyond God answers / does / gives
faith beyond see / experience / understand
can we have faith / do we have faith when we see no reason to believe?
no job / no healing / no change
all we see if failure / defeat / loss / death
we do not understand – but we trust you
(earthquake/tsunamis in Japan)
God test and provides
God is mysterious but reliable
(some Christians avoid one or the other)
often mistake of either/or not both/and

Two ways to shed light on this new understanding of faith

1) Tolkien

conversation between elven king Finrod Felagund and wise woman Andreth (Morgoth’s Ring)
“have yet then no hope?” amdir = looking up <-> estel = trust
perhaps biblical faith ~ estel = deep radical trust beyond ways of world / experience
common theme in Tolkien
quote Dickerson, Following Gandalf, 138
(people continue to choose good even when they see no way they can win)
quote Ralph Wood, Gospel According to Tolkien, 101-102, also 105

2) Related words/concepts that shed light on each other
faith (or trust in sense of lean upon) – H ‘aman
hope – qawa(h) (not in Genesis 22)
fear – if this story is about faith why mention fear?
trust – rather set confidence – not common and unclear relationship to faith/trust

Note – I am not entirely happy with this sermon as sermon. In other words it need more work and the central idea/point needs to be developed much better. But I share it because of the central idea/point which is challenging.

“A Whole New Understanding of Faith/Estel (or) The Unavoidable Story”
Genesis 22
Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
2nd Sunday of Pentecost (A) or 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Stay away from this story. Because it is too dangerous.

Cornell University. Two thousand and two. Graduate seminar on Muhammad and the Rise of Early Islam with Professor David Powers. Each student must choose and topic and give a presentation and write a research paper. My friend and classmate David Regenspan – who is also a Jewish rabbi – says that he is going to focus on the story of when Abraham will sacrifice his son. In the Bible his son Isaac. But in the Qur’an his son Ishmael.  He wants to focus on this topic – how the Qur’an takes our Bible story for today and tells it in a different way – because when he is in graduate school preparing to become a rabbi his teachers tell them never preach this story. Stay away from it. Because it is too dangerous.

Our Bible reading for today from the book of Genesis chapter twenty two is dangerous. But we cannot stay away. Because this story is so difficult and challenges how we understand faith and how we understand God and how we understand the way of relationship with God.

And after these things God tests Abraham.

After these things. Our Bible reading for this morning from the book of Genesis chapter twenty two is part of a larger story that begins in chapter twelve. One of the most important chapters in the Bible. When God says to Abraham, Leave your land / your relatives / the house of your father and go to a land I will show you. And the Lord gives to Abraham powerful and important promises. I will give you descendants. I will make you a great nation. I will make your name famous. And through you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

This is what God promises to an old man and woman who have no children and no land of their own. They begin a long difficult journey with God. Ten years twenty years. Abraham and Sarah both struggle with worry and fear. Will God keep / how will God keep / when will God keep his promises? Sometimes they try to make the promises come true on their own and it does not work very well. Sometimes God appears to Abraham and repeats the promises / even holds himself to them.

And then finally after waiting for twenty five years Abraham and Sarah have a child of their own. And Isaac is born in chapter twenty one. God keeps his first impossible promise. Abraham will have descendants through Isaac. Through Isaac Abraham will become a great nation. His name will be famous. Through this family all the families of the earth will be blessed.

And now chapter twenty two. After these things… God says to him, Abraham! Here I am. Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a a sacrifice/offering on one of the mountains that I will tell you.

Chapter twelve. God says lekh-lkha go from… to a land I will show you. Chapter twenty two. Qah-na take. Lekh-lkha go to a mountain that I will show you. Almost the same. In a way our story repeats the command of God and completes the journey with God that begins in chapter twelve. Both times Abraham does what God says and he goes.

Already we struggle to understand what this story is about. God makes impossible promises to Abraham. For twenty five years Abraham goes and trusts and waits. Finally everything that God promises to Abraham is going to come true. Through Isaac the child of the impossible promise. And now God tells Abraham to offer this child as a sacrifice. What will happen to everything that God has promised and everything God has done?

Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the first thing we learn from the story.

To understand this story better we need to look at how it is shaped. Walter Brueggemann is very important scholar of the Old Testament. He describes how three times there is call / command / response.

The first one. God calls Abraham / Abraham responds, Here I am / God commands. The second one. Isaac calls Abraham / Abraham responds / Isaac asks a question / Abraham answers. The third one. The angel calls Abraham / Abraham answers / the angel commands. What does not fit the pattern? What is different? When Abraham answers Isaac, The Lord will see to it (the lamb for the sacrifice).

{{Look at how the story begins and ends. The Lord tests Abraham… God says, Now I know that you fear God and have not kept back your only son from me. God tests / now God knows. Or take your only son whom you love – a command that we do not understand makes no sense that will destroy everything that God has promised and done. But at the end you have not kept back your only son from me – the danger of this strange command is over. }} (skipped this paragraph – not necessary or clear)

The Bible – especially the New Testament – presents Abraham as the model of faith. Abraham believed God. This is what faith looks like. So what do we learn about faith? Learn about God? Learn about the way of relationship with God?

I do not completely understand this story. I do not have all the answers. But there is at least one thing I think I understand. This story invites us to discover a whole new understanding of faith.

Abraham has faith in God. Another we to say that is he trusts God. He believes that God is good and will do what he says. He believes that God will give him and his wife a child who will become a great nation and all the families of the earth will be blessed. He sees God do this.

And now God asks Abraham to do something he does not understand. He does not know how God will keep the promises / does not understand how his family will have a future if he does what God says and offers his only son whom he loves. There is no reason to believe. Abraham does not understand. But he still has faith in God. He still trusts that somehow God will see to it.

Not just, I have faith that God will answer my prayer / do what I ask / give what I need. Not just, I trust God because I see / experience / understand. But a whole new understanding of faith that is beyond what we see / what we experience / what we understand / beyond God answers / does / gives.

Faith that says, I do not understand. But still I trust you. No matter what.

I cannot explain how but starting about five years ago in two thousand and six began to include works of art in our worship guides. So if one of the Bible readings for that day 1 Samuel 3 would include “Samuel and Eli” by Gerrit Dou (1613-1675) just to pick one example. I think this was partly because pictures can help prompt us to think in different ways about biblical texts. Because some people are primarily visual learners/thinkers. And because sometimes the artwork is from non-Western nations and cultures. For example the work of Chinese Christian artist He Qi. Or the stories of Jesus in an African setting/context at Vie de Jesus Mafa. Part of my ministry is to look for ways to communicate effectively across cultures. But more than that to celebrate other cultures which God creates – and that is one of my theological convictions – and the ways biblical stories can be expressed in the artistic conventions of these other cultures.

The response was tremendous. Since then people have frequently expressed how beautiful and interesting is the artwork we include. University Baptist Church – the American church of which Church of the Nations is a ministry – also began to adopt this practice on occasion.

Anyways wanted to share a couple new artists I have discovered. One is Bhanu Dudhat who appears to be an artist in(? from?) Gujarat in north India. He and his wife – also an artist – have an excellent website where one can see many paintings of stories from the Bible but done in an Indian cultural style.

The other is Yoram Raanan who is a Jewish Israeli artist born in the United States and moved to Israel in 1977. He works largely with oils and acrylics but also does collages and paintings on unusual media such as used book covers. He has several paintings of biblical subjects some of which are quite interesting. I commend to you his painting of the Aqedah aka Binding of Isaac in Genesis 22. That is one of the lections for his Sunday and the focus of the sermon I am preparing which is how I came across Raanan in the first place.

Whether it be Bible study or catechism or worship – how can we include all the human senses in the life of the church? What are the many ways we can incorporate visual art?

Andrea Da Firenze (1343-1377) Descent of the Holy Spirit

Truth, Translation, and Translucence: <Traduttore (no) Traditore!>
(or)
The Flesh/Word Became Word/Flesh and
Pitched His Language Among Us
(Acts 02)

Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
Pentecost Sunday (A)
June 12 2011

Everyone speaks French. Not really. But we think my father is funny.

For five years my family lives in England. My family does not travel very much. But during those five years we take many trips each year to different parts of Great Britain and to different countries in Europe. Spain / France / Italy / Germany / Belgium / Luxembourg / Switzerland. Now my dad can speak a very small amount of French. And what we think is very funny is that no matter where we go no matter what language people speak in that country we visit my dad tries to speak French. Because if people do not speak English and we do not speak their language for some crazy reason my father thinks maybe French will work.

One of my favorite stories is when we are in Rome. We are walking from our hotel to the coliseum. We walk by this very ordinary looking church. And there are cars and people everywhere. Something special is happening. So my father walks up to a police officer. Tries to ask him in French what is happening. Does not work. So my dad – the master of all languages – in his best Italian points at the church and says (shrug). The police officer points at his watch and says Il Papa! Il Papa! The Pope! The Pope! The Pope is coming to visit this little church.

Not everyone really speaks French. But my dad tries.

In our Bible story for this morning from the book of Acts chapter two no one speaks French. Not everyone even speaks Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek. Not everyone speaks the same language.

When the day of Pentecost comes, they are all together in one place. ² Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind comes from heaven and fills the whole house where they are sitting. ³ They see what seem to be tongues (Greek gloossai) of fire that separate and come to rest on each of them. ⁴ All of them are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to speak in other tongues (gloossais) as the Spirit makes them able. ⁵ Now there are staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. ⁶ When they hear this sound, a crowd comes together all confused? amazed? because each one hears them speaking in his own language (Greek dialektos).

Today is my favorite day in the Christian calendar. The Day of Pentecost. The day when the family of God celebrates and perhaps experiences again when God sends the Holy Spirit upon the early Christian church. Last week on Ascension Sunday we hear the story of how Jesus appears to his followers after his resurrection for forty days. He shows them that he is alive. He teaches them about the kingdom of God. He tells them Wait for the gift my Father promised which you have heard me talk about. You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you will tell people about me in Jerusalem (your home city) in Judea (your home province) in Samaria (the country or province next to yours) and to the ends of the earth.

There is a small but very powerful very important detail in this story that almost no one notices or talks about. Think about this for a moment. You have all these people from different provinces different nations different cultures who speak different languages. The story tells us they are all Jewish. Maybe there is one language that they all can use. Maybe they all know Greek or Hebrew although probably not. Maybe the followers of Jesus can speak in Greek or Aramaic and the Holy Spirit can make all these people understand one language.

But the Holy Spirit does not bring all these people together by making them the same. By making them one culture or able to understand one language. The Holy Spirit does something much more interesting. Makes the disciples able to speak in other languages so that each person can hear the good news about Jesus in his or her own language.

As if God respects the different language cultures nations that are there in Jerusalem. God does not say “Okay let’s see we have Africans Asians Europeans – all of you will now be the same. We have people who speak Greek Latin Chinese Korean Swahili Japanese Polish – all of you will now speak French”. No instead God says “Yes I want all people everywhere to know me worship me serve me. Yes I want all of you to experience my love healing forgiveness and salvation through Jesus my son. I want all of you to receive the power of the Holy Spirit. All of you to be part of the family of God. But I do not want you all to be the same. I want you to be a church of different cultures languages and nations”.

So we have this huge gathering of people from different provinces nations and cultures. They proclaim who God is and the wonderful things God has done through his son Jesus – they do this in different languages that reflect their different cultures and traditions. We know from the rest of the book of Acts that these different people go back to their home provinces and countries and form Christian communities that preach teach worship and serve in different languages. They find ways to understand and serve Jesus Christ that are appropriate for their different cultures.

In a way this is the great contradiction(?) of Church of the Nations. Bible study and worship in simple English. English Conversation. But our goal is not in fact to become American or speak only English. Part of our mission is to help everyone learn about and/or grow in the Christian faith. To be a place that helps people understand and live within American culture. But(?) to respect and encourage you as people with your own culture who continue to have your own language of the heart.

Stephen Freeman is a pastor in Tennessee. Two years ago he wrote an article on his website that changed even more how I look at language and culture. He wrote:

“That the Bible can be translated says something about language. It is interesting that the Christian faith has always translated the Bible.

I believe sometimes a translation will reveal things that are true that could not have been seen in the original language. There are relations between words and ideas in a language that are only in that language. I believe we should not ignore such relations and the meanings they create simply because the same relations and meanings do not exist in the original languages. These meanings are not enough for the official teachings of the Christian church. But they can sometimes be part of what the Bible reveals to us”.

It might be possible to translate the Bible or a song of worship or an act of worship or a work of art of a book about the Christian faith into your language or your culture. And not only does that translation or song or art communicate the truth of God. But it can also communicate new ideas and new meaning that is not in the original. Tradutore no sempre traditore – the translator is not always a traitor.

Stephen Freeman writes this is because in the Christian faith a word or an action or even a picture is not just a word or action or picture. There is something more. Words and actions and pictures are windows through which we can experience what they represent. They are transluscent.

Yes we gather to worship God to study the Bible to learn about to grow in the Christian faith in simple English. Mostly. But we do not give up and we do not lose our national or cultural or linguistic background. In fact let us embrace and celebrate and understand better our own language and culture. So that we are better able to let the Holy Spirit proclaim to us and in us and through us the wonderful acts of God and most of all what God has done through Jesus Christ his son.

Notes from Evensong talk on Emmaus narrative from Luke 24 last night May 15 2011. Newly called co-pastors Mike Massar and Griff Martin were present. Got a lot of strong positive feedback on this.

Paradigmatic texts of the Bible – those that summarize or frame life in relationship with God

microcosms – deep rich inexhaustible stories of the Bible
Isaiah 6
Romans 8(?)
Luke 24

Microcosms -> astronomy
color picture = 3 pictures in 3 different colors
not one color picture but 3 combined

Luke 24
3 post-resurrection stories of transformation
3 women :: empty tomb and angels (no Jesus)
2 of them :: recognize Jesus in breaking of bread
11 :: direct encounter of risen Christ

So we can read Walk to Emmaus as one of a series of three stories

3-4 years ago staff meeting
Jay and plan to share vision over 6 months
focusing on Luke 24
his read of the story
my read of the story – not against his but different
cannot remember what I said

If in astronomy take 3+ pictures in 3+ different wavelengths -> what are 3+ ways to look at Luke 24?

1) Relationship

2) Presence

3) Knowledge/Understanding

1) Relationship

2 of them – deliberate ambiguity (men? married couple?)

Jesus is the stranger = paroikos = lives somewhere not their home
2 disciples welcome the stranger
talk with him = questions and listening and answers

note – not we go there but they come here
the paroikoi come to us – what do we do when they come here?

consider Acts and Passover and Pentecost
nations come to Jerusalem
then Jerusalem to the nations
centripetal and centrifugal movements in Christian mission (David Bosch)

conversation
hospitality
welcome to our home
share a meal together
(separation?)

2) Presence

Where is Jesus? -> Where is God present? (main issue of post-resurrection narratives)

dualities of divine presence in Luke 24

1. individual and communal

Jesus and me
Jesus and us – we overlook?

2. Bible and sacrament

word and ritual
is Jesus somehow present in communion?

3. memory and experience

recognize presence in the moment
but also in memory -> now I see how God was there!

3) Knowledge/Understanding

Movement from not knowing/understanding/recognizing -> recognize/understand/know/proclaim

not know – where is Jesus? what now?
not recognize
not understand – here the Scriptures

conversation with questions – although Jesus asks first

kerygma – basic story of Jesus who he is what he did
not theology and not Bible – just telling the basic story
summary of Christian faith ~ Apostles Creed?
for Baptists :: hymnal?

Scripture

Eucharist/Communion/Lord’s Supper -> ritual worship

then they recognize // understand // (memory) // know

the Lord is risen indeed!

testimony -> share what they know (experienced) with others

(Still room for mystery -> Jesus disappears from their sight)

Is there a way to put these 3 pictures together and form one? one pictures that represents the life of the Christian community centered around liturgy (word and ritual)? the story of Emmaus is our story – story of this church family?

We are on a journey. Sometimes a journey to Baton Rouge / always within Baton Rouge / sometimes from Baton Rouge. We have questions. About the news. About life. About God. This is a place where people can ask questions. Where someone listens to us. Is interested in who we are where we are from and what are we doing here. Where we share the basic message about Jesus Christ the Son of God. Where we study the Bible together. Where we worship together. Practice hospitality together. You come to my house. You invite us to your apartment. We share meals together. Friend chicken / beans and spinach / tea eggs and bigos / fufu and Kigali and grapefruit jello. We experience the love and presence of God together. We share our stories with each other. We discover and learn things together. And although it breaks my heart sometimes we get up and return to where we came from. And always we hear and carry with us and share the paschal proclamation It is true! Christ is risen! The Lord is risen indeed! (from sermon on Luke 24 to Church of the Nations in May 2011)

James Tissot, "The woman who had been crippled for 18 years" (1886-1896)

First published in The Window (November 2006)

Sabba- (or) Holy Liberation, part V
Richard M. Wright

(The Sabba- is going somewhere…)

Last week I suggested that Sabba- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps liberation. And therefore asked, If we choose not to practice Sabba- are we choosing (a kind of) slavery over freedom?

In Luke 13 Jesus heals a woman on the Sabba-. “On a Sabba- Jesus was teaching… and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years… When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, ‘Woman, you are set free from your infirmity’” (13:10-12; NIV).

What is strange is that Jesus does not use the language of healing. Not “woman you are healed” but “woman, you are set free (Greek apolúoo “set free, release, pardon”; Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: 96b). And when some complain that Jesus is healing on the Sabba- he replies, “Should not this woman… whom Satan has kept bound… be set free (Greek lúoo “loose, untie, release”) from what bound her?” (13:16).

Jesus uses the language of liberation. Of untying… of forces of evil (spiritual? psychological? socio-economic? even physical?) that hold prisoner and that keep in bonds… of release. This is not just about healing a sickness. This is about setting a human being free from the forces that make her a prisoner and hold her down. The Sabba- is a day for rest and worship… for playing and praying… The Sabba- is also a day for liberation and for setting human beings free from whatever holds us prisoner.

Two questions.

First. Does the Christian community ever turn this day of liberation into a day of… bondage? slavery? drudgery?

Second. How do we – as individuals, as families, as a church family – practice Sabba- even more as a day of liberation?

Arthur Waskow describes Sabba- as a revolutionary act – and Sabba- keepers as guerilla soldiers who liberate time. I would add that Sabba- must become even more a liberating time and Sabba- keepers as those who not only liberate time but set human beings free.

"Supper at Emmaus" by Caravaggio (1601)

Two of them?

Observe this remarkable painting by Michelangelo Caravaggio. Notice anything different or strange about it? Apparently people criticized it partly because (1) the risen Christ has no beard and (2) the fruit on the table is the wrong season. But there is something it shares in common with every single painting of the Emmaus story – as far as I am aware.

One of my best teachers at Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond was Sandra Hack Polaski with whom I took two required classes on New Testament and later two electives. No other teacher in seminary (a) was so prompt in returning tests and papers and (b) was so thorough in her comments.

(With the possible exception of Dean McBride across the street at Union Theological Seminary who wrote voluminous notes and comments all over my exegetical paper on Exodus 20:22-26.)

I will never forget the day she invited us to reconsider the journey to Emmaus narrative in Luke 24. She did not tell us the answer and then defend it. She just made some observations about the book of Luke in general. Asked a couple open ended questions. And left us to reach the obvious conclusion. Nicely done.

Permit me to quote myself from a sermon given to Church of the Nations on April 04 2005:

[BEGIN] Our story for this morning comes from the book of Luke – which often uses pairs. Pairs of stories or characters usually next to each other that work together speak together strengthen each other. The beginning of the book of Luke – first the story of Zechariah father of John the cousin of Jesus then the story of Mary the mother of Jesus. Chapter two – Jesus is born his parents take him to the temple in Jerusalem where we meet Simeon a holy man and Anna a holy woman. Chapter seven Jesus heals the slave of a centurion – a Roman soldier – then Jesus heals the son of a widow – a Jewish woman. Chapters thirteen and fourteen Jesus heals a woman who has a problem with her back then Jesus heals a man who has a disease. Chapter fifteen Jesus tells the parable of a man who has many sheep and loses one and finds it then tells the parable of a woman who has some coins and loses one and finds it. Man woman / man woman / man woman / woman man / man woman.

On that same day two of them - in Greek duo ex autoon – two of them are going to a village called Emmaus about twelve kilometers from Jerusalem. They talk with each other. We learn that one of them his name is Cleopas we do not learn the name of the other. These two walk together talk together stay at the same place in the village perhaps this is their home they live together they invite Jesus to eat with them they eat together.

Two… of them.

What is the question I am not asking? What is the answer I am not telling?

When you see a picture of this story… when you imagine this story in your mind – what do you see? Two men? Perhaps – and I am careful to say perhaps – a man and a woman. Perhaps husband and wife. Perhaps like another story from the book of Genesis chapter eighteen when Abraham and his wife Sarah invite three strangers – who are actually three angels or the Lord and two angels – husband and wife invite strangers to stay and eat with them.

So let us work backwards from the end of the story. Perhaps husband and wife explain to the other disciples what happened to them. Husband and wife proclaim the good news, The Lord is risen indeed! Husband and wife talk together about their experience of Jesus participate in a meal with Jesus – a meal that is very much like the ritual of Communion / Eucharist / Lord’s Supper / a meal that represents a central act of Christian worship. Husband and wife practice hospitality and invite a stranger to stay and eat with them. Husband and wife study the Bible with Jesus talk with Jesus travel with Jesus. Husband and wife tell a stranger the story of Jesus – a prophet from God powerful in what he said and did suffered died crucified Messiah raised from death on the third day – the basic kerygma or message of the early Christian community. Husband and wife follow Jesus together.

We see in our story for this morning from the book of Luke the power and potential of husband and wife who follow worship serve proclaim Jesus Christ together as partners. Later in the book of Acts – part two of the book of Luke the same person or persons wrote the book of Luke part one and the book of Acts – later we meet Aquila and Priscilla. Husband and wife who for a while work with the apostle Paul – traveling and helping to form new Christian communities and helping to teach new followers of Christ. Notice especially in our story from the book of Luke how one of the most important things that Cleopas and perhaps his wife do is to practice hospitality. How they welcome the stranger who is away from home open their home and share a meal.[END]

So back to our wonderful painting by Caravaggio. Do we not always assume that the two of them are two men? Are we to understand that the book of Luke presents us with two unmarried men who live together? (Think about it for a moment.) Does it not make much more sense that sure Cleopas is a man but the unnamed and unspecified other is…

His wife? That is – a woman?

Philip Ratner, "Remember the Sabbath"

Originally published in The Window (November 10, 2006)

Holy Liberation (or) Sabb-, part IV
by Richard M. Wright

(The Sabb- is going somewhere…)

Are we slaves?

(Say whaaa-?)

That is an offensive question but bear with me. One of the speakers at the (can you guess?) Catalyst Conference was Gary Haugen, who works with the International Justice Mission which basically finds and rescues people from slavery. No kidding.

Even in countries where it is illegal some people sometimes engage in slavery. Haugen described a brick-making complex somewhere in Asia where people – including husbands and wives and children of all ages – were forced to make bricks 12-14 hours each and day and 7 days a week. Beatings for failure to keep quota. No escape. And no rest from work.

That – among other things perhaps – is a key characteristic of slavery. Working without ever resting.

Rewind a few millennia. The Hebrews are former slaves about to enter the land of Canaan. God through Moses reminds them of ten things. The fourth – which is the longest commandment so maybe it is rather important – says:

“Observe the Sabb-day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabb- to the Lord your God. On it, you shall not do any work, neither you, you’re your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the foreigner within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God broutht you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord you God has commanded you to observe the Sabb- day.” Deuteronomy 5:12-15

Fascinating. Why should you observe this day of rest/fun/worship/prayer? Because once you were slaves but now you are no longer. Sabb- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps freedom. Liberation. (More about that next week.)

(So, if we choose not to practice Sabb- are we choosing to live like slaves?)

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galations 5:1)