« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

With these readings we turn back to a New Year in our readings, moving with the church throughout the world to what we call, Year A – based in the Gospel of Matthew. Advent is not merely the “pre-Christmas season” – a time to hit the malls for consumption and parties for celebration. It is a time of repentance and hope, as we begin a new year looking to the future that is already been made present in Jesus, particularly in his resurrection, yet still-to-come for all creation.

The season of Advent highlights the context of our life as the body of Christ, and individually members of it. We live from the coming of Jesus, to the coming of Jesus. With this in mind, maybe it can help us to read our Gospel first, and move to the OT text, a beautiful word from Isaiah 2, and end with the Epistle reading from Romans.

Matthew 24:37-44

Deep within the gospel traditions are Jesus’ statements of the coming of the Son of Man. If you notice, this passage is framed by the phrase “the coming of the Son of Man” as the last phrase in the first sentence and a similar phrase in the last clause of the last sentence. What is the role of the believer in relationship to the “coming”? Do we bring the coming to pass? What are the conditions in which “the coming” occurs? What then is the responsibility of the believer to live in the face of the coming of the Son of Man?

Isaiah 2:1-5

Isaiah 2 gives an image of creation after the coming, or in its words, “in the days to come.” As Christians, we read the Jerusalem and temple images of the passage as the church, the new Jerusalem, a people made the “dwelling place of God” through God’s reconciliation of humanity in Jesus Christ. We see here both the “already” and the “still-to-come” nature of “the days to come”. Discuss the first two verses in light of our multicongregation and even our congregation, in terms of the “already” and the “still-to-come”.

In verses 3-4, the passage moves to judgment, the “coming of the Son of Man” in light of our Matthew reading. What happens as a result of the coming? What happens to the situation discussed in Matthew concerning the time of the coming? What is the difference in the imagery of what the judgment brings about?

Notice that the final verse calls Judah and Jerusalem now to walk in the ways of the Lord. This provides the framework for the Epistle text.

Romans 13:8-14

It seems to me that it is helpful to read the Romans passage in light of the “coming” spoken in Matthew as a witness to the end result spoken of in Isaiah – how to live for the “coming” in light of the already and the not-yet. Read Matthew 5:17 – 48 and Romans 14:8-10. How does Paul’s teaching relate to Jesus’? How does then Jesus’ teaching related to the “time it is” – what time is it? What is the “salvation” spoken of in v. 11?

Why, given this “time,” does Paul exhort avoidance of certain types of behavior and attitudes in vv. 12-13? The kicker, however, comes in v. 14 – what I’ll probably spend some time on this coming Sunday. What does the language, “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” mean (help me out, I’m not sure!)? The last phrase is very important. The “flesh” in Paul is the way bodies are perceived as a result of living in this evil age, the desires encoded in us by the world that takes us from God. There is an asceticism endorsed in the passage, but it is a denial of the flesh to free the body, all bodies, not a denial of the body per se. Maybe, in light of the previous two Scriptures, you could talk about what it means to make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. Desire itself is not wrong or evil; but for the Christian, all desires must be rightly ordered to find their end, their ultimate desire, in God. What happens when our desires become disconnected from their ultimate end in God? How does this help us live from the coming to the coming?

David Bentley Hart in the Beauty of the Infinite writes, “The kingdom of God, the Gospels assert . . . comes suddenly, like a thief in the night, and so fulfills no immanent process, consummates none of our grand projects. . . . Only thus does it complete all things. And in the light of an eschaton [the “end time”] that has already, in the resurrection of Christ, been made visible within history. . . the eschatological liberates time from the burden of history, allows time . . . an unnecessary, free, rhetorical graciousness; time is seen to be a declaration of divine glory, rather than a divine or human or ideal labor that achieves its end through an inevitable but ennobling . . . strife” (pp. 396-7). How does recognizing that the “burden of history” is lifted from us allow us to “make no provision for the flesh” but frees us to live fully in an affirmation of Life?

Have a wonderful evening!

Posted by johnwright at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)

The end of the church year is nigh upon us. The theme of the next several weeks is God's coming judgement. Spoken of in this way, it sounds rather uncomfortable. Indeed, the readings can make us uncomfortable. Spoken, however, as the coming fullness of the Kingdom of God, we here the good news. We have to always remember that repentance is a gift given to us, not to allow God to forgive us, but to open ourselves to God's forgiveness for God's cleansing and sanctification.

The themes help us see beyond the pressures of the immediate to the long run -- what really matters. This perspective helps us, then, live lives of love in the immediate. It helps us look past our own self-deception to see ourselves in light of God who has reveal God's own Self in Christ.

Malachi 3:13-4:2a,5-6

What is the presupposition of those who have "spoken harsh words against me"? What should God be about according to them? What are the criteria by which they judge the justice of God? What does such a criteria tell about their expectations and their understanding of what life is about? How is this different from God? What are the two different understandings of God's justice? What difference does this make in life? Which one takes faith/trust in God versus faith/trust in the mechanisms of the world around us?

Then those who revered the LORD spoke with one another. The LORD took note and listened, and a book of remembrance was written before him of those who revered the LORD and thought on his name. They shall be mine, says the LORD of hosts, my special possession on the day when I act, and I will spare them as parents spare their children who serve them. Then once more you shall see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him. What is the role of "Elijah"? Finally, this is the very end of the OT -- what does this suggest about what follows after?

2 Thessalonians 3:6-13

As part of a congregation, we can easily fall into an atmosphere on entitlement. Often language of community is used to place an obligation upon another that might not even be expressed, but claimed as a "right," maybe in light of what we have done in the past. What does the Thessalonians passage say to such an attitude? Why is it important for those who can to "not be idle"? What is the relationship of the whole congregation to the "idle-atry"? Obviously, no one wants to understand our selves as "busy bodies, not doing any work"? How do we stay out of self deception? Why does the exhortation to not give up doing what is right come at the end of the passage? What happens when one feels one is working when one does not feel that others are playing their role? In this situation, what personal danger does one face? Why is it that we should do our work quietly?

Luke 21:5-19

Why does this passage presume that "you will be hated for Jesus' name"? How is that related to the persecution of which the text speaks? What would happen if one worried about one's defense? Finally, and maybe most importantly for the whole passage, why is it by endurance you will save your souls? Why does the Christian live require endurance?

Maybe to get some perspective to discuss these readings as a whole, I could add a little vignette from Mother Theresa in the book, Come Be My Light. She wrote to an Archbishop:

"I was sorry not to be able to be at the Mater Dei [College] for the meeting. About 60 Sisters were in retreat--so the had [a] chance to talk to Mother. It is so consoling to help others love God--since I can't do it myself.--What deep, humble gratitude I owe God for what treasures He has given me in my children . . . .

Three days ago we picked up two people eaten alive with worms. The agony of the Cross was on their faces.--How terrible poverty is, if unloved.--After we made them comfortable--you should have seen the change. The old man asked for a cigarette and how beautiful of God--in my bag there were two packets of [the] best cigarettes. A rich man gave them to me that morning in the street. God thought of this old man's longing.

Why do I write all these foolish things to you -- when you have so many other great things to be busy with?--Because it is the first article of the creed of our Poor."

Have a wonderful evening!

Posted by johnwright at 2:57 PM | Comments (0)

I remember growing up hearing the saints speculate about heaven. One man, quickly approaching middle age fantasized, “I will dunk the basketball over Dr. J.” Others in the lower middle class would speculate about the comforts of a mansion. Heaven as wish-fulfillment for the aspiring working classes; heaven had become secularized. Once heaven is a projection of earthly comfort, it is already dispensable. Why wait? What Charles Taylor calls the secular age had already occurred. What is this? “The rise of a society in which for the first time in history a purely self-sufficient humanism came to be a widely available option. I mean by this a humanism accepting no final goals beyond human flourishing, nor any allegiance to anything else beyond this flourishing” (Taylor, The Secular Age, p. 18). We have come close to accommodating to this modern secularism for apologetic purposes in the life of the church. We place the end of the Christian life in this humanism of aiding others human flourishing in this age through personal psycho-therapeutic and/or political action divorced from our eternal end in God. We reduce God to the ultimate guarantee of our own, or the largest possible number of humans flourishing in this age.

Of course as Christians we believe that human flourishing in this life is good – that God wills human flourishing. Yet we cannot collapse our end into this age. This is the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. We believe in the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting. Amen. We see this in Christ’s human nature. As Nicholas Healy in Thomas Aquinas: Theologian of the Chrisian Life writes, Christ’s “Ascension prepares heaven for us by having Christ’s humanity go there first, and it prepares us for heaven, which is not naturally our home. ‘Heaven’, though, is better understood not as a place but as a metaphor for life in ‘the Blessed Trinity, who is the light and the most high Spirit’ (ST 1.68.4).

Our Scriptures this week lead us into this mystery, that is, an analogy although the difference will always be more prominent than the likeness – which we can’t exactly draw. We’re not talking “near death experiences”, nor resuscitation. The resurrection and life eternal is a new order of life in which death is no longer a possibility. The end of our lives as human beings is to love God and enjoy God forever. This is the life of the resurrection. To move from Job to our Gospel reading to the Epistle can help a logic of the readings unfold.

Job 19:23-27a

Why would Job be so concerned to preserve the words that follow? His statement shows the difficulties in speaking of that which exceeds our experience – a similar difficulty, for instance, in speaking of what goes on in black holes. Do you notices paradoxes in Job’s speech? Why does he use have to use paradoxical language to describe the live of the resurrection? What would it be to “see God”?

Luke 20:27-38

Note that the position of the Sadducees is much like the scientific materialists that dominate our culture. All life is collapsed into one order of life, thus undercutting the transcendental significance of this life. Discuss how the logic of the Sadducees question presupposes a continuation of order – that the life of the resurrection, eternal life, is the “wish fulfillment”, merely an extension of this age. If one accepts that the life of the resurrection is on the same order as this age, what happens to the concept of resurrection?

How does Jesus describe the life of the resurrection as different? His reference to Moses is from Exodus 3 – digging out the narrative order that God is still the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob even though their death has been recorded already in Genesis. What is the difference between humans and God here? What/how does human life depend, now or in the age that is to come? How does Jesus see the relationship between temporal goods (a flourishing marriage, for instance) and the eternal Good – the life of the resurrection in the vision of God?

2 Thessalonians 2:13-3:5

Read the passage from 2 Thessalonians. How does the whole passage build to the last blessing/exhortation/prayer: May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ.

As human beings, these passages remind us that we find the end of our life in this world, not in this world, but in God eternally through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. We do not have a humanism based exclusively within this world, a humanism that ironically undercuts the significance of each human life for the greater usefulness of a larger number of human flourishing – thus invading a country to give them the supposed chance of “human flourishing” that comes with “democracy” and the “free market” – a profoundly Sadducean logic that ends in violence, particularly violence and suffering among the poor. Taylor speaks of a “fundamental tension in Christianity” – “Flourishing is good, nevertheless seeking it is not our ultimate goal. But even where we renounce it, we re-affirm it because we follow God’s will in being a channel for it to others, and ultimately, to all” (p. 18). As Jesus said, “Unless a seed fall to the ground, it cannot live.” A Christian humanism is grounded on finding the ultimate flourishing of human life in seeing God and enjoying him forever. What happens if we forget eternal life in God as an end of our lives? How does the promise of this eternal life in God allow us to face the challenges in this world and remaining faithful to Jesus Christ?

Have a wonderful evening!

Posted by johnwright at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)