+Z’ev

Today’s assigned readings:
AM Ezekiel 3:4-11, Acts 10:34-44
PM Ezekiel 34:11-16, John 21:15-22

Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?”
John 21:17b

Today’s feast remembers the time that Peter suddenly cried out “you are the Christ, the son of the Living God” (following the example of his Brother, Andrew). That event shows up in the readings for Mass. But the daily office readings show a different event, one recorded rather later, after Jesus death.

In English, this passage is all about “love”. But it’s not so in Greek, as we discovered once in a class on the writings of John. But I had it wrong then. When I saw the words in Greek (without a dictionary or the wonderful world of hyperlinked services) I thought the word Jesus used was “Agape”. I was wrong however…

Jesus asks Peter “Do you agapas αγαπας me?” The word means “welcome”, “entertain”. Jesus is asking how much hospitality will Peter show Jesus? And the way to show this hospitality to Jesus? Feed his sheep.

Twice Jesus asks for Hospitality.

Twice Peter says “You know I’m your friend.” Using the Greek word philo φιλω.

And then finally, Jesus says, “Are you are you my friend?” (Using Philo). And Peter is hurt that Jesus said “Philo”.

If we claim we want to welcome Jesus, we have to feed his sheep. Or, as John says elsewhere, using the same Greek word, agapas αγαπας, “Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.” (1 John 4:20)

The revelation of Jesus as “Christ, son of the Living God” is meaningless without the revelation of those around us as his icons.

This is why it is important to, as Paul says, “Discern the Body.” The Body is everywhere around us - not just in the Church but in the people God created. As many sermons as there are urging us to see Christ in the poor and the disenfranchised, we must learn to see Christ in everyone - rich, poor, Christian and nonChristian. These, too, are his sheep - as we know from the Parable of the Lost Sheep. Someone is no less one of Jesus sheep just because they are not “saved”.

Feed my sheep.

Only Biblical Dictionary underscores the responsibility of someone “feeding Jesus sheep” as “portraying the duty of a Christian teacher to promote in every way the spiritual welfare” of the Sheep.

Imagine… what would that look like if each of us committed to “promote in every way the spiritual welfare” of everyone who was called into the flock of God (ie everyone)?

Again, it’s not enough to simply “accept (agapas αγαπας) Jesus Christ”. In order to do that, the very process by which it is done, is the feeding of his sheep (everyone). He asks Peter nothing about theology, not even about confession and forgiveness (for Peter’s denial of Jesus). He only says, “If you would host me in your house, then feed my sheep.”

This is the only theological question Jesus asks: “Agapas αγαπας me?” “Show me hospitality?”

And this is the only way he teaches to do so: Feed my sheep.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
AM: 2 Chronicles 24:17-22, Acts 6:1-7
PM: Wisdom 4:7-15, Acts 7:59-8:8

They were caught up so that evil might not change their understanding or guile deceive their souls. For the fascination of wickedness obscures what is good, and roving desire perverts the innocent mind.
Wisdom 4:11-12

Death comes in rather fast after the joy of Christmas.

The Church’s calendar is an icon: it’s not historically accurate, but rather theologically accurate. Jesus, the Light, is born at the Winter Solstice. The first things that happens then, after Christmas, are St Stephen’s Day, St John’s Day and Holy Innocent’s day. By these three feasts, the Church teaches how best we - mortals - might give our life for Christ: having it taken in faith or red martyrdom (Stephen), living it out in faith or white martyrdom (John) or even taken without will because of Christ (the Holy Innocents).

It is an interesting picture coupled with the verses today: that God can plan for death.

When I lost the first member of my family to death, I was 17. The 2nd and third died when I was 18. All three of them were younger than I: one was my younger brother and the other two were good friends.

In 1984 (or so) one of the Eucharistic Ministers at the Cathedral of St John the Divine was taking the Blessed Sacrament to Roosevelt Hospital. He came out of the Cathedral onto Amsterdam Ave, carrying the Consecrated Bread in a Pyx. He stepped out into the Avenue to hail a taxi… into the path of a truck backing up. The truck promptly killed the man.

Also that year a man’s wife died of cancer - the man was teaching a seminary class in good and evil, or, more specifically, “How can God allow evil in the world?”

I learned about both of these events after the fact, discussing death in to classes. In homiletics class, I made the claim that God sees all human death and weaves it into his plans. The response was almost instant from the reacher - a friend of the late Eucharistic Minister. In the class on Good and Evil the professor decided to pick “Death” as the ultimate evil and ask the class how an all-good God could allow death.

Again I made the claim that God can use death… and (not knowing the professor’s wife had died) it created quite a problem in class.

Orthodoxy sees death as the surest evidence of the curse of God on man. But all things are redeemed in Christ. Yes? That is the evidence of martyrdom, even if it is without blood: only a life lived in faithfulness and ending when God wills.

But our verses today - in fact our entire faith - seems to say that death is not in vain, nor is it a simple curse. There seems to be something of a plan, a design that we can not see.

A hope that nothing is meaningless, only beyond our scope of understanding.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
1 Maccabees 2:29-43,49-50, Acts 28:14b-23, Luke 16:1-13

Then the enemy quickly attacked them. But they did not answer them or hurl a stone at them or block up their hiding places, for they said, “Let us all die in our innocence; heaven and earth testify for us that you are killing us unjustly.” So they attacked them on the sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and livestock, to the number of a thousand persons.
1 Maccabees 2:35-38

The story in the 4 Books of the Maccabees is hard to reconcile with Christianity. Today’s reading is a perfect example. It seems that several groups of devout Jews removed themselves from the pagan culture growing around them. They moved off into the countryside around Jerusalem (just as the Prophets had done earlier, and just as Christian monastics would in later years). There they set up communities and tried to live in a pious manor as their ancestors had done. (I think partly here of the Qumran community, and the Essenes - they may or may not be the same folks.)

When the Pagans and Paganised Jews arrived, they challenged the devout to a battle on the Sabbath. The Pious refused even to defend themselves and so they were slain by the heathens rather than defile the law they were called to live. But…

When Mattathias and his friends learned of it, they mourned for them deeply. And all said to their neighbors: “If we all do as our kindred have done and refuse to fight with the Gentiles for our lives and for our ordinances, they will quickly destroy us from the earth.” So they made this decision that day: “Let us fight against anyone who comes to attack us on the sabbath day; let us not all die as our kindred died in their hiding places.” Then there united with them a company of Hasideans, mighty warriors of Israel, all who offered themselves willingly for the law.
1 Maccabees 2:39-42

So rather than keep the law they sought to live, they decided to defend the law now - even if it meant defiling it - so that they could live the law later.

Since Hanukkah is one of two festivals mentioned in the NT (the other being Passover) this is a festival Jesus celebrated and that without recorded comment. So I wonder how to read this feast, and how to read this book.

Jesus told us to “resist not evil” and to “turn the other cheek”, to “pray for those who persecute” and to “bless those who curse” us. While you might consider yourself my enemy, I am not to judge you and to imagine that whatever comes between us is my fault. The only person excluded from the Altar (granting the Gospels a close and literal reading) is the man whose brother or sister has anything against him.

What would the Maccabees have said to any of this?

I think I know: “Let us fight against anyone who comes to attack us on the sabbath day; let us not all die as our kindred died in their hiding places.”

The Orthodox Church celebrates some martyrs of the Maccabean revolt on 1 August (incorrectly identifying them as “Maccabees”), clearly urging in this story that people willingly die for the faith. But the message of Hannukah is that we should be willing to fight for the faith.

So I wonder at Jesus’ teachings, in the face of Roman Occupation of Jerusalem and the later official (State) Church’s response to issues of war and violence. What would Jesus have thought about the war over icons? Or the Crusades? What would Jesus have thought about the current issues between the allegedly-Christian west and Muslims? What would Jesus have thought about the congregation of Anglicans filing lawsuits against each other? What would our spiritual ancestors - those who lived through the first 300 years of Church - have thought about us today?

In some ways, of course, the Maccabean decision makes a lot of things easier: Here’s the law; live it literally and when challenged, fight and die for it.

Apart from any parallels we might see between the Maccabean choice and religious extremism today, I wonder how people today might see this choice. As Jews celebrate Hanukkah today, do they see the parallels? Were the Maccabees an early type of Al Qaeda? Was the Hasmonean monarchy a last-ditch effort to establish a Jewish sort of Wahhabism that resulted, eventually, in Judaism moving beyond that military state thing? (And do we see in today’s Israel a return to that?) Was Jesus’ teaching of radical peace, in part, a response to this “muscular Judaism”?

Where would Maccabees have been in today’s world? Fighting in front of Abortion Clinics? Fighting in front of the Al Asqa Mosque? Standing in front of funerals with signs that say “God Hates Fags”? Or using guns to shoot those who would try to take communion while rejecting church teaching?

And what would Jesus have thought about such things?

And when you answer that last question, remember that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah without comment in John.

Much Love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
Ezra 10:1-17, Acts 24:10-21, Luke 14:12-24

So the slave returned and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, “Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ And the slave said, “Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.’ Then the master said to the slave, “Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled.
Luke 14:21-23

At the Diocese of New York Summer Camp, where I used to work for one or two weeks a year, the director was always trying to remember the words to a song.

I can not come to the banquet; don’t trouble me now.
I have married a wife; I have bought me a cow.
I have fields and commitments that cost a pretty sum.
Pray hold me excused; I can not come.

Never mind that “married a wife” is paralleled with “bout me a cow” - a parallel that most kids get with peals of laughter. The Director usually thought of this song on the day that some kids didn’t show up - despite having paid a deposit. The excuses were usually good: Mom and Dad decided to go on vacation, the kid is getting punished, etc. We never figured out why sending them to church camp - three daily offices plus mass, every day for 7 days - wasn’t preferable to punishment for education… anyway, standing there, looking over a list of no-shows, we’d start to hum “I can not come to the banquet” and shrug.

Driving around Asheville yesterday, with a new friend, I shared with him that one of the best things I learned in the Eastern Orthodox Church was the negative focus on self. If one is looking for sin, if one is looking for bad things, the only place one can look is within oneself. This is the meaning of “Judge Not let ye be Judged”. All the passages about “how to be bad” contained in the Bible are to be read in the first person.

It’s very easy to focus outwards, though.

Traditionally, this parable has been read as being about Jews. You know - the Jews rejected Jesus: they had a whole series of excuses about why they couldn’t come to the party. So the church went out for the Gentiles. This attitude reaches an extreme in what’s called Dispensationalism, a very recent development (which as produced a lot of modern sorts of things like the “Rapture” and Left Behind books). But the idea of Gentiles or, specifically, the Church, replacing the Jews as God’s People is quite common, the doctrine of Supersessionism can been seen all the way back to the Second Century of the current era. Rather than saying the “Gentiles replace the Jews” the idea is that the Church is Israel, not a replacement, but a faithful remnant that grew out of the religious collapse of “those people” who rejected God’s Messiah.

So they were invited to a banquet and yet didn’t come - and God went out and got more. And we all look at a list of no-shows and shrug.

This passage also has a parallel in the Gospel of Thomas. For this reason it’s seen as a “probably authentic” saying of Jesus by the Jesus Seminar folks. Here’s Thomas’ version:

Jesus said, “A person was receiving guests. When he had prepared the dinner, he sent his slave to invite the guests. The slave went to the first and said to that one, ‘My master invites you.’ That one said, ‘Some merchants owe me money; they are coming to me tonight. I have to go and give them instructions. Please excuse me from dinner.’ The slave went to another and said to that one, ‘My master has invited you.’ That one said to the slave, ‘I have bought a house, and I have been called away for a day. I shall have no time.’ The slave went to another and said to that one, ‘My master invites you.’ That one said to the slave, ‘My friend is to be married, and I am to arrange the banquet. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me from dinner.’ The slave went to another and said to that one, ‘My master invites you.’ That one said to the slave, ‘I have bought an estate, and I am going to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. Please excuse me.’ The slave returned and said to his master, ‘Those whom you invited to dinner have asked to be excused.’ The master said to his slave, ‘Go out on the streets and bring back whomever you find to have dinner.’ Buyers and merchants [will] not enter the places of my Father.”
Saying 64

But if it’s an authentic or even probably authentic saying of Jesus, then the idea of Supersessionism doesn’t enter into the picture. Jesus was reaching out to Jews all the way to the end. The Apostles were worshipping in the Temple until the Temple was destroyed. So what might be going on here?

Well, the possibility that I might know what Jesus means when he said these words is - exactly - nil. All I have is the history of reading in and out of the Church and what this text means to us in conversation with God. And it’s clear to many now that reading the text in a way that cuts off the Jews is not acceptable.

I think the solution is in the first person: the text asks me to wonder when I’ve refused God’s invitation to the Banquet.

Last Sunday in the Adult Forum, we discussed (among other things) how Communion was viewed in “the old school”. Many people (Anglicans, Orthodox, Roman Catholics) “of a certain age” were raised not taking communion or only rarely taking communion: once a year, twice, maybe. The logic being “I’m not worthy”. Of course I’m not! But if I’m not worthy today, what can I possible do to make myself worthy tomorrow or next week? It is God’s invite. And God knows I’m not worthy anyway.

It’s in the first person, not in the second: I and no one else am the one in danger of having my invite rescinded. The answer is not to withdraw from communion or to offer an excuse.

The answer is to go forward trusting in God’s mercy. To just do it.

The pre-communion prayers of the Liturgies of St John and St Basil are an example of this “Go Forward” attitude:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own most pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. Therefore, I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, committed in knowledge or in ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen.

Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to Thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss; but like the thief will I confess Thee: Remember me, O Lord, in Thy Kingdom.

May the communion of Thy holy Mysteries be neither to my judgment, nor to my condemnation, O Lord, but to the healing of soul and body.

The one praying is firmly aware that he’s not worthy, but he’s trusting in God’s mercy. Likewise the prayer from the older rite in the BCP, the Prayer of Humble Access:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

I’m called forward to communion not because I’m worthy or because I know what it means, or because I have the right theology or because I baptised or “ready” but because God wants me at his banquet. The parable becomes a caution not to reject God’s mercy now, in the hopes that I might feel better about myself later: God already feels pretty good about me and has invited me to a party. Come as I am.

Much love,

Huw

Today’s assigned readings:
Nehemiah 5:1-19, Acts 20:7-12, Luke 12:22-31

And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest?
Luke 12:25-26

The irony is, of course, that worrying does, in fact, subtract from your life.

The Greek word rendered as “worrying” by the NRSV is Merimnao, μεριμναω, and it evolves from the Greek root meaning to divide into parts. The sense of it is to divide your mind into parts and thus distract your mind from something.

Of course many eastern Meditation techniques teach unity of mind. This is the point of sitting zen, of various martial arts. I’ve been impressed at how even a brief movement - my daily practice of the Tai Chi short form - can create a unity of mind body and spirit. We forget, however, that Christianity and the Mother Faith, Judaism, are also Oriental Religions.

The Christian practice, evolved between the 4th and 10th centuries, of “hesychasm”, the “prayer of the heart” or the “Jesus Prayer”, is a meditation technique that leads to unity of the mind. It seems to have come to us through the Byzantine empire from the Buddhist tradition. The ancient saints are said to use even the briefest unity of heart/mind to work miracles.

The ancient Jewish practice of putting on the Tefillin (phylacteries) is also a meditation technique for the unification of mind. It evolved through the centuries from the Biblical command to bind the laws of God on your hand and before your eyes.

The concept of Unity of Mind is an important one in most all the world’s religions, even the most ironic and post-modern ones.

But we’re quite happy to divide our minds, over and over, really. We do this all the time to one degree or another: we’ve called it “multi-tasking” and set it as a job-skill that we expect our employees and coworkers to have. It’s why we drive down the road hold a cell phone in our hand. Right now, as I right this essay, I’m aware of a recording of Adon Olam sung by the Rabbis of B’nei Jeshurun, playing on my stereo (and slightly aware of the technology that such involves - mp3s, laptop, wi-fi connexion to the stereo); there are biscuits in the oven; there’s an annoying whine from my external harddrive, the roommate’s 3 alarms are repeated going off as he tries to wake himself up (it’s nearly 0630hrs) and I’ve left my coffee in the microwave. All that’s reasonably normal, however, just environmental distractions. I’m also wondering what I’m going to say to my adult Sunday School class at St Mary’s this morning, as we read Oliver Clement on the Church. And in the back of my head is a growing nag about moving to Buffalo. And I’m having faith issues as I once again (continue to) look at Judaism. Oh, and I’m thinking about the Greek word meaning “to divide your mind”.

Don’t divide your mind.

While the translation is “worry” the Greek is broader. Which of you by multi-tasking can get more time in your life?

None of you.

And what does Jesus want us to focus on?

Instead, strive for God’s kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. (v31)

The kingdom of God, or the kingdom of Heaven, was for the people of Jesus’ time, a positing God in opposition to the powers of this world. According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia:

The Kingdom of God, however, in order to be established on earth, requires recognition by man; that is, to use the Hasidæan phrase borrowed from Babylonia or Persia, man must “take upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of God” (”‘Ol Malkut Shamayim”; “Heaven” is a synonym of “God”; see Heaven). This the Israelites do daily when reciting the Shema’ (Ber. ii. 2); so do the angels when singing their “Thrice Holy” (Hekalot); and in the future “all men shall take upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of God when casting away their idols” (Mek., Beshallaḥ, ‘Amalek, 2). Accordingly, says the Midrash (Cant. R. ii. 12), “when the Kingdom of Rome has ripened enough to be destroyed, the Kingdom of God will appear.”

And so it came over into Christianity, although we got our wires a little crossed up, confusing many various kingdoms of this world - Byzantine, Russian, English, American, Western Civilisation - with the Kingdom of God. We’re constantly dividing our mind. This problem carried over from the Catholic and Orthodox tradition into the Reformers as well, of course. Luther’s Germany, Calvin, Cramner, Cromwell and Knox all had their worldly, political fruits. Catholicism and Orthodoxy get tied up into the Power Politics of the Courts of Europe and Asia. God’s Kingdom and my spiritual evolution therein quickly becomes “The Kingdom of Russia” and my political advancement therein. Protestantism led to individualism and a la carte religions. American Democracy is one of those as well - a line of thought can be traced from the nailing of the 95 Theses on the Cathedral Door, through the liberalisation of Western Politics right to the New Age Movement in California. The “kingdom of God” becomes the “kingdom of my God” and then “my Kingdom”.

Don’t divide your mind… but seek God’s kingdom.

His view of the ravens is interesting: Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!

We now know that’s not true of any animal at all: all of them spend most of the day working. Most of them spend the day eating. Some even do have storehouses and barns. My yard is filled with the barns of squirrels: little bumps in the turf under which one can find acorns. The Fable of the ants and the grasshopper shows that the ancients understood this as well. If the animals don’t work, they don’t get to eat. (An aside - of course, when the Grasshopper dies, the ants eat him, too.)

Does Jesus mean that we should all just live off nuts that we might find on the roadside, focusing all day, instead, on prayer and “being spiritual”?

Jesus forces us to look at all the things we worry about. Mortgage payments, car payments, how to feed ourselves and our kids, how to provide for our family, how to act at work, what’s the popular fashion just now… and he asks us to focus, instead, on bringing God’s kingdom. This is what generations of Christian monastics (of a certain type) have heard in these verses. This idea has been held up as a spiritual goal whenever those monastics (or their followers) got into a pulpit or teaching position. It must be what Jesus understood.

Or does he? Jesus is extending a common Jewish Understanding to his very Jewish Audience. Put God’s kingdom first - and they would have known exactly how to do this. We have a skill the animals do not have, a gift from God.

The Judaism that Jesus would have known did not involve concepts of “spiritual” versus “the world”. Instead Jesus’ native religion spent hours of time sacralizing, or, more to the point, sacramentizing all the mundane tasks we do. In the simplest of terms, this was done with blessings - blessing God for everything. These are the familiar prayers we hear that begin “Blessed art Thou, Oh Lord our God, King of the Universe…” They continue on to bless God for everything: bread, wine, solid ground, roosters, dawn, fresh fruit, seeing a king, passing water or defecation, life-journey milestones, doing good deeds, hearing good news, hearing bad news, smelling something, seeing a comet, seeing mountains, rivers, a rainbow, whatever. According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia article linked above, “It was even laid down that no benediction would be effective without reference to the Kingdom.” Each blessing becomes a way to turn a given act into a action of the Kingdom, an action of God. Each blessing becomes a Eucharist, to use a Christian understanding, making God present in the here and now.

Seek first the Kingdom and all these things will be added unto you.

The unity of Mind that Jesus - and Judaism - taught was not one that leads to a denial of “all these things” but rather a making sacred of all these things, a making sacred of the world in which we live. Jesus would have known that the first duty of a Husband and Father was to provide for his family. The first duty of a Mother and Wife was to make the home orderly. (Sing “Tradition” from Fiddler on the Roof!) Jesus was not saying give up all that, run to the desert, and wait for God to feed you.

At St Gregory of Nyssa Church in San Francisco, the icon of Jalaludin Rumi includes a lion. I remember the story this way (please correct me):

A man found a tiger in the wood and as it lay in the way God brought animals to it and, in the way of tigers, the big cat killed them and ate them. Eventually, the tiger got up and walked away. The man decided to trust God with such fervour, and he sat in the way and waited for animals to come to him and feed him. Eventually - after several days - the man cried out to God saying, “You feed the tiger. Why do you not feed me?” And God answered him and said, “The Tiger was sick. While it was sick, I brought animals to it. When it got well, it rose up and continued on it’s daily hunt.”

Alexander Schmemann’s For the Life of the World offers a vision of all of life as Eucharist. Humanity standing as priest in the middle of the world, offering all back to God - and thus transforming all life into Divine Action. This is exactly the Judaism that Jesus would have understood. The late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, said, Man is G-d’s needle to sew the many patches of Creation into a single garment for His glory. Jesus is not asking us to deny our daily duties or to Trust God to do the very things God has commanded us to do. Rather we are to turn to God with everything and make his kingdom present in the world.

Much love,

Huw