Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Bread from Heaven (mid-week)




Bread from Heaven
Fr. Tony’s Midweek Message
July 25, 2018

This coming Sunday’s Gospel reading, John’s version of the feeding of the 5,000, ends with Jesus fleeing to a mountain and leaving his disciples behind.  They get in a boat, and in the stormy night they see “Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat.”  The disciples “were terrified. But he said to them, ‘It is I; do not be afraid.’ Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the land toward which they were going.”

Note the detail:  they desire to take Jesus into the boat which they are rowing, and then immediately the boat is safe and they reach their destination. 

The idea here is similar to one found in Southern Chinese Buddhism, Chan, the earliest form of what later became Japanese Zen.  In that tradition, enlightenment is seen as something that happens suddenly, triggered by some hidden thing that occurs in the heart and mind.  In Zen, a riddle or nonsense phrase, a gong’an or koan, often causes this, or even incongruous and humorous experiences.  For John’s Gospel, it occurs when we desire to take Jesus into our boat, into our storms on the sea, into our own little enterprises and efforts. 

For John, Jesus is the bread of life, the wine of the world.  To accept the good God intends for us, we must eat such bread.  And like Manna, the bread from heaven, we must eat this bread each day, not hoarding it for the future at all. 

An early Christian hymn by Ephrem of Edessa, writing in Syriac in the fourth century, expresses wonder and reverence at the person of Jesus and his presence in the Eucharistic feast: 

Lord, your robe’s the well from which our healing flows.
Just behind this outer layer hides your power.
Spittle from your mouth creates a miracle of light within its clay.

In your bread there blows what no mouth can devour.
In your wine there smoulders what no lips can drink.
Gale and Blaze in bread and wine: unparalleled the miracle we taste.

Coming down to earth, where human beings die,
God created these anew, like Wide-eyed Ones,
mingling Blaze and Gale and making these the mystic content of their dust.

Did the Seraph’s fingers touch the white-hot coal?
Did the Prophet’s mouth do more than touch the same?
No, they grasped it not and he consumed it not. To us are granted both.

Abram offered body-food to spirit-guests.
Angels swallowed meat. The newest proof of power
is that bodies eat and drink the Fire and Wind provided by our Lord.
                                          (tr. Geoffrey Rowell) 

Hymn 307, “Lord enthroned in Heavenly Glory,” express the idea this way:
 
“Life imparting heavenly Manna,
Smitten Rock with streaming side,
Heaven and earth with loud hosanna
Worship You, the Lamb Who died.
Risen, ascended, glorified!”

Similarly, Hymn 528, “Lord you give the Great Commission,” says:  “Lord, you make the common holy, this my body, this my blood.  Let us all, for earth’s true glory, daily lift life heavenward.” 
Taking Jesus into our boat, whether in heart or in sacrament, gives us eyes to see the truth that we have arrived at the shore and are safe, even with storms raging about us. 
Grace and Peace,
Fr. Tony+  

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Our Peace (Proper 11b)




Our Peace
Proper 11B
21 July 2018; 8:00 a.m. Said Mass and 10:00 a.m. Sung Mass
Homily Delivered by the Very Rev. Fr. Tony Hutchinson, SCP, Ph.D.,
at Trinity Episcopal Parish

Ashland, Oregon


God, take away our hearts of stone, and give us hearts of flesh. Amen.

Good guys vs. bad guys.  Cops and robbers.  White hats vs. black.  Citizens and aliens.  Jews and gentiles.  Believers and pagans.  It is easy to see the world in Manichean terms, a struggle between light and darkness.  

“Remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, … [were] aliens … and strangers to the covenants of promise…. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace… he has broken down the dividing wall, … [Y]ou are no longer strangers and aliens, but citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God….”

Today’s reading in Ephesians thus characterizes the effect of Christ’s victory over death on the cross on his world.  The idea is that by suffering and overcoming the worst that the wickedness of the world could throw at him, Christ wrought peace to people far and near, and broke down the wall dividing groups.  Paul expressed the idea a little more expansively in Galatians:  “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).

The idea is profound—in Christ, all divisions and distinctions are healed, all distinctions blurred, polarities centered, dualities united.
 
In the Harry Potter books, there is a clear struggle between good and evil, between Voldemort and Harry Potter, the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix, Griffindor and Slitherin:  good guys and bad guys.  Yet at one point, Sirius Black tells his godson that one must not think that one group or person is purely good and another purely evil:  “We've all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. That's who we really are.”

In the Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn describes his own suffering at the hands of an evil system as a prisoner in Stalin’s labor camp system.  Tortured on a near daily basis, he becomes more and more dehumanized.  But then, in a chapter called ‘Resurrection,’ he regains his Christian faith and begins the long road to true freedom, even in prison. He realized that no matter how tightly his interrogators constrained him, he always had a choice—they always eventually could force him to say what they wanted, but he could do so willingly or unwillingly, cheaply or expensively in terms of suffering.  He saw that his interrogators were under constraint:  if they did not torture, they themselves would become prisoners.  But they could do it with pleasure or regret: they too had a choice in how they did what they were forced to do.  In a system where all were victims in one degree of another, Solzhenitsyn realized this great truth: the line between good and evil is not found between one group of people and another, between country and another country, between one economic class and another, between one political party and another, between one religion or another, or one race and another.  The line between good and evil, he says, is fine but very definite, and runs down the middle of each and every human heart.  It is found in that space of the heart where we exert our choices, no matter how constrained our choices may be.  He asks, with good an evil in each of our hearts, who is willing to kill a part of his own heart? It is easier to deny it, label it in others, and fight against them. 

Solzhenitsyn realized that he needed to pray for his interrogator, and for all of God’s creatures, even Stalin.

It is so easy to divide the world into us and them.  Group identity is a cheap way of finding ourselves, and seeing only the good in us, at the expense of those not in our group.  It is a seductive way of making us forget our own failings by focusing on the failings of others.  Thinking that such divisions matter masks the truth that all of us are flawed, and that ultimately, we are all in this together. 

Think of the following divisions we make in our world: 

Rich and poor. 
Black and white.
Strong and weak.
Saints and sinners.
East and West.
North and South. 
Male and female.
Catholic and Protestant.
Young and old.
Native-born and alien.
Legal and illegal immigrant.
Supervisor and subordinate.
Able-bodied and disabled.
Straight and Gay.
Republican and Democrat.
Conservative and Liberal.
Socialist and Capitalist.
Native and foreigner.
Religious and secular.
Healthy and sick.
Clean and unclean. 

 “Christ is our peace; in him, we are one.” 

Ephesians is not saying that good and evil do not exist, or that we need not worry about struggling against evil.  But it is saying that such divisions no longer matter in light of the cross.

There is a deep logic to this.  Community defines itself not just by who it includes, but also by who in excludes.  For this, Philosopher René Girard says that community is “unanimity minus one,” that is, a group united in accusing and expelling at least one of its own. Community is not just joined hands and linked arms of embrace.  It in its structure is also the pointing finger of accusation, of exclusion. Community regulates itself by scapegoating. 

Anthropologists note that most primitive cultures have myths that express this.  Generally a dissident, abnormal, or impure member of the community is singled out, driven out, and often killed in the myth.  Thereby the community is made whole.  Impurity and wrong are thus purged.  

Girard notes that Christians have their own version of this myth, based on the death of our Lord:  the crowd points their fingers at Jesus and calls for his death, he is brutalized, taken outside the city walls, and killed.  

But the difference is this:  in the Christian telling, Jesus is innocent.  It is he who is right, and the community that is wrong.  The cross embodies the  dark side of community: accusation, the driving outside the city wall, scapegoating.  But Easter morning turns everything on its head.   

Thus Ephesians: Christ on the cross preaches peace to those who are far off and those who are near.  The resurrection condemns accusation itself.  The cross, that cruel tool the Roman Empire used to enforce community, that instrument of public terror supporting conformity as an act of policy, is itself undone by the resurrection of our Lord.


Christ, once driven outside the wall, becomes our peace, and breaks down all dividing walls.  He brings those far off, those driven outside the walls themselves, back, and draws them near.   

That’s what all the shepherd imagery in today’s other readings is about:  where the kings of Israel, called the shepherds of the people, here the bad shepherds, failed them, in large part by striving too hard to maintain their community, their advantage over other nations, Jesus sustains them and brings them all together—regardless of their background—into a single fold.  He tends them not because they are his sheep and others are not, but because, like in today’s Gospel, they need a shepherd.  And so he feeds them and serves them, regardless of their origins.

The cross undoes not just the mutual accusation between groups.  The division within ourselves that each of us experiences, the sense of not being worthy, of not being a “good person,” is also undone. Paul says Jesus “erased the record against us from all legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross”  (Col. 2:24).  He thus destroys the alienation within each of us because of the accusation built into our individual lives.  Anthropologists and critical theorists who work in the area of liminality, the puzzling places where we are at the margins or caught between group identities, value systems, or ritual status, note that being on the margins causes great stress and doubt, often experienced as self-alienation.

What alienates us from ourselves?  What makes us accuse ourselves? 
It usually is difference, the difference between:
What we desire versus what we actually have.
What we ought to do versus what we actually do.
What our community expects of us versus who we are in reality.
How we’d like to be, individually or in community, versus how we actually are.

Even in this, “Christ is our peace; in him we are one.”  The cross and resurrection tell us that we ought not accuse ourselves or others.  They tell us that we are one, that we are beloved. 

Loved ones, alienation is real, whether between groups or within our hearts. We are all strangers and foreigners.  We try to make ourselves feel better about it by clinging to our group, our family, our tribe, defined in part by making strangers and foreigners of others.   We accuse scapegoats or blame enemies; we also accuse ourselves as forlorn, desolate losers.  Those political and religious leaders who milk such alienation to gain power and wealth are guilty of great sin.  For Jesus took this all with him outside the wall, and it died with him.  In the light of Easter morning, we can see that it is all a sham. 

In Christ, we are one.  In Christ, we are no longer strangers and foreigners.  He has broken down the dividing wall, and has nailed the accuser’s power itself to the cross.   He is our peace. 

Thanks be to God.     

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

At the Beach (Mid-week)



 At the Beach
Fr. Tony’s Mid-week Message
July 18, 2018

Elena and I are still at the beach in Brookings with three of our 
children, their spouses, and three granddaughters.  The coolness 
and clarity of the air here was a great break from hot and smoky 
Ashland this week.  

While there, I was reminded of a great quotation by American 
writer Madeline L’Engle (the life-long Episcopalian who wrote 
A Wrinkle in Time). She describes an experience she had as a 
child at the beach from which her faith began to grow:

“I sense a wish among some professional religion-mongers to make God possible, to make him comprehensible to the naked intellect, domesticate him so he’s easy to believe in. Every century the Church makes a fresh attempt to make Christianity acceptable. But acceptable Christianity is not Christian; a comprehensible God is no more than an idol. I don’t want that kind of God. What kind of God, then? One time, when I was little more than a baby, I was taken to visit my grandmother, who was living in a cottage on a nearly uninhabited stretch of beach in northern Florida. All
I remember of this visit is being picked up from my crib in what seemed the middle of the night and carried from my bedroom and out of doors, where I had my first look at the stars.

“It must have been an unusually clear and beautiful night for someone to have said, “Let’s wake the baby and show her the stars.” The night sky, the constant rolling of the breakers against the shore, the stupendous light of the stars, all made an indelible impression on me. I was intuitively aware not only of a beauty I had never seen before but also that the world was far greater than the protected limits of the small child’s world which was all I had known thus far. I had a total, if not very conscious, moment of revelation: I saw creation bursting the bounds of daily restriction, and stretching out from dimension to dimension, beyond any human comprehension. I had been taught to say my prayers at night: Our Father, and a long string of God-blesses, and it was that first showing of the galaxies which gave me an awareness that the God I spoke to at bedtime was extraordinary and not just a bigger and better combination of the grownup powers of my father and mother.

“This early experience was freeing, rather than daunting, and since it was the first, it has been the foundation for all other such glimpses of
glory." (The Irrational Season, pp. 19-20)
As L’Engle suggests, “hearing God’s voice” can only be experienced, as it
were, from the inside, and does not make itself available merely for
rational, objective understanding.  Our God is not a tame god, and not
an object about which we can make pronouncements or talk about 
wholly in the third person.  There is always an “I and Thou” involved 
when we encounter God.  That is why adoration, standing in awe at 
wake left by God is key to prayer life.  It is why finding a daily rule 
of life and spiritual practices that allow for the silence where we 
can stand in awe of God and bask in God’s love is so important.


Peace and Grace. 
Fr. Tony

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Narcissist in Chief (Proper 10b)


Herod Antipas
 
Narcissist in Chief
Proper 10B
15 July 2018; 8:00 a.m. Said Mass and 10:00 a.m. Sung Mass
Homily Delivered at Trinity Episcopal Church
Ashland, Oregon
The Very Rev. Fr. Tony Hutchinson, SCP, Ph.D.

Amos 7:7-15; Psalm 85:8-13; Ephesians 1:3-14; Mark 6:14-29

God, take away our hearts of stone, and give us hearts of flesh. Amen.



When I worked at the U.S. State Department, we had a way of describing an officer or political appointee who built their careers and lives by ingratiating themselves to the powerful and lording it over others once they had a little power: kiss up and kick down.  The Herod in today’s Gospel is a perfect example.  Known to history as Herod Antipas, he was the youngest son of the King Herod who kills the babies in Matthew’s nativity stories.  Antipas was the ruler of the Galilee in which Jesus grew up, the king who ordered the huge Greco-Roman construction projects at Sepphoris and Tiberias where the young building contractor from Nazareth most likely worked.  

Pragmatic, practical, and goal-driven, Antipas makes all of his decisions on the basis of one principle: “how does this enhance my enjoyment and get me ahead in the world?”  In portraits, he is a handsome man, clean cut and shaven in the Roman style.  He follows the philosophy of Epicureanism, which said that pursuit of pleasure, rightly understood and properly limited from excess, was the highest good in life.   He was Machiavellian, extremely good at manipulating things in his favor, no matter how he might lie, bully, or on occasion appeal to high and noble ideals.  In Galilee, Antipas was Narcissist in Chief. 

Antipas starts low in the line of possible heirs to Herod: three other brothers precede him.  But he does all he can to enhance his royal prospects—he marries a Nabatean princess.  Maybe he can’t follow his father as the Roman-appointed “King of the Jews,” but he might end up as “King of the Nabateans” next door if he plays his cards right.  But then Herod the Great executes his two oldest sons for treason.  “”Business is business” as Don Vito Corleone might say.   Antipas, now second in line to this Mafioso’s throne, acts.  The Romans have marked his remaining older brother as ineffective—clearly he didn’t suck up well enough—and they want to sack him and divide up Herod the Great’s Kingdom.  That is the real reason Antipas seduces this brother’s wife Herodias.  She is Antipas’ own niece, daughter of one of the executed older brothers.  She is beautiful and desirable, but more important, she is Hasmonean royalty, having the blood of Judas Macchabeus in her veins through her mother.  Marriage to her makes Antipas a shoo-in for whatever thrones the Romans might be handing out to those who know their place.  Antipas divorces his Nabatean wife, arranges for his brother to divorce his wife, and then marries Heriodias, happy to step back onto the fast track of the social escalator.  Together, they can manipulate the Romans and make their country great again under their leadership. 

But the prophet John the Baptist objects:  the marriage violates Torah commandments against corrupting family relationships by having sexual relations with the spouse of a living sibling.  It is incest, and John calls it this.  Like Amos in today’s reading, come up to Israel from south of the border Judah and preaching truth to power, John holds up a plumb line and says what is straight and what is crooked.

Josephus says that Antipas feared the Baptist because his popularity posed a threat to Antipas’ political power.   Antipas has John locked up to separate him from his audiences, and then after a while quietly executes him. 

Josephus says that Antipas’ ex-wife returns humiliated and shamed to her father’s palace in Nabatea.  A war ensues, and Antipas almost is overthrown. But the Romans intervene and defend their puppet who sucks up so well.   Josephus says that the war was God’s punishment for John’s murder.

Mark tells a different story, one woven from popular rumor, not unlike tabloid news:  the deadly dinner party, Salome’s dance, the drunken promise fueled by lust and ego, and Herodias’s revenge on John.   Kick down indeed.  Mark sadly here is guilty of cherchez la femme: it was all a wicked woman’s doing, working her vengeance by manipulating a weak, drunk man.

Mark’s telling detail that Antipas did not want to execute John because “he enjoyed listening to him” fits elements of Antipas’ character that we see elsewhere in the Gospels.  Once, people in Galilee warn Jesus that “Herod is plotting to kill him” (Luke 13:31).  Jesus replies bitingly, giving the only personal insult about an individual recorded on the lips of Jesus.  “Go tell that vixen,” he says, “that I’m safe, because prophets seem to be killed only in Jerusalem.”   Jesus, like John, condemns Antipas and his kiss up kick down Realpolitik.  Tell that female fox!   Jesus thus says that Antipas’ pragmatism, manipulation, and narcissism, however tarted up for public consumption, really just smell to high heaven. 

Later, on Good Friday, Pontius Pilate realizes that Jesus is from Galilee and thinks he might spread the blame of condemning Jesus by sending him to Antipas, who after all is ruler of Galilee.  Luke 23 tells us that Antipas received Jesus, “because he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him.”   Where the Galilean peasantry had sought Jesus and his miracles for healing, for food, and for hope, Antipas sought Jesus and his miracles so he could have a good cocktail party story to share with his Roman buddies.   
 
Jesus, for his part, refuses to even speak even one word to Antipas.  This is the guy who murdered his mentor, John.  This is the guy who reigns supreme in Jesus’ homeland, Galilee, and has done so well under the Roman oppression.   So Antipas, to show this silent upstart his place, orders his soldiers to dress Jesus up in what Luke calls “a gorgeous gown” perhaps with glam make-up to boot. We’ll show him who’s a vixen and who’s leading the fox hunt!  And that is how they send Jesus back to Pilate.  Pilate apparently appreciates a good joke as well, for Luke ends the story with “and from that day on, Pilate and Herod remained friends.”  

So what does this sad and ugly story mean for us?

Mark often makes his point by juxtaposing stories.  He starts here with the story of Antipas’ deadly dinner party, but immediately follows this with the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000.

The party is exclusive:  elite guests, the finest delicacies, amusements and enjoyments, possibly a chance for face time with Antipas, friend of Caesar and aspirant to the title “King of the Jews.”  But Antipas, Narcissist-in-Chief, Mr. Kiss-up-kick-down himself, has had too much to drink. It ends badly, very badly. 

The very next story Mark tells is of a different dinner party, one offered by Jesus.  It is not exclusive.  It is in the open, and all are invited.  They go to a desert place, and the crowds follow.  “It’s late, we must send them away for them to buy their dinner,” say the disciples.  Jesus is not interested in sending people away.  He is also not afraid of what the guests might think of him if he does not deliver.  “How many fish and loves do we have?” he asks, “Not many,” they reply.  But then he proceeds to feed all.  No deadly dinner party this.  Just life and love overflowing, inclusive, supporting, and nourishing.    No kiss-up-kick-down here.  Rather, “let the first among you be the last, and the greatest be servant of the least.”  And everyone must share what little they have. 

Antipas was all about self, about pleasure and control, about manipulation and gaining and keeping power by whatever means necessary.  Though superstitious, he uses spiritual things for his own purposes.  He is the ultimate practitioner of “Boutique Religion,” of choosing a little here that suits you and a little there that fosters your political program: anything, as long as it helps you on the way up.   His pathological lying and his habitual abuse of others is just an extension of this narcissism.  

The Baptist and Jesus were about sacrifice, and restraint of self.   They wanted true religion, religion of helping the poor, the widowed, the orphaned.  No self-serving manipulation for them, no amusing spiritual-but-not-religious fads.  Like Amos, they hold up a plumb line to reveal the lies of their leaders, and suffer for it. 

Ultimately, Antipas too fell from Caesar’s grace.  His estranged nephew, another Herod named Agrippa who judges Paul in the book of Acts, was best friends with the Roman Emperor Caligula when he ascended to power.   Agrippa was the only one of the five "other" Herods to actually receive Herod the Great’s Roman title "King of the Jews."  He made sure Antipas was relieved of his duties and banished, so Agrippa could reclaim control of Galilee and Perea.  Antipas was retired, appropriately for such a sybaritic, to the south of France.  Herodias accompanies him into exile. 

We today continue to live in a world that praises “quality” and the “right kind of people.”  The wicked prosper and the just suffer.  Liars are rewarded for their lies, not punished.  We reward self-promoting hucksters like Antipas and Herodias, who behind all the glam and show are heartless, even murderers.   They are, as we also said in the foreign service, nasty pieces of work. 

Let us pray that God deliver us from such Herods, and save us from the temptation to mimic them in their kiss up kick down ways.  Let us pray for the strength to speak truth to power. 


In the name of Christ, Amen. 

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Deposit of Faith and Inclusive Language

 
 
The Deposit of Faith and Inclusive Language
Fr. Tony’s Midweek Message
July 11, 2018
“Almighty and Everlasting God, you gave to your apostles grace truly to believe and to preach your Word.  Grant that we may love what they believed and preach what they taught, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.”  (adapted from BCP p. 243)
At the 79th General Convention of The Episcopal Church meeting this last week in Austin, much has been said, proposed, and voted concerning possible revision of the Prayer Book and our need, while remaining true to the faith passed on to us from those who have gone before, to use inclusive and expansive language for humanity and divinity in our worship.  The House of Deputies seemed more willing to pursue revision, albeit with an amendment requiring that any draft revision respect the basic orthodoxy outlined in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral statement of our ecumenical principles.  The House of Bishops was less than sanguine about starting a process of revision immediately that promises to be contentious and divisive.   
The issue of gender inclusive/expansive language for the Divine is not simply resolved, since such basic elements of our faith as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” “Our Father, who art in heaven,” and “the Lord is his name” all use male-centered imagery and words. 
Many of the liturgical enhancements proposed in recent years in such works as Enriching our Worship seek to address the issue.  But these have been criticized on occasion precisely for seeming to sacrifice Trinitarian doctrine and scripturally-based language for God on the altar of interest group politics.  It was Jesus, after all, who taught us to call God “Father.”  Phrases such as “Creator, Redeemer, Life-Giver,” or “Earth Maker, Pain Bearer, and Life Giver” complicate the matter because they see the One God in three distinct roles or functions rather than three persons in interrelationship, one being.  The early Church Councils rightly or wrongly labelled such a way of speaking of God as heresy: modalism or Sabellianism.  Scriptural passages abound that suggest that all or any of these roles were played by all or any of the Three.   
The fact is, there are plenty of scriptural images of God that are feminine as well as masculine:  a hen gathering her chicks, a mother giving birth or nursing children, etc.  The well-known “All Mighty” replicates the Latin Omnipotens, itself a translation of the Greek Pantokrator, “the one who holds all things in hand,” which  itself translates the mysterious Hebrew El Shaddai, the God of the Two Mounds, probably a reference to a mother’s breasts.  The best way to render it to my mind is “the All Nurturing.”   Sophia, or Lady Wisdom, is a common image for God in the late books of the Old Testament.  Even the word for “Spirit,” though in Greek neuter pneuma, in Hebrew, ruach, is feminine. 
As for gender inclusive Trinitarian formulas that are faithful to the tradition and are doctrinally sound, I prefer one from Saint Augustine that you may have heard me use in the Benediction at the end of Eucharist: “The Holy and Triune God: Lover, Beloved, and Love itself.”   This combines a Greek Orthodox formula with  Augustine’s idea his great Treatise On the Trinity that God is love and that this is implicitly Trinitarian: “Now when I, who am asking about this, love anything, there are three things present: I myself, what I love, and love itself. For I cannot love love unless I love a lover; for there is no love where nothing is loved. So there are three things: the lover, the beloved and the love itself.”
It is important to be true to the faith once given us.  It is also important to follow the Holy Spirit as she leads us into new perspectives and understandings, and more just and welcoming patterns of behavior and worship.  Stay tuned for more on what action is taken or deferred by GC79. 
Grace and Peace, 
Fr. Tony+ 

Sunday, July 1, 2018

Touch We Now Thy Garment's Hem (Proper 8B)




Touch We Now Thy Garment’s Hem
1 July 2018 Sixth Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 8B)
Homily Preached at Trinity Episcopal Church
Ashland, Oregon
8:00 a.m. Spoken Mass; 10:00 a.m. Sung Mass with Holy Baptism
Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-15; 2: 23-24; Psalm 30; 2 Corinthians 8:7-15; Mark 5:21-43

God, take away our hearts of stone and give us hearts of flesh. Amen.

When I came here to Trinity from Beijing in the Fall of 2011 for interviews, the Search Committee asked me how I understood Church, and how I saw what we do each week here.  I could only recite the lines of a hymn I had sung as a chorister as a new Episcopalian, by the 19th century Church of England priest Percy Dearmer.  It shows up in the Presbyterian and Methodist hymnals, but unfortunately is not in the current Episcopal hymnal.  For me, it captures the sacramental approach to life and faith we Episcopalians hold dear: 

Draw us in the Spirit’s tether;
For when humbly, in thy name,
Two or three are met together,
Thou art in the midst of them:
Alleluya! Alleluya! Touch we now thy garment’s hem.

As the faithful used to gather
In the name of Christ to sup,
Then with thanks to God the Father
Break the bread and bless the cup,
Alleluya! Alleluya! So knit thou our friendship up.

All our meals and all our living
Make as sacraments of thee,
That by caring, helping, giving,
We may true disciples be.
Alleluya! Alleluya! We will serve thee faithfully.

“Touch we now thy garment’s hem” the image is drawn from today’s Gospel reading.  A woman, desperate after 12 years of bleeding that has consumed all her resources for a cure and made her unclean and an outcast, secretly tries to capture some of Jesus’ healing power for herself by touching “the fringe of his robe”, probably the tsitsit on his small everyday prayer shawl.  Jesus is on his way to heal the daughter of an important local leader, Jairus.

Touching his garment, she is instantly healed. Jesus, however, notices that something has happened and turns to ask who touched him.   The disciples are perplexed.  The crowds are pushing in, and it could have been anyone. But he is adamant—he has felt power go out from him.

The woman with the issue of blood dare not ask Jesus to help her because she is ritually impure.  Her unusual bleeding made her contagiously unclean: mere contact with her conveys uncleanness.  The knotting on that prayer shawl stood for the 613 commandments in the Torah, among which we read this, just after the Book of Leviticus’s rules about women with unusual flows of blood: “You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them” (Lev. 15).

The woman is an outcast. She wonders how a religious teacher like Jesus could be expected to pay her any attention, let alone touch her to heal her. So she takes things into her own hands and secretly touches his prayer shawl’s tassels.   And that is what Jesus praises, saying it is her trust that has healed her.   In Orthodox lore, this woman is named Veronica, the one who later wipes the sweaty and bloody face of Jesus on his way to the cross and whose kerchief preserves his image miraculously.

When Jesus finally arrives at the house of Jairus, the question of ritual impurity again intrudes in this complicated sandwich of a story. Coming near to or touching a corpse also transmitted ritual uncleanness. When the crowd tells Jairus that his daughter is dead, Jesus persists in going to try to heal her, and tells him, “Don’t be afraid, just trust.

They leave the crowd behind, and come to the house, where professional mourners are already at work, ululating, weeping, and tearing their clothes. Jairus clearly was a man of influence and wealth.  When Jesus announces that the girl is not dead, just asleep, and says he will go and wake her up, the crowd laughs at him. Instead of reaching for his garment’s hem, they laugh.

Most are probably laughing out of nervousness—this guy is not only going to cause a great scene involving a corpse, but is also going to break, right there in public, a great taboo. He would contaminate himself by touching the corpse, and then come out and contaminate them. 

Despite the privileged position the little girl had in life, as a corpse she is just another source of ritual contamination, like the woman with the flow of blood earlier in the story.

After Jesus puts the onlookers all out, he takes the child's father and mother and his accompanying disciples, and goes in to where the corpse is. He then takes her by the hand and says, “Little girl, get up!” (Talitha qumi! It is recorded in the words he probably actually used in his own native language, Aramaic.)

We read, “Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.”

You see, in both cases, the woman with the unusual flow of blood and Jairus’ young daughter, compassion and service took precedence over a desire to remain pure. 

Purity or compassion, Jesus, which is it?   Love, not purity, is Jesus’ consistent answer.  This really marks just how radical Jesus was. The religion of the day declared, with the full authority of scripture literally cited and interpreted through authoritative tradition, that impurity was contagious. It spread from the unclean to the clean. People who want to please God must avoid it if at all possible, lest they commit sacrilege against the Temple of God. If impurity is inadvertently contracted, they need to purge it away through rituals.

As a Jew, Jesus respected the rituals. He was, after all, wearing that small prayer shawl with the fringes.  But he taught that purity and cleanness was not the whole matter, and that goodness and compassion were far more important. In his view, moral goodness was spread to others by compassion and service. And the need for compassion and service trumped the need to avoid contamination at all times.

The theme is a subtext of almost all of Jesus’ public acts and teaching. He practiced open table fellowship with people that his religion labeled as the worst of the worst. According to the Law, the table where one ate was one of the easiest places to contract impurity. He taught that it was what one said and did, rather than what one ate, that counted. He tended to discount ritual washings as a core issue and said they did not necessarily touch what really mattered—the heart. He told stories of religious men avoiding contamination with what they thought was a corpse in contrast to a heretic and illegitimate man (a Samaritan) who, despite the same religious rules about corpses, still showed compassion and thus made himself the fellow countryman ("the neighbor") of the man who was near death.

In so doing, Jesus was following the very best of the Jewish prophetic tradition, which itself had consistently criticized the religious establishment’s concern with purity rather than justice.

Ultimately, it would be Jesus’ uncompromising insistence on this that so alienated the religious authorities that they conspired to turn him over to the hated Roman occupiers.

We need never think that our uncleanness or impurity is a barrier keeping us from Jesus. We need not fear that a disability we may have can keep us from the love of Jesus. Jesus loves us regardless, and wants to heal us and help us understand that we are forgiven all.

What keeps us from Jesus is our fear itself. Our fear may make us so nervous that we, like the professional mourners outside Jairus' house, end up laughing at God. But the woman with the flow of blood was so desperate that she overcame her fear. Taking things into her own hands she reaches out to touch the fringe of his prayer shawl.  We too need to reach out to touch his fringe. 

We do that by living in the spirit, by coming together and praying and eating the bread and wine that Jesus shared in open table fellowship.  We do that by serving and loving and showing the same preference for love over purity that Jesus showed.  Draw us in the Spirit’s tether.  Touch we now thy garment’s hem. 

When Jairus learns his daughter is dead, Jesus tells him "Don't be afraid, just trust in me."

Jesus is saying this today, to each of us, "Don't be afraid. Just trust in me."

Let us touch the hem of his garment. 

In the name of God, Amen.

Skin in the Game (Trinitarian article)





Fr. Tony’s Letter to the Trinitarians
July-August 2018
Skin in the Game
  
I recently saw the inspiring documentary “Five Came Back,” about five Hollywood directors who joined the U.S. military during World War II and made films as part of the war effort:  John Ford, George Stevens, John Huston, William Wyler, and Frank Capra.  These people documented the reasons for the war, its battles and their human cost, as well as the horrors of the regimes we fought against.  They all were changed by their war experience.  They came home, in varying degrees, damaged, distrustful, and more pessimistic about human nature.   Yet they went on to make their best movies after the war.  The series ends with a statement of Frank Capra, “Despite all the darkness, there is love in the world.  And that is wonderful.” 

These were people willing to sacrifice their personal plans, projects, and safety to pursue what they saw as the defining cause of their generation: the destruction of fascism and tyranny.  They had “skin in the game”: they staked their own futures and security on the cause,  and could not speak of it as detached observers or theoretical pundits.    The stories they told in their films had greater credibility and authenticity as a result; their opinions about the war and its veterans were never seen as superfluous or easily ignored. 

Jesus talks about having skin in the game many times.  He says the Reign of God is like builder who starts a project only to run out of funds mid-way.  His lack of commitment and “counting the cost” of the project beforehand brings him humiliation and ridicule.  Jesus says that half measures in pursuing the way are worse that useless: like putting new wine into old skins, the stress of mixing old and new will burst the containers and spill the wine. 

“Skin in the game” is one of the reasons behind the general pastoral principle of not having liturgical decisions made by people who do not attend the service at issue.  It also points to the spiritual truth behind the most important reason for tithing and generous pledging in wealth and time to build ministry:  only the invested truly care about something.  “Where you put your treasure,” Jesus says, “is where your heart will be.” 

Relationships also require authentic and mindfully present skin in the game.  Going through the motions but trying to keep your heart from being hurt by not risking it by giving your all is a recipe for indifference and a relationship bound to die.  It is described in the lyrics by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel: 

Couched in our indifference,
like shells upon the shore,
You can hear the ocean roar
In the dangling conversation
And the superficial sighs—
The borders of our lives.
And you read your Emily Dickinson
And I my Robert Frost
And we note our place with book markers
That measure what we've lost.” 

I invite us all to take a look at what we profess to value and hold dear, and measure what we sacrifice for it.  Do we have skin in the game? 

Grace and peace,
Fr. Tony+