Category: SSCSJ
Paragraphs from SSCSJ
A few paragraphs from Sacred Steps: Children’s Sermon Journal for the Lectionary texts, October 21, 2012.
Psalm 91
Perhaps what this psalm is trying to communicate is that, when we trust in God, no matter what befalls us, we know that the LORD is always present in every situation. We need not see illness or other forms of suffering as a punishment from God or as a sign that the LORD has abandoned us. Things happen in life that cannot be explained, and even if we could explain them, the pain would still remain. This does not mean that we cannot get angry with God about tragedies, but the very fact that we can express those feelings to God is a statement of faith and trust. By doing so, we are declaring that God does hear our prayers and cares about what happens to humanity. This is certainly not the kind of protection we might want, but it may be just enough assurance that grants us comfort.
Job 38:1-7 (34-41)
The book of Job has been considered by most scholars to be the wisdom text par excellence of the Jewish and Christian canons. Perhaps best known by Christians and secular society for the phrase, “the patience of Job,” it has been a favorite read, and text for interpretation, by laity, clergy and biblical scholars alike. No other biblical text addresses the question of theodicy (“why bad things happen to good persons”) in quite such a confrontational and artistic way as the book of Job. It is a story that speaks to every generation and to every individual who has known unexplainable suffering.
Identified as part of the Wisdom Literature in the Hebrew Bible (along with Prov & Eccl), Job contains most of the recognized common themes and characteristics of this collection of writings. However, some have described Job as a unique form of wisdom writing, possibly displaying a wisdom conundrum. The story of this righteous sufferer seems to be a direct rebuttal of the traditional idea of “you reap what you sow.” found in other biblical texts (e.g., Prov, Judg, 1-2 Sam, 1-2 Kgs, etc.). This questioning of divine justice is not entirely unique among the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Other examples include Abraham’s questioning God concerning the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:22-32) and some of the lament psalms (e.g., 37 and 73). What is frustrating for some readers of Job, but liberating for others, is the book’s refusal to impose an answer for the issue of human suffering and divine justice. While it clearly debunks a simplistic understanding of the reward/retribution understanding of justice, it never gives the audience a clear answer to the question of theodicy.
Hebrews 5:1-10
A portion of this text has already seeped into the Lectionary this year. Do you remember it? Yes, we encountered Hebrews 5:5-10 near the end of Lent. The language of “high priest” requires Protestant imagination because most do not relate to their minister as a “priest” in the way that Catholics and Episcopalians do. In mainline Protestant language, ministers serve a “priestly” role, even as some, like my denomination [Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)], cling to the language of a “priesthood of all believers,”5 while continuing to honor some form and understanding of “Ordained into Christian Ministry.”6 Visiting the text will require imagination, which is not a bad suggestion for reading the entire bible. Can you imagine being in those places, being those people, and being in those situations that are part of the original audience’s experience? Would you have written the stories differently? Can you imagine another way of understanding Jesus that is as faithful as the orthodoxy of sacrificial atonement most hear at the communion table each week? Maybe imagination is a key hermeneutic to reading the bible.
Mark 10:36-45
Have you ever had a moment or experience similar to that of James and John at work, in a club, or in your local congregation? Which character in this story resonates with you first and the most? It is unfortunate that the Lectionary omits vv. 32-34, which act like a rejoinder between, “the last will be first and the first last,” and “whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave (servant) to all.” The omitted words are the third time that Mark’s Jesus speaks of his death and in much greater detail than he did previously. Perhaps, Jerusalem is visible in the distance, and that is why Jesus picks this moment on the road to offer another explanation for their journey and share what he thinks will happen. Verse 32b speaks of two groups following Jesus, “the amazed and the afraid.” Based on my experience in congregational life and ministry, I would add a third generalized group, “the apathetic,” to the followers of Jesus. We don’t know which group(s) the disciples represent, but after Jesus tells them what he thinks is awaiting them in Jerusalem, this is the moment that John and James speak up, in the presence of the others, about their desire for preferred seating in the hierarchy of glory. I wonder if they were remembering the “ask, knock, seek,” parable?
There are at least three layers in this story: 1) An example of what it means to follow Jesus (vv. 36-40); 2) Another teaching about what it means to be a citizen of the kindom of God (41-44)12; 3) Jesus proclaiming the good news of God, which he summarized in 10:27, with different language (v. 45). The text invites a conversation about those layers, as well as about the Greek words diakonos, (servant), the word from which the term “deacon” was born, and lytron, translated as “ransom.” What does Mark’s Jesus mean or claim about God by choosing this word?
Paragraphs from SSCSJ
Brief paragraphs from Sacred Steps: Children’s Sermon Journal for Oct. 7. Visit www.sscsj.org to learn more about how you can subscribe to this service.
World Communion Sunday
No matter how your tradition “allows” young children to participate in the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist), World Communion Sunday is an opportunity to talk with the children about why your congregation celebrates (observes) communion as well as what you, the adult leader, find meaningful about receiving communion. Consider talking with the children about, “Why I take communion?” Is it a meal of remembrance, a commandment, the actual body and blood of Jesus, the consumption of antibiotics that fight sin, or an activity only for baptized persons? Think about the language you will use. How will children hear “broken body, shed blood, and sacrifice?” Reflect on the language that is used at the table and the symbolism of forgiveness. Does your congregation exclude children, even those baptized as infants, from this central act of worship until a specific age?
Psalm 8
Psalm 8 is a bold statement about the inherent worth and value of human beings. It proclaims that Gods care about us amid all the marvelous things God has to consider. Even more, it declares that human beings are indeed created in the image of God and given special responsibility to care for the rest of God’s creation. Psalm 8 is a celebration of the goodness present in every human being, and it serves as a wonderful counterweight for the Christian Tradition’s focus on “original sin”, an idea not found in the First Testament.
Genesis 2:18-24
Yes, this selection from Gen 2 does seem to describe what we may think of as marriage; however, we should not read into the ancient text what are modern ideas and customs. First, it is important to remember that in Hebrew there are no words for “husband” and “wife”; there are only words for man (‘ish) and woman (‘ishah). In addition, Hebrew does not have a word for “marriage”. The closest construction is when a man “takes” a woman for himself, using the same verb as what might be used to describe taking someone’s cattle. In fact, in the 1st Testament the idea of “marriage” was much more about men obtaining property and not about the romantic notions we have today of falling in love and joining our life with someone else. In Ancient Israel, women were considered the “property” of men. A girl is the property of her father (and brothers) until she is married. Then, she becomes the property of her husband. We see a clear example of this mindset in texts that deal with adultery; a man could have sex with any woman who was not betrothed or married to another man (i.e., another man’s property), regardless of his own marital status. A woman could not have sex with anyone other than her husband, or she committed adultery. In essence, adultery was about a man “trespassing” on another man’s “land”.
While the tendency is to read Jesus’ views on marriage and divorce as less harsh on women than those of the FT, especially by his seeming to not allow “divorce”, the real truth is that there were plenty of reasons a woman might want a divorce or need one (e.g., abusive husband, to have permission to remarry, etc.). In the commandments of the FT, there were accommodations set-up to keep women from being left as either a helpless widow or a perpetual wife, even though her husband had abandoned her. The statement made in Gen 2:24 is more about establishing a way for the first man and the first woman to reproduce, so the story of life can continue, than it is a statement about modern marriage or divorce. In all honesty, people living in the 21st century should not turn to the bible (neither the FT nor the NT) for examples of “family values”, especially not about marriage, because what we find there will be examples of behaviors and customs that will (and should) offend our sense of morality.
Hebrews 1:1-4; 2:5-12
The opening words of Hebrews set a similar Christo-centric view of the world and God’s activity, as the opening of the Gospel of John, and like John, Hebrews has a tone of a theological treatise or “reader” for people who are already believers in Christ. It stresses elements of early Christianity’s explanation of Jesus’ life and mission on behalf of God. For some Christians, Hebrews provides a foundation for a “supersessionist” reading of all the biblical witness. It is important to note that this idea, like that of the Trinity or Trinitarianism, is based in ancient Christian tradition’s worldview and interpretation of the bible, even though these are not consistent images or ideas in the whole biblical witness. There is a fine line between midrash and eisegesis.
This text is an opportunity to explore the idea that “salvation is perfect (perfected) through sufferings.” Is that your experience? You probably have heard or used the phrase, “The Lord does not give us more than we can handle or take.” Or “What does not kill us makes us stronger.” Is that how you interpret your suffering or the suffering of others? Another place to linger is v.9b, “now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” Is death a punishment, an enemy, or a natural part of creation? When you read the creation stories in Genesis, nowhere does it claim that humans were immortal creatures nor that death is a punishment for becoming aware of good and evil.
Mark 10:2-16
Like New Testament scholars, those who claim Christian faith must ask: Do I read portions of the text that show me the Jesus I like, one who is congenial to me and my way of life or belief in God? The first portion of the gospel text is one of those that makes modern believers squirm. It is often said that, when two people divorce and there are children in the marriage, it is the children that suffer and struggle most. Even in our “child-centric” society, children are the most vulnerable because no person has to apply for a license or take a test to become a parent, unless you are adopting a child or serving as a foster parent. The Lectionary pairs a familiar hard saying of Jesus about divorce, authentic or not, alongside another familiar saying about children and citizenship in the “kingdom of God.” The choice for a children’s sermon is obvious, but that does not give us permission to ignore the words about divorce. When you take the saying about citizenship in the kindom seriously, it too becomes a hard teaching to embrace as a practice, or a way of life, or a way of ordering culture. This is why it is often dealt with as a belief.