textweek

Matthew 17:1-9 - Transfiguration

I’ve gotta admit it: I’ve never understood this text/story/event. I guess I can understand its significance within each of the gospel accounts within some historical/literary context. (Or at least I could write that paper and pass the course!) But, I have not easily understood “gospel” in this story. It’s one of those texts that makes me question the wisdom of breaking up the scriptural books into little pieces in order to find something profound in each one of them.

I don’t find it particularly helpful, except when I’m sitting at this desk, to argue about what the the “event” of the Transfiguration might have been, or if it actually was, or even what it meant to and for Jesus as the Christ. I suppose I can do that, but I’m not sure what good it does.  As “academic” as I like to keep my belief system (!), I’m more likely to read less historical/literary background on this one than I am to read just plain “reflections” which are more loosely based on the text. I am positive that the true exegetes among us (not to mention the one within me!) are appalled, but I have a difficult time making the jump between any sort of exegetical analysis of this text in ANY terms, to anything that matters much. (Of course, I’d never say that in church!!!) That certainly doesn’t mean that it’s “not there,” or that other people haven’t done it very well on their own terms, for their own faith and life and that of their communities and the world. It just means that I can’t get that to work with this text, despite the fact that God sees fit to give me all sorts of wisdom when I use my impeccable exegetical and hermeneutical method with other texts!

That said, I’ve been appreciating reading sermons and articles this week which are less ‘historically’ based, and more reflective – loosely based on the text. Sr. Joan Chittister has a couple of articles/sermons on the internet that I’ve found very useful for my own reflections in terms of this gospel text. The Transfiguration text is read on 2 Lent in the Roman Catholic Church. (It’s interesting to think about how it reads differently there than at the end of Epiphany. I’m not sure that the story doesn’t make a whole lot more sense to me there!) I’ve appreciated Chittister’s “Transfiguration Story: To Take Holiness, Insights into the Groaning Cities – Meditation on the Second Sunday In Lent,” from National Catholic Reporter, March of 2001:

“There is a tension in religion today that swirls around the struggle for authenticity. Is adherence to doctrinal purity the true mark of the committed Christian? Or is it deference to hierarchy? Or does authenticity lie in being citizen Christians whose intention to maintain the Christian world lies in fashioning into law and public structures the theology of one denomination or another: Enshrining the Ten Commandments in every courtroom, for instance, in a pluralistic society; maintaining a common Sabbath and a common religious calendar of holidays. Or does real spirituality lie in withdrawal from the fray into some kind of pious Nirvana where the cares of the day and the questions of the time touch us not?

“The answer, I think, lies in our own story, this one from a scripture that is often translated as a glimpse of glow or a case for contemplative withdrawal from the chaos around us but which, I believe, is really an insight into the spirituality of courage. It is a call for the kind of involvement that changes things. It is a commitment to work miracles for the poor and marginalized rather than maintain them in the name of tradition and authority and good order…

“The call of the spiritual life is the call to take all the insights into the life of Christ that we have ever been able to gather and to go alone back down our private little mountains to the grasping, groaning world of our own time.

“It is one thing to be devout. It's relatively easy, in fact, to enclose ourselves in a cocoon of pious practices. It is another thing entirely to live a life worthy of a follower of Jesus, the prophet.

“If the question of the Second Sunday of Lent is "What must we do to be truly holy," the call to Christianity in this second Sunday of Lent is surely the call to be aware of the root causes of suffering in this world and to have the courage to work a few miracles of our own.”

No matter how loosely tied to the text it might be, I really resonate with Chittister’s call to re-examine our own “holiness,” not only in terms we currently understand, but in terms which might be quite different from those that give us religious, political, moral, and/or cultural “rewards.” It’s relatively easy for me to accomplish this critique in terms of “traditional religion” or “political interpretations of religion,” no matter how those things are understood, because those things are, truthfully, not that difficult for me to deconstruct. But, it’s a lot more difficult to critique the less-useful aspects my OWN improper pieties – whatever they might be – outside the walls of the church, in my everyday life. To me, those things always seem like “proper holiness,” given by God and supported by the community for the good of all. And I’m able to support my rationalizations and behaviors quite nicely, thank you, in terms of those personal pieties, which are very difficult for me to see at all, let alone to examine.

Also very interesting reading for me this week has been the sermon “The Role of Religion in Today’s Society,” again by Sr. Joan Chittister.

“The purpose of holiness is not to protect us from our world. The purpose of holiness is to change the way we live in the world, not for our own sake but for the sake of others. Jesus demands the same thing. For some reason or other, we often miss that point. We are more inclined to want a religion that comforts us than challenges us. Why? Where did we ever get that idea? ...

“What is the role of religion in society, private refuge or public presence? Transfiguration means that the role of religion demands enlightenment. The role of religion is to bring us to an awareness of life. The role of religion is to transform the world, to come to see the world as God sees the world and to bring it as close to the vision of God as we possibly can. Why? Scripture is very clear. What God changes, God changes through us.”

What does the light from the Transfiguration expose to me about my own life, my own piety, my own carefully-ordered “faith” within a world that is struggling (and, frankly, within a “self” that is struggling)? What might it mean to have faith through Christ – in God alone - even in terms of our own personal and community holiness, whatever that might be? How do we live “in Christ” as we look at our own lives and the world as we head into Lent? What does that really MEAN, beyond our rhetoric?

The Gods of Business

This week on American Public Media's Speaking of Faith, "The Gods of Business":

"In an age of Enron and WorldCom, how can we imagine a place for business ethics, much less religious virtue, in the global economy? We speak with a Hindu international business analyst who offers learned, fascinating observations about how the world's myriad religions have shaped global business norms and practices."

Matthew 5 - Dylan's Lectionary Blog

Don't miss Sarah Dylan Breuer's commentary on Matthew 5:1-12 at Dylan's Lectionary Blog. Sarah follows the Hanson/Neyrey reading of makarios as an honor/shame term, and bases her reflection on this reading.

"What would it mean if we honored those whom God honors? What would happen if we stopped playing all of our culture's games for status and power and privilege? What would it cost us if we lived more deeply into justice, and mercy, and humility? And more importantly, what blessings await us on that journey? It's quite an adventure."

Matthew 5:1-12 - Epiphany 4A

Don’t miss K.C. Hanson’s “How Honorable! How Shameful! A Cultural Analysis of Matthew’s Makarisms and Reproaches.” In this article, Hanson explores the Beatitudes in the terms of honor and shame cultural models. From Hanson’s conclusion:

“1) Makarisms and reproaches are thematically related to formal blessings and curses, but linguistically and contextually distinct from them. Consequently, makarisms should not be translated "blessed." The translations of "happy" or "enviable" for the makarisms are also inappropriate since they do not refer to either human emotion or the evil eye. 2) Makarisms and reproaches are value judgments, which can be uttered by sages, prophets, or anyone in the community. They should be translated in keeping with value judgments: the makarisms with "O how honorable" or "How honored"; and the reproaches with "O how shameful" or "Shame on." 3) Makarisms and reproaches are comprehensible only in terms of Mediterranean honor/shame values and the challenge-riposte transactions. Thus they describe and challenge values, but also call for a response. 4) Matt 5:3-12 provides the introduction to Jesus' public ministry and Matt 23:13-31 its conclusion. Consequently they form an honor/shame inclusio around Jesus public teaching. Furthermore, the evangelist has not only employed them as formal and semantic antitheses, but has paralleled key-words throughout their formulations.”

In “Historical Cultural Context” at Saint Louis University’s Center for Liturgy, John J Pilch presents a similar cultural context:

“The three basic honorable and esteemed behaviors offered by Jesus are being poor, mourning, and hungering. "Poor" in the Bible is never an economic designation. It rather describes someone who has temporarily lost honorable status and must seek at all costs to regain but never surpass that status…

There are, however, two distinctive elements in Jesus' beatitudes. First, he says being poor constitutes true honor! Second, the passive voice in each beatitude ("will be comforted," "be filled," etc.) is a strategy used by our ancestors in the faith to avoid saying the name of God. Those who engage in social protest (mourning and fasting) will be comforted by whom? By God, of course! This grammatical usage in the Hebrew and Greek Bible is called, appropriately, the "theological or divine passive voice."

In Jesus' view, true honor and esteem are determined and bestowed by God, very publicly, for all to see. And the things that God considers truly honorable and worthy of praise are almost always the opposite of what human beings of any culture think.”

Pilch continues, at the link above, to think of the Beatitudes in terms of American understanding of honor, possessions, etc.

Paul Nuechterlein, Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary:

“I wonder, though, if the mechanistic metaphor still fits when posing God's alternative to human culture. It might constitute one of the crucial differences. Human cultures are mechanistic in their machinations of death; God's culture in Jesus Christ, offering true freedom and life, are not mechanistic -- which is a point for us to fear, being alien and unfamiliar to our usual comfort-levels within our mechanistic orders. Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor speaks of this fear in justifying his efforts to protect us once again from the real freedom that Jesus offers us.”

Mary Hinkle, at Pilgrim Preaching, also writes about this theme of freedom:

“In his article, "Matthew's Beatitudes: Reversals and Rewards of the Kingdom," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58/3 (1996) 460-79, Mark Allan Powell argues for a two-part structure to the beatitudes. The first four are "reversals for the unfortunate." The second four are "rewards for the virtuous." I like Powell's sense of the structure of this text, but instead of reversals and rewards, I prefer to talk about freedom in the beatitudes.

The first four declare freedom from

despair (blessed are the poor in spirit),
grief (blessed are those who mourn),
want (blessed are the meek) and
injustice (blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness).

The second four declare freedom for

healing (blessed are the merciful),
integrity (blessed are the pure in heart),
peace (blessed are the peacemakers) and
faithfulness (blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake).”

From “Process and Faith Lectionary Commentary,” Tari Lennon:

“’Matthew’s’ casting of Jesus as the new Moses, the delivery of the ‘new law,’ and mountaintops being metaphors in the religious world for revelations either about or from God, we have to marvel at how our author has recast his knowledge of his traditions into sound bites for the book tour of his itinerant teacher. Like Paul before him he calls attention to weak and foolish happenstance and ridiculous people to confront his audience with a whole new way of seeing both those rejects and the great, big, fearsome God of their beliefs. Using many of the Psalms (1:; 32:1-2; 37:11; 41:1; 65:4; 84:4-5; 106:3; 112:1; 128:1), III Isaiah (61:2-30), and alluding to the prophets, our author(s) gather up what has gone before and give it a brand new spin. It is the very people who have been pitied, or looked down upon, or cast aside who are the comforters of God’s heart and models for how to be in relationship with God.

The religious concerns of the tradition are neither rejected nor abrogated, just gathered up and faced in a new direction. Righteousness, mercy, peace--they are still important, but to be realized now, in a new way. But the new way is not simply not the old way, it is a bigger way. The route to a fuller relationship with God is through a more inclusive and expansive relationship with each other and the sure and certain knowledge that every actual entity gives rise to every other actual entity and that they are all pervaded by the Divine Life. Nothing can be scoffed at, no one should be overlooked, and everything can be reworked and redone to divine ends.”

At Preaching Peace, Michael Hardin and Jeff Krantz’:

The [Sermon on the Mount] SM is not for those who are satisfied, sated, comfortable. Everything that is said following the Beatitudes will only bring discomfort to those who seek to ‘practice the SM’ without recognizing that certain ‘conditions’ are essential, these conditions being poverty of spirit, grief, humility, etc. The blessing given to these is hope, a way out, and this way out is the SM. These ‘conditions’ come in many shapes and forms through many different circumstances. They are ‘marginal’ conditions. Jesus ministry is to people in these conditions. Those who have nothing or have lost everything or have given up everything and have nothing left to lose. These bring nothing in their open hands. These are blessed by his presence, by his touch.

There is a gladness inherent in ‘blessing’ (makarios). A blessing is a healing. Try to live up to the SM without being healed (blessed) and you will rarely laugh as you live life as depicted in the SM. It will be dreary, difficult, you have to stop and catch your breath all the time. But examine your ‘condition’ and recognize that ‘condition’ as blessed, and everything makes sense and you will find yourself laughing and enjoying whatever life brings your way. The joy of the Lord is strength, our strength.

We might say that if the Beatitudes are about intent and direction, the SM is about choice. The redirecting of our intent to recognize conditions as blessed that don’t feel blessed is the liberation that brings the freedom and power of choice. These instructions are livable, concretely and fully and the entire Sermon is a description of spirituality, not ethics. Jesus didn’t have ethics. Jesus knew the will of God. Jesus lived the will of God. And he did this by God’s Spirit. What was Jesus’ condition, how would you describe it? Poor? Humbled? Hungry? Poor in Heart? Persecuted for Righteousness sake? Sound familiar? So too we, who follow him, have this opportunity to share in his blessing if we will ask ourselves about our own personal condition, our intention and our choice.”

I wonder mostly when and how we use these verses as rhetoric for our side and our own righteousness and against others. Are all lists of cultural and/or counter-cultural expectations such self-interested rhetoric, or is this one different somehow? Are we called to live these values, and what values exactly ARE they? (And, how does our reading and understanding of this come from our own often-invisible sets of cultural presuppositions?) To what are we called toward and from when we hear this text this week?

The Future of Moral Values

"The Future of Moral Values," American Public Media's Speaking of Faith.

"We deconstruct the phrase 'moral values,' which has confused and divided Americans since November's election. As the second term of George W. Bush commences, political analyst Steven Waldman helps explore what these words do and do not convey to liberals and conservatives, and why they still matter. What is at stake when both sides fail to understand the moral convictions of the other?"

Prayer and Science

"Why Do the Faithful Need Scientific Studies of Prayer?" Steve Waldman, NPR, All Things Considered, January 17, 2005.

"Over the past several years, there have been several scientific studies about the power of prayer to heal. Commentator Steve Waldman wonders why people want so much for science to back up faith, and talks about a survey on prayer conducted by BeliefNet.com, where he is an editor."

Evangelism and Tsunami Aid

"When Providing Aid Is A Matter of Faith," Brian Naylor, NPR Day to Day, January 17, 2005. "Is it appropriate for Christian groups to be preaching the Gospel while offering aid to non-Christian tsunami victims?"

Epiphany 4A: Matthew 4:12-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:10-18

Paul Neuchterlein, Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary:

“…if Jesus comes to save us, he doesn't just save us as individuals. He must save us by also founding a new community based on something else. He founds us based on a life of fighting the temptations to mimetic rivalry, a life of doing God's will, God's desire, without rivalry. In other words, the life of the Trinity, the Godhead which is itself a community. He also saves us by founding community on the basis of the Risen Victim who is recognized as innocent. It is community founded around the rehabilitation of victims instead of the making of them.”

Michael Hardin and Jeff Krantz, Preaching Peace:

“Much has been written concerning Matthew’s fulfillment citations, their function and their theological aim. It is essential when reading the gospel of Matthew to recall that Matthew has a very specific hermeneutic, as J. Andrew Overman has pointed out, found in Matt 22:34-38. Even the difficult text of 5:17-20 must be interpreted in the light of the Sermon on the Mount and the character of God shown therein.

Matthew’s community is perceived as ‘liberal’ and Matthew’s hermeneutic use of the Hebrew Scriptures is to demonstrate the validity of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of love. Without this overarching love as the wellspring and omega point, Matthew’s fulfillment citations become nothing more than tired midrash or attempts to prove that the ‘Old Testament (sic) talks about Jesus.’ Matthew’s gospel does not set about to demonstrate the validity of the Hebrew Bible, he lives within a community for whom that is not necessary. Rather, he seeks to show the appropriate way to understand these sacred texts in the light of the revelation of the character of God in Jesus. Any preaching use of these fulfillment citations to prove the continued authority of the Hebrew Bible in all of its parts goes against the Matthean hermeneutic, which is quite nuanced.”

John J. Pilch, Historical Cultural Context, Saint Louis University Center for Liturgy:

“Jesus' act of calling disciples is a common event in the Middle East

. Usually, a person with a grievance invites people to join him in resolving the grievance. We don't know Jesus' grievance, but the disciples certainly did This in part explains why they dropped everything to follow him. In unified groups there is strength.

Moreover, this is the dry season. Farmers simply wait for the harvest. Fishing partners can leave the fishing to others for the time being. Now is the time to be out and about, to be seen and heard, to pursue group interests…”

At Dylan’s Lectionary Blog:

“In America, our culture exalts "being your own boss" and "being your own man," being independent…Working for and with Jesus, we can cast a different kind of net -- one that frees and empowers rather than binds and dehumanizes. Answering Jesus' call, we start to hear the world's cries; we are drawn into relationship as we find what we need to serve as Jesus' co-laborers in the world. It's not easy work, but it's the work we were born to do. It's the vocation where we will become more fully human and understand better what the divine is up to among us.”

Chris Hooten’s Pomo Pentecostal Lectionary Blog:

“Eugene Peterson puts it, the lord ‘didn't call me to gather a following for myself.’”

Process and Faith Lectionary Commentary, Tari Lennon:

“It almost doesn’t matter what the issue is that is causing the conflicts, it is the divisiveness itself that is of concern to Paul. Why? Because in Christ such treatment of one another is unacceptable. That people should disagree with each other is one thing, but that people should compete with each other, and to compete to gain advantage is another.

“Such behavior points to a blindness, an inability or refusal to see that baptism in Christ has nothing to do with personal gain and everything to do with how we treat one another and in that treating create community. For Paul the Christ of God discloses in dramatic fashion that we participate in one another. We don’t just participate with each other or for each other but in each other.”

First Thoughts, William Loader:

“The Corinthians were putting certain leaders into a place that really belonged only to God. In that sense they were becoming 'cult figures'. It can be wonderfully rewarding and self delusory to receive that level of support and adulation. It is worth striving for and working for - sustaining one's value as a god. Its drives some people crazy and ruins their lives and the lives of many others. It turns the gospel upside down if we have to prove ourselves to ourselves or others like this. Worse still it means we are competing in the market of affection and there it cannot be in our interests that others succeed at our expense. It develops a mean spirit and almost inevitably created division. People in professions where affections can be won and lost, especially those with a public role, are particularly susceptible to such dangers. Clergy are among its best perpetrators. It is ultimately a form of abuse.”

"Falling Out for Trifles," at The Journey with Jesus: Notes to Myself, Daniel B. Clendenin, Journey with Jesus Foundation. Dan begins with a short history of Christians persecuting other Christians, and then writes:

"Christians have excluded, persecuted and killed those they deemed to be different—Jews, Muslims, gays, witches, heretics and so on. But what dispirited Foxe so much was that the bitterest enemies were Christians against Christians, persecuting each other over the slightest differences."

This week, I’ve been thinking a lot about living together with those with whom we are in disagreement – as always, in “real life” rather than in rhetoric. It is one thing to rhetorically “welcome all people”, to see ourselves as forgiven sinners called to bring others to Christ (whatever that means to us), to be in unity with those who also know the Truth. But, what is this kind of unity in practical terms, where we find ourselves living, both within and outside our church communities, with folks with whom we so often disagree? How do we reconcile these things when we truly feel called by Christ to follow Him, and when that means doing specific things in His name, and calling others to join in? What is the place of doctrine and orthodoxy in these discussions? They can certainly be a unifying factor for some, but for some, the unity comes at the cost of turning ones back on the Truth one feels one has received from Christ.

Exactly what are we called to leave when we follow Christ? Our own individual/factional understandings of the Truth which we truly feel God has led us toward? Our larger church communities, denominational structures, even doctrinal stances?

Again, I really think that these are difficult issues even in abstraction. But in reality, when we must live our lives forward instead of backward, and through concrete actions of living out our call to follow Christ, they are much more difficult. It is quite easy for me to see what “you” need to give up in order to follow Christ. It is much more difficult for me to see toward what and from what Christ is calling me, within the reality of the real life people with whom I share the journey. Following Christ as an individual is one thing, but how do we follow Christ as a congregation, denomination, or even as a secular community?

Islam Vs National Idenity in Tsunami Aid

"Role of Islam vs National Identity in Tsunami Aid," Eric Weiner, Day to Day (NPR), January 12, 2005:

"Does national identity trump faith in the Muslim world's tsunami aid efforts? NPR's Eric Weiner reports that some observers in the Muslim world have charged that oil-rich states of the Persian Gulf have not done enough to help fellow Muslims affected by the tsunami. That's led to a debate about what role national identity plays in determining relationships between Muslim countries."

Serenity Prayer: Faith in Times of Peace and War

"The Serenity Prayer: Faith in Times of Peace and War," NPR's Fresh Air, January 14, 2005 -

"In 1943, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote the Serenity Prayer, an appeal for grace, courage and wisdom that's become a mantra of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and appealed to people around the world. We speak to Niebuhr's daughter, Elisabeth Sifton, whose book explores the circumstances that led her father to write the prayer."