My Photo

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

Pilgrimage to Iona

  • Iona Abbey
    Photos from Bob's trip to the Isle of Iona in Scotland in July, 2006.

A Holy Land Trek

  • S6000388
    Photos of my familiarization trip to the Holy Land, January 2007.

« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »

March 29, 2008

Hope Springs Eternal: Baseball's Back!

Coloradorockies
No sermon this week since we have a guest choir from Mountain Vista UMC doing a cantata for us. I've been spending the week catching up on some little projects and trying to get some extra rest after a busy Holy Week.

The other big news is that tomorrow is Opening Day for baseball. Yeah, the Red Sox and A's played two games that counted in Japan but, come on...that was kind of, well, not the same thing (no disrespect to rabid Japanese baseball fans intended). Monday is actually the big day as the full slate of games gets going.

What I like about this week is that every team believes it has a shot...even my hometown Pirates, who are likely destined for their 16th losing season, making them a de facto Triple A team for the big market teams that actually have a shot. New management is in place this year, but it just ain't gonna happen. The Rockies, my adopted team here in the West, look to continue their magical run of last year. They're a fun team to watch and I'll be catching several games at Coors Field in June when we head to Denver for Annual Conference (yeah, I'll go to some conference stuff, too...I promise).

Hope springs eternal for everyone, though, as the first pitch is thrown. No matter how bad last year was, everyone gets a fresh start. It's an annual reminder of the power of grace.

Don't let anyone ever tell you there's no connection between baseball and theology!

March 23, 2008

The Easter "Yes" - Sermon for Easter Sunday 2008

Colossians 3:1-4
John 20:1-18

When I was about 8 years old my family went to Gettysburg on a vacation to visit the Civil War battlefield. I remember traipsing around the field, looking at the monuments, pretending to fire the now silent cannons. To me it was a wondrous place—a place of pilgrimage. If you asked me where I wanted to go every year for vacation, it was never to the beach or an amusement park—I wanted to go to “the field” as I came to call it.

My love for history blossomed in those fields and even turned into a hobby. When I was in high school, some other historically-minded friends and I formed a Civil War reenactment group—buying the wool uniforms and 19th century weapons, drilling like Civil War soldiers, and saving up our money to go to weekend events where we’d fall in with a bunch of others like us, sometimes thousands of them. I spent a lot of weekends like this—in fact, the weekend of my senior prom I spent that Saturday night not in a tux at a dance but shivering around a campfire with a bunch of smelly reenactors in New Market, Virginia. From that you may deduce what my dating life in high school was like. But, I digress.

At each reenactment we’d meticulously recreate a particular battle—sleeping in open-ended canvas tents, eating hardtack, executing the maneuvers, firing the weapons (black powder blanks, of course, unless some moron forgot to pull the ramrod out of his musket and then you’d hear this whooshing sound as the rammer flew past your head). In battle we even had set rules about who would die and when. There was one Confederate guy, for example, who got so into it that after he took a spectacular hit, he’d actually make himself bloat up after he laid on the battlefield awhile.

What was most interesting to me, though, was the vast numbers of people who would come out to watch us. Thousands of spectators would wander through our camps asking questions and wanting to put their hands on some history. When the battle kicked off, they would line the field as we blasted away at each other. Being a Union soldier at reenactments south of the Mason-Dixon line meant that we got booed a lot. People would bring a picnic lunch and watch the battle, much like those people who came out from Washington and watched the first battle of the real war at Bull Run in 1861. Except in that case, the real blood and carnage of battle sent them scampering back across the Potomac, leaving the picnic behind.

Reenactments of important events have long been part of human history and memory. Some of the earliest reenactments were the passion plays that commemorated the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. In Oberammergau, Germany, for example, citizens have been putting on a world-renowned passion play every ten years that draws hundreds of thousands of pilgrims from around the world. The story goes that in 1633 the citizens of the town, having survived the devastating effects of the plague and the Thirty Years War, swore an oath to God that they would stage a passion play every ten years as a way of giving thanks to God for preserving them. That’s a long history of reenactments!

Closer to home, I recently read about a theme park in Orlando called “The Holy Land Experience” where six times a week a handsome actor with long, wavy hair and six pack abs named Les Cheveldayoff portrays Jesus. Every afternoon, Les carries a cross down a faux Via Dolorossa while tourists look on licking the “milk and honey” ice cream cones they bought from the snack bar. The procession winds up at a Disney-fied version of Golgotha, where Les/Jesus is “nailed” to a cross that is lifted up by hydraulics while he says his lines via a hidden wireless microphone. Later, he emerges from a fake tomb to the applause of the crowd.

Sound kind of cheesy? Yeah, it probably is. At base, all reenactments are mere caricatures of the real thing. When a Civil War reenactment is over, the “dead” are resurrected en masse, getting up to walk off the field, get in their cars and head to the closest McDonalds for some 21st century grub. When a biblical reenactment is over, spectators jump in their rental cars and head back to the hotel for a dip in the pool. The blood, the death, the horror of battle; the brutality, pain, and injustice of the cross—are all easily sanitized in the world of memory.

The truth is that time and distance tend to dull our senses. Horrible, bloody, destructive events become sanitized tourist attractions the farther down the line of history we are away from them. You don’t see, for example, too many Vietnam War reenactors and certainly no Operation Iraqi Freedom ones. The bloody reality of those conflicts is still right in front of us.

After high school, I enlisted in the 20th century U.S. Army and it was there that I learned the difference between pretending to be a soldier and actually being one. One is a hobby, the other one is a way of life. One is a form of historical tourism, the other is a full-time commitment that takes every ounce of your energy and focus—a commitment may result in one day making the ultimate sacrifice of your life. Moving from reenacting to reality, from spectating to participating, is a conscious and costly choice.

The more I’ve thought about this, the more I have come to realize that Easter presents us with the same choice.

A lot of folks, even Christians, treat the resurrection of Jesus as a kind of tourist attraction—a pretty interesting event to revisit once a year. Churches are packed today as people come to share a memory, but then it’s off to brunch or back home to chew the head off a chocolate bunny in celebration. But what is there to celebrate? Ask a lot of Christians what the resurrection means and they’ll say things like, “Well, it proves that Jesus was divine,” or “It’s a metaphor for a new spiritual life,” or “Jesus rose from the dead and went to heaven, so that means that if we believe in him we’ll go to heaven when we die, too.” Those things may be true, in some sense, but they sound like standard answers to tourist questions—the kinds of answers repeated over and over again by bored tour guides in clergy garb. On Easter, the church reenacts an old, old story, people come to watch it, everyone maintains their cognitive and emotional distance, and then we go back to our normal lives.

What happens, though, when we make a different choice—to see Easter not as a reenactment of the past but as the launch of a world-changing movement? That’s really the point of the story as we read it in the Gospels. The truth is that Easter was never meant to be an occasional event celebrated by reenactors or spectators. It was and still is a call to enlist in the real and present battle that God is waging with evil and with the powers of this world—a battle that Christ has already won. Easter calls us to choose whether we’ll simply be theological tourists or whether we’ll follow the risen Christ into a new reality and lifestyle that requires a total commitment.

The real message of Easter is that it is an ongoing reality that continues beyond the historical event. The resurrection of Jesus marked the triumph of God over evil and death, but it also marked a fundamental change in the relationship between God and humanity.

The resurrection story in John 20 is a familiar one — Mary Magdalene discovering the empty tomb, Peter and John seeing the folded grave clothes, the visit of the angels, the risen Jesus calling Mary’s name. This is the stories the crowd gathers to hear on Easter morning. What we sometimes miss, though, is that the real thrust of this passage points toward the ascension of Jesus as the seminal event that will activate and empower his disciples.

Mary moved to embrace the risen Jesus, but he said “Do not hold on to me” because he had “not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17). It’s not that Jesus had some kind of dangerous spiritual aura about him or that his resurrection body could not be touched by human hands. Mary wanted to hold on tight to her teacher and Lord, but Jesus reminds her of the bigger picture. The focus of Jesus was not on basking in the glow of the resurrection event, but on getting word to his disciples and getting them moving out on the mission of taking the message of the risen Christ into the world.

In John’s Gospel it is the ascension of Jesus that will empower the disciples and enable the mission to move forward. Notice the message that Jesus instructs Mary to carry to the disciples. It’s not about giving them a meeting point for his post-resurrection appearances (as in Matthew 28:7 or Mark 16:7), but instead it’s a message about his ascension, which John sees as the completion of Jesus’ glorification and his identity as the true Son of Man (John 3:13; 6:62). The ascension was the fulfillment of the promise that Jesus would “prepare a place” for those he loves (14:2). Theological tourists love this because it implies another traveling experience—going to heaven out there somewhere, “way beyond the blue” as the old hymn says.

But the context says something very different. The image of the Father’s “house” in John’s Gospel is used to describe the nature of a divine-human relationship as well as a physical location (John 8:36-36, 2:16). The “place” that Jesus was preparing and making possible in the ascension, then, was not so much a heavenly mansion but rather a new relationship, a new “house” where the followers of Jesus would enjoy the same indwelling relationship with God in the present that Jesus himself had enjoyed. Jesus’ return to God would be the event that made it possible for the disciples to join in the relationship shared by Jesus and God the Father (John 20:17). What was true about the relationship between Jesus and God (“my Father” and “my God”) would now be true of the disciples (“your Father” and “your God”).

In other words, they were to no longer be mere spectators of what Jesus had done. They were now to give their whole lives in doing it themselves. They were moving from reenacting to reality, from spectating to participating. They weren’t going to heaven, they were going into the real world to battle the forces of sin, oppression, and death with a message of God’s good news, God’s Kingdom, God’s reign and rule made possible and made a reality by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

As if to signify this change in relationship, Jesus instructs Mary to bring the news to “my brothers.” The disciples, both male and female, were to be the new family of God and the representatives of Christ to the whole world. When Jesus appeared to his disciples for the first time, he confirmed that mission—“As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21). The glory of Easter, the glory of Jesus, was to be acted out by disciples. They were to be Jesus’ hands, feet, and voice serving people everywhere.

For 21st century disciples, being Jesus isn’t about beards, robes, six-pack abs, but it is about dying, being raised, and being Jesus’ representatives in the world. The New Testament lesson for this week lays that out. We may not get crucified on a hydraulic cross six times a week, but we do “die” to an old life of sin, nailing it to the cross of Jesus. We may not come out of a replica tomb six times a week and smile for the cameras popping in the crowd, but Paul says we are indeed “raised with Christ” in whom our “life is revealed” even as we are “revealed with him in glory” (Colossians 3:1-4). Every day we are to take on the person of the crucified, resurrected, and glorified Christ within us. Do that and we change the world. That’s the real message of Easter.

Friday I was browsing Slate came across an article by James Martin on the difference between Christmas and Easter. Martin says that while Christmas has been broadly commercialized and accepted by even non-Christian people, Easter stubbornly holds on to its status as a purely religious holiday. Says Martin, “Even agnostics and atheists who don't accept Christ's divinity can accept the general outlines of the Christmas story with little danger to their worldview. But Easter demands a response. It's hard for a non-Christian believer to say, ‘Yes, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead.’ That's not something you can believe without some serious ramifications: If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, this has profound implications for your spiritual and religious life—really, for your whole life. If you believe the story, then you believe that Jesus is God, or at least God's son. What he says about the world and the way we live in that world then has a real claim on you.
“Easter is an event that demands a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ There is no ‘whatever.’"
When we say “yes” to the resurrection, we are giving up a seat on the sidelines and entering a whole new reality. When we truly say “yes” to the resurrection, we can no longer pretend to be followers of Christ—we have to become the real thing no matter what it costs. To say “yes” to the resurrection is to move ourselves from occasional theological tourism to a full-time lifestyle that reflects God’s will in our lives. When we say “yes” to the resurrection, we make a vow to make the Lord’s Prayer a reality in our world—God’s will being done “on earth as it is in heaven.”

Les Cheveldayoff, the Jesus reenactor, gets stopped in the mall by kids and gets double-takes on the street. How does looking so much like everybody’s idea of Jesus affect him? “It’s improved my driving,” he says with a smile.

Imagine what improvements a group of people who physically look nothing like Jesus could make if they simply chose to act like him—serving humbly, speaking passionately, living generously, doing justly, and experiencing the elevated life in Christ. We are to be transformed people, transforming the world and that begins by giving our lives to Christ—answering the “yes” or “no” question.

What will your answer be?

Sources:
Kaylor, Bob, "Being Jesus," Homiletics, March-April 2008.

Martin, James, "Happy Crossmas," Slate.com, March 20, 2008.

March 20, 2008

The Curious Idea of Resurrection

I was browsing on Slate this morning and came across this nice little article by Larry Hurtado on Christian views about the resurrection of Jesus.  He does a nice job of framing the ways in which Christians have talked about this seminal event over the centuries.

What I've come to discover is that most Christians are really functional Platonists, believing that the spirit is good and the body more like a prison. Biblically speaking, however, humans are considered to be a unified whole--body and spirit as one. The bodily resurrection of Jesus affirms that understanding over and against the disembodied, spiritualized "heaven" that many people believe in.

The centrality of the resurrection is, of course, one of the theological drums that I hammer on incessantly. Spiritualize it and you have a Christianity that has no real connection to the present world other than seeing it as a preparation for some future life in a faraway place. Get it right and you begin to see that God is affirming his good creation and giving humanity a significant place in the renewal of creation in the present age. That's why we pray "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!"

If you're heading out to an Easter service, whether here in Park City or elsewhere, listen to the message carefully. N.T. Wright talks about the kinds of sermons you will hear in a wonderful article on the "Ship of Fools" site. I'll be preaching the resurrection as a historical event, not a metaphorical one, and as the event that prepares us to live the life of heaven in this world rather than acting as a mere primer for the next one.   



March 16, 2008

Lenten Sermon Series: The Last Week--Friday: The Triumphal Exit (Sermon for 3/16/08)

The Last Week—Friday
Mark 15:16-39


We started this series of sermons by talking about a parade on Sunday—actually two parades. There was the procession of the Roman cohort, led by Pontius Pilate, which came into the city of Jerusalem from the west as a show of imperial power, a sign to the people that no unrest would be tolerated during the Passover Festival. At about the same time, coming into the city from the east, was Jesus—riding not on a war horse but on a donkey. His followers shouted royal slogans and put palm branches in the road. We said then, and are reminded now as we talk about Friday, that these two parades—representing two different worldviews—would come into direct conflict, but not in the way that people expected. In fact, on Friday, these two parades somehow merge into a single parade that leads out of the city and into a new future that would change the world.

If the Gospel of Mark was written to a Roman Christian audience, which was probably the case, that audience would have read this narrative and understood the relationship of these processions and the images they evoked. Parades were fairly common in Rome, but they were reserved primarily for imperial victory celebrations. When emperors or victorious military commanders returned to the city from foreign conquests, they were given a parade called a “triumph.”

A look at the history of Rome tells us that the procession was almost always the same. The imperial honoree was called the “triumphator” would be mounted on a chariot and would display the symbols of his office, being clad in a long purple robe and wearing a crown of laurel leaves. Purple was the color reserved only for royalty—it was unlawful for anyone else under a certain rank to wear it at all. Above the triumphator’s head, a slave would hold a crown of gold fashioned in the shape of laurel leaves. The purple robe and golden crown would have been borrowed from their permanent location, where they clothed the statue of the chief Roman god Jupiter in his temple, the Jupiter Capitolinus. The connection between the triumphator and the gods was unmistakable—a symbol of divinity. Before the triumph would begin, the soldiers in the imperial guard would give their accolades to the triumphator: “Hail, Caesar! Hail the conqueror! Hail Son of God (one of the emperor’s most common titles)” The parade would then move toward the city with drums beating and the shouts and accolades of the people echoing off the stone buildings and pavement.

Following the triumphator in the procession would be a sacrificial bull, which was dressed and crowned in a similar fashion to signify its identity with the triumphator. The bull would be sacrificed as an offering to Jupiter once the parade reached its terminus. Walking along side the bull was an official carrying a double-bladed axe—the instrument of death for the sacrificial victim.

The procession would move along the prescribed route until it came to its end at the temple of Jupiter, which sat on a hill called the “Capitolium.” The legend was that when the foundations for this temple were being dug, the diggers discovered a buried human head with all of its features intact. The hill was thus named the Capitoline Hill, because the Latin word for “head” is the word “capita”—where we get the word “Capitol” in English. It was to be the “head of all Italy,” the capital, the place of the head.

Arriving at the Capitolium, the triumphator was offered a cup of wine, which he would refuse and then pour on the altar. The wine was given just before the bull was sacrificed and thus represented the precious blood of the victim freely poured out. The bull would then be slaughtered and placed on the altar, signifying the god who dies and appears as the victor in person of the triumphator. The sacrifice, in other words, signifies that the emperor is one of the gods. The triumphator then ascended to a high rostrum or throne, where he would take his place and be flanked by other, though lesser, men of royalty.

This formula, with some slight variations, was repeated for every triumphal march in Rome—thus it would have been familiar to Mark’s first readers. And when those Roman Christians opened this particular scroll and read the story of Good Friday, the message of that parade would have been unmistakable.

On Friday, Jesus is tried by Pilate and rejected by the religious leaders and the crowd. He is charged with being royalty—Pilate called him “King of the Jews,” a title which infuriated Jesus’ accusers. Wanting to keep peace, Pilate hands Jesus over to be crucified—and the parade begins.

According to Mark, Jesus is led from his trial before Pilate into the “Praetorium,” which is an interesting phrase. This could mean that he was taken to the general military headquarters in the Antonia Fortress, next to the Temple in Jerusalem, but the word choice is unique. “Praetorium” was also the term used for the unit of the imperial guard in Rome—the emperor’s bodyguards, if you will—and also referred to their barracks, which was also the place from which each parade of triumph began. Notice, too, that Mark says that “the whole company of soldiers” was called together. That meant probably about two hundred, which would seem like many more than necessary to flog and mock a prisoner. Normally, the whole company would fall out only for necessary occasions—drills, battle, and, notably for Mark, for triumphal parades. Is Mark trying to tell his readers something here?

I believe so, and the evidence continues. Jesus is dressed in a purple robe—reserved only for royalty. It’s hard to imagine where they got it—Pilate would have been the only ruler at hand who had one, but Mark tells us that Jesus was dressed in royal color, like a triumphator in Rome. Like in Rome, too, a crown is placed on his head—not the glittering crown of golden laurel, but the bitter mockery of a crown of thorns. Just like at the beginning of a Roman triumph, the imperial guard shouts its accolades, “Hail, King of the Jews!” but here it’s a punch line rather than a proclamation.

The parade begins. Instead of riding a chariot, this King walks—stumbles, really, down the prescribed path. A passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, a foreigner and a spectator, is compelled to walk beside the King, carrying the instrument of his death—not a double-bladed axe, but a cross beam of rough wood that will be used to kill the triumphator himself—a true and personal sacrifice.

The procession winds slowly through the narrow streets. Instead of the shouts of an adoring public, this King hears instead shouts of derision and disappointment. Leaving the gate of the city, the parade finally reaches its end—the place of the head, the Capitolium—except here it is called Golgotha, the place of the skull.

Just before the moment of sacrifice, the triumphator is offered wine, but he refuses. It is his own blood that will be poured out in sacrifice this day. At the crucial moment he is lifted up, set high above the crowd—not on a throne but on a cross. There beside him are two others, not officials or friends but murderous revolutionaries who don’t hail him, but instead hurl insults at him. A sign is nailed above his head—KING OF THE JEWS, but in this case it is not a title but a joke. The triumphator, the King, hangs there nailed fast through the hands and feet, naked, bleeding, gasping for breath, the life ebbing out of him.

And this is a triumph?

It’s hard to imagine the impact this story had on Mark’s first readers. Roman Christians knew the symbols and knew the way of triumphal parades. They had heard the proclamations of the emperor’s divinity and seen the demonstration of powers in Roman streets and temples. For them, this story has all the elements of a triumph, but it ends so differently than all the others. The divine ruler is not given a coronation here, but a cross. He is not ruler of Rome, he is Rome’s victim. He has not entered the city triumphantly, but has been marched outside and nailed to a tree beside the road so that the whole world could see his shame. Yet, somehow, Mark and the other Gospel writers say, is a victory—a real and lasting triumph.
The Apostle Paul certainly saw the connection. In 2 Corinthians 2:14-15 Paul writes, “But God always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.” The reference to scent is also connected to the triumph, which included the distribution of different aromatics along the parade route. The connection here, though, is unmistakable—for Paul, and for the early Christians, Christ was the triumphator and the cross is his sign of victory.

I think that sometimes we miss the scandal of Good Friday, perhaps because we’ve turned the cross into a decoration rather than understanding it for what it really represents. How could the instrument of ultimate death become a symbol of triumph? How could the bitterest kind of defeat be celebrated as a victory? These were the questions those early Christians had to answer in the midst of a Roman world where emperors still rode chariots and took their place at the head of the empire.

Their answer was a simple one—the death of Jesus on a cross, they said, was not a defeat by the forces of evil, but the defeat of the forces of evil. On the cross, Jesus Christ—Israel’s representative, God’s representative, humanity’s representative—took upon himself all the pain and injustice the world could muster. He was innocent, yet he bore the pain, suffering, and condemnation of those who were guilty—guilty of sin, guilty of ambition, guilty of setting up systems that ground people into dust physically, economically, and spiritually. Instead of offering a token sacrifice to God, he gave his whole life over to God and God’s plan for the redemption of the world. He was fully divine, fully human, and fully committed to defeating evil—not through violence, but through suffering.

To put it another way, the cross became the sign that the empire and its deified rulers, who ruled by force and achieved victory through violence, was being decisively challenged by a different kind of power—the power of sacrificial love. The real King had come, as Jesus said earlier in Mark’s Gospel, “not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (10:45). The cross thus becomes the “Capitolium” of the whole world—the focal point of the true King’s ultimate victory.

Mark’s first audience would have continued to see triumphal marches years after hearing about the death of Jesus on a Roman cross. They would have continued to see the display of power, the flaunting arrogance of world rulers and despots, the wealth and excess of the empire. Truth is that we still see the same things paraded before us today—the deification of celebrity, the gluttonous wealth of the few, the violence of military conquest, and the political posturing of people seeking power. Jesus’ victory parade seems to have been for naught.

But it’s not. It’s a sign—a sign that there is, indeed, hope. Growing up I was trained to repeat the mantra that “Jesus died on the cross for my sins.” I believe that’s true, but I also believe that the cross means so much more than that. The cross is not simply a means to my personal eternal destiny, it is the means through which God chose to change the world for good.

Remember that less than 300 years after Mark wrote these words the Roman empire was changed. The persecuted Christian minority of Mark’s day would become the dominant faith of the empire. That, of course, would cause its own kinds of problems, but the fact remains that wherever people catch this vision that evil is not the last word, wherever people choose to fight evil with good and choose sacrifice over self-indulgence, wherever people are willing to give their lives for a cause, wherever God is at work, it is in those places and in those hearts that no amount of evil can ever be victorious. In the cross of Jesus, the ultimate victory has been won, but we still await its completion, that day when Jesus once again comes in triumph to set the whole world to rights. Things can change…they will change…but only when we, too, pick up a cross and follow Jesus, living that victory in our own lives.

The choice that Mark offers to his readers is an important one, and it’s the same choice we talked about at the beginning of the series—the same choice offered on Sunday: whose parade are you going to follow? Which King do you choose? Do you hail the Caesars of this world, or do you choose to take up a cross and follow Christ?

The centurion, captain of the Roman company who led the parade that Friday, was watching the condemned man die there on the Captiolium, the hill of the Skull. He had seen triumphal marches before, probably had shouted his own “Hail Caesar!” at the passing chariot. This day, though, for all its parallels to a Roman triumph, was different. On this cross hung a man whose sense of purpose was unmatched by even the most powerful emperor. Here was a man whose quiet suffering held within it the dignity of true royalty. Here was a man whose compassion and humility never wavered, even in the face of the cruelest torture and most gruesome of deaths. Here was a man who did not need to claim divinity for himself—it seemed to shined through him. As he hung there battered and beaten, drawing his last breath, he looked defeated, destroyed, yet somehow he was not.

Says Mark: “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!"

Hail to the King!

Source:
Schmidt, Thomas, “Jesus’ Triumphal March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession,” Bible Review, February 1997, p. 30-37.

March 14, 2008

Pastor Problems

Obama_wright_080312_msAn interesting piece of this presidential campaign concerns the relationship of Barack Obama to his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who it seems has been rather inflammatory from his pulpit concerning the U.S., racial issues, and a whole lot of other topics. Obama's in some mildly warm water over this because he has claimed a fairly close relationship with his pastor. Opponents are calling it a kind of guilt by association.

Let's put the inflammatory stuff aside for a moment (after all, there are plenty of pundits out there who are all over this). Here's the question in my mind: When was the last time you got in trouble for something your pastor said? Shoot, pastors, when was the last time you said anything in the pulpit worth getting in trouble for?

Let me be clear: I don't agree with what Wright said, though there's often a (very) small grain of truth in every critique (no matter how ridiculous it sounds). Nonetheless, for good or ill, this particular pastor had no problem speaking his mind. You can argue that faith and politics shouldn't mix, particularly in the pulpit, but that can be an argument in semantics. All preaching is, in some sense, political in that it addresses both people and social systems and their relationship to God. Personally, I do my best not to address polarizing issues but try to point to the biblical narrative and let it guide our thinking together (though sometimes the narrative itself is polarizing!). In an attempt to be prophetic, Wright went way too far out in the desert, of course, but it's the prophetic role of the pastor that I'm interested in here.

We're all subject to getting a paycheck from our congregations, we have families to feed, we enjoy our pulpits, etc., but I wonder how many times that keeps us from really bringing the heat and light of God's Word? What's shocking about this story is not so much what was said (stuff like Wright spouted is always out there) but that it came from a preacher. The culture seems to expect us preachers to be kind of milquetoasty, serving spiritual pablum instead of prophetic punch. Joel Osteen is selling positive thinking books by the truckload and a lot of folks think that's what preachers should stick to. Funny thing is, though, when you look at the sermons in the Bible, including those of Jesus, there's very little milquetoast and a whole lot of meat. Jesus, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Elijah, et. al. all spoke the truth to power and not always in digestible sound bites. The prophets weren't beholden to patriotism or political structure, which made them thorns in the side of the religious and political establishment.

Yeah, it's usually better to use reasoning, tact, and dialogue than a rant to get your point across. Relationships, forgiveness, thoughtfulness, and reconciliation don't seem to be part of Wright's repertoire, at least in this case. Still, I can't help but wonder what would happen if more preachers would find their prophetic voice and challenge this culture that is as idolatrous as that of ancient Israel, if not more so.

If you're sitting out there in the congregation this week and your pastor says something that makes you wince, don't storm out the door or send the transcript to CNN. Ask him or her about it. Start a conversation. That's really where change and understanding happens, isn't it?

Just a thought.

March 09, 2008

Lenten Sermon Series: The Last Week--Thursday: The Longest Night (Sermon for 3/9/08)

When I was a kid I spent a big chunk of every summer at my grandparent’s little farm in rural western Pennsylvania. My grandpa was a retired brakeman on the Pennsylvania Railroad, but what he was really known for was his ability to grow things. The little farm was really just one big garden—there was a hotbed where he grew flowers to replant or give away. There were walnut trees and apple trees in the yard, and a grapevine out back. Down the hill a little ways were two large patches for growing vegetables—tomatoes and beans, potatoes, watermelon, carrots and, my favorite, the sweet butter and sugar sweet corn (which you just can’t get out West). Of course there was zucchini squash, which at least back then everybody grew but nobody knew what to do with it.

I’d go out with my grandpa and help water, weed, and pick produce. He let me drive the little lawn tractor everywhere. In the late afternoons he let me pick some extra corn and sell it on the side of the road to the coal miners who passed by on their way home for dinner. When I think of a garden, that little place always is the first thing that comes to mind. Those gardens were a place of refuge, life, and nourishment.

When I started really studying the Bible I came to the realization that the biblical writers have the same kind of love for a good garden. You’ll recall that the whole narrative starts with a Garden scene. God creates the first humans and puts them there in this wonderland of sights, smells, and tastes. It seems to have been designed to be a place for good memories.

The Garden of Eden is described in Genesis as a place of intimate fellowship between humans and God—where they walked together in the cool of the day. When I read that description I can’t help but think of walking around with my grandpa—him wearing an old railroad cap and faded overalls and me holding his hand as he showed me the new plants poking up through the tilled soil. I know that he treasured those times with me—just walking and talking together. In my imagination I think it was like that with Adam and God. There was God, delighting in this child he had created and there was Adam, enjoying the full and undivided attention of his divine father.

But somehow the Garden doesn’t hold it’s appeal. As I got older I started wanting other things—playing baseball, picking up the drums, valuing friends at home more than trips to the farm. Grandpa was always there, wanting me to come and spend time with him, but increasingly I had other things to do. The Garden moved from being fascinating to being a chore. I was distracted by my own interests and didn’t notice that my grandpa was getting older and, maybe, just a little sadder that our times together were drawing further apart. Eventually the garden got smaller and smaller until it was no more. My grandpa died when I was 13 and whenever I read about gardens I think of him and miss him terribly. I grieve the loss of that time in the garden.

Scripture tells us that Adam and his partner Eve got distracted, too. For them, the Garden had become a chore and God’s love for them wasn’t enough. They saw other opportunities, particularly when the snake reminded them that they had a choice. They wanted what they weren’t supposed to have and traded in a relationship with God for a self-indulgent life, putting themselves at the center of their universe. God was pushed to the background, the Garden became a place of shame, and God’s children were forced to leave. The Garden was gone. Humans have been grieving about it ever since.

I find it interesting when I read the Gospels that when Jesus taught he often used images from the garden—sowing seeds, reaping a harvest, faith being like a mustard seed, separating wheat from chaff, parables about vineyards, and so on. Jesus may have been a builder by trade, but he knew the world of the garden—physically and spiritually.

I just picked up Anne Rice’s new book on Jesus—Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana. Rice writes the story as fiction, but I think she gets it. As Jesus lives in Nazareth, working as a contractor in the nearby city of Sepphoris, he somehow always makes time to escape to a place by himself—an old grove of olive trees, a garden where he can simply lie down and be with God. His family doesn’t understand it, but Jesus knows that it is in the garden that he encounters his father and enjoys the intimacy of that relationship. Rice may not be drawing on a biblical tradition here, but I think she has discovered the heart of Jesus.

It’s no wonder, then, that at the critical moment of his life—the moment of his deepest doubt, fear, and longing—that Jesus goes to a garden. Leaving the supper in the Upper Room on Thursday evening, Jesus and his disciples walk down the steps outside the city to a Garden in the Kidron Valley called Gethsemane. Gethsemane means “olive press.” It was a grove of olive trees with their gnarled trunks and branches. There the owner would harvest and squeeze the olives in a large stone press in order to extract the precious oil that was used for everything from cooking to lighting lanterns. It is here that Jesus leads his disciples, and it is here that Jesus himself is squeezed and pressed by the intense pressure of the challenge he knows he must face the next day.

Jesus comes to pray—and prayer here is not perfunctory or formulaic. Jesus has come to be with his Father, to be in the Garden place. He is “deeply grieved” in his spirit—so deeply squeezed and pressed that Luke tells us that his sweat became “like great drops of blood falling on the ground.” Jesus knew that the moment of decision was at hand and it would not be easy.

The eastern gate of the city, the Golden Gate, the gate through which he had ridden on a donkey on Sunday, was just a couple of hundred meters uphill from Gethsemane. If you stand in the Garden of Gethsemane today you can see it looming above you ominously and, ironically, the hillside is covered with graves. The walls of the city, in many ways, represent the citadels of human power and the graves are a reminder of mortality and pain. Mark tells that Jesus “threw himself on the ground” as he prayed. I don’t know if it’s accurate, but I imagine Jesus looking in that direction.

Read the Gospels and you see that Jesus spent a lot of time in prayer—time apart and alone, time in the garden, time spent cultivating a deep and abiding relationship with God. Jesus calls God, “Abba”—an Aramaic word that was used by children to address their fathers. It’s the equivalent for us of “Daddy.” For Jesus, God was not some distant deity or impersonal force—God was a parent, one with whom he had a relationship that had been cultivated over long hours and years of prayer, solitude, silence, and listening.

The essential question that Jesus wrestles with in the Garden is one of the will. Jesus knew that he, and only he, could do what was necessary in order to bring God’s Kingdom to reality. He had known all along that the Kingdom would not come through force or violence, but through his own suffering. As God’s representative, as Israel’s representative, and even as humanity’s representative, Jesus knew that his mission was to take on all the evil and hatred the world could muster and break it on the cross. His teaching, his ministry, his confrontation with the authorities had all been leading up to this. It wasn’t that he was on a suicide mission. Jesus knew that his message and mission would so challenge the domination systems of the world that the powers could only respond as they always do—by eliminating the threat. Jesus believed deeply that that death would not be the final word, but would lead to triumph. But was there another way?

“Abba, for you all things are possible,” Jesus prays in agony. “Remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” It’s a very human request, and that’s the powerful point. Confronted with the same choice in another Garden, the first Adam, the representative of all humans, had made a very different statement—not what you want, God, but what I want. Jesus’ return to the Garden is thus no accident—it’s a clear statement of reversal. What we want is to avoid pain, what God wants is to turn pain into triumph. What we want is a life of ease and comfort for ourselves, what God wants is justice for the whole world.

A note here—I don’t believe that God’s ultimate desire here is for Jesus to suffer and die. Various theories of atonement seem to think that’s the case—that Jesus was being sent by God specifically to the cross. The problem with that theory is that it puts God in the position of a cruel and demanding deity. I don’t believe that it is ever God’s will that the righteous suffer. It was not God’s will, God’s desire, that Jesus die—nor is it God’s will that any of his children suffer and die. One of the things I hate to hear at a funeral is someone who says, “Well, God needed this person in heaven. It was God’s will that they died.” Folks, that’s bad theology. I remember someone telling me that when my mom died—that God needed her in heaven. I had been taught that God was all-powerful and all-knowing and all-present—a God like shouldn’t have needed my mom as much as I did.

No, God does not will Jesus’ death, but God does desire that we give ourselves completely to him. God’s Kingdom was the ultimate goal for Jesus—a goal that ran counter to the goals of the empire and the religious leaders. The Kingdom was and is a threat to those who hold power and Jesus knows that his actions will eventually lead to this point. The authorities were the ones who wanted Jesus dead, and by faith Jesus would hand himself over to them to carry God’s mission, God’s Kingdom, God’s new creation to its completion. Jesus so trusts God that even with the prospect of death looming at the top of the hill, he will be faithful to his mission to the end. Death had been the consequence of human will in the first Garden—now, here in this Garden, Jesus believed that his impending death would be the means by which new life and a new creation would be born. There was no other way. As God’s representative, indeed God in person, Jesus was going to carry it all the way to the end.

All this becomes more impactful when you realize that a five minute walk out of Gethsemane and south through the Kidron Valley would have led Jesus into the desert and out of danger. He could have escaped, but he chose to stay and see it through. He stayed in the Garden.

While Jesus prays, his disciples sleep. They don’t know what Jesus is going through—Mark tells us that they haven’t known it all along. Their eyes are heavy, their spirits dulled by their own dreams and ambitions. At the critical moment of Jesus’ life and mission, his closest friends are asleep at the switch. “Could you not keep awake one hour?” asks Jesus. Couldn’t you spend even an hour in the Garden with me, awake and alert to what is happening? “Keep awake,” says Jesus, and pray that you may not come into temptation. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Keep awake, or you’ll miss what’s happening in the Garden. Keep awake, lest you begin to dream those self-indulgent dreams that become nightmares when you leave the Garden.

Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. The disciples fled from the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested. Humans have an innate tendency to run from God. We do it in a lot of ways—through distractions, through busyness, through escapist behaviors, through spending—through a whole litany of things that we think we want and need.

Jesus demonstrates to us that what we really need is God. What we really need is that deep relationship, the intimacy of a parent and child, the picture of a grandpa or daddy walking hand in hand with us in the Garden. We need to be in such an intimate relationship with God that when it comes to the time of trial and testing we able to trust God in the midst of painful circumstances. We need to be so in touch with God that we don’t wallow in the sleepiness of our own lives and dream of what we want and instead become awake and alert to God’s waking dream for the whole world.

To quote a Crosby, Still, and Nash song—“We’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.”

How do we do that? Well, it takes more than an hour. It takes a lifetime and a lifestyle of making space for God in our lives. It means following the example of Jesus and taking time apart specifically for God—to pay attention to the deep longing of our souls and our deep need for God.

I spent a few days last week on a spiritual retreat in California, where there was plenty of time to be in silence and listen to God. I’ve often said that I’m not a contemplative person, but I’m beginning to realize that that is changing for me. I know now that I need time with God just like I need food or air. Without that I can be so distracted and so willing to wander out of the garden in search of my own path. When I’m alone with God I can feel the depth of God’s love for me. When I’m in touch and in tune with God I begin to see God’s waking dream for me and for God’s people—a dream called the Kingdom of God—a dream God wants to bring to reality through us. When I’m working on my relationship with God, I can be pressed and crushed on all sides but still say “not what I want, but what you want.”

Listening to God last week I realized that the number one job of the church is to help people get back to the Garden. We need to provide training, opportunities, instruction, for people to awaken to God’s dream. We need to make care and development of the soul, the whole person, our number one task. I’ll be sharing some ideas around this in the days to come.

If you go forward to the trial of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel, you notice that there’s a very different picture of him. He is not afraid, nor is he anxious. He has clarity about who he is. Are you the Messiah? they ask him. There’s no ambiguity in his answer. “I am.” He knows who he is, what he is about, and nothing—not even the threat of death on a cross—can swerve him from his mission.

Can we, as his followers, have that same sense of peace and purpose? Maybe we can’t be Jesus, but we sure can follow his lead. We can be confident that what we do in life matters, that our lives have meaning and purpose. But we can only know that, and live it, when we get ourselves back to the Garden.

How will you spend time with God this week? How will you get yourself back to the Garden? Can you wait with Jesus for more than one hour?

March 03, 2008

Lenten Sermon Series: The Last Week - Wednesday: The Betrayer

The Last Week: Wednesday—The Betrayer
Mark 14:1-11

Every good story has a villain—an avatar of evil, if you will, that makes the hero seem more virtuous and the story more interesting. It’s interesting, too, that in the movies it’s often the actor portraying a villain that gets the Oscar nomination. A nasty villain seems to be fun to play and fun to hate, maybe because they are a dumping ground for all of our own fears and hungers.

Go through a list of famous villains and, inevitably, you come to the name of Judas Iscariot. When we in our country think of traitors to the cause we immediately think of Benedict Arnold, who changed sides and fought for the British in the Revolution. At the time, however, people in the colonies saw Arnold as Judas—that’s how pervasive the name is in connection to villainous treachery.

As we continue our series on the Last Week, we have this story from Wednesday about Jesus visiting the home of Simon the Leper in Bethany, up on the Mount of Olives. The story of the woman pouring the perfume on Jesus’ feet is, as Jesus says, “a beautiful thing”—an act of love and sacrifice. What’s interesting about this passage to me, though, is the frame around it—the chief priests and teachers of the law were looking for a way to arrest Jesus that would not cause a riot among the people, and Judas comes to them with the means to do it.

The motivation of Judas has been a debate for biblical scholars for generations. Some believe that Judas is really representative of all the other disciples and their ambitions—that they all want, in some way, for Jesus to finally enact a violent revolution that will depose the Romans and begin a new era. Jesus had the popular support, but the disciples were probably wondering why he didn’t use it to his advantage and seal the deal. After all, what was all that riding down the Mount of Olives on a donkey on Sunday about if not a royal claim? By getting Jesus arrested, so the theory goes, it would finally force his hand. Jesus would have to fight back and the people would join him. In this theory, Judas was simply trying to get things moving—it wasn’t that he didn’t like Jesus, it’s that Jesus wasn’t following his timetable and expectations—the same timetable and expectations that the other disciples had, too.

One of the supports to this theory has to do with the term “Iscariot,” which some scholars think is connected to the term “sicarii” or “dagger men.” The connection goes that Jesus knew that Judas was a revolutionary and would eventually act this way, thus predicting the “betrayal” which, in the mind of Judas, is really more of a motivational technique. Judas was simply trying to further the agenda that he and the others had thought they were carrying out all along. Notice in 14:47 that one of the disciples cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant when Jesus is arrested in Gethsemane. Why do they have swords unless they think that they’re about to start a war?

Other theories have abounded, too. Most recently, some scholars touted a find of the so-called “Gospel of Judas,” which says that Jesus essentially asked Judas to betray him so that Jesus would be killed and be released to go back to the spirit world. This text received a lot of press, but it’s really not worthy of all the hubbub. The Gospel of Judas is clearly a Gnostic text dating from the 2nd or 3rd century, long after the four Gospels. Gnosticism was about divine knowledge—a very Greek worldview that believed that the spirit was good and the material world was evil. It was better, in their view, to be released from the body and go back to the spirit. Interesting that many Christians today think this way and are closet Gnostics without knowing it. The Jewish worldview of Jesus and his contemporaries was quite different, however—there was no separation of spirit and body. That’s why resurrection becomes an important idea, as we will see later in the series. The Gospel of Judas, while an interesting look at Gnosticism (which was widely rejected at the time), tells us nothing about the historical Jesus or the historical Judas.

I tend to agree that Judas wasn’t trying to reject Jesus and go over to the other side as “betrayal” would suggest. I think that he really was trying, at least in his mind, to be braver than his peers and force the issue there in Jerusalem, getting Jesus to act with the divine power they all knew that he was capable of. The moment was slipping away and, in the mind of Judas, now was the time to take advantage. He comes to the chief priests, then, as a kind of double agent, wanting to use their hatred of Jesus against them. He agrees to take them to where the band of disciples will be for the night outside the city, out of the sight of the crowds and quietly begin their revolution.

But then it all goes wrong and Judas takes the fall for the rest of the disciples. The truth is that he’s not the only betrayer among them, as Thursday night will prove. Here’s where Matthew’s version, taken from Mark and expanded, can help us.

As Wednesday bleeds into Thursday there are two events happening. Jesus is arrested and Peter follows him at a distance to the house of the High Priest, Caiaphas. We were at the traditional site of Caiphas’ house in Jerusalem where the original steps Jesus and the arresting mob would have walked up are to this day. Inside the house was a courtyard and there Peter, who is considered to be the leader of the disciples, betrays Jesus three times.

Meanwhile, Matthew tells us that Judas, the one who betrayed Jesus only once, almost immediately regretted his action. He boldly marched back before the powerful, corrupt officials and proclaimed Jesus' innocence to their faces, throwing their bribe money back at their feet for good measure. Look at the contrast: Peter, the other fallen disciple, betrayed Jesus on three separate occasions then ran off and hid, seeking anonymity and seclusion. Interestingly that first disciple, Judas, has been named through out history as the prime example of all that is contemptible, corrupt and deceitful in human nature. (How many kids do you know named Judas?) That second disciple, Peter, is honored as the father of the church and is designated a "saint. " (How many kids do you know named Peter.?))

How did such a disparity of interpretation occur? What distinguishes Judas' action so starkly from Peter's?

Perhaps the simplest way to understand is to look at their motives. Judas' treachery, we declare, was premeditated, calculated, even paid for. Peter's act of betrayal, on the other hand, was a cowardly, spontaneous burst of emotion that profited him nothing. But there remains the unpleasant fact that Matthew tells of Judas returning the blood money, defending Jesus' innocence before the tribunal and realizing his mistake - and all while Jesus was still alive. In contrast, Peter only sneaked back to the disciple's fold as a mourner after the crucifixion frenzy had passed and the tomb was sealed.

The only real difference between these two betrayers - Judas and Peter - was their perception of how Jesus must see them. Judas was overcome with guilt. Although "he repented" (Mt.27:3), Judas could only envision a wrathful, Judgmental Jesus declaring him cursed according to Deuteronomic law, which put a curse on anyone who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person (Deuteronomy 27:25). Have you ever done anything with good, if self-serving, intentions that went bad and that you immediately regretted? Could you imagine anyone possibly offering you forgiveness for your actions in those first moments of guilt and regret? That’s where Judas finds himself. Hearing only condemnation ringing in his ears, Judas cut himself off from the healing capabilities of God's grace and, then, in an agonizing fit of self-Judgment, went out and hanged himself—the guilt was just too great.

It’s frightening sometimes how self-absorbed we can be, so much so that we only hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see. How did Judas feel? Maybe he felt like the young man from a wealthy family was about to graduate from high school. It was the custom in that affluent neighborhood for the parents to give the graduate an automobile. 'Bill' and his father had spent months looking at cars, and the week before graduation they found the perfect car. Bill was certain that the car would be his on graduation night.

"Imagine his disappointment when, on the eve of his graduation, Bill's father handed him a gift-wrapped Bible! Bill was so angry, he threw the Bible down and stormed out of the house. He and his father never saw each other again. It was the news of his father's death that brought Bill home again.

"As he sat one night, going through his father's possessions that he was to inherit, he came across the Bible his father had given him. He brushed away the dust and opened it to find a cashier's check, dated the day of his graduation - in the exact amount of the car they had chosen together."

How does one recover from that kind of guilt? Judas did not and, in his self-pity, could not, so he decided to relieve himself of the guilt by taking his own life.

Peter, though as much a betrayer as Judas, would react differently and maybe that’s because he had been listening to Jesus all along. Undoubtedly he replayed his own three pitiful denials of Jesus over and over again as he scurried off into the night. After leaving the courtyard Matthew says Peter "wept bitterly" (Mt.26:75). Surely Peter also heard himself promising Jesus he would never deny him, even if it meant facing death (Mt.26:35). But there were other crucial conversations Peter had stored in his memory that gave him hope on that dark night.

Peter was the disciple who had come to Jesus to ask specifically about the act of forgiveness. How many times should we forgive? Peter asked. Jesus declared "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy times seven." (Matthew 18:21-22). Even more importantly, Jesus had singled Peter out when asking, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter could recall he had once boldly confessed, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:15-16).

Even more comforting and hopeful must have been Peter's recollection of Jesus' response to that confession: "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah!" And then came Jesus' playful pun, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:17-18). What a life-time lifeline this memory must have been for Peter - and what a life-vest that very night for Peter's sinking heart. Jesus had believed in him. Jesus had designated him to be something special in the life of the church. Whatever Peter had done in his past, Jesus had assured him he had a future.

Judas did not do anything that every single one of the disciples and that everyone of us have not done. But Judas forgot one thing, and this one thing was the difference between life and death. Judas forgot that he was only one in a long, established, distinguished tradition of God's failed faithful. Moses, Aaron, David, Mary, Thomas, Paul all committed grievous acts of betrayal against God. But each one found their way back to God's side through the back door of grace.

Judas died, stigmatized by his own heart as a betrayer. Why? Because he never even tried the door. Judas couldn’t see the gift of grace. He could only see himself and his guilt. With those 30 pieces of silver, Judas thought he could buy his way into God's presence - as if by forcing Jesus' hand through the arrest, Judas thought the messianic age, the new kingdom, could be hurried along.

Faced with the consequences of his monumental mistake, Judas then sought to buy his way out of his betrayal by throwing that same silver back at the feet of the chief priests. But Judas could not control the tidal wave of events his actions had unleashed. In panic, Judas' final controlling act was to take his own life. He never dared to check that back door of grace that God always leaves unlocked - and even pushes open for us.

How many times have you seen someone squirming on one of life's particularly viciously barbed hooks? How many times have you seen people self-destructing because they can’t find a way out of their guilt? And how many times have you piously thought, "There but for the grace of God go I"? That old adage should be absolutely banned from every Christian's lips. Acknowledging the saving nature of grace in your own life is fine, but denying the possibility of its presence in the lives of others is a judas-ism. It is not 'There but for God's grace go I." It is rather the redemptive cry of "There am I... with God's grace" and then the missional cry of "There go I ... for God's grace."

The message of the gospel is that God's grace is available to all, that the back door to God's loving presence is always open. In many ways, Judas is the middle name of each one of us. And Judas becomes our first name not when we betray and deny Christ himself, but when we deny the redemptive power of God's grace that Christ offers every one of us.

If you’re feeling like a traitor this morning, if you’re feeling like you’re far away from God, if you’re feeling like your situation is hopeless, that God can’t forgive you, then I invite you to move from your heart to your head and think a moment. If Jesus can forgive someone who betrayed him and left him alone at a critical hour, if Jesus can forgive those who unwittingly contributed to his death—don’t you think that he can forgive you? And if Jesus can forgive you, and will forgive you, why can’t you forgive yourself or that other person who has betrayed you?

Theologian Robert Ochs says there are three ways to take a gift: It may be taken for granted, it may be taken with guilt or taken with gratitude. God is offering us all, even the Judases among us, the gift of grace.

How will we take it?

Source: "The Unforgiven," Homiletics, April 4, 1993