Breathless

It isn’t as though there is not enough air to go around.
Even the sci-fi movies – the ones I’ve seen- have yet to pit
the black-hatted baddies against the white-toothed heroes
over the last supply of oxygen
for the earth’s last pockets of breathable air.
Still, none of it seems to be coming my way today;
or if it does, it blows in with a windy explosion,
or the bear hug of a boa constrictor;
a crushing, breathless embrace,
when all I wanted was a gentle kiss.

Posted in poetry | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Year B Proper 19: Who do you say that I am?

My final sermon at St Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Elyria, Ohio, September 16th 2012. I love this parish, these people. I am so grateful for the opportunity to have served them and to have prayed with them and to have worshipped with them.

Jesus asks two questions: Who do people say that I am? and Who do you – you who know me the best, who have followed me the most closely, who are standing next to me – who do you say that I am?

Who do people say that I am? What are they saying about me? What do they expect from me?

The disciples tell Jesus what they’ve heard, the word on the street. Some people think he’s John the Baptist, some Elijah, some a prophet like the prophets of old.

John the Baptist: a messenger, a forerunner, an ascetic, disciplined religious type who lived apart and lived lightly, leaving no footprints on the earth. A thorn in the side of the authorities – he argued with the king, and it didn’t end well. One whose job it was to prepare the way for the One sent by God.

Elijah was a prophet, one of the finest, a truth-teller and a miracle-worker, a thorn in the side of the authorities – he fought with the king and the queen, and escaped with his life just barely at times; he has become timeless, a powerful reminder of the coming of the Day of the Lord. He has become a portent; in Jewish traditions, Elijah will return to herald the inbreaking of God’s kingdom, God’s judgement and salvation. To this day, a seat is set aside at the Passover table for Elijah, in case he comes to lead his people into a new Exodus.

The people who think that Jesus is John the Baptist, or Elijah, or a prophet, these people know that Jesus heralds something new. They think that he is sent by God; how can he not be? They believe that God’s judgement and grace will follow him, that he will be instrumental in bringing God and the world together. …

But then Jesus asks his companions, his closest friends and intimates,
Who do you say that I am?

And Peter takes the leap of faith from Elijah to the Day of the Lord, from John the Baptist to the one baptized by God’s own Spirit, from the prophets of old to their fulfillment, and he says,
“You are the Messiah.”

Jesus is the Messiah, the one anointed by God, the one who brings God’s grace, God’s salvation, within himself, not trailing behind him, but embodied in him. He is not only a thorn in the side of the authorities, but he deposes earthly authorities; they cannot silence him even by putting him to death.

And yet, Jesus immediately began to teach them that the Son of Man would suffer and die, before he would live again.

The Messiah, this Jesus, is unpredictable, unexpected. He doesn’t fit in our already-formed molds, the chair we set out for Elijah, the pictures of John – Jesus is doing something altogether new.

It is not only that he heals the blind and the demon-possessed, or teaches with authority, or gets into trouble with the authorities. It is that he is prepared to lay down his life for us, to serve us, to love us. He is dying – literally – to tell us how much God loves us.

But who do we say that Jesus is? By our prayer and our worship, our service and the way that we live in the world, who do we, who call ourselves Christians, followers of the way of the cross, dying to show God’s love to the world – who do we tell others that Jesus is?

Because who we say Jesus is, how we tell the story, goes to the heart of our faith, and the heart of who we are.

Peter, even though he knew that Jesus was the one they had waited for, that the kingdom of God was not trailing behind him but was within him and came into the world with him, still Peter was tempted to tell a different story. He didn’t want the story of cross and resurrection, of suffering and service, of grace and the offer of forgiveness even to the Gentiles, to the Romans, to his enemies.

He wanted to tell a different story, one of triumph and victory unstained by any blood but that of their persecutors. And with all that we’ve heard on the news in the past few days, how can we fail to sympathize with him?

But Jesus rebuked him. That is not the story of the Messiah on the cross. The way of the cross is not the way of the world, of those who need to get their own way at any cost.

The way that we tell the story, the stories that we tell, go to the heart of our faith, who we say Jesus is.

If we withhold forgiveness, from ourselves, from others, we say that we are still waiting, when Jesus has already brought God’s forgiveness into the world.

If we fail to love our enemies, as well as our neighbours, we do not describe the Jesus who loved sinners, who healed even centurions’ servants, even Syro-Phoenician women’s daughters.

If we want to wreak havoc on those whom we oppose, or who oppose us, we have fallen prey to the same temptations as Peter.

When we think that we have all of the answers, that we know what’s what and we are right, then we forget about the unexpected unpredictability of the Messiah, of Jesus.

Our actions, our attitudes, as well as our words tell the world who we think this Jesus is, whom we proclaim as saviour.

I have spent the best part of a year in your company now, and we have told these stories, of who Jesus is, together.

In our best moments, when we care for one another, offer prayers of healing, prayers of comfort; when we lay one another to rest with prayers for the dead and prayers for the grieving; when we bless one another’s birthdays and anniversaries, we tell the world that Jesus is a person of prayer; Jesus is a person who is intimately connected with God, always in communication with God, praying and listening, seeking out God’s presence.

When we baptize, we tell of the Jesus who was baptized by water and by the Spirit of God descending like a dove.

When we feed one another, forgive one another, offer gifts to one another, we remember Jesus as the one who brought God’s abundance into being, feeding the multitudes, healing so many, welcoming children and outcasts and the ones beyond the pale, all alike.

When we celebrate together, we tell the story of how Jesus, in his own day, was called out for partying too hard (remember that story?), who was willing, despite the weight of his glory, to lighten up and delight his friends with table fellowship, with wine at a wedding, with his companionship.

When we celebrate Communion together, we tell the story of how Jesus was willing to be broken by the authorities that he challenged, in order to lead us through death into new life, through the vale of shadows into the light of God’s kingdom. I will leave it to you to decide how and how much of a thorn in the side of authority you want to be in the telling of the story of Jesus, but remember that telling the truth to power is always properly done in love, out of love for all of God’s people, even the powerless, even the powerful.

And when we are tempted, like Peter, to shrug off the cross and bypass the tomb, to head straight for the glory without a thought for what it cost our God, our saviour, our Messiah, afraid of what it might cost us, then we might remind one another of the warnings of Jesus: “You are setting your mind on human things, instead of on divine things,” on the kingdom of humanity, instead of the kingdom of God.

You are named, though, not for Peter, but for Andrew, to bring Christ to the world and the world to Christ. And where they meet, there is the cross. Here is the cross.

I give thanks today for the stories that you have told me, the stories that we have shared, the stories that we have lived together in the past year. I have prayed to God that I might be faithful in the stories I told you, in the stories I left with you. I ask your forgiveness for where I have fallen short, and I give thanks for your gentle corrections and support and teaching. I am thankful for the work that God gave us to do together, and for the worship that we have offered together. I give thanks for all of you.

And I say that you are a people chosen and anointed by God to do great things, to bring Christ to the world and to show the world into the kingdom of God, doing these things with love, because of the great and unfailing love that God has for you.

Amen.

Posted in sermon | 1 Comment

Who do you say that I am?

free speaker,
freedom fighter,
freak, felon,
rabble rouser,
innocent,
manipulator,
incarnation,
martyr-maker,
messianic
prophet, faker,
visionary,
revisionist preacher,
pacifist,
agitator,
egocentric,
faithful saviour,
Son of God,
Son of Man,
who do you say I am?

Posted in lectionary reflection, poetry, sermon preparation | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Fair linen

I heard Anne Lamott at a writer’s showcase a while ago, and she said that if we writerly types do not write down right away our ideas, the ones that strike at inopportune moments, then God gives them to her, “that nice Annie.”

Last night, I dreamt up a poem while I was falling asleep. It was about leaving the church where I was ordained a priest; I will be with them for one last funeral this Friday and one last Sunday celebration this Sunday. Of course, I was too sleepy and lazy to write it all down, and when I woke up, it was nowhere to be found, except for the first line, which ended up changing anyway.

So Anne Lamott got lucky, as though she needed to. And this, no longer about leaving, is what rose from the ashes:

The wide, white cloth defies perspective,
draws the eye toward infinity and
into the finest detail of its weft and warp,
the spaces in between.
Faces pale in its reflected light,
like angels fierce and tender,
praising God and singing holy,
holy people summoned to the altar.

Posted in poetry | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Remembering

The war had been over for nearly a quarter of a century by the time I was born with open eyes. Still, the images were somehow seared into my memory: the row houses with their teeth knocked out by the Blitz. I felt their dust gritting my teeth and their ash on my face; my ears were blasted to deafness by an explosive silence.

I wasn’t there, but I remembered.

And we will remember, even those of us who were not there when the planes fell out of the sky. But the bone memory of those who were there is passed on in the viscera even to their children; those unborn will remember, and see behind closed eyes the blue sky, and the vapour trail, and the smoke and dust and ash, and the gap-toothed skyline.

And it is the calling and the work and the vocation of the generations that bear those images, wherever we come from, whatever our memories, to pray for peace, to speak words of wisdom, to disarm violence, to try as we might to ensure that the next generation is not born with preloaded images of the evil that we people can do to one another, when we try.

Posted in other words | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Year B Proper 18: the cynical God?

On Saturday night, I suggested that Jesus was sounding a bit cynical last week, you know, about the whole hypocrisy thing over the whole handwashing thing, and the whole dirty defiled human heart thing …

This week, he could be read as coming off even more cynical, at least at the beginning – calling the woman a dog? Not exactly happy talk.

Is it wrong, dangerous, blasphemous to consider Jesus, God Incarnate, to be occasionally cynical? Sometimes, we seem to want to airbrush Jesus into our image of perfection, instead of allowing him to be a perfectly human, perfectly divine embodiment of all that it means to be those things. Sometimes, we seem to think his image needs protecting from such accusations (cynical? Jesus? Meek and mild, surely! Angry? No! Ever patient, ever giving, that’s what it means to be infinitely, perfectly loving, right? He was just testing …)

But if we read the Bible, we find that God, even without the Incarnation complication, has quite a history, quite a tradition of weariness and cynicism which is challenged by the naive trust and hope of a mere mortal, a little puppy dog of an upstart:

Consider Abraham, pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah, so that God agrees to spare them if but ten innocent souls can be found (Genesis 18). (Ten were not found, but that’s another [part of the] story);

or Moses, who pleads for his people in Genesis 32, so that “the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened;”

or consider the way that God regretted creation and flooded the earth, then regretted the flood and promised never to do it again;

the biblical tradition of God getting weary and cynical and needing to be provoked back into hope and love is not restricted to God’s human side.

I read this quotation from the work of Jacques Ellul on a colleague’s blog recently:

It is God who needs to change. It is God who must return to enlighten his Church and to make our hearts shout for joy . . . It is God who has to change, and hope is the resolute will to make God change . . . It is to bring about once again the implementation of that wonderful statement of the Old Testament, “and God repented”.

http://thefunstons.com/?p=2913

and I remembered it as I considered the question of Jesus’ cynicism, and whether it is fair, safe or wise to level such an accusation of attitude at our Lord and Saviour.

If Jesus is human and divine, though, it surely makes perfect sense for his perfect self to experience not only world-weariness, but that Godly world-weariness which longs to hear, needs to hear the hope of an innocent prayer to provoke it back to life, back to living love …

Posted in lectionary reflection, sermon preparation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Did Jesus get it wrong?

That’s the question that preachers often wrestle with when this story comes up. The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman, which should be called the story of the mother; because it is not for herself that this woman challenges and begs and draws out Jesus, but for her child.

Jesus has gone to hide away. We hear in Matthew’s gospel the quote from the prophet which evokes so eloquently the cost to Jesus of his compassion: he is loaded up and weighed down with our burdens; his knees are buckled by the people’s infirmities; he is sick and tired from our diseases. He has gone to hide away for a little while. He needs to recover, recuperate, renew.

Then this woman shows up, demanding care for her daughter. She is not one of his regular patients, not one of his own people. She is a random stranger wandered in off the street, with no prior relationship to Jesus, preying on his sympathy, seeking his sorrow by bowing before him.

Jesus said, “No. I’m off. I’ve spent all day taking care of impatient patients; I’ve spent all I have taking care of the people who were given into my care. I have nothing left. I need time, I need time off, I need space and rest and refreshment. Otherwise I will have nothing to give to them tomorrow.”

And the woman said, “I will take your dregs. I will take your throwaway cures. I will take your nothing left, because it is all that I have to live on, to offer to my daughter in the way of life.”

And he sighed deeply, looked at the ground, shook his head. “Whatever.”

She waited.

“Go!” looking at her. “You win, it’s done, now go. I’m done.”

And she left, fearful and excited and hopeful, and found her daughter at home and in her right mind, made well. And Jesus went to bed, hoping to God she wouldn’t tell the whole town.

And the next day, he went back, and lo, he had garnered just enough rest, just enough energy to spare to continue his work among his own people, and they worshipped him, saying, “He has done everything well!”

And he heard them, and wondered what she thought of him, whether her gratitude completely outweighed her stood-upon dignity, how much of the story she told her daughter, and how he came off when she did.

Posted in lectionary reflection, sermon preparation | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Year B Proper 17: Pure and undefiled religion

A homily for the Saturday September 1st Holy Eucharist at St Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Elyria, Ohio. Some of the opening phrases are developed from the previous post (https://rosalindhughes.com/2012/08/30/year-b-proper-17-preaching-the-song-of-songs/)

Perhaps the most bewildering question about the Song of Solomon, or the Song of Songs, or Canticles – the book has gone by many names – is how it ended up in the Bible, a sacred text.

Historical criticism insists that the Song was written just as it seems to have been – as a love song, a peon to romantic and physical love. There are parts of it which would make a lector blush to read it aloud in church. It is real, and human, and needy, and yearning, and loving, and far removed from what we might expect to hear proclaimed on a Sunday morning or a Saturday night.

In fact, my annotated Bible suggests that songs like this were most likely “sung at banquets by professional male and female entertainers,” and this text was used at harvest festivals by courting young people.*

So how did it end up in the Bible?

Well, by the early centuries of the Christian Era, it had been interpreted in Jewish literature as an allegory of God’s love for Israel, the chosen people of God; and Christian commentators followed suit, interpreting it as an account of Christ’s love for the Church (remember that there is biblical literature which describes the Church as the Bride of Christ), and later as a mystical union of the individual soul with God.*

So where does that leave us today?

We can go one of two ways. We can spiritualize the poem to the point where its meaning is far removed from its words, where its impact is less earthy, where it demands fewer blushes and more furrowed brows to decipher. Or we can admit that we belong to a faith in which God loves us in all of our creaturely being; to the extent that God entered into creaturely being in order to love us the better, to save us, to restore us, to make us whole.

Remember God walking in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve hiding because they were naked? They tried to hide a part of themselves from God which God already knew intimately, which God experienced in the life of Jesus, the Incarnate One, who came into this world as a naked baby, and who died on the cross stripped of his clothes, exposed and abandoned.

The dangers of trying to remove our bodies from our relationship with God are clear. How far will we go? If we deny our bodies’ relevance to our lives with God, will we write off the bodily needs of those we are called to love, as irrelevant, just material stuff, when we know, we know that a soul starved of bodily food has less energy to pray, and a body starved of a warm bed finds it harder to rest in the warmth of God’s love that we preach, and a body deprived of health and distracted by unrelieved pain struggles to know the peace which passes understanding?

We know that our bodies need love, as much as our souls. In neonatal units these days, doctors and nurses find creative ways to let the most vulnerable infants be touched and held by their parents, because they have discovered that skin to skin contact is essential to the child’s growth and development; it is a basic human need that we were created with, and which God understands and indulges.

Our bodies need our prayers and God’s care as much as do our souls.

So much for the Song of Solomon, but in an odd canonical coincidence, the letter of James also has something of a chequered relationship with the biblical canon. The story goes that Martin Luther, that famous Reformer, wished that it could be left out of the Bible. He felt that it was too materialistic, too moralistic, too involved with what we do and how we behave to one another, and not enough with how God acts towards us, how God behaves towards creation, loving and redeeming it by grace.

Now I don’t want to argue with Luther, because he’s a theological giant, and I would lose, but I do wonder if he missed at least a little of James’ point.

“Every generous act of giving,” says James, “with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.”

We can do nothing well without God. God is the source of all goodness.

James knows that we are not responsible for our own salvation, that we could not get it for ourselves, that we can’t make the world right by ourselves. He knows that we are utterly dependent on God.

But he also insists that we have responsibilities as children of God, as first-fruits of God’s creatures. And, James would subscribe wholeheartedly to the theory that actions speak louder than words when it comes to our religion.

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

How we treat one another, whether or not we act out of honest love for our neighbours – that counts for something. That makes a difference – obviously to our neighbours – but also to our own hearts, to our own relationship with God.

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

Pure and undefiled.

Jesus said something about defilement, too, and what it means to stay undefiled. Jesus said that what defiles us, corrupts us, stains and spoils us is what comes from within, from a heart that deceives itself and is oblivious to God; from a heart that entertains wickedness instead of the love of God.

Lust corrupts the act of love. Avarice spoils an appetite. Anger stains our relationships. Deception, and self-deception, defile our hearts.

Jesus is sounding a little cynical today, about the human heart, a little weary, perhaps of the carping of the Pharisee. He knows that what matters is God, is allowing the love of God to permeate every aspect of life, of our own lives, of our lives in community with one another. Instead he sees murder, avarice, fornication, theft, envy, and all of that, wrapped up in a cellophane wrapper called religious observance, supposedly hidden from God by the hypocrites who praise God with willing lips then turn around and lie to their neighbour, eat his food and kiss his wife.

Murder, theft, pride, folly: Is that all that is found in the human heart? That’s depressing! Are we good for nothing, then?

“Every generous act of giving,” says James, “with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights.”

We can do nothing well without God. God is the source of all goodness.

Pure religion is unfettered, unspoilt, undefiled. It allows God into every aspect of its life, into every corner of its being. It knows that God already knows its secrets; God loves us regardless. God made us to be fully human, fully alive, fully known and loved by God.

If we try to hide parts of our lives, parts of ourselves, parts of our society, our systems, our ways of being from God, they will fall into darkness. If we pretend that we can care for the widows and orphans without providing for their security and a dignified place in society, we are deceiving ourselves and God. If we pay lip service to family values, without valuing the families around us and the families that need our support and help, we create deep shadows. If we deny the impact of prejudice and oppression, because it is just too difficult to face it, we are effectively hiding from our own consciences. If we tell ourselves, in our own private lives, that our secret addictions, our twisted appetites, our little sins against one another do not count because we think we can hide them from God, we fool ourselves, but we do not fool God. These things will create shame, and worse; the conditions of darkness are the ideal growing conditions for those vile vices that Jesus names, that defile the human heart.

The sages who included an earthy book like the Song of Solomon in the biblical canon might have done so because they thought that it was a good metaphor for God’s love for Israel, or they might have done it to remind us that no area of our lives is off limits to God. They might have done it to remind us to let God’s light shine into every corner of our being, of our relationships, of our lives, because it is only when we allow God free and unfettered access to our hearts that they can be swept clean, made pure, kept undefiled, primed and purposed for every generous act of giving, every good gift, so that we can live together more lovingly, more peaceably, more equitably, more honestly.

I wrote a thank you note to the food pantry folks last week, because someone had told me how kind they were to her, how generous and giving, and because when she said it, her eyes lit up, the light of God was pouring out of her. Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, comes from above; and when we allow God into the corners of our lives – the hungry parts, the poor parts, the body parts, the parts which really want to pass judgement, the parts that are afraid that we might one day be hungry too – when we allow God into every aspect of our lives, and our lives with others, God’s light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not overcome it.

Because God made us, our bodies and our souls, and God loves us, body and soul, without hypocrisy, purely, wholly, more than our wildest dreams can imagine.

Amen.

* The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version, Michael D. Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins (editors), (Oxford University Press, 2001), “Introduction to the Song of Solomon” by F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp (contrib.), pp. 959-60

Posted in homily, sermon | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Year B Proper 17: preaching the Song of Songs

Perhaps the most bewildering question about the Song of Solomon, or the Song of Songs, or Canticles – the book has gone by many names – is how it ended up in the Bible, a sacred text.

Historical criticism insists that the Song was written just as it seems to have been – as a love song, a peon to romantic and physical love. There are parts of it which would make a lector blush to read it aloud in church. It is real, and human, and needy, and yearning, and loving, and far removed from what we might expect to hear proclaimed on a Sunday morning or a Saturday night.

But it has grown theological moss, spiritual outcrops, allegorical hair, over the years. So what to do with it today?

We can go one of two ways. We can spiritualize the poem to the point where its meaning is far removed from its words, where its impact is less earthy, where it demands fewer blushes and more furrowed brows to decipher.

Or we can admit that we belong to a faith in which God loves us in all of our creaturely being; to the extent that God became a creaturely being in order to love us the better, to save us, to restore us, to make us whole.

So should we reject our deepset yearnings, our erotic imaginings, keeping them safe from our prayers, and our prayers safe from them? Should we hide our sexual selves from God, afraid of being found naked, because we are ashamed of what God made us to be?

Or should we allow God to ravish our beings, body and soul, to enter into every part of our lives, to love us unconditionally and without limits?

The dangers of removing our bodies from our being with God are clear. How far will we go? Will we pretend that God does not see our desires? Will we, then, allow ourselves any indulgence, given that God does not see, while condemning each of our neighbours, on the grounds that we do see, and that God does not, so that we can legitimately usurp God’s position of judgement over them?

The dangers of allowing our bodies to love God, and God to love our bodies, are more intimate; they are the dangers, the vulnerabilities that accompany the journey into intimacy with a new lover, with one to whom we trust ourselves, our secret selves, our naked souls.

“Arise, my love my fair one, and come away … Make haste, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young stag upon the mountains of spices!”

Posted in lectionary reflection, sermon preparation | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

What is it to you?

Every day. Every day I confess my sins, my sinfulness. Every day.

But Job asks, “If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of humanity?”

Yes, Job is feeling reckless; that recklessness that hold hands with despair, kisses grief, hugs hope goodbye.

Still, his question is evocative, and interesting, and provocative.

What difference does it make to Almighty, Omnipotent, Changeless, Ageless, Creating God if one little creature does one little sinful thing? What can that do to God?

Come to that, using a theme touched on previously, even if that little sin is a gateway to bigger sins, even to evil, even to Job’s destruction – Job is already half-destroyed. And how, anyway, does that change the Ancient of Days, who’s seen it all before and continued on, nothing to see here, move along please?

It makes no difference, not to God. Unless, of course, God loves us.

Unless God loves us, God will remain unmoved, unchallenged, unchastened and unchastening, unscathed by our evil, by our little sins.

Unless God loves us.

Love, which touches hope on her heaving shoulders and holds her grief while she weeps.

Love, which calls recklessness back from the brink, teetering with it, swaying on the windswept cliff, howling into the wind, unheard.

Love, which waits for despair to come home, burning a light at the window, waking, watching.

Love, whose heart is scarred by a thousand small slights, whose heart keeps on anyway beating out its intimate tattoo: I love you, stay strong, hold on, come home, come home …

It’s not the answer on the tip of the writer’s tongue, not in this chapter, not here. It’s one I would hesitate to proffer towards Job, in his fear and pain and misery – he might bite me.

But I believe in it, nevertheless. And I confess.

Posted in lectionary reflection | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment