“The Flight of a Bumble Bee” — Saturday Sermons from the Sidelines

Read John 6:59-71

“Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘You aren’t also leaving, are you?’” Following him was challenging, to say the least. Accepting the truth of his identity was much harder. Folks who had come for the free lunch headed for the exits when the Jesus path got steep.

As the fair-weather disciples melt back into the faceless crowds, Jesus looks at his core group and wonders if we’re up for the challenge. “You aren’t leaving also, are you?”

These days (August of 2021 in the United States), the question is a bit different. “You are coming back, aren’t you?” Churchgoers have been away from public worship and other activities for over a year and a half. Now some of us are beginning to return – however halting that return might be. But many of us are not.

Photo by TheWonderOfLife on Pexels.com

A few months ago, as many as three out of four previous worshipers indicated that they would return to public worship as Covid-tide came to an end. At this point, the actual ratio is more like one in four. Church and denominational leaders wonder frantically, “You are coming back, aren’t you?”

The trend of decreasing worship attendance is not news. The percentage of the American population engaged in regular worship attendance has dropped from around seventy percent at the turn of this century to under fifty percent according to a recent Gallup poll.

“The decline in church membership is primarily a function of the increasing number of Americans who express no religious preference,” writes Jeffrey Jones for the Gallup organization. Even those who express a religious preference are now less likely than twenty years ago to be part of an organized religious institution.

One in five Americans is now a “None,” one who has no connection or allegiance to a religious organization. The Nones are now the largest religious preference group in the United States, according to the pollsters.

Some of the increase in this group is tied to generational change. Younger people are less likely to be part of a religious body than older folks. However, the percentage of older folks with no religious preference has increased more rapidly than the growth of that population cohort overall.

It’s not that some religious groups are growing while others are declining. That was an historical blip in the 1990s that has not held true long-term. Nor is this is a White, middle-class event, although religious involvement among “demographic subgroups” has not declined quite as much as it has among White people.

As a result, thousands of Christian congregations close each year. In large part those closing congregations are in the “middle” in terms of size and available resources.

These trends pre-date the Covid-19 pandemic, but the outbreak and associated measures have accelerated at least some of these trends. Digital worship, study, and meetings mitigated that effect. But one side effect of becoming “podrishioners” is that this has become the preferred means of participation for a number of folks – me included.

“You are coming back, aren’t you?” Well, I’m not sure yet. Here’s an image that makes sense to me.

We have a variety of blooming plants in our backyard, both flowers and vegetables. This year the native bees have worked overtime to facilitate good pollination as they fed on numerous nectar sources. I see them in the giant blossoms on the zucchini and pumpkin vines. They bounce from flower to flower among the cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers, and watermelons.

The bees are busy with the coleus and cone flowers, the penstemon and sneeze weed, the hyssop and black-eyed susans and goldenrod. They move to the butterfly bushes, zinnias, and daffodils. From one blossom to another they flit, getting what they need from each – making a commitment to no particular plant or bed or species.

That’s how I feel about worship attendance at this point. I take in anywhere from two to five online services a Sunday. Some are ELCA, some are not. I can be certain to find the Eucharist as part of at least one of those services each week. I get the standard lectionary in some places, the narrative lectionary in others, a summer series in a third, a month-long focus in a fourth, and whatever the Spirit might dictate in a fifth.

I’m unusual, certainly, both in taking in so many services and in my attention to the study of the lectionary texts. Those who follow my blog know this. I feel closer to Jesus, more fed by the Word of God, and more deeply immersed in the texts themselves than at any time since I was a seminarian.

I like it a lot. I’m not joining the ranks of the Nones. I’m not leaving Jesus.

“So, you are coming back, right?” I never left Jesus. In-person worship and all that other stuff – I’m not so sure. And that’s the problem.

If there’s anything that’s clear about the Bread of Life Discourse, it’s that “flesh” is indispensable. The Incarnation is not a metaphor, nor is it an option. I cannot have an authentic relationship with Jesus and be estranged from his Body.

“Jesus as the Bread of Life cannot be understood as merely metaphor,” Karoline Lewis writes, “but rather as a literal revelation of who Jesus is and what abundant life entails…This promise,” Lewis continues, “hinges on John’s central theological claim of the incarnation. If the incarnation is only euphemistic imagination, then it defies its own logic,” she argues, “To stake an entire theology and Christology on God becoming human requires,” she concludes, “that at every turn the incarnation is completely present” (page 84).

This is one of the dangers of my current Bumble Bee spirituality. It’s a boutique experience where I can pick and choose what I want – like any right-thinking, individualist, neo-liberal, late-capitalist consumer. All the while I can imagine that I’m exercising some sort of freedom simply because I’m “choosing.”

In a trivial sense, the bumble bee is also choosing. But that choosing looks a lot like random bouncing from one blossom to another. I may be able to eat, but am I really being fed?

“When they heard [his words], therefore, many of his disciples said, ‘This word is hard; who shall be able to hear it?’ But, Jesus, because he knew in himself that his disciples were grumbling concerning this, said to them, ‘This scandalizes you, doesn’t it?’” (John 6:60-61, my translation).

Yes, this Incarnational Imperative is hard. I find myself growing rigid in my resistance to it. This imperative trips me up over and over. I begin to get comfortable with my bouncy buzzing from blossom to blossom. Then Jesus reminds me that random snacking will not lead me to the Authentic Bread of Life.

That authentic nourishment happens in community, or not at all. Let me clarify. That’s not a requirement, a quid pro quo. It’s not that I pay for my meal by showing up for worship. This is not a “sermon, then soup” sort of system. It’s not a requirement. It’s simply a description of Reality.

“So, you are coming back, right?” Yes, at some point and in some fashion, I am. Well, sort of. There is no coming “back.” I am certain that the only congregations that will survive in the long run are those that go forward.

I won’t be returning to congregations, for example, that have found hybrid (in-person and digital) worship a necessary evil, to be abandoned as soon as practical. We church folks have discovered things about meeting people in their living rooms and bathrobes that we should not soon forget.

I won’t be going back to congregations that are primarily social societies and potluck parties. If the writer of John makes anything clear, it’s that intimacy matters in the Body of Christ. But that sort of intimacy is not mere familiarity, length of tenure, and association. We church folks need to remember that the Incarnation is about authentic relationships of vulnerability, challenge, self-giving, and hope.

I won’t be going back to congregations that depend on white supremacy and privilege to sustain themselves. If talking about Black Lives Matter and the dangers of American exceptionalism creates problems in a congregation, such a place won’t benefit from my presence. If full equality for people of all identities is not a given in a congregation, then I’ll just be more trouble than I’m worth.

I won’t be going back to a congregation that leaves me the same as when I came in. My presumptions and prejudices, my blind spots and bullheadedness, my racism and sexism and classism, my anxiety and arrogance need a community brave enough and strong enough to call me to new living every day.

This encounter with the God who changes everything creates a “crisis,” to use the language of John – a moment of decision, of judgment. “Given the setting of the feeding of the five thousand and the provision of food and water by God for the Israelites in the wilderness,” Lewis writes, “critical is how God’s people respond to God’s desire for relationship. For the Fourth Gospel, encountering God in the Word made flesh, Jesus, is a crisis moment” (page 102).

The problems we face in the White American churches are much worse than we are being led to believe. Technical fixes won’t do the job. Reorganization won’t do the job. Reshuffling the deck chairs on the denominational Titanic won’t do the job. And the people who point out that nothing less than white repentance and reparation must precede reconciliation and renewal end up on the outside looking in.

So, the end of the Bread of Life Discourse is a tract for our time. Just when we thought we might get out of this Discourse with a happy ending, things go from bad to worse. Peter speaks, he thinks, for the Twelve: “Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69, my translation).

“So, you are coming back, right?” Yes, I am. It’s hard. But where else could I go?

Text Study for John 6:59-71 (Pt. 5); 13 Pentecost B 2021

The Devil is in the Derails

In the previous section, I noted some data and reflections on the decline of my own denominational family, the ELCA. I was thinking about yet another of those interminable and unhappy conversations of which I am a part these days. I’m talking about the conversation about whether the ELCA is actually “in decline.” In my experience, that sort of talk is regarded as unhelpful, too negative, lacking hope, and downright seditious. So generally, I just keep my mouth shut.

We Americans have lived for over two centuries in a culture of official optimism. This culture is based on several inter-related narratives. The first of these narratives is that of American exceptionalism. From the Puritan errand into the wilderness and the shining city on a hill to the red MAGA hats of today, we live in a culture that believes we are the best, the first, the greatest, and always the winners. That’s true, not because of anything we’ve actually done, but simply due to our exceptional character as a people.

Photo by sergio souza on Pexels.com

That narrative infects all American churches to one degree or another. It feeds our myth of continual progress. Whether as individuals or as a nation, every day and in every way, we are getting better and better, we say. Reports to the contrary are discounted and/or attacked as negative thinking or just plain false. We live with a triumphalist narrative. And we embrace the myth of redemptive violence – the belief that violence committed in the name of exceptionalism is not only justified but produces divinely desired results.

You can read in detail about the out-workings of these myths and narratives in Charles and Rah’s excellent book, Unsettling Truths, and Du Mez’s award winning historical analysis, Jesus and John Wayne. In different ways, they make the point that these myths are all in the service of the controlling myth in our officially optimistic culture, the myth of white, male, supremacy.

It is that myth which informs and underwrites the nature of our American ecclesiology and how we have trained mainline pastors during the “Age of Association.” I refer you to the previous section for that discussion. Willie James Jennings, in After Whiteness, puts it this way.

“White self-sufficient masculinity is the quintessential image of an educated person, an image deeply embedded in the collective psyche of Western education and theological education, flexible enough to capture and persuade any and all persons so formed to yield to it” (Kindle Location 548). This image has shaped how we do church for longer than any of us can remember. “The heart of our troubles is also the way these concepts prepare us for a gathering governed by whiteness and the protocols aimed at its performance of control, possession, and mastery” (Kindle Location 2109).

The problems we face in the White American churches are much worse than we are being led to believe. Technical fixes won’t do the job. Reorganization won’t do the job. Reshuffling the deck chairs on the denominational Titanic won’t do the job. And the people who point out that nothing less than white repentance and reparation must precede reconciliation and renewal end up on the outside looking in.

So, the end of the Bread of Life Discourse is a tract for our time. Just when we thought we might get out of this Discourse with a happy ending, things go from bad to worse. Peter speaks, he thinks, for the Twelve: “Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69, my translation).

Now is the time to turn to the audience and announce, “And they all lived happily ever after. The End.” Karoline Lewis notes that Peter gets it right for once. “Peter’s answer serves to summarize the entire discourse and thereby the meaning of the sign itself,” she writes. “Who else but Jesus is the source of eternal life?” (Page 101). But that’s not the end.

There is no blessing on Peter as the recipient of a Divine revelation of the truth, as we find in Matthew. Nor is there the Big Screw-up that at least justifies Jesus in calling someone Satan. Peter gets the right answer, and Jesus explodes another bombshell. “Jesus replied to them, ‘Didn’t I select you, the Twelve, and [yet] one of you is the Devil?’ He was speaking about Judas, Simon Iscariot; for this one – one of the Twelve—intended to hand him over” (John 6:70-71, my translation).

It’s no wonder the lectionary folks end the appointed reading with verse 69. Who wants to clean up the discipleship disaster Jesus leaves at the end of the Discourse? But, as they say, that’s why we get the big money.

Lewis encourages us to take on this hermeneutical challenge because it really stands behind the Bread of Life Discourse as a whole. She points to the fact that “choice” is a major emphasis here at the end of the Discourse. She argues “that those who encounter Jesus are put in a position of choice, a position of crisis, decision, and therefore judgment. Even though Jesus chooses Judas,” Lewis suggests, “Judas must still choose Jesus” (page 102).

Judas, as they say in Indiana-Jones-speak, chose poorly. “For the Fourth Gospel,” Lewis concludes, “encountering God in the Word made flesh, Jesus, is a crisis moment” (page 102).  She describes how the crisis was acute in the community of the Fourth gospel and thus why it is so central in this account. “How do they make sense of those who have not chosen to follow Jesus,” she asks, “who do not recognize who Jesus is, especially those closest to them, friends, family members?” (Page 102).

We should note that this theme will continue in the first paragraph of chapter 7, when Jesus’ brothers have some real issues with his campaign strategy. That narrative flow certainly supports Lewis’ assessment of what is happening here at the end of the Discourse. In spite of Peter’s protest of passionate commitment, at least one of the Twelve will leave. In fact, when push comes to shove, all but one of them (in John’s account) will head for the hills.

The NRSV, among other translations, renders John 6:60 as “Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil’” (my emphasis). Daniel Wallace spends some time on the article in question here. He argues that for grammatical reasons the translation should certainly be “The” Devil rather than “a” devil.

The word for “Devil” in Greek is a “monadic,” that is, one of a kind term. There is one, and only one, Devil. While Judas is not himself The Prince of Darkness in the literal sense, he is the “incarnation” of the Devil in the midst of the Twelve in a sense that parallels to a small degree Jesus as the Incarnation of the Divine in the cosmos. The term “Devil” is stronger than “demon” or even “Satan.” A demon may represent the powers of darkness but is a minor character. Satan is the Adversary but has a somewhat positive role in certain Hebrew scriptures.

The Devil is the one who throws an alternative reign against the rule of God that Jesus brings. This is as bad as it can get. And the Enemy lives right in the camp of the good guys. But which one is really the Enemy in this little drama? That is, perhaps, part of the irony of the Johannine account at this point.

Before we get too far into the darkness of Judas’ heart, let’s return to the narrative of the Gospel account. Thatcher describes how the characters of Judas and Peter help to show what belief and unbelief look like for the community of John’s gospel. But it’s not that Peter is “belief” and Judas is “unbelief.” They are really different flavors of the same dish.

Peter represents a perspective that seeks to “comfort” Jesus and to exercise some control over him. Judas is presented here “as the epitome of the general rejection that had just occurred” (page 441). Even those at the very center of the Johannine community were in danger of abandoning Jesus when things got difficult. The community is in danger of derailment in either case.

The Word has become flesh and dwells among us. But his own do not receive him. Therefore, we travel with the Word through life, into death, on to resurrection and finally to ascension with the Father. All of that happens in the here and now and is fulfilled in the Age to Come. We live between the times and must always be in the process of being born from above. We are invited to chew on Jesus as the source of Abundant Life, in a cosmos that offers nothing but the food of death.

We may get tossed out on our ear in the process. We will certainly suffer and struggle. But Jesus promises to abide with us no matter what. Will we embrace those words of eternal life and abide in them no matter how bad it gets?

Resources and Reference

Clark-Soles, Jaime. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69.

Hoch, Robert. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-5.

Hylen, Susan. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-3.

Jennings, Willie James. After Whiteness (Theological Education between the Times). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Kindle Edition.

Lewis, Karoline M. John (Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.

Malina, Bruce, and Rohrbaugh, Richard. Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1998.

Matera, Frank J. “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology.” Theological Studies 67 (2006): pp. 237-256. http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/67/67.2/67.2.1.pdf.

Peterson, Brian. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-2.

Sprunt Lecture Series youtube.com playlist — https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq1zKD6DFrpTHqt1_QA6hcSWLRADAWrJe.

Thatcher, Tom. “Jesus, Judas, and Peter: Character by Contrast in the Fourth Gospel.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (October-December 1996) 435-48.

Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope. HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Zscheile, Dwight. “From the Age of Association to Authenticity.” https://faithlead.luthersem.edu/from-the-age-of-association-to-authenticity/?fbclid=IwAR2bhFD6AZxnu9dmBbrU6puAYCWz79M4QhN9SV7cPtn0iRNZUvz0F2balJ4.

Text Study for John 6:59-71(Pt. 4); 13 Pentecost B 2021

You Too?

Jesus lays out the “hard” word of the Incarnation in the Discourse and raises the stakes with the Ascension to the seat of Abundant Life. Malina and Rohrbaugh note that the Greek of verse 60 can be taken in a couple of ways. It could be, as in many translations, “that the teaching was hard to accept,” they write. “It could also mean that because of the hard teaching, Jesus was difficult to accept. The latter,” they conclude, “makes more sense in terms of the demands of group loyalty” (page 137). It’s not just his words that are hard. Jesus is hard to take without conversion – then and now.

“The outcome of this,” the narrator reports, “was that many of his disciples abandoned the following after bit and no longer were walking around with him” (John 6:66 my translation). Jesus sounds somewhat bereft as he asks whether the Twelve are leaving too. “Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘You aren’t also leaving, are you?’”

Photo by Bob Price on Pexels.com

My experience as a pastor tells me that many people come to churches looking for comfort, tranquility, and reassurance. The last things many people come to churches looking for are discomfort, disruption, and deconstruction. When those are the things that happen at a church, many folks start heading for the exits. There will always be a shop down the road that offers a placid place for passive piety.

Like many pastors, I have watched over the years as neighboring congregations wooed members from one flock to another with promises of precisely such spiritual still waters. “Come to our place,” they say. “We won’t bother you with any of that uncomfortable politics from the pulpit, expectations of responsible membership, sacrificial giving, hard thinking, and daily dying and rising.” They haven’t put it in precisely those words, but the message has always been clear.

It’s nice to know, at least, that there’s nothing new under the sun. Many of us pastors can empathize with Jesus’ wistful question. “You aren’t leaving as well, are you?”

Peter responds with words that are well-known in my liturgical tradition as our response to the weekly reading of the gospel text. “Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69, my translation).

Malina and Rohrbaugh note that this text is “often assumed to be the Johannine equivalent of the confession in Mark 8:27-30” (page 138). They note that in Mark’s account “the issue is Jesus’ concern about his proper role and social identity.” But the agenda in John’s account is different, they argue. “Is Jesus the genuine broker of God or not?” The question is not, as in Mark, whether Jesus is the Messiah. The question is whether the Messiah is Jesus (see John 20:30-31). After all, he’s making it pretty difficult to come to that conclusion. And it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

Karoline Lewis compares this response to Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi in the Synoptics and points to a significant difference. “It is important to note that what Jesus has revealed in this discourse, which is found to be difficult and ultimately rejected,” Lewis observes, “is not predictions of suffering and death but visions of eternal life. Perhaps there is only so much of a good thing we can take” (page 101).

There is something to be said for that, but I don’t think that’s why many of the disciples gave up on Jesus and went home. The good news of the Incarnation means that everything we think we know about God, about life, and about ourselves needs to be turned upside down and inside out. God is closer to us than our breath, not watching us from a distance. Jesus is the human face of God, full of grace and truth. The cross is a throne, and the grave is a beginning. The reign of God is living and active among us now.

This encounter with the God who changes everything creates a “crisis,” to use the language of John – a moment of decision, of judgment. “Given the setting of the feeding of the five thousand and the provision of food and water by God for the Israelites in the wilderness,” Lewis writes, “critical is how God’s people respond to God’s desire for relationship. For the Fourth Gospel, encountering God in the Word made flesh, Jesus, is a crisis moment” (page 102).

The Christian church in North America and individual denominations and congregations face a crisis moment. That’s no great insight. But what is the nature of that crisis? I recently read an article by Dwight Zscheile called “From the Age of Association to Authenticity.” Zscheile had noted in an article two years ago that some projections show the ELCA virtually disappearing as a denomination by 2050.

If that’s not a crisis (at least for the institution known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), I’m not sure what is. In the current article he notes that the pandemic has likely accelerated this trend and the disintegration it represents, not only for mainline denominations but for many other religious institutions in this country. “This is not to say that Christianity itself is going away,” Zscheile writes, “but rather its dominant institutional forms of the past two centuries.”

Zscheile refers to and riffs off of the 2021 Sprunt Lectures given by Ted Smith at Union Seminary, Richmond, this past May. Smith talks about the history of denominations, seminaries, and congregations in this country. He describes the move from the “Standing Order” that existed from 1600 or so to about 1815. That “Standing Order” was gradually replaced by the “Age of Association,” the model of doing church and professional ministry that shaped American religious experience from 1815 until at least the 1960’s.

Now the Age of Association is being replaced by what Smith calls the Age of Authenticity. Smith is a fine historian, and he knows that “ages” and taxonomies and typologies never really reflect reality. But his heuristic description is a helpful and penetrating analytical tool. You can find the lectures on youtube.com just by searching for “Sprunt Lectures 2021.” I’ve also posted a link to the playlist below.

Zscheile gives a useful summary of Smith’s argument. “In the Age of Authenticity, individuals become increasingly dis-embedded from voluntary associations and institutions without re-embedding. Identities are understood not to be ascribed but constructed and performed by individuals through a series of choices. Economic and social burdens and responsibilities are displaced from institutions onto individuals…People feel less and less of a need to affiliate with an organization to find meaning, community, and purpose; that is understood instead as a highly personalized journey.”

Smith argues that we have not fully left the Age of Association. Nor have we fully entered the Age of Authenticity. We are living between the times. One of the reassuring notes of his lectures is the observation that we’ve been here before. There was a beginning to the Age of Association as well, when the Church had to find a new way of being in a changing cultural setting. We can do that again.

The facts that we can do this and that we’ve been here before do not reduce the crisis we face. I sense raw panic in the voices of pastors and judicatory officials these days. As we come out of the Covid crisis, we are finding that somewhere between one third and one half of our folks may simply not return to our churches as they were. They have had a significant time to discover that the Christian social clubs that “closed” during the pandemic are not institutions they now miss.

I struggle with that issue myself these days.

How will we respond? It appears that the “middle” is disappearing from the Church. Mid-sized congregations are less and less sustainable. Megachurches and megachurch wannabes are doing well enough so far. And very small congregations and communities do not have the same economic and social costs as the mid-sized institutions. A problem for the ELCA is that many of our shops are mid-sized.

Smith wonders if the future of the church in the Age of Authenticity looks more like networks of micro-communities. Perhaps that will be the case. Regardless, we will need to try new things. Many Church institutions are imitating businesses as they divest themselves of property, physical plants, and paid staff no longer needed in the new system and situation. I imagine that trend will continue and accelerate.

What does this have to do with the Bread of Life Discourse? The Discourse finally asks us to reflect on the nature of the Incarnation in our lives and in our settings. Can we American church folks figure out how to separate our sense of being the Body of Christ from the buildings and properties the Body has inhabited for the last two centuries?

Can we mainline Protestants in particular get over our “edifice complexes” and find ways to be authentic communities of faithfulness? Can we divest ourselves of our neoliberal market values, rampant individualism, and commitment to the myth of redemptive violence long enough to find a different way of being Church? Only time will tell.

I’m not sure Smith’s typology works all that well, and neither is he. If the Gospel of John is to be our guide, then our call is to form and sustain “Authenticity Associations.” We are called to gather around the Real Presence of Jesus in our midst and to be that Real Presence for the life of the cosmos. We are invited to be authentic followers of Jesus and to cling to him for the “words of eternal life” here and now.

I return to the words of William Cavanaugh, quoted earlier in this study. “The eucharist is not a mere symbol, a source of meaning which the individual reads and then applies to social issues ‘out there’ in the ‘real world,’” he declares. “There is nothing more real than the body of Christ. The eucharist is not to be applied to political issues; rather, the eucharist makes the church itself a political body. The church practices the politics of Jesus,” he argues, “when it becomes an alternative way of life that offers healing for the wounds that divide us” (2002, page 177, my emphasis).

Unless we refuse the healing and become The Devil…

Resources and Reference

Clark-Soles, Jaime. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69.

Hoch, Robert. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-5.

Hylen, Susan. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-3.

Lewis, Karoline M. John (Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.

Malina, Bruce, and Rohrbaugh, Richard. Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1998.

Matera, Frank J. “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology.” Theological Studies 67 (2006): pp. 237-256. http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/67/67.2/67.2.1.pdf.

Peterson, Brian. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-2.

Sprunt Lecture Series youtube.com playlist — https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq1zKD6DFrpTHqt1_QA6hcSWLRADAWrJe.

Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope. HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Zscheile, Dwight. “From the Age of Association to Authenticity.” https://faithlead.luthersem.edu/from-the-age-of-association-to-authenticity/?fbclid=IwAR2bhFD6AZxnu9dmBbrU6puAYCWz79M4QhN9SV7cPtn0iRNZUvz0F2balJ4.

Text Study for John 6:59-71 (Pt. 3); 13 Pentecost B 2021

Heading for the Exits

This text leads me to reflect on the various ways I have driven people out of the parishes I have served. I remember the wealthy man who enthusiastically embraced the congregation I served as a refreshing alternative to the place he had worshiped previously. He was effusive in his praise of my ministry and the life of the congregation. I should have heard the alarm bells ringing right away, but the echoing expansion of my ego drowned out all other noise.

It was all going so well until we began a capital campaign shortly after he had officially joined the congregation. I put his name on the list of potential leadership givers. It was not good judgment on my part – that much is certain. But it was also clear that I had committed the unpardonable sin. I had asked for money. If he had left any faster, there would have been burn marks on the carpet in my office.

I think about the folks who had never recovered from the leaving of a beloved previous pastor. I had the nerve to change a few things that were significant symbols of that pastor’s tenure. Once again, I certainly could have exercised better judgment and greater patience. But the deed was done. I was an uncaring interloper. And a neighboring congregation was the beneficiary of my demanding style of pastoral ministry.

Photo by monicore on Pexels.com

There were the folks who didn’t want to share their worship life with inmates and ex-offenders. And there were the folks who despised traditional worship styles or contemporary worship styles or mixed worship styles. There were the folks who held me personally responsible for the 2009 ELCA policy decision on human sexuality (which I wholeheartedly support but did not impose on anyone – in hindsight, not a productive stance).

This doesn’t count the folks who didn’t care for my voice or my haircut or my clothes or my hobbies. Nor does it count the folks who had clearly legitimate reasons for being hurt by my ministry choices and errors. To those folks I confess my sin and pray for forgiveness. They had good reasons to leave, I’m sad to report.

The funny part to me is that I am, for the most part, a people pleaser. I want to make everyone happy. I want everyone to like me. It bothers me to the point of losing sleep if I think someone is irritated with me or thinks poorly of me. Enough of this sort of low-level rejection can lead me into depression if I’m not mindful of my internal processes. The last thing I want to do is to offend anyone or chase them out of the church.

I have some trouble imagining what it would be like to make some really hard demands and watch the majority of folks heading for the exits. I know people who can do this, and I am astonished. When the conflict is in the name of a good cause, I admire their courage. When the conflict is over something I see as not all that important, I question their judgment. But I don’t try to imagine myself doing it. That wouldn’t happen.

So, I find this last part of the Bread of Life Discourse mind-boggling and a bit disheartening. It started out so well. Thousands are fed. The adoring crowds want to make Jesus their king. They chase him across the Galilee to get more of him, his bread, and his teaching. We go from that to Jesus wondering if anyone at all will stick with him at all — and we don’t even get out of chapter 6.

Welcome to life in the Church.

Many of his disciples find the whole Bread of Life teaching unbearably difficult. “Who in the world is able to listen to such stuff?” they wonder. They grumble at what seems like a “bait and switch” scheme that Jesus has foisted on them. And how does Jesus respond? “Friends, you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

He raised the stakes to an infinite degree. You think this is hard? “What if you were to see the Son of Man as he ascends to where he was at the first? The Spirit is the one who makes alive, the flesh does not provide any benefit. The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.” (John 6:62-63, my translation).

Thanks, Jesus. That clears it up. Not.

Mention of the Spirit should take us, as Karoline Lewis reminds us, both backward and forward. That mention should take us backward to the midnight interview with Nicodemus in chapter 3. There we learned that it’s not enough to appreciate Jesus as an interesting teacher and stimulating conversationalist. Instead, what is required is to be born from above. This means that putting one’s trust in Jesus as the source of God’s Abundant Life requires an entirely new view of the cosmos.

That new worldview cannot be manufactured from the resources of life as we know it now. That’s what Jesus means by “flesh” in this verse. That new worldview must come from God as the first and primary gift of the Holy Spirit. Without that gift, we may see Jesus ascending to the Father. But we won’t know what it means. “The Spirit is the one who makes alive,” Jesus asserts.

We must also look forward to chapter 20. Jesus breathes the Spirit, the breath of life, into the disciples after the Resurrection. This is the gift that makes them the Church. In this incident, we are taken back to the second Creation account in Genesis. God forms the human being and breathes into the human’s nostrils the breath of life. Jesus comes, among other things, to restore that gift of life which has been taken from us by the powers of sin, death, and the devil.

We experience the ways in which the writer of John’s gospel uses the same word to mean different things – often within the same paragraph or so. On the one hand, the Bread of Life Discourse is a revelation of the depth of the Incarnation, of what it means to say that the Word has become flesh and dwells among us. The flesh is the bearer of the presence of God among us, full of grace and truth.

But on its own, the flesh is not of any use. That’s what Jesus means in verse 63. It’s not that Jesus has suddenly become a metaphysical dualist here. It’s not that the flesh is bad. But the understanding of the Cosmos from the beginning is that it becomes what it is created to be when it is filled with and enlivened by the Spirit of the Living God. Jesus is the embodiment of the design and destiny of all Creation — flesh filled with and enlivened by the Living Word.

The flesh, therefore, cannot come to this insight, understanding, and experience by itself. I cannot muster up what it takes, on my own, to put my trust in life and in death in God through Jesus. That comes, first of all, through the power of the Spirit making me alive in Christ. Jesus tells his disciples that this has been the content of his “words” (bits of speech, not the Logos). Those fleshy words themselves can be and are a vehicle for Spirit and Life. Hang on to that when we get to Peter’s confession in verse 69.

That’s the deal. That’s how this works, Jesus says. And the crowds begin to head for the exits.

“The outcome of this,” the narrator reports, “was that many of his disciples abandoned the following after bit and no longer were walking around with him” (John 6:66 my translation). There’s a distinction here between Jesus’ “disciples” and the “twelve,” the inner ring of those who followed after him. Many of those in the “middle ring” of the system had had enough. It was too hard.

I have heard the question in every call committee interview. “Pastor,” asks an earnest questioner, “what’s your vision for making our church grow?” I often had very satisfactory answers for that question and made everyone happy (surprise, surprise). But both the question and the answer seem to run at cross purposes with the witness of the Christian scriptures. The closer we get to the truth of Jesus, the smaller the adoring crowds become.

Please understand that I don’t think “smallness” is a guaranteed sign of pastoral or congregational faithfulness. No, I’m quite capable to making congregations smaller without taking any heroic or controversial stands. I have had colleagues who took their ability to shrink congregations as a badge of honor – sorting out the riffraff. That’s just self-serving baloney. I’m not suggesting that we should confuse incompetence with courage.

On the other hand, we live in a culture that continues to worship at the altars of progress and success. Churches have persuaded themselves to make all sorts of things into virtues if the result is numerical growth.

I think of the “homogeneous unit principle” touted by the Church Growth Movement. The more alike people were, according to this principle, the more likely that the congregation would grow numerically. In hindsight, I see that this was just white supremacist camouflage for keeping our worship hour the most segregated space in American society. And in the end, it didn’t produce the promised numerical growth anyway.

And I think of those who require pastors to keep (liberal) politics out of the pulpit. “After all, Pastor,” they say, “we don’t want to offend anyone and have them leave. We need everyone we can get.” That’s just wrong, based on current statistics. The place where we might expect to hear anything but liberal politics in the pulpit, the Southern Baptist Convention, has experienced a precipitous drop in attendance and membership recently. Keeping white people comfortable, happy, and bigoted doesn’t guarantee that their butts will stay in the pews.

“This scandalizes you, doesn’t it?” Jesus says. Yes, Jesus, it does. As a result, many of us over the last forty years have (in practice, if not officially) “abandoned the following after bit and [are] no longer are walking around with him.”

So, now what?

Resources and Reference

Clark-Soles, Jaime. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69.

Hoch, Robert. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-5.

Hylen, Susan. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-3.

Lewis, Karoline M. John (Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.

Matera, Frank J. “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology.” Theological Studies 67 (2006): pp. 237-256. http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/67/67.2/67.2.1.pdf.

Peterson, Brian. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-2.

Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope. HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Text Study for John 6:59-71 (Pt. 2); 13 Pentecost B 2021

Scandalous

This is still not going to end well.

“When they heard [his words], therefore, many of his disciples said, ‘This word is hard; who shall be able to hear it?’ But, Jesus, because he knew in himself that his disciples were grumbling concerning this, said to them, ‘This scandalizes you, doesn’t it?’” (John 6:60-61, my translation). Robert Hoch points out that Jesus’ question to his disciples is constructed in such a way as to indicate the expected answer. The question is really more of a statement: “This scandalizes you, doesn’t it?”

Well, doesn’t it?

The mystery of the Incarnation is the central theme of the Gospel according to John. The Word became flesh and has come to abide among us. God is deep in the flesh and intimately connected to each and every part of Creation, including you and me. Jesus brings that Word, is that Word, embodies that Word, and authenticates that Word.

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

God is closer to you, me, and all of Creation than our very breath. That intimate involvement gives us and all of Creation Abundant Life – the outcome of salvation according to the Gospel of John.

“God in the flesh” is an idea that is as scandalous, dubious, and incomprehensible in the twenty-first century as it was in the first century. I date myself, of course, but I think of Bette Midler singing wistfully that God is watching us “from a distance.”

In the lyrics of that song, this distance was a good thing since we all look the same from that distance and thus are valued the same. But there’s no room in that perspective for the God who comes close to each of us and all of us and loves us precisely for the sake of our differences.

“What if God was one of us?” Joan Osborne wondered in song. “Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger on the bus tryin’ to make his way home?” Again, there is no space in that song for a God who has come close and in fact is “just a slob like one of us.” There is no sense that Jesus is the face of God for which Osborne seems to long. There is no sense that we have any sort of access to “God” or that the Divine is present in any meaningful way.

If people believe in the existence of God these days, they are most likely to expect such a being to be “somewhere, up there” beyond the clouds in a too-distant heaven. This theology is based on and leads to an “escape hatch” theory of salvation. The goal, in this view, is to get out of this world relatively intact in order to live with the distant God in some splendid isolation for all of eternity. In this sense, the further away God is, the better.

This view of the New Life is not the view we find in the Christian scriptures. “Heaven, in the Bible, is not a future destiny but the other, hidden, dimension of our ordinary life—God’s dimension, if you like,” N. T. Wright reminds us. “God made heaven and earth; at the last he will remake both and join them together forever. And when we come to the picture of the actual end in Revelation 21–22,” Wright continues, “we find not ransomed souls making their way to a disembodied heaven but rather the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, uniting the two in a lasting embrace” (page 19).

The Gospel of John puts this in a different way with the same outcome. The notion that God is as close as our breath, that the Word has become flesh and remains among us – that idea remains scandalous. An increasing number of Americans don’t even keep up the fiction of a far distant god who might have some nodding acquaintance with us. Instead, the distant god has been replaced by the absent or non-existent god. Incarnation is not an issue because there is no longer anyone to do the incarnating.

In fact, religion is as likely to be seen as the problem as it is the solution these days. Douglas John Hall recalls seeing a bit of graffiti on the wall of a Canadian university building late in the last century that declared, “Religion kills.” Christopher Hitchens made a reputation and a fair bit of money writing and speaking under the title, God is Not Great. He and his “new atheist” colleagues insisted that all this talk of an involved god produced fanatics who were happy to commit terroristic mayhem in that god’s name.

We who live in the “church bubble” may not have much contact with the scandal of the Incarnation these days. We are so comfortable with that idea that it hardly causes a ripple in our consciousness. Yet, we must come to the realization that in 2018, those who reported no religious affiliation of any kind (the “None’s”) became the majority spiritual perspective in the United States. The scandals of the Christian faith are not lost on many of those None’s.

We church bubble types don’t really even think about that scandal much except at Christmas time, when for a Sunday or two we pull out the Prologue to John’s gospel and complain once again how opaque that account is compared to the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke. We have enough scandalizing realities in our lives, it would seem, without having God add one more to the mix.

Karoline Lewis reminds us of what is at stake in the Bread of Life Discourse in this regard. “Jesus as the Bread of Life cannot be understood as merely metaphor,” she writes, “but rather as a literal revelation of who Jesus is and what abundant life entails. Bread, an essential component of daily life in the ancient world, is what Jesus is” (my emphasis). We can never ignore the concrete event that launched this Discourse in the first place.

“This promise,” Lewis continues, “hinges on John’s central theological claim of the incarnation. If the incarnation is only euphemistic imagination, then it defies its own logic,” she argues, “To stake an entire theology and Christology on God becoming human requires,” she concludes, “that at every turn the incarnation is completely present” (page 84).

With all that in mind, we should not rush past the first few verses of this section of the Bread of Life Discourse. The verb, skandalizo, comes from the noun which means a “stumbling block,” (skandalon). The noun takes us back to Leviticus 19:13-14 – “You shall not defraud your neighbor; you shall not steal; and you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning. You shall not revile the deaf or put a stumbling-block before the blind; you shall fear your God: I am the Lord” (NRSV).

The Hebrew noun is miksol, which in the Septuagint is translated as skandalon. In Isaiah 57:14, it has the sense of an “obstruction.” The prophet instructs the listeners to remove any obstacles which might hinder the flourishing of the returnees from the Exile. A form of the word can be translated as a heap of rubble or ruins (see Isaiah 3:6). The idea develops into something that might cause offense and then into something that would cause one to sin.

Lewis notes that the verb, skandalizo, can be translated in this way. She suggests that this may be the most fitting translation here in the Fourth Gospel, “where sin is equivalent to the absence of a relationship with God. In other words,” she proposes, “the disciples hear Jesus’ words and are led to a possible position of unbelief rather than belief” (page 97). As she notes, this is one of the major issues of this passage in the verses that follow.

Jesus follows this up with another, even more challenging question. “What, then, if you were to see the Son of Man as he is ascending to where was at first?” (John 6:62, my translation). If you stumble at the conclusions to the Bread of Life discourse, he says to his disciples, how much more will you stumble when you see where this is all going? You ain’t seen nothing yet!

“Instead of trying to minimize the scandal of believing Jesus’ testimony about himself,” Clark-Soles writes, “he intensifies it by (a) claiming to be the Son of Man and (b) associating himself with Jacob’s ladder (cf. 1:51), the one through whom heaven and earth are ultimately linked.”

“As has been Jesus’ habit throughout this conversation, he meets objections by sharpening the point of his message, raising the offense rather than softening it, and thereby bringing the conversation to a crisis,” Brian Peterson writes, “and in John’s telling Jesus returns to the Father by being lifted up on the cross. If the disciples have been scandalized by what Jesus has said,” Peterson continues, “what will happen when Jesus ‘goes up’ via the cross? Will they be able to see the glory of God there?”

Lewis suggests that the scandal is even more than the cross, but rather the Ascension of Jesus to the Father. “We anticipate that predictions of the crucifixion would cause resistance,” she writes, “but that the ascension would trigger dissention? Why the ascension here and now?” (page 97).

She argues that the full scope of Jesus’ claims is now becoming clear and challenging. If the disciples can hear and accept the “hard word” of the Gospel, then they would have to accept what Jesus says as true. “That Jesus really does come from God. That he really was in the beginning with God. That he really is God. In the end,” she concludes, “this is by far more outrageous than the death of Jesus” (page 98).

“This scandalizes you, doesn’t it?” Well, doesn’t it? If it does (and it should), then what do you do?

Resources and Reference

Clark-Soles, Jaime. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69.

Hoch, Robert. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-5.

Hylen, Susan. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-3.

Lewis, Karoline M. John (Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries). Fortress Press. Kindle Edition.

Matera, Frank J. “Christ in the Theologies of Paul and John: A Study in the Diverse Unity of New Testament Theology.” Theological Studies 67 (2006): pp. 237-256. http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/67/67.2/67.2.1.pdf.

Peterson, Brian. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-2.

Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope. HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Text Study for John 6:59-71 (Pt. 1); 13 Pentecost B 2021

Can We Do Hard Things?

This is not going to end well.

“When they heard [his words], therefore, many of his disciples said, ‘This word is hard; who shall be able to hear it?’ But, Jesus, because he knew in himself that his disciples were grumbling concerning this, said to them, ‘This scandalizes you, doesn’t it?’” (John 6:60-61, my translation).

The “disciples” mentioned here include more than the Twelve. Rather, this is the whole entourage – many of whom have been part of the conversation at least since the Feeding of the Multitude at the beginning of the chapter. They react to “this word,” presumably a description of the entire Bread of Life Discourse.

That being said, the portion of the Discourse that produces grumbling among the religious authorities is noted in John 6:41 – “Therefore ‘the Jews’ were grumbling about him because he said, ‘I am the bread which has come down out of heaven…” As we have noted previously, this potentially blasphemous self-identification has the potential to drive any Jew right around the bend – not merely Jesus’ opponents.

Photo by Sides Imagery on Pexels.com

When Jesus states in John 6:52 that “the bread I shall give is my flesh for the sake of the life of the cosmos,” he raises the stakes even higher. The religious authorities enter into a full-blown argument about the meaning of this statement. “Eating” is “escalated to “chomping” or “masticating.” The bread the Father has sent from heaven, the Word made flesh, is now standing in the midst of the Capernaum synagogue, Jesus declares.

Yes, I would say that is a difficult, challenging, uncomfortable “word” – for first-century disciples and for twenty-first century disciples.

We should always watch in the Gospel of John when the word “word” is used. The term the writer uses here is “logos,” the same word used to describe the Word that was in the beginning with God and is now made flesh among us. John’s irony is often so clever that it can be easily missed. It’s not only the “word” of teaching in the Discourse that is a source of stumbling. It is the astonishing impossibility of the Incarnation – the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Messiah, the Son of God, Jesus.

“English translations say ‘teaching’ or merely ‘this,’” observes Jaime Clark-Soles, “but logos is a key word in John from the start. From the Prologue on,” she continues, “we know that Jesus is the logos and, crucially, that the logos became flesh (sarx; 1:14). The author expects us to recall,” she concludes, “what we have heard before chapter 6.”

They emphatically describe this “word” (Jesus’ assertions in the Bread of Life Discourse) as “hard.” The word used here is “skleros,” which means not only hard, but stiff, rigid, and unyielding. That word finds its way into English usage especially in medical domains. Hardening of the arteries is arteriosclerosis. Heart vessels that require bypass are often not only clogged but also sclerotic – inflexible and unable to flex and expand. Therefore, this word means more than “difficult” or “complicated.”

What is it about Jesus’ teaching, asks Susan Hylen, that the disciples find difficult? She questions the suggestion that the resistance comes from a sense that Jesus is referring to literal cannibalism.

Instead, she suggests, they find Jesus’ claims about himself in the Discourse as more than they can stomach (I can’t resist a pun, no matter how poor). “The response of the disciples to Jesus is an example of the irony for which John is well known,” Hylen argues, “the disciples reject the idea that Jesus is manna, but in doing so they display that Jesus is manna by responding to him just as the Israelites responded to manna.”

Jesus knows that the disciples themselves are now “grumbling” about his assertions, just as the religious authorities had grumbled earlier in the account. “As in the Exodus story, the issue is not simply the grumbling of the people but the lack of trust in God that it represents,” Hylen continues.

“The difficulty in John 6 is not simply the cognitive content of believing something about Jesus,” she writes, “but also the lack of trust that the disciples display. Like the Israelites, they have experienced God’s miraculous provision,” Hylen observes, “but they do not trust that God will continue to provide for them in the wilderness.”

The “word” may be difficult. But it is the listeners who are becoming stiff, rigid, and unyielding. This is, I think, another part of the ironic method and intent of the writer of John’s gospel. The more I read and study this gospel, the more I think the writer employs a kind of “you spot it, you got it” sort of strategy. Often, in this account, Jesus’ opponents (and sometimes disciples) accuse him of precisely what afflicts them.

As Jesus challenges his disciples to go deeper into the mystery of the Feeding Miracle and its meaning, their resistance grows. Jesus is pushing the limits of their worldview to the breaking point. Either that worldview will burst its bounds and be opened to a whole new way of seeing, hearing, thinking, and trusting, or it will snap back with all the violent energy that pushed it to the edge of insight.

This is the really hard thing – to see something new. “Here, the problem seems not so much that the disciples have difficulty understanding what Jesus is saying,” Brian Peterson notes, “they understand quite well, but cannot believe and follow what Jesus has said. How often,” he wonders, “do we find the same to be true about ourselves?”

One question which the text puts to us is this. Can we do hard things? More accurately, are we willing to do hard things? The hardest thing of all, it would seem, is to trust Jesus completely in life and in death. That’s what it means to have someone or something as a god, Martin Luther reminds us in the Large Catechism. The hard thing is to allow ourselves to be displaced from the center of the universe and to open ourselves to the presence of Jesus as that center.

A hard thing requires “hearing.” The disciples use such a simple word in their reaction in John 6:60. Who can hear it? Of course, they heard the “word” with their ears. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be reacting as they did. But can they take that word into themselves, their hearts, and their understanding of the cosmos? Can they allow that word to change everything in them and about them? Most of all, can they obey that Word in their lives – in the face of some really hard things?

We may not find the gospel in John’s account to be such a hard thing anymore. After all, we have domesticated the Incarnation almost beyond its capacity to shock us. But perhaps we can grapple with the hard things the gospel seems to require of us in order to experience the sclerotic responses of those first disciples.

In the face of change, challenge, and chaos, we tend to harden up and hunker down. This is especially the case when we are in danger of losing something – something like power, position, privilege, and property.

Will we do hard things in the Church, such as attacking and dismantling our centuries of white supremacy? Will we be, as Jemar Tisby asks, courageous Christians or compromised Christians? Will we do the hard things even though those things may get us thrown out or even killed?

Will we consider deeding church property back to Indigenous peoples and nations – the first “owners” of the land? Over the next decade, it is clear, a number of Christian congregations will cease to exist as corporate entities. They will dispose of billions of dollars’ worth of property in that process. Will that simply go into the pockets of the white “shareholders”? Or might it be given to people where the value could really do some long-term good?

Just when we need curiosity, creativity, and courage, we lock down into fight, flight, or freeze mode. I think we can see the early church dealing with this issue in the second readings for last Sunday and this one.

We see the Church wondering how to manage the egalitarian impulse of Pauline Christianity in the face of a hierarchical, powerful, and violent Empire. I think that in Ephesians we see a Church that is backing away from some of the hard things – attacking slavery, dismantling patriarchy, and treating children as human beings rather than property. The egalitarian impulse caused enough trouble in Paul’s generation of the Church. Now, in the second generation, survival is becoming an institutional priority. As a result, some people will suffer rather than being set free.

Yet, perhaps, the writer of Ephesians holds out hope for real change. In the second lesson paired with our text from the Gospel of John, we hear about the “whole armor of God.” Just as Jesus will note the power of the Spirit in our Gospel passage, so the writer of Ephesians expresses confidence that we Jesus followers can access the equipment we need in order to do battle with the principalities and powers.

What does that mean for us, especially as white, American, rich, and powerful Christians? It means that we are challenged to trust enough in Jesus to release our death grip on the power, position, privilege, and property in which we have placed our trust for so long. As we see in this gospel text, faithful congregations may well shrink rather than grow numerically. And those “successful” congregations experiencing numerical growth will need to examine closely the reasons for that growth. Those reasons probably don’t include doing the hard things.

Does this sort of talk scandalize you? Well, then I may be on the right track.

Resources and Reference

Clark-Soles, Jaime. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69.

Hoch, Robert. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-5.

Hylen, Susan. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-3.

Peterson, Brian. https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-21-2/commentary-on-john-656-69-2.