Category: Culture
Paragraphs from SSCSJ
These are thoughts on the texts for September 2, 2012. Subscribers of Sacred Steps: Children’s Sermon Journal receive exegesis, commentary, and ideas for crafting the children’s sermon based on the Lectionary each week.
Psalm 15
If we simply take the final form of Ps 15, the plot twist can still make sense. While the one praying may begin the liturgy with an expectation of gaining access to a place, at the end she/he learns that worshiping God is best done in how one lives than in where one worships. This is a lesson that Israel struggled to remember throughout the stories of the 1st Testament. It is a reminder that prophets attempted to provide for the community throughout the generations. We also need to be reminded of this important connection between our worship and our work, between our prayer and our practice. What images do the “LORD’s tent” and “holy hill” call to mind for you? What is a holy place in your life? Is the sanctuary of your congregation such a space? Who gets to enter the sanctuary? Can you think of people who may not feel worthy to be in church because of the words spoken there? How does your life reflect the God you worship? How does your congregation live out their worship of God through service to the world? Does the liturgy in your worship assure people of God’s enduring presence, so that they “shall never be moved”?
Song of Solomon 2:8-13
While the Lectionary has listed “Song of Solomon” as the name of this biblical book, that is a traditional title and not its actual name. In Hebrew, this book is titled shir ha’shirim, which translates as “Song of Songs” (SoS). This is the Hebrew way of expressing the superlative; this text is the song that is better than all other songs. The next words in the Hebrew text are ‘asher le’shlomo, “which is of Solomon.” Like the many superscriptions in the Psalms (e.g., le’david), this is not meant as a byline but rather probably indicates that the text is “in honor of” Solomon or “dedicated to” Solomon. Since King Solomon was known for his many wives and concubines, one can see why this book of love poems would come to be associated with him. One tradition suggested that Solomon wrote these poems about his relationship with the Queen of Sheba (see 1 Kgs 10 or 2 Chr 9), but there is no evidence to support this claim.2
SoS is found among the Ketuvim, “Writings”, the third portion of the Jewish Bible, which was the last section to be canonized (perhaps not until 200 CE). Scholars think that SoS either was written at a late date (after the Babylonian Exile, no earlier than 5th century BCE) or was not accepted until late in the canonization process. The subject matter of SoS is erotic love that is expressed within a non-marital context. It contains no expressions of Israelite nationalism or of any explicit religious/ethical values. It is suggested that the subject matter of SoS almost prevented it from making it into the canon, or it might have been questioned because the female has such a dominant voice; she is in control of her sexuality and not the possession of some male (which was common in many ancient cultures, including Israelite). We know that the rabbis did debate its inclusion, and some believe that it was included only because of the traditional belief in Solomon’s authorship. However, it is more plausible that SoS was kept in the Jewish canon because the rabbis understood that the Divine was a part of all life, including sexuality. And we are indebted to them for this wise decision.
James 1:17-27
Are you “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger?” Maybe a better way to consider the question is to think of settings in which you are likely to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger, as compared to situations in which you are quick to anger, interrupt, and not listen to others.8 How does this reflect on who you are as a person that claims Christian faith? Another way to ingest this text would be to evaluate your belief and practice as a “doer” or “hearer” of the word. A first question would be, “Whose word or what word?” Is it the “Word” proclaimed by the Gospel of John? Is it the “Word” proclaimed by the Apostle Paul? Is the “Word” the good news of God as proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels as a whole? The author of James provides a hint in vv. 23-24, though it is an awkward metaphor. A translation note in the NISB provides another way to read and hear the text.
Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23
This is a good week to put a few of your congregation’s traditions, as well as a few traditions of Christianity, under a microscope and ask, “Why?” Think about your worship service. Where are communion, offering, and preaching placed in your order of worship? Why do you have that order of worship? Who is chosen from the congregation as deacon or elder? How do you practice baptism, what do you ask a person who comes forward to join your congregation, and who is welcome into membership of your congregation? This is not about questioning for questioning’s sake. It is about determining the intentions of “traditions” and if those are consistent with the teachings of Jesus and your understanding of God. It’s about recognizing when a person, congregation, or religion chooses tradition’s interpretation of a sacred text over what the sacred text says or does not say. It is important to remember that the biblical witness was organized based on “tradition’s” power structures as well. Many Christian siblings, who continue to believe and argue that women should not be ministers, do so even though all the gospels agree that Mary Magdalene was one of the first to experience Christ’s resurrection and, according to the Gospel of John, was told by the risen Christ to go and tell (preach) to the disciples the good news that he had risen. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestants deny women the process and the affirmation to answer their call to ordained Christian ministry, often based on church’s tradition.
The Field is Set
Warning: I’m about to rant about something that I’ve been pondering for a while now. This mornings announcement by former Governor Mitt Romney naming Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate stirred me to the keyboard. I’m not negative about individuals that are Democrats or Republicans. People can agree and disagree. I’m ranting about National politics. For a long time I’ve thought that my vote in national elections didn’t matter. An opinion that was mostly solidified by the Supreme Court stepping in to name our President back in 2000 and gifting unlimited and undisclosed dollars into our political system. Maybe voting in national elections does matter and if it does the current political climate is motivating me go to the polls this year, if I’m allowed and have the right ID, to cast a vote for President Obama.
This morning Mr. Romney actually introduced Rep. Ryan as “the next President of the United States.” This slip stirred my memory of something I saw reported about Grover Norquist and his speech at CPAC this year.
“All we have to do is replace Obama. … We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. … We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don’t need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate. Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.”
I tire of hearing politicians discount the history and economics of Europe. The whole “freedom fries” phrasing from a few years ago demonstrates just how gullible politicians believe the governed are right now and they may have a point. But, for all the bashing of European governments, health care, and economies I found an “aha” moment in Mr. Romney’s slip this morning and the depth of what Mr. Norquist is driving toward which is a parliamentary style of governing that has a strong Prime Minister (the Vice President) and a figure head as President / CEO (think Royalty). When you reflect on the last GOP Administration to inhabit the White House that kind of “governing” seems to fit, Cheney and Bush,. Given what we know about Mr. Romney, his business past and his “flip flop” on the issues to get elected, add that to what we know about Rep. Ryan and his federal budget plan, and fold in the words of Mr. Norquist alongside the outrage of the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, it makes sense to me that the power brokers within the GOP and the white plutocrats funding their run for the White House and control of Congress, have determined that Mr. Romney is a very rich guy looking to check off his bucket list what his father could not do: become President of the United States. All he has to do is what he is told to do and embrace what he is told to embrace.
So, what are the plutocrats doing? Well, what economic aristocracy does, what corrupt nobles did in Europe, they pit the peasants against each other to retain power. They throw around “welfare, food stamps, and entitlements” and hang photos of a non-white persons on those terms and say “it is their fault.” They do what they always do and set themselves above accountability. The current economic climate and the lack of arrests and jail time for the people that caused this mess, that is global now, is the best example of how these persons are above the law. Much of what the National GOP, their Super Pacs, the folks like Karl Rove, and the pundits at Fox are doing in TV and radio Ads, the Internet ads, and in their publications, all of it is grounded in calling President Obama a “foreigner” that has failed the country. It is suggesting that President Obama’s election victory was just a “band wagon” experience for the nation. It is counting on a soft racism among the citizens to ensure that they will vote against their economic and social interests. It is counting on Christian religious fundamentalism that would define our Republic as a “Christian nation,” to “civilize” and “evangelize” the globe. It is counting on an “us and them” that sees the GOP world view as the only right world view and that is based on white male dominance. It’s built on the fantasy that I’ll buy the winning lottery ticket, have money to invest, and become a member of the economic aristocracy that can live off interest, not work, and manipulate the system for their own benefit. It is counting on every day citizens of every race forgetting that to whom much is given, much is required or if you prefer, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Supply-side and “trickle down” economics has benefited a very few people and corporations in this country and around the world. Is this Republic willing to be “governed” by the GOP economic aristocracy that has since the 2010 mid-term elections taken away rights of workers, that has set up 21st century poll tests and taxes to deliver the election for President for their candidate, and taken away the rights of women of self determination when they will choose to have a child or not. Really, just so a person of color does not become the President of the United States, again. Is that what the rhetoric “take back our country” means for the GOP?
This morning Mr. Ryan, in accepting his selection as the VP candidate, said that he would not be afraid of telling the public the truth. Will he denounce the soft racism of some in his party and those that associate with it? Did he contact the Sikh community in Wisconsin that was terrorized or speak out against such violence in his home state?
So, the field is set in this election and there are clear choices about the vision and direction of this country into the 21st century. Do we have the hope, resolve, and capacity to do what is right for all Americans, again, like our history has recorded when people of good will come together for a common purpose and a greater good? I guess it depends on how you define the “greater good” in the 21st century. Based on what I’ve seen from Mr. Romney’s past in business and from Mr. Ryan’s budget plan the greater good is the continuance of white economic aristocracy. I could be wrong.