Tag Archives: ecojustice

Fourth Sunday of Lent in Year B (Saler15)

Preaching the Adventure of Passion – Robert Saler reflects on being a listening church.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary

Readings for the Fourth Sunday in Lent, Year B (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)

Numbers 21:4-9
Psalm 107:1-3, 17-22
Ephesians 2:1-10
John 3:14-21

Those who would preach creation care in connection with the famous John 3 pericope—which of course includes what is perhaps the single most quoted Bible verse, John 3:16—face a significant challenge which we might call the ā€œbrandingā€ issue.

The issue is this: While John’s gospel understands the struggle between the ā€œlife abundantā€ promised by God and inaugurated by Jesus on the one hand and the forces of death and darkness on the other to be one of deadly seriousness, one that encompasses both sublime spiritual realities and the most existentially significant embodied struggles in life, in too many sectors that gospel message has been so spiritualized and ā€œchurchifiedā€ that it has lost the ability to name the most vital struggles at play in our inner and outer worlds. ā€œFor God so loved the worldā€ has become synonymous with billboard evangelism and regressive politics, particularly in the U.S. context.

As a number of studies on the rise of the ā€œnonesā€ have concluded (people with religious interests but no religious community), the slow exodus of millenials from traditional religious affiliation is not attributable to a lack of passion to change the world and engage in social justice-oriented activities, including the creation of beauty. Indeed, one of the most troubling facts of these reports for those of us who feel loyalty to the church and its witness is that, in many cases, there appears to be an inverse relationship between a millenial’s passion to spend her or his life in causes that make a difference and the likelihood of that individual participating in church. Millenials are not, by and large, anti-religion; they simply are in the gradual process of losing faith in the institutional church to be a venue that can host and amplify their passions.

Those steeped in the deep wells of Christian ecological theology—or indeed, orthodox Christian theology in general—will know that the Christian witness, apart from its degrading affiliations with cheap sloganeering on political or religious fronts, has always understood itself to encompass the whole pathos of the human condition. As we continue to live into what future generations will certainly see as one of the key defining dramas of our planet—combating the deleterious effects of environmental degradation, with the necessary attention to the matters of race, class, global poverty, and cultural contestation that this struggle entails—then marshalling the passion for human flourishing present within and outside of the church will be, not only a key strategic matter, but also a measure of our fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I have been teaching a course this semester at my school, Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis, on C.S. Lewis and the intellectual environment in which his theology took shape. One of the more striking features of Lewis’ work—and that of his close friend and collaborator, J.R.R. Tolkien—is the pervasiveness of the theme of adventure and genuine bodily/existential peril involved in their depictions of the struggle between good and evil. A key motivation behind the theological mytho-poetics of their fantasy texts is to depict, in resonant narrative fashion, what it would mean for Christians to live as if the drama of following Christ’s self-sacrificial love for God’s world truly were a struggle that requires courage, the fortitude of faith, and character formation—all because something truly is at stake.

It would be a sad irony if, at a time in the planet’s history when precisely this sort of struggle is happening in various contexts across the world, the church’s witness to a God who forms us to struggle alongside God’s Spirit in serving life abundant (particularly to the poor and marginalized, who of course are the hardest hit by ecological degradation) is rendered boring, sterilized, cheaply politicized, or ā€œreligionizedā€ such that its genuinely disruptive potential is stifled. What a missed opportunity!

Fortunately, for preachers in this time of Lent who have the ears to hear and eyes tuned to see the signs of life-giving passion present both within and without the walls of the church, this Sunday’s proclamation that ā€œGod so loves the world,ā€ that God does whatever it takes to give it life and to defeat the forces of death, can become a risky venture into the naming of the spaces of life and death within our lives—hopefully in a manner that is theologically serious yet undomesticated by the restraints of ā€œreligionā€ per se. In a time in which, as I have argued elsewhere, the church is present as much in the act of truth-telling as a ā€œdiffusively spatialized eventā€ as within the walls of any given institution (Cf. Robert Saler, Between Magisterium and Marketplace: A Constructive Account of Theology and the Church, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), then this text gives preachers a chance to exercise creative listening to the passions present in their context and to speak—in deeply incarnational fashion—as to how no human passion towards life can be foreign to the gospel proclaimed by John.

In other words, rather than lament or become defensive about the growing irrelevance of the church to the world-changing passions of millenials and others, the ecologically sensitive preacher can demonstrate how the church can be as much ecclesia discens (the listening church) as ecclesia docens (the teaching church) when it comes to being able to discern how the Spirit’s struggle to continue to enact the triumph of life over death in our world is playing out in multiple venues and contexts, ā€œsacredā€ and otherwise. Such preaching can remove this text from its piety-imposed exile into ā€œchurchlinessā€ and reclaim it as the eruptive message of grace for all creation that it is.

Originally written by Robert Saler in 2015.
rsaler@hotmail.com

Fourth Sunday of Lent in Year B (Mundahl18)

Loving the Cosmos as God DoesTom Mundahl reflects on repenting of the “windigo” way.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary

Readings for the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year B (2018, 2021, 2024)

Numbers 21:4-9
Psalm 107:1-3, 17-22
Ephesians 2:1-10
John 3:14-21

Each Ash Wednesday we make an unusually comprehensive community confession of sin. We confess ā€œour self-indulgent appetites and ways, our exploitation of other people,ā€ ā€œour indifference to injustice and cruelty,ā€ and ā€œour waste and pollution of creation and our lack of concern for those who come after usā€ (Evangelical Lutheran Worship, Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006, p. 253). While the starkness of these petitions may strike some as excessive, in light of the state of our planet one may also wonder: how could they be so mild?

Not only are we struggling through the aftermath of the eighteenth U.S. school shooting in the first couple months of 2018, but already residents of the Ohio River watershed are experiencing severe flooding. In my own Twin Cities, residents of the eastern suburbs of St. Paul are wondering if ā€œ3-M’sā€ nearly one billion dollar fine for polluting groundwater with the chemical components of Teflon will be sufficient given the 100 square mile toxic underground ā€œplumeā€ that has developed. And, once more the residents of California are beginning to worry about the low snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, one of their most important water sources. Will this year bring more fires, mudslides, and greater stress to farms and city residents alike?

The gravity of issues like this was on the mind of Wake Forest University’s Fred Bahnson as he attended Good Friday services last year. He arrived at worship hoping to have quiet time to reflect on the cross, the state of his life, and the state of the world. What he experienced was quite different. ā€œPerhaps what we needed that night at the National Cathedral was not more can-do American solutions, but more ā€˜sackcloth and ashesā€™ā€ (ā€œThe Ecology of Prayer,ā€ Orion, Vol. 36, No. 4, Thirty-fifth Anniversary Issue, 2017, p. 85).

To the wandering Israelites described in this week’s First Lesson, ā€œsackcloth and ashesā€ may not have sounded so bad. Not only was the first generation of leaders dying, the wilderness wanderers continued to be frustrated by continued detours forcing them to rely on Moses’ leadership and a divinely provided menu. It is no wonder that once more the people complained, this time directly to God, ā€œWhy have you brought us out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable foodā€ (Numbers 21:5).

No longer does ā€œout of Egyptā€ seem to be a punch line for a freedom dance. Now Egypt seems to represent a time without endless wandering and, despite bondage, a time of relative economic security. In their imaginations, Egypt may have become what Maggie Ross once referred to as ā€œthe mall across the Red Sea.ā€ Especially to the second generation of those on this extended trek, stories detailing life in Egypt would likely have become attractive. How easy it was to forget the cultural humiliation and painful work of brick-making for harsh Egyptian masters, slavery which seemed to consume their unique gift to the world (Dennis Olson, Numbers, Louisville: John Knox, 1996, p. 135ff.).

The desperate attraction to the horrors of life in Egypt reminds me of one of most powerful of Algonquin legends—the tradition of the ā€œwindigo,ā€a being who has developed an appetite for food, wealth, and power that can never be satisfied. Not only had the Israelites been victims of this ā€œwindigo” power in Egypt, but in many ways, so are we. Robin Wall Kimmerer describes how contemporary culture has ā€œspawned a new breed of ā€œwindigoā€ that devours Earth’s resources ā€œnot for need but for greed.ā€ This mind-set proposes to improve our ā€œquality of life,ā€ but eats us from within. ā€œIt is as if we’ve been invited to a feast, but the table is laid with food that only nourishes emptiness, the black hole of the stomach that never fills. We have unleashed a monsterā€ (Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants, Minneapolis: Milkweed, 2013, p. 308).

The consequences for the Israelites attracted to this nostalgic security monster are dire.

Poisonous serpents are deployed that quickly produce a high body count. When the desperate Israelites seek Moses’ help, he prays to the LORD, who commands him to make a bronze casting of a poisonous serpent, put it on a pole, so that, ā€œwhenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and liveā€ (Numbers 21:9). No longer did they long for the storied days of imagined ease brought by the Egyptian ā€œwindigo;ā€ now by looking at the very source of death they find healing and restoration of communal trust. It is no surprise that the Johannine evangelist uses this image (John 3:14) to portray the cross, that brutal instrument of Roman torture, as the sign pointing to cosmic renewal of life. God transforms the very instruments of death (serpent/cross) sub contrario, into tools for life.

Much the same can be seen in this week’s Second Lesson from Ephesians, where the author frames the text with the Greek verb peripateo, ā€œto walk,ā€ the source of the English ā€œperipatetic.ā€ This ā€œinclusioā€ describes contrary ways of life: in v. 2 walking the ā€œwindigoā€ way of death; in v. 10 walking the way of service and care. ā€œFollowing the course of this worldā€ (Ephesians 2:2) suggests that ā€œhuman life is under the malign influence of celestial powers thought to rule the universe, akin to ā€˜the elemental spirits’ of Col. 2:8, 20ā€ (Ralph Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Louisville: John Knox, 1991 p. 26). The result is a warped understanding of life that leads to boasting (v. 9), misplaced confidence in human capacity, and being caught in the maelstrom of “windigo” lust.

The results of this kind of living are familiar to us today. According to Clive Hamilton, ā€œThe Great Acceleration began at the end of WW II and inaugurated both globalization and the Anthropocene. The rapid acceleration of economic growth, along with booming consumption and its profligate resource usage and waste, drove human destabilization of the Earth System. The pursuit of the American Dream at the same time brought the Anthropocene nightmareā€ (Clive Hamilton, Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene, Cambridge: Polity, 2017, p. 84). That this accelerating, self-augmenting, out-of-control system reminds us of the ā€œwindigoā€ should be no surprise. And, it is certainly not to automobile drivers trapped in nearly identical smog-producing traffic jams in Los Angeles, Cairo, Moscow, Beijing, and Addis Ababa.

Fortunately, the author of Ephesians reminds readers of the mercy of God, ā€œwho has made us alive together with Christā€ (Ephesians 2:55). ā€œIn effect, God has done for Christians what God has already done for Christā€ (Martin, p. 27). This results not in a new status of ā€œholiness,ā€ since it is all done ā€œby grace as a free giftā€ (Ephesians 2:8), but in an explosion of servant-care. ā€œFor we are what he made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of lifeā€ (Ephesians 2:10). This amazing verse pulls no punches: the communal gift of grace flows through us as a way of continuing the renewal of creation and healing. Integral to this new way of walking (the closing of our ā€œinclusioā€ frame) is building eco-justice.

This week’s lesson from John’s Gospel continues this emphasis on God’s action to heal and renew creation through the Son of Man (John 3:14) and the new community he calls into being (John 3:21). Once more we see a figure lifted up as Moses lifted the serpent, but this time the result is not only the healing of those bitten by fiery serpents. Here the result is a new quality of life not only for those who believe, but for the whole creation (John 3:15-16).

Despite the uniqueness of John’s Gospel, Raymond Brown reminds us that the three statements describing Jesus being lifted up (John 3:14, 8: 28, and 12:32-34) function as the equivalent of the three synoptic passion predictions (The Gospel According to John, New York, Doubleday, 1966, p. 146). While John does not describe a specific response to each of these, the consequences are clear. In our text, even though the Son was ā€œnot sent into the world to condemn the worldā€ (John 3:17), those who have seen and do not believe have already condemned themselves (John 3:18). ā€œAnd this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evilā€ (John 3:19). What is this if not a sense of being trapped in the ā€œwindigo” energy of ā€œthe virtue of selfishnessā€ which has led to everything from out-of-control ecological devastation to power addiction and genocide? And this does not even begin to measure the energy required to ā€œcover up in the darknessā€ responsibility for these deeds!

John describes the life of faith as producing even greater energy. But this energy is directed toward ā€œdoing the truthā€ (John 3:21a). Because these deeds come into the light, visible to the entire cosmos, they contain an entirely different kind of generativity. Just as the author of Ephesians refers to ā€œgood works which God has prepared beforehandā€ (Ephesians 2:10), so the works coming from faith-active-in-love are ā€œdeeds performed in Godā€ (Arndt, Bauer, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 307). Certainly ecojustice and Earthcare are among them.

The motive force behind ā€œdoing the truthā€ is the ā€œlife of new creationā€/ā€eternal lifeā€ that comes from the lifting up of the Son of man, the word made flesh. This energy easily surpasses competing powers, including ā€œEternal Rome.ā€ While Roman ideology claimed divine paternity for Augustus and his successors, who assumed political permanence, the gift of the one lifted up on a Roman cross could be grasped ā€œonly by faithā€ (Margaret Daly-Denton, John—An Earth Bible Commentary, London: Bloomsbury, 2017, p. 78). Still, a ā€œlife that bears endless newnessā€ is the audacious claim of the early community, an assertion intensified in his gift of peace ā€œnot as the world (here read ā€œCaesarā€) givesā€ (John 14:27).

The center of this text is John 3:16, an echo of the prologue with its allusion to creationā€”ā€In the beginning . . . .ā€ (John 1:1). Note well that Jesus does not say, ā€œGod loved humankind so much.ā€ The life of the new time is not just for human beings; it envelops the entire Earth, the cosmos. Margaret Daly-Denton calls attention to the rich meaning of ā€œcosmosā€ with etymological connections to ā€œbeauty,ā€ the root of ā€œcosmetic.ā€ In this case, however, the word points to beauty that is rooted deeply within the creation and integral to the harmony of its endless interconnections (Ibid., pp. 78-79).

When we affirm God’s love for the cosmos, broken as it is, we discover surprising depth. What faith sees is seldom simply an object of vision, but even more the unseen reality that brings it into being. As Wirzba writes, ā€œOur gaze at a creature . . . does not stop at the creature’s surface but extends beyond it to its dependence upon and source in a Creator. The Logos through which all things in the world came to be is also the light and life within each thingā€ (Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating, Cambridge, 2011, p. 32). This attitude requires us to live ā€œtogether withā€ the whole of creation in a respectful way, or, as John would have it, ā€œliving in the lightā€ (John 3:21).

That this is not the way we see the world God loves in our consumer-driven culture is clear. As Orthodox theologian Philip Sherrard reveals, ā€œWe are treating our planet in an inhuman, god-forsaken manner because we see things in an inhuman, god-forsaken way. And we see things in this way because that is basically how we see ourselvesā€ (Human Image–World Image: The Death and Resurrection of Sacred Cosmology, Ipswich: Golgonooza Press, 1992, p. 2). In order for us as to serve Earth and build ecojustice for all, we need once more to recognize God’s love in each other and in all that the Creator has made.

Yes, Fred Bahnson is correct in calling for us to put on the ā€œsackcloth and ashesā€ of grief when we consider what we continue to do to this planet. Our actions are based primarily on how we see the cosmos—as a ā€œmineā€ of resources to satisfy our endless desires, the ā€œwindigo” way from which it seems impossible to extricate ourselves. While the new-mindedness of Lenten repentance requires action, public policy change, hard work, and all of our energy, it also suggests the need for Lenten time to breathe and remember the depth of God’s love, a memory that may open us once more to be ā€œchannels of justice.ā€

Tom Mundahl
Saint Paul, MN
tmundahl@gmail.com

Originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2018.

Sunday August 14-20 in Year A (Ormseth)

If we are to address Earth-care together, no nation can claim privileged exceptionalism.Ā Dennis OrmsethĀ  reflects on a global scope for the vision of well-being.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for Sunday August 14-20, Year A (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)

Isaiah 56:1, 6-8
Psalm 67
Romans 11:1-2a, 29-32
Matthew 15:[10-20] 21-28

Constructing political agreements to address on a global scale the degradation of the earth’s ecology is proving to be a nearly insurmountable challenge.Ā As James Gustave Speth writes in an ā€œanatomy of failureā€ of global environmental governance, environmental deterioration ā€œis driven by powerful underlying forces; it requires far-reaching international responses; and the political base to support these measures tends to be weak and scattered.ā€ These forces are quickly identified:Ā ā€œthe steady expansion of human populations, the routine deployment of inappropriate technologies, the near universal aspiration for affluence and high levels of consumption, and the widespread unwillingness to correct the failures of the unaided market.ā€ But the strategies needed to deal with these forces are very difficult to put in place. They need to be far-reaching and complex:Ā new energy policies, new transportation strategies, changes in agriculture and the management of forests around the world. The required actions ā€œdemand international cooperation on a scale seldom achievedā€Ā (Speth, pp. 98-99).

The politics of such cooperation are exceedingly difficult: the issues are increasingly complex and difficult to understand; the impacts are remote or difficult to perceive; they concern future problems more than current ones, and problems that may be felt more immediately by other people in other places rather than close to home; and the problems tend to be chronic rather than acute.Ā The political institutions needed for sustained and effective action are rarely strong enough. Economic needs regularly trump the needs of the environment. The wealthy global North protects its world dominance over against the poorer South. And particularly problematic is the persistence of the government of the United States in its arrogant attitude of exceptionalism, which undergirds a ā€œpattern of unilateralism and of staying outside the multilateral system unless we need it—a la carte multilateralismā€ (Speth, pp.98 – 99, 107-11)

Can Christian churches contribute to the effort to meet this immense and daunting set of challenges?Ā Without addressing specific issues identified by Speth, the lectionary lessons for this Sunday nonetheless point to resources within the tradition for helping the world deal with important, perhaps even crucial, aspects of them. The readings evince a powerful determination on the part of God to overcome the divisions that separate peoples from each other and work against their mutual well-being. Psalm 67, for example, reminds us that God’s people are to pray that God’s ā€œway may be known uponĀ earth, [God’s] saving powerĀ among all nationsā€ (67:2; our emphasis). There is global scope to the vision of well-being for which we commonly pray, as in the words of the Lord’s Prayer, ā€œYour kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.ā€

Furthermore, the challenge of bridging divisions between peoples is clearly addressed in the lesson from Isaiah 56; through the prophet, God promises to gather ā€œthe outcasts of Israelā€ and ā€œothers . . . besides those already gatheredā€ (56:8). To the ā€œforeigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant—these,ā€ the prophet promises on behalf of God, ā€œI will bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer.ā€ Interpreted in terms of the mission of Jesus, the Lord, the Servant of Creation, this promise means that those who minister to God and act as God’s servants will be co-servants with him in serving creation. Together with these strangers the people of God already gathered embrace the restoration of creation adumbrated in Jesus’ ministry: keeping the Sabbath rest, which encompasses all creatures in God’s own shalom, they join his ascent of the ā€œholy mountain,ā€ which is to say that, the representative ecology in which God, the creation, and the servants of creation are brought together in prayers of joyful praise and thanksgiving. ā€œFor my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoplesā€ (56:7).

In the Gospel reading for the day we see how such promises might actually begin to be realized. The encounter between Jesus and the Canaanite woman offers a vision of how such deep divisions that prohibit the healing of creation might be overcome.Ā Warren Carter describes the situation as follows:

Just as Jesus ā€œcame outā€ or left one place (Mt 15:21), the woman also ā€œcame out.ā€ They meet in an unspecified ā€œnowhereā€ place in the boundary region of Galilee and Tyre-Sidon, the interface of Jewish and Gentile territory. It is a place of tension and prejudice: Josephus declaresĀ  “the Tyrians are our bitterest enemiesā€ (Con ApĀ 1.70), and there were clashes between Tyrians and Jews in the 60s (JW 2.478).Ā Along with ethnic conflict, there are competing religious understandings (Israel is God’s chosen people), economic needs (the urban centers Tyre and Sidon require food from rural areas), and political goals. Tyrian political aspirations for further territory and resentment of Roman rule ran high.Ā Josephus notes that many followers of John of Gischala, who revolted against Rome, came from ā€˜the region of Tyreā€ (JW 2.5888; cf. Vita 372). The woman comes not from the cities of Tyre or Sidon but fromĀ that region,Ā suggesting perhaps her poverty as a rural peasant (Carter,Ā Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading, pp. 321-22).

Thus, in her appeal to Jesus as he enters the conflicted territory that separates her people from Jesus’ people, the woman confronts many of the complex factors that render political accommodation of any kind difficult, today no less than in the first century: rival populations struggle for control of contested territories and the resources they contain; the power and prerogatives of empire trump local concerns; and the resort to military power to guarantee access to material resources adds to the people’s sense of vulnerability and hopelessness. And figuring most prominently in their exchange is the challenge of the imperialistic ideology of Israel that, astonishingly, seems in the first instance to be even Jesus’ own point of deep resistance to her appeal.

Nevertheless, the woman draws on virtues she intuitively knows she can depend on for the response she seeks from Jesus: she cries out persistently, as in prayer, to one she acknowledges as Lord and son of David, challenging, as Carter puts it, ā€œJesus’ very identity and mission.ā€ Her petition squarely confronts the ideology implied by that mission:

“her request has challenged his ideology of chosenness, which restricts his mission and his disciples mission to Israel. In the tradition of Abraham, she demands her share in God’s blessing for all the world (15:29-39; 1:1-2). Her request protests an excluding focus on Israel and reclaims her place as a Canaanite and a Gentile in God’s purposesā€ (Ibid., p. 323.)

When Jesus persists in his resistance she matches him with both wit and courage. In the crux of their exchange, so offensive to contemporary ears attuned to politically correct standards of speech, he supplies a metaphor that provides an impetus to transcend their conflict.ā€ It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs,ā€ he says.Ā ā€œWhy does he use a food metaphor when she has not asked for food?ā€ Carter astutely asks, and observes:

“Bread or food has also been an issue in two previous stories (12:7-8; 15:1-20) that have involved conflict between traditions and God’s will. Here the struggle concerns whether Jesus will be bound by cultural and historical conventions in resisting this woman from around Tyre and Sidon (see 15:21-22), or understand that faithfulness to his commission to manifest God’s saving reign does not violate Israel’s priority if he extends the reign to Gentiles. Food, then, is a metaphor for God’s empire or salvation (1:21, 23; 4:17)” (Ibid., p. 324).

So while his comment persists in maintaining ā€œthe status quo of ethnic, cultural, religious, gender, and political division, her response lays claim to his metaphor for her own cause: ā€œYes Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.ā€ Thus, she reaches out

ā€œbeyond these barriers to possibilities that are faithful to God’s promises to bless all the nations of the earth (Gen 12:1-13).Ā Without questioning the priority of the children (Israel), and while recognizing the authority ofĀ the masters, she reframes the significance of dogs (Gentiles). It is not a matter of food or no food (Jesus’ alternative), but food for both. . . . She demands a place at the table, not under it.ā€

What Carter calls attention to is the relationship between a master of the householdĀ and its domestic animals.Ā Not only the children of the household receive the master’s care; the animals belong to the household as well, and cannot be denied the food that is appropriate to them. And, we note, this wild metaphorical stratagem of the woman triumphs!

Jesus has a name for her persistence: ā€œWoman, great is your faith!ā€ he exclaims. ā€œLet it be done for you as you wish.ā€Ā Indeed, the narrative has made the greatness of her faith very clear; she has overcome every obstacle. But it is important to see precisely what that faith is. It is clearlyĀ notĀ faith in Jesus as the one who delivers special privilege and power to Israel among the nations, or, for that matter, to Christian believers.Ā It is rather a faith in the gracious mercy of God that transcends all such ā€œethnic, gender, religious, political, and economic barriers.ā€Ā And even more: we would suggest that her metaphor expresses a faith that overcomes the commonly assumed division between humans and their animal companions. Here, we might say, is faith in God as the creator of all who provides food for all.Ā Her appeal is to a God for whom, in the vivid image of the woman’s plea, dogs are as welcome at the family table as are the children!

The implication for people of faith in the context of contemporary care of creation is clear: in the face of this woman’s faith in the God of all creation, whose healing servant she recognized in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the exceptionalist ideology of Israel or any other nation falls away. For this God, there is no barrier to restoration of all creation.Ā This truth comes hard to Americans or citizens of any nation who expect from the rest of the world subservience to their unilateralist conceptions of fairness and justice. To embrace such faith can be painfully difficult, and especially so for those who have taken special pride in being recipients of God’s salvation. Indeed, in the reading from Paul’s Letter to the Romans, we see how painful this recognition was for even the great apostle of justifying faith. God, he acknowledges, has given everything to his people, and yet he must relinquish their exclusive claim in favor of God’s transcendent compassion and all-inclusive mercy. Even Jesus would seem to give up his people’s privileged status with great reluctance.

So we should not be surprised that it comes with great difficulty for a nation such as ours, so wonderfully blessed as America has been in this place, to acknowledge other nations’ claims on ecological equity and justice. Nor, for that matter, for the human species in relationship to the needs of the rest of God’s creation.Ā  The woman transformed Jesus’ understanding of his mission in relationship to the purposes of God; who will change ours, so that the creation God so loves can be truly and finally restored?Ā  The Christian community has this transformation of perspective and orientation to offer the nations of the world, in their quest for policies that address the dreadful reality of our degradation of God’s creation, with both compassion and justice for all.

Ā Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2011.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Sunday June 19-25 in Year A (Mundahl)

It Can’t Happen Here Tom Mundahl reflects on prophetic voice and lament.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for Sunday June 19-25, Year A (2020, 2023)

Jeremiah 20:7-13
Psalm 69:7-10 (11-15) 16-18
Romans 6:1b-11
Matthew 10:24-39

When I read Camus’ novel The Plague during my freshman year in college, it never occurred to me that I would live to see a global pandemic. Nor did I expect that this novel would describe so accurately our reaction to this ā€œnew plague.ā€ Here is Camus providing a picture of how the residents of the Algerian city of Oran first met this brewing disaster.

“Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, thatĀ was all, and thought that everything was still possible for them; which presupposedĀ that pestilences were impossible.Ā  They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views.Ā  How should they have thought of anything like plague, which rulesĀ out any future, cancels journeys, silences the exchange of views.Ā  They fancied Ā Ā  themselves free, and no one will ever be free as long as there are pestilences” (Modern Library, 1948, pp. 34-35).

Perhaps no culture has been trapped by the illusions of freedom from necessity and exceptionalism as ours. This has not been helped by the ineptness of current political leadership in understanding that the federal government has leadership responsibilities in responding to the novel coronavirus pandemic. There has been a naive assumption of special American ā€œimmunityā€ — it can’t happen here.

But there is a corollary to this magical thinking as we move from political culture to personal life: ā€œit can’t happen hereā€ becomes ā€œit can’t happen to me.ā€ As a parish pastor working with hospice programs, I have witnessed first-hand just how powerful the fear and denial of death can be. From the preference for terms like ā€œpassed away,ā€ which now has been shortened to ā€œpassed,ā€ to the medical establishment’s preference for jargon like ā€œexpired,ā€ it is clear how very frightening it is to say, ā€œshe died.ā€Ā  After organizing several discussion groups on ā€œDeath and Dyingā€ and ā€œGrieving Together,ā€ it has even become evident that one of the ulterior motives for being involved with these topics may even be “finding a way out.ā€ It is ā€œone out of one except me.ā€ And, as all who work for ecojustice know, everything we have concluded about the magical thinking surrounding Covid-19 and personal mortality applies to the threat of the climate crisis. It even applies to systemic racism, where despite no racist bones ever admitted personally, people of color die as a result of government action or inaction at a shockingly higher rate.

Jeremiah also struggled against living in illusion. Only for him, illusion had a royal imprimatur and even the appearance of divine sanction. Beginning with Solomon, kings had ignored the Exodus tradition, replacing the ā€œmannaā€ sense of ā€œjust enoughā€ (Exodus 16:18) with the economics of affluence and a temple-based religion even Egyptians would be proud of (Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, Fortress, 2001, pp. 31-32).Ā  Building projects, military defeats, the rise first of Assyria, then Babylon, led to religious syncretism whichĀ  King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reforms couldn’t quell. It was a time that required prophets.

That living out the prophetic vocation was no easy task is made clear from reading Jeremiah. In fact, making sense of the lament which constitutes our First Lesson requires that the lector do some storytelling, summarizing the human slaughter that went on in the Hinnom Valley (Gehenna), the instructions to break an earthenware jug to show the fate of Judah, and Jeremiah’s arrest by Pashhur, the head of the Temple’s secret police (Jeremiah 19:1-20:6). Only then can this lament make sense.

It is ironic that as part of his call to be a prophet Jeremiah is promised that he will be an ā€œoverseer of the nationsā€ (Jeremiah 1:10, Hebrew text). Being arrested by a mere ā€œoverseerā€ of the temple police must have been the last straw (John Bright, Jeremiah, Anchor Bible, 1965, p. 132). No wonder his lament is filled with anger at the One who called him with generous promises, most of which now appear empty. Jeremiah complains that he was both seduced and overpowered, and the results of his work are nowhere to be seen (Jeremiah 20:7). ā€œFor whenever I speak, I must cry out, I must shout, ā€˜Violence and destruction!’ For the word of the LORD has become for me a reproach and derision all day longā€ (Jeremiah 20: 8).

Still there is power in his call.Ā  Even when he has had enough, he cannot keep from prophesying. Deep down, far beyond any possible level of comfort, there is a barely-conscious confidence that ā€œthe LORD is with me like a dread warrior; therefore my persecutors will stumble, and they will not prevailā€ (Jeremiah 20:11).

Yet, there is also power in a royal theology so confident of its unique possession of divine support that it can no longer hear a prophetic voice. Since the regime possesses an ā€œeternalā€ institutional truth through the monarch, real change is not necessary; it is only a matter of problem-solving and management. It is no surprise that Jeremiah’s ā€œstreet theater,ā€ using pottery to depict Judah’s future, is unthinkable and cannot be tolerated. It violates an ā€œofficial religion of optimismā€ (Brueggemann, p. 37). There is not even a momentary question whether this message might be the word of the LORD. The real problem is Jeremiah, who must be dealt with by a beatingĀ  and humiliating time in the stocks (Jeremiah 20:2).

That Judah with its royal theology is unable to hear or see the truth Jeremiah brings cannot help but feel eerily familiar to us. While we claim to have outgrown royalty, the current form of American exceptionalism, mixed with a form of patriotism that claims a perverse form of Christian nationalism as a foundational element, functions similarly to block discussion and action to bring real change.Ā  ā€œChange,ā€ isn’t that what the freighted biblical term, ā€œrepentance,ā€ really means?

What stiffens Jeremiah’s audience to reject this turn-around and embrace magical thinking,Ā  preventing them from seeing the way things really are?Ā  Put simply, it is fear of death, the death of the religio-political system they rely on for meaning, economic security, and physical safety. Like all prophets, because he tells an inconvenient truth, he is dangerous.Ā  To them, what Jeremiah’s words and street theater point to can’t happen here.

In the U.S. the results of the global pandemic, the reality of the climate crisis, and the seemingly endless level of racist police brutality threaten a culture based on endless economic growth requiring the exploitation of natural resources and inequality.Ā  Despite claiming to be a culture honoring science, the warnings of epidemiologists (whose work has been underfunded) and even fine science writers like Laurie Garret (The Coming Plague, Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 1995) and David Quammen (Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic, Norton, 2012) have too often been ignored. While acceptance of climate science has grown in the past five years — especially on local and state levels — implementation of policy on the national level has been undermined by the current administration which embraces the ā€œroyal theologyā€ of growth at any cost. Similarly, the racial inequality so obvious in the U.S. has been exploited as politically advantageous. As I write, sections of the Twin Cities, my home, are burning.

Like Jeremiah, we ask: why this resistance to truth? Much of the answer lies in our bondage to finding security and identity through possession (cf. Arthur McGill, Death and Life — An American Theology, Fortress, 1987, p. 54).Ā  Whether it is property, wealth, glamour, or intellectual achievement, what we control gives us the illusion of safety and integrity. That is equally the case on the societal level where Gross Domestic Product, a Defense Department budget larger than the next ten countries and necessary to support 800 military bases worldwide, and a massive advertising industry to keep the ā€œconsumer faith,ā€ all serve to promote what we have been led to believe is our ā€œwell-being.ā€ The results are anything but that — a climate crisis, community and family disintegration, and always the search for scapegoats to bear the blame for the inevitable failure of life lived this way.

So we join Jeremiah in his lament, especially as we consider Psalm 69. Unfortunately, the committee responsible for the Revised Common Lectionary has cut the heart out of this powerful lament.Ā  During this time of pandemic, climate crisis, and racial upheaval, we need also to hear the beginning cry:

Save me, O God,
for the waters have come up to my neck.
I sink in deep mire,
where there is no foothold;
I have come into deep waters,
and theĀ flood sweeps over me.
I am weary with my crying;
my throat is parched.
My eyes grow dim
with waiting for my God (Psalm 69: 1-3).

Why this need? By sharing in lament, our grief, pain, and the threat of chaos are transformed into language. And as we are reminded by the first creation narrative (Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a), just as God spoke all into existence, so something new and creative occurs when we join our speech and song (Current hymnals may feature a section of ā€œhymns of lament,ā€ e.g. Evangelical Lutheran Worship, pp. 697-704). This communal voice assures us we are never cut off from holy presence. As poet Gregory Orr contends, ā€œwords make worldsā€ (On Being, American Public Radio, May 31, 2020).

It is also important to honor Psalm 69 because traditionally it has been associated with JeremiahĀ  (James L. Mays, Psalms, John Knox, 1994, p. 232).Ā  Not only does the lament echo Jeremiah’s language, but the details resonate with his experience of being thrown into the ā€œdeep mireā€ (Psalm 69:2) at the bottom of a Judean cistern (Jeremiah 38:6). Cut off from the support of family (Psalm 69:8) and the larger community, he can only look to God’s steadfast love and mercy (Psalm 69:16).

The freedom to grieve and lament together is a gift of shared faith. Without that, humankind is reduced to living by possession as a hedge against anxiety and fear of death. Paul writes to make it crystal clear that ā€œGod is the enemy of all life by possessionā€ (McGill, 54). Of course, what is meant here is the power of sin that is washed away by word and water in baptism. In baptism, death, the very reason we surround ourselves with what we convince ourselves that we control, is central.Ā  Paul’s rhetoric shows his sensitivity to just how shocking this is:Ā ā€œDo you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?ā€ (Romans 6:3) It is the end of allegiance to empires, whether Roman or the tottering system of contemporary consumer capitalism that seems bent on destroying this green earth. Baptismal faith removes the scales from our eyes to see, yes, it is happening here.

But out of this death comes a share of resurrection that launches ā€œwalking in newness of lifeā€ (Romans 6:4). As Ernst Kasemann claims, baptism actualizes the cross-resurrection event so that ā€œwalking in newness of lifeā€ becomes ā€œparticipation in the reign of Christā€ (Ernst Kasemann, Romans, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 168). This changes our fundamental identity and ā€œpledgesā€ our first allegiance to another ā€œcommunity.ā€ Instead of living by possession, we are freed together to live by gift, especially as we are continually recharged by what Kasemann calls ā€œa constant return to baptismā€ (Kasemann, p. 163).

Wendell Berry describes this more simply in one of his ā€œMad Farmerā€ poems, where he suggests ā€œpractice resurrectionā€ (The Selected Poems of Wendell Berry, Counterpoint, 1998, p. 87). Our Gospel Reading reminds us just how costly this can be. Living by gift, nourishing the earth, and practicing resurrection are guaranteed to bring opposition. It will happen here. This text makes it clear that those who ā€œpractice resurrectionā€will be maligned (Matthew 10:25), will know the division of families (10:34-37), and, as they endure, will know the cross intimately. Yet the promise persists: ā€œThose who find their life (live by possession) will lose it, and those who lose their life will find itā€ (Matthew 10:39). During this time of pandemic, racial oppression, and climate crisis, lament offers a path to this discovery.

Originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2020.
tmundahl@gmail.com

Pentecost in Year A (Ormseth)

The Spirit is the Giver of Life! Dennis Ormseth reflects on Pentecost.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year A (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)

Acts 2:1-21
Psalm 104:24-34, 35b
1 Corinthians 12:3b-13
John 20:19-23

Pentecost is the ā€œBirthday of the Church.ā€

The Day of Pentecost is commonly celebrated as ā€œthe birthday of the church.ā€ Emphasis will be placed on the communal nature of the experience of the Holy Spirit. That so many people heard their native tongue being spoken, and yet understood a common message, will be ā€œdemonstratedā€ as individuals talented in diverse languages simulate the cacophony of a United Nations social gathering and the preacher is called on to set out the shared meaning. Spiritual seekers will be encouraged by pastors who are alert to our contemporary cultural context to abandon their suspicions of established religious communities. As Diane Jacobson would put it to them, ā€œYou are not in this alone; the Spirit is with you. You are not alone—this is God’s promise and invitation. But know as well that you cannot experience this gift in isolation. The Spirit is also with all those around you joined by Christ’s name as one. The Spirit is God’s communal giftā€ (ā€œThe Day of Pentecost,ā€ inĀ New Proclamation Year A, 2002, ed. by Marshall D. Johnson, p. 76).

Celebrate the Spirit as a renewal of the whole creation

All of which certainly belongs to the meaning of the Day of Pentecost, and yet it represents a many faceted ā€œopportunity missedā€ to celebrate the renewal in the Spirit of the whole creation and to characterize the mission of the church as a newly energized care of creation. The community created and renewed by the Spirit of God, these texts allow, includes all creation. It is ā€œEarth community.ā€ As is typically pointed out by way of explaining why a multitude of languages was heard, there were ā€œdevout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalemā€ (Acts 2:5). They were there because Pentecost is another name for the Jewish Feast of Weeks, one of the three great festivals of the Jewish calendar for which Jews from the Diaspora return to the city. In Jesus day, the focus of this festival was on God’s gift of the covenant, which was given to Israel in the wilderness. Originally, however, the Feast of Weeks was observed as a harvest festival: thanks were given for the first fruits of the ground as a way of remembering the first harvest from the land after Israel returned from the Egypt (Leviticus 23:9-21).

Celebrate the first fruits of the Spirit as the first fruits of restored creation!

So now, also Christians give thanks for first fruits, but it is the first fruits of the Spirit—ironically ā€œspiritualizingā€ a festival that in its origin had to do centrally with the flourishing of the people living in the land under the covenant God made with them at Sinai. We suggest an alternative understanding of the Christian Pentecost, namely, this: by the power of the Holy Spirit we enter into the new creation in which people of all nations begin to flourish anew under the Lordship of Jesus. As he promised, Jesus, God’s servant of all creation who has now been raised to live in glory with his heavenly Father, sends the Spirit upon the Church. In this understanding, Pentecost celebrates the first fruits of a restored creation.

Creation in wind, fire, tongues, the spirit on all flesh, marks in hands and side.

The lectionary lessons for the Day of Pentecost firmly support this alternative reading. The famous signs of Pentecost, a violent wind and tongues of fire, are creational. Yes, they recall the theophanies of Sinai and the burning bush. But also, experientially, they say that ā€œsomething new is happening here.ā€ The wind is the primordial breath of the Spirit at creation. The fire marks off holy ground as the God of creation draws near.Ā Ā The ā€œlast daysā€ of Joel, when the Spirit is poured out ā€œupon all fleshā€ have begun (Acts 2:17). The resurrected Jesus is identified by the marks on his hands and side as the servant of creation whom the Father sent to save the beloved cosmos, and he breaths the breath of God’s Spirit upon the disciples who are to put aside their fears and go in peace into that creation (John 20:19-22). And, in the words of Paul from the second lesson, the Spirit authorizes the proclamation of Jesus (who died on the cross as the servant of creation) as the Lord of the creation, along with granting the variety of gifts, services, and activities that are the Spirit’s means for bringing about the ā€œcommon goodā€ of the one, newly created ā€œbody of Christā€ in the world (1 Corinthians 12:1-13).

Psalm 104 marks the ecological renewal of all creation

The text that authorizes this reading of the meaning of Pentecost most forcefully, however, is the psalm appointed for the Day of Pentecost, Psalm 104. The selection of this psalm was no doubt made because of the mention of the Spirit in v. 30: ā€œWhen you send forth your spirit (or breath) . . . .ā€ Psalms that speak so appropriately for this Feast of God sending the Spirit are exceedingly few. Astounding, however, is the serendipitous and theologically fortuitous statement of the reason for this sending:Ā Ā ā€œtheyā€ā€”meaning all the extended list of earthly creatures named in the first 26 verses of the psalm ā€“ā€œare created; and you renew the face of the ground.ā€ In point of fact, the psalm is a more perfect fit for the original Pentecost, the Festival of Weeks, than for the Pentecost that Christians typically celebrate. God is praised as the provider for all creatures of whom the psalmist speaks in saying: ā€œThese all look to you to give them their food in due season.ā€ But the truly remarkable thing is that the Psalm also exhibits a powerfully ecological understanding of the creation; and, quite by itself, provides sufficient grounding for our reading of the Christian festival.

Psalm 104 as ā€œecological doxologyā€!

The ecological character of Psalm 104 was highlighted by Joseph Sittler throughout the development of his theology of creation. He commonly described it as an ā€œecological doxologyā€ (Ecological Commitment as Theological Responsibility,ā€ inĀ Evocations of Grace, p. 83; cf. ā€œEssays on Nature and Grace, Ibid, p. 183, and ā€œEvangelism and the Care of the Earth,ā€Ā Ibid., p. 204). Early on, Sittler identified Psalm 104 as one of two primary texts (Romans 8:19 is the other) that support his conviction that responsibility for care of the earth is a contemporary theological imperative:

Beginning with the air, the sky, the small and then the great animals, the work that humans do upon Earth and the delight that they take in it, the doxological hymn unfolds to celebrate both the mysterious fecundity that evermore flows from the fountain of all livingness, up to the great coda of the psalm in which the phrase occursā€”ā€œThese all hang upon Thee.ā€ The word ā€œhangā€ is an English translation of a word that literally means to ā€œdepend,ā€ to receive existence and life from another. These allĀ hang togetherĀ because they all hang upon Thee. ā€œYou give them their life. You send forth Your breath, they live.ā€ Here is teaching of the divine redemption within the primal context of the divine Creation. Unless we fashion a relational doctrine of creation—which doctrine can rightly live with evolutionary theory—then we shall end up with a reduction, a perversion, and ultimately an irrelevance as regards the doctrine of redemption (Ibid., p. 83).

The reading of Psalm 104 on the Day of Pentecost is an opportunity not to be missed for lifting up God’s love and care for creation as an essential part of the church’s Spirit-driven mission. The limited verses appointed for the reading will suffice to make the main point of this message, while a reading of the entire Psalm would provide a basis for exploring the ecological theology of the psalm in greater detail.

The psalmist praises the God who cares for all creation.

In his recent book,Ā TheĀ Green Psalter:Ā Ā Resources for an Ecological Spirituality,Ā Arthur Walker Jones provides helpful insights that deepen Sittler’s appreciation. Jones couples Psalm 103, which celebrates the ā€œsteadfast love and compassionā€ of the Creator that ā€œis experienced in the life of the individual in healing, salvation, and justice,ā€ with Psalm 104, which praises ā€œthe God who cares for all creature.ā€ ā€œThe same Creator has acted through nature in the exodus and wilderness wandering. After this extensive praise of God’s wonders and works as Creator, they confess that Israel had forgotten the Creator, and pray for a return from exileā€ (The Green Psalter, p.99).

Psalm 104 imagines a world of social and ecological justice

Psalm 104, Jones notes, is ā€œone of the longest creation passages in the Bible,ā€ and it is subversively lacking in reference to king or temple, as compared with other creation texts:Ā Ā ā€œVerses 27 to 30 portray the direct, unmediated, and intimate relationship of God with all creatures. . . .God is the spirit of life in all creation. Therefore, God’s presence is not mediated by king or temple but is as close to every creature as the air they breatheā€ (Ibid., p. 119-20). Written in the context of the great suffering of the exile, Jones suggests, Psalm 104 reflects an awareness of the steadfast love and power of God in the goodness and reliability of creation. Israel has experienced national chaos; and, on the other side of chaos, Israel is able to see that such chaos (Leviathan) has a place in creation. They recognize humans as an integral part of a creation cared for by the Creator. They recognize the dangers of identifying God with king. And they have an understanding of their relationship to God as Creator apart from and perhaps in opposition to human empires. Similarly, in contemporary contexts of empire, Psalm 104 may have the potential for imagining a world of social and ecological justice (Ibid., p. 123).

We are all interrelated and interdependent in God’s creation.

Jones profoundly agrees with Sittler’s assessment: the Psalm, Jones writes, is far more ecological than Genesis 1-3. Its ā€œdepiction of the role of humanity in creation is less anthropocentric,ā€ and ā€œcreatures and parts of creation . . . seem to have intrinsic value independent of humansā€ (Ibid, p. 140). Jones traces the web of ecological relation through the verses of the Psalm:

This ancient celebration of Creator and creation has similarities to modern ecology’s understanding of the interrelationship and inter-dependence of all species in the web of life. While the number of species named is limited, the passage does, by the species it chooses to mention, represent in symbolic, poetic form the abundance and diversity of species and their interdependence. The species represented move from mountains to valleys, up into the mountains again, and then out to sea. They include domestic animals that humans need and animals that are of no use—like wild goats and rock coneys—or are dangerous to humans, like lions.Ā Ā Thus, habitats and species are chosen to represent a world of diverse habitats teeming with creatures or, in the language of praise and awe, ā€œHow manifold are your works . . , earth is full of your creaturesā€ (Ps 104:24).Ā Ā While all the complex interrelationships are not portrayed, enough chains of life are traced in poetic form to indicate the interrelationship and interdependence of various species and their habitats. Springs provide water for wild animals and wild asses (verses 10-12). Springs flow into streams that water trees (verses 12, 16), which, in turn, provide habitat for storks and other birds (verses 12, 17). Mountains provide habitat for wild goats and the rocks for wild coneys (verse 18). The poetry portrays a world similar to that described by modern ecology—abundant, diverse, interrelated, and interdependent (Ibid., pp. 140-41).

The goodness of the creation is celebrated without reservation. Creation is unmarred by the ā€œfallā€ of Genesis 2 and 3. ā€Far from being cursed, creation has goodness and blessing that includes a sense of beauty and joy,ā€ without setting aside an awareness of nature that is ā€œred in tooth and clawā€ā€”an understanding so essential to the modern theory of evolution (Ibid., p. 142).

Creation is juice and joy and sinful human beings.

Amidst all this ā€œjuice and joyā€ in creation, Psalm 104 presents a final reminder that, on account of the presence of humans within it, not all is well with it (as expressed at verse 35): ā€œLet sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more.ā€ Sinful humans are also part of the beloved creation. Again, the verse is unfortunately omitted from the reading. Coupling this psalm with Jesus’ gift of the Spirit as told in John 20:23 will serve to provide one more reason for us to broaden the focus of Pentecost from church to creation—for it is in the power of the Spirit that the church forgives, or takes away, the sin of the world, including all the sin that bears so destructively on the creation.

The Spirit is ā€œthe Lord and Giver of Lifeā€!

And here is one final encouragement to engage the texts for Pentecost in this manner. We recall that the ecumenical church confesses in the Nicene Creed that the Spirit is ā€œā€˜the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.ā€ A theology that is adequate to this triune relationship is one that lifts up for the faithful the eternal love God has in the Spirit for the whole creation in Christ Jesus. Along the way in this extraordinary journey from the First Sundays of Advent through to the Day of Pentecost, we have had several occasions to lift up the importance of the Holy Spirit as a driver of ecological awareness and of care of creation, not only inside the church, but out in the world as well. Elizabeth Johnson aptly notes that, although the Spirit has been badly neglected in the history of the church’s teaching, the

“world will tell of the glory of God. Anyone who has ever resisted or mourned the destruction of the Earth or the demise of one of its living species, or has wondered at the beauty of a sunrise, the awesome power of a storm, the vastness of prairie or mountain or ocean, the greening of the Earth after periods of dryness or cold, the fruitfulness of a harvest, the unique ways of wild or domesticated animals, or any of the other myriad phenomena of this planet and its skies has potentially brushed up against an experience of the creative power of the mystery of God, Creator Spirit” (She Who Is, p. 125).

First fruits of the Spirit and the first fruits of Earth—in springtime.

And, accordingly, I offer a suggestion. In the northern hemisphere, let us celebrate Pentecost as a season of the ā€œfirst fruitsā€ of the Earth. Farmers markets are newly reopened; gardeners rejoice in the harvest of asparagus and rhubarb, young lettuce and spinach; gatherers hunt for the elusive morel mushrooms. We easily miss the joy of first harvest in an age when we permit supermarkets—the retail outlets for our fossil fuel driven—industrialized food system, to provide us with their year-round supply of every season’s produce. And we probably miss a good deal of that sense of divinely dependent flourishing for which the Psalmist gave thanks. Might not the church do well to help recover this joy by including within the symbolism of Pentecost an offering of the first fruits of the season as among the important gifts of the ā€œSpirit, the Lord, the giver of life?ā€

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2011.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Fifth Sunday of Lent (March 29, 2020) in Year A (Mundahl)

Can These Bones Live?Tom Mundahl reflects on the cost of transitioning to a creation-normed economy.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary (originally written by Tom Mundhal in 2017)

Readings for the Fifth Sunday in Lent, Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Ezekiel 37:1-14
Psalm 130
Romans 8:6-11
John 11:1-45

As we worked to increase interest in our Easter Vigil, the decision was made to invite children to act out one of the readings each year. Whether it was the creation narrative, the story of Jonah, or Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones, they did it with gusto. I remember when the reader asked, ā€œMortal, can these bones live?ā€ (Ezekiel 37:3), seeing children sprawled on a dark floor, unmoving, gave Ezekiel’s words intense contemporary gravity. As the lector continued, ā€œI will lay sinews on you, and cover you with skinā€ (Ezekiel 37:6), the children began squirming, stood, and started a slow zombie dance, something they were very good at. Finally came the words, ā€œProphesy to the breath….ā€ (37:9) and the dance of life began. Both the reading and the bones came to life.

But this text is far more than child’s play. It captures the grief of a people in exile, a people who wonder whether the God of promise has forgotten them and consigned them to permanent captivity. This desperation is clear in their communal lament: ā€œOur bones are dried up, our hope has perished, our life thread has been cutā€ (Ezekiel 37:11). So the question posed by the LORD to the prophet, ā€œMortal can these bones live?ā€ does more than score points on ā€œtrivia night; ā€it is even more than a consideration of the possibility of resurrection. To the exiles the question is: Do we as a community have a future?

It is in the language of this dramatic parable that we find a clue. As Joseph Blenkinsopp observes, ā€œthe narrative is held together by the key term ruah. It occurs ten times in all, and here, as elsewhere, can be translated ā€œspirit,ā€ ā€œbreath,ā€ or ā€œwindā€ according to the contextā€ (Ezekiel, Louisville: John Knox, 1990, p. 73). All three are gifts of God bringing new life in even the most extreme predicament.

Not only is God’s presence through the gift of ruah celebrated; in this parable the primal act of creation is reenacted, ā€œwhen God formed humanity from the dust of the ground and breathed into its nostrils the breath of lifeā€ (Ibid.). Just as that creation responded to the need of someone to care for land (adamah), so this new beginning marks a return and new relationship with the land of promise (Ezekiel 37:11).

Walter Brueggemann makes it very clear that covenant renewal and the land belong together. Once again land becomes a gift ā€œto till (serve) and keepā€ (The Land, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, p. 142). The importance of entering the land as if for the first time is the burden of much of the remainder of Ezekiel with its description of Yahweh’s return to the temple (Ezekiel 43:1-5), redistribution of the land (47:13-48: 29), and the associated rebuilding of Jerusalem. It is important to note that as exiles return (from being ā€œaliensā€ themselves) even aliens will have a place. ā€œThey shall be to you as citizens of Israel with you, they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israelā€ (47:22b).

With the increasing ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, wild weather swings, and fear of government protections (regulations) disappearing, the question, ā€œcan these bones liveā€ is remarkably timely. Philosopher Glenn Albrecht has coined a term describing this particular state of longing for past environmental predictability and safety, ā€œsolastalgia.ā€ That this impacts a substantial portion of the population finds support in a recent article published in the British medical journal, Lancet, describing health risks coming from discomfort and stress caused by fear of rapid climate change. (Nick Watts, et al,ā€Health and Climate Change: Policy Responses to Protect Public Health,ā€ Lancet, No. 386, pp. 1861-1914)

Those who seek ecojustice long to escape from ā€œsolastalgiaā€ and hopelessness. ā€œOut of the depthsā€ we cry to the LORD (Psalm 130:1). But as we wonder about life in the depths and whether our ā€œdry bonesā€ can live, we continue to trust in the God who gives us patience ā€œto wait for the LORD more than those who watch for the morningā€ (Psalm 130:6). Yet, the one we wait for also reveals the vision of a city whose river is pristine, whose vegetation is rich in food, with trees whose leaves bring healing, an urban center that even welcomes aliens (Ezekiel 47:7-12). The pattern and inspiration are God’s gift; the work is ours.

This work is nothing if not countercultural. In this week’s Second Reading, Paul lays out two modes of human orientationā€”ā€œfleshā€ and ā€œspirit.ā€ ā€œTo set the mind on the flesh is deathā€ (Romans 8:6a), or what Paul Tillich called ā€œself-sufficient finitudeā€ (Francis Ching-Wah Yip, Capitalism as Religion, Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2010, p. 85). Arthur McGill describes life centered in ā€œthe fleshā€ this way: ā€œWhat is the center, the real key, to sinful identity? It is the act of possession, the act of making oneself and the resources needed for oneself one’s own. This act can be described with another term: domination. If I can hold on to myself as my own, as something I really possess and really control, then I am dominating myself.  I am the Lord of myselfā€ (Death and Life: An American Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987, pp. 54-55)

Since living by the flesh is propelled by fear of losing one’s identity in death, it could not contrast more with ā€œsetting the mind on the Spirit which is life and peaceā€ (Romans 8:6b). This is living by the gift of faith, beyond self-concern, trusting that daily bread and all that we need from day to day will be provided. This is no individualistic presentism. As Kasemann suggests, ā€œThe Spirit is the power of new creation of the end-time and as such links the present of faith to the futureā€ (Commentary on Romans, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 215). We live together from God’s future.

Beyond this time dimension, Paul’s theology drives immediately to praxis: ā€œWe are called to be who we areā€ (Horrel, Hunt, and Southgate, Greening Paul, Waco: Baylor, 2010, p. 191). Because the Spirit ā€œdwells in us,ā€ we are also infused with life (Romans 8:10), life which takes form in ā€œspecific service, since the Spirit wants to penetrate every corner of the world in all its breadth and depthā€ (Kasemann, p. 223).

This is true both in action and understanding.  In one of his early essays wondering why, with all the attention to ā€œChrist and culture,ā€ creation seemed neglected, Joseph Sittler made this vow:

“While I cannot at the moment aspire to shape the systematic structure out
of these insights, I know that I shall as a son of the earth know no rest until
I have seen how they, too, can be gathered up into a deeper and fuller
I have seen how they, too, can be gathered up into a deeper and fuller
understanding of my faith. For these earthly protestations of earth’s broken
but insistent meaning have about them the shine of the holy, and a certain
‘theological guilt’ pursues the mind that impatiently rejects themā€
(ā€œA Theology for the Earth,ā€ (1954) in Bakken and Bouma-Prediger, Evocations of Grace, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 25-26).        

If we are motivated at all by residual Lenten guilt, it could be put to good use by working to include all of creation in preaching, worship, and outreach — service.

As we conclude with John’s ā€œBook of Signs,ā€ the question ā€œcan these bones liveā€ takes on a unique form in the Lazarus narrative. We recall that as he welcomed the formerly blind man into a new community, Jesus referred to himself as the ā€œSon of Manā€ (John 9:35). While that title certainly indicates a rank outclassing all historical rulers, it does not mean that Jesus is a remote figure. Brueggemann comments, ā€œHe is not the majestic, unmoved Lord but rather the one who knows and shares in the anguish of brother and sisterā€ (The Prophetic Imagination, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001, p.92). He is also ā€œthe human one.ā€

Jesus is shown as a figure who weeps openly and expresses anger at the separating power of death—emotional transparency that contrasts sharply with norms for leaders of his time. Jesus is unafraid of expressing grief openly because he is engaged ā€œin dismantling the power of death, and he does so by submitting himself to the very pain and grief society must denyā€ (Ibid.). This novel action threatens so intensely that the religious elite reacts by concluding ā€œit is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyedā€ (John 11:50). Thankfully, the divine commitment to healing the earth is far stronger than the leadership’s trivial use of utilitarian logic.

The issue is a life far more powerful than biological death. The ā€œabundant lifeā€ (John 10:10) Jesus brings forges strong connections of care and service among people and otherkind. This life flows in the expenditure of energy, time, and emotion to build strong membership communities—human and ecological. Beyond the threat of biological death is the much more fearful loveless isolation which prevents us from offering ourselves as caregivers to creation or recipients of that care. (see Norman Wirzba, Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating, Cambridge, 2011, p. 115).

The raising of Lazarus, then, is far more than a simple resuscitation.  It completes the Book of Signs by demonstrating how complete is Jesus’ commitment to healing the cosmos (John 3:16-17). Our narrative fulfills what is promised when Jesus says, ā€œIndeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishesā€ (John 5:21). But he takes this even further, saying ā€œVery truly I tell you, anyone who hears my voice and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.ā€ (John 5: 24) Not only is this living from God’s future; it is living God’s future.

To say one participates in what we translate as ā€œeternal life,ā€ ā€œdenotes entry into life that partakes of God’s purposes, wherein all God’s creation is transformed from sin and death to live according to God’s purposes . . . . John does not use language of a ā€˜new heaven and new earth’ but the affirmation of somatic (bodily) resurrection (John 20-21) shows concern for the re-creation of the physical world.ā€ (Warren Carter, John and Empire, London: T and T Clark, 2008, p. 213)

This also suggests the kenotic freedom of servanthood freeing the faith community to lay down life in building ecojustice (John 10:17-18). Recently, a group of residents of Winona County in Minnesota worked for nearly two years to achieve the first countywide ordinance banning the mining of sand for hydraulic fracturing (ā€œfrackingā€) in the U.S. Led by members of the Land Stewardship Project with origins at Faith Lutheran, St. Charles, MN, they expended hours of effort to nourish the land, waters, and people of this Mississippi River county by influencing local policy (Johanna Ruprecht, ā€œAnatomy of a Grassroots Campaign,ā€ The Land Stewardship Newsletter, No. 1, 2017, pp. 12-15.).

ā€œCan these bones liveā€ in a time of discouragement and frustration?  Not one of the texts for this Sunday in Lent was written by those enjoying great ease and comfort. Anyone who thought that transition to a creation-normed economy would ever be easy—especially in the face of global capitalism—is naive. Perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s analysis from 1943 fits our situation: ā€œWe have for once learned to see the great events of world history from below, from the perspective of the outcast, the suspects, the maltreated, the powerless, the oppressed, and the reviled–in short, from the perspective of those who sufferā€ (ā€œAfter Ten Years,ā€ in Eberhard Bethge, ed., Letters and Papers from Prison, New York: Macmillan, 1971, p. 17). And ā€œfrom below,ā€ where creation is fouled and creatures—including people—suffer, there is no shortage of opportunities for ecojustice effort.

Hymn suggestions:

Gathering: ā€œAround You, O Lord Jesus,ā€ ELW, 468
Hymn of the Day:   ā€œOut of the Depths, I Cry to You,ā€ ELW, 600
Sending: “Bless Now, O God, the Journey,ā€ ELW, 326
 

Tom Mundahl, Saint Paul, MN               
tmundahl@gmail.com

Third Sunday of Lent (March 15, 2020) in Year A (Mundahl)

Come and SeeTom Mundahl reflects on God’s gift of water.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary (originally written by Tom Mundhal in 2017)

Readings for the Third Sunday in Lent, Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Exodus 17:1-7
Psalm 95
Romans 5:1-11
John 4:5-42

On the day of my ordination at First Lutheran Church, Little Falls, MN, in late September of 1979, I did not expect much more than ritual approval of my new job in parish ministry. I was wrong. As promises were made before the congregation that had nurtured me, my high school teachers, and friends, I was overwhelmed. When, at the close of the service, I was invited to respond, after saying ā€œthank youā€ all that came to mind was the closing line from Franklin Brainard’s poem, ā€œRaingatherer:ā€ ā€œIn a world of earthenware, I come with a paper cup.ā€ (Brainard, Raingatherer, Morris, MN: Minnesota Poet’s Press, 1973)

While that line fits our discussion of the creation of ā€œgroundlingsā€ to ā€œtill (serve) and keepā€ (Genesis 2:15) the garden, this week the image is a bit too solid. As we know, planet earth is more than two-thirds water, a fraction closely matched by all living things.  How appropriate, then, that this week’s readings highlight water as both necessary for life and as an image for the flow of ā€œliving waterā€ā€”ā€a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.ā€ (John 4:14) The centrality of water is found in the psalmist’s affirmation, ā€œThe sea is his for he made it, and the dry land which his hands have formedā€ (Psalm 95:5). But, in spite of recent concern over the Earth’s water ā€œresources,ā€ unfortunately, the most appropriate line of verse for Americans in 2017 would be, ā€œIn a world of water, we come holding a plastic bottle.ā€

This jarring contrast suits our First Reading from Exodus in which we meet the pilgrim people complaining loudly about their lack of water.  Too often we see Genesis 12-50 and the remaining books of the Pentateuch as focused on ā€œredemption,ā€ assuming the scriptures are done with ā€œcreation.ā€ But, especially when our focus is on water, it is clear that it is the very same Creator God who frees Israel from Egypt. For ā€œwhat God does in redemption is in the service of endangered divine goals in and for the creation.ā€ (Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, Louisville: John Knox, 1991, p. 13)

As the people repeat their well-rehearsed litany about being dragged into the wilderness to die (in this case) of thirst, it is surprising that the divine response contains nothing about ā€œattitude adjustment,ā€ only directions for finding water.  Moses is instructed to use ā€œthe staff with which you struck the Nileā€ (Exodus 7:19-21) and ā€œstrike the rock and water will come out of it, so that the people may drink.ā€ (Exodus 17:6)

This time fresh water appears, not the bloody river of the First Plague. This occurs as the LORD stands before Moses ā€œon the rock of Horeb.ā€(Exodus 17:6) Already the gift of torah is anticipated. Just as water enables human bodily life to continue, so also does the life-giving torah hold the community together.  As Fretheim writes, ā€œ…social order is a matter of creation.  The gift of the water of life comes from the same source as the gift of the law, a source of life for the community of faith.ā€ (ibid., p. 190)

We are all too aware that many around the world—predominantly women—still lug water long distances daily to ensure survival for their families. Two years after one of the most egregious examples of environmental racism in the United States, tap water in Flint, MI is still unsafe to drink.  Will the Dakota Access Pipeline routed under the Missouri River on disputed treaty land be safe, or will another pipeline leak contaminate drinking water for hundreds of thousands?  What about the one hundred million plastic water bottles used every day around the world?  Those that are not recycled (the vast majority) are thrown into landfills where they do not begin to decompose for seven hundred years; the rest are thrown into rivers where too many end up in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Certainly, a legal framework both guaranteeing safe water and protecting the planet from plastic waste would be a step toward ecojustice.

That this struggle is far from easy is evident from our Second Reading. While at the center of Paul’s theology ā€œstands the transforming act of God that provides the solution to the problems afflicting both humanity and the wider nonhuman creation,ā€ all is not yet complete.  (David G. Horrell, Cherryl Hunt, and Christopher Southgate, Greening Paul, Waco: Baylor, 2010, p. 170) At the same time the community of faith ā€œboasts in hopeā€ (Romans 5:2) trusting in the ultimate success of God’s justice, another regime works actively to thwart hope and convince humankind that the only safe route to security and peace is self-interest, often based on national or ideological ā€œtribalisms,ā€ the most fertile contemporary sources of idolatry. 

Even in the face of this demonic opposition, confident hope is maintained.  As Paul puts it, ā€œwe boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us.ā€ (Romans 5:2-5)  Because we live in sure and certain hope of resurrection, even as we experience cruciform reality in our struggles for ecojustice, we continue in confidence.

If this description of struggle seems unfamiliar to those who serve creation, it soon will be apparent. The forces defending what is billed as ā€œfree-market capitalismā€ in the United States have thrown down the gauntlet and seem ready to marginalize all who see the creation as God’s gift and threaten to all but eliminate the federal government’s role in protecting the natural world, which they see it as a ā€œresource dumpā€ to be mined in every possible way, enriching a wealthy elite. The January 2020 revised definition of ā€œWaters of the US,” which curbed protection of rivers, streams, and the likes, is a case in point.

Because this week’s reading from Romans drives to Romans 8 with its ā€œvision of cosmic reconciliation that includes and incorporates all things,ā€ (Horrell, Hunt, and Southgate, ibid.), living out of God’s future suggests that faithful ecojustice advocates keep faith and counter those who would ā€œprivatizeā€ everything in order to build the ā€œcommons,ā€ even if only on a local level. The gifts of water, air, and atmosphere must be part of the shared inheritance to be nurtured as we ā€œtill (serve) and keepā€ God’s garden earth. The odds seem against us, but now ā€œmuch more surelyā€ (Romans 5:9-10) can we participate hopefully in assuming responsibility for the future and health of creation.

At first glance, our Gospel Reading seem to reveal a woman short on courage, furtively going to draw water in the middle of the day when everyone else has finished this tedious chore. What is immediately apparent is the contrast between this woman and Nicodemus.  He is a male Jewish insider with well-regarded credentials; she is a female Samaritan outsider with what can only be seen as a checkered past. Even though through a slow development we see Nicodemus being transformed in the narrative of John’s Gospel, it is not long before this  Samaritan woman can be found among the townspeople she had been avoiding with a bold invitation: ā€œCome and see a man who told me everything I have ever done.  He cannot be the Messiah, can he?ā€ (John 4:29)

The turning point for this ill-used woman seems to be Jesus’ offer of ā€œliving water.ā€ Not surprisingly, in John’s rich world of double meanings, she assumes that Jesus is offering ā€œflowing water,ā€ water from a stream or artesian well. What’s more, when Jesus goes on to define this water as ā€œa well of water gushing up to eternal lifeā€ (John 4:12), she is even more excited about the possibility of water that will never run out, sparing her the embarrassment of a daily appearance at the well.

As the conversation continues with a probing of the woman’s past and a discussion of authentic worship, things begin to change. Finally, she senses an unimagined presence and blurts out, ā€œI know that Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.ā€ (John 4:25) Jesus replies simply, ā€œI am.ā€ (John 4:26) And the next time we see the woman she is inviting townspeople to ā€œcome and seeā€ Jesus.  She leaves her water jar leaning against the well, for now she contains ā€œa spring of water gushing up to eternal life.ā€ (John 4:14)

This should be no surprise, for John’s Gospel begins with a flowing movement of creation and new creation.  In the Prologue, the one who reveals himself to the well woman as ā€œI amā€ is the Word who ā€œwas in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.ā€ (John 1:2-3a)  It continues with the efflorescence of light and life and the ā€œWord becoming fleshā€ to ā€œpitch his tentā€ as a human. (John 1: 4, 14) This powerful current carries Jesus as the Risen One to be seen as ā€œthe gardener,ā€ (John 20:15) bringing renewal to the garden of life.

ā€œDeep incarnationā€ is one apt description of this flow.  Coined by Danish theologian, Niels Gergerson, it has found a ready reception, recently reported in the proceedings of a 2011 Copenhagen conference exploring its possible meanings. (Niels Gregerson, Incarnation: On the Scope and Depth of Christology, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015)

In one of the most helpful essays, Celia Deane-Drummond of Notre Dame writes: ā€œTheologically, deep incarnation can be understood to act at the boundary of creation and new creation, where Christ enters into the human, evolutionary, and ecological history in a profound way so that through the living presence of the Holy Spirit that history is changed in the direction of God’s purposes for the universe in the pattern of Christ.ā€ (Gregerson, 198)  This current, according to Deane-Drummond, ā€œis also a call to act out in proper respect for the natural world and all its creatures.  It is, in other words, unavoidably an ecotheology marked out by a call to build a community of justice.ā€ (ibid., p. 199)

We see the power of this new pattern as our pericope ends,  After hearing the invitation of the well-woman to ā€œCome and see,ā€ people from Sychar do just that. As Craig Koester suggests, ā€œBy going out of Sychar to meet Jesus, inviting him into their town, and calling him ā€œSavior,ā€ the Samaritans give Jesus a welcome similar to those granted to visiting rulers.ā€ (quoted in Warren Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations, New York: T and T Clark, 2008, p. 189)  As the giver of ā€œliving waterā€ Jesus’ authority exceeds that of the emperor.

This authority surely is enough to encourage us to continue as ā€œwater protectorsā€ even in the face of a culture that sees life as only instrumental to economic growth.  This encouragement can be amplified in our worship. Lisa Dahill has recently suggested that most baptisms as well as affirmations of baptism take place in local waters. ā€œBaptizing outdoors recasts the meaning of baptism. Here Jesus Christ is not a mark of separation—Christians here, non-Christians there—but is the one who brings Christians and our best wisdom, faith, and practice into restored unity in our shared waters with all people and all creatures.ā€ (Lisa E. Dahill, ā€œInto Local Waters: Rewilding the Study of Christian Spirituality,ā€ Spiritus, Vol 16, No. 2, Fall, 2016, p. 159)

This flowing faith might also be nurtured in our houses of worship with the installation dramatic art. Kristen Gilje has painted a permanent altar fresco for Faith Lutheran Church, Bellingham, WA, that features vivid, flowing water cascading from the roots of the tree of life. While this theme has nurtured worshippers since the mosaics of San Giovanni Laterana were installed in the fourth century, CE, today this strategic beauty is even more crucial in empowering us to endure threats to creation and to live from a hope that does not disappoint.

Hymn suggestions:

Gathering: ā€œCome, Thou Font of Every Blessing,” ELW, 807
Hymn of the Day:  ā€œAs the Deer Runs to the River,” ELW, 331
Sending: ā€œLord, Dismiss Us with Your Blessing,ā€ ELW, 545

Tom Mundahl, Saint Paul, MN               
tmundahl@gmail.com

Second Sunday of Lent (March 8, 2020) in Year A (Mundahl)

Living in Promises and HopeTom Mundahl reflects on land and the struggle to “till (serve) and keep” it to this day.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ (originally written by Tom Mundhal in 2017)

Readings for the Second Sunday in Lent, Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Genesis 12:1-4a
Psalm 121
Romans 4:1-1, 13-17
John 3:1-17

As we move from the Genesis pre-history (ch. 1-11) to God’s calling into being a new community, the centrality of creation and the vocation to ā€œtill (serve) and keepā€ (Genesis 2:15) remains.Ā Ā The ā€œeventsā€ of the proto-history — expulsion from the garden, the first murder, the flood, and the human effort to ā€œmake a nameā€ at Babel–all lead to the situation of Abraham and Sarah—landless and without progeny.

Even though it is tempting to move away from creation issues into history, Brueggemann makes it very clear: ā€œIn its present form, the governing promise concerns the land.ā€ (Genesis, Louisville: John Knox, p, 109) This is confirmed by the final promise in Genesis 12:3, ā€œand in you shall all the familiesĀ of the earth (adamah)Ā be blessed.ā€ We might translate this: ā€œall the families belonging to the earth,ā€ to remind ourselves that the Yahwist begins with the land as the key partner in creation’s dance. (Ellen Davis,Ā Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: an Agrarian Reading of the Bible, Cambridge: 2009, p. 127)

But it is the promise of the land which makes the lack of an heir even more poignant. Without a next generation the vocation to ā€œtill (serve) and keepā€ becomes meaningless.  Agriculture is a multi-generational commitment; without children ā€œthere can be no fulfillment in the land of promise.ā€ (Brueggemann, ibid.)

God’s promises are both generous and outrageous.  Not only does their weight rest on Abraham and Sarah, but it requires that they uproot themselves from the security of a settled way of life– landless and childless as it may be– to travel on the basis of nothing more than this promise into an uncertain future. Perhaps it is like the choice between embracing a new economy based on clean and sustainable energy sources or looking backward to repristinate the past by ā€œmaking America great again.ā€  Why give up the safe illusion of comfort in favor of an unknown future in a so-called ā€œpromised landā€?

Perhaps the key to understanding Abraham and Sarah’s response is as simple as the identity of the One who promises, whose words fuel the Priestly creation account (Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a): ā€œNow the LORDĀ saidĀ to Abram.ā€ (Genesis 12:1) That speech creates the faithful response that follows.Ā Ā Many have heard it as an echo of baptismal calling. And the LORD said, ā€œGo and support water protectors protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.ā€ Or, others have heard a call to teach or be part of an adult class struggling with ecojustice. Others have been lured to serve as counselors at church camps, our precious creation care workshops, where for nearly a week they live mostly disconnected from communications technology in order to help participants reconnect with creation.Ā Ā The effectiveness of this calling is affirmed by Isaiah in vivid natural terms, ā€œFor as the rain and snow come down from heaven, and do not returnĀ Ā there until they have watered the earth…, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty.ā€ (Isaiah 55:10-11)

The lively speech of God is the source of hope for Abraham and Sarah. ā€œTo stay in safety is to remain barren; to leave in risk is to have hope.ā€ (Brueggemann, p. 117)  As so many million refugees in the world today know, a word of hope propels and encourages. To refuse to listen to this calling is often to acquiesce in seeing the ā€œGenesis story run backwards.ā€ (Bill McKibben, Oil and Honey: the Education of an Unlikely Activist, New York: Times Books, 2013, p. 156)

And, to move forward in response to this hopeful word is to experience blessing. As the generous currency that drives us forward with its vitality, blessing consists of the ā€œordinaryā€ processes of life which come to be seen as indispensable gifts.  Far from being ā€œmighty acts of God,ā€ blessings are what sustain us on the way– good bread and soup, a warm sweater, a loving hug, a good friend.  And blessing is enough. (Claus Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life if the Church, Philadelphia: Fortress, pp. 18, 41, 85)

Yet, blessing is framed by unexpected eruptions within the ā€œordinaryā€ which cannot be predicted.  Brueggemann suggests that scriptures provide three primary ways of speaking such radical newness: creation, resurrection, and justification by grace through faith. (Brueggemann, p. 111)  And it is the latter which land Abraham and Sarah squarely in the middle of Paul’s argument in Romans.

In his effort to reconcile exiled Romans of Jewish background who affirm the Christ with Gentile believers, Paul can find no better model than Abraham.Ā Ā Abraham certainly had no religious resume to boast about; he and Sarah only trusted promises of land and heirs. Because of this trust, not only was it ā€œreckoned to him (Abraham) as righteousnessā€ (Romans 4:3), but when the content of the blessingsĀ Ā (Genesis 12:1-3) is taken into account, Paul extravagantly suggests Abraham and Sarah were ā€œto inherit the world….ā€ (Romans 4:13)

Living by the gift of promise  means embodying the purpose for creation –care and blessing.  And, Paul argues, how much more so in light of the Christ event.  As Kasemann suggests in summarizing Paul’s thinking: ā€œThis means that justification, as the restitution of creation and as resurrection anticipated in the stage of trial (anfechtung), is the decisive motif of Paul’s soteriology and theology and these have always to be interpreted in terms of it.  That is, the world and history are always involved in God’s renewing activity.ā€ (Ernst Kasemann, Romans, Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1980, p. 123.

Perhaps the struggle of this ā€œrenewing activityā€ is what Gerard Manley Hopkins had in mind with his poem, ā€œGod’s Grandeur:ā€

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell….
And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lies the dearest freshness, deep down things….
(Poems and Prose, New York: Everyman’s, 1995, p. 14)

Our gospel reading shows Nicodemus embarking on a ā€œfaith journeyā€ of his own. As one of those who ā€œsaw the signs that he (Jesus) was doing,ā€ John 2:23), Nicodemus was both intrigued and disturbed. As a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council, what was he to think of Jesus’ statement, ā€œDestroy this temple and I will raise it up in three days?ā€ (John 2: 20)Ā Ā These threatening words and Jesus’ Passover cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-17) may have led Nicodemus to wonder about the meaning of his faith. Perhaps, like Sarah and Abraham, he was beginning to reach a ā€œdead endā€ where new measures were necessary.

Nicodemus decides to interview Jesus, and, in the interests of protecting his reputation, he comes by night. Whenever I think of this late night meeting I am reminded of Edward Hopper’s arresting painting, ā€œNighthawksā€ (1942).  Inside a bright diner surrounded by the dark of night we see four figures, a couple in conversation, the server, and a man sitting with his back to the window. Eerie green shadows convey a sense of loneliness and desperation.  But the most alarming feature of this nighttime refuge is the lack of a door. (Olivia Laing, The Lonely City, New York: Picador, 2016, p. 21)  Perhaps Nicodemus seeks from Jesus a new ā€œdoorā€ to his future.

At first, it seems that their conversation is going nowhere.  Even though Nicodemus must be conversant with scripture and tradition, Jesus’ mysterious double entendres referring to being born anothen — ā€œagainā€ and ā€œfrom above,ā€ and his playing with pneuma as both ā€œwindā€ and ā€œspiritā€ confuse him. The fact that this Rabbi prefaces his mysterious speech with ā€œVery truly I say to you,ā€ the ā€œsentence of holy law formula,ā€ only makes matters worse.

No wonder Nicodemus exclaims, ā€œHow can these things be?ā€ (John 3:9) His quest to find a new path seems to have failed.Ā Ā Yet this nocturnal meeting continues with Jesus reminding Nicodemus that here, too, is a kind of ā€œexodusā€ where, instead of a serpent being lifted up to provide healing, here ā€œ the Son of Man must be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.ā€ (John 3:14-15)

That this will be a healing act of love is made clear by the familiar John 3:16 – 17, where the motive for this is is revealed — the Creator’s love for the creation and all its creatures, including Nicodemus.Ā Ā Somehow, this mysterious meeting more than satisfies Nicodemus and sends him into the future embracing ā€œthe healing of the world.ā€ (John 3:17)

When Jesus is threatened with death by the Sanhedrin, it is Nicodemus who reminds them of protections built into their procedure: ā€œOur law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing, to find out what they were doing, does it?ā€ (John 7:51) And, following Jesus being ā€œlifted up,ā€ Nicodemus is there, too.Ā Ā John writes, ā€œNicodemus, who had first come to Jesus by night, also came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about a hundred pounds.ā€ (John 19:39)Ā Ā With Joseph of Arimethea, Nicodemus wrapped Jesus’ body with spices in linen.

Adjoining this tomb there was a garden. (John 19:20) May it not be that Nicodemus, this well-connected and transformed teacher, remembering words about love for the world (John 3:16) now saw the garden of creation from Genesis 2-3. (Raymond Brown,Ā The Gospel According to John (xiii- xxi), New York: Doubleday, 1966, p. 945–one of the possible interpretations mentioned by Brown)Ā Ā This certainly gives deeper meaning to Mary Magdalene’s ā€œsupposingā€ Jesus to be the ā€œgardenerā€ in John 20:15.Ā Ā With John’s love of the suggestive richness of language, that may be even a richer messianic title than ā€œmy rabbi.ā€ (John 20:16) As Nicodemus found, he is the one who gives growth and nurture to all who, like Abraham and Sarah, experience being ā€œstuckā€ with no ā€œdoorsā€ in sight.

(Refer to Margaret-Daly Denton’s [Trinity College, Dublin] volume in the Earth Bible series,Ā John: An Earth Bible Commentary–Supposing Him to Be the Gardener, London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2017.)

Perhaps many ecojustice advocates feel much like Nicodemus today.  Certainly, mutual support is crucial. Reading writings from difficult times can provide sustenance–e.g. Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison.  While re-reading Orwell’s 1984 and other dystopian novels may also be helpful, there still is nothing like the psalter.  In this week’s appointed Psalm 121, a Song of Ascents written for pilgrimage to the Jerusalem Temple, the psalmist affirms that ā€œour help comes from the one who made heaven and earth.ā€ (Psalm 121: 2) This One will ā€œkeepā€ us as we struggle to ā€œtill and keepā€ creation and build ecojustice.

Hymn suggestions:
Gatheringā€”ā€œBless Now, O God, the Journey,ā€ ELW 326
Hymn of the Dayā€”ā€œThere in God’s Garden,ā€ ELW 342
Sendingā€”ā€œ Will You Come and Follow Me,ā€Ā Ā ELW 798

Tom Mundahl, Saint Paul, MNĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā 
tmundahl@gmail.com

First Sunday of Lent (March 1, 2020) in Year A (Mundahl)

The Way of Ecojustice in a Dangerous TimeTom Mundahl reflects on our place in the world.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary (originally written by Thomas Mundal in 2017)

Readings for the First Sunday in Lent, Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-7
Psalm 32
Romans 5:12-19
Matthew 4:1-11

During times of crisis God’s people have not only returned to their foundational stories, but have also designated times of renewal centering on prayer and reflection. While Lent is certainly a period for baptismal preparation and rumination about what it means to live as a resurrection community, it also is properly a time of repentance — turning around and renewing the way we think about our identity and vocation.  We sing hymns that honor the Risen One, who ā€œprayed and kept the fast.” (Evangelical Lutheran Worship, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2006, No. 319)  On Ash Wednesday we were starkly reminded of our mortality as we heard the words, ā€œRemember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.ā€ This surely provokes questioning of the quality and purpose of our lives — singly and in community.

This Lent could not be more timely, for those of us called to build ecojustice in the United States are challenged by a presidential regime that ignores the most elementary climate science, threatens water resources and Native culture by permitting unnecessary pipelines, and strips government agencies of the funds and qualified public servants to protect the web of living things. What we do to nature we do to people, so it is no surprise that normal patterns of immigration are threatened and the very notion of truth-telling is put at risk.

We need this liminal season of Lent to return to the threshold of faith, to retreat briefly to the high desert of quiet and rediscover our center.  For this time of threat requires that we once more discover the character of creation and our status as creatures so that we may be renewed in our baptismal calling to care for each other and ā€œtill (serve) and keepā€ all God has made. (Genesis 2:15)

This is the task laid down by our First Reading.  While the storyline beginning at Genesis 2:4b is often called ā€œthe second creation account,ā€ it is much more a series of stories about the character of God’s earth and what it calls for from humankind, perhaps better referred to as ā€œgroundlings.ā€ (William P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation, Oxford, 2010, p. 80.) Why ā€œgroundlings?ā€ Our vocation is totally wrapped up in the name: ā€œIn that day that the LORD God made the earth and heavens, when no plant of the field had yet sprung up…there was no one to till (or ā€œserveā€) the ground. Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.ā€ (Genesis 2:5-7)

It is no surprise, then, that the central purpose of these ā€œgroundlingsā€ is to ā€œtill (serve) and keepā€ the garden. To the gift of this vocation is added the invitation to enjoy all the fruits and delights of the garden with the exception of the ā€œtree of good and evil.ā€ Transgressing that ban leads to a death sentence. (Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Louisville: John Knox, 1990, pp. 46-48) To be a creature, after all, implies limitation.

It is precisely this limitation that the partners charged with caring for the garden violate. They are persuaded by another creature, the serpent, that the Creator and owner of the garden is holding out on them by maintaining a monopoly on divine power. That this is false takes no more than a bite of the tree’s fruit, as the ā€œgroundlingsā€ discover not omniscience but shame at upsetting the gracious harmony of the garden.

While this narrative is hardly an explanation of how evil came into the world, or of the origins of death (assumed to be part of the created order), it does illustrate the human drive for power, autonomy, and escape from responsibility. This is revealed especially during the investigation conducted by the garden’s owner as the ā€œgroundlingsā€ defend themselves with ā€œIā€ language, revealing a breach of this primal relationship.  (Brueggemann, ibid., pp. 41-42)

Because adam has not cared for adamah, the ā€œgroundlingsā€ are expelled from the garden. As both the Yahwist author of this section of Genesis and critics of contemporary agricultural practice agree, ā€œThe land comes first.ā€ (Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry, and Bruce Colman, Meeting the Expectations of the Land, San Francisco: North Point, 1984, p. 80) Not to ā€œtill (serve) and keepā€ the land brings dreadful consequences.

Today, ignoring care of the soil can be seen with a simple aerial view of the Mississippi delta where a ā€œdead zoneā€ the size of state of Connecticut has formed, the results of erosion and a catalog of chemical fertilizers and herbicides poisoning this watershed which drains 41% of the continental U.S. It is no wonder that Iowa’s rich topsoil which was once as much as fifteen feet deep now averages only four to six inches.

American agriculture has been transformed into an abstract set of economic and bio-physical transactions that see the soil as a mere ā€œmediumā€ for production, a ā€œresourceā€ that can be used indefinitely, not  a living organism in creation that must be ā€œservedā€ with all the agricultural arts. When the concern is winning the prize given by the National Corn Growers’ Association for maximum bushels per acre instead of the long term health of the soil, there is trouble brewing. Only care of the humus will make life human.

By falling for the abstract promises of the clever and neglecting their vocation to care for the garden, the ā€œgroundlingsā€ lost the farm. That this continues is beautifully described in one of Wendell Berry’s short stories, ā€œIt Wasn’t Me.ā€  Elton Penn has just purchased a farm at auction, a ā€œplaceā€ he can call his own.  He makes that clear in conversation with friends: ā€œI want to make it my own. I don’t want a soul to thank.ā€  Wiser and older Wheeler Catlett responds that now Elton Penn is connected to a particular farm, things are different.  ā€œWhen you quit living in the price and start living in the place, you’re in a different line of succession.ā€ (in The Wild Birds–Six Stories of the Port William Membership, San Francisco: North Point, 1986, pp. 67-68)

The Genesis pre-history (chapters 1-11) is populated by actors who ā€œwant to make it my ownā€ until Noah comes onto the stage.  Noah, ā€œa man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.ā€ (Genesis 9:20)  This certainly makes him a ā€œnew Adam,ā€ one whose faithfulness in preserving creation (ā€œtilling [serving] and keepingā€) shows what membership as a fellow creature means and paves the way for making creation a real ā€œplace,ā€ wreathed with story.

This, according to Paul, is also the way of Jesus, who not only empties himself on behalf of all, but in resurrection life suffuses creation with the gift of overflowing grace which frees ā€œgroundlingsā€ from sin and for ā€œthe exercise of just powerā€ throughout the scope of creation. (Romans 5:15, 17)  Because the righteousness of God means ā€œGod’s putting things rightā€ (Krister Stendahl, Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974, p. 31), believers are called to exercise ā€œdominion in lifeā€ (Romans 5: 17) as Noah did in faithful care for the elements of creation he protected during the deluge.  The ā€œdelugeā€ we experience may be political, civilizational, as well as environmental,  but its effect is just as deadly.

It is based on what Richard Heinberg of the Post-Carbon Institute calls ā€œthe uber-lie.ā€ Simply put, ā€œit is the lie that human society can continue growing its population and consumption levels indefinitely on our finite planet and never suffer the consequences.ā€ (postcarbon.org/the-uber-lie/) That political candidates seeking votes fear ā€œthe limits to growthā€ is no surprise. In response to this central dishonesty, those who have received overflowing grace are called to join with all who recognize that curbing consumption so that all may have enough, population control, and public policy supporting these by curbing carbon emissions are elements of ā€œexercising servant-dominionā€ and ā€œputting things rightā€ in God’s creation. This may have to begin at the local level where ā€œsoilā€ becomes ā€œplaceā€ through stories of care and where ā€œgroundlingsā€ affirm their ā€œmembershipā€ in the whole creation which Paul promises will ā€œobtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.ā€ (Romans 8:23)

Just as the community of faith is freed by the overflowing grace of the Christ to care justly (ā€œto exercise dominionā€) and serve creation (Romans 5:17), so Matthew’s temptation narrative reminds us where the authority to carry this out rests.  In the course of this three-fold testing, the curtain is removed so that Matthew’s audience cannot help but recognize the awful truth: the Roman Empire and its colonial collaborators are in thrall to the evil one, the destroyer. (Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000, p. 106)

That Jesus intends to move beyond the sump of Roman rule is signaled by the location and details of our reading. As the temptations intensify, so does the elevation — from the high desert (4:1), to the temple ā€œwingā€(4:5), to the top of ā€œan exceedingly highā€ mountain (4:8). Not only do these locations reflect Matthew’s fascination with mountain settings, they put Jesus in what early modern philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) called ā€œthe state of natureā€ where what is basic about the human behavior can be discovered.

While these ā€œwild statesā€ may seem to indicate ā€œadvantage devil,ā€ Belden Lane, drawing on Terence Donaldson’s study of the function of mountain imagery in Matthew, suggests something entirely different:

“An eschatological community takes shape on the boundaries, at the liminal place on the mountain’s slope. The established order breaks down, a company of the future is formed, new rules are adopted.” (Belden Lane, The Solace of Fierce Landscapes, Oxford, 1998, p. 45)

Even though this appears to be a one-on-one conflict, in fact it is the Spirit who has ā€œled Jesus up to the wildernessā€ (4:1) where Jesus ā€œaffirms his baptism.ā€ And, it is the Spirit who gathers the ā€œnew community.ā€ (Luther, Small Catechism, Third Article, ā€œWhat Does This Mean?ā€)

In his preparation for writing The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky had come to see atheist revolutionary terrorism as the greatest temptation to those seeking to bring change to Russia’s czarist autocracy. It is no surprise, then, that at the center of this vast novel we find ā€œThe Grand Inquisitorā€ chapter, an imaginative retelling of Matthew’s text. Jesus suddenly appears in Seville, Spain, where after healing a child he is promptly arrested.  During the interrogation the Grand Inquisitor berates Jesus for refusing the three temptations which would have lifted the burden of freedom from the masses, those who would say, ā€œBetter that you enslave us, but feed us.ā€ (Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Pevear and Volokhonsky tr., San Francisco: North Point, 1990, p. 253)

Ralph Wood suggests that the temptations of ā€œmiracle, mystery, and authorityā€ā€”Dostoevsky’s shorthand for our narrative’s three challenges—sound only too familiar in a culture in love with the miracles of gadgetry, the thrill of amazing athletic feats, and willing to hand over freedom to authoritarian leaders.  He writes, ā€œWere Dostoevsky living at this hour, he might ask whether the American reduction of nearly every aspect of human existence, including religion itself, to either entertainment or commodification, constitutes a yet worse kind of herd existence than the one …(Dostoevsky) describes—a subtler and therefore deadlier attempt to relieve humanity of its suffering and sin, and thus of its real character and interest.ā€ (Ralph Wood, ā€œIvan Karamazov’s Mistake,ā€ First Things, December, 2002, p. 34)

Rather than defining freedom as individual autonomy, Jesus gathers a new community where ā€œour freedom resides rather in becoming communal selves who freely embrace our moral, religious, and political obligations. These responsibilities come to us less by our own choosing than through a thickly webbed network and shared friendships and familial ties, through political practices and religious promises.ā€ (Wood, p. 33)  In other words, as Wendell Berry would say: we discover our vocation largely through our ā€œmemberships.ā€ The integrity of this vocation too often requires resisting temptation at heavy cost.

This is authentic freedom whose pathway is led by the one who resists temptation, who refuses the easy road to accomplish the will of the one who sent him. This is self-emptying love that we will recognize most fully on Passion Sunday when we hear the ā€œChrist Hymnā€ from Philippians 2:5-11 with its blunt portrayal of kenosis. And it may be increasingly the way of ecojustice in an increasingly dangerous time.

In his recent Jonathan Schell Memorial Lecture (named after the author of the important volume, The Fate of the Earth (1982), the decade’s most important warning about nuclear weaponry—available online at http://www.fateoftheearth.org), lecturer Bill McKibben compared the nuclear threat with the danger of climate change by describing a nuclear attack as something that ā€œmight happen,ā€ while climate change is a process well underway. More importantly, McKibben suggested ā€œlearningsā€ from the anti-nuclear movement.

The first lesson referenced by McKibben is the power of ā€œunearned suffering.ā€ The anti-nuclear movement learned this from the civil rights movement. Now in the face of potential violent repression, ā€œgroundlingsā€ of faith who advocate for strong governmental programs seeking ecojustice on the national level may pay a price previously unimagined.  Reflection on what needs to happen and its cost will be part of our Lenten pilgrimage. 

HYMN SUGGESTIONS

Gathering: ā€œO Lord, Throughout These 40 Daysā€ ELW, 319
Hymn of the Day: ā€œLight Shone in Darkness, ELW, 307
Sending: ā€œHow Clear is Our Vocation, Lord, ELW, 580

Tom Mundahl
Saint Paul, MN
tmundahl@gmail.com

Sunday of the Passion (Palm Sunday) in Year A (Mundahl)

Offering Life for the World Tom Mundahl reflects on Christ’s suffering and death.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ (originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2017)

Readings for the Sunday of Passion, Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Matthew 21:1-11
Isaiah 50:4-9a
Psalm 31:9-16
Philippians 2:5-11
Matthew 26:14-27: 66 or Matthew 27:11-54

The Sunday of the Passion begins the eight-day holy week, which culminates in the central celebration of the Christian faith: the passage of Jesus from death to life marked by the Three Days. Not only do the readings contain rich support for serving creation, but the gospel readings show the cosmic significance of the events—ranging from the donkey and tree branches of the entry into the city to the cosmic elements of darkness and earthquake in the passion story.

Norman Wirzba summarizes the connection between our readings and ecojustice concerns: ā€œWe discover that sacrificial offering is a condition for the possibility of the membership of life we call creation. Creation, understood as God’s offering of creatures to each other as food and nurture, reflects a sacrificial power in which life continually moves through death to new lifeā€ (Food and Faith, Cambridge, 2011, p. 126). While the very notion of sacrifice is uncomfortable to death-denying North Americans, it still is the way of the cross that leads to new life.

To grasp Isaiah’s Third Servant Song (Isaiah 50:4-9a), it is important to uncover the world of self-deception many exiles still embraced. In fact, one of the purposes of Second Isaiah is to convince the people that they were responsible for their condition; they had lost their freedom and land because they had convinced themselves that any wealth and status they enjoyed resulted from their own efforts, not as a gift of God. They had clearly forgotten the warning of the Deuteronomist: ā€œDo not say to yourself, ā€˜My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealthā€™ā€ (Deuteronomy 8:17).

Yahweh responds to this arrogance with an indictment and trial immediately preceding our First Reading. Here the very notion that the LORD is responsible for breaking the covenant and selling the people off to the highest bidder is shown to be pathetic and self-serving (Isaiah 50:1-3). Since living in self-deception only leads to greater self-destruction, the verdict is a stiff dose of the truth. As Paul Hanson suggests, ā€œthe God of the Hebrew Scriptures is not dedicated to avoiding offense at all costs, but to dispelling the delusions that imprison human beingsā€ (Isaiah 40-66, Louisville: John Knox, 1995, p. 137). As the prophetic word delivered by Isaiah has it, ā€œI the LORD speak the truth, I declare what is rightā€ (Isaiah 45:19).

This reminds us of nothing so much as the delusion of ā€œAmerican exceptionalismā€ that credits national wealth totally to a genius that forgets what once were seen as limitless natural ā€œresources,ā€ centuries of slave labor, and the genocide of native people. Like the exiles, advocates of eco-justice are called to be prophetic truth-tellers, awakening us to the fact that we, too, because of water depletion, resource waste, and climate change are also living in an illusion of prosperity containing the seeds of destruction.

This Servant Song reminds us that, in spite of human delusion, God does not give up on sending prophets as messengers to help the recovery of our senses. Whereas in Isaiah 42 it is the Spirit that emboldens the servant, in this Sunday’s text it is the power of the word itself: ā€œThe LORD has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a wordā€ (Isaiah 50:4). In fact, this Servant Song comes close to presenting a job description for prophets. The power of calling provides the endurance to confront those who meet the truth with ā€œinsults and spittingā€ (Isaiah 50: 6). The simple fact of persistenceā€”ā€œsetting the face like flintā€ (Isaiah 50:7)—in the face of constant ridicule is the key to prophetic effectiveness (Claus Westermann,Ā Isaiah 40-66, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969, p. 229).

It is through the suffering of the servant that power to transform the whole community grows. One of the great mysteries of faith is that those with the greatest ability to encourage the distraught are often those who, far from being exempt from suffering , discover special gifts of empathy and empowerment precisely in their own valleys of personal suffering (Hanson, p. 141). Again. we see life emerging from death.

As we began these comments on Lenten season texts, climate activist and Methodist layperson Bill McKibben’s 2016 lecture to inaugurate the Jonathan Schell Memorial Lectures was referred to. We saw that McKibben took as his task applying the lessons of the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970’s and 80’s to the climate struggle. The first lesson McKibben mentioned was the power of ā€œunearned sufferingā€ (This lecture is available online atĀ www.fateoftheearth.org). Increasingly, it appears that McKibben’s prescience was uncanny. The courage to endure in seeking eco-justice in the face of opposition from the current presidential regime can only come from a source as strong as that described by Isaiah: in our case, the power of baptismal calling to give us strength ā€œto set our face like flintā€ in the quest for eco-justice, a quest that seems more likely with each passing day to require civil disobedience. This may be how we offer ourselves to one another ā€œto till (serve) and keepā€ the creation.

Few texts sing the melody of self-offering for the life of the world as clearly as our Second Lesson, Philippians 2:5-11. ā€œFor at the heart of the story of creation, from its origins through problem to resolution is the story of Christ, who enters the world to redeem it, and is raised to glory as the firstborn of the new creation. Paul summarizes this story most famously and tellingly in the Philippian hymnā€ (Horrell, Hunt, and Southgate, Greening Paul, Waco: Baylor, 2010, p. 172).

Named after the father of Alexander the Great, by the middle of the first century CE Philippi had become a retirement center for the Roman military, a city where loyalty to the emperor was highly valued. In the face of the dominant culture, this Christ hymn makes the subversive claim that believers are ā€œcitizens of an empire where Christ is Lordā€ (Michael J. Gorman,Ā Apostle of the Crucified Lord, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017, p. 499). Of course, the appellation, ā€œLord,ā€ was a commonplace when referring to the emperor. As Ovid wrote, the emperor is ā€œLord of the empire, no less mighty than the world he governsā€ (John Dominic Crossan,Ā God and Empire, San Francisco: Harper, 2007, p. 108). To send a letter featuring this Christ-hymn naming Jesus as Lord (Philippians 2:11) was surely crossing the line.

But the ā€œcareer trajectoryā€ of this lordship is unlike any sanctioned by Roman culture. Instead of a climb to the top, this lordship participates in the depths of life by obedient self-emptying (kenosis). Influenced by elements of the Fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53: 12), the Genesis narrative of disobedience (Genesis 3), and the Roman cult of the emperor, this Christ-hymn concisely summarizes the story as one of incarnation (he emptied himself), death (he humbled himself), and glorification (Gorman, p. 506).

Although we are mindful of the final verses of the Christ-hymn, it is crucial to recognize on this day, formerly referred to almost exclusively as Palm Sunday, that it was not ā€œhosannasā€ all the way. To remind his audience (and all hearers) of this, Paul makes it clear that Jesus’ self-emptying is the pattern of faithful life: ā€œLet this same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus….ā€ (Philippians 2: 5).

Some years ago, Wayne Meeks suggested that the basic purpose of Philippians ā€œis the shaping of a ChristianĀ phronesisĀ (way of thinking) that is ā€˜conformed to Christ’s death in hope of resurrectionā€™ā€ (ā€œThe Man from Heaven in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians,ā€ in Birger Pearson, ed.,Ā The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, p. 333). As we recently celebrated the 500th anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation, perhaps we could see this ā€œway of thinkingā€ as shaping Luther’s theology, in particular his notion of the ā€œpriesthood of all believers.ā€

Early in his career as a reformer, Luther made it clear that ā€œeveryone who knows he is a Christian should be fully assured that all of us alike are priestsā€ (ā€œThe Pagan Servitude of the Churchā€ (1520), in Dillenberger, ed.,Ā Martin Luther—Selections from His Writings, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1961, p. 349). That same year, in his ā€œAppeal to the German Nobility,ā€ Luther defines this priesthood, drawing from Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (12:12f.): ā€œWe are all one body, yet each member has his own work serving othersā€ (Ibid., p. 407). Surely this priesthood—offering life for the world in the name of the Christ—includes serving creation and securing eco-justice.

Even on the Sunday of the Passion, we ā€œleanā€ toward the culmination of this holy week at the Vigil. Therefore, we cannot ignore the glorification in the final part of the Christ-hymn. This, too, reflects the baptismal priesthood we share. We learn that ā€œwhat a priest does today is ā€˜lift our hearts’ to the place of heaven so that heavenly life can transform life on earth here and now . . . . When we ā€˜lift our hearts’ to God, what we are really doing is giving ourselves and the whole world to the new creation, ā€˜the new heaven and new earth’ (Rev. 21:1). As priests we begin to see the whole creation as an altar of God’s offering. This altar becomes the inspiration for our offering of the world and ourselvesā€ (Wirzba, p. 207).

We cannot neglect our gospel reading(s). The processional reading requires good participation from the congregation—energy is important (as are eco-palms that are widely available). Because it is important to begin this week being immersed in the passion story, my recommendation is reading the longer version. If it is a single reader, it should be done at an appropriate pace, unhurried. If there is a talented storyteller in the congregation willing to take this on, what a gift! Even better is a choral reading using resources that are widely available. However, the key to a good choral reading is recruiting good readers, all standing near the lectern, who have practiced together at least twice. If sound reinforcement is necessary, that should also be ā€œpracticed.ā€

Is a traditional sermon necessary? That is a local decision. While serving as a pastor, when I did preach I usually focused briefly on the Philippians Christ-hymn. In the last fifteen years of ministry, simply hearing the passion gospel read was more than enough. If this is done, it is particularly important to allow silence (more than a minute before and two minutes or more after the Passion Gospel) for reflection and prayer.Ā Ā While this may seem unusual and even uncomfortable for some, silence is a gift of life for this unique week and always in congregational worship.

Hymn Suggestions:

Processional: ā€œAll Glory, Laud, and Honor,ā€ ELW, 344
Hymn of the Day: ā€œA Lamb Goes Uncomplaining Forth,ā€ ELW, 340
Sending: ā€œWhat Wondrous Love Is This,ā€ ELW, 666

Tom Mundahl, Saint Paul, MN
tmundahl@gmail.com