Tag Archives: Epiphany

Transfiguration of Our Lord in Year B (Ormseth15)

“. . . a spirit from on high is poured out on us, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field” (Isaiah 32:15) Dennis Ormseth reflects on the cosmic Christ revealed in the Transfiguration.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Transfiguration of Our Lord, Year B (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

2 Kings 2:1-2
Psalm 50:1-6
2 Corinthians 4:3-6
Mark 9:2-9

ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.Ā Ā Everything old has passed away.Ā Ā Behold, all things are new.ā€Ā  2 Corinthians 5:7 (translation by David Rhoads)

In the Transfiguration of our Lord, we behold God’s new creation. The light that shines in darkness in the beginning of creation (Genesis 1:3) now shines from Jesus into the darkness of the world that will crucify him. As the culmination of the Season of Epiphany, the event develops themes we have lifted up in our comments on the lectionary readings for the season’s Sundays. As in his Baptism, we are taken to a remote location where creation is the strong and sustaining witness to the meaning of his presence—at his baptism, in the water of the River Jordan; here on the high mountain. The disciples called from their work close to the earth are now challenged by the voice from the clouds to forsake their resistance to his announcement that he must suffer and die: ā€œThis is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!ā€ (Mark 8:31-36). As Ched Myers describes the event,

“The inner circle of disciples is taken up onto a mountain where they encounter a kind of salvation-history summit conference at which Moses and Elijah stand by Jesus, and where a cloud subsequently descends and the heavenly voice speaks. What is the meaning of the appearance of Moses and Elijah here? At the level of intertextuality, each of the two great prophets represents those who, like the disciples at this moment, beheld Yahweh’s epiphany on a mountain at crucial periods of discouragement in their mission. In the story of Elijah, the great prophet has for his trouble become a man hunted by the authorities. He tries to flee, but is met by Yahweh who dispatches him back into the struggle (1Kgs 19:11ff). And in the case of Moses, he is Yahweh’s envoy whose message has been once rejected by the people, and who must thus ascend the mountain a second time (Ex 33:18ff).” (Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988; p. 250).

Their shared experience entails a dramatic end to ā€œbusiness as usual,ā€ in precisely that ā€œfundamental reordering of socioeconomic relationshipsā€ which encompasses both people and land and so leads by a new way of life together to creation’s restoration. Supported by the vision of Elijah and Moses, Jesus and his disciples will now engage with demonic powers in a battle to heal creation.

Or is that not what the ā€œmountain-topā€ experience is about?Ā Ā Is the God who speaks from the cloud not the God of all creation? Is the mission into which they (and we) are called by Jesus not the liberation of all creation? Skeptics may well protest at this point that we have introduced a concern for care of creation which is not really there in the Biblical witness. We think that the event of the Transfiguration shows that the concern is indeed there, and significantly so, as a hope for precisely ā€œnew creation,ā€ in the joint appearance of Moses and Elijah. As Ched Myers observes, their presence functions to ā€œlend credibility to the teaching Jesus has just delivered; the cross stands now with ‘the law and the prophets.’ This is meant as a dramatic confirmation of Mark’s repeated claim that his story stands in continuity with the ‘old story’ (1:2)ā€ (Myers, p. 250). Granted that the credibility lent to Jesus’ teaching is of first importance for the church, we would urge nonetheless that the continuity runs in both directions at this juncture. For the church, ā€œJesus transfiguredā€ is an originary theophany which opens access to the authority of the ā€œlaw and the prophets;ā€ it also invites both their study and, consequently, covenantal loyalty and obedience to their God, who as our Epiphany readings have repeatedly affirmed, is the God of all creation. Our first reading suggests that a prophet’s power grows in strength in the degree to which he revisits the full story of redemption: Elisha gains a double share of Elijah’s spirit by first journeying with him to Bethel, Jericho, and a crossing of the Jordan that is reminiscent of the Exodus. So also does the story of Jesus gain much of the spiritual power it has in relationship to all nations and the cosmos by revisiting and drawing from the stories of the Exile, Exodus and Creation. (This is indeed a very important aspect of this commentary on the readings of the Lectionary, with their regular linkage between Hebrew and Christian scripture).

Walter Breuggemann urges the importance of this point in arguing that the ā€œpractice of Torah is not only study; it is also worship. It is being in the presence of the One who lives in, with, and under this authoritative text, and who is present in the ongoing work of imagination from this text.ā€ Obviously true for Jews, it is also true, he insists, for Christians: ā€œthe practice of Torah as a practice of obedience and imagination that issues in communion is a way of thinking not only about Torah; for Christians it is a way of understanding Christ, who is both the one who commands and the one who offers self in intimacy” (Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997; pp. 598-99).

With respect to creation, Torah looks to ā€œa world beyond nullification:ā€’ there is something ā€œ at work in Yahweh’s interior, something to which Israel boldly bears witness, that works against, disrupts, and mitigates Yahweh’s free exercise of wrathful sovereignty. Something moves against destructiveness, either to qualify it or to begin again post destructionā€ (Brueggemann, p. 542). In the prophets (specifically Hosea and Isaiah,) Brueggemann locates the voice of Yahweh, ā€œwho publicly and pointedly claims authority to replicate the initial creation, only now more grandly and more wondrously. This promised action of Yahweh is clearly designed to overcome all that is amiss, whether what is amiss has been caused by Yahweh’s anger, by Israel’s disobedience, or by other untamed forces of death.ā€ The promised ā€œnewness of creationā€ encompasses all things: ā€œAll elements of existence are to come under the positive, life-yielding aegis of Yahweh . . . so that hostilities at every level and in every dimension of creation will be overcome. ‘All will be well and all will be well’ā€ (Brueggemann, p. 549; the famous phase is from Julian of Norwich,Ā Showings).

ā€œAt Yahweh’s behest,ā€ creation has three seasons:Ā Ā first, ā€œblessing,ā€ in which Yahweh acts for ā€œthe well-being and productivity of the world. Yahweh has the power and the inclination to form a world of life-generating proportionā€;Ā second, ā€œradical fissureā€:Ā  ā€œCreation is not necessary to Yahweh, and Yahweh will tolerate no creation that is not ordered according to Yahweh’s intention for life. The world can be lost!ā€; and third, ā€œa radical newnessā€:Ā The reason? Perhaps it ā€œis not in Yahweh’s character to be a God who settles for chaos. It is in Yahweh’s most elemental resolve to enact blessing and order and well-beingā€ (Breuggemann, pp. 549-50).

Terry Fretheim shares Brueggeman’s view. In his persuasively documented study ofĀ God and World in the Old TestamentĀ (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2005), he, too, uncovers the deep thrust towards ā€œnew creationā€ in the events of the Exodus and Exile. The return from Exile and the Exodus, Fretheim writes, are . . .

“understood as redemptive events, forging the identity of the people of God. But the relationship is not so simple as to say:Ā Ā just as God acted back then, so God is acting now. The exodus is also contrastedĀ with what God is now about to do in returning the exiles home and planting them in the land: ā€œDo not remember the former things . . . I am about to do a new thing’ (Isa 43:18-19; Jer 15:14-16). The ā€œoldā€ exodus event no longer stands on its own as a redemptive and cosmic event; indeed, it is sharply reduced in importance compared to the new. God is now creating something genuinely new; not only will Israel be newly constituted as a people of God but also the cosmic significance of the event will be more wide-ranging in its effects .” (Fretheim, p.192-93)

God, Fretheim insists, drawing particularly on the prophecies of Third Isaiah, ā€œhas a future in store for the entire created order, not just human beings. For the sake of that future—a new heaven and a new earth–God’sĀ salvificĀ activity catches up every creatureā€ (Fretheim, p. 194). And it is important, Fretheim concludes, that this ā€œnew heaven and new earthā€ is not simply a return to Eden:

The most fundamental difference from Eden is that this new covenant does not have the possibility of being undercut by human failure; that cycle will never be repeated. This new day will come when the words of Isa 32:15-18, 20 will forever describe that new creation:

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā a spirit from on high is poured out on us,

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field,

            ……………………………………………………….

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Then justice will dwell in the wilderness,

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā and righteousness abide in the fruitful field.

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā The effect of righteousness will be peace,

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever.

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā My people will abide in a peaceful habitation,

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā in secure dwellings, and in quiet resting places.

            ………………………………………………………..

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Happy will you be who sow beside every stream,

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā who let the ox and the donkey range freely

Ā  Ā  Ā  Ā  Ā (Fretheim, pp. 197-98).

Christ is this new creation to whom the ā€œlaw and the prophetsā€ give witness, and as our second reading from 2 Corinthians proclaims: ā€œFor it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,ā€ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christā€ (4:6). But as the disciples, having been silenced by Jesus on their way down the mountain, would struggle in subsequent days to comprehend, Jesus, too, would come into the fullness of ā€œnew creationā€ only after passing through the ā€œradical fissureā€ of his crucifixion and death.

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2015.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Fifth Sunday after Epiphany in Year B (Ormseth15)

New Creation Is Proactive: Regenerative and Restoring Dennis Ormseth reflects on becoming full participants in maximizing life’s creativity.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany, Year B (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

Isaiah 40:21-31
Psalm 147:1-11, 20c
1 Corinthians 9:16-23
Mark 1:29-39

ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.Ā Ā Everything old has passed away.Ā Ā Behold, all things are new.ā€Ā  2 Corinthians 5:7 (translation by David Rhoads)

Why, exactly, is it appropriate to associate Jesus and ā€œnew creationā€? The question calls for an extended Christological discussion far beyond the limits this commentary and the abilities of this commentator. Our taking of 2 Corinthians 5:7 as our epigraph for this series of comments on the Epiphany readings nonetheless gives us pause, if for no other reason than the rarity of the association. Of the two instances of ā€œnew creationā€ in the Bible (Galatians 6:15 is the other), this is the only one that specifically links the phrase with Jesus or Christ. As the authors cited in our discussion ofĀ Ā ‘new creationā€ in our comment on the Fourth Sunday note, the phrase ā€œis generally seen—like the occurrences in intertestamental Jewish literature . . . as originating as a motif in the eschatological hope of the prophets, especially Deutero-Isaiah (see esp. Isa. 43:18-19)ā€ and ā€œdeveloped in Trito-Isaiah into a depiction of the eschatological renewal of creation and specifically the idea of a ā€œnew heaven and new earthā€ (e.g., Isa 65:17-25, 66:22)ā€ (David G. Horrell, Cherryl Hunt,and Christopher Southgate,Ā Greening Paul:Ā Ā Rereading the Apostle in a Time of Ecological Crisis ;Ā Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2010, p. 166). Elizabeth Johnson explains the Christian extension of the concept (creatio nova)Ā Ā as follows:

“Adapting this same pattern of interpretation, Christian theology makes protological and eschatological assertions of its own (Greek eschaton, the furthest end). Anchored in Christ, the life of the church in the Spirit offers ongoing experiences of a good and compassionate God amid the community’s own sinfulness and graced commitments. Proclaimed in word and sacrament, experienced in ordinary and extraordinary moments alike, the merciful presence of God, which grasps us at times even in the ache of its absence, gives grounds for speaking with gratitude of an original beginning and with hope of a blessed future. Considerations of the world’s ultimate origin and final end launch the mind toward the unknowable. For theology this is the deep mystery of the living God who bears us up in the present.”

Is this association then primarily a matter of faithful extrapolation, which as Johnson admits can ā€œsound like wishful thinkingā€ and can ā€œseem like science fiction fantasiesā€?Ā Ā ā€œThe unreality of it all can be a stumbling block for faith,ā€ she cautions. ā€œBut there is one God, burning fire of divine love. The logic of belief holds that if this absolute holy Mystery can create life, then this same holy mystery in faithful love can rescue it from final nothingness (Elizabeth A. Johnson,Ā Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love.Ā London:Ā Ā Bloomsbury, 2014, p. 213).

It is no doubt by virtue of this dynamic that we have the first reading and psalm we do for this Sunday. The church in assembly makes the connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the God who creates all things: first with his exorcism in the synagogue, now in this Sunday’s Gospel with his first healing, followed by additional exorcisms and healing of ā€œall who were sick or possessed with demonsā€ until (in Mark’s Semitic hyperbole), ā€œthe whole city was gathered around the door of Simon’s houseā€ (1:33). The church sees in these episodes the presence of the creator, and makes the bold claim that what happened of old is now happening anew. Creation in its fullness is being restored. More than simply miracle stories, the significance of these actions, in Myers’ view,

“can be seen only as a direct reflection of his social reality. Economic and political deterioration, especially in the decade prior to the upheavals of the Romano-Jewish war, had dispossessed significant portions of the Palestinian population, especially in the densely populated rural areas of Galilee. Disease and physical disability were an inseparable part of the cycle of poverty (a phenomenon still true today despite the advent of modern medicine). For the day laborer, illness meant unemployment and instant impoverishment. The ā€œcrowdsā€ (ochlos) form the background to the story and represent a major aspect of its social location . . . . Jesus’ healing ministry is thus portrayed as an essential part of his struggle to bring concrete liberation to the oppressed and marginal of Palestinian society” (Myers, p.144).

These actions are what Myers terms ā€œsymbolic actions,ā€ by which he does not mean that they were only of ā€merely metaphorical significance,ā€ ā€œdevoid of concrete, historical character,ā€ but rather that their ā€œfundamental significance, indeedĀ power, lies relative to the symbolic order in which they occurred.ā€ Such action has ā€œdivine power,ā€ but not in the sense usually ascribed to them; their power lies ā€œnot in a manipulation of nature but in confrontation with the dominant order of oppression and in witness to different possibilitiesā€ (Myers, p. 147).Ā Ā In the language employed by cultural anthropologist Mary Douglas, ā€œhis healing and exorcism functioned to ‘elaborate’ the dominant symbolic order, unmasking the way in which it functioned to legitimate concrete social relationships. Insofar as this order dehumanized life, Jesus challenged it and defied its strictures:Ā thatĀ is why his ‘miracles’ were not universally embracedā€ (Myers, p. 147-48).

It is important to note, furthermore, that these symbolic actions have purchase not only with respect to ā€œwhat Jesus does,ā€ but also to whom and where he does them. In the period of this first day, Myers notes, ā€œJesus moves from a synagogue in Capernaum to a house (1:29) to an undetermined wilderness site (1:35). Similarly, later Jesus is portrayed as moving from synagogue (3:1) to sea (3:7 to mountain (3:13) to house and finally back to sea (4:1), an itinerary of ā€œkey symbolic coordinates.ā€Ā Ā And it is perhaps especially significant that Jesus desires to proclaim his message, not only in the city of Capernaum, but even more so in the ā€œneighboring townsā€ (1:38). The crowds (ochlos) are ā€œpeople of the land,ā€Ā Ā ā€œlower class, poor, uneducated, and ignorant of the lawā€ with whom, according to the rabbis ā€œJews should neither share meals nor travel togetherā€ (Myers, (p. 156). Jesus’ ministry relates in this way toĀ allĀ the people and theĀ entireĀ landscape of the entire region, ā€œthroughout Galileeā€ (1:39).

The picture is thus one of a people dispossessed from the land by the dominating Hellenistic population of the cities, who suffer from diseases associated with that status, and are subject to demonic possession and alienated from the elite class that rules the community from the synagogue. ā€œIn sum, in his careful use of socio-symbolic space, Mark portrays Jesus as struggling against the dominant symbolic order as it manifests itself in each social sphere in his mission of liberationā€ (p. 152). But they is a new people in the making, in new relationship to each other and to the land in which they live. Jesus is the catalyst for this development, as it were, the energies of which are the gift of the Creator. The Gospel reading for this Sunday thus introduces us in paradigmatic fashion to what might plausibly be seen as ā€œnew creation:ā€ the work of one who ā€œbrings princes to naught, and makes the rulers of the earth as nothingā€ (Isaiah 40:23), and who ā€œgives power to the faint, and strengthens the powerlessā€ (Isaiah 40:29). Jesus does so precisely because his God isĀ Ā the one who also ā€œsits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live inā€ (40:22), ā€œthe everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earthā€ (40:28).

In our first reading, we have an exceedingly significant prototype of this ā€œnew creation.ā€ Isaiah 40, William Brown observes, reaches back to the foundational experience of the people of Israel in the ā€œtrauma of exile brought on by the loss of land, temple, and king,ā€ from which the prophet drew ā€œa new theological vision, one that emerged from the fertile soil of religious polytheism.ā€ The ā€œGod of Israel, YHWH, is the one and only God, the creator of allā€ (William P. Brown,Ā The Seven Pillars of Creation:Ā Ā The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder.Ā Oxford:Ā Ā Oxford University Press, 2010, p.216). The crowning theological achievement of ā€œSecond Isaiah,ā€ Brown suggests,

“was to have YHWH stand alone, but alone in manifold fullness. Stephen Geller identifies three originally separate aspects of divinity that came to be subsumed or integrated under Israel’s Godhead: ‘God as king, as warrior, and as protector.’ In ‘Second Isaiah,’ however, the list grows longer and more differentiated. YHWH is depicted as a warrior (40:10; 42:13; 51:9-11), shepherd (40:12), king (5:7); comforter (40:1-2; 49:13; 51:3, 12), lover (43;4), husband (54:5), potter (45:9), father (45:10a, 11), mother (45:10b,Ā Ā 11; 49:15), Holy One (41:14, 16, 20; 45:11), redeemer (41:14; 43:14; 44:6, 24; 54:5), and covenant-maker (42:6; 49:8, 54:10; 55:32) . . . .

God’s composite personality in ‘Second Isaiah’ cannot be reduced to any one attribute. Neither is YHWH simply a compilation of all them. God’s divinity is not measured simply by addition.Ā Ā In the fullness of divinity, the prophet’s God stands utterly alone and fully transcendent, above all categories . . . .

YHWH’s transcendent status rises above the myriad attributes and roles that are ascribed to the deity. ā€œSecond Isaiah’sā€ conception of deity is more than the sum of its roles. Except for one. God’s most central role is also, not coincidentally, the one that fits God’s transcendent status most fully: creator. The creator of all is ā€œaboveā€ all.Ā Ā God creates both darkness and light, the old and the new. YHWH is a divine singularity, incomparably and exclusively divine, whose creativity knows no bounds” (Brown, p. 217-18).

This Creator creates anew in Jesus, but ā€œnew creationā€ doesn’t end there. Again in the present time, it is the hope of the church who in Jesus’ name would similarly seek to liberate the peoples of the earth and the earth itself from their destructive alienation, that the power of this God will manifest itself yet again and again. Thus withĀ Ā Psalm 147 we praise this Creator with present tense, as one whoĀ healsĀ the present world andĀ isĀ the origin of all that is and will be. Yes, Yahweh ā€œheals the brokenhearted, and binds up their wounds,ā€ and yet also ā€œdetermines the number of the starsā€; and ā€œgives to all of them their namesā€ (147:4). In Christ, we are privileged to participate in the new work of this God.

It is one of the most provocative aspects of Naomi Klein’s book,Ā This Changes Everything,Ā that she is alert to the need for what we have referred to here as ā€œcreativeā€ power. She doesn’t call it that, of course, and may not have in mind divinity. Yet she identifies as ā€œone of the most important developmentsā€ of the resistance movement against the destructive forces of extractive capitalism ā€œa new kind of reproductive rights movementā€, one ā€œfighting . . . for the reproductive rights of the planet as a whole—for the decapitated mountains, the drowned valleys, the clear-cut forests, the fracked water table, the strip-mined hillsides, the poisoned rivers, the ‘cancer villages.’ All of life has the right to renew, regenerate, and heal itselfā€ (This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate.Ā Ā New York; Simon & Schuster, 2014, p. 443). A promising shift is underway, she observes:

“As communities move from simply resisting extractivism to constructing the world that must rise in its rubble, protecting the fertility cycle is at the heart of the most rapidly multiplying models, from permaculture to living buildings to rainwater harvesting. Again and again, linear, one-way relationships of pure extraction are being replaced with systems that are circular and reciprocal. Seeds are saved instead of purchased. Water is recycled. Animal manure, not chemicals, is used as fertilizer, and so on. There are no hard-and-fast formulas, since the guiding principle is that every geography is different and our job, as Wes Jackson says. . . . is to ‘consult the genius of the place’ā€ (Klein, p. 446).

These processes, she observes, ā€œare sometime called ‘resilient’ but a more appropriate term might be ā€œregenerative.’ā€ Resilience is passive; ā€œregeneration, on the other hand, is active: we become full participants in the process of maximizing life’s creativity.ā€ The vision goes far beyond ā€œthe familiar eco-critique that stressed smallness and shrinking humanity’s impact or ‘footprint’ to embrace change of our actions ā€œso that they are constantly growing, rather than extracting life.ā€ We are, she concludes, what Gopal Dayaneni, a California ecologist and activist, describes as ā€œthe keystone species in this momentā€ and ā€œhave to align our strategies with the healing powers of Mother Earth—there is no getting around the house rules. But it isn’t about stopping or retreating. It’s about aggressively applying our labor toward restorationā€ (Klein, pp. 447-48). Although we might prefer to call the healing powers ā€œYahweh,ā€ we can heartily agree with this prescription for ā€œnew creation.ā€

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2015.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Fourth Sunday after Epiphany in Year B (Ormseth15)

For Those Who Are in Christ, Creation Is New! Dennis OrmsethĀ reflects on driving out the demon of climate change denial.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, Year B (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

Deuteronomy 18:15-20
Psalm 111
1 Corinthians 8:1-13
Mark 1:21-28

ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.Ā Ā Everything old has passed away.Ā Ā Behold, all things are new.ā€Ā  II Corinthians 5:7 (translation by David Rhoads)

ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.ā€Ā What, exactly does this promise mean? We have taken it as our epigraph for these comments on the lectionary texts for the Sundays after Epiphany in year B, with the expectation that light will be shed on its meaning as we move through the season. While the text itself, II Corinthians 5:7, does not appear among the readings for any of these Sundays, the second readings through Transfiguration Sunday are consistently drawn from the Letters of Paul to the Corinthians. We therefore anticipated that the assertion would be found consonant with the themes the readings set out. Thus far we think we have shown this to be the case. It helped greatly, of course, that at the outset the readings for the Baptism of Our Lord are rich in creational metaphor and motifs; transferring them to the life of those baptized in Christ was a relatively straightforward matter. On the Second Sunday after Epiphany, we uncovered in the fig tree under which Nathanael sat, when Jesus called him to be a disciple, a sign that binds confession of Jesus as manifestation of God to awareness of God’s presence in creation and the call of the disciple to care of creation. And in our comment on the readings for the Third Sunday, we argued that for those ā€œwho are in Christā€ at this moment of Earth’s all-encompassing ecological crisis, it is indeed time for ā€œbreaking with business as usual,ā€ following Jesus’ call to engage in ā€œa fundamental reordering of socioeconomic relationshipsā€ which, if it encompasses the ecological systems of our planet together with the human community, could lead to all creation’s restoration—to new creation.

The readings for the Fourth Sunday provide further support for this interpretation. In the Gospel we see what Ched Myers describes as ā€œthe public inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Capernaumā€, in which ā€œMark will establish the essential characteristics of the messianic mission.ā€ We are immediately made aware of the nature of the challenge of ā€œbreaking with business as usual.ā€ As Myers point outs out, ā€œin one sentence [1:21] Mark moves Jesus from the symbolic margins to the heart of provincial Jewish social order: synagogue (sacred space) on a Sabbath (sacred time)ā€ (Ched Myers,Ā Binding the Strong Man:Ā A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books , 1988; p. 141).Ā Jesus’ teaching is acknowledged by those assembled to be authoritative, which has prompted the church to assign Deuteronomy 18:15-20 as our first reading: Jesus is a prophet like Moses, whose teaching is powerful to accomplish his mission. But these affirmations also serve to frame the conflict that breaks into the open in his encounter with the ā€œman with an unclean spirit,ā€ as having ā€œeverything to do with the struggle between the authority of Jesus and that of the scribesā€ (Myers, pp. 141-42). The man’s greeting ā€œcommunicates defiance toward a hostile intruder,ā€ Myers suggests, but ā€œthis defiance quickly turns to fear:Ā Ā ā€œHave you come to destroy us?ā€

Following the interpretation of Howard Kee, Myers argues that the episode is ā€œparadigmaticā€:

“The word of the demon makes clear that the struggle is not a momentary one, but is part of a wider conflict of which this is but a single phase . . . . The narrative is wholly compatible with the picture . . . emerging from apocalyptic Judaism of God’s agent locked in effective struggle with the powers of evil, wresting power from them by his word of command.”

Such narratives, it is important to note, do not ā€œglorify the one who performed the act,ā€ as Hellenistic miracle stories tended to do; modern interpreters who focus on Jesus’ presumed supernatural powers do something similar. These stories instead ā€œidentify his exorcism as an eschatological event which served to prepare God’s creation for his coming ruleā€ (Myers, p. 143. Kee’s work cited here is ā€œThe Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,ā€Ā New Testament Studies, 14, pp. 242ff). As ā€œone of the central characteristics of the messianic mission of Jesusā€ which he passes on to his followers, exorcism ā€œis the main vehicle for articulating the apocalyptic combat mythā€ between the powers (and their earthly minion) and Jesus (as envoy of the kingdom). ā€œMark’s account thus begins to specify the political geography of the apocalyptic contest begun in the wilderness (1:12f). The demon in the synagogue becomes the representative of the scribal establishment, whose ā€œauthorityā€ undergirds the dominant Jewish social order (Myers, p. 143). With this episode, Myers notes, ā€œMark thus established the political character of exorcism as symbolic action.ā€ Subsequent exorcisms in the Gospel are similarly ā€œconcerned with the structures of power and alienation in the social world,ā€ in particular ā€œthe deep rift between Jew and gentileā€ (7:24ff), and ā€œthe agonizing struggle to believe in the new order of the kingdomā€ (9:14).

One observes here a striking structural similarity between this analysis of the opposition Jesus encountered and Naomi Klein’s description of the climate change denial movement’s opposition to climate change action. Here, too, there is great fear expressed by the defenders of our dominant economic system. One can easily imagine a climate denier standing in the door of a meeting of the Heartland Society she describes, refusing to allow entry to a climate change activist, with the frightened challenge (in the words of the demon in Mark), ā€œHave you come to destroy us?ā€ As she writes, this . . .

“is what is behind the abrupt rise in climate change denial among hardcore conservatives: they have come to understand that as soon as they admit that climate change is real, they will lose the central ideological battle of our time—whether weĀ Ā need to plan and manage our societies to reflect our goals and values, or whether that task can be left to the magic of the market” (Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The ClimateĀ (New York:Ā Ā Simon & Schuster, 2014. p. 41).

Klein’s point is critical to an understanding of the dynamics our our political situation relative to climate change:

“Climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding on which contemporary conservatism rests. A belief system that vilifies collective action and declares war on all corporate regulation and all things public simply cannot be reconciled with a problem that demands collective action on an unprecedented scale and a dramatic reining in of the market forces” ( p. 41).

And it isn’t only a matter of economic and political policy; here, too, there is an ideological ā€œwar of the myths:ā€

“[F]or many conservatives, particularly religious ones, the challenge goes deeper still, threatening not just faith in markets but core cultural narratives about what humans are doing here on earth. Are we masters, here to subdue and dominate, or are we one species among many, at the mercy of powers more complex and unpredictable than even our most powerful computers can model?” (Klein, p. 42).

Faced with this situation, how might the church respond in Jesus’ name?Ā Ā How mightĀ weĀ drive the demon of climate change denial out?

An answer requires more extensive discussion than we can do here, of course. But key elements of an answer lie close at hand this Sunday in the second reading from 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. In fact, this text relates as closely to our epigraphic promise as any we will encounter during the season.Ā Ā With its concern for eating of food sacrificed to idols, the passage may seem irrelevant to the concerns raised by the Gospel reading. Until, that is, we learn in verse 6 that the presupposition of Paul’s argument here is the powerful confessional statement that ā€œfor us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.ā€

Ā As David Horrell, Cheryl Hunt, and Christopher Southgate point out in theirĀ Greening Paul:Ā Ā Rereading the Apostle in a Time of Ecological CrisisĀ (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2010), the repeated ā€œall thingsā€ (ta panta) here alerts us to the connection between this passage and the line of Paul’s thought represented by the famous hymn of Colossians 1:15-20. The phrase ā€œrefers to everything, indicating the universal and cosmic scope of the hymn’s concerns.Ā Ā This view of all things as the work of the one (good) creator, in and through Christ, implies the intrinsic goodness of all created entities, including the nonhuman elements, a repeated emphasis in the first creation narrative in Genesisā€ (Horrell,Ā et al.,Ā p.104). The confession in 1 Corinthians 8, these authors argue, is the most important of several texts showing that for Paul

“there is no intrinsic or inherent source of moral corruption in the material things of the world God has made. And it is significant that this is expressed even in a letter (1 Corinthians) where the ā€œworldā€ is generally depicted in somewhat negative terms, owingĀ Ā Ā . . . to Paul’s sense that he needs more strongly to reinforce a sense of distinction between the church and its wider society” (Horrell,Ā et al., p. 159).

Combined with ā€œthe most important reconciliation text in the undisputed Pauline letters,ā€ 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 (which includes our epigraph), this and other texts (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:27-28), provide a basis for arguing that ā€œbroadly construed as the drawing together of all things into Christ (and/or God), cosmic reconciliation can stand at the focal center of [a] reading of Pauline theology and at the center of. . . Paul’s story of creation (Horrell, et al., p. 168). Within the framework of this cosmic narrative, the ā€œnew creationā€ of 2 Corinthians 5:17 is ā€œplausibly construedā€ as

“focused less on the individual’s new identity – a focus that may owe more to Western individualism than to Paul . . . and more on the sense that what God has achieved (or is in the process of bringing about) in Christ is a cosmic ā€œnew creationā€: anyone who is in Christ belongs to, participates in, this new creation, in which the former distinctions (between Jew and Gentile, etc.) no longer count for anything. The work of God in Christ is a renewal of the cosmos, an inauguration of the promised eschatological new creation, not merely the transformation of individual believers” (Horrell, et al., pp. 169-170).

While Paul’s ā€œpredominant concern is with the conversion of human beings and with the communities of believers whose corporate life he seeks to shape,ā€ these authors conclude, his theology is nevertheless ā€œcentered onĀ the act of God in Christ which affects the whole cosmos and has inaugurated the renewal of that cosmos—what Paul describes as new creationā€Ā Ā (Horrell,Ā et al. p. 172).

All things belong in God, all things are being reconciled in Christ: this is what ā€œnew creationā€ means. All things are valued as good; all things are being restored to the community of creation. And to be in Christ is to participate in that great work. So does Psalm 111 appropriately remind us that

Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Great are the works of the Lord,
studied by all who delight in them.
Full of honor and majesty is his work,
and his righteousness endures forever.
He has gained renown by his wonderful deeds;
the Lord is gracious and merciful (111:2-4)

Who then, and by what power, can climate change deniers, persist in their opposition to care for creation?

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2015.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Third Sunday after Epiphany in Year B (Ormseth12)

It’s Time to Break with Business as Usual and Tend God’s Creation Dennis OrmsethĀ reflects on what we can learn from fishermen.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Second Sunday after Epiphany, Year B (2012, 2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

Jonah 3:1-5, 10
Psalm 62:5-12
1 Corinthians 7:29-31
Mark 1:14-20

It’s Time!

When it’s time, it’s time. And, indeed, it is time for Christians to reorient their lives to God’s creation in crisis. The readings for this Sunday provide occasion for making this call. From Mark’s Gospel we have heretofore heard the announcement of a new beginning. We have encountered John the Baptist at the Jordan and shared in his expectation of the arrival of one who is more powerful than he. We have undergone baptism with water, and await the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit. And now the word comes: John has been arrested; Jesus is on the move. ā€œThe time is fulfilled,ā€ he proclaims, ā€œand the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good newsā€ (Mark 1:14). So with Simon and Andrew, James and John, we are invited to ā€œbreak with business as usualā€ and enlist in Jesus’ campaign to restore God’s creation (ā€œbreaking with business as usualā€ is Ched Myers’ apt characterization of these verses from the opening chapter of Mark’s gospel; see hisĀ Binding the Strong Man, p. 132)

The Kingdom of God is the Restoration of Creation.

What does the drawing near of the kingdom of God have to do with the restoration of the creation? A lot, if not everything, we would urge. We have anticipated this assertion in our commentary on the lectionary lessons for Advent and Christmas: the coming of Jesus, we have suggested, represents the relocation of the presence of God from the temple at the heart of the Jewish state to the person of Jesus, who is the servant of God’s creation. A succession of symbolic associations through these two opening seasons of the church year has provided confirmation of this perspective: the fig tree (First Sunday of Advent), the wilderness (Second), the light (Third), the incarnation (Fourth), the praise of all creation (Christmas Eve and Day, and First Sunday of Christmas), the assembly of God’s people for the meal (First Sunday), and the water of baptism (Baptism of our Lord). These are all signs of the immanence of God in the creation, which we argued in our comment on the readings for last Sunday is the presupposition of the call to discipleship from God. Now on this Sunday that God is seen in the person of Jesus to draw near and call into specific relationship those who will accompany him on his mission, and so be prepared to carry it forward in his name. But it is only with this Sunday that we first see how crucial the creation itself is to the fulfillment of the time and the drawing near of the reign of God.

Myers shows us why choice of location and occupation of the first people called as disciples is significant for understanding the nature of Jesus’ mission. Sea is important, along with wilderness, river, and mountain, he notes, as primary topological sites in Mark’s narrative. Here in the first part of the gospel, ā€œthe sea (of Galilee) is a prime positive coordinate; by it the discipleship narrative commences (1:16; 2:13), and consolidates (3:17)ā€ (Ibid., p. 150). It is, obviously, the context in which fisherman, who are recruits for Jesus’ following, could be expected to be found. That the nature of their work is important is clear, both from Mark’s emphasis on itā€”ā€œhe saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen,ā€ and from Jesus’ use of that vocation in describing their future role in his mission: ā€œFollow me and I will make you fish for peopleā€ (1:17). The image, Myers emphasizes, ā€œdoes not refer to the ā€˜saving of souls,’ as if Jesus were conferring upon these men instant evangelist status.ā€ The image is rather

“carefully chosen from Jeremiah 16:16, where it is used as a symbol of Yahweh’s censure of Israel. Elsewhere the ‘hooking of fish’ is a euphemism for judgment upon the rich (Amos 4:2) and powerful (Ezekiel 29:4). Taking this mandate for his own, Jesus is inviting common folk to join him in his struggle to overturn the existing order of power and privilege “(Ibid., p. 132).

Following Jesus requires a reordering of socio-economic relationships.

Belonging as these men do to an independent artisan class for whom ā€œthe social fabric of the rural extended family was bound to the workplace,ā€ the call to follow Jesus requires not just assent of the heart, but a fundamental reordering of socio-economic relationships. The first step in dismantling the dominant social order is to overturn the ā€œworldā€ of the disciple: in the kingdom, the personal and the political are one. These concrete imperatives are precisely what the rich—Mark will later tell us—are unable or unwilling to respond to. This is not a call ā€œoutā€ of the world, but into an alternative social practice.

No more business as usual.

Thus, this ā€œfirstā€ call to discipleship in Mark is indeed ā€œan urgent, uncompromising invitation to ā€˜break with business as usualā€™ā€ (Ibid., pp. 132-33).

The fishermen’s dependence on God in fishing leads them to follow unconditionally.

What Myers’ exposition leaves unanswered, however, and indeed, even unasked, is the question as to why these fishermen are apparently both able and willing to respond so positively to Jesus’ call. What exactly is it about fishermen, to pick up on Mark’s emphasis, that renders them open to Jesus’ call and able to make the break? Our view, admittedly somewhat conjectural, is that it is in the nature of their work and its domain, the sea of Galilee, to foster such readiness and courage. Theirs was a daily encounter with both the great bounty and the threat of the sea. While harvesting that bounty, they move at the edge of chaos. Contrary to the rich people dwelling in the cities of the land, for whom their wealth was a guarantee of continued well-being and purchased safety and therefore a cause of resistance to Jesus, the fishermen’s entire dependence upon the sea for their livelihood could make them acutely aware of their dependence upon God for both their sustenance and their safety. We can imagine them singing with firm resolve the psalm appointed for this Sunday: ā€œFor God alone my soul waits in silence, for my hope is from him.Ā Ā He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be shaken. On God rests my deliverance and my honor; my mighty rock, my refuge is in God. Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for usā€ (Psalm 62:5-8). People of this spirit could be quite ready to respond quickly and affirmatively to Jesus’ summons.

Work and play rooted in God are holy activities on behalf of creation.

This is to suggest, accordingly, that the fisherman’s relationship to the creation plays a significant role in the unfolding of this narrative. Their entire lives are so oriented to the unfettered dynamic of creation that ā€œbusiness as usualā€ in the socio-political realm of the temple-state has very little meaning for them. This suggestion is supported by Norman Wirzba’s argument in his book,Ā The Paradise of God, that one of the keys to restoring to modern life a ā€œculture of creationā€ is the reformation of our patterns of work and play, to bring them into proper relationship with the patterns of creation. Fundamentally, he argues, ā€œwork and play . . . are our responses to God’s own work and delight in a creation well made. They show, when most authentic, a sympathetic attunement to the orders of creation and their divine goal.ā€ Meister Eckhart, Wirzba suggests, found that

“[i]n returning to our ā€œground,ā€ as he put it, we come upon the experience of the grace of creation and there find our proper bearings for action. We learn that work is not foremost about us, but is instead the holy activity through which creation as a whole is sanctified. Work, rather than following from divine punishment, becomes the noble activity of presenting to God a creation strengthened and restored through the exercise of our hands, heart, and head.”

Human work, rightly understood and well-practiced, promotes entry ā€œinto the flow of the divine beneficence and hospitalityā€ (Wirzba, pp. 154-155). This, we suggest, is how the Galilean fishermen lived.

This reading of Mark’s narrative is provocative, we think; contrary to our usual concern to show how Christian faith might help foster and sustain care of creation, we find here that a particular orientation to creation helps to form and foster a relationship of faith to God and commitment to God’s purposes.Ā Ā Aware as they would have been of changes in their circumstances due to Roman domination of the seas and due to Jerusalem’s collaboration with Roman authorities, their relationship to creation renders the fisherman ready to see in Jesus God’s messiah. They agreed with Jesus: the time was fulfilled. As we have come to expect by virtue of our practice of baptism, water and the Spirit of God together stir up faith in God, so thatĀ Ā even the ā€œunclean spiritsā€ amidst the great crowd that eventually gathered by the sea, when they saw Jesus, ā€œfell down before him and shouted, ā€œYou are the Son of Godā€ (Mark 3:7-11).

But perhaps this is not so provocative, after all, at least in more extended biblical perspective. That the creation itself assists in the stirring of faith and consequent action would actually seem a lesson to be drawn from the fabled story of Jonah, revisited in our first reading for this Sunday. It is the great fish’s role, after all, to redirect the reluctant Jonah to his calling. Is it not congruent with this ā€œnatural fact,ā€ perhaps, that the animal population of Nineveh quite freely joins the human population in donning sackcloth and ashes?

Nature and God are telling us: It is time to repent like Jonah.

The lesson is timely for us: With benefit of only the slightest prompting on the part of the prophet of God, the ancient, sinful city of Nineveh repents of its alienation from God because of the sign of the fish. The reluctant prophet of God will himself eventually repent of his reluctance, but the change does not come easily. A parallel might be seen in the slowness of God’s church to attend to the crisis of creation, while the secular community of the world, educated about nature by the sciences of ecology and climate change, turns from its hugely destructive ways, and begins to do the hard work of restoring God’s creation. It is time; nature is telling us that it is time. And those Christians who do live close to the Earth and know themselves to suffer with the whole creation, need to leave their boats—or automobiles, electronic toys, or whatever—and, breaking with the spiritual authority of ā€œbusiness as usual,ā€ follow Jesus.

It’s Time!

Ā The Kingdom of God is the Restoration of Creation.

Following Jesus requires a reordering of socio-economic relationships.

No more business as usual.

The fishermen’s dependence on God in fishing leads them to follow unconditionally.

Work and play rooted in God are holy activities on behalf of creation.

Nature and God are telling us: It is time to repent like Jonah.

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2012.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Third Sunday after Epiphany in Year B (Ormseth15)

This Changes Everything: No Longer Business as Usual Dennis OrmsethĀ reflects on Jesus inviting the common folk to join him in his struggle to overturn the existing order.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Third Sunday after Epiphany, Year B (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

Jonah 3:1-5, 10
Psalm 62:5-12
1 Corinthians 7:29-31
Mark 1:14-20

ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.Ā Ā Everything old has passed away.Ā Ā Behold, all things are new.ā€Ā  II Corinthians 5:7 (translation by David Rhoads)

ā€œNow after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good newsā€ (Mark 1:14). Jesus is on the move. So this Sunday, we are invited with Simon and Andrew, James and John, to enlist in Jesus’ campaign to restore God’s creation. To be sure, that Jesus’ mission had to do with the healing of all creation was not clearly envisioned by the author of the Gospel of Mark. His focus, as Ched Myers proposes, is more properly understood as ā€œa fundamental reordering of socio-economic relationships.ā€Ā Ā And here at the beginning of the Gospel, we have before us only ā€œthe first stepā€ of that reordering, the crisis in which the ā€œworldā€ of Jesus’ disciples is overturned with an ā€œurgent, uncompromising invitation to ‘break with business as usual.’ā€ But make no mistake: as Myers puts it, ā€œThe world is coming to an end, for those who choose to follow. The kingdom has dawned, and it is identified with the discipleship adventure.ā€ It is that ā€œmoment which reoccurs wherever the discipleship narrative is reproduced in the lives of real persons in real places.Ā ThisĀ disruption represents the realization of the apocalyptic ‘day of the Lord’ā€ (Ched Myers,Ā Binding the Strong Man:Ā A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988; pp. 132-33). And so for us ā€œwho are in Christā€ at this moment of earth’s all-encompassing ecological crisis, it is indeed a moment which calls for an entire ā€œbreaking with business as usual,ā€ yes, precisely ā€œa fundamental reordering of socioeconomic relationshipsā€ which, if it encompasses both human and ecological systems of our planet together, could lead to creation’s restoration.

In her book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The ClimateĀ (New York:Ā Ā Simon & Schuster, 2014), Naomi Klein also calls for an end to business as usual in a thorough reordering of socioeconomic relationships from the bottom up. She describes the moment in which we live in the terms of a ā€œstark choice: ā€œEither we ā€œallow climate disruption to change everything about our world, or change pretty much everything about our economy to avoid that fate.ā€ The challenge, she continues,

“is not simply that we need to spend a lot of money and change a lot of policies; it’s that we need to think differently, radically differently, for those changes to be remotely possible. Right now, the triumph of market logic, with its ethos of domination and fierce competition, is paralyzing almost all serious efforts to respond to climate change. Cutthroat competition between nations has deadlocked U.N. climate negotiations for decades: rich countries dig in their heels and declare that they won’t cut emissions andĀ Ā risk losing their vaulted position in the global hierarchy; poorer countries declare that they won’t give up their right to pollute as much as rich countries did on their way to wealth, even if that means deepening a disaster that hurts the poor most of all. For any of this to change, a worldview will need to rise to the fore that sees nature, other nations, and our own neighbors not as adversaries, but rather as partners in a grand project of mutual reinvention” (Klein, pp. 21-22).

The ā€œthing about a crisis this big, this all-encompassing,ā€ Klein insists, ā€œis that it changes everything. It changes what we can do, what we can hope for, what we can demand from ourselves and our leaders.ā€ The actions required, she argues,

“directly challenge our reigning economic paradigm (deregulated capitalism combined with public austerity), the stories on which Western cultures are founded (that we stand apart from nature and can outsmart its limits), as well as many of the activities that form our identities and define our communities (shopping, living virtually, shopping some more). They also spell extinction for the richest and most powerful industry the world has ever known—the oil and gas industry, which cannot survive in anything like its current form if we humans are to avoid our own extinction.”

We are, she concludes, ā€œlocked in—politically, physically, and culturallyā€ā€”to this ā€œworldā€ of ours, and ā€œonly when we identify these chains do we have a chance of breaking freeā€ (Klein, p.63).

Kleins’ description of our situation is, of course, entirely secular. Her analysis is not that of a person of faith. It is, however, one to which a Christian understanding of creation and human responsibility can respond helpfully and powerfully. Our reading of this Sunday’s texts, we believe, substantiates this claim. An intriguing feature of Klein’s analysis is that ā€œclimate change represents a historic opportunityā€ to build a social movement on the scale of the New Deal or the civil rights movement which would advance policies that dramatically improve lives, close the gap between rich and poor, create huge numbers of good jobs, and reinvigorate democracy from the ground upā€ā€”a ā€œPeople’s Shockā€ as it were,ā€ which unlike the corporate world’s exploitation of the earlier crises which she documented in her bookĀ Shock Doctrine,Ā would ā€œdisperse power into the hands of the many rather than consolidating it in the hands of the few, and radically expand the commons, rather than auctioning it off in pieces.ā€ The transformations she describes would, she claims, ā€œget to the root of why we are facing serial crises in the first place, and would leave us with both a more habitable climate than the one we are headed for and a far more just economy than the one we have right nowā€ (Klein, p. 10). To the extent that this is true, we believe that there is consonance between her call to action and that of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark. Because Jesus’ call to discipleship is pitched to the ā€œreal people and real placesā€ of first century Palestine, as Myers shows, it also speaks powerfully to the crisis of our people and our moment in history. As we shall see, with the promise of a whole new world to replace the world whose ā€œpresent form is passing away (I Corinthians 7:31b), Klein’s transformations do anticipate the new creation which those in Christ envision and hope for.

Already in this season of Sundays after Epiphany, we have seen that Christian discipleship includes care for creation (See our comments in this series on the readings for the previous two Sundays). This Sunday’s readings deepen this perspective by showing how certain social and cultural factors support an expectation that followers of Jesus might join the movement to ā€œbreak with business as usualā€ with respect to care of creation. ChedĀ Ā Myers shows us that the location and occupation of the first people called as disciples is significant for understanding the nature of Jesus’ mission. Sea locales alongside wilderness, river, and mountain, he points out, are primary topological sites in Mark’s narrative. Here in the first part of the Gospel, ā€œthe sea (of Galilee) is a prime positive coordinate; by it the discipleship narrative commences (1:16; 2:13), and consolidates (3:17)ā€ (Myers, p. 150). It is, obviously, the context in which fishermen recruited for Jesus’ following could be expected to be found. That the nature of their work is important is clear, both from Mark’s emphasis on itā€”ā€œhe saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen,ā€ and from Jesus’ use of that vocation in describing their future role in his mission: ā€œFollow me and I will make you fish for peopleā€ (1:17).

But the image, Myers emphasizes, ā€œdoes not refer to the ā€œsaving of souls,ā€ as if Jesus were conferring upon these men instant evangelist status.ā€ The image is rather carefully chosen from Jeremiah 16:16, where it is used as a symbol of Yahweh’s censure of Israel. Elsewhere, the ‘hooking of fish’ is a euphemism for judgment upon the rich (Amos 4:2) and powerful (Ezek 29:4). Taking this mandate for his own, Jesus is inviting common folk to join him in his struggle to overturn the existing order of power and privilege (Myers., p. 132.)

Belonging as these men do to an independent artisan class for whom ā€œthe social fabric of the rural extended family was bound to the workplace,ā€ the call to follow Jesus requires not just assent of the heart, but a fundamental reordering of socio-economic relationships. The first step in dismantling the dominant social order is to overturn the ‘world’ of the disciple: in the kingdom, the personal and the political are one. These concrete imperatives are precisely what the rich—Mark will later tell us—are unable or unwilling to respond to. This is not a call ‘out’ of the world, but into an alternative social practice. Thus this ā€˜first’ call to discipleship in Mark is indeed ā€œan urgent, uncompromising invitation to ‘break with business as usual’ā€ (Myers, pp. 132-33).

What Myers’ exposition leaves unanswered, however, and indeed, even unasked, is the question as to just why these fishermen are apparently both able and willing to respond as positively to Jesus’ call as they do. What exactly is it about fishermen, to pick up on Mark’s emphasis, that renders them open to Jesus’ call and able to make the break? Isn’t it that it is in the nature of their work and its domain, the sea of Galilee, to foster such readiness and courage? Theirs was a daily encounter with both the great bounty and the threat of the sea. While harvesting that bounty, they move at the edge of chaos. Contrary to the rich people dwelling in the cities of the land, for whom their wealth was a guarantee of continued well-being and purchased safety, and therefore a cause of resistance to Jesus, the fishermen’s entire dependence upon the sea for their livelihoodĀ Ā could make them acutely aware of their dependence upon God for both their sustenance and their safety. Indeed, we can imagine them singing with firm resolve the psalm appointed for this Sunday: ā€œFor God alone my soul waits in silence, for my hope is from him. He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be shaken. On God rests my deliverance and my honor; my mighty rock, my refuge is in God. Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for usā€ (Psalm 62:5-8). People of this spirit, it seems to us, could be quite ready to respond quickly and affirmatively to Jesus’ summons.

This reading of Mark’s narrative is provocative, furthermore, because contrary to our usual concern to show how Christian faith might help foster and sustain care of creation, we find here that a particular orientation to creation helps to form and foster a relationship of faith to God and commitment to God’s purposes.Ā Ā Aware as they would have been of changes in their circumstances due to Roman domination of the seas and Jerusalem’s collaboration with Roman authorities, their relationship to creation renders the fisherman ready to see in Jesus God’s messiah. They agreed with Jesus: the time was fulfilled. Business as usual could no longer continue for them. As we have come to expect by virtue of our practice of baptism, water and the Spirit of God together stir up faith in God, so thatĀ Ā even the ā€œunclean spiritsā€ amidst the great crowd that eventually gathered by the sea, when they saw Jesus, ā€œfell down before him and shouted, ā€œYou are the Son of Godā€ (Mark 3:7-11). But perhaps this is not so provocative, after all, at least in more extended biblical perspective. That the creation itself assists in the stirring of faith and consequent action would actually seem a lesson to be drawn from the fabled story of Jonah, revisited in our first reading for this Sunday. It is the great fish’s role, after all, to redirect the reluctant Jonah to his calling. Is it not congruent with this ā€œnatural fact,ā€ perhaps, that the animal population of Nineveh quite freely joins the human population in donning sackcloth and ashes?

The lesson is timely for us: With benefit of only the slightest prompting on the part of the prophet of God, the ancient, sinful city of Nineveh repents of its alienation from God because of the sign of the fish. The reluctant prophet of God will himself eventually repent of his reluctance, but the change does not come easily.Ā Ā A parallel might be seen in the slowness of God’s church to attend to the crisis of creation, while the secular community of the world, educated about nature by the sciences of ecology and climate change, turns from its hugely destructive ways, and begins to do the hard work of restoring God’s creation.

This is to suggest, accordingly, that the fisherman’s characteristic relationship to the creation plays a significant role in the unfolding of this narrative. Their entire lives are so oriented to the unfettered dynamic of creation that ā€œbusiness as usualā€ in the socio-political realm of the temple-state has little hold on them. It is interesting that as Naomi Klein surveys our society in the search for willing and ready participants in the movement beyond the culture of ā€œextractivism,ā€ as she characterizes our industrial, fossil fuel dependent economy, she ruthlessly rejects a number of significant players: big green (collaborators with big business), green billionaires (messiahs with broken dreams), geo-engineers (ā€œthe Solution to Pollution Is . . .Pollution?ā€). The problem with these big boys, she thinks, is that they really do not want at all to break with business as usual. Their strategies persist in the illusion that we are called to ā€œsaveā€ the Earth, ā€œas if it were an endangered species, or a starving child far away, or a pet in need of our ministrations.ā€ It is an idea that ā€œmay be just as dangerous as the Baconian fantasy of the earth as a machine for us to master, since it still leaves us (literally) on top.ā€ The truth lies elsewhere: ā€œIt is we humans who are fragile and vulnerable and the earth that is hearty and powerful, and holds us in its hands. In pragmatic terms, our challenge is less to save the earth from ourselves and more to save ourselves from an earth that, if pushed too far, has ample power to rock, burn, and shake us off completelyā€ (Klein, p. 284).

In the place of these collaborators with business as usual, Klein would accordingly nominate as her ā€œclimate warriorsā€ participants in what she calls ā€œBlockadiaā€ā€”’not a specific location on a map but rather a roving transnational conflict zone that is cropping up with increasing frequency and intensity wherever extractive projects are attempting to dig and drill, whether for open-pit mines, or gas fracking, or tar sands oil pipelines.ā€ United in resistance to mining and fossil fuel companies as they push ā€œrelentlessly into countless new territories, regardless of the impact on the local ecology (in particular, local water systems)ā€ these are basically local groups of shop owners, professors, high school students, and grandmothers. But they are building a ‘global, grass-roots, and broad-based network the likes of which the environmental movement has rarely seenā€ (Klein, p. 294-45). Generally speaking, these people live in the ā€œsacrifice zones,ā€ formerly the traditionally poor, out-of-the-way places where residents had little political power, but now increasingly also located in ā€œsome of the wealthiest and most powerful countries in the world,ā€ to the immense consternation of ā€œmany historically privileged people who suddenly find themselves feeling something of what so many frontline communities have felt for a very longtime: how is it possible that a big distant company can come toĀ myĀ land and put me and my kids at risk?ā€ (Klein, pp. 312-13). New alliances are thus being formed across traditional social barriers. Corporate assurances are no longer accepted on blind faith. The language of risk assessment is being ā€œreplaced by a resurgence of the precautionary principle,ā€ as blockadia insists ā€œthat it is up to industry to prove that its methods are safe,ā€ something that ā€œin the era of extreme energy . . . is something that simply cannot be doneā€ ( Klein, pp. 315-335).

Particularly striking is Kleins’ observation regarding two ā€œdefiningā€ features of these groups. There is, she notes,Ā Ā a ā€œferocious loveā€ of ā€œan identity, a culture, a beloved place that people are determined to pass on to their granchildren, and that their ancestors may have paid for with great sacrificeā€ (Klein, p. 342). And secondly, especially significant is a common concern for precious sources of water; in Kleins’s view, this is the ā€œanimating force behind every single movement fighting extreme extractionā€: ā€œWhether deep water drilling, fracking, or mining; whether pipelines, big rigs, or export terminals, communities are terrified about what these activities will do to their water systemā€ (Klein, p. 345-46). The reason for this is clear, of course: ā€œextreme energy demands that we destroy a whole lot of the essential substance we need to survive—water—just to keep extracting more of the very substances threatening our survival and that we can power our lives without.ā€ Coming at a time when freshwater supplies are becoming increasingly scarce around the world, people are becoming more and more aware of certain disturbing truths of their experience:

Growing in strength and connecting communities in all parts of the world, [these truths] speak to something deep and unsettled in many of us. We know that we are trapped within an economic system that has it backward; it behaves as if there is no end to what is actually finite (clean water, fossil fuels, and the atmospheric space to absorb their emissions) while insisting that there are strict and immovable limits to what is actually quite flexible: the financial resources that human institutions manufacture, and that, if imagined differently, could build the kind of caring society we need (Klein, p. 347).

From the divestment movement which seeks to defund the companies that enforce this imprisonment, to local groups seeking to democratically recapture power over their communities, and indigenous tribes defending their rights to land and a way of life grounded in it, it is their relationship to the earth itself that inspires and empowers their liberation from bondage to business as usual. Perhaps most significantly, their love for their habitat and their deep concern for water put them in touch with what Klein calls the regenerativity of nature’s processes:Ā Ā we can become, she concludes, ā€œfull participants in the process of maximizing life’s creativity.ā€ There is in their company a ā€œspiritā€ that is already busy at work promoting and protecting life in the face of so many life-negating and life-forgetting threats (Klein, p. 447-48).

Can the church join this movement with integrity? Yes, because disciples are called to serve creation, and it is the creation itself, in its newness, that is giving supportive voice to that call.

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2015.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Second Sunday after Epiphany in Year B (Ormseth12)

God Is the God of Embodiment throughout Earth and Sky! Dennis OrmsethĀ reflects on God’s presence calling us to care of creation.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Second Sunday after Epiphany, Year B (2012, 2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

1 Samuel 3:1-10 {11-20}
Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18
1 Corinthians 6:12-20
John 1:43-51

God is immanently present in the lives of those who are called.

The call to discipleship and testimony to Jesus as Son of God are primary themes in the readings for the Second Sunday after Epiphany. Motifs relating to the theology and care of creation are present, but subtle. Using the first lesson and the Gospel, for instance, interpreters call attention to the different and sometimes surprising ways that the call to discipleship comes. Correlatively, we would call attention to the presupposition of this understanding of divine address, that God is immanently present in the lives of those called, a theme we have encountered in the Christmas season and emphasized in our comments for its relevance to our orientation to creation.

God is everywhere and in all times present.

The Psalm for this Sunday is a particularly strong expression of this theme. God, the psalmist asserts, is truly ā€œinescapableā€: ā€œO Lord, you have searched me and known me.Ā Ā You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far awayā€ (139:1-2; ā€œThe inescapable Godā€ is the title given to Psalm 139 in the NRSV).Ā Ā Employed on this Sunday to frame Jesus’ insight concerning Nathaniel in the gospel reading as a sign of divine omniscience, these verses are linked to an appreciation of God as everywhere and in all times present, not just to the one who sings God’s praise, but throughout the creation:

“Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.Ā Ā If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your and shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast” (139:7-10).

Stunningly, not even cosmic transformations can separate this human from the Creator: ā€œIf I say, ā€œSurely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night,ā€ even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to youā€ (139:11-12). Verses 7 through 12 of the psalm are unfortunately not assigned for the reading, but are nonetheless properly referenced in connection with the confession, at v. 13, that the God who is this human’s creator, who not only ā€œknit me together in my mother’s wombā€ was also there ā€œwhen I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depth of the earthā€ (139:15).

While the psalm thus embraces a panentheistic view of divine presence, the idea that Jesus shares God’s omniscience is reason enough for Nathaniel to confess that Jesus is ā€œthe Son of God.ā€ The more fulsome theme of creative and sustaining omnipresence attributed to the Creator in the Psalm is not necessary for this confession, but other cosmological motifs in the text supply some elements of this aspect.Ā Ā First, there is the mystery of the fig tree. Interpreters may see an allusion here to Zechariah 3:10: ā€œWhen the Messiah comes, ā€˜you shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig treeā€™ā€ As Nancy Koester suggests, ā€œNathaniel wonders: Is Jesus really the one whom the Scriptures promise? Jesus point to the promise coming true in Nathaniel’s own experience:Ā Ā Wasn’t Nathaniel under his fig tree when Philip called him?ā€ (Koester, ā€œEpiphany,ā€ in New Proclamation Year B, 1999-2000, p. 96). Readers of these comments, however, may recall from our comment on the readings for the First Sunday of Advent the observation of William Telford that ā€œthe Old Testament literature ā€œon the whole knows very little of nonsymbolical trees.ā€ Thus, we repeat what we said then,

“The fig tree was an emblem of peace, security, and prosperity and is prominent when descriptions of the Golden Ages of Israel’s history, past, present, and future are given . . . The blossoming of the fig tree and its giving of its fruit is a descriptive element in passages which depict Yahweh’s visiting his people with blessing, while the withering of the fig-tree, the destruction or withholding of its fruit, figures in imagery describing Yahweh’s judgment upon his people or their enemies.”

The fig tree confirms the link with caring for creation.

Our concern in that earlier comment for Advent was that such cosmological elements, which were commonly associated with the temple in Jerusalem, were being rendered meaningless for the Christian tradition, since the presence of God was relocated from the temple to Jesus, following the Markan insistence on abandonment of the temple. Following this theme through the readings for Advent and Christmas, we have seen that this concern was hardly justified. And indeed, the present text confirms this view once again: the fig tree’s return here, albeit now from the Gospel of John, reaffirms the link between Jesus’ mission and concern for creation. Care of creation is recognized here, however subtly, as a concern appropriate to the call to discipleship. And as Jesus’ promise to Nathanael that heā€ will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man,ā€ (John 1:51) the future of that discipleship will take its course in a cosmological context, with glorious traffic between heaven and earth.

The displacement of the presence of God from temple to Jesus is a common theme.

Reference to the displacement of the presence of God from temple to Jesus has been an interpretive key for this series of comments on the lections for year B, beginning with the readings for the First Sunday of Advent. Strikingly, in addition to the symbol of the fig tree, temple as scene and as metaphor is more explicitly utilized here in this set of readings as well. Samuel’s call takes place in the temple at Shiloh, we note, at a time when the leadership of Eli as priest has been deeply compromised by the wickedness of his sons. In a development that foreshadows Jesus’ own attack on the temple state, Samuel’s call commences with the thorough rebuke of both Eli and the temple sacrifices:Ā Ā ā€œthe iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated by sacrifice or offering foreverā€ (1 Samuel 3:14). While Yahweh will continue to appear at Shiloh for some time (3:21), in due course, God will act through Samuel to establish the house of David and eventually also a new temple in Jerusalem. Samuel, who knows himself in his calling to be God’s servant (3:9), becomes the agent of this relocation: the ark of the covenant will move on, for the God whom Israel encountered in the wilderness will not be captured for one place or for one house.

Christian bodies, corporately and individually, are temples ā€œof the Holy Spirit.ā€

If ā€œtempleā€ designates God’s ā€œdown to earthā€ presence, the truly astonishing thing to be observed in these readings is that by the time of the Apostle Paul, Christians were expected to know that their bodies, both corporately and individually, were temples ā€œof the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from Godā€ (1 Corinthians 6:19). God will indeed be an embodied God, incarnated as was Jesus in the very bodies so ā€œintricately woven in the depths of the earthā€ (Psalm 139:15.) It belongs to the service of the servants of God to be the occasion, location, and agency of both this embodiment and its persistent renewal in the ever expanding ā€œhouseā€ of earth and sky. (See Jurgen Moltmann’s discussion of Friedrich Oetinger’s thesis that ā€œEmbodiment is the end of all God’s worksā€ in Moltmann’sĀ God in Creation,Ā pp. 244-75, for an extensive development of this theme.)

God is immanently present in the lives of those who are called.

God is everywhere and in all times present.

The fig tree confirms the link with caring for creation.

The displacement of the presence of God from temple to Jesus is a common theme.

Christian bodies, corporately and individually, are temples ā€œof the Holy Spirit.ā€

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2012.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Second Sunday after Epiphany in Year B (Ormseth15)

Planting Trees as Symbol and Expression of the Restoration of Creation Dennis OrmsethĀ reflects on God’s presence in creation.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Second Sunday after Epiphany, Year B (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

1 Samuel 3:1-10 {11-20}
Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18
1 Corinthians 6:12-20
John 1:43-51

ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.Ā Ā Everything old has passed away.Ā Ā Behold, all things are new.ā€ — II Corinthians 5:7 (translation by David Rhoads).

With the readings for Baptism of our Lord, we saw how care for creation is implicated in both Jesus’s own baptism and the ongoing practice of Christian baptism. In truth,Ā ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.ā€ We discover further implications of this assertion in the readings for the Second Sunday after Epiphany in Year B of the lectionary: Care of creation belongs to the call to discipleship and testimony to Jesus as Son of God, primary themes in these readings.

To begin with, there is the strange business of the fig tree. Why does a fig tree figure so significantly in this story? Amongst the numerous suggestions listed by Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John, I-XII,Ā New York: Doubleday, 196, p.83), interpreters may see an allusion here to Zechariah 3:10: ā€œWhen the Messiah comes, ā€˜you shall invite each other to come under your vine and fig tree.ā€™ā€ As Nancy Koester suggests, ā€œNathaniel wonders:Ā Ā Is Jesus really the one whom the Scriptures promise? Jesus points to the promise coming true in Nathaniel’s own experience: Wasn’t Nathaniel under his fig tree when Philip called him?ā€ (Craig Koester, ā€œEpiphany,ā€ inĀ New Proclamation Year B, 1999-2000.Ā p. 96). Readers also might recall that in the Gospel reading for the First Sunday in Advent in year B (Mark 13:24-37), the fig tree is included in a list of cosmic signs that will mark the arrival of the Messiah: ā€œFrom the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gatesā€ (Mark13:28). With reference to this text and its associated account of Jesus’ curse of the fig tree in Mark 11, William Telford reminds us, in hisĀ Barren Temple and the Withered Tree,Ā that ā€œthe Old Testament literature on the whole knows very little of non-symbolical trees.ā€ After examining several texts, Telford concludes:

“The fig tree was an emblem of peace, security, and prosperity and is prominent when descriptions of the Golden Ages of Israel’s history, past, present, and future are given—the Garden of Eden, the Exodus, the Wilderness, the Promised Land, the reigns of Solomon and Simon Maccabaeus, and the coming Messianic Age . . . . The blossoming of the fig tree and its giving of its fruitsĀ is a descriptive element in passages which depict Yahweh’s visiting his people with blessing,Ā while the withering of the fig-tree,Ā the destruction or withholding of its fruit, figures in imagery describingĀ Yahweh’s judgment upon his people or their enemies . . . . “(Cited in Ched Myers,Ā Ā Binding the Strong Man; A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1988, pp. 297-98).

In this connection, it is particularly striking that Jesus’ sights Nathaniel under the fig tree, with his approving comment: ā€œHere is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!ā€ This is followed in quick sequence by first, the account of the Wedding at Cana, also a picture of divine blessing, and then by the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem, with which the fig tree is commonly associated as a sign of divine presence and blessing. The fig tree’s presence here in the Gospel of John, we want to suggest, provides a link between Jesus’ mission and concern for the well-being of creation. Care of creation is recognized here, however subtly, as a concern inherent in the call to discipleship.Ā Ā Indeed, the future of that discipleship will take its course in cosmological context, with glorious traffic between heaven and earth.

The theme of divine presence relative to both the arrival of the Messiah and the Jerusalem temple, it occurs to us, is more important in these readings than is commonly recognized. In addition to the symbol of the fig tree, temple as scene and as metaphor is important as well, as the appointment of the story of Samuel’s call might alert us. Samuel’s call takes place in the temple at Shiloh, we note, at a time when the leadership of Eli as priest has been deeply compromised by the wickedness of his sons. In a development that foreshadows Jesus’ own attack on the temple state, Samuel’s call commences with the thorough rebuke of both Eli and the temple sacrifices: ā€œThe iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be expiated by sacrifice or offering foreverā€ (1 Samuel 3:14). While Yahweh will continue to appear at Shiloh for some time (3:21), in due course, God will act through Samuel to establish the house of David and eventually also a new temple in Jerusalem. Samuel, who knows himself in his calling to be God’s servant (3:9), becomes the agent of this relocation: The ark of the covenant will move on, such that the God whom Israel encountered in the wilderness will not be captured for one place or for one house.

So also with Jesus and his disciples: The presence of God, with its attendant blessing of land and people, is now being relocated from temple sanctuary to the person of Jesus. This is the import, we suggest, of Nathanael’s confession of Jesus as ā€œSon of Godā€ and Jesus’ response to him: ā€œDo you believe because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these.ā€ And he said to him, ā€œVery truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Manā€ (John l1:50-51). As Raymond Brown notes, interpreters have explained the saying with reference to a variety of texts having to do with the vision of Jacob in Genesis 28:12, involving ‘the ladder, theĀ shekinah, theĀ merkabah, Bethel, or the rock;ā€ it is ā€œin the theme that they have in commonā€ that ā€œthey are probably correct; . . . the vision means that Jesus as Son of Man has become the locus of divine glory, the point of contact between heaven and earth. The disciples are promised figuratively that they will come to see this; and indeed, at Cana, they do see his gloryā€ (Brown, p. 91). Unfortunately, the sequence of the lectionary does not offer an occasion to follow up this suggestion with an examination of the story of the wedding at Cana; if the reader will refer to the comment in this series for the Second Sunday of Epiphany inĀ Year C, however, its import for care of creation will be clear: The marriage at Cana, we argue there, is metaphorically the marriage of heaven and earth promised by the prophet Isaiah in the associated lesson for the day, Isaiah 62:1-5.

The significance of this relocation for discipleship doesn’t end there. Indeed, if ā€œtempleā€ designates God’s ā€œdown to earthā€ presence, the truly astonishing thing to be observed in these readings is that already by the time of the Apostle Paul, Christians were expected to know that their bodies, both corporately and individually, were temples ā€œof the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from Godā€ (1 Corinthians 6:19). God will indeed be an embodied God, incarnated as was Jesus in the very bodies so ā€œintricately woven in the depths of the earthā€ (Psalm 139:15). It belongs to the service of the servants of God to be the occasion, location, and agency of both this embodiment and its persistent renewal in the ever expanding ā€œhouseā€ of earth and sky (See Jurgen Moltmann’s discussion of Friedrich Oetinger’s thesis that ā€œEmbodiment is the end of all God’s works,ā€ in Moltmann’sĀ God in Creation,Ā pp. 244-75, for an extensive development of this theme).

Correlatively, we would call attention to the presupposition of this understanding of divine presence, that God is immanentĀ Ā in the lives of those called by Jesus, lives according to the Psalm that are deeply grounded in the earth. God, the psalmist asserts, is truly ā€œinescapableā€:Ā Ā ā€œO Lord, you have searched me and known me. You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far awayā€ (139:1-2). ā€œThe inescapable Godā€ (the title given to the Psalm in the NRSV) is a God who is everywhere and in all times present, not just to the one who sings God’s praise, but throughout the creation:

“Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast” (139:7-10).

Stunningly, not even cosmic transformations can separate this human from the Creator: ā€œIf I say, ā€˜Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me becomes night,’ even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to youā€ (139:11-12). Unfortunately, verses 7 to 12 of the psalm are not assigned for the reading, but they are properly referenced in connection with the confession, at v. 13, that the God who is this human’s creator, who not only ā€œknit me together in my mother’s wombā€ was also there ā€œwhen I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depth of the earthā€ (139:15).

The fig tree is a sign that binds confession of Jesus as manifestation of God to awareness of God’s presence in creation and the call of the disciple to care of creation. The story that when Martin Luther was once asked, ā€œIf you thought tomorrow might bring the Day of Judgment, what would you do?ā€ He replied, ā€œI’d plant a tree,ā€ isĀ Ā probably apocryphal; it is nonetheless relevant to these insights. ā€œWhat is certain,ā€ Larry Rasmussen notes, is ā€œhis use of the tree as metaphor for the Christian life in his ‘Lectures on Isaiah’ and specifically in his commentary on Isaiah 61:3C: ‘They will be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, to display his glory’’ā€(Earth Community Earth Ethics,Ā Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1996, p. 199).

In this age of environmental crisis, Lutherans could do much worse than to adopt the tree, fig or otherwise, as sign and inspiration of their discipleship. As we have noted, it’s an image with deep resonance in biblical tradition and Christian witness; it is also prominent, Rasmussen notes, in ancient Judaism, where the ā€œTorah itself, the embodiment of divine instruction and the first emblem of Judaism, as a tree of life. It is even said that abiding by the words of Torah restores the tree of life lost in the primal act of disobedience in Eden.ā€ But also now more than ever in our ecologically informed age, a living tree has become a sign of a healthy, fruitful earth, breathing in the carbon dioxide emissions that threaten to disrupt nature’s balance, breathing out the oxygen that is the essential requirement of all life on earth. As William Brown writes, reflecting on the results of over two centuries of intense study of nature,Ā Ā ā€œthe tree of life remains the most suitable simile for describing the metanarrative of life on Earthā€ (William p. Brown,Ā The Seven Pillars of Creation:Ā Ā The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder.Ā Ā Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 114). Planting trees in the face of possibly catastrophic climate change makes sense for people of Christian faith of all traditions, as sign of hope and faithfulness, yes, but also as servant of the earth, following in the steps of our Lord Jesus, servant of all creation.

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2015.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Baptism of Our Lord in Year B (Ormseth15)

Jesus Ushers in a New Creation Dennis OrmsethĀ reflects on the new creation we experience in baptism.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Baptism of Our Lord, Year B (2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

Genesis 1:1-5
Psalm 29
Acts 19:1-7
Mark 1:4-11

ā€œFor those who are in Christ, creation is new.Ā Ā Everything old has passed away.Ā Ā Behold, all things are newā€ (II Corinthians 5:7, translation by David Rhoads).

With the readings for the festival of the Baptism of Our Lord, the church begins to tell its story of how it has come to see creation as ā€œnew.ā€ With the ministry of Jesus, the old does indeed ā€œpass awayā€ and ā€œall things are new.ā€ As Mark’s gospel opens, we realize that this transition is already underway.Ā Ā As God’s people are gathered by John the Baptist at the Jordan River on the edge of the wilderness, the power and authority of the Jewish temple-state centered in Jerusalem, with its exclusivistic appropriation of the blessings of the God’s covenant and its sustaining cosmology, begins to give way to the reality of a new people dwelling with God within a renewed creation.

The readings draw this reality into view in dramatic fashion. In the tearing apart of the heavens and the descent of the Spirit as a dove over the waters, we are invited to see the opening of a new creation story, in which again, the ā€œwind of God swept over the face of the watersā€ (Genesis 1:2). Once again ā€œthe voice of the Lord is over the waters,ā€ as wind and flame announce the enthronement of the Lord ā€œover the floodā€ (Psalm 29:3-10). As the dove descends on Jesus, we are reminded of the ā€œeverlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth,ā€ which was promised when Noah and the animals came out of the ark (Genesis 8:16). In the fresh light of this ā€œfirst day,ā€ the first born of a new humanity rises out of the waters. Having identified fully with our sinfulness in submitting to John’s baptism of repentance, this ā€œson of Godā€ begins to restore among us the imago Dei,Ā and opens the possibility of our lives being regenerated by the Spirit in his name.

Thus is inaugurated, in Ched Myer’s characterization, Jesus’ ā€œsubversive mission.ā€ Jesus’ baptism serves to mark the difference between John’s valid but incomplete ā€œbaptism of repentanceā€ and the fullĀ Ā ā€œrenunciation of the old orderā€ (Myers,Ā Binding the Strong Man, p. 129). We note that our second lesson suggests that this difference was deemed important enough in the early church to merit the Apostle Paul’s instruction that those baptized by John should be baptized again in the name of Jesus, so as to complete their baptism in the power of the Holy Spirit. In view of its cosmological accents, however, Jesus’ baptism also marks a parallel liberation of the biblical cosmology from its ties to the temple state, in favor of its restoration as part and parcel of the new reign of God in creation. New creation, and not merely repentance, this suggests, is the purpose of the Christian practice of baptism; this difference is also very significant, we want to suggest, relative to our concern for care of creation.

It is instructive to note, following William P. Brown’s discussion of biblical cosmology in his book onĀ The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of WonderĀ (Oxford University Press, 2010), that the cosmological elements we have identified here are drawn primarily from the cosmogony of Genesis 1:1-2:3, a portion of which is therefore appropriately selected for our first reading. This cosmogony, Brown shows, is clearly modeled on the pattern of the temple in Jerusalem. With clearly and fully differentiated domains,ā€ the account ā€œgivesĀ formĀ to creationā€ that ā€œmanifests a symmetry supple enough to allow for variation and surprise.ā€ The narrative progresses day by day from the empty formlessness of ā€œDay 0ā€ through the differentiation of realms of light, waters above and below, and land, which are then in turn filled with lights, aviary and marine life, and land animals, including humans, with their food, to the fully differentiated fullness of the completed creation on Day 7. It is a literary version, Brown argues, of the three-fold structure of the temple’s portico, nave and Holy of Holies. ā€œThe first six days, by virtue of their correspondence, establish the architectural boundaries of sacred space.Ā Ā The last day inhabits, as it were, the most holy space . . . . In the holiest recess of the temple God dwells, and on the holiest day of the week God restsā€ (Brown, p. 38-40).

What is particularly striking about this description is its inherent dynamic, which is hardly compatible with the rigidity and hierarchy commonly associated with the management of sacred space under the authority of a priestly governing elite, like what the reader will encounter later in the pages of Mark’s gospel. Here, differentiation of realms never becomes separation; dominion never implies domination. On the contrary, division is regularly overcome by generativity. As Brown puts it, ā€œGenesis 1 . . . describes the systematic differentiation of the cosmos that allows for and sustains the plethora of life.ā€ Perhaps this is no more apparent than in the narrative’s treatment of the very holiness of God. While adhering to the ā€œaniconicā€ prohibition of divine images, the account nevertheless allows for the identification of anĀ imago DeiĀ with humanity.Ā Ā ā€œCast in God’s image, women and men reflect and refract God’s presence in the world. The only appropriate ‘image of God,’ according to Genesis, is one made of flesh and blood, not wood or gold (p. 38).ā€Ā Ā Whether interpreted in terms of an ā€œessential resemblanceā€ of son to father, the ā€œuniversalizingā€ of the exercise of dominion, the displacement of the divine assembly unto human community, or the reflection as male and female of the ā€œcommunal and generative dimensions of the divine,ā€ theĀ imago DeiĀ shares with God in the ā€œcooperative process of creationā€ (Brown, p. 44). Even as the waters and the earth share in that agency, so do humans participate in creation as ā€œa cooperative venture exercised not without a degree of freedom,ā€ and as ā€œdeemed good by God,ā€ set toward the furtherance of life.

Mark’s Gospel, we suggest, while insisting on the displacement of the presence of God from the Jerusalem temple onto Jesus, by no means intends that this move renders irrelevant or obsolete the cosmogony of the temple. On the contrary, with his setting at the very beginning of the Gospel, of Jesus’ baptism at the Jordan River on the edge of the wilderness, and filled with the cosmological reverberations as it is, the author opens up that cosmology to the restored embrace of the full creation. As all the people walk the land and move to the bank of the river and as they then experience the movement of the Spirit over the waters and the voice declaring a human being good (ā€œmy belovedā€), the reader senses that this story opens one afresh to the wonder of the creation. As once before when Israel came out of exile, we are caught up in what Brown sees as the import of Genesis 1: there is here ā€œa profound effort . . . to put the painful past of conquest and exile behind and to point the way to a new future.ā€

It is therefore exceedingly important to observe, as Gordon Lathrop has shown in his book on liturgical cosmology,Ā Holy Ground, that a fully expressed practice of Christian baptism retains several key cosmological elements from the Genesis cosmogeny. Water, of course, takes central place here, combined with Spirit. Whether there is a pool or a bowl of it, the waters of the baptismal rite provide not only a center to the rite, but, as Lathrop points out,

“[t]hey also provide a center to the world. Here is a womb for the birthing of new life, as ancient Christians would say.Ā Ā Here is a sea on the shores of which the church may be as a new city open to all the peoples. Here is a spring from which the whole earth may drink and be washed, a tiny point in the scheme of things that nonetheless gives a center, a little pool of water that washes all the people” (Holy Ground,Ā p. 105-6).

Astoundingly, we note, the font in the local parish church can thus be seen to take the place of the temple in Jerusalem as the center of the universe, anĀ omphalos. Set out in the gathering space of the congregation, it reminds us of both cosmological and ecological realities,

“that what goes on here is not only about human culture but also about cosmos. The water comes here from elsewhere in the world’s water system, from a river or lake or underground stream, ultimately from the rain itself. But then, what water does come here is gathered together in fecundity and force. If the water is before us in abundance, it may waken in us inchoate put powerful longings for both a cleaner earth and a widespread slaking of thirsts; it may give us a place for our reconceiving death and life within this watery world; it may give us a cosmic center” (Holy Ground,Ā Ā p. 106).

Supporting the development of this baptismal awareness is instruction that includes a strong emphasis on the doctrine of creation and the faithful care of creation.

“Teaching the faith involves, as its first and basic move, teaching that there is a world and not just chaos, that this world is created, and that human beings have a compassionate and caring role within that creation. Christian faith is, first of all, trusting the creator, trusting, therefore, that the world is not some trick. Formation in prayer, then, involves learning to stand within this world in thanksgiving” (Holy Ground, p. 107).

Then, just as the temple in Jerusalem attracted various significant symbolizations of life in God’s creation (such as the cosmic mountain, the primordial hillock that first emerged from the waters of creation, the spring waters of life, and the tree of life}, so are other primal elements placed at the edge of the water of baptism to . . .

“call our attention to their world center, this spring, this birthplace:Ā Ā a fireĀ burns—that most widespread phenomenon of our universe, creative and destructive burning—here as a paschal candle giving light, evoking in a small way both the warmth and the danger of this new life; oliveĀ oilĀ is poured out or marked upon those baptized, fruit of the life-giving trees of the temperate regions of the earth, evoking healing, festivity, and, here, the sacred office given to the baptized; newĀ clothingĀ is put upon the baptized, great white robes, as if those immersed here came forth a whole new sort of humanity, making a fully new beginning; and the whole community then leads these newly baptized ones to aĀ meal,Ā a sharing of the sources of life within the world, sustenance for this new humanity, for these new witnesses to the order of the cosmos” (Holy Ground, p. 107).

If linkage of the church’s baptismal practice to Jesus’ own baptism thus orients us to the creation, it is important to remember that it does so always by taking us first to the margins of human life, away from our social and political centers, indeed, to the edge of the wilderness. These marks of creation serve to relocate us to the wilderness experiences of the people of God where new creation always begins, and what naturally follows for us, as for Jesus, is an experience in the wilderness where the basic reorientation to God’s creation is first fully actualized.Ā Ā We note that in Mark’s narrative, following his baptism, ā€œthe Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on himā€ (Mark 1:12-13). In the narrative of the liturgical year, we return to this exodus on the First Sunday of Lent; in the meantime, we look to see what impact this reorientation to creation has on the calling out of a community of the new creation, and indeed, what ā€œnew creationā€ actually might mean for us.

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2015.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Baptism of Our Lord in Year B (Ormseth12)

If You Would Experience God, You Must Fall in Love with Earth Dennis OrmsethĀ reflects on baptism as a cosmic event.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ 

Readings for the Baptism of Our Lord, Year B (2012, 2015, 2018, 2021, 2024)Ā 

Genesis 1:1-5
Psalm 29
Acts 19:1-7
Mark 1:4-11

The incarnation means that ā€œthe finite is capable of bearing the infinite.ā€

With the readings for the festival of the Baptism of Our Lord, we return to ā€œthe beginningā€ of the Gospel of Mark which, as we noted in our comments on the lections for the First and Second Sundays of Advent, draws us quickly into the cosmological as well as the eschatological themes of Mark’s story. Readers of those comments will recall the strong interest of Mark’s Gospel in these themes: the author breaks decisively with the cosmology of the temple-state centered on the Jerusalem temple, as the elect of God are gathered by John the Baptist at the Jordan River on the edge of the wilderness for the opening of the new creation. This break in fact provided the impetus for us to trace in the lections of the Third and Fourth Sundays of Advent the dislocation of God’s presence from the temple to the person of Jesus. Subsequently, in the readings for Christmas Eve and Day, we beheld him enfolded in the glory of God’s primordial light and life. Jesus’ birth is worthy of all creation’s praise, we suggested, because, as Mary saw, not only would he break with the human pattern of domination that makes a desert of creation, but the birth itself effects a reorientation to creation expressed in the insight that the incarnation of God in his person means that the ā€œthe finite is capable of bearing the infinite.ā€ In Larry Rasmussen’s excellent words, ā€œso if you would experience God, you must fall in love with earth.ā€

The Gospel is a ā€œnew creationā€ story—as Jesus rises from the waters.

In the readings appointed for the festival of the Baptism of Our Lord, the church fully affirms these cosmological accents of Jesus’ advent. Once again, ā€œthe voice of the Lord is over the waters,ā€ as wind and flame announce the enthronement of the Lord ā€œover the floodā€ (Psalm 29:3-10). Yes, in the tearing apart of the heavens and the descent of the Spirit as a dove over the waters, we are meant to see the opening of a new creation story, in which, as on ā€œthe first dayā€ of creation, the ā€œwind of God swept over the face of the watersā€ (Genesis 1:2), and we are reminded of theĀ Ā ā€œeverlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earthā€ which was promised when Noah and the animals came out of the ark (Genesis 8:16). Out of the waters rises a new humanity: having identified fully with our sinfulness in an act of repentance, Jesus opens the possibility of our identifying with him as God’s new creation.

Jesus had a ā€œsubversive mission.ā€

Thus is inaugurated, in Ched Myer’s characterization, Jesus’ ā€œsubversive mission.ā€ The cosmological accents of Jesus’ baptism thus serve to mark the difference not only between the temple state and the kingdom of God, but also between John’s valid but incomplete ā€œbaptism of repentanceā€ and the full ā€œrenunciation of the old orderā€ which Jesus’ baptism represents (Myers,Ā Binding the Strong Man, p. 129). We note that our second lesson suggests that this difference was deemed important enough in the early church to merit the Apostle Paul’s instruction that those baptized by John should be baptized again in the name of Jesus, so as to complete the baptism in the power of the Holy Spirit. New creation, and not merely repentance, this shows, is the purpose of the Christian practice of baptism; the difference is also very significant, we want to suggest, relative to our concern for care of creation.

Baptism is the renunciation of the old order and the emergence of a new reality.

It is instructive to note in this respect that, as Gordon Lathrop has shown in his book on liturgical cosmology,Ā Holy Ground, that a fully expressed baptismal practice retains significant cosmological elements. Water, of course, takes central place here. Whether there is a pool or a bowl of it, the waters of the baptismal rite provide not only a center to the rite; as Lathrop points out,

“[t]hey also provide a center to the world. Here is a womb for the birthing of new life, as ancient Christians would say. Here is a sea on the shores of which the church may be as a new city open to all the peoples. Here is a spring from which the whole earth may drink and be washed, a tiny point in the scheme of things that nonetheless give a center, a little pool of water that washes all the people” (Holy Ground,Ā p. 105-6).

The temple in Jerusalem is replaced by the baptismal font—center of the cosmos.

Astoundingly, we note, the font in the local parish church can thus be seen to replace the temple in Jerusalem as the center of the universe, an omphalos. Set out in the gathering space of the congregation, it reminds us of both cosmological and ecological realities,

“. . . that what goes on here is not only about human culture but also about cosmos. The water comes here from elsewhere in the world’s water system, from a river or lake or underground stream, ultimately from the rain itself. But then, what water does come here is gathered together in fecundity and force here. If the water is before us in abundance, it may waken in us inchoate put powerful longings for both a cleaner earth and a widespread slaking of thirsts; it may give us a place for our reconceiving death and life within this watery world; it may give us a cosmic center” (Ibid., p. 106).

Baptism is not just a personal experience; it is a cosmic event.

Supporting the development of this baptismal awareness is instruction that includes a strong emphasis on the doctrine of creation and the faithful care of creation.

“Teaching the faith involves, as its first and basic move, teaching that there is a world and not just chaos, that this world is created, and that human beings have a compassionate and caring role within that creation. Christian faith is, first of all, trusting the creator, trusting, therefore, that the world is not some trick. Formation in prayer, then, involves learning to stand within this world in thanksgiving” (Ibid., p. 107).

Then, as the temple in Jerusalem attracted various significant symbolizations of life in God’s creation (such as the cosmic mountain, the primordial hillock that first emerged from the waters of creation, the spring waters of life and the tree of life; see our discussion in the comment in this series on the readings for the First Sunday of Advent), so are other primal elements placed at the edge of the water of baptism to

“call our attention to their world center, this spring, this birthplace: a fireĀ burns—that most widespread phenomenon of our universe, creative and destructive burning—here as a paschal candle giving light, evoking in a small way both the warmth and the danger of this new life; oliveĀ oilĀ is poured out or marked upon those baptized, fruit of the life-giving trees of the temperate regions of the earth, evoking healing, festivity, and, here, the sacred office given to the baptized; newĀ clothingĀ is put upon the baptized, great white robes, as if those immersed here came forth a whole new sort of humanity, making a fully new beginning; and the whole community then leads these newly baptized ones to aĀ meal,Ā a sharing of the sources of life within the world, sustenance for this new humanity, for these new witnesses to the order of the cosmos” (Ibid., p. 107).

Jesus’ baptism and our baptism orient us to God’s creation.

If linkage of the church’s baptismal practice to Jesus’ own baptism thus orients us to the creation, it is important to remember that it does so always by taking us first to the margins of human life, away from our social and political centers, indeed, to the edge of the wilderness. These marks of creation serve to relocate us to the wilderness experiences of the people of God where new creation always begins, and what naturally follows for us, as for Jesus, is an experience in the wilderness where the basic reorientation to God’s creation is first fully actualized. We note that in Mark’s narrative, following his baptism, ā€˜the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on himā€ (Mark 1:12-13). In the narrative of the liturgical year, we return to this exodus on the First Sunday of Lent; in the meantime, we look to see what impact this reorientation to creation has on the calling out of a community of the new creation.

The incarnation means that ā€œthe finite is capable of bearing the infinite.ā€

The Gospel is a ā€œnew creationā€ story—as Jesus rises from the waters.

Jesus had a ā€œsubversive mission.ā€

Baptism is the renunciation of the old order and the emergence of a new reality.

The temple in Jerusalem is replaced by the baptismal font—center of the cosmos.

Baptism is not just a personal experience; it is a cosmic event.

Jesus’ baptism and our baptism orient us to God’s creation.

Originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2012.
dennisormseth@gmail.com

Sixth Sunday after Epiphany (February 11-17) in Year A (Ormseth)

Choosing LifeDennis Ormseth reflects on Moses’ Farewell Speech and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary (originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2017)

Readings for the Sixth Sunday after Epiphany, Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
Psalm 119:1-8
Corinthians 3:1-9
Matthew 5:21-37

As we continue to mine the readings of these Sundays of Epiphany for foundations of an ā€œEarth-honoring faith,ā€ the first reading is obviously most relevant. The reading from Deuteronomy is the end of Moses’ farewell speech to the people he led out of Egypt, to Mount Sinai and through the wilderness, to the banks of the Jordan river at the boundary of the land promised to them.Ā Ā He will not enter the land with them, so the speech carries the full burden of his hopes for them as they enter and claim their heritage.Ā Ā The choice they face is a stark one: in Moses’ words, it is between ā€œlife and prosperity,ā€ or ā€œdeath and adversityā€ (Deuteronomy 30:15). The choice concerns their relationship to God, but also their relationship to the land.Ā Ā If they ā€œobey the commandments of the Lord . . by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees and ordinances,ā€Ā Ā they ā€œshall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless [them] in the land that [they]are entering to possess.ā€Ā Ā On the other hand, if their ā€œheart turns away and [they] do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, [they]shall perish. [They] shall not live long in the land that [they] are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.ā€Ā Ā Significantly for our search for an ā€œEarth-honoring faith,ā€Ā Ā which we initiated the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany with Micah’s metaphor of God presenting God’s case against the people in the court of the mountains, Moses here calls both ā€œheaven and earthā€ as witness to the choice he has set before them. The whole creation is to be aware and observe how the people choose.

For what might these witnesses be watchful?Ā Ā In the chapter previous to our appointed text, Moses foresees what will take place if the people forsake the covenant:

the next generation, your children who rise up after you, as well as the foreigner who comes from a distant country, will see the devastation of that land and the afflictions with which the Lord has afflicted it—all its soil burned out by sulfur and salt, nothing planted, nothing sprouting, unable to support any vegetation, like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Amah and Zeboiim, which the Lord destroyed in his fierce anger –they and indeed all the nations will wonder, ā€œWhy has the Lord done thus to the land?Ā Ā What caused this great display of anger?ā€ (29:22-24).

Moses also foresees an alternative future, however, in which ā€œthe Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you . . Then [they] shall again obey the Lord, observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today, and the Lord your God will make youĀ Ā ā€œabundantly prosperous in all your undertakings, in the fruit of your body, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soilā€ (30:9).

The contrast is thus sharply drawn:Ā Ā people and environment either thrive or languish together. In accordance with Deuteronomic theology, the consequences described here are attributed to the divine wrath as punishment for their idolatry, or divine favor for their obedience. We would rather see a more directly causal relationship between their behavior and the consequence.Ā Ā As Terry FretheimĀ explains, ā€œThe law is given because God is concerned about the best possible life for all of God’s creatures.ā€ The intent of the law is to serve life, in accordance with God’s overriding interest that the creation as a whole should be served well by those who have responsibility for it.Ā Ā There are three aspects to this concern. First, ā€œthe law helps order human life so that it is in tune with the creational order intended by God.ā€Ā Ā Secondly, ā€œbecause life in creation is not free from all threats, law is given for the sake of both the preservation of God’s creative work and the provision of the most welcoming context possible for ever new creational developmentsā€. The law calls for ā€œbasic human respect for the earthā€ because ā€œ’the earth is the Lord’s’ (Ps 24:1) and the animals and land belong to God.ā€ And thirdly, ā€œlaw is given to serve the proper development of God’s good but not perfect creation.ā€ There are ā€œcreative capacities built into the order of things and the charges given its creatures. . . God’s creation is also understood to be a work in progress.ā€ Thus the law reveals God’s will for the creation God loves, and it is the God-given vocation of God’s image-bearing animal creature, the human being, to love the creation as God does, with an eye to its future perfection, not only its past integrity and present condition.Ā Ā Failure to obey the law thus carries with it the destructive consequences of what might be deemed opposition to God’s creative love. (See his discussion of ā€˜Creation and Law,ā€ in God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005, pp. 133-56).

The choice Moses has placed before the people, we might therefore observe, is an affair of the heart, both God’s heart and the human heart. The decisive issue, as the text says, is whether or not the people ā€œlove the Lord their God, walk in his ways, and observe his commandments, decrees, and ordinancesā€ — the choice of life — or turn their hearts away – the choice of death:Ā Ā love God and so be sustained in their life in the land for generation upon generation, or refuse to acknowledge God as giver of the gift of the land and the law by which they shall live in it, and so perish from the land as the land itself dies beneath them. So choose, says Moses.Ā Ā ā€œChoose lifeĀ so that you and your descendants may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him, for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob (30:19-20).ā€

We are familiar with a similar choice today, albeit one framed in much more secular terms.Ā Ā Our relationship with the land in America is defined for our culture mainly in terms of the rights and freedom to take and dispose of it according to the contracts we have struck regarding possession of it, versus a deeper relationship with the land that is part of an older agrarian ethos that regards the land as living habitat for ourselves and the other non-human creatures with whom we share it.Ā Ā For the one, the land has values to be exploited for our commerce; these values are assigned values, determined by those who have control over it.Ā Ā For the other, the land is valuable in and of itself, a fund of value which can be drawn upon to sustain the life of the animal communities that are dependent upon it, as part of what makes it valuable, but which really do belong to the land itself.Ā Ā For the one, the concern is to protect those rights of possession, and to preserve the self-interest of its owner; for the other, laws are sought that set out general principles developed within the interdependent community on how to safeguard and conserve the land’s inherent value.Ā Ā The one relationship is in fact predominantly a matter of self-interest or self-love on the part of the people who own it; the other is a ā€œlove affair:ā€ a love of that which is other than oneself.Ā Ā For the one, loss of value in the land due to ecological degradation is at best a loss of wealth or potential wealth to the owner.Ā Ā For the other, loss of value is destruction of some or all of life’s generative possibilities.

Aldo Leopold, a founder of the modern discipline of ecology, is well known for his formulation of a ā€œland ethic” which acknowledges the inherent value in land:Ā Ā ā€œA thing is rightā€, he holds, ā€œwhen it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community.Ā Ā It is wrong when it tends otherwiseā€ (From his Sand County Almanac).Ā Ā Adherence to this ethical principle as a guide through the complex and difficult decisions our society faces might be one way of responding today to Moses’ challenge to ā€œchoose life.ā€ It is a principle, we contend, that is genuinely ā€œEarth-honoring.ā€Ā Ā The choice of life, in this sense, leads to a way of living that exhibits consonance with the ecological and evolutionary relationships inherent in nature.Ā Ā But attending to those relationships is not simply a matter of following scientific rationality.Ā Ā As Leopold himself said, ā€œIt is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation to land can exist without love, respect and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value.ā€Ā Ā It is for him, too, fundamentally an affair of the heart.Ā Ā (See Norman Wirzba’s The Paradise of God, pp. 100-111 for the discussion that underlies this comment.)

When Moses finished his address to the people, we read in the closing chapter (34) of Deuteronomy, God led Moses from the plains of Moab, up another mountain to show him all the land promised Abraham’s descendents, and there Moses died.Ā Ā God had let him see the land with his eyes, but said: ā€œyou shall not cross over there.ā€ Thus did Mount Nebo become the resting place of the prophet whom ā€œthe Lord knew face to face,ā€ the like of which has ā€œnever since arisen in Israelā€ (34:10).Ā  Never, that is, until Jesus, according to Matthew, who was baptized at the Jordan, and coming away from the river, ā€œwent throughout Galileeā€ and, followed by great crowds from ā€œGalilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and from beyond the Jordan,ā€ went up the mountain with his disciples, where he sat down and taught them (Matthew 4:25 – 5:1). Jesus has accordingly entered deeply into the land, and now from a new mountain, within the land, he returns to the law and commandments of Moses, as the section of his Sermon on the Mount assigned for last Sunday made clear: as he said, ā€œwhoever does [the commandments] and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (5:20).ā€Ā Ā And indeed, far from abolishing Moses’ teaching, in the verses we read this Sunday, he lifts up selected provisions of that teaching to ā€œradicalizeā€ them, in Robert Smith’s term. Not only murder, for example, but anger, insult , and disparagementā€ are condemned. Not adultery only, but lust.Ā Ā Not only false oaths, but any oaths at all, ā€œeither by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great Kingā€ (5:21-37).Ā Ā His teaching at this point calls us, as Smith puts it, to ā€œlook into the depths of the human heart.ā€Ā  At the same time, however, he ā€œshares with us his vision of new human community.ā€ (New Proclamation Series A, 1998-1999, p. 158.)

The character of that community has been sketched out in the previous beatitudes. As we have seen in our discussion of earlier sections of the Sermon, he calls for a disposition of meekness (the meek give place to others in the community of life); he creates a thirst and hunger for righteousness (the purpose of his mission is the fulfillment of all righteousness); he promises mercy for the merciful. And to the ā€œpure in heartā€ (those who render inwardly held conviction of God’s love visible in outward service to the cause of God’s love for the creation) he has promised nothing short of the vision of God.Ā Ā But in the depths of the human heart vigorous forces of opposition fight against these provisions.Ā Ā Refusal to give place to others, which leads even to murder, the absolute disrespect for life, bursts out of the deep dispositions of anger, hate, or disparagement of the other. Lust manifests itself in the drive to possess and dominate the other, as in the adulterous exploitation of women.Ā Ā Deception of the other by calling on either heaven, or earth, or Jerusalem destroys the possibility of righting these relationships by making claims to sacred status, earthly power, or political privilege. Jesus’ vision of a new human community is one in which these destructive ā€œhabits of the heartā€ have no place.Ā Ā Ā Smith describes this community in a way that must give us pause at this point in American political life: it is a ā€œwondrous world where personal and corporate transactions no longer require batteries of lawyers and reams of documentation, where such safeguards are no longer necessary, where deceit and half-truths and downright lies are unknown, where our speech is simple, direct, and completely honest (5:33-37)ā€ (Smith, p. 159).

The relationships discussed here are obviously social and interpersonal. Is any of this understanding relevant to relationships with non-human others of God creatures?Ā Ā Choose life, pleaded Moses, and the governing principle here is clearly the loving service of the life of the other.Ā Ā Domination of every form, physical, sexual, verbal, has been displaced, as next Sunday’s gospel makes explicit, by genuine love for the ā€œother,ā€ even the one who is ā€œthe enemyā€Ā Ā (5:43-44). All actions are understood to involve love of the other, as love of relationships that God loves.Ā Ā Such love of the other moves, not easily but faithfully, in the face of earth’s destruction, from the human community to that of the whole creation. Thus the life of the community becomes a demonstration project of the power of God’s love lived out in community relationships, including our relationships with our habitat, the earth. The reading from 1 Corinthians illustrates the point. The Apostle Paul’s challenge to the conflicted parties dividing the congregation in Corinth strikingly employs the metaphor of one who plants and one who waters, to characterize a relationship of interdependence between participants in the community:Ā Ā ā€œSo neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.Ā Ā The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each.Ā Ā For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s buildingā€ (I Corinthians 3:1-9).Ā Ā Ā What is said here of the congregation, could, and should, be said with reference to our relationship to of all God’s creation:Ā Ā we are God’s servants, working together, in God’s original field, God’s original ā€œbuilding.ā€

Sixth Sunday after Epiphany (February 11-17) in Year A (Mundahl)

Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth.Ā Tom Mundahl reflects on our need to trust in God’s creation.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ (originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2014)

Readings for the Sixth Sunday after Epiphany, Year A (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)

Deuteronomy 30:15-20
Psalm 119:1-8
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
Matthew 5:21-37

Even healthy memories can be buried deeply. It was only yesterday that what surely is a foundation of my creation faith ā€œbubbled upā€ into consciousness. At every worship service I attended as a child, the pastor would intone: ā€œMy help is in the name of the LORD,ā€ and the congregation would respond: ā€œWho made heaven and earthā€ (Psalm 124: 8, ā€œConfession,ā€Ā Service Book and Hymnal, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1958, p. 15).

If I missed that important foundational statement, it is easier to see why writers of the Hebrew Bible felt compelled to emphasize in a host of creative ways the centrality of creation and its blessings. More recently, the church has had to break through the superstructure of a theology that has been aggressively anthropocentric, focusing primarily on ā€œGod’s mighty actsā€ and ā€œhuman authenticityā€ (cf. Paul Santmire,Ā The Travail of Nature: the Ambiguous Promise of Christian Theology, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985, ch. 10, pp. 189-218).

This is especially important as we turn to our First Reading, the conclusion of Moses’ ā€œThird Discourse.ā€ Paging through Deuteronomy makes it clear that Brueggemann is right when he reminds us: ā€œAnd if God has to do with Israel in a special way, as he surely does, he has to do with landĀ as an historical place in a special way. It will no longer do to talk about Yahweh and his people but we must speak about Yahweh and his peopleĀ and his landā€ (Walter Brueggemann, The Land, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977, p. 6).

Deuteronomy is filled with the humming fertility of the gift of land, the gift of creation: ā€œFor the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land, a land with flowing streams, with springs and underground waters welling up in valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley, or vines and fig trees and honey, a land where you may eat bread without scarcity, where you will lack nothing. . . .ā€ (Deuteronomy 8:7-9a). As Westermann argues: ā€œWe can no longer hold that God’s activity with his people is to be found only in his ā€˜mighty acts.’ In addition to these acts, experienced in events, God’s work with his people includes things manifested not in deeds but in processes that are usually regarded as unhistorical—the growth and multiplying of the people and the effects of the forces that preserve their physical life. . . . No concept of history that excludes or ignores God’s activity in the world of nature can adequately reflect what occurs in the Old Testament between God and his people. . . . The activity of God that determines these events is not primarily deliverance butĀ blessingā€ (Claus Westermann,Ā Blessing, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978, p. 6).

Most characteristic of Deuteronomy is a series of ā€œblessings and curses.ā€ For example, in Ch. 28, the writer describes the results of harmony with God’s gracious instruction (torah). ā€œBlessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field.Ā Ā Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb, the fruit of your ground, and the fruit of your livestock, both the increase of your cattle and the issue of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowlā€ (Deuteronomy 28:3-5). That these blessings are synergistic—they multiply as they are lived out and received—is suggested by the notion that ā€œthese blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the LORD your Godā€ (Deuteronomy 28:2).

But living out of harmony with God’s template results in curse, a ā€œforceā€ that carries its own negative synergy, bringing downhill spiral. In fact, the ultimate result of continuing to live lives of self-interested greed and obsession with control is a reversal of the Exodus itself! Should this reach critical levels, Israel will experience all the plagues the Egyptians suffered. (Deuteronomy 28:59-61). They shall be brought back in ships to Egypt ā€œby a route that I promised you would never see again; and there you shall offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyerā€ (Deuteronomy 28:68).

The conclusion of ā€œMoses’ Third Discourseā€ā€”our appointed reading—summarizes the two diverging paths God’s people face. ā€œSee, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversityā€ (Deuteronomy 30:15). Even though the choice is clear and available, the Deuteronomist relies on a strong Wisdom tradition (a kind of ā€œsophic hortatory imperativeā€) to call on everyone, ā€œChoose life so that you and your descendants may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacobā€ (Deuteronomy 30:19b-20). It is as if the covenant promise pulls the people forward into the power of blessing.

While the language of blessing and curse may seem strange to us, their reality is not. For example, the psychologist, Erik Erikson sees the characteristic developmental challenge defining adulthood as the tension between ā€œgenerativityā€ā€”using one’s gifts to care for the earth and each other—and ā€œstagnationā€ā€”living as ā€œone’s own only childā€ focused on self (cf. Erikson,Ā The Life Cycle Completed, New York: Norton, 1982). These psychological terms certainly remind us strongly of ā€œblessingā€ and ā€œcurse.ā€

Seen more broadly, the whole panoply of reports describing the environmental crisis contain more than a little suggestion of ā€œcurse.ā€ When we read about the need for Charleston, West Virginia, residents to use only bottled water because of a chemical spill, we cannot help thinking of ā€œcurse.ā€ The recent spate of fires on freight trains carrying oil from North Dakota’s ā€œBakken Playā€ unveils a new kind of inferno-like consequence for our desire to extract oil at any cost. When we consider these consequences, we can understand why Philip Sherrard suggests that we look more closely at the basic technological environment we ā€œswimā€ in. ā€œThere is . . . a price to be paid for fabricating around us a society which is as artificial and mechanized as our own, and this is that we can exist only on condition that we adapt ourselves to it. This is our punishmentā€ (Philip Sherrard,Ā The Eclipse of Man and Nature, West Stockbridge, MA: Lindisfarne, 1987, pp. 70-71).

Confronted with a Corinthian community that is rapidly falling into factionalism, Paul employs a somewhat different dichotomy than blessing and curse—that of ā€œfleshā€ and ā€œspirit.ā€ This should in no way be taken to devalue that which is created. Rather, Paul uses the term ā€œfleshā€ to uncover the pretense that some in the community are ā€œspiritual superstars.ā€ What makes Paul confident of his assessment? ā€œFor as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving according to human inclinations?ā€ (1 Corinthians 3:3). Being ā€œof the fleshā€ means living with the self-assertion that becomes more important than God’s gift of unity (Richard B. Hays,Ā First Corinthians, Louisville: John Knox, 1997, p. 48).

But there is a way to ā€œspiritualā€ unity that is described very concretely. Because the community, in fact, belongs to God (1 Corinthians 3:21-23), the way toward reconciliation is a matter of finding each one’s role within it. Using the familiar image of a garden, Paul writes, ā€œI planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growthā€ (1 Corinthians 3:6-7.Ā Ā Not only do they now have a ā€œcommon purpose,ā€ but, in fact, the literal translation of v. 8 is ā€œthey are one.ā€ This is simply the end of factionalism.

It is significant that this garden metaphor is used to promote healing imagination. As factional leaders and members begin to think of themselves as ā€œworking togetherā€ (v. 9– literally,Ā synergoi, the root of ā€œsynergyā€), they embark in a creation-connected project that is amazingly ā€œsynergistic.ā€Ā Ā For example, corn kernels produce up to 200 ā€˜seeds’ apiece. Sunflower seeds multiply by a factor of 50, while lentils only multiply by a factor of 30. Even though gardening here is ā€œonlyā€ a metaphor (Hans Conzelmann,Ā First Corinthians, Philadelphia: Fortress Hermeneia, 1975, p. 73), the tremendous ā€œincreaseā€ that may occur in growing things together suggests a kind of blessing that provides hope not only for the Corinthian assembly, but also for those called to creation care.

For God’s earth is divided into an almost incomprehensible array of ā€œfactionsā€ when it comes to commitment to care for the earth. To adopt a version of Paul’s call to unity, where each person relinquished narrower interests in favor of the health of the whole, would be, at minimum, a kind of ā€œspiritual breakthroughā€ that could hardly help bringing ā€œblessingā€ to this earth and all its creatures.

If Corinthians believers were tempted to see themselves as ā€œspiritual superheroes,ā€ this week’s text from the Sermon on the Mount provides an antidote. In this section outlining the relationship between this new creation community and theĀ torah, Jesus demonstrates how the law is fulfilled through finding its intention. At the heart of this section is the realization that both the new community and all of creation are made up of relationships that must be nurtured.

This can be seen in Jesus’ reconsideration of murder (Matthew 5:21-22) If vital relationships are to be maintained, murder must be stopped at its source—anger, insult and slander. Much the same could be said of the ā€œlustā€ (Matthew 5:28). These are quite clearly both behaviors that betray insecurity that call for a deeper foundation of relationship.

Of course, one might argue that ā€œswearing oathsā€ moves toward finding a firmer base for safety—the appeal to God to undergird messages. But as Carter reveals: ā€œThe practice, intended to guarantee reliable human communication and trustworthy relationships, ironically undermined them through evasive or deceptive uses of oaths and by creation a category of potentially unreliable communication not guaranteed by oathsā€ (Warren Carter,Ā Matthew and the Margins, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000, p. 149)

Even though oath-taking is not as prevalent in current public communication, much the same thing occurs when statements are legitimated by appeals to ā€œscientific ā€˜fact.ā€™ā€ Here science takes the place of the divine as a source of legitimacy. For example, a series of radio programs in the late 1940’s featured ads for R. J. Reynolds’ Camel cigarettes that claimed, ā€œMore doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.ā€ This was allegedly based on a survey of 113,597 physicians!Ā Ā Journalists did find, however, that those few doctors that were contacted had, the week before, all received complimentary cartons of Camels (Martha N. Gardner, ā€œThe Doctors’ Choice is America’s Choice,ā€Ā American Journal of Public Health, Feb. 2006, p. 223). Of course, much the same misuse of ā€œscientific oathsā€ has gone on among so-called ā€œexpertsā€ casting doubt on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change.

The solution is ā€œLet your word be ā€˜Yes, yes’ or ā€˜No, noā€™ā€ā€”a call to simple truth telling that requires profound security, security that often comes from a strong sense of belonging to a community and a basic trust in creation. Perhaps this comes most powerfully in the Sermon on the Mount in Jesus’ teaching about prayer: addressing God as ā€œOur Fatherā€ (Matthew 6:9) and asking with confidence for ā€œdaily breadā€ (Matthew 6:11). Not only does this provide the courage ā€œnot to worry about tomorrowā€ (Matthew 6:25-34), but it sends us back to durable worship forms from more than 50 years ago: ā€œOur help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earthā€ (Psalm 124:8).

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

Fifth Sunday after Epiphany (February 4-10) in Year A (Ormseth)

MeetingĀ  the “Creational Need” of Nature Dennis Ormseth reflects on salt and light in this Sunday’s readings.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ (originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2017)

Readings for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany, Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Isaiah 58:1-9a [9b-12]

Psalm 112:1-9 [10]

1 Corinthians 2:1-12 [13-16]

Matthew 5:13-20

As the reading of the Sermon on the Mount continues for another eight verses this Sunday, we extend our exploration from last week’s comment, to see whether Jesus’ teaching provides further support for an ā€œEarth-honoring faithā€ (See that comment for a statement of what such faith requires, following Larry Rasmussen’s description in his book by that title). Although this Sunday’s readings do not offer us an ā€œEarth-honoringā€ metaphor comparable to last Sunday’s first reading, the prophet Micah’s ā€œtrial before the mountains,ā€ there are nonetheless strong echoes here of themes we found significant for such a faith.

In the first reading, for instance, the prophet Isaiah similarly announces Jahweh’s rejection of the pretense of the wealthy who come seeking God’s presence, while they do nothing about removing the ā€œbonds of injusticeā€ and the ā€œyokeā€ of oppression, poverty, and homelessness they place on the those below them.Ā Ā The text thus again rejects the master and slave ethic, which, as Rasmussen suggests, in the industrial age has been extended from social and economic relationships to ā€œother-than-human natureā€ in a ā€œparadigm of domination that renders nature essentially a slave to humanity, its steward and masterā€ (Larry L. Rasmussen,Ā Earth-honoring Faith:Ā Ā Religious Ethics in a New Key. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 100).Ā Ā Those who choose to break with this pattern of domination and the false worship to which it is coupled, will be, in the prophet’s image, ā€œlightā€ that ā€œshall break forth like the dawnā€ (cf. the Psalm, 112:4); they will share in a restoration of both body and habitat (The Lord will … satisfy your needs in parched places and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail.ā€Ā Ā 58:8, 11).Ā  Their relationship with Yahweh will be fully restored, and as they ā€œtake delight in the Lord,ā€Ā  Yahweh will make them ā€œride upon the heights of the earth.ā€Ā  Thus in the end, here, too, with their abandonment of their rebellion over against God, the mountains receive them on behalf of the Earth. Their city restored, the people will be ā€œcalled the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live inā€ (58:12).Ā Ā Restoration of the people’s relationship to Yahweh is accompanied by restoration of the relationship with the creation in which they live.

The second reading, in turn, brings back the theme of the power of God.Ā Ā Paul disavows human wisdom and power in favor of ā€œa demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that [the Corinthian congregation’s] faith might rest, not on human wisdom, but on the power of Godā€ (1 Corinthians 2:4-5).Ā Ā He speaks ā€œGod’s wisdom, secret and hidden,ā€ he writes, which ‘none of the rulers of this age understood…, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.ā€Ā Ā The wisdom and power of the crucified Christ, revealed by the Spirit, is accordingly contrasted to the wisdom and power wielded by the politically and socially powerful in pursuit of their imperial interests. With respect to our concern for care of creation, this contrast relates to perhaps the greatest imbalance of power in the modern world, that involving control over the development and flow of energy in the global fossil fuel industry, access to which, along a long chain of investor and consumer connections, is a major source of conflict and oppression in the world, much to the destruction of habitat for both humans and other-than-humans.Ā Ā The development of climate science over the past century has brought about a revelatory disclosure of these great power imbalances and their destructive impacts on the communities of creation.

So how do the sayings of the Sermon on the Mount relate to this situation?Ā Ā From last Sunday’s beatitudes, this is how:Ā Ā blessed are the poor in spirit, who despair over their powerlessness to liberate the earth they love, no less themselves, from the domination of the fossil fuel industry; they know themselves enmeshed and even enslaved to it by virtue of their inescapable participation in the global economy. The power of God’s presence restores them. Blessed are those who mourn, and thus do not hide or deny their grief over such terrible losses to habitat and species. God shares their pain. And blessed indeed are the meek, who do what they can in their own place, to secure space for their neighbors, both human and other-than-human, that is free from all such diminishment of their shared well-being. Theirs is the future of the earth.

Turning to this Sunday’s teaching, in so doing, the followers of this way will be regarded as ā€œsalt of the earth.ā€Ā Ā As Warren Carter points out, the image of salt has considerable polyvalence in scripture: ā€œSir 39:26 identifies ā€˜salt’ as one of ā€˜the basic necessities of human life.’  It seasons food in Job 6:6.Ā Ā In Lev 2:13 and Ezek 43:24 salt and sacrifice are linked.Ā Ā Elisha uses salt to purify drinking water (2 Kgs 2:19-23).Ā Ā In Ezra 4:14 sharing salt seems to suggest loyalty (so also ā€˜salt of the covenant’ in Lev 2:13 and Num 18:19.)ā€Ā Ā As ā€œsalt of the earth,ā€ Carter suggests, ā€œthe community of disciples, not the ruling elite or the synagogue, is to live this flavoring, purifying, sacrificial way of life committed to the world’s well- being and loyal to God’s purposes (Matthew and the Margins:Ā Ā A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading, p. 137). Building on the image’s polyvalence, Robert Smith suggests that it is precisely ā€œthe people who hear his words and follow himā€ that are ā€œā€˜salt of the earth,’ and that means saltĀ for the earthā€Ā (New Proclamation Series A, 1998-1999, p. 148.Ā Ā Emphasis added).Ā  This is the second time the Earth is mentioned in the Sermon, the first being the reference to Earth as that which the ā€œmeekā€ will inherit (5:5). ā€œSalt for the earthā€ can then in turn be understood as pointing to those who are loyal to the earth and help to sustain its life in all its rich diversity and beauty.Ā Ā The Earth, Carter emphasizes, is where the ā€œdisciples live, in the midst of the poor in spirit, the mourning, the powerless, and the hungry and thirsty, dominated and exploited by the ruling elite (5:3-6).ā€Ā Ā It is where the community embodies God’sĀ empire as opposed to human empire, in mercy, purity, peacemaking and persecution, as it lives out its alternative existence (5:7-12;Ā Matthew and the Margins, p. 138).Ā Ā And as we’ve seen in our second reading, restoration of this ā€œsaltinessā€, this ā€œEarth-loyalā€ faith happens by drawing on the wisdom and power of God, as disclosed by the Spirit in the cross and resurrection of Jesus.

Just so, according to the Sermon’s teaching, with this Earth-loyal, Earth-honoring faith, the followers of Jesus ā€œare the light of the worldā€ (5:14).Ā Ā For the second time, Jesus unexpectedly applies to the disciples an image that we have seen Matthew and the other evangelists use primarily for Jesus himself.Ā Ā They are to continue the task first given to Israel, as our first reading reminds us (ā€œlight shall break forth like the dawnā€; Isaiah 58:8, cf. Isaiah 42:6), and then assumed by Jesus as ā€œlight shining in the darkness.ā€ The point of these two images of salt and light is clear:Ā Ā as Robert Smith writes, ā€œThrough Jesus, God is laying healing hands on the world to make it ā€˜all right’ and to summon us to live lives of ā€˜all rightnessā€ (Smith, p. 150). Those who follow Jesus up the mountain are called to manifest, for all to see, the life that leads to the fulfillment of all righteousness for all creation.Ā Ā With this as his goal, the teaching of Jesus does indeed fully conform to the nature and purpose of the law and the prophet, as he claims in the closing verses of our reading (5:17-18):Ā Ā gracious gift of God, fundamentally personal and inter-relational in character, meeting the needs of all creation, not a matter of abstract rules but rather grounded in the narrative of Israel’s experience with God that itself provides both guidance and encouragement for such action (For a description of these several aspects of Torah, see Terry E. Fretheim,Ā God and World in the Old Testament.Ā Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005, pp. 148 – 150).Ā 

It is also shown, importantly we might add, to be highly consonant with the contemporary ecological understanding of life, which is likewise fundamentally inter-relational in character and meeting ā€œthe ā€˜creational need’ of nature. “

Fifth Sunday after Epiphany (February 4-10) in Year A (Mundahl)

We are Epiphany communities, being salt for the Earth and bearing light for the world.Ā Tom Mundahl reflects on Isaiah 58 and Matthew 5:13-20.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common LectionaryĀ  (originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2014)

Readings for the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany, Year A (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)Ā 

Isaiah 58:1-9a [9b-12]

Psalm 112:1-9 [10]

1 Corinthians 2:1-12 [13-16]

Matthew 5:13-20

There are few things more satisfying than baking good bread. But that bread depends not only on quality of flour and the skill of the baker; its quality also is related to the right balance of ingredients. I remember the time I forgot the salt. Not only did the dough rise too quickly, this visually lovely loaf had no taste whatsoever!

This week’s First Lesson from Second Isaiah teaches us a thing or two about religious practice that has the appearance of a fine, fresh loaf, but has no taste. The prophet takes a hard look at what Paul Hanson calls ā€œfaith in the subjunctive moodā€ (Hanson,Ā Isaiah 40-66, Louisville: John Knox, 1997, p. 204). As the prophet reveals, ā€œYet day after day they seek me and delight to know my ways,Ā asĀ ifĀ they were a nation that practiced righteousness and did not forsake the ordinance (mispat) of their Godā€ (Isaiah 58:2a).

Apparently, theĀ most religious had transformed what they considered ā€œreligionā€ into private acts of prayer and ritual ā€œleaving the entire realm of social relations and commerce under the domination of ruthless, self-serving exploitation. . . .ā€ (Hanson, p. 205). But the prophet stands firmly in the traditions of his guild, which reminded the people of their liberation from Egyptian slavery, their dependence on God’s sustenance in the wilderness, and the gift nature of their land. Because they had received these generous gifts, they were to be generous in sharing—especially with those in need.

This is the logic undergirding Isaiah’s definition of authentic religious practice. ā€œIs this not the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them and not hide yourself from your own kinā€ (Isaiah 58:6-7).

The results of practicing honest religion point to a healing that extends to the whole creation. Not only will ā€œyour light break forth like the dawnā€ (Isaiah 58:8), but bones—the structure of personhood—will be strengthened and ā€œyou shall be like a watered garden, like a spring whose waters never failā€ (Isaiah 58:11). This integrity will result in a marvel of urban planning, repairing a city whose foundations will nurture many generations with the lure of ā€œstreets to live inā€ (Isaiah 58:12).

In fact, this restoration will be a return to the very intention of creation, celebrated with the creation of Sabbath on the seventh day. Isaiah’s account of the effects of authentic repentance (ā€œfastingā€) culminates in a vision of ā€œlife’s fecundity and fresh potential. Once the bonds of oppression that maim and destroy life are removed, then life can flower into the diverse and beautiful forms that God planted in the first gardenā€ (Norman Wirzba,Ā Food and Faith: A Theology of Eating, Cambridge: 2011, p. 166). As a result of this renewal, all creation enjoys the interdependent harmony of ā€œSabbath delightā€ (Isaiah 58:13), where all creatures celebrate the memberships of life as they share their bread (Wirzba, p. 165).

Because this week’s Gospel Reading immediately follows a sobering account of what those who are ā€œblessedā€ to be joined to the ā€œkingdom of heavenā€ can expect—being reviled and persecuted as the prophets were (Matthew 5:11)—one wonders if ā€œdelightā€ is even remotely possible.Ā Ā But recall that the final beatitude concludes with a call to: ā€œRejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before youā€ (Matthew 5:12).

This joy is clearly stronger than any persecution the Roman Empire or the elite religious opponents will provide. But it requires this new community to live in harmony with its gracious identity. The parallel statements ā€œYou are the salt of the earthā€ (Matthew 5:14) and ā€œYou are the light of the worldā€ (Matthew 5:14) move them in this direction. While salt has many uses, its primary function has been to season food. As Ulrich Luz suggests, ā€œSalt is not salt for itself but seasoning for food. So the disciples are not existing for themselves but for the earthā€ (Ulrich Luz,Ā Matthew 1-7Ā (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989, p. 251). The purpose of the light metaphor is much the same, leading to the intended result (both with ā€œseasoningā€ culture and the earth and ā€œvisionā€) ā€œthat they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heavenā€ (Matthew 5:16).

Clearly, Matthew’s Jesus is not advocating a ā€œworks righteousnessā€ schema. For him, a person’s actions are integral to identity. Salt becomes effective only by salting. Light becomes valuable only when it shines. To indicate to the new community ā€œyou are the light of the worldā€ confers both identity and the sense that it cannot but be realized in action. ā€œMatthew speaks without embarrassment of good works, without meaning self-justification by worksā€ (Luz, p. 253).

More important for us may be that the predicates of these two statements: ā€œyou are the salt ofĀ the earthā€ (5: 13) and ā€œyou are the light ofĀ the worldā€ (5:14). For this new community embraced by a new kind of regime, the earth is the focus of its action. This is crucial, since Matthew’s narrative suggests that the kingdoms of the earth are under control of the devil, a nasty, but justified slap in the face for the Roman Empire (Matthew 4:8). It is this Empire that claimed to be able to provide ā€œbreadā€ for its people, but often gave them little more than ā€œbread and circuses.ā€

Why these powerful images of salt and light? As Warren Carter suggests: ā€œThey emphasize the missional identity and lifestyle of disciples. While participation in God’s empire is blessed, it mandates an alternative way of life that challenges the status quo. This is a costly demand for a minority and marginal community, vulnerable to being overpowered by, or accommodating itself to, the dominant culture. The two images strengthen that identity and direct its way of life in a hostile context.ā€ (Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000, p. 139)

We began this commentary with a consideration of bread baking, where I shared a failed attempt to bake bread without salt. Not only was it tasteless; the dough had risen so much and so quickly, the bread had no ā€œcrumb,ā€ no structure. To a faith community called to be ā€œsalt of the earthā€ (Matthew 5:13), this has important implications for care of creation.

Without a limiting factor, humankind seems much like bread dough that is intent on fermenting—rising with no end in sight. Whether it is emitting carbon and other greenhouse gases, wasting increasingly precious water, or continuing the collection of often unneeded consumer items that overwhelm disposal capacity of land and sea and are recycled at an unsustainably low rate, especially in the U.S., the absence of limiting discipline is frightening. Not only does this dishonor the ā€œmaterial gifts of creation,ā€ but it forgets, as William Rathje and Robert Lillienfeld have shown in their indispensable book,Ā Use Less Stuff, that recycling has always been a way to maintain consumption and has never historically solved the problem of excess (Rathje and Lillienfeld,Ā Use Less Stuff, New York: Ballantine, 1998, pp. 6-26).

Earth needs ā€œsaltā€ to limit all these dangerous increases. Wirzba suggests that faith directs our focus to being where we are and paying attention to community (including creation community!) needs. ā€œAs we dedicate ourselves to understanding our place in the wider world, we can learn something of a habitat’s or community’s limits and possibilities. . . . And we can draw upon the faculty of our imagination to envision possibilities for improvementsā€ (Norman Wirzba,Ā The Paradise of God, Oxford: 2003, p. 155).

Yet, Wendell Berry is right about the difficult balancing act that care of creation and sharing good bread involve. ā€œTo live, we must daily break the body and shed the blood of Creation. When we do this knowingly, lovingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a sacrament. When we do it ignorantly, greedily, clumsily, destructively, it is desecrationā€ (Wendell Berry, ā€œThe Gift of Good Landā€ inĀ The Gift of Good Land: Further Essays Cultural and Agricultural, San Francisco: North Point Press, 1981, p. 181). As an Epiphany community bearing necessary light, we must also be ā€œsaltyā€ enough to provide a vision of limits that will, at minimum, slow down the destructive forces threatening God’s creation.

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

Fourth Sunday after Epiphany (January 28 – February 3) in Year A (Ormseth)

Empowered in God’s love for the creation. Dennis Ormseth reflects on Micah 6 and the beatitudes of Matthew 5.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary (originally written by Dennis Ormseth in 2017)

Readings for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, Year A ( 2017, 2020, 2023)

Micah 6:1-8
Psalm 15
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Matthew 5:1-12

ā€œHear, you mountains, the controversy of the Lord, and you enduring foundations of the earth; for the Lord has a controversy with his people and he will contend with Israelā€ (Micah 6:2).   The prophet’s evocation of mountains and ā€œenduring foundations of the earthā€ in the opening verses of our first reading this Sunday invites consideration of the texts for the day as material for the quest for what Larry Rasmussen calls an ā€œEarth-honoring Faith.ā€ (Earth-honoring Faith:  Religious Ethics in a New Key. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). With his metaphor of a trial in which God contends with God’s people, the prophet couples testimony concerning God’s works on behalf of Israel to the judgment of the mountains and the earth’s very foundations.  The significance of this linkage of God’s testimony and the mountains’ judgment lies deeper than mere rhetorical device, however.  The passage is one of three texts that Walter Brueggemann cites in an exposition of Jahweh’s ā€œrighteousnesses.ā€ Following Paul Ricoeur, Brueggeman argues that the ā€œmatrix of trial-witness-testimonyā€ provides a powerful perspective on the theology of the Hebrew bible.  Memories of past events are ā€œall now regarded as acts of transformation wrought by Yahweh on behalf of Israel, all making it possible for Israel to have a chance of well-being in the worldā€ (Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament:  Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997, pp.131-32).  In its worship of Jahweh, Brueggemann writes,

ā€œIsrael engaged the great memories of its core testimony in which the God of Israel’s most elemental testimony is taken with definitional seriousness in the present.  That core testimony includes both Yahweh as the One who intrudes into Israel’s public experience in dramatic ways, and Yahweh as the One who sanctions and maintains Israel’s life-giving home of creationā€ (p. 679).

Here is faith, then, that honors the earth, even as it honors Earth’s Creator.  It is worth noting that according to Micah’s oracle, such well-being is not merely a matter of acquiring great wealth.  The cultic sacrifice of ā€œthousand of rams’ and ten thousands of rivers of oil,ā€  which would presuppose such wealth, is not what God seeks from God’s people.  What God requires, and not just of Israel, but of all humans (ā€œO mortal,ā€ adam,) is ā€œto do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.ā€ (6:8).  ā€œIt belongs to the character of the human creature, ā€ Brueggemann concludes with respect to the relationship of humans to the creation, that humanness means to hear and obey the elemental, world-defining, world-sustaining, world-ordering will of Jahweh for justice and holiness.

The practice of holiness concerns the disciplined awareness that life is to be ordered with the profound acknowledgment that the core of reality lies outside self and is not given over to human control. . . . The practice of justice, in concrete ways, is the enactment of Yahweh’s sedaqah, whereby the cosmos can be ordered for life, and whereby the human community can be kept viable and generative.

Accordingly, the verbs in Genesis 1 and 2 which authorize humans to ā€œhave dominionā€ over creation ā€œsuggest not exploitative, self-aggrandizing use of the earth, but gentle care for and enhancement of the earth and all its creaturesā€ (Brueggemann, p. 460-61).

Thus the prophet’s oracle does indeed adumbrate an ā€œEarth-honoring faithā€, a faith, in Rasmussen’s definition, that ā€œis life-centered, justice-committed, and Earth-honoring, with a moral universe encompassing the whole community of life, the biosphere and atmosphere together as the ecosphere.ā€ And it is the mountains of the prophet’s metaphor that carry this meaning. While the specific mountains which the prophet might have had in mind perhaps include only those from the great narrative of God’s works (the Ark lands on Ararat, God tests Abraham on the mountain in Moriah, God reveals Godself to Elijah on Mt Carmel and Mt. Horeb, and prominently here in Micah, Moses received the Torah on Mt. Sinai, ā€œup from Egyptā€) what renders them trustworthy judges of both human and divine affairs is not limited to such associations. It is in their universal nature that mountains transcend the plain where life is normally lived, and they endure through all generations as well. Additionally, their remoteness from human community is also surely significant. They are part of that ā€œwild natureā€ that compels us (in Christopher Southgate’s phrase), to ā€œquiet the thunder of our own ambitions, our own worship both of God and of idolsā€, so that the mountains’ praise of God ā€œcan be itself without our distorting it.ā€ Ideally, their witness can be counted upon to be free of human taint, as Southgate comments: ā€œWe should long to hear that praise as the earliest humans heard it, and make space in our lives and our world to ensure that we doā€ (The Groaning of Creation:  God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008p. 114).

Indeed, when approached from the viewpoint of contemporary ecology, ā€œmaking spaceā€ in nature is an essential aspect of what mountains ā€œdo.ā€  A mountain constitutes a special, whole ecosystem that incorporates in a representative way many biotic subsystems—ranging in some instances from arctic to subtropical and tropical—into a life-giving and sustaining whole that passes through the several ranges and seasons of life. What one learns from reading that ecology is relevant not only to the immediate site under examination, but can be extended to other regions as well, indeed in some aspects to the entire globe.  The measurements taken by ecologists of the decline of mountain glaciers and the river systems that flow from them, for example, contribute to their understanding of the dynamics of global climate change. Thus to those who know how to listen, the mountain speaks, as it were, about the possibilities of well being, in Rasmussen’s phrase,  of ā€œthe whole community of life, the biosphere and atmosphere together as the ecosphere.ā€

Does the mountain which Jesus’ ascends to teach his disciples in this Sunday’s Gospel bear such significance?  The linkage of these texts in the lectionary suggests this possibility, and in Warren Carter’s view, the Evangelist appears to recognize this significance of the mountains as well. As Carter notes, the mountain is ā€œa location invested with multiple meaningsā€ in the Gospel.  Jesus’ ministry is in fact a mountain oriented affair: after feeding five thousand Jesus retreats ā€œup the mountain by himself to prayā€ (14:23);  having passed along the Sea of Galilee, he again ascends ā€œthe mountainā€ where he heals ā€œthe lame, the maimed, the blind, the mute, and many others’ and again feeds a great crowd, this time four thousand (15:29-39); it is ā€œup a high mountainā€ that Jesus leads Peter, James and John where he ā€œwas transfigured before themā€ (17:1); he initiates the events of his final confrontation with authorities from ā€œthe Mount of Olivesā€ (21:1 and 24:3); and it is from ā€œthe mountain to which Jesus had directed them, that he commissions their great outreach ā€œto all nationsā€ (28:16-20).

Mountains thus signal dimensions of justice, mercy, holiness and universality in Jesus ministry.  Just previous to this ascent to teach, Carter emphasizes, from the mountain ā€œthe devil offered Jesus ‘all the kingdoms/empires of the world’,ā€ and by contrast, ā€œon this mountain, Jesus will manifest God’s reign/empire.ā€  As Jesus recapitulates Moses’ and Israel’s experience, escaping from Egypt (2:15), passing through water (3:13-17), encountering temptation (4:1-11),ā€  That Jesus now goes ā€œup the mountainā€ to teach his disciples thus alerts us to the significance of the event: Jesus is to deliver a new law that will be as important for life in the coming kingdom of God as the law given to Moses was for the people of Israel, as they prepared to enter their promised land. Jesus’ followers will appropriately remember this teaching as ā€œthe Sermon on the Mount.ā€

If ā€œthe mountainā€ which Jesus ascends carries the significance of Micah’s ā€œmountains,ā€ as we have suggested, can we hope that the teaching he offers would also provide support for an ā€œEarth-honoring faith?ā€  We of course cannot expect the teaching to directly address aspects of the environmental crisis of our day;  we seek rather to ā€œinterrogateā€ this particular ā€œpast tradition of spirituality,ā€ as Rasmussen puts it, in a reexamination of the ā€œ’normative gaze’ that frames and guides feeling and thought alikeā€ (Rasmussen, p. 45).ā€  Does the teaching ā€œalert us to past pitfalls?ā€  Does it ā€œillumine our responsibility, offer wellsprings of hope, and generate renewable moral/spiritiual energy for hard seasons ahead?ā€ (Rasmussen, p. 81).

In order to carry out this ā€œinterrogationā€ with respect to not only this Sunday’s Gospel, but those of the following three Sundays which also belong to the Sermon on the Mount, and then the ā€œsummitā€ of the Sunday of the Transfiguration, it will be helpful first to draw out more broadly what Rasmussen means by ā€œEarth-honoring faithā€ for our time.In his chapter on ā€œThe Faith We Seek,ā€ he draws these several insights from the Christian theological tradition, represented preeminently here by Saints Augustine and Ambrose, and Reinhold Niebuhr: such a faith, he writes, not only savors life, but seeks to save life.  It sees in a ā€œredeemed Earth as paradiseā€ an alternative to the false paradise offered by human empires. It regards as fundamental to ā€œcommon Earthly goodā€ the ā€œ’minimal livability necessary so that [the] individual good’ of every creature can be pursued.ā€  Such faith grants ā€œmoral citizenshipā€ to all God’s creatures, as key to addressing our denial of empathy for them.  It acknowledges the ā€œspecies pride and arroganceā€ of humans that denies the ā€œprofound interconnectedness of all life processes and creatures.ā€ It sees that the great imbalances of power in society correlate strongly with the destruction of nature, as one group seeks to exploit nature for the resources to dominate over others. Often more covert than overt, the exercise of such power ā€œnurtures self-delusionā€ on the part of those who wield it.  Such faith thus recognizes in democracy both the means of checking on ā€œthe ever-present imperial impulses in human nature,ā€ but also a source of the delusion of innocence which fails to recognize that imperialism, as it flows from disproportions of power.  It will see in ā€œour present Earth/human relationshipā€ . . the modern/eco-modern version of perhaps the longest-lived and most oppressive ethic of all:  the ethic of master and slaves,ā€ ā€œapplied now to other-than-human nature.  As it grasps the core reality that ā€œthe Earth belongs to all and all belongs to Earth, which belongs to God,ā€ it will ā€œrightly name the injuries of nature at our hands ‘sin’ and the abuse of powerā€ Matthew will also report that Jesus ā€œwent up the mountainā€ six times, referring to Mt. Zion (Carter, Matthew and the Margins:  A sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll, New York:  Orbis Books, 2000, p. 129-30). (Rasmussen, pp. 80-104). Finally,

Earth-honoring faith lives by grace.  Life is a gift and a sacred trust.  We did not create it, not a single blade of grass, nor do we earn it.  It bears its own power, an energy that courses through the cosmos and nature as we know it. It is a power by which life creates the conditions conducive to its own continuation, a rooted confidence that life has what it takes to press on in the face of assault and uncertainty (Rasmussen, p. 105).

Thus we can ask: Does Jesus’ teaching constitute support for such justice for the whole of creation? Does it foster ā€œa loving kindnessā€ for all creatures? Does it promote a humility appropriate to life lived in the presence of its Creator?

Warren Carter, whose exegesis of the Sermon we follow here (Matthew and the Margins, pp. 130 –37), proposes that the beatitudes concern ā€œprimarily God’s favor for certain human actions and situations (Ps 1:1-2) . . . Beatitudes are directed to the present and future ages.ā€ The nine blessings of the Sermon identify and affirm certain situations and actions as signs of the coming of God’s reign, present or future. They ā€œreassure those who already experience the circumstances or manifest the particular behavior that God’s favor is or will be on them.ā€ Our question, then, is does that favor reflect an awareness of the implications of those circumstances and behaviors, beyond the human, for all creation? In other words, does God really care about the well being of the mountain and the Earth which it represents?

 ā€œBlessed are the poor in spirit,ā€ Jesus begins. The ā€œpoor in spirit,ā€ argues Carter, ā€œare those who are economically poor and whose spirits or being are crushed by economic injustice. They can see no hope, but they know the corrosive effect of hopeless poverty. They are described in several psalms as oppressed by the wickedā€ (Carter, p. 131).  We recognize here the imbalance of concentrated power, which renders ā€œspiritlessā€ those who suffer such deprivations. The issue here is one of totally negative expectations regarding the fulfillment of the promise of well-being, which from time to time dominates the spirit of an individual or community. This is a condition experienced by people who are ā€œwithout resources and hope, subject to larger forces that seem beyond reach,ā€ but also by their advocates which the powerful in an oppressive political arena refuse to hear. It is, significantly with respect to our concern for care of creation, the condition often experienced in our culture by people who care passionately about Earth and its non-human inhabitants. Their advocacy on behalf of the ā€˜non-human other’ seems so entirely futile, because the lives of the creatures that are the focus of their concern and love are threatened so relentlessly. The powerful appear so thoroughly indifferent to their fate, maintaining policies that are completely controlled by their own self-interests. The judgment articulated by Carter fits both oppressed humans and dominated nature equally well: ā€œDenied justice, adequate resources, wholeness, and subject to the power of the ruling elite, there is no hope of change. Unless God intervenesā€ (Carter, p. 132).

Will God intervene? Jesus promises not only that God will, but that God is intervening: the poor in spirit are blessed because the kingdom of heaven is now theirs. The deficit of spirit is made up with the presence of God in the very company of Jesus’ in which they participate. The hopeless poor are blessed (see 5:3) because in their very struggles God is in the process of liberating them.  Indeed, even as they mourn what they have lost to ā€œthe destructive impact of imperial powers,ā€ they are lifted out of an oppression that is seen to be against God’s gracious will, and thus should be greatly and deeply mourned. Their mourning is in fact a sign of the enduring vitality of their spirit, however diminished in strength. They mourn because they love, and have suffered the loss of what they love. The Comforter, the Spirit who is the giver and sustainer of all life, comforts them in their mourning.

While these first two beatitudes thus respond to the spiritual deficit experienced by mourning humans, the next one addresses more squarely their embodied situation in creation, and suggests a course of action to address and remedy their loss. Jesus continues: ā€œBlessed are the meek,ā€ those who give place to others and thus show appropriate respect for their need of that place for their existence, or more precisely in Rasmussen’s careful phrase,  they act to foster that ā€œminimal livability necessary so that [the] individual good’ of every creature can be pursued.ā€ The behavior of ā€œthe meekā€ is an implicitly but nevertheless profoundly ā€œecologicalā€ way of being in community. It is the human analog to the manifold space-creating ecology of the mountain. Indeed, it is what God does in creation. The blessing is appropriate: ā€œthey shall inherit the earth.ā€ As Carter insists, ā€˜this is not to be spiritualized. God, not the meek, will overthrow the elite so that all may use the earth (Ps 37:10-11).ā€ But neither is this to be limited anthropocentrically. ā€œThe present inequitable access to land, based on exploitative societal relationships will end. The earth and its resources belong to God (Gen 1; Ps 24:1).ā€ ā€œhumans are to nurture it (Gen 1:28-31) as a basis for a community in which all have access to necessary resources . . . Earth, then, refers not only to the land of Israel but to all of God’s creationā€ (p. 133).

So also, accordingly, blessed are those ā€œwho hunger and thirst for righteousnessā€ā€”understood here as existence in the community of creation characterized by right relationships, including adequate resources for living (space, water, energy, sustenance)–they ā€œwill be filled.ā€ And, we would add, fulfilled: ā€œfor those who show mercy will receive mercy,ā€ not just from God, but reciprocally in a community of practical and active love. The ā€œpure in heart,ā€ humans whose external actions are consistent with internal commitments and motivations, but also in relation to non-humans whose external life conforms to the purposes God has installed in their very nature—they will all together ā€œsee God,ā€ as God inhabits these righteous relationships. And, finally, blessed are the makers of peace: certainly not the peace of the Roman Empire’s ā€œorder, security, and prosperityā€; nor, for that matter, the peace of the American empire with its exhaustive quest to secure resources that now extends out into the cosmos beyond Earth. Rather, the reference is to God’s ā€œcosmic peace in which all things are in just relation with each other and their creator.ā€ Called children of God, the identity of peacemakers is shaped by neither ethnicity nor species-being, but rather by conformity to the self-giving pattern of the triune God.

Which brings us to the final two beatitudes: ā€œBlessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before youā€ (5:10-11). Jesus returns here to the power struggle identified in the first two beatitudes, that of encountering the overwhelming opposition which the forces of the status quo, with ā€œits commitments, power structures, and beneficiaries,ā€ mount against the just and reconciling way of life envisioned in these beatitudes. ā€œThe empire will certainly strike backā€ warns Carter. But the reward of those persecuted on account of Jesus is, again,  ā€œthe kingdom of heaven.ā€ Indeed, says Jesus, ā€œrejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven,ā€ that is, in God’s presence, God’s own righteous response to the faithfulness that such action exhibits. The reviled participate in the ā€œcompletion of God’s purposes, enjoying the fullness of God’s presence and empireā€ (Carter, p. 136).  These last two beatitudes thus clearly anticipate Jesus’ own persecution and death, in which, as our second reading from I Corinthians reminds us, ā€œthe power of God and the wisdom of God,ā€  divine ā€œfoolishnessā€ that is ā€œwiser than human wisdom,ā€ and holy ā€œweaknessā€ that is ā€œstronger than human strength,ā€  are manifest in ā€œrighteousness and sanctification and redemption.ā€   It is in this power that the restoration of all creation will be accomplished; and to share in this power is to be empowered in God’s love for the creation.

Fourth Sunday after Epiphany (January 28 – February 3) in Year A (Mundahl)

When we turn around, we receive the unanimous approval of the mountains, the hills, and the foundations of the Earth. Tom Mundahl reflects on what God asks of us.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary (originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2014)

Readings for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany, Year A (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)

Micah 6:1-8
Psalm 15
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Matthew 5:1-12

This week’s texts do nothing less than turn the world upside down. Their power stems from the gracious outpouring we call creation: ā€œThe earth is the LORD’s and all that is in it . . . .ā€ (Psalm 24:1). For God to create is to open a place in the triune life for others, to offer hospitality in a circle dance of community which has no boundaries.

We can see the profound respect for creation in our First Lesson from Micah. Here, this late eighth-century prophet acts as ā€œprocess serverā€ delivering the indictment of a divine lawsuit (rib) to the people of Jerusalem. And ā€œwhoā€ acts as the ā€œGreek chorusā€ or ā€œjuryā€ witnessing this bill of particulars? The LORD, as prosecuting attorney, tries this case before the mountains, hills, and the foundations of the earth (Micah 6:1-2).

This is a ā€œjuryā€ that cannot be bought. Here are witnesses that cannot be tampered with. Understandably, in a court this open and honest, Jerusalem cannot avoid responsibility for the centralization of land ownership (Micah 2:2) and judicial corruption described as ā€œtearing the skin off my peopleā€ (Micah 3:2). No wonder the people cry in despair: ā€œWith what should I come before the LORD . . . ?ā€ (Micah 6:6).

Naturally they suggest all sorts of ways in which they can placate the court without changing basic attitudes—low bowing, burnt offerings, offering of yearling calves, or even first-born children (Micah 6:6-7).

These suggestions are at once too manipulative and too simple. The prophet puts it plainly in a way that summarizes a century of prophetic faithfulness and creativity: ā€œHe has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your Godā€ (Micah 6:8). Although there is nothing new about these words (e.g. ā€œkindnessā€ is hesed, covenant loyalty and care) except their beautiful crystallization of faith, moving from a culturally approved set of norms to practicing justice changes everything! It defines repentance: turning around and getting a new mind. When that happens, the approval of mountains, hills, and the foundations of the earth is unanimous!

Paul’s message to the community in Corinth calls for a reorientation similar in scope. After his ā€œindictmentā€ for falling into factionalism, he offers a primer describing the very basis of the life of those ā€œcalled to be saintsā€ (1 Corinthians 1:2). This foundation is not the cunning of human judgment.

In fact, it is self-interested human judgment which has gotten in the way of unity. As Hans Conzelmann suggests, ā€œCommon to the parties is the demand forĀ proofĀ of divine truth. In this way they set themselves up as an authority that can pass judgment upon God . . . . They expect God to submit to their criteriaā€ (Hans Conzelmann,Ā First Corinthians, Philadelphia: Fortress Hermeneia, 1975, p. 47). Like the religious elite Micah confronted, Paul calls his audience to ā€œgive it up,ā€ to relinquish expecting God to meet their standards!

Paul strips away the illusory power of human criteria. ā€œFor Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of Godā€ (1 Corinthians 1:22-24). It is precisely this god-project, setting people, institutions, and governments up as ā€˜ultimate authorities,’ that has led to discrimination, violence, economic inequality, war, and ecological distress. For ā€œour standards and criteriaā€ are always partial and can never include the whole of creation. They always benefit only ā€œusā€ā€”however that ā€œusā€ is construed.

But there is another way, according to Paul, a way beyond the self-concern of people, communities, or institutions. This is demonstrated by the obedient One whose concern for renewing creation was not limited even by self-preservation. ā€œFor God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom (standards and criteria), and God’s weakness is stronger than human strengthā€ (1 Corinthians 1:25).

The Roman Empire and Jesus’ religious opponents responded to the threatening newness he brings with all they had—specifically, the cross. A recent ā€œbotchedā€ execution by ā€œlethal injectionā€ in Ohio took nearly half an hour and caused the victim of this torture to gasp several times. Crucifixion involved a much longer public humiliation before death—from many hours to several days. It was the most persuasive argumentĀ Pax Romana had that no one should defy the powers that be. Yet, Paul’s message is that this act of violence failed miserably. The compassionate and just God triumphed over those powers. As Richard Hays suggests: ā€œRather than proving the sovereignty of Roman political order, it (cross and resurrection) shatters the world’s systems of authority. Rather than confirming what the wisest heads already know, it shatters the world’s systems of knowledge.ā€ (Richard B. Hays,Ā First Corinthians, Louisville: John Knox, 1997, p. 31).

Now Paul turns to his audience and asks them to consider their calling. None of them were called because they met adequate divine standards and criteria. That makes it clear that, using the logic of the cross, despite their membership in this motley assembly and their checkered histories, they have been made part of a new and unified community. It is nothing to ā€œboast about!ā€ For that reason, self-assertion or factional promotion have no place. Like the sheer graciousness of creation, belonging to this new community that lives by standards considered ā€œfoolishā€ by the kingdoms of the world is a gift. A gift full of promise and consequences.

These consequences become clearer in the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount—the Beatitudes. Now, Jesus, whom Matthew has introduced over his prologue as Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23), the ā€œone who is more powerfulā€ (Matthew 3:11), the Beloved Son (Matthew 3:17), and, later, one who brings the new counter empire, ā€œthe kingdom of heavenā€ (Matthew 4:17), climbs the mountain to teach. In Micah, the hills and mountains served as witnesses to the trial of God’s people (Micah 6:1-2). In Matthew’s temptation narrative (Matthew 4:1-11), the tempter offered Jesus control over ā€œall the kingdoms of the worldā€ with the proviso that Jesus worship the one making the offer (Matthew 4:10). Here the mountain continues to serve as a major character drawing both teacher and learners away from the demands of daily life in order to allow Jesus to act as composer whose ā€œfirst movementā€ sounds the major themes that will shape this new community infecting all that Pax RomanaĀ stands for.

Beatitudes are not unique to the Sermon on the Mount. They go beyond describing personal qualities and emotions (ā€œhappy are…ā€) to declaring God’s favor for specific human behaviors and often declare ā€œGod’s future transformation or reversal of present dismal circumstancesā€Ā Ā (Warren Carter,Ā Matthew and the Margins, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000, p. 130). What’s more, ā€œThey . . . mark out features of a faithful and favored or blessed and honorable group.Ā Ā They constitute, affirm, and challenge a community’s distinctive identity and practicesā€ (Carter).

ā€œBlessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heavenā€ (Matthew 5:3), then, becomes a thematic melody coursing through this entire ā€œSermon.ā€ They are ones who are literally poor, ill, marginalized and outcast. They are victims of the power structure, much like the fishermen called to be the first disciples, whose trade was hampered at every turn by Roman regulations. They certainly do not set standards or criteria for acceptance in their worlds! Their very ā€œspiritsā€ are suppressed by the Roman Imperial System, and are poorly served by much of Jerusalem’s religious elite. Yet, they are named ā€œblessedā€ because now that the status quo is fading; ā€œtheirs isā€ the kingdom of heaven.ā€ Poverty and hopelessness are ending. ā€œThe beatitude blesses the ending of current imperial structures through God’s actionā€ (Carter, p. 132).

The consequences of God’s action in bringing a ā€œnew order and communityā€ are vividly described in the third beatitude, ā€œBlessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earthā€ (Matthew 5:5). While ā€œmeeknessā€ has been caricatured as passive incompetenceĀ Ā and laughable mildness, it actually suggests a combination of courage and patient hope that trumps all the attention-getting antics of the power elite. Perhaps more appropriate translations would be ā€œhumble,ā€ with its connection toĀ humusĀ or ā€œkindā€ with its suggestion of commonality and its relationship toĀ hesed, covenant consideration for all (cf. Micah 6:8, see Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7, Minneapolis: Augsburg: 1989, p. 236). ā€œTo be meek is to renounce retribution and to live faithfully and expectantlyā€ (Carter, p. 133). Perhaps Paul’s ā€œChrist Hymnā€ in Philippians 2:5-11 describes the power of this humble meekness best.

ā€œHumilityā€ fits well because ā€œthe humble meekā€ are promised that ā€œthey will inherit the earth.ā€ (Matthew 5:5)Ā Ā ā€œGod, not the meek, will overthrow the elite so that all may use the earth. The present inequitable access to land, based on exploitative societal relationships, will endā€ (Carter). Why? The earth and all its creatures belong to God.Ā Ā With this new ā€œhumble empireā€ it will be nurtured and cared for. Certainly the sabbatical and jubilee traditions suggest ways forward.

But even though the promise is sure, this is not the end of struggle. The final beatitude, ā€œBlessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account,ā€ makes that clear (Matthew 5:11). That has always been the fate of the prophets (Matthew 5:12). But as disciples called to be ā€œfishers for peopleā€ (Matthew 4:19), that is, those who follow in the tradition of the prophets shining a light on injustice and corruption that the powerful want concealed, they can this expect in this ā€œnot yetā€ time no less.

Recently, the President of the United States spoke to the concern of NSA surveillance, an issue that would surely not have been addressed had not Edward Snowden focused a huge beam of light on the scope of U.S. information gathering and its implications. During this Epiphany season, all those who live in the concrete hope of the Beatitudes are called to ā€œlet their lights shineā€ so that the creation damage that we do, and often are complicit in, is uncovered. We do this in confidence that the ā€œcriteria and standardsā€ that have allowed Freedom Industries in Charleston, West Virginia, to avoid responsible care of toxic materials will disappear, and that a new and humble world, community, and neighborhood will emerge spearheaded by God’s people.

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

Third Sunday after Epiphany (January 21-27) in Year A (Schade)

ā€œNeeding New Nets: Fishing for People in a Creation-Crisis Ageā€Leah Schade reflects on Matthew 4:12-23.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary
(originally written by Leah Schade in 2017)

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

Isaiah 9:1-4
Psalm 27:1, 4-9
1 Corinthians 1:10-18
Matthew 4:12-23

Sardines! Carp!Ā Ā Comb-fish!Ā Ā Biny-fish!Ā Ā Every kind of fish!Ā Ā This is what James and John should have been hauling in from the Sea of Galilee.Ā Ā Their boat should have been full of fish, wriggling and slapping their tails, flipping and flopping, a mass of glassy eyes and shiny scales.Ā Ā But what Jesus found was an empty boat and two men trying to mend their torn nets.

Let me give you a little background on what it was like to fish with these nets.Ā Ā The fishermen most likely worked at night, which means they used something called a trammel net, which was actually composed of three nets.Ā Ā A trammel net had two large mesh walls about five feet high with a finer net in between. The boat went out at night into deep waters where there are no rocks so that the nets would not be torn. One end of the net was let down into the sea, then the boat made a circle creating a sort of tub in the water. The net gathered in every kind of fish, as they were unable to escape through the three layers of netting.

Sometimes the boats worked in pairs so that the teams could drag in the net and its contents (hopefully a large number of fish), back to the shore. This would go on several times during the night until exhaustion set in or the sun came up, whichever came first.Ā Ā But when Jesus came to this spot along the shore on this particular morning, he found James and John not out at sea, but sitting there empty of fish.

Why is the boat grounded on the shore?Ā Ā Because, the text tells us, the fishermen were mending their nets.Ā Ā They should have been out hauling in their fifth or sixth catch of fish, or at least settling down to extricate the sale-able fish from the throw-aways.Ā Ā But no.Ā Ā The fishermen in this boat obviously have caught nothing but nothing.Ā Ā They’d given up.Ā Ā Nothing left to do but wash and repair the nets and let them out to dry in the sun.

The invitation from Jesus appears to come at just the right time for them.Ā Ā Certainly they puzzled as much as we do at his cryptic words about ā€œfishing for people.ā€ But he obviously got their attention, because they followed him.Ā Ā And in their ministry with him they came to learn what it means to reach out for people who are hurting, to heal children, women and men who were ill or dying, and to transform entire communities with God’s radical love of reconciliation.

Read in the age of the Anthropocene, this text takes on a different and more ominous tone.Ā Ā If Jesus were to come upon fishermen with empty nets today, the reasons for their lack of fish would be cause for great alarm.Ā Ā Overfishing, climate change causing ocean acidification, and pollution are threatening all life in the ocean.Ā Ā And the kind of ā€œfishing for peopleā€ needed today takes on a different kind of urgency.

According to the World Wildlife Federation, ā€œFishing efforts over the last 50 years as well as unsustainable fishing practices are pushing many fish stocks to the point of collapse.Ā Ā More than 85 percent of the world’s fisheries have been pushed to or beyond their biological limits and are in need of strict management plans to restore them. Several important commercial fish populations (such as Atlantic bluefin tuna) have declined to the point where their survival as a species is threatened. Target fishing of top predators, such as tuna and groupers, is changing marine communities, which lead to an abundance of smaller marine species, such as sardines and anchoviesā€ (http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing).

As for ocean acidification due to climate change, fish populations have suffered as coral reefs are destroyed.Ā Ā ā€œBleaching,ā€ coastal over-pollution and development, global warming and ocean acidification as all having detrimental effects on our oceans’ coral reefs.Ā Ā Seventy-five percent of the world’s reefs are threatened.Ā Ā In some locations coral cover has dropped from 80% to 13% over the course of the last twenty-five years, (Bryan Walsh, “Ocean View,” Time, April 14, 2014).

Pollution is another strain on fish populations.Ā Ā Did you know that approximately 1.4 billion pounds of trash per year enters the ocean?Ā Ā From plastics to oil spills; from leaking pipes to deliberate discharge of industrial waste; from agricultural run-off to fertilizer from our yards – all these and more are causing incredible stress to our oceans and our food supply from these waters.Ā Ā What they eat – we eat, with the toxins increasing exponentially up the food chain to humans.Ā Ā (SeeĀ http://www.noaa.gov/resource-collections/ocean-pollutionĀ for more information as well as lesson plans for solutions.)

Given this reality about empty nets, the kind of ā€œfishing for peopleā€ we need now is engaging people in the work of caring for God’s Creation.Ā Ā And for this, we’re going to need a trammel net, understand.Ā Ā It’s going to have to be wide, and we’re going to have to cast it all around in a great big circle and let it sink deep.Ā Ā And we’re going to need three layers of net so that we can catch people effectively.

One layer of our net is service to our communities.Ā Ā Our churches need to understand what environmental issues are happening in our communities and offer to help.Ā Ā Perhaps there is a local waterway that needs cleaned of trash.Ā Ā Perhaps there is an abandoned lot that could be transformed into a community garden.Ā Ā Maybe a dangerous incinerator is being proposed for your neighborhood and the group fighting against it needs a place to meet.Ā Ā Whatever the need is, work with the people of your local community.Ā Ā Listen to them, get to know who they are, invite local environmental groups to talk about their work. Go deep with them so that they will see the church as an ally in their work and a valuable member of the local community.Ā Ā Any effort we make upstream will have tremendous impact downstream and in our oceans.

Another layer is sound biblical teaching.Ā Ā This is the fine mesh in between.Ā Ā Help people learn about the ways in which the Bible speaks about caring for Creation. DonateĀ The Green BibleĀ for the church library.Ā Ā Offer a Bible study on care-of-Creation issues (see ā€œAdult Forum and Bible Studyā€ under the Education tab at the Lutherans Restoring Creation website for ideas).Ā Ā If you are a pastor, commit to preaching about care-of-Creation issues (for ideas, visit www.creationcrisispreaching.com), including ecojustice concerns in the churches prayers, and designing worship services that help people make the connection between the sacraments of baptism and communion and the necessity for clean land, air and water.Ā Ā Consider a book study of Ben Stewart’sĀ A Watered Garden: Christian Worship and Earth’s EcologyĀ for ways to help people connect liturgy, Creation, and the Christian life (https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/productgroup/674/A-Watered-Garden-Christian-Worship-and-Earth-Ecology).Ā Ā Or Mark Wallace’sĀ Green Christianity: Five Ways to a Sustainable FutureĀ for examples of faith communities that are doing the theological and scriptural work that leads to advocacy and action on behalf of God’s Creation (http://fortresspress.com/product/green-christianity-five-ways-sustainable-future).

The third layer of our trammel net is love – love for God’s Creation.Ā Ā Help people fall in love with the world God has created.Ā Ā Take the children outside and help them learn the names of the plants growing on the church grounds.Ā Ā Lead a field trip to a local nature area guided by a trained naturalist.Ā Ā Plan a camping retreat for families.Ā Ā Worship outside, and even on the shore of an ocean if possible, to help this biblical text and others come alive for people.Ā Ā God’s Creation has incredible power to minister to people and heal them in mind, body and soul.Ā Ā Give people opportunities to connect with the natural world and let God take it from there.

The Rev. Dr. Leah D. Schade
Assistant Professor of Preaching and Worship
Lexington Theological Seminary, Lexington, KY
Author,Ā Creation-Crisis Preaching: Ecology, Theology and the PulpitĀ (Chalice Press, 2016)

Third Sunday after Epiphany (January 21-27) in Year A (Mundahl)

Christian care for creation will address chemical spills. – Tom Mundahl reflects on mending torn nets, community, and creation.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary
(originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2014)

Readings for the Third Sunday after Epiphany, Year A (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)

Isaiah 9:1-4
Psalm 27:1, 4-9
1 Corinthians 1:10-18
Matthew 4:12-23

It was not long ago that we heard the more extended Christmas version of Isaiah’s words, ā€œThe people who walked in darkness have seen a great light . . . .ā€ (Isaiah 9:2a). As we have moved through the season of Christmas and entered Epiphany, we have followed the journey of the one named Emmanuel back to Egypt, where, like Moses, he escapes the slaughter of innocent children. After his ā€œexodusā€ from Egypt and return to Palestine, we have marveled at his obedience in ā€œgoing through the watersā€ of baptism by John, a baptism which led him to forty days in the wilderness (reminding us of Moses’ 40 years of exile in Midian), where Jesus demonstrates the power of this obedience. Now, as he relocates in Capernaum, he prepares to unleash this light in teaching, proclamation, and healing. (Matthew 4:23)

The startling power of this eruption of light is best described in Jesus’ words, ā€œRepent—get a new mindset, change your ways—for the Empire of God is drawing nearā€ (Matthew 4:17, Warren Carter,Ā Matthew and the Margins, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000, p. 119). This new order begins to be actualized in the calling of the first group of disciples, recruits chosen not from among a privileged elite trained for leadership, but from the fishing trade. News of a new ā€˜order of things’ must have been welcome to these fishermen, who had struggled for years to pay heavy license fees to Roman minions simply to retain the privilege of putting themselves at the mercy of the elements as they sought to provide food for their neighbors (Carter, p. 121). Even though fisherman were accounted the very lowest status among free workers, they become the core of the community that will serve as an alternative to theĀ Pax Romana.

They are now called with the familiar words, ā€œFollow me, and I will make you fish for peopleā€ (Matthew 4:19). Likely, there are few phrases more misunderstood than ā€œfishing for people.ā€ While we automatically assume that the reference is to traditional evangelism, ā€œfishing for peopleā€ has a quite different biblical history, especially in prophetic literature.

Eighth century prophet, Amos, delivers words of warning to God’s people in Samaria because of their neglect of the poor and needy. ā€œThe time is surely coming upon you, when they shall take you away with hooks, even the last of you with fishhooksā€ (Amos 4:2). Jeremiah writes to warn the people of Judah not to imagine that they will escape Babylon. ā€œI am now sending for many fishermen, says the LORD, and they shall catch them . . .ā€ (Jeremiah 16:16). Far from the ā€œsaving of souls,ā€ ā€œfishing for peopleā€ seems to carry the meaning of uncovering that which is concealed, just as fish seem to be concealed in the water until they are netted or hooked. This is surely one result of ā€œgreat light.ā€

All that has served to ā€˜cover up’ massive injustice in this Roman-Judean politico-economic system will be stripped bare. The corruption of the temple-based religious system will not be spared. As Ched Myers suggests: ā€œThe point here is that following Jesus requires not just the assent of the heart, but a fundamental re-ordering of socio-economic relationships. The first step in dismantling the dominant social order is to overturn the ā€œworldā€ of the disciple: in the kingdom the personal and the political are oneā€ (Mark, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis: 1988, p. 132). ā€œFishing for people,ā€ then, is using the light to uncover that which oppresses and to illuminate the possibilities from this new community for ā€œmendingā€ and ā€œhealingā€ (Matthew 4:21, 23).

It is as James and John are ā€œmendingā€ the fishing nets with their father that Jesus calls them. Not only was mending the nets a constant necessity for fisher folk; it is a powerful image for care of creation. Feminist theologian Letty M. Russell has consistently spoken of the need to uphold this biblical critical principle of the mending of ā€œGod’s world house.ā€ She relates: ā€œI first heard this simple expression of eschatological hope from Krister Stendahl, who said that theology is worrying about what God is worrying about when God gets up in the morning: the mending of creationā€ (Letty M. Russell,Ā Household of Freedom: Authority in Feminist Theology, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1987, p. 71).

Recently, people in nine West Virginia counties, located on the banks of the Elk River, have been threatened by a highly-toxic chemical spill which has temporarily poisoned the local water supply. People of faith, called to be ā€œfishers,ā€ certainly have the responsibility to provide emergency help and temporary assistance to those affected.Ā Ā But, as the ā€œcrisisā€ and journalistic attention recedes, there is an even more important responsibility to shine the light of attention on the long-term impact of this situation. Why were there no inspections of the massive Freedom Industries facility from 1991 until 2010, when nearby residents complained about foul odors, which called attention to the plant? What are the long-term consequences of exposure to 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM) to humans andĀ all of God’s creatures?Ā That is, can ā€œfishā€ even live in this river? And why do we not use the ā€œprecautionary principleā€ which holds that a chemical must be proven safeĀ beforeĀ use, instead of relying on vague ā€œrisk assessmentā€ criteria? Finally, what other chemicals are stored by Freedom at that site? And what is the condition of storage tanks and the risks of spills?

It is only after the ā€œtearsā€ in the net of ā€œGod’s world houseā€ (Russell) are examined that they can be effectively mended. But when they are mended—and through the very process—the light of hope will shine to provide the vision to imagine new options in ā€œmaking a livingā€ in a way that mends and honors creation. Then the healing that is part of this new ā€œempire of peaceā€will be experienced.

But this process is not easy for any community. As we wrestle with Paul’s first letter to the new community in Corinth, we see how easily unity can be dissolved. Paul apparently writes before it is too late. As Conzelman suggests: ā€œThe split into groups has not yet led to the dissolution of the community; they still celebrate the Lord’s Supper together, and Paul can address the letter to the whole communityā€ ( Conzelman,Ā First Corinthians, Philadelphia: Fortress Hermeneia, 1975, p. 32).

That address follows the salutation (vv. 1-3) and the thanksgiving (vv. 4-9) with an appeal ā€œthat you be united in the same mind and the same purposeā€ (1 Corinthians 1:10 b). It may be surprising that the Greek verb ā€œbe unitedā€ is the very same word Matthew employed for ā€œmendingā€ nets, namely, katartizo. Clearly, there is mending needed in this community. Factions have developed around important leaders. Members look to those who have baptized them as special benefactors, a result that moves down the path toward schism. Even those who claim ā€œI belong to Christā€ (1 Corinthians 1:12) ā€œmust have been claiming Christ in an exclusivistic wayā€ (Richard B. Hays,Ā First Corinthians, Louisville: John Knox, 1997, p. 23).

Paul does not counsel faction members to stop bickering because it is inexpedient or looks bad; he points to the center of their faith, Jesus Christ, the bringer of new creation, as the common ground of unity. This source of unity will be tested further, because it is clear that Paul earlier failed to deal with problematic status distinctions and economic inequality, issues that reared their ugly head around the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; Hays, p. 24).

One can imagine similar congregational conflict emerging over responses to the chemical spill in the Charleston, W. Va. area. Some may call for serious investigation of Freedom Industries and suggest a new economic basis for the area. Others in the congregation, fearful of losing jobs during a weak economic recovery, may insist that the church ā€œstick to religionā€ and not be involved in matters involving ā€œmending creation.ā€ Following Paul’s template is the only way to a unity that still may be difficult to achieve. But if church leaders have planned worship that encourages creation care and have modeled environmental stewardship in action, there may be the beginning of a consensus. But that consensus still must be based on what unites us at the deepest level. As the ā€œprologueā€ to the ELCA Social Statement, ā€œCaring for Creation: Vision, Hope, and Justiceā€ (1993), states it:

Christian concern for the environment is shaped by the Word of God spoken in creation, the Love of God hanging on a cross, the Breath of God daily renewing the face of the earth.

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

Second Sunday after Epiphany (January 14-20) in Year A (Mundahl)

We Are Home.Tom Mundahl reflects on the community of creation.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary
(originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2014)

Ā Readings for the Second Sunday in Epiphany, Year A (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)

Isaiah 49:1-7
Psalm 40:1-11
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
John 1:29-42

As we considered the prologue to John’s Gospel in our comments for Christmas 2, it was suggested that its communal nature not be forgotten. The evangelist makes it clear that this new divine venture is profoundly social: ā€œthe Word became flesh andĀ lived among us;ā€ ā€œweĀ have seen his gloryā€ (John 1:14). We claimed that because the Word became flesh, that Word is capable of continuing the process of creation, in part, by forming a new community of faith.

The assigned reading from John not only continues the baptismal theme, it describes the beginnings of this new community. The very newness of this movement is made embarrassingly clear by the response of two of John the Baptist’s disciples. After hearing John testify to the significance of Jesus for the second time in as many days, these disciples take their teacher at his word ā€œand followed Jesusā€ (John 1:37). When Jesus saw them following, he uttered his first direct speech in this Gospel: ā€œWhat are you looking for?ā€ (John 1:38).

Just as Jesus’ first words in Matthew revealed the obedience which shapes that evangelist’s understanding of new community, so this short phrase uncovers an important theme in John’s Gospel. The simple question, ā€œWhat are you seeking?ā€ underlines the basic need of humankind to turn to God. That is, human beings need to ā€œdwellā€ or ā€œabideā€ with God in order to escape the terrors of insecurity, always looking for something or someone that is trustworthy (Raymond Brown,Ā John, I-XII, New York: Doubleday, 1966, p. 78). If humans constantly seek a community to belong to, a secure home, a ā€œnest,ā€ we may reflect ā€œotherkindā€ more than we would admit.

And in this reflection, we may conclude one of the most important outcomes of faith is to learn to be at home. This should not surprise us. The author of Colossians describes Jesus this way:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, visible and invisible . . . ” (Colossians 1:15 -16a).

Perhaps, then, to answer the question ā€œWhat are you seeking, or looking for?ā€ we need to be disarmingly honest and respond: ā€œWe are looking for a community to identify with, a community that can be part of making it possible for ā€œall things in heaven and on earthā€ to be ā€œat homeā€ (see Shannon Jung,Ā We Are Home: A Spirituality of the Environment, New York: Paulist, 1993, pp. 54-69)

But it is only when we are ā€œat homeā€ in God’s creation that we are free and secure enough to open our doors and make our ā€˜walls’ into windows. This is certainly the strategy of the community described in our reading from Second Isaiah. Even if many of its most important leaders remain in exile, the prophet delivers a startling message. Going home is not enough. The impact of this new word extends beyond traditional borders, from ā€œcoastlandsā€ to ā€œpeoples far awayā€ (Isaiah 49:1).

This places the prophet squarely in the center of the post-exilic debate between those who would build the walls high to prevent outside cultural influence (Ezra and Nehemiah) and those whose notion of God could not be so limited (Jonah and Ruth). This text makes it clear that Second Isaiah stands with those who would not limit the aspiration of this people only to becoming a ā€œsafeā€ and ā€œpureā€ religious enclave.

But this is not only the prophet’s view; it is the word of the LORD, a word that ā€œcalledā€ this people to servanthood before birth (Isaiah 49:1b). This is no half-cocked, vague internationalism, but divine purpose that has been determined beforehand (that is, before the foundation of Israel and/or the birth of the prophet). Since a sharp distinction between individual and community is alien to Second Isaiah’s thought, we can only conclude that the servant Israel (49:3), or the prophetic word bearer who becomes the ā€œheart of Israel,ā€ bears this task given in much the same language as the prophetic call of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5).

Despite the language of lament with which people-prophet respond to this extraordinary universal charge (49:4), the call stands. Once more we have what amounts to a ā€œmessenger formulaā€ directed to the whole people: ā€œAnd now the LORD says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant . . . . ā€It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of the Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach the end of the earthā€ (Isaiah 49:5-6).

This task of being a ā€œlight to the nationsā€ is invested in a complaining, rather unreliable people. By going beyond parochial limitations, however, even this bunch ā€œglorifies Godā€ (49:3). And this seems to be, according to Isaiah, the way to build a strong community, by sharing the LORD’s ā€œcauseā€ (mispat) with the nations of the world. (Paul D. Hanson,Ā Isaiah 40-66Ā (Louisville: John Knox, 1995, p. 129).

This ā€œscandal of universalityā€ is completely understandable, however, when we recall that it ā€œstems from the inseparability of creation and redemption in the thought world of Second Isaiah.Ā Ā Since the compass of God’s redemptive activity is the entire created world and its scope is the restoration of all that exists to wholeness, the nations are included in God’s planā€ (Hanson, p. 130). And, of course, so is the whole of creation!

What makes a strong community of faith today? How are God’s people to be ā€œat homeā€ in creation? There are certainly those who would argue that getting ā€˜dirty hands’ from anything other than what we narrowly construe as ā€œreligious activityā€ is the only safe path. But that certainly is not the direction these Epiphany texts send us.Ā Ā This is not the way to reflect light for the world.

A local congregation I know well works very hard on caring for one another within the context of responsible worship and fine music. But hearing God’s word and sharing the meal in weekly assembly has strengthened this community to open its doors. Not only has it welcomed everyone regardless of background, race, or sexual orientation, it has given its land over to 24 community gardens, a restored prairie, and maintaining an urban micro-forest. This has created new friends in the neighborhood and helped to restore creation.

But the gifts of this community have not stopped there. Surprising connections have been made with Circle of Empowerment in southwestern Nicaragua, a health and education ā€œministryā€ that promotes bottom-up development. Whether it is financial sponsorship of students in the seven-village school, purchasing a new ā€œusedā€ bus to transport these students to school, or building a medical clinic, this has been a crucial part of ā€œbuilding communityā€ in this small congregation. The more that has been given away, the stronger this congregation has become!

Or, the more ā€œat homeā€ with itself a community can be, the freer it is to share. And the freer it is to share, the more ā€œat-homenessā€ it will experience. Wendell Berry calls this ā€œthe cultivation of a sympathetic or affectionate mindā€ (ā€œTwo Minds,ā€Ā Citizenship Papers, Washington, D.C.: Shoemaker and Hoard, 2003, pp. 90-91). This ā€œmindā€ differs from the ā€œeconomic mindā€ in that ā€œit refuses to reduce reality to the scope of what we think we know; it fears the mistake of carelessness more than it fears error; it seeks to understand things in terms of interdependent wholeness rather than isolated parts; it appreciates that a cultural landscape must grow up in faithful alignment with the natural landscape that sustains and inspires it . . . .ā€(Berry)

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

Baptism of Our Lord (January 7-13) in Year A (Mundahl)

Gentle justice for people and creation:Ā  Tom Mundahl reflects on Jesus’ baptism and the first Servant Song of Isaiah.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary
(originally written by Tom Mundahl in 2014)

Readings for the Baptism of Our Lord (January 7-13), First Sunday after Epiphany in Year A (2014, 2017, 2020, 2023)

Isaiah 42:1-9
Psalm 29
Acts 10:34 -43
Matthew 3:13-17

As we celebrate the Baptism of Our Lord, we are reminded of the power of baptismal liturgy. As those called by the Spirit and trusting the grace of God gather around the font, the presiding minister invites the candidates and sponsors to affirm the responsibilities they are entrusted with. Among these gifts of responsibility is the charge ā€œto care for others and the world God made, and work for justice and peaceā€ (Evangelical Lutheran Worship, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2006, p. 228). These words help us to understand that the gift of baptism is also a task, that ā€œonly those who obey believeā€ (Dietrich Bonhoeffer,Ā The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Macmillan, 1963, p. 76).

Perhaps it is confusing as to why ā€œthe more powerful oneā€ (Matthew 2:11) needs to be baptized by John the Baptist, who has freely admitted his inferiority. It certainly seemed to be incomprehensible to John, who ā€œwould have prevented him, saying, ā€œI need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?ā€ (Matthew 3:14). In response, we hear Jesus’ first words in Matthew’s Gospel: ā€œLet it be so now; for it is proper for us to fulfill all righteousnessā€ (Matthew 3:15).

Because this is the first direct speech in this Gospel from the one called Emmanuel, the words must have jumped out at readers and hearers. From the beginning, Matthew’s Jesus defines himself as the obedient one. He does this to ā€œfulfillā€ all righteousness or justice. And what does this ā€œfulfillmentā€ mean but to ā€œactualizeā€ that justice through obedience in the midst of the community (Ulrich Luz,Ā Matthew 1-7, Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989, pp. 178-179).

Far from isolating Jesus from the discipleship community, his baptism unites them in the service of a ā€œmeta-legalā€ righteousness that is integral to the call to make disciples of all nations, ā€œbaptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching themĀ to obeyĀ everything that I have commanded youā€ (Matthew 28:19-20). Next to the title Emmanuel, which serves as an inclusion for Christological identity (1:23 and 28:20), it is the obedient ā€œSon, the Belovedā€ who gives shape to Matthew’s story. Jesus’ identity consists not so much in pre-existence or in miraculous conception; rather, in Matthew, that identity is found in unique obedience (Luz, p. 180).

This obedience, then, colors the shape of the community. Members will share in this new life (ā€œbe called children of Godā€ā€”Matthew 5:9) when they ā€œactualizeā€ justice through peacemaking or, even care for God’s creation.Ā Ā The opening of the heavens not only responded to the cry of Isaiah, ā€œO, that you would tear open the heavens and come down . . . ā€ (63:15), but demonstrated that here is a greater prophet (ā€œa more powerful oneā€) than Moses or John, one whose New Exodus moves far beyond a mere parting of the seas. Now all that separates humankind from Creator andĀ creation is torn away. This freedom is now to be lived in the ā€œsimpleā€ obedience of everyday life.

How this freedom is lived is also suggested by the unfolding of Matthew’s baptismal narrative. As Jesus comes through the waters, the heavens opened, and the Spirit descends, a voice from heaven said, ā€œThisĀ is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleasedā€ (Matthew 3:17). While Mark (with Luke following) reports the voice as saying, ā€œYouĀ are my Beloved Son . . . ,ā€ Matthew uses the third person. Clearly, the voice does not speak for the benefit of the Son, but to John the Baptist (and all who might follow him), as well as to the crowds (which surely include the Christian community).

However, the meaning remains the same: here is one who is both royal figure (Psalm 2:7) and servant (Isaiah 42:1). For the community, this implies that living in free obedience is both a royal privilege and test of servanthood. It reminds us also of the richness of our first reading, the text that introduces this notion of servanthood.

It may be wise at the outset to assume that many layers of meaning are unleashed by this ā€œServant Song.ā€Ā Ā Westermann suggests that our understanding is impeded by the question, ā€œWho is this servant of God?ā€ Instead, more helpful is retaining a sense of mystery by focusing on how the identity of the servant is formed and what the servant is called to do (Claus Westermann,Ā Isaiah 40-66, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969, p. 93). In much the same way, Hanson suggests that these servant passages fire the imagination of the community in exile so that a new self-understanding and life response is called forth (Paul D. Hanson,Ā Isaiah 40-66, Louisville: John Knox, 1995, p.41)

If the identity of the servant cannot be pinned down, the servant’s task is clearer. This one is called ā€œto bring forth justice to the nationsā€ (Isaiah 42:1b). This very task has become ā€œan invitation to reflect on the responsibility of all those who acknowledge God’s sovereignty and recognize the dependence of all creation on God’s order of justiceā€ (Hanson). When this ā€œorder of justiceā€ is ignored, the result is chaos and oppression affecting both human history and the natural world. When Indonesian agricultural land traditionally farmed by small holders is expropriated in favor of large corporate plantations for the production of palm oil, not only are farm families displaced, but massive tree cutting causes soil erosion and removes vegetation capable of absorbing carbon.

But the servant brings forth this justice in a gentle, careful way.ā€œHe will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quenchā€ (Isaiah 42:2-3). This non-violent approach is the path to ā€œfaithfully bring forth justiceā€ (Isaiah 42:3b). With this approach, the ā€œendā€ does not justify the ā€œmeans.ā€ Instead, justice and peace are not only the goal; justice and peace are also the way. As Hanson suggests, ā€œTo live consistently in the service of the justice of God is to pattern one’s life on the nature of God. Only in this way is a mortal empowered faithfully to bring forth justiceā€ (Hanson, p. 46).

This is the way to bring ā€œlight to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darknessā€ (Isaiah 42:6b-7). Perhaps it is the deep connection with creation (Isaiah 42:5) that gives Second Isaiah a view of justice as light, light which cannot be contained by political or parochial religious boundaries. This Servant Song, then, is a description of the kind of ā€œservantā€ that all who are chosen and obedient to God are challenged to become. It is a helpful template for living our baptismal life.

Fred Kirschenmann has lived baptismal obedience through connecting farming and faith. As Director of the Aldo Leopold Center for Sustainable Farming at Iowa State University, he also took over management of his North Dakota family farm of more than a thousand acres. While neighbors warned him that moving to organic agriculture would result in lower yields, Kirschenmann persisted, knowing that in the long run it was the right thing. Imagine his surprise when, after five years, crop yields began to increase as the naturally enriched soil became more fertile (Interview with Peter Pearsall,Ā www.yesmagazine.orgĀ Ā February 22, 2013).

Kirschenmann acknowledges the pressure to become more ā€œefficientā€ through the use of herbicides, pesticides, and genetically-modified seeds. Yet, he also knows that the best chance for people throughout the Earth to achieve food justice is with a decentralized farming culture that invites people to stay on the land and learn ā€œlocal waysā€ of regenerative agriculture. And, there are surprising benefits of more traditional farming. At first, typical, relatively compacted farm soil will absorb a half-inch of rainfall per hour. But after five years of organic care, that same soil may absorb up to eight inches of rainfall per hour. That soil not only can handle drought better, but sends less runoff, including toxic chemicals, through the Mississippi watershed to the Gulf of Mexico (Pearsall interview). That is obedient gentle justice for the nations.

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

Baptism of Our Lord (January 7-13) in Year A (Schade)

Inauguration by Water – The Baptism of Jesus:Ā  Leah Schade reflects on Matthew 3:13-17 and Isaiah 42:1-9.

Care for Creation Commentary on the Common Lectionary
(originally written by Leah Schade in 2017)

Readings for the Baptism of Our Lord (January 7-13), First Sunday after Epiphany in Year A (2017, 2020, 2023)

Isaiah 42:1-9
Psalm 29
Acts 10:34-43
Matthew 3:13-17

On this Sunday we celebrate the Baptism of Jesus and the gift of baptism itself. As Jesus emerges from the Jordan River after being immersed by the prophet John, a voice from heaven declares, ā€œThis is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleasedā€ (Matthew 3:17, NRSV). The words echo those heard in Isaiah, who foretold a divinely-appointed servant: ā€œHere is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations,ā€ (Isaiah 42:1).

Jesus chooses to begin his ministry on the banks of the Jordan River seeking baptism from John. Water is central to Jesus’ ministry. He is, in a sense, inauguratedĀ inĀ the water andĀ byĀ the water. As our country prepares for a different kind of inauguration in the coming weeks—one that is marked with ascension to the highest political office in the United States, and, perhaps, the world—it’s worth noting the stark contrast between these two different scenes.

The presidential inauguration is the epitome of worldly power, with the one assuming the office standing high on a platform on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol Building. Thousands of people will flock to Washington D.C. while the event is televised to millions around the world. The ceremony bestows the authority of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government on this one individual. Military, judicial, economic and culturalĀ dominanceĀ are just some of the aspects of power enjoyed by the one sworn in at this inauguration.

In contrast, Jesus’ inauguration to his earthly ministry took place in an out-of-the-way place, a wilderness.Ā Ā Jesus was not on a high platform, but went down into the water, letting himself be washed by the river. People were gathered at that place as well, though the numbers were certainly less than a hundred.Ā Ā John’s message of baptism was about repentance and aligning with God’s purposes of justice, righteousness, ethical integrity, and courage in the face of evil. For Jesus to submit to this baptism meant that he was eschewing the worldly trappings of power and dominance. The test of this decision to follow God’s way will immediately follow when Jesus faces temptations in the place of wildness and danger.Ā Ā Such tests require introspection, self-reflection, and a willingness to face down the demons.Ā Ā One hopes and prays for the incoming president and the nation as he approaches his own tests of character.

For Christians, the tests of character that come with being baptized have important ramifications because they are linked to both the Matthew and Isaiah passages. It’s worth noting that for the Israelite people, the call to be God’s servant wasn’t necessarily for one person—it was for their whole nation. God empowers people to do the work of building the peaceable kingdom; it’s a divine transference of power. This is a commissioning.Ā Ā God is telling the people: I have given you as a covenant—you are a sign of the covenant. You are blessed in order to be a blessing.

As Christians, can we as a baptized community of faith be a people who do this? Can we be blessed by our baptism to be a blessing to others? And can we be a blessing for the very water with which we were baptized?

Just consider the gift of water itself for a minute. Water covers about 70% of the earth’s surface. But of all the water on the earth, potable water for human use is only about .3% of the world’s water and is found in groundwater aquifers, rivers, and freshwater lakes.

In North America we take this gift of water for granted. We can enter any house, virtually any building, turn on a faucet, and clean water comes pouring out for us. In countries without access to clean water, people (usually women and girls) walk for hours a day back and forth from a water source, carrying heavy jugs, being careful not to spill a single precious drop. At the same time, industries, fossil fuel extraction and human pollution endanger the very waters that give us life. Chemical run-off, discarded pharmaceuticals, fracking, and fertilizers are just a few of the issues that threaten the health and safety of our streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and oceans.

One of the most ubiquitous symbols of our disrespect for water is, ironically, bottled water. We spend millions of dollars for water bottled in places where the natives don’t have access to the water we’re taking from them. We shell out a dollar for a bottle of water when we could simply put it in a reusable cup or bottle. According to the ā€œBan the Bottleā€ website, about 38 billion plastic bottles end up in landfills and incinerators each year. ā€œMaking bottles to meet America’s demand for bottled water uses more than 17 million barrels of oil annually, enough to fuel 1.3 million cars for a year. And that’s not even including the oil used for transportation. The energy we waste using bottled water would be enough to power 190,000 homes. Last year, the average American used 167 disposable water bottles, but only recycled 38.3,ā€ (https://www.banthebottle.net/bottled-water-facts/).

Perhaps what is most frightening is the potential of future wars over water. With populations exploding and water scarcity increasing, there have already been conflicts over water resources in Bolivia, California, Mozambique, and yes, even over the Jordan River. Between climate disruption leading to drought and decades of gross mismanagement of water resources, a regional crises over water resources will become more frequent and potentially violent. And it’s the poorest and most vulnerable people who will suffer the most.

In the midst of this suffering, Psalm 29 declares: ā€œThe voice of the Lord is upon the waters; the God of glory thunders; the Lord is upon the mighty waters.ā€ This voice of God is the same one that called upon the people of Israel to do justice,Ā righteousness,Ā in the Isaiah text. It’s the same voice that commissioned Jesus toĀ hisĀ ministry of righteousness. And each of us in our baptisms is called by God’s voice to establish justice and righteousness in the earth. We have important work to do on behalf of the water.

Our baptisms conferred on us the duties and responsibilities that being a servant of God entails. We are to protect those who are vulnerable – like the fragile ecosystems—a ā€œbruised reeds,ā€ if you will (Isaiah 42:3). We are to open the eyes of the blind, share the truth about environmental degradation with those ignorant of the ramifications. We are to confront those in power who wantonly abuse water and speak courageous truth in order to establish ecological justice. The coastlands do indeed wait for God’s teaching—they wait for us to learn how to care for them. And we are to teach—on the coastlands, on boats, on mountains, in houses, and anywhere else people are gathered.

The God who is described in verse 5 of the Isaiah text, the God who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it—this God entrusts it all to us, and we are commissioned to care for it. Isaiah is clear:Ā Ā God will not hurt the weak. If we are servants of God, we will not hurt the weak either. We will bring justice to all the earth—even to Earth itself.

Because when we do justice for Earth, it has a flow-through effect for the entire human community, and particularly for the poor and those living in the most fragile of circumstances. People in rich countries use 10 times more water than those in poor ones. The connection between poverty and poor environmental conditions can be seen throughout the United States and the world. It is those who have no resources who cannot afford to move, much less fight against industrial pollution, landfills, and toxic dumping sites, often right in their neighborhoods. Two-fifths of the world’s people already face serious water shortages, and water-borne diseases fill half its hospital beds.

As one person put it in a BBC online commentary: ā€œIf water is life, we must learn to treat it not as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder or as an entitlement to the privileged, but as an essential component of human existence. We must learn not only the methods and habits of sharing equitably, but also the technologies and values of protecting the environment that makes fresh waterĀ available to us.ā€ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2943946.stm)

I said earlier that John’s baptism was about repentance and being a servant of God. If we’re going to take that seriously, then each of us, and each of our congregations, needs to change our habits in order to do at least some small part in establishing justice for the Earth. Perhaps on Inauguration Day, your congregation can undertake a different ceremony—an Affirmation of Baptism where each person recommits themselves to the prophetic ministry of Jesus Christ.

Maybe your church can look at ways to educate your congregation and community about water conservation and water justice issues. Plan a water clean-up for a local stream, river, or ocean front. Encourage youth to make a donation to the Walk4Water (http://elca.org/walk4water) campaign that was begun at the 2015 ELCA Youth Gathering. To date, over $1 million in gifts haveĀ created healthier families and stronger economies through projects that provide clean drinking water through spring boxes and boreholes, support for irrigation systems, education about sanitation in rural villages.

Or perhaps you can encourage people to ā€œgive up the bottleā€ (water bottle) for Lent and use water pitchers in their homes, and reusable bottles at work, at school, and on the sports field. It won’t change the world overnight. But it will be one small drop freed from the bottle. And it may be part of God’s ripple effect that spreads out over all the Earth.Ā Ā Amen.

Source:

Kirby, Alex, ā€œWhy world’s taps are running dryā€Ā BBC News Online, June 20, 2003; Accessed Dec. 29, 2016.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2943946.stm

Ā