Discerning God's Messages

 

1 Samuel 3:1-21

John 20:21-23

Mark 10:35-45

               We have a hard time understanding the messages we receive from God.  We really do.  We have a hard time understanding scripture, for example.  Here in today’s passages we hear something in each one that is hard to understand.  In the Samuel passage we hear God promising to harm an entire family of people “forever” for something that the sons of Eli said.  In the John passage it sounds like Jesus is saying that if his disciples don’t forgive someone, neither will God forgive them.  And the passage from Mark might be read as saying that God chose from the beginning who would be included or put next to Jesus and that there is no influence from the choices people make in this lifetime: how people act or what they believe or anything that has to do with what a person is or does themself.  These are all hard to understand, at least for me.  And you will get many different responses or understandings when you read about them. 

               Starting with the Samuel passage, some commentators talk about God’s judgment and wrath, seeming to accept this declaration of Eli’s family’s destruction at face value.  Other commentators talk about how easy it is for Samuel to misunderstand God and what God might be trying to communicate here.  And still others say that the point of this story is just that the prophetic torch has passed from Eli to Samuel.  And from this perspective, Eli is amazing in that he doesn’t fight this, doesn’t deny it, but just accepts that this is God’s will and God’s will is what is paramount in every situation.  

               Even the biblical scholars, then, disagree about what is being communicated here.  And the same is true of the other passages.   For example, this passage from John that declares that if a disciple doesn’t forgive someone they won’t be forgiven.  Some say this means that God has given them the ability to decide who is ultimately forgivable.  Some have pointed out that this passage has been abused by pastors and priests to claim that they have the right of absolution from sins (and equally the right of withholding that absolution).  But others say that this was spoken not just to the disciples but to all those following Jesus.  And that John’s understanding of sin was not moral or behavioral transgression but “being blind to the revelation of God in Jesus”.  According to this understanding then, it is the community that has failed if people are still blind to this understanding.  In other words, this story is simply meant to communicate that they still have work to do.

The point here is that even those who study scripture for a living, spend all of their time doing nothing but reading, praying, discerning – they still disagree with one another, which means they are still struggling to really understand the message that God is sending.  Similarly with the disciples to Jesus’ words.  Some want to sit next to him, others think this is an unfair request.  They all misunderstand him by even having this debate.  They also misunderstand him when he talks about his upcoming death: they try to reason him out of that prediction and try to dissuade him from acting.  We know that Judas in particular disagreed with the way Jesus was doing things and what Jesus was saying.  He betrayed Jesus as a way to spur Jesus into action: into rising up against the tyranny of the Roman empire and when Jesus instead was killed, this was so devastating to him that his response was to commit suicide.  They didn’t understand.  Not one of them understood.  This is a consistent theme throughout the gospels: the lack of understanding of those closest to Jesus.  If those closest to Jesus did not understand, how are we supposed to understand?  How are we supposed to read the messages from God with accuracy?  How are we to understand scripture?  But even beyond that, how are we to understand God, human relationships to God, human relationships to each other and even our very selves?

               I think about the story we read about a month ago about Abraham believing he was called by God to sacrifice Isaac.  While God stopped him, there is an Islamic midrash on that story that says that Abraham was just crazy: was hearing voices that he decided were God’s.  According to this midrash Sarah saw what was happening and she is the one who brought the ram out for Abraham to find, saving HER only son from being sacrificed.  According to this midrash then, God was working through Sarah to stop crazy behavior.  We read these stories in different ways.  We understand them in different ways, and as a result we also hear God’s voice in different ways and we interpret what is God’s voice is VERY different ways. 

               I saw something recently that said in effect, “Fundamentalists understand Love through the laws of scripture.  Other Christians understand scripture through the eyes of Love.”  Or, as Arun Gandhi said it, “People of the book risk putting the book above people.”  But this too, mirrors my understanding.  As Jesus said it, “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.”  When we put the law above real people, their needs, their souls, we miss the whole point of all of this.

               For me, in the end, I believe everything must be measured against the great commandments.  The great commandments are two: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind.  And, Love your neighbor as yourself.  Jesus told us that it is on these two laws that all the prophets and all the writings stand.  That this is a summary of all that is in scripture.  So for me, personally, if I don’t understand it, I go back to these two rules.  How, in light of these two laws, does this passage make sense?  What does it mean in light of these two great commandments?  Love.  It is the guidepost by which I weigh and understand everything else. 

               But what about when it comes to understanding God?  Well, if those are the laws of God, they reflect God.  So for me, they, too, describe God: wholeness, fullness, holiness.  Love.  That’s the bottom line of who God is, just as it was the bottom line of what we are called to do and be. 

               But am I right?  All these Christians understanding God differently.  The disciples all understanding Jesus differently.  And none of the disciples had it right.  But they were all on the journey.  They all sought to be with Jesus, they all wanted to be his disciples, they all chose to follow in the way.  And they did this, despite the fact that Jesus kept telling them “you don’t understand!” And kept correcting them and kept challenging them. 

               As I sat with this, I found myself thinking about the Kansas song, song “Carry On My Wayward Son” line: “And if I claim to be a wise man, well it surely means that I don't know.”  In the end, we are called to have humility in our understandings.  Those I fear the most are those who claim with absolute conviction that God told them to do something, or that God put them in charge of something, or that they know without a doubt – anything, really. 

               We are all on this journey.  All of us.  I come here and I tell you what I learned, and what I think and what I believe.  But that is my journey.  And I recognize that yours is different.  Your needs and your experiences, your lessons and your mentors, your relationships: both with others and with God.  They are your own. 

               There is a reason that one of the key phrases for me in the Presbyterian Book of Order is “God alone is Lord of the Conscience.”  We recognize that discernment is a challenge and NOT ONE PERSON in this whole world and in this whole life will always be right about anything, and that includes about faith issues.  Discernment is hard.

               So why is that? Why would God create a world in which discernment is not easy?  Why would God create a world with so many, many different ways of understanding the exact same book, the exact same words, the exact same scenario?  I love what God in Joan of Arcadia said to Joan in one episode when she asks God why there are so many religions, “It's because various people need various ways of relating to the divine.” I think that there are deep reasons why Jesus spoke mostly in parables.  Parables all have multiple interpretations, multiple points, multiple understandings.  And in that, they are gifts to different people in different ways.   No two of us will ever agree on everything.  It isn’t realistic.  It isn’t honest.  And that’s a beautiful part of our world and our life.  That diversity of thought is a gift to us if we can choose to be open to it, listen through our differences, learn from them.

               How, then, do we relate this back to our faith?  A final quote from Joan of Arcadia that I want to share with you: “People manage to believe in me, even though they have no idea what I am; they trust me even in the silence.”

               God’s presence is there as a gift to us.  God’s love is there to hold us, sustain us, carry us through.  We don’t have to understand everything.  We don’t have to agree with one another.  We are invited to learn from one another, but we don’t in the end have to come to the same understanding.  Still, we are invited to trust, to rest in the love of the God who creates us, carries us, holds us, and graces us into being. 

               Some of these biblical passages, such as the one we read today, are hard for us to understand.  And sometimes the world and nature and people’s behaviors are a challenge for us to understand.  But there is more to this world than understanding.  And there is much that is beautiful that goes far beyond our ability to understand.  Resting in God’s presence is more important, more needed, more reviving and restoring that knowing.  So, as Isaiah said it so profoundly, “Be still and know that God is God.”  That is all the knowing, ultimately that we need.  The rest is relationship: the rest is listening, caring, talking, and being with God.  More important than anything else we can do.

               And so, I want to end this shorter sermon with a moment of silence.  But rather than reflection, I invite you to rest in the loving, caring arms of God.  Rest, be, accept the love and grace that is offered you in this moment.  Amen.

Disagreements in Faith Communities

         When the PCUSA made the decision in 2013 to ordain LGBTQ+ people, there was a strong push back from many people in our churches.  Many people who had wanted this inclusion had hung in with the church for a very long time before the decision was made.  They had chosen to stay within a body even when things were different from what they believed to be right, to be moral.  They stayed, and worked for change.  However, when the decision was made to open up our ordination limitations, many people who disagreed with this new decision left their individual congregations and many congregations left the denomination.  Many people grieved that loss of those members, but more, I think they struggled to understand why they were expected to stay despite disagreements when other's had their way, but those same others would not in turn stay if they did not have things going their way.
       Regardless, the choice for those other churches to leave has, in many ways, made other decisions in the national church easier.  As a denomination we are more on the same page now, the great differences in our opinions and beliefs are hugely lessened in the wake of those who have left.  While the decision to leave made a big statement, it was a one-time statement that left no room for any weigh-in on any future decisions.  And that, then, is the cost of leaving.  Once you have left, your voice no longer carries the weight it had when you were willing to still be in conversation with those with whom you disagreed.  You can no longer impact decisions, you no longer have sway or persuasive authority.  Your last vote, your last voice, was cast when you left.  The denomination as a whole has swung, has moved, because the "center" is now in a very different place than it was before congregations and individuals left the church.
         One of the things I find interesting about this, though, is that while we have fewer disagreements within our denomination now, in some ways those disagreements are now more heated.  It seems that when the church mirrors yourself more fully, the disagreements are more painful.  There is more "buy-in" when the body is less diverse in opinion and looks more like you in terms of values.  And so when that body disagrees, that disagreement seems more painful.
         All of this is true on the smaller scale as well.  I remember reading somewhere that by year five of a pastorate, a congregation tends to look like its pastor.  I also remember thinking as I read the article that I didn't think this was actually accurate for most Presbyterian churches.  Certainly it has not been accurate for the churches I have served.  Presbyterian churches, for those who don't know, aren't run by their pastors.  They are run by sessions, or boards, that make the decisions for the congregations.  Pastors are "teaching elders" which means we teach, we preach; our power is persuasion and not ultimate authority.  In contrast, the elders who serve on our sessions are "ruling elders" - they make the decisions for the congregation.  I have yet to be part of a congregation in which every decision made by the session was something I agreed with.  And that remains true no matter how long I've been in a church.  I served one church for 8 1/2 years and at the time of my leaving there were still decisions made with which I disagreed.  That was also the case with the next congregation where I served 6 1/2 years.  And this is true of the church where I have been serving for the last five years as well.
            And what has been interesting to me is that, just as debates in the larger church seem more painful when the body tends to be more homogenous in terms of beliefs, decisions in the more homogenous congregations (theologically) tend to be impacted at a deeper level too.  My last congregation was extremely theologically and politically diverse.  When decisions were made that some people did not agree with, it was easier to shrug them off, to delight in the diversity of opinions and differences.  For myself, besides enjoying the different voices and remembering that the body of Christ contains all different parts, I would remember that as the pastor, I was a servant to the congregation, but that I was not a member of the congregation.  The church was the people who made up the membership of the congregation.  And I was there to pastor them, but it was, ultimately, not my church.  Pastors come and go, but the church remains the people. That distinction may feel strange, but it is and was a necessary distinction.  I was there to guide, to encourage, to give my insight from a theological perspective.  But I was not there to control, to insist or even to "lead" in the sense of taking charge and determining the future of the church.
           But I see that in my current congregation, which in many ways is more theologically homogenous, when disagreements do arise, the pain of difference, the pain of disagreement, seems so very much harder to take for everyone involved.  And again, I think that's a symptom of the homogeny that has been shared.  Is this a good thing?  There are definitely gifts in hearing voices of difference.  There are also definite gifts in being like-minded in terms of being able to make a difference and impact the world around us in a more definite way.
           I think the trick in all of this is to find balance, always.  And to learn some tolerance for different opinions.  We can't grow unless we hear other voices.  And we can't make a difference unless we are saying something in a different way or with a different voice than others have inside their own heads.  So the questions of who we want to be in the world, what kind of difference we choose to make, and how we want to be in relationship to one another are important.  Especially in this time of increased polarization, sitting around the table with different opinions and voices is necessary and invaluable.  When we leave the conversation, we can no longer contribute in that way.  Maybe your reason for staying in a church community should not be because that community serves you, supports your beliefs, and validates your thinking.  Perhaps your reason to stay should instead be because the church needs you, your voice, your opinions, and your vision.   Are we here to give or to receive?  Are we here to serve or to be served?  I understand that this does not always make our communities and conversations comfortable.  But is the goal really our comfort?  Jesus never called us to be comfortable.  Jesus called us to heal, to bring justice, and to be willing to lose our lives in order to gain them.  Therefore, these questions are the questions we must ask as people of faith.