Sunday we will consider the end of Absalom's revolt against his father David. Absalom leads his army against David's army (though David is convinced by his generals to stay far behind the front lines to prevent his being killed. David gives specific instructions to his generals that Absalom is not to be harmed during the battle.
The battle took place in some thick woods. During the fighting, Absalom was riding through the woods when he became stuck in the limbs. (This was implicitly a common problem, given that the Bible says the woods killed more men than the armies did.) When David's army found Absalom, the generals commanded that he be killed.
Upon hearing of Absalom's death, his army fled in terror. Couriers rushed to tell David that the rebels had been defeated. He asked, "How is my son?" When informed that Absalom was dead, David openly wept. The celebration turned somber, when the soldiers saw the king's grief. In fact, David was so overcome by his emotions that the generals explained that he had to make an appearance before his victorious troops, or they would think that the king didn't care for any of his own soldiers who had fought and died.
In many ways, this is a simple story of a father's grief over the untimely death of his son. So deep is his own love for his son that he wishes he could have died in his son's place.
But Absalom and his revolt also represent the evidence that David's kingship will be unsuccessful in uniting all of the Israelites. It is obvious that Absalom's army is filled with those who had been more loyal to Saul's son than to David after Saul's death. In the upcoming years, this group will keep fighting against David and his descendants. After Solomon's death, this group will create the northern kingdom, called Israel. David's heirs will rule the kingdom of Judah only. And the Israelites will never be united again.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Dead Sea Scrolls to Go Online
Breaking news today out of Israel -- the Dead Sea Scrolls will be digitized and available online within the next couple of years. Again, this is another example of how technology is changing how much information we can have access to.
For years, this treasure trove of ancient texts (including several of the earliest copies we now have of parts of the Hebrew scriptures) has been kept behind lock and key. In order to preserve the texts (some of which are still uncatalogued as scholars are still trying to piece them together), very few people had access to these texts.
Soon, anybody who is interested can safely look at any of these ancient fragments and texts from basically anywhere in the world.
I'm excited about this, not just as a pastor or a person who loves history, but as someone who watched overflow lines of people who were excited to see several pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Chicago a few years ago. (If memory serves, attendance was higher to see the Dead Sea Scrolls than for the last Chicago blockbuster museum exhibit -- King Tut.) Through a fluke (the museum decided to start extended summer hours one week early, I happened to see the exhibit when there was no line, so I had a more relaxed opportunity to examine some of these texts. It was fascinating to be so close to these texts and to see them in their present condition.
Here's the New York Times article announcing this decision.
For years, this treasure trove of ancient texts (including several of the earliest copies we now have of parts of the Hebrew scriptures) has been kept behind lock and key. In order to preserve the texts (some of which are still uncatalogued as scholars are still trying to piece them together), very few people had access to these texts.
Soon, anybody who is interested can safely look at any of these ancient fragments and texts from basically anywhere in the world.
I'm excited about this, not just as a pastor or a person who loves history, but as someone who watched overflow lines of people who were excited to see several pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Chicago a few years ago. (If memory serves, attendance was higher to see the Dead Sea Scrolls than for the last Chicago blockbuster museum exhibit -- King Tut.) Through a fluke (the museum decided to start extended summer hours one week early, I happened to see the exhibit when there was no line, so I had a more relaxed opportunity to examine some of these texts. It was fascinating to be so close to these texts and to see them in their present condition.
Here's the New York Times article announcing this decision.
Sunday's Sermon Will Not Be Posted
I'm afraid that I will not be able to post Sunday's sermon on Absalom's Revolt because the entire sermon was not recorded properly. I apologize if any of you were looking forward to listening to it. If its any solace, I was looking forward to listening to it too.
As some of you know, I personally record my sermons with a small digital recorder. Evidently I jostled the recorder during the sermon and stopped the recording after only a few minutes. My apologies for this.
Otherwise, I was pleased with Sunday's sermon. It was a little long, but I was reminded on Sunday evening when talking to one of my colleagues that the story of David and Absalom is unbelievably complex. In fact, these chapters of 2 Samuel are remarkably dense. The narrative is lean and mean. So trying to work through the story (or frankly, parts of the story -- I skipped over several details of the story in the interest of both time and coherence) is a time-consuming endeavor.
As some of you know, I personally record my sermons with a small digital recorder. Evidently I jostled the recorder during the sermon and stopped the recording after only a few minutes. My apologies for this.
Otherwise, I was pleased with Sunday's sermon. It was a little long, but I was reminded on Sunday evening when talking to one of my colleagues that the story of David and Absalom is unbelievably complex. In fact, these chapters of 2 Samuel are remarkably dense. The narrative is lean and mean. So trying to work through the story (or frankly, parts of the story -- I skipped over several details of the story in the interest of both time and coherence) is a time-consuming endeavor.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, August 24
This Sunday we continue the tumultuous story of David's reign, focusing on the uprising led by his son Absalom, which was successful to the extent that David was forced to evacuate the capital, Jerusalem, and flee before the arrival of Absalom's army.
There were many causes for Absalom's revolt. At the very least, it happened after several years of estrangement between David and Absalom. Several years before, Absalom's sister Tamar was raped by their half-brother Amnon, who was David's eldest son and first in line to succeed to the throne. When David learned of this, he refused to take any action against Ammon, which infuriated Absalom. Absalom waited two years and then took matters into his own hands, ordering his servants to kill Amnon. Fearing that his father would be less forgiving of him than of Amnon, Absalom fled into a self-imposed exile.
Three years later, after being told that David's anger had cooled and that he was forgiven, Absalom returned to Jerusalem. However, David refused to see Absalom for two years, which led Absalom to question if this was what forgiveness looked like. Hearing of Absalom's frustration, David invited his son to the palace, and they reconciled.
However, Absalom used this reconciliation to unleash a plan that he obviously had been developing for a long time. Absalom requested to be allowed to go to Hebron; David approved his son's wish. Once there, Absalom declared himself king of Hebron and gathered an army to attack Jerusalem. David, sensing that the odds were against him, or just unwilling to order the army to fight against his son, fled.
On the face of it, this civil war seems like just a rebellion by a son against his aging father. But a closer look reveals that David and Absalom are guided not just by a desire to rule, but by different philosophies of leadership. To Absalom, David seems a vacillating and equivocating fool; to David, Absalom seems narrow-minded and short-sighted. This genuine conflict of ideas leads to a war.
I think that we continue to face these conflicting philosophies (and others) in our lives today, sometimes personally, sometimes in our churches, sometimes in our politics. Our instinct, I think, is to regard David's leadership as weak and perhaps unguided; to put it bluntly, we wouldn't elect David to be anything in our political system. But the lessons of scripture strongly suggest that, despite his warts, David's leadership philosophy may be the precursor of the Messiah's leadership philosophy.
In other words, David's vision may be closely related to Jesus' vision, which is identical to God's vision.
There were many causes for Absalom's revolt. At the very least, it happened after several years of estrangement between David and Absalom. Several years before, Absalom's sister Tamar was raped by their half-brother Amnon, who was David's eldest son and first in line to succeed to the throne. When David learned of this, he refused to take any action against Ammon, which infuriated Absalom. Absalom waited two years and then took matters into his own hands, ordering his servants to kill Amnon. Fearing that his father would be less forgiving of him than of Amnon, Absalom fled into a self-imposed exile.
Three years later, after being told that David's anger had cooled and that he was forgiven, Absalom returned to Jerusalem. However, David refused to see Absalom for two years, which led Absalom to question if this was what forgiveness looked like. Hearing of Absalom's frustration, David invited his son to the palace, and they reconciled.
However, Absalom used this reconciliation to unleash a plan that he obviously had been developing for a long time. Absalom requested to be allowed to go to Hebron; David approved his son's wish. Once there, Absalom declared himself king of Hebron and gathered an army to attack Jerusalem. David, sensing that the odds were against him, or just unwilling to order the army to fight against his son, fled.
On the face of it, this civil war seems like just a rebellion by a son against his aging father. But a closer look reveals that David and Absalom are guided not just by a desire to rule, but by different philosophies of leadership. To Absalom, David seems a vacillating and equivocating fool; to David, Absalom seems narrow-minded and short-sighted. This genuine conflict of ideas leads to a war.
I think that we continue to face these conflicting philosophies (and others) in our lives today, sometimes personally, sometimes in our churches, sometimes in our politics. Our instinct, I think, is to regard David's leadership as weak and perhaps unguided; to put it bluntly, we wouldn't elect David to be anything in our political system. But the lessons of scripture strongly suggest that, despite his warts, David's leadership philosophy may be the precursor of the Messiah's leadership philosophy.
In other words, David's vision may be closely related to Jesus' vision, which is identical to God's vision.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, August 17
Tomorrow we will enjoy Casual Worship, meaning that the dress code is very relaxed. Come dressed for a picnic -- which I hope you'll return for Sunday night.
As for the sermon on Sunday, we'll finally arrive at the Sunday many of you have been waiting for -- perhaps with fear and trembling -- the story of David and Bathsheba. It is also the story of Bathsheba's poor husband Uriah, whose existence brings out the worst in King David.
Fundamentally, the story is about sex. I could lie and say that it's about the corruption of power -- certainly that is an important subtheme -- but really it's really about sex. David, who is clearly at the wrong place at the wrong time -- the text makes it clear that he should be leading the army in the spring campaign -- compounds this problem by allowing his sexual desires to run unchecked. He sees a beautiful woman, finds out that she's married, and demands she be brought to his bedroom. A short while later, he hears the words every man dreads to hear after such a sexual encounter: "I'm pregnant."
Since there was no ancient equivalent of Maury Povich running around administering paternity tests, David relies on the world's oldest solution to this problem -- he sends for the woman's husband and insists that he take some R & R from the front lines by spending a relaxing weekend at home...with his wife...um, washing his feet. And eight and a half months from now, when a child is born, everyone would winkingly say, "That Uriah sure made the most of his time at home, didn't he?" And no one would be the wiser.
[Really, that's what the text says -- David tells Uriah to go home and "wash his feet." The commentaries all agree that "wash his feet" is just a euphemism. Even if it isn't, the innuendo is quite clear. Of course, this innuendo raises a rather disturbing context which could be read into all the other foot-washing references in the Bible.]
The problem, shockingly, is that the husband refuses to play along. He just won't go home. He makes every effort to avoid seeing his wife, realizing that his first duty during wartime is to army and country. So he sleeps just outside David's palace. David tries again, indulging him with food and alcohol, hoping to weaken his resolve. But the husband won't do it.
So the king writes a note to the general, directing that the husband be forced to lead a highly dangerous exposed assault on the enemy, and abandoned to die at the hands of the enemy. Then, in a monstrous touch, he gives the sealed order to the husband to personally carry to the general. The general obeys, and in short order, the husband is dead on the field. After a period of mourning, the widow becomes the king's wife.
All's well that ends well, I guess. Except that God is displeased with David. And he sends the prophet Nathan to reprimand David and to explain the punishment for David's actions. David shouldn't have slept with another man's wife. By implication, there were plenty of other women that David could have brought into his bedroom; as the king, he had his pick of all the single women of the land, evidently as many as he wanted. To take another man's wife and then to order the husband's death is entirely unacceptable.
David will be punished -- though unlike Saul, he does not receive a death sentence. Instead, he is told that other men will sleep with his wives (on the ancient "eye for an eye, woman for a woman" principle) with his knowledge, that the remainder of his rule will be rocked by violent internal power struggles with his children, and that the love child Bathsheba is carrying will die after birth. Of course, eventually David and Bathsheba will have another child, Solomon, who will inherit the kingdom which certainly makes the divine judgment rather more ambiguous.
Whenever I've mentioned to some of you that I would be preaching on sex this Sunday, I've noticed a lot of discomfort -- more discomfort than I've noticed with other parts of this sermon series. I should say that I find this rather amusing; we've been talking about violence -- sometimes rather explicitly -- off and on for weeks and nobody's raised an eyebrow. But even the hint of sex and people get a funny look on their faces.
I realize that this is one of those things that we do not talk much about in polite company, like politics and religion. And truly, some preachers avoid any mention of sex (and politics and religion) in church, not wanting to offend anyone. But this is short-sighted. Sex is one of the core impulses of human existence, and it is a peculiarly multi-faceted impulse. As much as we joke about sex in black and white terms (and most of our sexual innuendos are rather unsophisticated), its impact on each of us and on the culture at large is complex. But we don't have such a view about it because we don't think about sex very much (even though we think about sex often).
I won't go into my "sex doesn't get the attention it deserves" rant here, but isn't it curious how sex is portrayed in the wider culture. Sometimes, it is the goal of a romantic relationship -- everything is foreplay to sex. More often, it is just a step to check off the list: third date -- sex. Is it any wonder that our teenagers, surrounded by teen comedies driven by the "must lose virginity before graduation" plot-line, soap operas and romance novels, and the perpetual gossipmill that is school (offset only by the obligatory, and tame, one sexual ed class and one uncomfortable parental "birds and bees" talk), are having sex earlier and earlier, and more and more? What reason do we give them not to? We owe our children better. We owe our wider community better. We owe ourselves better.
So we will talk about sex in church. Just like we will talk about money in church, and politics, and power, and sin, and injustice, and bigotry, and hypocrisy, and tragedy, and death, and all the other uncomfortable subjects. Because they affect us all. Because the scriptures have much to say on these topics. Because God cares about them. Because God cares about us.
As for the sermon on Sunday, we'll finally arrive at the Sunday many of you have been waiting for -- perhaps with fear and trembling -- the story of David and Bathsheba. It is also the story of Bathsheba's poor husband Uriah, whose existence brings out the worst in King David.
Fundamentally, the story is about sex. I could lie and say that it's about the corruption of power -- certainly that is an important subtheme -- but really it's really about sex. David, who is clearly at the wrong place at the wrong time -- the text makes it clear that he should be leading the army in the spring campaign -- compounds this problem by allowing his sexual desires to run unchecked. He sees a beautiful woman, finds out that she's married, and demands she be brought to his bedroom. A short while later, he hears the words every man dreads to hear after such a sexual encounter: "I'm pregnant."
Since there was no ancient equivalent of Maury Povich running around administering paternity tests, David relies on the world's oldest solution to this problem -- he sends for the woman's husband and insists that he take some R & R from the front lines by spending a relaxing weekend at home...with his wife...um, washing his feet. And eight and a half months from now, when a child is born, everyone would winkingly say, "That Uriah sure made the most of his time at home, didn't he?" And no one would be the wiser.
[Really, that's what the text says -- David tells Uriah to go home and "wash his feet." The commentaries all agree that "wash his feet" is just a euphemism. Even if it isn't, the innuendo is quite clear. Of course, this innuendo raises a rather disturbing context which could be read into all the other foot-washing references in the Bible.]
The problem, shockingly, is that the husband refuses to play along. He just won't go home. He makes every effort to avoid seeing his wife, realizing that his first duty during wartime is to army and country. So he sleeps just outside David's palace. David tries again, indulging him with food and alcohol, hoping to weaken his resolve. But the husband won't do it.
So the king writes a note to the general, directing that the husband be forced to lead a highly dangerous exposed assault on the enemy, and abandoned to die at the hands of the enemy. Then, in a monstrous touch, he gives the sealed order to the husband to personally carry to the general. The general obeys, and in short order, the husband is dead on the field. After a period of mourning, the widow becomes the king's wife.
All's well that ends well, I guess. Except that God is displeased with David. And he sends the prophet Nathan to reprimand David and to explain the punishment for David's actions. David shouldn't have slept with another man's wife. By implication, there were plenty of other women that David could have brought into his bedroom; as the king, he had his pick of all the single women of the land, evidently as many as he wanted. To take another man's wife and then to order the husband's death is entirely unacceptable.
David will be punished -- though unlike Saul, he does not receive a death sentence. Instead, he is told that other men will sleep with his wives (on the ancient "eye for an eye, woman for a woman" principle) with his knowledge, that the remainder of his rule will be rocked by violent internal power struggles with his children, and that the love child Bathsheba is carrying will die after birth. Of course, eventually David and Bathsheba will have another child, Solomon, who will inherit the kingdom which certainly makes the divine judgment rather more ambiguous.
Whenever I've mentioned to some of you that I would be preaching on sex this Sunday, I've noticed a lot of discomfort -- more discomfort than I've noticed with other parts of this sermon series. I should say that I find this rather amusing; we've been talking about violence -- sometimes rather explicitly -- off and on for weeks and nobody's raised an eyebrow. But even the hint of sex and people get a funny look on their faces.
I realize that this is one of those things that we do not talk much about in polite company, like politics and religion. And truly, some preachers avoid any mention of sex (and politics and religion) in church, not wanting to offend anyone. But this is short-sighted. Sex is one of the core impulses of human existence, and it is a peculiarly multi-faceted impulse. As much as we joke about sex in black and white terms (and most of our sexual innuendos are rather unsophisticated), its impact on each of us and on the culture at large is complex. But we don't have such a view about it because we don't think about sex very much (even though we think about sex often).
I won't go into my "sex doesn't get the attention it deserves" rant here, but isn't it curious how sex is portrayed in the wider culture. Sometimes, it is the goal of a romantic relationship -- everything is foreplay to sex. More often, it is just a step to check off the list: third date -- sex. Is it any wonder that our teenagers, surrounded by teen comedies driven by the "must lose virginity before graduation" plot-line, soap operas and romance novels, and the perpetual gossipmill that is school (offset only by the obligatory, and tame, one sexual ed class and one uncomfortable parental "birds and bees" talk), are having sex earlier and earlier, and more and more? What reason do we give them not to? We owe our children better. We owe our wider community better. We owe ourselves better.
So we will talk about sex in church. Just like we will talk about money in church, and politics, and power, and sin, and injustice, and bigotry, and hypocrisy, and tragedy, and death, and all the other uncomfortable subjects. Because they affect us all. Because the scriptures have much to say on these topics. Because God cares about them. Because God cares about us.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
King David: Mighty Conqueror (A Blog Exclusive)
By the time David has established the capital in Jerusalem and begun dreaming of building God's home, the Temple, it is obvious that he has consolidated his power throughout the kingdom. More than this, his military prowess has turned back all foreign threats against the Israelites -- nobody, it seems, wants to take David on. With his capable leadership, David has provided peace and security for his kingdom.
For some leaders, that would be enough, but not David. Having built the army into a force more than capable of defending his kingdom, David has no desire to let it just sit around. So David begins a series of campaigns intended to capture the surrounding kingdoms, turning them into vassal states in which the governments are forced to pay annual tributes to Israel.
In a series of campaigns, David extends his kingdom and his kingdom's influence in all directions: pushing against the Philistines in the west, the Moabites and Ammonites in the east, the Edomites and the Amalekites in the south, and the Arameans in the north. Click here for a map of David's attacks. He conquered city after city -- in the words of 2 Samuel, "The Lord gave victory to David everywhere he went."
With his conquests, David creates an empire (short-lived though it will be). This is the first and only time that Israel will be an empire in its history. During David's reign (and that of his heir Solomon), the kingdom reaches its greatest geographical expanse and reaches the height of its regional influence. Click here for a map of David's empire.
It is hard to underestimate the pride of the Israelites (and their descendants, the Jews) in David's empire. Centuries later, after the divided kingdoms, Israel and then Judah, have themselves been conquered by a succession of empires (the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Romans), they fondly remember the time when Israel was the dominant political presence in the Middle East. Even today, in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, it is interesting to note how closely many of Israel's land claims mirror the map of David's ancient kingdom.
During David's lifetime, David's aggressive expansion of his kingdom represented the full transition of the Israelite people from a tribal society to a monarchy, from an agricultural, rural-centered culture to a commercial, urban-centered culture. (And if that's an overstatement for the Israelite people as a whole, it certainly reflects the transition of those Israelites with economic and political power.) The geography of David's conquests suggests two things: first, he just wanted to control more territory, but second, he wanted to control the major trade routes of the region, which, not coincidentally, went through all the non-Philistine territory he conquered.
With these actions, David fulfills the expectations of those Israelites who had wanted a king. He becomes a king enviable to other nations -- mighty warrior, talented bureaucrat, fledgling emperor. He unites his people and marshalls their strength to take control of other nations, creating a geographic buffer zone, a ready source of military allies, and a consistent source of annual income (in the form of tribute).
While the borders on the maps linked above are fixed, the politics of any empire ebb and flow. Once David started forcing his influence on these other nations, he had to deal with them, politically and militarily, from that point on. So even though David evidently conquered the six nations in short order, he had to keep close tabs on them to ensure that they remained loyal to him. He dispatches parts of the Israelite army to garrison in some of the foreign cities.
At one point, after the king of the Arameans dies, the new king tries to push back against the Israelites. He forges an alliance with the Ammonites, so that the two kingdoms can both attack the Israelites simultaneously. This creates a two-front war for Israel (in the north and the northeast). David dispatches the army under his main general Joab to face the uprising; curiously, David does not go with the army to these battles. Instead he stayed in Jerusalem, where his attention was distracted from military affairs; indeed his eye wandered and fell on affairs of an entirely different sort.
For some leaders, that would be enough, but not David. Having built the army into a force more than capable of defending his kingdom, David has no desire to let it just sit around. So David begins a series of campaigns intended to capture the surrounding kingdoms, turning them into vassal states in which the governments are forced to pay annual tributes to Israel.
In a series of campaigns, David extends his kingdom and his kingdom's influence in all directions: pushing against the Philistines in the west, the Moabites and Ammonites in the east, the Edomites and the Amalekites in the south, and the Arameans in the north. Click here for a map of David's attacks. He conquered city after city -- in the words of 2 Samuel, "The Lord gave victory to David everywhere he went."
With his conquests, David creates an empire (short-lived though it will be). This is the first and only time that Israel will be an empire in its history. During David's reign (and that of his heir Solomon), the kingdom reaches its greatest geographical expanse and reaches the height of its regional influence. Click here for a map of David's empire.
It is hard to underestimate the pride of the Israelites (and their descendants, the Jews) in David's empire. Centuries later, after the divided kingdoms, Israel and then Judah, have themselves been conquered by a succession of empires (the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Romans), they fondly remember the time when Israel was the dominant political presence in the Middle East. Even today, in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, it is interesting to note how closely many of Israel's land claims mirror the map of David's ancient kingdom.
During David's lifetime, David's aggressive expansion of his kingdom represented the full transition of the Israelite people from a tribal society to a monarchy, from an agricultural, rural-centered culture to a commercial, urban-centered culture. (And if that's an overstatement for the Israelite people as a whole, it certainly reflects the transition of those Israelites with economic and political power.) The geography of David's conquests suggests two things: first, he just wanted to control more territory, but second, he wanted to control the major trade routes of the region, which, not coincidentally, went through all the non-Philistine territory he conquered.
With these actions, David fulfills the expectations of those Israelites who had wanted a king. He becomes a king enviable to other nations -- mighty warrior, talented bureaucrat, fledgling emperor. He unites his people and marshalls their strength to take control of other nations, creating a geographic buffer zone, a ready source of military allies, and a consistent source of annual income (in the form of tribute).
While the borders on the maps linked above are fixed, the politics of any empire ebb and flow. Once David started forcing his influence on these other nations, he had to deal with them, politically and militarily, from that point on. So even though David evidently conquered the six nations in short order, he had to keep close tabs on them to ensure that they remained loyal to him. He dispatches parts of the Israelite army to garrison in some of the foreign cities.
At one point, after the king of the Arameans dies, the new king tries to push back against the Israelites. He forges an alliance with the Ammonites, so that the two kingdoms can both attack the Israelites simultaneously. This creates a two-front war for Israel (in the north and the northeast). David dispatches the army under his main general Joab to face the uprising; curiously, David does not go with the army to these battles. Instead he stayed in Jerusalem, where his attention was distracted from military affairs; indeed his eye wandered and fell on affairs of an entirely different sort.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Information from the Wider Church
Here are two unrelated things that have across my desk in the past few days, one from the general church and one from the regional church.
Sharon Watkins, the General Minister and President, has issued a letter about the on-going war in Iraq, based on the suggestion of the 2007 General Assembly. You can read her pastoral letter here. As with such things with the Disciples church, it is likely to make some people happy and others angry. I put it here for your information only, not for any other purpose.
Here also is the latest issue of the regional newsletter, which has begun being posted as a .pdf file on the Internet (a good thing). It is a pretty large file (2.3 MB), which means that a dial-up download will take quite a while. But if you're willing and able to receive this via email, you will get the newsletter quicker, and you will save the church some money.
Sharon Watkins, the General Minister and President, has issued a letter about the on-going war in Iraq, based on the suggestion of the 2007 General Assembly. You can read her pastoral letter here. As with such things with the Disciples church, it is likely to make some people happy and others angry. I put it here for your information only, not for any other purpose.
Here also is the latest issue of the regional newsletter, which has begun being posted as a .pdf file on the Internet (a good thing). It is a pretty large file (2.3 MB), which means that a dial-up download will take quite a while. But if you're willing and able to receive this via email, you will get the newsletter quicker, and you will save the church some money.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Reflections on Worship, August 3
It is no secret that Sunday morning was a bit of a challenge for me, since I do not function very well on limited sleep. So I must confess that my memories of the morning as a whole are a little cloudy. I do recall feeling about two steps behind all morning and quite slow on the uptake. Happily, the point of worship is not to assess my mental sharpness, but rather to worship God, so in the grand scheme of things such challenges are mostly irrelevant.
Overall, I thought the service was pleasant and uplifting -- though, of course, I may not be the best judge of that. As always, it was good to have Brooks with us, working his magic. The presentation of the needlepointed Christ by Jane Henry's son Tom was moving, and yet another reminder of the enduring witness of our brothers and sisters (and forefathers and foremothers) of faith. We should find ways to celebrate such things publicly more often -- it's good for everybody.
But mostly today I have some reflections on Sundays sermon. Aside from the fact that it ran on quite a bit (needless to say, the internal clock was obviously on snooze), I am comfortable with what was said. I wish that there had been more time to explore some practical applications of the lessons that grow out of the establishment of Jerusalem as the earthly "city of God." But I felt strongly that without really sketching the fuller circumstances of David's decision, such discussion would have been either cliched or suggested completely out of context.
The single significant omission in Sunday's sermon was that I forgot to point out that the tension between rural and urban religion was even present in the 2 Samuel passages, not simply throughout the prior history of Israel. As David is dancing in the procession bringing the Ark of the Covenant to its new home in Jerusalem, his wife Michal (daughter of Saul) watches in disgust, thinking that he is acting like a low class person rather than a well-bred king. When confronted, David says simply that he was dancing for joy in the presence of God, which is certainly true of David the religious man, and that the opinions of humans are of little import, which is certainly less true for David the political leader. Even here, though, the tensions of class in religious practice -- which are always present in the life of a city -- are present in the story.
But there were lots of omissions in the sermon because I discovered just how rich these two chapters of 2 Samuel are, particularly in light of our larger study. Scripture is immeasurably rich, which means that there are always multiple approaches one can take in studying the Bible's implications and lessons, but I found much more than I expected in these chapters, which meant that I had to leave some things out.
The most important of these things that I intentionally overlooked in the sermon is that David commits the same "mistake" that Saul does in conflating religious and political authority in the kingdom. When he brings the Ark of the Covenant to its new home in Jerusalem, David personally offers the burnt offerings in the new Tabernacle and distributes the food from the sacrifices among all the people present.
And what happens? Does the priest arrive to chastise David for his actions? Does the prophet come to tell him that God's favor has been removed from him? Do the people react with horror at David's chutzpah? Not at all. Everybody is happy and thinks that this is a perfectly normal thing.
This is not the first time that the rules have been different for David than for everybody else. When Saul sacrifices on behalf of the people before battle, Samuel reads him the riot act and cannot contain his personal chagrin. When David sacrifices on behalf of the people in the new capital city, everybody goes home with leftovers and nobody says anything.
As we will learn, the man after God's own heart can get away with almost anything, including murder (mark your calendars now -- Bathsheba's only two Sundays away), and not lose God's favor.
Mind you, it is not the case that the religious authorities have lost their separate authority, as will become abundantly clear as David butts heads with the prophet Nathan in the upcoming weeks. There really is a separation of church and state, which we will see that David ultimately respects. But it does seem to be an uneven playing field.
There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy in how Saul and David are treated. On the one hand, it is possible that our scripture writers -- or more likely, their editors -- know how the story ends and are filling in the theological details. If God were behind Saul, this argument goes, his descendants would have ruled Israel for generations; since they did not, Saul must have crossed God in some way. On the other hand, David's family did rule for generations, so God must have been behind them and their actions. And so, in 20/20 hindsight, these similar actions are viewed very differently.
But such logic avoids the more frustrating implication, that God really does treat Saul and David differently. This is a painful thing for us to consider, I think, because we all like to think that God treats us all equally. But human experience sometimes suggests otherwise, often rather cruelly. Some people live and some die. Some live well and others less so. Some feel the ravages of disease or "fate" more fully than others. This is the central issue, I think, in theodicy -- the question of why God allows human suffering: the challenge is not that there is suffering, but it seems rather random. Practically speaking, we understand why someone who smokes cigarettes for forty years develops lung cancer; however, we don't understand why there are some people who smoke cigarettes for forty years who do not develop lung cancer.
There are no easy answers to this very large issue. But I think, overall, that the examples of David and Saul suggest that even though they did many of the same things, they were very different men. I truly believe that they were both men of great faith, who both had instances where they slipped in their faith. But David (again, the poet-king) seems more soulful than the chiseled warrior king Saul. And that seems to make a difference. Our challenge is to understand what that difference might be and how (or even if) it matters for our lives.
Overall, I thought the service was pleasant and uplifting -- though, of course, I may not be the best judge of that. As always, it was good to have Brooks with us, working his magic. The presentation of the needlepointed Christ by Jane Henry's son Tom was moving, and yet another reminder of the enduring witness of our brothers and sisters (and forefathers and foremothers) of faith. We should find ways to celebrate such things publicly more often -- it's good for everybody.
But mostly today I have some reflections on Sundays sermon. Aside from the fact that it ran on quite a bit (needless to say, the internal clock was obviously on snooze), I am comfortable with what was said. I wish that there had been more time to explore some practical applications of the lessons that grow out of the establishment of Jerusalem as the earthly "city of God." But I felt strongly that without really sketching the fuller circumstances of David's decision, such discussion would have been either cliched or suggested completely out of context.
The single significant omission in Sunday's sermon was that I forgot to point out that the tension between rural and urban religion was even present in the 2 Samuel passages, not simply throughout the prior history of Israel. As David is dancing in the procession bringing the Ark of the Covenant to its new home in Jerusalem, his wife Michal (daughter of Saul) watches in disgust, thinking that he is acting like a low class person rather than a well-bred king. When confronted, David says simply that he was dancing for joy in the presence of God, which is certainly true of David the religious man, and that the opinions of humans are of little import, which is certainly less true for David the political leader. Even here, though, the tensions of class in religious practice -- which are always present in the life of a city -- are present in the story.
But there were lots of omissions in the sermon because I discovered just how rich these two chapters of 2 Samuel are, particularly in light of our larger study. Scripture is immeasurably rich, which means that there are always multiple approaches one can take in studying the Bible's implications and lessons, but I found much more than I expected in these chapters, which meant that I had to leave some things out.
The most important of these things that I intentionally overlooked in the sermon is that David commits the same "mistake" that Saul does in conflating religious and political authority in the kingdom. When he brings the Ark of the Covenant to its new home in Jerusalem, David personally offers the burnt offerings in the new Tabernacle and distributes the food from the sacrifices among all the people present.
And what happens? Does the priest arrive to chastise David for his actions? Does the prophet come to tell him that God's favor has been removed from him? Do the people react with horror at David's chutzpah? Not at all. Everybody is happy and thinks that this is a perfectly normal thing.
This is not the first time that the rules have been different for David than for everybody else. When Saul sacrifices on behalf of the people before battle, Samuel reads him the riot act and cannot contain his personal chagrin. When David sacrifices on behalf of the people in the new capital city, everybody goes home with leftovers and nobody says anything.
As we will learn, the man after God's own heart can get away with almost anything, including murder (mark your calendars now -- Bathsheba's only two Sundays away), and not lose God's favor.
Mind you, it is not the case that the religious authorities have lost their separate authority, as will become abundantly clear as David butts heads with the prophet Nathan in the upcoming weeks. There really is a separation of church and state, which we will see that David ultimately respects. But it does seem to be an uneven playing field.
There are several possible explanations for this discrepancy in how Saul and David are treated. On the one hand, it is possible that our scripture writers -- or more likely, their editors -- know how the story ends and are filling in the theological details. If God were behind Saul, this argument goes, his descendants would have ruled Israel for generations; since they did not, Saul must have crossed God in some way. On the other hand, David's family did rule for generations, so God must have been behind them and their actions. And so, in 20/20 hindsight, these similar actions are viewed very differently.
But such logic avoids the more frustrating implication, that God really does treat Saul and David differently. This is a painful thing for us to consider, I think, because we all like to think that God treats us all equally. But human experience sometimes suggests otherwise, often rather cruelly. Some people live and some die. Some live well and others less so. Some feel the ravages of disease or "fate" more fully than others. This is the central issue, I think, in theodicy -- the question of why God allows human suffering: the challenge is not that there is suffering, but it seems rather random. Practically speaking, we understand why someone who smokes cigarettes for forty years develops lung cancer; however, we don't understand why there are some people who smoke cigarettes for forty years who do not develop lung cancer.
There are no easy answers to this very large issue. But I think, overall, that the examples of David and Saul suggest that even though they did many of the same things, they were very different men. I truly believe that they were both men of great faith, who both had instances where they slipped in their faith. But David (again, the poet-king) seems more soulful than the chiseled warrior king Saul. And that seems to make a difference. Our challenge is to understand what that difference might be and how (or even if) it matters for our lives.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Coming Up Sunday, August 3
Sunday we will see David firmly established as king of all Israel, officially succeeding Saul. The account in 2 Samuel 5-6 suggests a busy early period of David's reign, filled with battles against the pesky Philistines and a persistent group (evidently, because they haven't appeared in the story since Genesis), the Jebusites.
During the course of five years, David stabilizes the kingdom against the Philistine threat and tries to find some national symbolism to unify the underlying conflicts between the northern and southern tribes. He finds it in his campaign against the well entrenched stronghold of the Jebusites. After defeating them, he claims the city as his own, renaming it Jerusalem, and making it the capital of Israel.
David's centrality in the history of Judaism owes no small part to his role in establishing the holy city, the first City of David (not to be confused with Bethlehem) and the first City of God. David further symbolizes the importance of the city by reclaiming the Ark of the Covenant, which has laid somewhat forgotten and neglected in the hill country, and bringing it to an altar in Jerusalem. With this, David takes an older unifying symbol of the Israelites and uses it to establish a new unifying symbol, the capital city.
Jerusalem (and eventually the Temple) becomes the central unifying aspiration of Judaism, the theme in all of Jewish hopes and striving through the centuries, even to the present day. Its up and down history, from capital of a self-sustaining people, through captures by foreign armies, vassal kings, near obliteration, to the Zionist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, is as central to the Jewish experience as their preservation of Torah.
But it is not only a potent theme for Jews; it has been appropriated as a hope for Christians too, beginning with the hopes of God establishing a "new Jerusalem" at the end of days (as described in the book of Revelation). Some have even hoped for a this-worldly new Jerusalem, perhaps most famously by William Blake, in "The New Jerusalem." This poem was popularized during World War I as a patriotic hymn (music by Hubert Parry), and is considered the unofficial anthem of England.
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
During the course of five years, David stabilizes the kingdom against the Philistine threat and tries to find some national symbolism to unify the underlying conflicts between the northern and southern tribes. He finds it in his campaign against the well entrenched stronghold of the Jebusites. After defeating them, he claims the city as his own, renaming it Jerusalem, and making it the capital of Israel.
David's centrality in the history of Judaism owes no small part to his role in establishing the holy city, the first City of David (not to be confused with Bethlehem) and the first City of God. David further symbolizes the importance of the city by reclaiming the Ark of the Covenant, which has laid somewhat forgotten and neglected in the hill country, and bringing it to an altar in Jerusalem. With this, David takes an older unifying symbol of the Israelites and uses it to establish a new unifying symbol, the capital city.
Jerusalem (and eventually the Temple) becomes the central unifying aspiration of Judaism, the theme in all of Jewish hopes and striving through the centuries, even to the present day. Its up and down history, from capital of a self-sustaining people, through captures by foreign armies, vassal kings, near obliteration, to the Zionist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, is as central to the Jewish experience as their preservation of Torah.
But it is not only a potent theme for Jews; it has been appropriated as a hope for Christians too, beginning with the hopes of God establishing a "new Jerusalem" at the end of days (as described in the book of Revelation). Some have even hoped for a this-worldly new Jerusalem, perhaps most famously by William Blake, in "The New Jerusalem." This poem was popularized during World War I as a patriotic hymn (music by Hubert Parry), and is considered the unofficial anthem of England.
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)