All Saints – Two Calendars telling a story

Full Text

Let me just say two things about this sermon: 1) I really hate it as a sermon. I think it misses the audience, doesn’t point to Christ enough, lacks a real solid textual foundation and doesn’t have the unity of message it should have. 2) I think some of the parts of it by themselves are bleeding raw and cut right to the heart of life. Modern life has lost the saints and the One who makes them and as a result is childish and soulless. We can’t see the problems even though they are right before our eyes. Being a Christian is a call to a life with a larger canvass, not a safe harbor.

Any sermon is a balance or weaving of separate threads. I have a comfort zone being very textual. In my own walk I can’t get over the fact that God speaks in this book, and I want to know as much about it as possible. That comfort zone moves through to application. Basically I have about five outlines: Very simple text-application, a little more complex 4 pages outline with the four pages being trouble in the text, gospel in the text, trouble in the world and gospel in the world (the individual pages can come in any order, when they are text, text, world, world it reduces to text-app), a three point outline (have something to say and say it well, or if you took debate/speech this tends to be a classic argument outline), a question and answer outline, and a refrain structure (multiple images or examples from life that end with the same biblical refrain). All of those outlines are about relating the text we are reading to our lives, or in reality relating our lives to the text. You could say I’m usually about trying to get people to let the biblical text read their lives. This sermon had a different basis in that the liturgical day (All Saints Day) was really the theme. Textual exposition was greatly reduced and the theology of being a Saint was brought forward. The general outline was compare and contrast – living life and interpreting reality from a secular veiwpoint alone (living with a calendar that only has Halloween) and living life with a church calendar (living with All Saints). Instead of being textual this sermon was theological and thematic.

It needed to be better.

Reformation Day Sermon – Law & Gospel: Living in the Tension

Full Text

One of the things ministers (at least Lutheran ministers) talk about all the time is what do you lead with. What I mean by that is this. The proclamation of the Lutheran is Law and Gospel. The law, in all its fierceness, says repent you poor miserable sinner. The Gospel announces the grace of God on all who do repent. The problem with that is followed to its human logical conclusion means being the human sandwhich-board walking down main street with ‘Repent-The Kingdom of God is Near’ painted on it. That may be the reductio ad absurdam of the the law proclamation, but it is rarely effective. It is my impression today, to get someone to hear the law rightly, that you almost have to sneak up on them. I think the culture assumes that the Gospel applies to them universally – we are all universalists when it comes to heaven. Jesus was anything but a universalist (Matt 7:13-14) and the entry gate on that narrow way is repentance. Stealing a line from a fellow circuit minister – “people know about Jesus, they don’t know Jesus.” Where is Martin Luther’s day the public perception about Jesus was a cruel tyrant (I think Luther actual used that term to descibe Him in Martin’s days in the cloister), and hence the society was ready to hear the gospel as it was already cowering under the law, today the public perception is one of the ever accepting Jesus – so accepting that he’s ok if you worship him under anygiven name, as long as you are true to yourself. Fostering a true encounter with Jesus means getting people to have a healthy fear of God first.

Sermon – “Who can be saved?” – Mark 10:23-31

Full Text

The gospel texts are sparse. What I mean by that is they relate just enough information to tell the story and expect you the reader to fill in the gaps from your knowledge and experience. We do this type of stuff everyday of our lives. The closer the person is to us, the sparser our communication can be. Husbands and wives often fall into this trap thinking that one fills in the gap correctly when they don’t. I’ll let you fill in the gap of the example. In the process of fleshing out the story, a peril for a preacher is preaching on the gaps. To preach or pull the main lesson for the text from what the reader has filled in is usually bad. At its best it is an orthodox sermon because the person in the pulpit has the Spirit and the gap filling in pious, but even then it usually has the effect of being distracting as the fill-in does not naturally fit the text. At its worst, the gaps are filled with stuff that contradicts the plain text and lessens or overrides its teaching. The sermon on the gaps becomes a sermon straight from probably the worst places of the preacher.

This sermon has one fill-in that in my studies for the week I could not find another who took it this way. That would usually mean that I would not use it to try and avoid preaching on a gap. I struggled with this because Peter’s reply to Jesus in the text – “look, we’ve left everything…” just did not make sense within the text as it is normally read. The typical reading is to see this as Peter comparing himself to the Rich Young Man and expecting that he will come out looking better. Jesus says is it hard to enter the Kingdom. We’ve already given up everything, so we must have merited entry. Here is why that makes no sense to me. First, if it was really Peter expressing a claim to merit, Jesus would have immediately struck it down. One does not merit the Kingdom. That is a doctrinal point, but one so basic that if you find your reading of a text going against it you’ve got a wrong reading. Second, Jesus has just said that with man it is impossible. Would Peter really respond to with man it is impossible with an assertion of his own work? Third, Jesus’ response is a blessing and a very confusing one as it gives a whole bunch in this time. Eternal life is an afterthought. Something else is going on here.

I leaned on Matthew to fill in the gap a little. The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) all follow a similar outline. (If you want more on that ask me.) Often you can look at the others to get a clearer view of what is happening. Matthew also records the encounter with the Rich Young Man and right after it records the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. My filling in the gaps to make sense of Peter’s response and Jesus’ response to that in this sermon was:
1) The disciples ask who can be saved
2) Jesus says everyone – because God is doing it, with man it is impossible
3) Peter’s response is that’s not fair (The NLT has a good translation from Matthew – We’ve given up everything to follow you. What will we get?)
4) Jesus promises stuff here in this life – the stuff he promises is a new community the church
5) In Matthew Jesus follows this teaching up with the parable of the workers in the vineyard which ends with the saying ‘the first are last and last first’ that Mark just tacks onto the end of Jesus’ response
I filled in the gaps I think in a way that makes more sense than the typical Peter trying to justify himself reading, but since I went out on a limb so to speak and it does play a role in the general outline of the sermon I add wanted to point out from where and why I filled in the gaps.

Good Things – Mark 10:17-22

Full Text

Text: Mark 10:17-22

As one congregant said – “reading a little Plato were you?” The presenting question was what do I do to inherit eternal life. In our culture today I don’t think that is even a question people ask. Eternal and the man’s address of Jesus as Good Teacher imply something that our culture denies. That concept of the good which is the intuitive way we are drawn to things that are true or that are beautiful and not in our culture’s highest goods of utility or aesthetic pleasingness, is what is denied. There are no eternal or good things in our culture. We have so much and settle for so little.

In a Lutheran law and gospel structure the man’s question is one of a second use of the law. It shows us our sin or a mirror to our soul. But it also implies a first use of the law – a simple description of the way things were made. We were made with eternity in mind. There are things that are beautiful – even though they may not be aesthetically pleasing or pass the culture poobah’s 5 star ratings. There are things that are true, even if you don’t believe them. In many ways talking to our culture is more like talking to the Sadducees than the Pharisees. The pharisees inhabited the same mental world as Jesus. When Jesus talked to the Sadducees he would say things like “you are badly mistaken.” (Mark 12:27) With Pharisees Jesus called them to see that they couldn’t carry the law. He was so visibly upset with them because they were close to the kingdom. He looked at them and loved them. With the Sadducees it was a call to something more fundamental, a call to examine presuppositions about the world.

Don’t settle for happiness – or the things that wealth can buy temporarily. Seek the Kingdom, the good things, the things eternal. Then you will have treasure in heaven.

The Elephant in the room…Mark 10:1-16

Full Text

This sermons subject – sexuality and specifically divorce – is a hard word in our culture. Jesus doesn’t allow it – divorce that is. Divorce is not in God’s plan. And we can’t keep that – neither in what our society formally calls marriage, nor in our sexuality that assumes marriage rights without the committment. And it is a standing judgment against us – sexual sins are those we can’t fix, are those we commit against our own bodies. Wouldn’t it be easier if Jesus was just more laid back about divorce? Go that way if you want to lose the Gospel. Marriage is how God describes his relationship with His people – and he took reconciliation all the way to the cross – no divorce indeed. We are sinners, but our God’s grace and mercy are much larger than our ability to mess it up. Trust in that faithful relationship sealed on the cross made sure at the resurrection.

Sermon – Mark 9:38-50 – Low Walls, High Standards

Full Text

People have long looked at the second grouping of these verses (Mark 9:42-50) as simply an individual warning. That reading has always caused me trouble as I either needed to treat it as completely spiritual which I don’t like, or I needed to go lopp off a hand or pluck out an eye, which I liked even less. The context of the entire segment continues from the last couple of weeks lectionary readings (Mark 9:14-37), and that is more teaching through actions to the disciples how the church (the reign of God) will function. Speaking of the church in bodily terms is not exactly unbiblical either. The first grouping of verses is clearly about how we treat those of Christ who are not of our group. This is not directed at heretics, but those who are doing good stuff (i.e. miracles! in the text) in the name of Jesus. We treat them well – maybe not join them, but definitely don’t stop them. That is the low walls portion. The church welcomes all who come in the name of Christ. This gets balanced by that second group. If someone within your tribe is causing people to lose faith – it is not good for them or the group, cut them out. This is the high standards portion and it calls for judgement. Does the crank in every congregation or synod – you know the one that is always harping on [pick the subject they don’t agree with church teaching on] – does that guy or gal cause anyone to stumble? Probably not. Does an Elder of the congregation who denies infant baptism, or a preacher who ‘sleeps around’ or worse? Probably so. Its a tricky thing to pull off in a fallen world, but that seems to be the call of the church. Low walls – welcome everyone who claims the name of Jesus. High Standards – the church stands for something. If someone disagrees and it causes people to lose faith they must be called to account or cut off. The church in that way is about reconciliation and absolution. We admit where we are wrong, but we also receive that forgiveness.

Being a little meta about this sermon – it is a tough subject. I was really afraid that this was a non-stop bore fest. It interested me and I think it is important, but not really a ‘felt need’ type of thing. It is a real need – we need to be in a church as that is where we find salvation. But the jump from felt needs to real needs is not always obvious and this tended to be very intellectual which is a code word for boring.

Pecking Orders – Mark 9:30-37

Complete Text

It has been claimed in the past that I have a problem with authority. There are probably a couple layers of truth to that. First, as a sinful human I do have a problem with authority. My sinful nature wants to be God. But of course that is never what that claim means. It means “you” have a problem with “my” authority. Given that perception is reality in almost all circumstance, that claim is probably true, or the person in authority would not be making it. The real question becomes – is the problem justified? [In any such situation there are always the practical concerns of could I really do anything?]

Skipping the longer confessional, after looking at the text, my reaction was ‘ok, I better be careful given my anti-authoritarian nature.’ What this text asks of us thought is a radical realization followed by radical action. That realization is that we are nothing before God. Only Jesus has the authority to forgive and raise. Any like authority is completely derivative from Jesus. On God’s pecking order we don’t make the list. The action is living out that realization. This does not level authority in the worldly realm (i.e. governments are still valid, city zoning is valid) but it does call on Christians to recognize those not on the world’s pecking orders as people under God’s care to whom the gospel needs to be brought. The bum and the executive have exactly the same merit on God’s list and as far as we are Kingdom people the executive has a call to recognize that and act on that. Is that practical? No. Is that part of the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus and which weare waiting for it complete revelation? Yes.

Sermon – Get connected, return to prayer -Mark 9:14-29

Full Text

The arresting line in the gospel text (Mark 9:14-29) is of course – ‘I Believe, Help my unbelief!” But, the point of the text by its own words are prayer – “this kind only comes out with prayer.” What comes out? A demon of muteness and deafness. If faith comes by hearing, and if those who have believed in Mark’s gospel respond by telling everyone even over Jesus’ commands – is there not a better description of unbelief than one who is deaf to the Gospel and mute at its reception? Help my unbelief was the father’s cry. The disciples said as much when they asked – “why couldn’t we drive it out?” Jesus answer is get connected. Renew and strengthen your faith through prayer.

I concentrated on the disciples as learners (the core meaning of the word). Rev. David Bernard (VP of the Eastern District) shared a different view that captured my attention today. The father says “I believe, help my unbelief” after the disciples are unable to cast out the demon. If you look at the disciples as either the church or the ministerium (they are the proto-church and also the proto-ministers and sorting out when they are what is often subtle), that phrase takes on a very potent modern view – “I believe in you Jesus, but your church/ministers sure brings out my unbelief.” In an day when entire church bodies vote to ignore the Word of God as authoritative (see the post below on the ELCAs recent statement on sexuality), the church can get in the way of faith and even encourage faithlessness.

Sermon – Sept 6, 2008 – “In my flesh, I will see God”

Full Text

I’ve heard it from at least two preachers who I really admire for their wisdom and their craft that “all good sermons are first preached at the preacher.” The main point is that if the preacher himself doesn’t need it or resonate with the message he is delivering it probably can’t be a good sermon. This one falls squarely in that camp for me. I pray that my congregation was able to get something out of it as well. If you are going to read it, the thing you probably need to have in your head is that my brother died on the 24th of August at the age of 35. After spending a little over a week in Baltimore, MD cleaning out and settling his place, this was more first week back in the pulpit. The primary text was Isa 35:4-7

Sermon – John 6:51-69 – “Body & Soul…”

Full Text

Last week was VBS and this week we are sneaking in a vacation betwen VBS and a couple of planned day. But I did have a couple of thought I wanted to post on this sermon. It was a little more intellectual. Some days I go to various different public places (wegman’s cafe, McDonald’s/BK, a few others) and will strike up conversations with people. Eventually I like to get around to asking a question like ‘What makes Doug Doug?’ There are basically two types of answers I hear – a materialist answer where this body and life is everything and a some form there is something more. Call that something more a soul for now.

The sermon really addresses the materialist tendency, but there are problems with the Body & Soul people as well. Here is a link to the biggest one. While not as explicit as I am the way, the truth and the life, there is no way to the Father expect through me, the text of the sermon (John 6:51-69) addresses the underlying reality of things. There is a spiritual reality (“the things I am telling you are spirit). It also make a huge claim that Jesus is “the one who came down from Heaven.” Jesus is the Bread of Life, the only one who can feed the Spirit/Soul. Even if you answer body & soul, the many-paths crowd would react “this is a hard teaching.” We want out own way to God. We want to feed ourselves. God doesn’t allow that. By grace he’s picked the only way – his Son – Jesus.