Marriage Allegory

had the occasion recently to review the Wedding liturgy. I was once again reminded of what might be the best short sermon ever written. And also reminded of just how clever Satan can be. That best short sermon is what is typically labeled The Wedding Address. In reality that address is both deathly serious and full of deep kindness. Which brings up Satan’s cleverness. You know this address because of Hollywood’s various representations of absolutely silly Bishops in their bling stating either “Dearly beloved” or “Marriage” with full lisp. Usually in front of two people who absolutely should not be getting married.

That last bit – two people who should not be getting married – had me reflecting. Is Hollywood making fun of this because of the hypocrisy of the clergyman? Pronouncing the address while knowing he should not be doing the wedding. Every minister has at least one wedding that they look back on and grimace. And because we remember the mistakes, and not the much larger number of happy occasions, they are the ones that haunt. Or is Hollywood, and Satan, merely trying to cover up with farce the clarity of Thomas Cranmer’s statement on the purpose.

The first thing Cranmer’s address does is establish where marriage comes from. “This is an honorable estate instituted and blessed by God in paradise before humanity’s fall into sin.” This is the way God made the material world to be. Before anything messed it up. Before our sin. This institution was present. That leaves the question why? Why would God create this? What meaning does it have? And Cranmer’s address immediately tells us. In the material reality of marriage, “we see a picture of the communion between Christ and His bride, the church.” Marriage is a living allegory. The physical reality is the base, but Christological, Moral and Eschatological carry the meaning. The fundamental institution that most of us live our lives within is a reflection of Christ and His people. It is an expression of the love of God for his creation “proclaimed by his presence and first miracle at Cana in Galilee.”

The Address then moves on to the moral dimension. What does this institution require of us? And it includes four things that build on each other. The base of any marriage is the “union in heart, body and mind intended for the mutual companionship, help and support that each person ought to receive from the other, both in prosperity and adversity.” Marriage is hopefully more than a long-term contract, but it is never less than a long-term contract. Maybe contract is the wrong word, say alliance. That alliance has its physical dimension. “Marriage was ordained so that man and woman may find delight in one another.” As with all things planted by God – good trees – they are fruitful. “God established marriage for the procreation of children.” This often gets overlooked in our day, but be fruitful and multiply is a law that was never repealed. The last bit of the moral dimension is what to do with those kids. “Who are to be brought up in the fear and instruction of the Lord.” Marriage as an institution was created that our greatest heritage – The Word of God – might be preserved to generations’ generation.

And that leaves the eschatological. Where does this all go? “That they may offer Him [Christ] their praise.” Marriage – the image of Christ and the Church – is the institution that functions as the ark in this world. It is the institution that puts us in the boat, trusts the love of God to see that boat to shore, and populates that heavenly number that no one can count.

“For these reasons God has established the holy estate.” Marriage is a living allegory of our hope. Some particular marriages are better representations than others. There are those who absolutely should not be getting married. And sin makes all kinds of things eminently mockable. But as with all things of God, the reality – the love and the hope – are not erased. If we live into the faith that it requires. If we have the faith that Christ has blessed and honored this estate.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“I am the door” – mapping a metaphor in time and space for eternity

Text: John 10:1-10
Full Sermon Draft

It was mother’s day, it was also the day often called Good Shepherd Sunday, so called because the reading comes from John 10 where Jesus says that he is the Good Shepherd. Except that the lectionary this year gives us not the shepherd but the ten verses often missed where Jesus proclaims himself the door.

The sermon is a mapping of what that could mean. We look at the literal elements of a door brought up by the text: open, closed, proper entry, improper entry, protection. So, when Jesus says that “I am the door” those are the appropriate elements to ponder. What does an open door mean? What does a closed door mean? Since Jesus claims that he himself is the door, most of these things have Christocentric, that is Christ at the center, answers. In particular we examine election, justification and the door to prayer. The sermon proclaims how the door works in these ways and teaches us how we should think of Jesus. We make two moral examples of how we should live today. And the sermon concludes with the eschatological or final things meaning of the door. Jesus has used a figure of speech – the door – to describe spiritual reality, so we spend some time pondering the core meanings. I’d invite you to give it a listen.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Where Jesus is, There is the Temple – A Temple built for All Peoples

Biblical Text: Luke 17:11-19

Full Sermon Draft

I was somewhat shocked this week when I went to read what the church fathers had to say when commenting upon the text. Not shocked in a bad way, but maybe I should say surprised. Maybe it is the limits of my sources which are basically those contained in the ACCS. The ACCS is an updated form of the Catena Aurea or Golden Chain, a string of quotations and gloss that past commentators felt important. But the 10 lepers did not attract much comment, and the comments it did attract were not moralism. While I would not call them moralists, the church fathers were not ashamed to encourage holy living or acquiring virtue. (Again the could be because of later editors felt that was what was worth copying and preserving). Instead what was present was what I would call beautiful and clear allegory.

Now we think of allegory as meaning flight of fancy. I’ve read enough of it to know it can be that, but I also think that is an awful label for what was essentially a method of pondering the scriptures. After preaching for five years week in and week out, what I now recognize is a tool for preaching. The literal level is the basis, and it grounds what you say in history and the text. This is trying to understand the text in its own time. The typeological level is about bringing the specific literal to the eternal. A good reformation way of thinking of this is how does the literal story tell us about who Jesus is and his purpose and work. What does faith latch onto? The third section then asks the question: Knowing that eternal truth how do we live in the now? Having generalized the truth, how do we realize it today. The last section never loses sight of the final day. What is the final fulfullment, the eschatological or resurrection reality contained in the text. What is our hope derived from the text? Over the entire method it is a way to be grounded in the words of scripture and history while connecting it (and ourselves) to the grand story of salvation.

So, this sermon takes the form of an allegory. Not those flights of fancy, but just a way of structuring the proclamation. And to ground it further, the Hymn of the Day was A Great and Mighty Wonder. Celebrating Christmas in October might seem odd, but the hymn dovetails perfectly with what the Father’s said and what I tried to proclaim. As so often is the case, the hymnwriters preach better than the preacher.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Neighborhood Watch

Biblical Text: Luke 10:25-37
Full Sermon Draft

I am constantly amazed at how the perfect text seems to appear to match external circumstances. What are the odds that the one time in three years that you read the Good Samaritan with its question of “Who is my neighbor?” would appear at exactly the same time as a verdict in a trial of a Neighborhood watch. A trial which is really about answering that question – who is the neighbor?

This is one of those sermons that stands as piece. It is a meditation on the gospel scene of a lawyer and Jesus with our lives woven in between the lines.

Here is the conclusion, but if you’ve got 12 minutes, give the entire thing a read or a listen. I’m pretty sure that none of the 24 hour news commentary has this.

The law can’t do anything about our refusal to see our neighbor. The law leaves a dead 17 year old and a man whose life has been beaten and robbed and left out in the open of the public square. If we insist on the law – what must I do – that is what we get. But Jesus, by being a neighbor to us first, has shown us a better way. A way of grace and mercy. Go and love likewise, as you have first been loved. Amen

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Whose expectations get met?

Full Text of Sermon

The text is Matthew 21:33-46 which is the parable of the wicked tenants. I’ve pondered this parable for a long time – at least in American terms. It is filled with an urgency and a venom missing is the mustard seed and birds of the air. It has an easy allegory, but one that seems tailor made to produce pharisees. There are parts of it that to a Lutheran are shockingly troublesome. The production and handing over of “fruits” reads like works-righteousness. And the whole “leasing” of the vineyard reducing the Kingdom to a financial transaction. It doesn’t fit my nice and tidy systematic theology. And if we accept the easy allegory the church has placed on the parable almost from the start, does it mean anything to us today? Not much that I could see.

So for me here the key isn’t so much allegorical as centered in the Question of Jesus – “What will the landowner do when he returns?” Everybody has expectations. Some expectations get met and others go bust. The thought for the Christian life is to get your expectations in line with God’s. The landowners expectations get met. The only question is by whom. A cornerstone has been set. The vineyard will produce a crop. Do we fall over that cornerstone attempting to meet our expectations against the landowner, or do we produce the fruit in season viewing the vineyard and its cornerstone in the cross as marvelous?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Catching Up

Full Text

Text: John 9:1-41

This text is too big. A man goes from being blind through various confessions to the worship of Christ at the end. From the point of his healing, until that end, the story is about Jesus but Jesus himself is absent. It’s a tight allegory on a Christian life with the counter-point of the pharisees deepening knowledge and surety of things that are false. Its also the type of text that really needs two way communication. Its the type of think you wrestle with with others.

Sermon – “Daughter…” – Mark 5:21-43

Full Text

Sermon Text: Mark 5:21-43

In this sermon I did something that probably would have received low marks from seminary profs. I probably strayed too far into allegorizing the text for the application. That is part of the reason why the opening includes the remarks that the reading might be idiosyncratic. It probably comes from studying Hebrews in Bible Class which contains an extended allegory on Melchizedek, an obscure OT figure. A full allegory has four levels of meaning: Literal, Christological, Moral and Mystical. It is not that an allegory can’t be true, but that modern textual methodology calls it a foul ball. What one person sees in an allegory might not be universally applicable. An allegory can be too cute for its own good. The other side of the balance sheet is that the church for 1200+ years primarily read the scriptures as allegory. Only with the advent of the pre-modern university did a heavily literal approach start to take priority. It can be said that the reformation was really and argument over which level of allegory was the most important. The Reformers argued for the Literal and the Christological while the late medieval Catholics emphasized the mystical and then the moral. (And that paragraph is one that could be picked apart to death as to those who really study this stuff that is really superficial to the point of being wrong. Forgive me the brevity.)

When reading a text, and in preaching on a text, those levels of meaning are still important. You can talk about a moral meaning from a text without necessarily allegorizing. The literal events of this text were the faith of a woman in the power of Jesus to heal, and a demonstration of that power even over death. To transfer that text to modern day you would emphasize the power of Christ in the the people who live by faith. I still did that, but in a way that makes the literal meaning of the text receed into the background.

A contrast is established between Jairus who approaches Jesus from the front and the unnamed woman who approaches from behind. I tried to set us or most moderns up as Jairus – the respectable churchman who approaches Jesus desperate but asking for a favor. The flip is that Jesus calls the low status unnamed woman daughter. While we might associate with Jairus, salvation, peace and health are in approaching Jesus like this woman – in fear and telling the whole truth. [Think confession and absolution.] Jairus and the disciples are amazed at the power of Jesus, but it is the woman who is called daughter. In fact it takes a miracle of Jesus – a raising of the dead – to convert us from thinking of ourselves a Jairus (fundametally respectable and ok asking for a favor) to thinking of ourselves as the woman (bloody and unclean with sin). And when Jesus does raise us from the dead, we must be fed with the Word of God. See what I did, certain elements of the story like how a person approached, physical attributes or physical needs are read as symbolic. If you agree with my symbolic readings it makes sense, but you might just as easily think I’ve gone off the deep end.

All that said, I think the sermon conveys truth. I would defend its textuality on the basis of the words and events narrated and how the church has matrixed those words and events through time. Being called a child/daughter by God is the result of accepting the Gospel which follows repentance. True repentance is the work of God in us – a raising of the dead. It is the poor that are blessed with the Kingdom of Heaven. The church has consistenly talked about sin as a disease. This was not an academic’s sermon, but I think it might be closer to the way actual people think.