Pilgrim Preaching

Passion Sunday

Luke's Triumphal (?) Entry

Luke 19:28-40

I am probably a redaction critic at heart, by which I mean that I have the most fun with the scriptures when I am looking at how one author has changed (or edited, or if you like, redacted) another's work. Take, for instance, what we call "the triumphal entry" into Jerusalem. The texts are Matt 21:1-9, Mark 1:-10, Luke 19:28-40 and John 12:12-19. It's pericope #269 if you have an Aland synopsis; if you want to make your own synopsis of the gospels on this or another text, check out The Five Gospel Parallels. With the help of Preaching through the Christian Year C (PCY), here's a short list of things that set Luke's version of the story apart from the way most of us are used to thinking of the story.

1. We have heard Jerusalem mentioned a few times in Luke, most often in connection with Jesus having "set his face" to go there. Now he's there. After his entry into the city, he will weep over it (Luke 19:41ff). This scene, #270 in your synopsis, is unique to Luke.
2. There are no "Hosannas" and no one is trimming palm branches and laying them in Jesus' path. The PCY authors comment, "Because those [displays] belonged commonly to nationalistic demonstration and parades, perhaps Luke wants this event to carry no such implication" (166). In any case, it is a quieter scene than the one I have running through my mind on Palm Sunday.
3. The disciples are the main audience for Jesus' entry, rather than a festival crowd of adoring fans. Matthew and Mark talk about a large crowd in the city for Passover watching this "triumphal entry." John speaks of a crowd, too, who have gathered to see the one who raised Lazarus from the dead. By contrast, Luke says Jesus is received by his disciples (see esp. Luke 19:35-37). This "is not the group, says Luke, that later called for Jesus' crucifixion. To be sure, Jesus' followers did not understand him or the nature of his messiahship, but neither are they persons who sing praise and scream death within the same week" (PCY, 166). (Hmm... there goes at least one sermon I've preached a time or two, not to mention some memorable hymn texts.)
4. Luke makes no reference in this scene to David or Davidic images of the messiah. Maybe this is Luke's intentional soft-pedaling of the political implications of Jesus' ministry ("Really, we're not a threat to the status quo!"), maybe not. Either way, if we think of the triumphal entry and think, "The people turned on Jesus because they wanted a political messiah king and he wasn't one," we have to look somewhere else besides Luke's account of things to conclude that is what people wanted.

Preaching and Redaction Criticism

So, this is interesting stuff. Will it preach? If so, how?

I hesitate in any sermon to say things like, "Luke's Jesus says _____." Or "In Luke, there are no palm branches." The first makes it sound like there are/were four (at least) Jesuses, as if each evangelist had his own personal pet named Jesus. Just "Jesus says _____" is enough. As for pointing out differences in the gospel accounts within a sermon, I have heard this done well a few times, but I try not to make a habit of it. Why? (1) It can make Bible reading into a parlor game. We're playing "Where's Waldo?" by another name ("Where are the palm branches?"). (2) It emphasizes the gospel writers at the expense of their message; we start caring more about Luke than about Jesus and what happened in the text.

So the short answer is, "No, this stuff won't preach," or "Preaching this stuff will make you sound bookish, out of touch and concerned about something besides the 'one thing needful'." However, read on.

I would not try to build a sermon around the insights provided by our redaction critical dive into Luke 19, but I would use them to get the tone of the day right. By "right" I mean that when the text is from Luke's gospel, I would try to have the sermon and service feel subdued yet hopeful, rather than "triumphal" and characterized by "Cameron craziness." (Cameron is the name of Duke's basketball arena.) I would not announce my findings or intentions to people ("Welcome to worship. Today our service will be subdued yet hopeful."). I would just try to craft something like that, and I would know to craft something like that because I had done a little redaction criticism as I studied the Gospel text.

Ain't biblical studies grand?

The Cross and the World

Theology of the Cross

I've not yet written a review of Mel Gibson's movie. I'm not sure I will now. Yet I have been thinking of what I might say differently about the sacrifice of Christ and its meaning for us today. I recently got some help in this effort from two articles in The Lutheran. Douglas John Hall has written on the theology of the cross in "The 'difference' of Luther and the ambivalence of life," and "Beyond the cross of Calvary."

The second piece is particularly helpful as we focus this week and next on what it means to proclaim Christ and him crucified. Is it just that Jesus died so I don't have to (Mel's apparent theology of the cross)? I don't reject a substitutionary atonement (which is not to say that I understand it exactly, either), but I think the cross's implications are much broader than "Jesus paid the price." Hall describes a theology of the cross as:

• A theology of faith, not sight.
• A theology of hope, not finality or consummation.
• A theology of love, not power.

In a short article, he shows how each of these has direct implications for North Americans and their congregations today. Faith (not sight) leads to a "modest theology" that knows, if it sees "something ultimate, absolute, it is only 'through a glass darkly' (1 Corinthians 13:12)" (15). This stance makes it harder to kill people who don't see what we see, or even to regard them as lost in darkness.

Hall explains what he means by "hope, not finality or consummation," by saying "God, who brought Jesus from the dead, is at work in the world to fulfill the promise of creation, appearances to the contrary." Such a theology means that we do not have to "turn away from all seemingly hopeless things that occur" in order to sustain our hope" (17). We can admit how messed up things are and roll up our sleeves, rather than having to escape from harsh reality by means of spiritualism or materialism, or by denying that anything is "still wrong" with the world since the victory has been won in Christ.

When he talks about "love not power," Hall addresses everything from wanting to do evangelism as a numbers game to Christian groups who, in the search for power in the current system of things, "eagerly lend their support to a government that no longer pretends to hide but openly flaunts it imperial ambitions" (18). The alternative is suffering love, love that hears the natural order's groaning in travail (Romans 8:22) and responds.

Another Transfiguration Post

Well, sports fans, I'm not going to get my "listening" entry done here. It's turning out to be a moralistic endeavor (as in, "Let's all try to 'Listen to him' rather than blathering like Peter." Good grief!), and I'm not preaching this week, and there's too much going on for me to work more on this and it's Friday anyway so most of you probably have your Transfiguration work done.

Am I playing with enough excuses there?

Here are a few paragraphs I really liked from a Pilgrim reader who prefers to remain anonymous. (I'm very lucky to get emails like this regularly—you guys are great!) Remember, you can always post comments under names like "BrilliantOne" or "Elvis." Here are my friend's comments:

“ ” “ ”

Rattling around in my head has been the thought that in the Transfiguration we get a glimpse of the past, present and future.  The present, Jesus in conversation with the past, who then leaves to accomplish the future of God's people.  The thought does not get much past the rattling around. I am likely to play with the idea that this an aha moment for the Peter James and John.  They are fully aware for a moment of who Jesus is and what is about to happen, one of those overwhelming moments of clarity.  A moment that is both exhilirating and terrifying.  Our reaction to those moments, I think most often is to attempt to memorialize the moment somehow. Luke provides the corrective to trying to box in the Holy moments with the next story.  We are back in the muck.  The kingdom is in our life in this moment. —Pilgrim Reader from Iowa.

Miscellaneous Thoughts - Transfiguration

Transfiguration Sunday
Luke 9:28-36 [37-43]

Peter, Beloved Bumbler

In the most recent issue of "Connecting," the Southwestern MN Synod (ELCA) newsletter, Synod Minister Stephanie Frey has some nice material on Peter and "b" words, like bumbling and blathering. I can't find my copy at the moment (why are there papers all over my house?), but if you're in the SW MN synod and you get the newsletter, check it out.  I wish I could find mine to quote from liberally here.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Jesus is about to leave the building."

Most of my thinking on this text has not been done trying to pull Luke 9:28-36 together with 9:37-43, but one thing did occur to me. One connection between these two bits of text seems to be Jesus' "departure" (exodus in Greek—nifty, eh?) in v. 31 and Jesus' complaining, "How much longer must I be with you and bear with you?" in v. 41. Twice we hear, more or less, that he's on his way "outta here." It comes up one more time in this chapter, in v. 51: "When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem." Like I said, outta here.

Listening

I'm drawn to the contrast between talking and listening in this story. I'm going to work on this idea tonight and see if I come up with something to post.

Texts for Conversion of Paul

Use this thread to make general comments about the texts for the Conversion of St. Paul. Texts are:

Acts 9:1-22
Galatians 1:11-24
Psalm 67
Luke 21:10-19 (link to my blog entry)

Conversion of Paul

Luke 21:10-19 (Gospel for Conversion of Paul, Jan. 25)

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

In the gospel of Luke, we are right in between Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the plotting that will lead directly to his death. Things are going well for the country cousin in the big city, so far.

• He has entered the city to shouts of "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord" (Luke 19:38).
• He has thrown sellers out of the temple while the people "were spellbound by what they heard" and so the chief priest, scribes and leaders of the people were unable to reach Jesus to stop him (Luke 19:47f.)
• He has fielded questions from scribes, elders and Sadducees until finally, "they no longer dared to ask him another question" (Luke 20:40).

Into this context of victory after victory comes the disciples wonder about the beautiful stones of the temple and gifts there dedicated to God. Jesus replies to them that "not one stone will be left upon another..." and within a few verses is speaking the words of this Sunday's gospel reading.  The juxtaposition of victory and persecution occupies Luke in Acts also, and apparently follows Paul throughout his ministry.

Don't Worry, Be Unprepared

Jesus lets the disciples know what will face them (persecutions by family, etc.), and says, "This will give you an opportunity to testify" and then, "Make up your minds not to prepare your defense in advance; for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict." Paul says in Philippians 1 that his imprisonment has actually served to advance the gospel. It has been an opportunity to testify. Some "backwards" is being embraced here. Those things that would seem to bring embarrassment or shame to the early Christians end up being things that make it possible for people to talk about Jesus.

So why would Jesus tell the disciples about what is going to happen to them if they are not supposed to prepare anyway? Maybe everyone gets this "heads up" here in the gospel so they will (1) recognize what is happening to Jesus (he is just about to be dragged before one particular governor) and (2) so they will be able to say, "Jesus said there would be days like this," when persecution happens to them and, like Paul in jail, figure out where the chance for testimony is.

Things that Make You Go "Hmm..."

I have no idea why this text includes both the observation that, "they will put some of you to death" (v. 16) and "not a hair of your head will perish" (v. 18). Click on "comments" and write up your idea for us on this if you can figure out how these verses work together.

The Baptism of Jesus

Luke 3:15-17, 21-22.

Most of the sermons I have heard on the Baptism of Jesus are really about Christian baptism and its benefits. There's nothing wrong with preaching on baptism and its benefits, yet I suggest a thought experiment: what if you, O preacher, located yourself and your hearers somewhere else in this story besides in the Jordan with Jesus? Here are a couple of options.

Among those watching

What would it be like, for instance, to see ourselves as witnesses to the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove, or as those who hear the voice from heaven? From that vantage point, what do you see/hear/think/feel? Is this what you have been waiting for (remember Luke's mention of people "filled with expectation")?

• You notice that Jesus is praying. A voice from heaven and a voice from earth are in conversation with each other. (This will continue to be true of Jesus and God, especially in Luke's gospel [5:11; 6:12; 9:18; 9:28-29; 11:1; 22:32, 39, 46; 23:34, 46].)
• You notice that he's affiliated with John the Baptist, that feisty, courageous and now imprisoned man who dares to speak truth to the likes of you and the likes of Herod.
• You notice that whatever is happening is public: the Holy Spirit is visible (which must be what "bodily" means) in the form of a dove, and the voice is audible. It is not just for Jesus, or a cozy connection meant only for Jesus and God. It is for something that will get bigger as the gospel goes on (starting when Jesus himself explains in chapter 4 why the Holy Spirit is upon him.)

John the Baptist

In other gospels, John interacts with Jesus "on stage." Here, John is shut up in prison before we hear about Jesus' baptism. It probably does not fit with the spirit of the text to make John the Baptist the one from whose perspective we see this story. He is, after all, trying to de-emphasize himself and point always to Jesus. Even so, what might John see in the baptism of Jesus?

• He had expected the "Holy Spirit and fire." Yet here the Holy Spirit does not take the form of fire, but the form of a dove.
• Jesus aligns himself with those who are receiving a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The curious thing about Jesus at his baptism is not what is exceptional about him, but rather the way he joins and blends in with the crowd. Incarnation means incarnation in the people of Israel, too, not just incarnation in a human body, devoid of a community and its sinfulness and repentance.
• Jesus' ability to "blend" and the fact of the durable power of the world's Herods makes it hard sometimes to know if he's really the one. The complexity of John's feeling about Jesus is probably best summed up in the message he sends Jesus from prison, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?"

The challenge of this text is to preach Jesus, rather than preaching to people about how "your baptism makes you a child of God." (For the record, it seems to me we are all children of God by virtue of our having been created by the Creator God. Baptism joins us to Christ, and functions to make us God's reborn children, but that does not mean that we were born children of anyone but God in the first place. In as much as the Lutheran Book of Worship liturgy obscures this, it is IMHO* wrong.)

Looking closely at Jesus' baptism and at the role the Holy Spirit plays in his ministry (a concordance search on the Holy Spirit in Luke is a good place to start) also spares us from turning a sermon on baptism into something that could function as a commercial for "cotton: the fabric of our lives."  Our talk of baptism can get sentimental very quickly. Baptism is not just meant for the relieving of the individual's tortured conscience or making us feel collectively warm about the "family of God." There's fire to be walked through in this life, truth to be spoken to power and healing to be offered to the whole creation. It is for such things as these that God has given us baptism, with its gift of God's Holy Spirit, living and active in Jesus' life and in ours.

*IMHO = "in my humble opinion."

"It's the indicatives, stupid."

Some years I have actually skipped church on All Saints Sunday because I have been afraid of hearing the standard horrible sermon on the beatitudes. What do I mean by horrible? "Let's all try to be more meek, shall we?" Or "Jesus is calling us to hunger and thirst for righteousness."

There is nothing wrong with being meek, or hungering and thirsting for righteousness, but Jesus is not exhorting those things in the beatitudes. These sentences are blessings, spoken in the indicative mood, like Walter Cronkite's closing line: "That's the way it is." Look at those verbs: "Blessed are... they shall be." The verbs are present and future indicatives all the way up until the exhortations, "Rejoice and be glad" (Matt 6:12). The words from Jesus are radical precisely because they are not commands, not exhortations, not encouragements to "become blessed." They are, instead, a statement of the world turned upside down, where those who mourn are comforted rather than abandoned or merely pitied, where those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are satisfied, not ignored or shouted down, where the meek inherit the earth rather than being ground into the dust.

"Right," someone will say. Or "Get real." But what if Jesus is describing the real world, and we go around all day thinking the other world is the truth about us and our neighbors? I just watched The Stuntman again last week. (It remains my favorite movie ever.) In it, Cameron (Steve Railsback) tells Eli Cross (Peter O'Toole) what he learned in Vietnam: "If you want to get home for Thanksgiving, you better figure the guy coming at you is trying to kill you."

Is Cameron right? Is he describing the real world? At the end of the movie Eli tells Cameron that he has been trying to convince him, "There's a better way of getting home for Thanksgiving."

Is Jesus right? The meek, the mourning, the persecuted, the merciful: are they blessed in the present and given a trustworthy promise concerning the shape of the future? Or are they just weak, foolish, and out of touch with reality? Is there any better way of getting home for Thanksgiving? The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus' Dream Speech of a better way of getting home, and his sketch of what the place will look like when we arrive.