Luke 6:27-30

     Jesus doesn’t call his followers to do things that are easy. Loving one’s neighbor can be difficult enough. What about when he turns his bass up so loud that your windows shake when he drives by? How about when she’s unbearably boasting about her garden, looking at yours with a pitying eye? How hard it is to love the neighbors when their dog wakes you up every morning an hour before the alarm. How hard to love a stranger who cuts ahead of you in the checkout lane or takes their thirty-two items into the express lane so that your gallon of milk takes an extra eight minutes to buy.
     At other times, Jesus would say to love one’s neighbor. This was the central teaching of the Jewish faith—to love God and to love one’s neighbor. Jesus would affirm that all other laws depend on these two.
     In fact, in all seven of the world’s major religions, the basic rule of conduct is the same, a rule that is rightfully called golden – do unto others the way you would want them to do to you. Sometimes it is stated in the negative proposition – Don’t do to others what would be hateful to you.
     Loving one’s enemies takes the golden rule and turns it platinum. Love enemies. Do good for those who have hurt you. If you are cursed by someone, bless them. If someone treats you meanly, pray for them. If you are hit on one cheek, offer them the other also. If someone takes your coat, give your shirt, give what’s asked of you, don’t insist on getting something back that’s been taken. Treat other people the way you want to be treated.
     The followers of Jesus have struggled with these teachings, because it feels as if to be faithful Christians, we have to be the doormats of the world, passive victims. What good would it do to have a thief be allowed to profit off the thievery? What good does it accomplish to let an abuser continue abusing and not have to face the consequences of what they’d done? Even if you can tolerate the abuse for yourself, an abuser rarely restricts abuse to one person or sector of their lives. Ghandi and his followers used non-violence, peaceful resistance to change India. The idea was not to submit, but not to hurt in return for hurt, or return violence for violence. India was changed, but thoughtful minds have wondered whether that would have worked in all situations. It has been pointed out that Ghandi faced those who still had an honorable code of conduct; would non-violence have succeeded against a Hitler or Stalin?
      There are no easy answers to such questions. Blessing and praying for enemies is almost easy by comparison, because it is a spiritual activity and doesn’t impact these other issues. Yet that isn’t easy either, because to truly pray and bless someone who is intent on harming us goes against out instincts. And even if we say the words, it is sometimes impossible to feel them. The irony is that we are often the only ones who experience the sword’s edge when it comes to anger or hatred. Many good people refrain from trying to hurt their enemy. But their feelings continue to acidify their lives. It was portrayed in a film that Medger Evers (a valiant fighter for civil rights who was assassinated by someone who clung to his prejudices) commented on the futility of hatred, that most of the people you hate don’t know about it and the rest don’t care. It is the individual who feels the hatred and enmity who is carrying a terrible burden. Thus the words of Jesus can be at least partially understood as a spiritually healthy exercise.
     But it would be gutless to assume that Jesus only intended his words to be a personal spiritual cleansing. He tied it with actions, actions that few of us follow that faithfully. One scholar says of verse 30 that while it might be detrimental to society to apply it literally, the saying still reminds us that it is better to err on the side of generosity.
     Jesus himself wasn’t a passive victim. He chose how he would react to the world, chose to be sacrificed because he understood it to be God’s will. He raced into the temple and threw out the money changers who were abusing the faithful people who’d come to worship.
     Lacking the wisdom of Jesus who knew when to turn the cheek and when to act, his followers will have to continuously pray and struggle with his words and not shrug them off with pat or easy answers.
     Jesus puts the specifics he’s listed into a larger context which may help in the struggle. He points out that there’s no virtue in loving only the people who love you, or doing good for people who do you good, etc. Even those who are evil or are sinners do the same.
     Put in bald terms, it profits us to be nice to the people who are nice to us. It comes naturally to us. Of course we tend to like the people who like us. Of course we want to return good for good. That part is easy, just as returning violence for violence, and hatred for hatred is easy. Jesus asked us to do what isn’t easy. That’s the way the course of human society and history can change. And Jesus pointed out that this, after all, is the way God does things. God does good for both the wicked and those who are simply ungrateful or unaware that God is doing it for them. If we want to move into a new category of spirituality, we act as true children of God.

Do you have people you would define as enemies?
Are there old grudges or angers that linger in your life?
What prayer would you make to God about your enemies?
What prayer would you make to God to be healed of your pain and anger?

Luke 6:22,26

      Last week the focus was on the beatitudes of poverty, hunger, weeping…
      This week let’s consider the fact that Jesus said blessed those who are hated, excluded, reviled or spoken ill of—for the sake of the “Son of Man.” (22) Verse 26 is similar, but saying it in the opposite form – woe to those about whom everyone speaks well, because that’s what was also said of the false prophets in the past.
      Christians would soon face persecution in the years following the death of Jesus. He knew it would happen and didn’t try to sugar-coat it. Being a master in understanding human nature, he also understood the desire to be thought well of, to have good things said about us, to be liked. Yet in looking at the history of his own people, it was not hard to find situations where this led people in the wrong direction. There had been genuine prophets – many of whom were hated or persecuted for telling the truth. There had also been prophets who tended to tell people what they wanted to hear. Naturally, they were popular.
     These beatitudes surely gave comfort to people in the days of persecution, past and present. There are still parts of the world where people are in danger because of their faith. There are circumstances where faith in Christ is safe, yet we may see in people’s eyes that they think Christians are silly, or unrealistic, or kooks, etc. A few decades ago, some Christians even went through a time when they considered it a good idea to show that they were like everyone else (trying to avoid charges of hypocrisy and self-righteousness). It can’t be denied that some Christians openly engaged in behaviors that provided a very poor witness to everything else in the Christian message. The question that was legitimately raised was – is there any point to being a Christian since it doesn’t make any difference to the way these people live?
     Ironically, in the world of the new millennium, those questions aren’t even asked very much. Some branches of Christianity have politicized themselves until they are only associated with certain viewpoints. A candidate’s faith may be debated, because they engage in still has an aura of respectability or authenticity. People accept or reject on the basis of a sound bite. Yet true Christian dialogue is almost never heard.
      Some branches of Christianity are barely known because witness has become a rarely practiced aspect of discipleship. These beatitudes become irrelevant because Christ and his followers aren’t discussed at all, in either good or bad terms.
     So the challenge of these beatitudes today may not be whether or not Christians are willing to accept persecution on behalf of Christ. It may be the question of whether Christians are willing to make their witness in such a way that genuine meaningful dialogue is possible.

What could you do that might make this beatitude apply to your life and faith?
Have you ever backed off from a word or action because you were afraid of what people would say?
What would be the danger in becoming a “popular” church?
Where are the dangers of truth telling today?

Luke 6:21-25

     Luke’s recording of the “beatitudes” begins with two having to do with people who experience deprivation. First are the ‘poor,’ second are those who hunger. One scholar suggests this has a symbolic meaning, going back to Israelite history. When Jerusalem was captured in 586 b.c., the people who were left behind (i.e. not taken into exile or killed) were left destitute. The Cambridge scholars say they became a symbol for those who are poor and defenseless, yet loyal to God.
     It is hard to know from two thousand years later, whether Jesus was evoking this in speaking of the poor and hungry, particularly when he also says the opposite of those who are rich and well-fed. Certainly, it is tempting to apply this meaning, because it would simplify the question of how much Christ’s followers are called to divest themselves of material goods. Matthew, in telling the beatitudes, spiritualizes them—‘blessed are the poor in spirit,’ ‘blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.’
      There are differences in the beatitudes as recorded by Matthew and Luke. Both gospel writers give an extended account of teaching. It is generally assumed that Luke is giving a shorter account of the same event. Then where do the differences come from?
     Of course, no one was following Jesus around with a steno pad or recording device. As an oral culture, it was far more versed in remembering what was heard orally than most people are today. The teachings of Jesus tended to be memorable. A factor that is also often forgotten is that the teachings recorded in the gospels were almost certainly given more than once. As Jesus traveled from location to location, as he talked with various groups of people, he wouldn’t have said something new and different each time. They may have varied according to need and circumstance, but he probably repeated the ‘beatitudes’ on many occasions. He likely told the parables on multitudes of occasions. And even if the gospel writers were working from an account of the same occasion, there will still be variances in the way people remembered them. Both versions of the beatitudes are meaningful; both challenge us with different ways of being spiritual and faithful, as well as increasing our understanding of how God sees the world.
      All of that said, blessed are those who hunger and blessed are the poor should remain as a reminder that material goods are not the route to spiritual fulfillment. While not stated specifically here, the contrasting of rich and poor, hungry and well-fed, would certainly raise question of how can the rich and well-fed be comfortably so if there are human brothers and sisters who are lacking the necessities of life?
      When seriously engaged, the beatitudes remain sometimes puzzling. The blessing of weeping or mourning doesn’t feel much like a blessing. There is a promise that this condition will change. Luke says that they will laugh. Matthew says they will be comforted. 
     There are Old Testament references that sound similar. Jeremiah would record the promise, "I will turn their mourning into joy, I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow." Jeremiah 31:13. The majority of Christian funeral and memorial services remind mourners that even in the valley of the shadow of death, God goes with us (Psalm 23). 
      Some scholars contrast the weeping and rejoicing (those who laugh now will mourn and weep later). The suggestion is (expanding on the words of Jesus) that perhaps the weeping is over sinfulness, the laugher now is unconscious or uncaring of sin or the pain around us.  It can certainly be true that those with much of the world’s goods can be insenstive to the suffering around them. But, again, it is not necessarily so.
     Mourning is painful and Jesus knew it.  He experienced it himself in the death of Lazarus.  He mourned over Jerusalem.  We can safely presume he had mourned at other times, for friends and family members.  The ability to mourn is the sign of another blessing--the experience of loving and being loved.
     The marvelous power of the beatitudes is that they can evoke multiple layers of meaning and exploration. Jesus, the wise teacher, must have known this would happen. He must have also known that his words would remind people of other teachings. For example, the words of Ecclesiastes – that there is a time for everything, including laughter and weeping.
     Perhaps the most foolish thing we can do with the beatitudes is wrap them up too neatly in one single interpretation. The challenge of Jesus is to think, to grow, to mature, to go ever deeper. (To be continued next week with beatitudes having to do with persecution & reputation).

What makes you feel good in reading the beatitudes?
What makes you feel uncomfortable?
What scriptural associations do you think of in reading the beatitudes?

Luke 6:17- 20

     This was not an era of mass communication. Yet news still went out. People traveling from village to village, merchants, the excitement couldn’t be contained. There was a man who heal. There was a man whose wisdom could transform lives. People began to seek him out in even greater numbers. And healing wasn’t all he had to offer. The book of Matthew gives an even more prolonged account of a teaching interval. Luke begins with what we know as the beatitudes, beginning with blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Matthew’s recitation of the beatitudes is similar, although he records ‘blessed are the poor in spirit...”
     The followers of Jesus have never quite known what to do with the blessing of poverty.
     Missionaries have sometimes taken it literally. I heard the story from a faithful Christian who came from one mission field. The descendant of one of these Christians told how the ancestors had been convinced of this. But in the modern world, their faith was despised because of their poverty and it apparently interfered with their attempt to witness and make disciples in the name of Jesus Christ. What is a Christian to do with such a situation?
     A modern theology going by the name of ‘liberation’ reacts against poverty. One of its proponents at a theological presentation was fond of saying, as if to the poor, ‘the good news is that you’re going to get your stuff back.’ Sadly, this was a poor proponent of a theology that has sought to bring forward the importance of justice. God does care about more than our spiritual health. Luke tells us that Jesus began his ministry by announcing that he had come to bring good news to the poor, recovery of sight to the blind, release to the captive –using the words of Isaiah to speak of very physical conditions. The ancient prophets consistently called the people to account for their lack of concern for the poor. So what can Jesus mean by saying the poor are blessed…or happy, according to some translations?
     The statement can and has been interpreted in various ways.
      The poor have an earthly status that is low. The poor are despised. The poor are not envied. The poor are at best an object of pity and at worst a group which the rich and powerful wish to exploit or abuse. In his beatitude, Jesus lifts and dignifies the poor. While some theologies have sought to equate poverty with righteousness, it seems extremely unlikely that this is what Jesus intended. The poor can be as obsessed with wealth as the rich can be. All the sins that are available to the wealthy and powerful are also temptations to the poor. In this, life is an equal opportunity provider. The rich may have more options in partaking, but the moral choices remain the same.
     Mother Teresa more than adequately demonstrated how poverty can be experienced as blessed. She made the choice to be poor on behalf of a spiritual life of service. St. Francis of Assisi is another. Few Christians have tried the path as thoroughly as these Christians have. Many have tried to find happiness and fulfillment through wealth, only to discover less than the joy of the man who could proclaim brother sun and sister moon.
      The same man who proclaimed that the poor are blessed did not call upon every person he met to give up everything they owned. He told stories that demonstrated the importance of being good stewards of our resources. So Christians may always struggle with what Jesus meant when he said blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The message of justice remains important. The temptations of the material world offer false hopes for fulfillment. How we handle our material resources is a spiritual matter.

In what way can the words of Jesus influence our daily choices?
What would be the voices of today’s world in favor of promoting the opposite of what Jesus proposed?
Where can people of good conscience seek to be makers of justice for the poor and the powerless?

Luke 5:27-31

       Wow!  Don't know what happened to last week's post.  It was there when it was put there last Saturday -- now you see it, now you don't!  So here it is this Saturday.  -- Next week the study won't be posted until Sunday or Monday since I will be unable to post the study until after Annual Conference.  Asking for prayers!

Luke 5:27-31
     Luke has already told of Jesus doing some things that would have been considered remarkable, if not shocking, to his contemporaries. He actually touched a man with leprosy. He calls fishermen, working folks, not scholars, to be his disciples. He talks about forgiveness in front of religious leaders who wonder if he’s being blasphemous. Now we hear that he passes by the booth of a tax collector named Levi. Jesus actually calls to Levi and invites him to also be a disciple.
     Tax collectors were not among the respectable members of society. They were collaborators with the enemy. The Romans had conquered Israel. The Romans used Israelites who were willing to be the collectors of taxes. Such a tax collector was to get the amount the Romans expected, and then they could take more as their fee. This presented plenty of opportunity for greed. With the fear of the Romans behind them, who could object if a tax collector decided an exorbitant fee was appropriate—or if extra taxes were due (whether they were or not)? Just their willingness to stooge for the occupying power would have earned them distaste if not hatred.
     But Jesus without any visible hesitation, called a tax collector to be a follower. And Levi jumped up and left everything to follow him.
     Now, the focus is usually upon the following controversy, but pause to consider Levi. There’s no evidence, of course, that he had ever taken more than a fair amount in taxes or fees. But even so, he would have been an outcast. Illustrating this is the response of the Pharisees and teachers of the law who objected to the fact that Jesus and his disciples would actually die with him and his guests. Levi’s other friends included a large number of tax collectors and other “outcasts,” as described by the Pharisees. These were the folks who were willing to associate with Levi.
     But when Levi was called, his response is immediate (and as subsequent experienced showed, whole-hearted). To abandon any job would make most people a little nervous. After all, where’s the food going to be earned after this? But to walk out on the Roman government had to carry a special worry. Yet Levi did so. Did he experience a sense of relief, along with some anxiety whether he’d be in trouble? Did he wonder whether his friends (those other tax collectors and outcasts) would decide he wasn’t someone they wanted around anymore either? Did he worry whether Jesus’ other disciples would accept him? We’re not told any of those details, just that he followed Jesus.
     Most societies have individuals and groups that are considered less than socially acceptable. The strata for this was especially radical in the Israelite culture. It has been suggested by a few scholars that Jesus was, at one time, considered a Pharisee himself. (And their subsequent ire with him was because they considered him a traitor to the Pharisees). Whether or not that is the case, they did not see him as unclean or an outcast. They spent time with him and ate with him. So to see him willingly eating dinner with Roman collaborators and other unclean members of the community must have been shocking. How could he do that?
     Jesus’ answer was simple. People who aren’t sick, don’t need a doctor. He’d come to heal the sick, not the healthy. One translation says he told them that he had not come to call respectable people to repent, but outcasts.
      An ongoing issue in Israelite society was the proliferation of ritual laws. Those who were better off had the money and leisure to follow them. Many other people did not. We don’t know whether the outcasts in this case were outcasts simply because they couldn’t follow the rituals. But what Jesus illustrated consistently was his concern for those whom “respectable” people in his culture rejected. Will Rogers in the 20th century claimed no enemies. For Jesus, no one was an outcast. No one was so unclean as to be rejected.
      Of course, as subsequent actions and words show, Jesus was vitally concerned over the sins of those who considered themselves “respectable” and religious. The primary sins he called by name were things like judging others, self-righteousness and the failure to love others.
    
Who are the people that our culture might consider outcasts, unclean or unacceptable in ‘polite’ society?
Are there parts of yourself that feel like the outcast or unclean?
What does it mean to those parts of yourself to hear the call of Jesus?
Can that give us empathy for others in our society that are on the fringes?

Computer Virus Strikes

Hi Everyone - a computer virus struck the church computer - Did I say a virus?  Make that ELEVEN viruses.  We had the computer in the shop for almost a week and just got it back.  A new study will be posted Saturday.  Have a great day!

Luke 5:15-26

     Although Jesus clearly tried at times to restrain people from sharing the news of the way he had healed them, the news spread anyway. Luke told how people came in great crowds to seek healing. In 5:16, Luke mentions, almost in passing, that he would go away to lonely places so that he could pray.
     This is not the only place where we know that Jesus sought solitude for prayer and rest. It is a powerful expression of his humanness. He needed time to himself for rest and renewal just as evhe was eryone does. Actually taking that time is an expression of his wisdom. It can also be called stewardship. To act selflessly does not require stupidity nor the inability to take time for rest and spiritual revitalization. Jesus made sure he sought the source of strength so that he could give fully to the people who needed him.
      After this, Luke’s telling of Jesus’ story shifts the scene from lonely places to a town, inside a home. His reputation has spread enough that teachers and Pharisees from many areas have come to talk with him. As he talked with them, a group of men came carrying a friend who was paralyzed. They couldn’t get into the house where Jesus was because the crowd was too much and, apparently, no one was making way for them and the need of their friend. Undaunted, the friends made their way up on the roof, lifted tiles out of the way, probably digging a hole in the roof. Then they left their friends down into the room in front of Jesus. When Jesus saw the faith of the friends, he said to the man that his sins were forgiven.
     This was a surprise to the people in the room, perhaps also to the man and his friends. After all, they’d come for their friend to be healed, not forgiven. Of course, some people believed that illness or other misfortune was due to sin. Even today, there are strands of thought that tend to interpret problems as the fault of the sufferer. This wasn’t the theology of Jesus, who once said that the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
      The words of Jesus provoked a controversy and an important discussion with the teachers and Pharisees concerning the authority of Jesus. Yet, Jesus surely was not saying this to the man to begin a theological discussion. He cared too much about people to simply use them. He must have recognized a need in the paralyzed man for forgiveness. The fact that he was unfortunate enough to be paralyzed did not make him sinless. (Some theologians have interpreted statements such as “blessed are the poor” as though this means the poor or suffering is equitable with righteousness. What it does indicate is God’s concern for those who are powerless. Israelite society was always and consistently called to give aid to the same, summed up in the widow, the orphan and the sojourner in the land. )
     We don’t know what the sins were that the paralyzed man might have on his conscience. There is no particular suggestion here that his paralysis could be the result of it.  Nor is there a suggestion that could necessarily be intepreted that it was a psychosomatic condition.
      Any further healing of the man is delayed by the ire of many who were listening. Only God has the authority to forgive sins, they mutter to each other. Jesus was a master of human psychology and clearly understood the looks on their faces, their body language and the odd word he may have overheard. He posed a simple question. Was it easier to say ‘sins are forgiven’ or to heal of man of his paralysis? After all, words are easy. A charlatan could speak of forgiveness and who could prove him wrong?  But if a man who is paralyzed is told to get up and walk, then it demonstrates the Son of Man’s authority to forgive. Then Jesus told the man that he should rise, pick up his bed and walk.
      This was exactly what the man did, praising God for all he was worth. Everyone who saw it was equally impressed and praised God for what they had seen.
       In the excitement of the healing and the question of authority for forgiveness, the presence of the friends must not be forgotten. They came, carrying their friend, willing to go to any lengths in order to help him. While Jesus did not always require faith as a requirement to healing, in this case we’re told that the faith of the friends was important to Jesus.


In what way could you carry friends and family to Jesus?


Could your faith create movement for good in the world?


What kind of healing would true understanding of forgiveness make in your life?