Luke 6:43-7:10

     What Jesus says here is common sense. Good trees bear wholesome fruit; bad trees don’t. You don’t get good fruit from thorn bushes either. In the same way are people. When a person has a treasure of goodness in the heart, good words and deeds will be produced. In like manner, evil produces evil.
     Was Jesus challenging his followers to produce good and show goodness within? Was he challenging religious leaders of his day, pointing to hypocrisy? Was he simply leading into the story of the house built on sand? Was he doing many things at once?
     A wise debater will sometimes state truisms, truths that everyone can nod and agree with. Jesus goes on to point out that people might call him Lord, but it is pointless unless they are following through on what he taught. A foolish person will hear his words and not act upon them. That person is like one who builds his house upon the sand. In a rainstorm, a flashflood will come and wash their home away. A wise man listens and acts, thereby building his house upon a rock that can stand in the storm.
     It is hard to know for certain whether Jesus spoke these words in this exact sequence. Matthew and Luke show different collections of his teachings, so it is possible that the two comments do not inherently stand together. At the same time, the one can be said to flow one to the next in at least one sense. What Jesus spoke was sane and true and good. Jesus may not have been tooting his own horn, so to speak, but he may have been challenging his listeners to decide for themselves what his nature was like. If they listened and considered his authority to teach as valid, then it was foolish indeed to fail to live what he taught.
     Luke does not give as extended a time of teaching as Matthew. After this, he tells how Jesus went into Capernaum. A Roman Centurion lived there. The Centurion had a servant who he valued, but who was ill and close to death. This soldier had heard about Jesus, but instead of going to him directly, he asked some of the Jewish elders to approach Jesus on his behalf. These leaders did so, telling how the Centurion loved the Jewish people and had done much good for them, including building them a synagogue. This in itself is a remarkable statement. Luke’s book may well have been written at least partially to explain Christianity to the Gentile world, and to hear about this centurion was important. It is possible that the soldier was a god-fearer, a person who worshipped Yahweh, yet did not convert because of circumcision and the dietary laws.
     Whatever the circumstances, Jesus started immediately for the soldier’s home. Someone must have run ahead to tell the Centurion because he sent some of his friends to Jesus saying it wasn’t necessary to come to him. As a man of authority himself, he knew what it was to issue orders and know they would be followed. He trusted that Jesus, man of authority, could do the same.
      Jesus praised the man’s faith in the hearing of everyone around him, and the messengers returned to the Centurion’s home, to find the servant was healed.
      It may not be coincidence that Luke told a story of teaching that dealt with the authority of Jesus, then we hear this story about the nature of authority and the trust a Gentile had in Jesus.  The authority of Jesus remains in question today. Although millions claim they are Christians, they are largely unaware of what he taught. At a church several decades ago, a pastor decided to memorize Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount and give it for his Easter sermon. He didn’t say that’s what it was because he figured everyone would know. Yet after the service, numerous individuals came to him upset – they thought he had the wrong slant on things, needed to get a better idea of Christianity. Obviously, even Jesus' most active of followers don’t always know what he taught, which doesn’t say much for the authority they ascribe to him, or whether houses built upon ignorance can long stand.
      
What would it mean to truly acknowledge the authority of Jesus in one’s daily life?
What are the storms that might do the most damage to your house?
Where is your building program most active?

Luke 6:37-42

     Do not judge others. It’s amazing how often this subject came up during the ministry of Jesus. He lived when the religious elite found it easy to condemn those who did not have the resources or ability to maintain the rituals that were considered so important at the time.
     Jesus says it in strong words – don’t judge and God won’t judge you. Don’t condemn and God won’t. Forgive and God will do the same for you. Give to others and God will give to you. Then he goes on to say that you will receive a full measure, a generous helping, poured into your life, as much as you can possibly hold. The measure we give will be the one God uses for us.
    It is said that the ancient middle east delighted in hyperbole, that is, stating the extremes to make a point. Perhaps this is what Jesus is doing. The religiously self-righteous needed to be shook up. They’d failed in the very love of neighbor that was the central core of their ethical and spiritual teaching.
      At the same time, the legalists could turn his words into a quid pro quo equation. Give and you will receive, etc. In fact, that’s exactly what’s sometimes happened. Read some inspirational material on tithing and you will often find stories of someone who asserts how they started giving more to the church, then more and every time they gave more, their business started doing better or their income otherwise went up. While we would not doubt their sincerity, the stories could turn giving into a self-centered attempt to receive.
     We give because that’s what God calls us to do. We give in response to God’s love and the sacrifice of Jesus. We give when we are in accord with the image of God in which we are made. We give because causes are important to us and we want to come down squarely on the right side of life.
     We forgive also for the same types of reasons. We refrain from judging (or should!) because we have no business condemning others.
     A more positive understanding of the words of Jesus might come from the old illustration concerning the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea is called dead because it contains too much salt to be viable. Water flows into it, but because nothing flows out, the sea does not support life.
     Or perhaps there’s the old scientific truth – two things can’t be in the same place at the same time. How can God’s forgiveness make a meaningful difference in our lives if we’re too busy patting ourselves on the back and judging other people? If we are selfish and self-centered, God’s gifts are neither recognized nor valued. An ungenerous heart finds it difficult to understand generosity when received.
      Jesus went on to tell a parable or analogy of the fact that a blind person cannot lead someone else who’s blind. That would be ridiculous and everyone will end in a ditch. A student isn’t greater than the teacher, but the student can hope to be like the teacher upon completing the course.
     Then Jesus went on to another parable/imagery asking why we would persist in fussing about the speck in a neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log or plank sticking out of our own. The wonderful humor of this image is often missed entirely, but may well have provoked a good chuckle to those who first heard it.
     Earlier, Luke (6:36) had recorded the words of Jesus calling upon being to be merciful in the same way God is merciful. To love enemies, because God is also good to the wicked and ungrateful.
     When Jesus spoke, it wasn’t as if he was speaking to people in whom he saw no hope and no promise. Rather, he spoke to people in the understanding that, though they had strayed, they had great potential, because they were the children of God and could aspire to the standards of God.

What is the hardest part about forgiveness?
How difficult is it to refrain from judging others?
Does bringing a judgmental attitude to life really make anyone feel better?
How do we let go of self-righteousness and grow into forgiveness?

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?