Matthew 25:14-30
*****
Our gospel lesson today is another parable. Jesus seems to like this type of teaching tool. Tell a story. It has a point, but you actually have to think about to understand the message. It’s like the Aesop’s Fables or Little Bunny Foo-foo. The last line is always, “And the moral of the story is….”
In today’s parable, we read about a man who is going on a journey. Prior to leaving, he takes aside three of his servants and entrusts each with a portion of his property. Each servant is giving a share of the property “in accordance with his abilities.” To one, the man gives five talents, to another two, and to the last one. We are not told that any of the servants was given instructions with what to do with their portion.
Whereas today, we think of talents as gifting and abilities (our God-given Talent Auction, for example), in the ancient world, a talent was a unit of weight. Because a talent measured weight, the value of a talent varied. A talent of gold was more valuable than a talent of silver or bronze. Thus, assigned a specified value to a talent is not possible. Theologians generally agree, however, that a talent in this context would have indicated approximately 20 years wages for a common laborer. This is a significant portion of wealth the landowner has entrusted to this servants.
What we see in this parable is that immediately, the servant entrusted with five talents and the servant entrusted with two talents each go work, investing their talents and doubling their initial wealth. The third servant, however, chooses to bury the talent which has been entrusted to him, hiding it rather than investing it. Something is clearly going on with this servant.
Next, we learn that “after a long time” the landowner returns. There is no indication of precisely how much time has passed, or whether the servants were even aware of the master’s return. We simply know that he came back, and his first order of business seems to be settling accounts with the servants to whom he has entrusted the talents.
Now, the first one comes in and shows the reward for his work—he has turned his 5 talents into 10. This is a 100% return! This is ridiculous! I’ve never seen anything like this. I mean, every payday, I try to put a little something in the bank, and at the end of the month, I’ve made $0.12. That’s a $1.44 at the end of the year. Interest rates on savings accounts these days are less than ½ of 1%. The stock market fluctuates from day to day, but even at its peak, watching stocks rise, most stocks never gain more than a few percentage points over any length of time. Yet this man shows his master that he doubled the amount which had been entrusted to him.
The master is overjoyed! He commends the servant, declaring, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.” Similarly, we see that second servant has doubled the talents that were entrusted to him! And the master is equally pleased! Again he responds, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.”
Again, there are many things about this parable which are not totally clear. We do not know where the master has been. We do not know how long he’s been gone. We do not know whether his return was known or a surprise. We also do not know what it means for a servant to “enter into the joy” of this master. We do know, however, that having shown themselves to be trustworthy—investing their talents, using the abilities they already had to do so wisely—they honored their master and in return were honored by him. The master chooses to entrust even more to them. “You have been faithful in a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.”
Last comes the servant to whom the master entrusted but a single talent. The servant who chose to dig a hole in the ground and hide his master’s money. He comes before the man and is totally honest about what he’s done. “Look,” he says. “I know that you are a harsh man. I know that you reap where did not sow and gather where you did not scatter seed. And because I am afraid of you, I went and I hid. Here. Have it back. This is the talent you entrusted to me.”
This is a servant who clearly does not know who his master is. The first two take the talents and invest them. They make excellent investments with high returns. But there is no guarantee that this is going to work out for them. Any time we choose to use our resources, putting them to work, there is an element of risk. Whether it’s investing our time, our money, our skills, or our abilities. There is always a chance that things will not work out in our favor.
But in this parable, it seems that these servants did not worry about that risk. They appear to have had no fear of what their master’s response would be if they risked everything and failed. They immediately went to work trading their talents. There is no indication that they even gave a second thought as to what would happen if they returned empty-handed.
The third servant, however, demonstrates that he is full of fear. Not wanting to risk the ire of his master, he chooses not to use the talent at all. Instead, he buries it. He hides it. He chooses to not use the talent. And an unused talent serves no one.
The master replies with anger. And though there are many ways to interpret a text, and though there is no narrative indication as to the master’s tone of voice, I think he responds with biting sarcasm: “You knew, did you that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I did not scatter? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest.”
I don’t think the master is really giving advice here on how to make low risk investments. I think he’s turning the servant’s own unfounded and unjust fears against him, and pointing out the fallacy of his actions. If the servant is so afraid of this master, this master is going to give the servant cause for fear. “You think I’m a harsh master?” he seems to be asking, “Let me show you how harsh I can be.”
Though the master is portrayed as angry, I rather think he’s deeply grieved to be so misunderstood by a servant whom he has trusted. Now, it would be easy at this point to say, “Well, sure he trusted his servant—with a single talent. He gave the others far more. How much did he really trust this guy?” Except, the mater gave this servant 20 years worth of wages. And while other two were entrusted with far greater wealth, each was entrusted with an amount “according to his ability.”
This is kind of like freshman orientation at college. A group of 18 year old kids are thrown in a room together and told, “Here’s an outline of the next four years of your life. Twelve credit hours—usually four classes—is full time. Most people take five classes. In your junior and senior year, if your academic advisor approves it, you can take even more classes.”
Everyone has different abilities. Someone who with a learning disability who needs extra time to read texts, finish assignments, and take tests is going to take fewer credit hours than someone who is capable of reading a book a day and finishes tests in half the time allotted. Each is given an education. But each is educated in a fashion that fits their abilities. If the first were to take six or seven classes in a single semester, they would likely fall behind and seriously risk their academic standing.
So it is with the servants—each has been entrusted with a portion of the master’s property. But each has been given an amount that is designed to enhance their experience, not overwhelm them with the responsibility of managing something far beyond their skills or training.
And when the third servant chooses not to use his abilities in investing the talent, but chooses instead to bury it, the master takes the talent away from him and gives it to the first, declaring, “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have not, even what they have will be taken away.”
Inevitably, in studying this passage communally, the question is always asked, “How can those who don’t have anything have anything taken away?” Except, I think there is an implied thought in the master’s words: To those who have been faithful, more will be given and they will have an abundance; but from those who have not been faithful, even what they have will be taken away.
Everyone has gifts, skills, talents to invest. We all have resources. The questions is: How are we investing these? Are we using our talents, exercising them, and building on our skill sets? Or are we hiding them? Do we choose to bless others when we have the chance, or do we make excuses as to why we can’t or shouldn’t?
Do we risk big with thing with things God has given us, trusting that God will provide an abundant return? Or do we keep our giftings to ourselves, afraid of failing even in the little things? Do we trust that our God is a God who can work miracles and wonders and who is more interested in effort than outcome?
I know I’m not always good at this. I know there are times when I shrink back, when I shy away from trying something new, because I’m not sure I’ll succeed. But I truly believe that if we choose instead to love others, to keep the faith, to hold to hope; if we choose to encourage one another and build each other up; then we’ll succeed every time. Even if we never see a final result. Be encouraged today! The work you do for God is valuable! And the investment will reap a return in the proper time.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
My Jesus Is a Short, Fat, Gay Man
I consider myself more fortunate than most. I have been extraordinarily blessed. At times, it simply leaves me speechless.
I am deeply and profoundly loved.
And I know what that means. And I know how incredible it is.
I sit in awe, wonder, and amazement sometimes. Why me? Why am I so incredibly blessed?
In particular, there is this man who loves me. Oh, how he loves me. Our relationship is special. It's different. And everyone knows it. Other have seen and remarked. "I love Tim. You know I do," Meagan once told me. "But your relationship with Tim is different from anyone else's." And she was right.
Tim's partner of 22 years comforted me. I made sure to introduce myself, to let Rob know who I was. He pulled me into an embrace and said, "Tim loved you so much." Rob knew that our relationship, mine and Tim's, was different. It was incredibly special.
When it happened, an email went out to inform the whole community. Kim and Michael came to my door to tell me in person. They knew my relationship with Tim was different. It was special. And everyone knew it.
This man loves me. It is a love that is extraordinary, powerful, transformative.
I remember when I fist met Tim, I just wasn't sure about him. He was the director of CPE and I needed the course for my degree. I just wasn't sure who he was or how he operated. I was apprehensive and simply wanted to get through the class so I could walk across that stage at the end of the year.
Our phone interview a few weeks later was simply the most awkward experience of my life. I am not good on the phone. And I do not, by and large, enjoy talking to anyone on the phone. There are very few people, with whom I can simply talk on the phone, and you know who you are. But the vast majority of people--awkward and uncomfortable. I finished that conversation and thought, "Four months. I can do anything for four months."
But then we met in person. We had our first class. It was all business, and I thought, "Maybe this won't be so bad. He seems genuine."
And then, we met in person. One on one. Just the two of us. In his small office. With just a low desk lamp for lighting.
And my heart was heavy. And my soul was crying out. I was hurting, and I needed someone, anyone, to hear my story. To know that I had made a mistake. And to help me figure out what to do. How to handle it. How to fit this new fact into my oh so carefully constructed and fiercely protected idea of who I was supposed to be. Because quite suddenly, I wasn't perfect.
And everything changed.
Tim loved me.
The biggest moral failure of my life, and Tim loved me anyway.
I did not have to earn it. I did not have to deserve it. Nothing could alter or destroy it. Tim loves me.
Not perfect. And wholly and holy loved.
And when I got sick, and landed in the hospital? Tim is the one who took me to the Emergency Room. Tim is the one who refused to leave my side for twelve hours while I waited to be seen by a doctor and admitted before being transferred. Tim is the one who heard my whole story.
Sitting there, I told Tim who I was. And I told him of my disappointment at suddenly finding myself alone on a journey. And as I closed my eyes, I saw myself walking down a lane in a wooded glen, Tim walking beside me, and I heard Jesus whisper, "Tim is walking with you on this journey."
And when I told Tim of this vision, he said to me, "Just what you wanted: a short, fat, gay man."
And Tim told everyone "She's my intern." And because they knew him, and because they knew what that meant, they treated me with far more dignity and respect than my previous experiences with hospital ERs had led me to believe I would receive. "She's my intern," he would tell them, and they would look at me, and their faces would soften, and they'd tell him, "We'll take good care of her."
And so, when I sat there, waiting to be seen, they checked on me more often than was strictly necessary. They let Tim stay with me despite the fact that had he been anyone else, he'd have been required to leave. Twelve hours. I think he headed home after midnight.
When you are admitted to the hospital for any length of time, they take all of your belongings that came with you and lock them away. When you are admitted through the ER, you haven't necessarily had time to think through the process, and you end up having to turn over things you might otherwise have left at home.
The hoop earring that used to rest in the upper cartilage of my left ear. I haven't worn it since.
The ring I used to wear on the second toe of my left foot. I haven't worn it since.
The small, sterling silver, 2 mm band with a 5 mm square portion from which was cut the outline of a cross. The ring I used to wear on the ring finger of my left hand.
I had turned over my shoes, my clothes, my cell phone, my earring, my toe ring. The security guard looked at my finger and said, "That has to go, too." And I slipped it off my finger and I started to cry. I held onto it, and looked at the guard, and with tears streaming down my face, I said, "Please. Please, can I give this to Tim to look after instead?"
"Sure," he told me. "I understand. We can have Father Tim hold onto it for you."
And Tim did. He kept it on his nightstand at home so that he wouldn't lose it.
And everyday, for fifteen days while I was in the hospital, Tim made certain I had visitors.
More fortunate than most who could only have visitors during visiting hours, I was part of the elite. I was Tim's intern. Which also meant that those he sent to me were either other interns or other chaplains. Any time, day or night, if they had a chance to visit, they were permitted. Hours did not apply.
And when I got out, my extended stay having required me to drop classes for the semester, Tim continued to mentor me. I was still his intern. He still loved me.
To everyone else, he was a boss, a teacher, a colleague, a friend, a son, a partner.
He was my mentor.
And that is a different type of relationship.
Tim loved me.
He continued to walk with me. Figuratively.
And literally. Every other week, through Riverside Park, as Casey and Willy Wonka, his Golden Retriever and my Yorkshire Terrier, played.
Tim continued to love me.
Tim never turned me away. He answered my calls, he read my stories, he held me when I cried.
That last night, five hours before it happened, I showed up at his class. I needed a hug.
And though I had hugged several people throughout the day, I knew it was Tim's hug I was waiting for, it was Tim's hug that would heal the ache in my heart.
And it did.
Tim hugged me. Tim held me. Tim breathed with me. Tim breathed peace to me. And hope. And love. Tim's love for me. All of it. And it was hot and strong and smelled of iris. And I ought to have known at that point that it was coming. But I missed it. And then I breathed in laughter.
I headed home, and Tim taught a class.
And five hours later, it was over. Tim was gone. He had died. Suddenly. With no warning. In the space of a single instant. A moment so short, there is no way to measure it. He was simply gone. His life here was over. It was over.
But our relationship is not. Tim is still with me. The relationship continues. It's simply different now. Tim is still with me. The relationship has changed, but it has not ended.
I carry with me the love he bestowed so freely upon me.
I carry with me the knowledge of my worth and value as Tim taught me, as only he could.
I carry with me the memories of who I was, and I see within myself the transformation, the resurrection of my true self, that Tim's love called out; peeling away the layers of scars, the scales that had distorted my ability to see myself as I truly am, as God has created me to be, as Tim saw me, always.
Not perfect. And not needing to be.
Because I am loved. Wholly, perfectly, holy loved.
And because my faith is an incarnational faith, I know that for exactly nine weeks, six hours, and thirteen minutes, in the autumn of 2007, Tim was the incarnation of Jesus in my life.
My Jesus is a short, fat, gay man.And because my faith is a resurrection faith, I know that when I too have "shuffled off this mortal coil," I will see Tim again. Because the relationship hasn't ended. It's simply changed.
A transcendent love that does, in fact, transcend time, and distance, and even death.
How did I ever get so fucking lucky?
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Secretary: Advice on Rejecting Women
I watched my favorite movie the other day.
More than being my favorite movie, it is, hands down, the greatest film ever made. It's sheer perfection on the big screen.
Secretary starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader, released in 2002. I saw it for the first time in 2004. I was totally hooked.
I now own two copies of the DVD.
For a very good reason. One copy got packed away during my last move and is now in some box, somewhere, toward the back of my closet, underneath several boxes of other stuff I do not use on a daily basis. I never expected to be where I am for as long as I have been, which is why it is packed away at all.
Wanting to watch it again, and now wanting to spend a solid week pulling out boxes, opening boxes, digging through boxes, re-organizing boxes, returning boxes to the closet, and suffering from allergy induces asthma for a month, I simply bought another copy.
I hadn't watched Secretary in several years when my new copy arrived from Amazon via the USPS. Oh, heaven's delight!
Actually, the previous occasion on which I watched Secretary was when I was in Hawaii visiting my now ex.
He had never seen the movie. I am absolutely LOVE the film. For a number of reasons.
But the reason about which I am writing today is this:
Secretary tells men everything they need to know about how to tell a woman he is not interested in a romantic relationship with her.
Now, this information is demonstrated in a single scene in the film which is, without a doubt, my favorite scene. It is a scene my ex absolutely hated.
I think it's one of the best scenes in the entire film. He thinks it's the worst.
My response when watching it: Thank God for simple fucking honesty!
His response: What a fucking bitch!
And here it is people:
Well, first, let me set up the background:
Lee Holloway has fallen in love. But the man with whom she is in love, Mr. E. Edward Gray, has rejected her because of his own feelings of inadequacy and shame. So, she continues to see the man she's been seeing casually, Peter, because he's there.
It is obvious from the get-go that Lee is not at all interested in Peter. She lacks any enthusiasm for him at all. She is bored and invests no time or effort in the relationship.
And Peter proposes. Lee accepts because, "I didn't know what else to do."
Later, standing in a wedding dress Lee realizes that she can't go through with it. Running from the house, she pauses long enough to return the engagement ring to Peter, and goes to see Edward.
In the following scene, Peter comes to see Lee at Edward's office. This is the scene that tells you everything you need to know about telling a woman you're just not that into her.
"I don't want you."
Four simple words. I. Don't. Want. You.
It's just that simple.
Direct.
Honest.
True.
It's just that simple.
I don't want you.
That's all you have to say. No excuses. No explanations.
Excuses and explanation suggest circumstances might change. Things might be different someday.
Except, they won't. And we all know it.
But suggesting that they might, leaves women confused at best and hopeful at worst. In the long run, excuses and explanations only hurt women. They don't "let a girl down easy." They dishonor a woman. First because they're dishonest. And second because they suggest the someday.
Four simple words.
I don't want you.
Someone said it to me once.
I appreciated it.
I felt respected.
I felt honored.
I walked away with my dignity intact. No questions. No false hopes.
I don't want you.
More than being my favorite movie, it is, hands down, the greatest film ever made. It's sheer perfection on the big screen.
Secretary starring Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader, released in 2002. I saw it for the first time in 2004. I was totally hooked.
I now own two copies of the DVD.
For a very good reason. One copy got packed away during my last move and is now in some box, somewhere, toward the back of my closet, underneath several boxes of other stuff I do not use on a daily basis. I never expected to be where I am for as long as I have been, which is why it is packed away at all.
Wanting to watch it again, and now wanting to spend a solid week pulling out boxes, opening boxes, digging through boxes, re-organizing boxes, returning boxes to the closet, and suffering from allergy induces asthma for a month, I simply bought another copy.
I hadn't watched Secretary in several years when my new copy arrived from Amazon via the USPS. Oh, heaven's delight!
Actually, the previous occasion on which I watched Secretary was when I was in Hawaii visiting my now ex.
He had never seen the movie. I am absolutely LOVE the film. For a number of reasons.
But the reason about which I am writing today is this:
Secretary tells men everything they need to know about how to tell a woman he is not interested in a romantic relationship with her.
Now, this information is demonstrated in a single scene in the film which is, without a doubt, my favorite scene. It is a scene my ex absolutely hated.
I think it's one of the best scenes in the entire film. He thinks it's the worst.
My response when watching it: Thank God for simple fucking honesty!
His response: What a fucking bitch!
And here it is people:
Well, first, let me set up the background:
Lee Holloway has fallen in love. But the man with whom she is in love, Mr. E. Edward Gray, has rejected her because of his own feelings of inadequacy and shame. So, she continues to see the man she's been seeing casually, Peter, because he's there.
It is obvious from the get-go that Lee is not at all interested in Peter. She lacks any enthusiasm for him at all. She is bored and invests no time or effort in the relationship.
And Peter proposes. Lee accepts because, "I didn't know what else to do."
Later, standing in a wedding dress Lee realizes that she can't go through with it. Running from the house, she pauses long enough to return the engagement ring to Peter, and goes to see Edward.
In the following scene, Peter comes to see Lee at Edward's office. This is the scene that tells you everything you need to know about telling a woman you're just not that into her.
"I don't want you."
Four simple words. I. Don't. Want. You.
It's just that simple.
Direct.
Honest.
True.
It's just that simple.
I don't want you.
That's all you have to say. No excuses. No explanations.
Excuses and explanation suggest circumstances might change. Things might be different someday.
Except, they won't. And we all know it.
But suggesting that they might, leaves women confused at best and hopeful at worst. In the long run, excuses and explanations only hurt women. They don't "let a girl down easy." They dishonor a woman. First because they're dishonest. And second because they suggest the someday.
Four simple words.
I don't want you.
Someone said it to me once.
I appreciated it.
I felt respected.
I felt honored.
I walked away with my dignity intact. No questions. No false hopes.
I don't want you.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Wearing the Clothes God Gave Us
Exodus 31:1-14
Philippians 4:1-9
Matthew 22:1-14
*****
Philippians 4:1-9
Matthew 22:1-14
*****
Once again Pastor Bob has decided to take off and leave me with a set of scriptures that deal with a feast. A year ago it was Lazarus and the Rich Man; in February it was Salt of the Earth; today, it’s a Wedding Banquet. For a man who has never eaten a meal I’ve prepared, he has an uncanny knack for leaving me with the food metaphors. Which is, at the very least, somewhat interesting, and may be an indication that I ought to play to my strengths.
After all, our Exodus reading tells us that the Lord filled Moses with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge, and with all kinds of skills. Now, I don’t know about wisdom, or understanding, or knowledge, but I know, and I don’t mind sharing with you (yet again) that I have got some made skills in the kitchen. And I love it!
As I was reflecting on the scriptures for today, I was trying to find some way to get at them, to enter into them, to make them come alive for me as I read them. I was kind of at a loss. What do I know about weddings and wedding feasts? I’ve never been married. I’ve never even been close. A number of my friends are married, but I’ve been to very weddings. Time and space have, on occasion, prevented me from celebrating the marriages of those I love.
And then I remembered. I’ve actually baked for weddings, plural. Three, in fact. When I was still in college, a friend of mine was getting married. She and her fiancé decided they didn’t want to do a big fancy wedding cake. It really wasn’t their style, and they wanted to share their love of other desserts with their guests. So, I was commissioned, and invited to do whatever I wanted using as much chocolate as the check they cut me would afford. Now, the groom’s favorite dessert is chocolate chip cookies. So, I baked a couple. Probably 10 cookies, actually. Which might not seem like many. Except they were pressed into 12-inch pizza pans. 10 giant chocolate chip cookies! They were awesome.
And cheesecake. Chocolate cheesecake. And tortes. And French Silk pies. And truffles. The hardest part was delivering it all, in searing July 4th heat, from my kitchen in Buckingham to the reception hall in Iowa City. Fortunately, it all held up, and people feasted on some of the best desserts ever beheld at a wedding a banquet.
Seven years ago when another friend got married, I actually got to make her wedding cake! It was quite possibly the most fun I’ve ever had making a cake. Pink Champagne cake, filled with raspberry cream, and frosted with pink champagne buttercream. Decorated with flowers. De-lightful! I can’t even begin to tell you! There are pictures of it somewhere. I’ll have to see if I can’t find those one of these days.
Again, three years ago, when another friend was getting married, she asked if I would assist her mother in the kitchen. She and her husband decided to have a mini, cookies and coffee reception before the dinner, so that she and her husband could have their wedding photos taken. An entire day was spent making her and her husband’s favorite cookies from their families recipes. I really do LOVE to bake.
And in today’s gospel lesson, we have a king who has prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He has invited his friends, and is expecting their presence. Now in the ancient world, two invitations were sent when it came to wedding feasts. A first was sent to invite the guests, to let them know that a feast was being prepared and that their presence was desired. A second invitation was sent out after the feast had been prepared, to let the guests know the time had come, and it was appropriate for them to arrive.
At the same time that the initial invitation was sent out, the host of the wedding feast would also send garments to be worn to the banquet. Being a party, in a culture where hospitality is a fundamental value, the host would provide appropriate clothing so that no one would feel ashamed of their dress or status and refuse to come.
So, here we are. The invitations have been sent. The guests have been informed that the feast is prepared, the oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered. Everything is ready. And those to whom an invitation was sent all refuse to come.
So, here we are. The invitations have been sent. The guests have been informed that the feast is prepared, the oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered. Everything is ready. And those to whom an invitation was sent all refuse to come. Instead, they go elsewhere, one to his field, another to his business. The rest killed those who came to fetch them for the feast.
So, the king sends out a new batch of servants. He tells them that the feast is ready, and they are to go out into the streets and gather all of the people they can find, and to fill the wedding hall with guests. And so, the servants go out. They gather all the people they can find. They present them with the wedding clothes, and bring them to the feast. The wedding hall was filled with people! It was time to party.
But then the king stumbles upon a man who is not wearing the wedding clothes. And the king asks the man, “How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?” And having no answer, the man is thrown out of the banquet. He has indicated, by his dress, that he does not respect the king or the gift the king has given him.
Now, in the book of Ephesians, Paul compares Jesus to a husband, the church to his wife. If we are a part of the church, we’re all kind of hanging out at the party. And we’ve been given good food to eat and fancy clothes to wear.
And I sometimes wonder if we realize it. We have been filled with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge, and with all kinds of skills. And like Bezalel, who was given these gifts to honor God by building a resting place the Ark of the Covenant Law—the very thing that was believed to hold the presence of God—we are called to use our gifts, skills, talents, knowledge to honor God by building a world in which the presence of God is experienced by all. These, I believe, are the clothes the Lord has bestowed upon us.
And the good food, on which we get to feast, is being of the same mind in the Lord—having the mind of Christ. And in choosing this, we are truly able to “rejoice in the Lord always,” no matter our circumstances or struggles. We do not need to be anxious about anything. Because we can always present our requests to God. When we do so, the peace of God will guard our hearts and our mind in Christ Jesus.
And how do we share in this mind of Christ? By choosing to follow the directive Paul gives us in Philippians: whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Do you know what I believe to be true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and worthy of praise?
These three simple facts: You are acceptable. You are worthy. You are loved. Just the way you are. And how do I know this? Because God said so. And once we come to believe these truths ourselves, we become uniquely equipped to use the gifts which God has bestowed upon us to share these truths with others. So today, may you know how truly acceptable, worthy, and loved you are, and may you share that truth with those around you, that someday the love of God may be experienced by all.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
The Side God's Standing On
Exodus 14:19-31
Romans 14:1-12
Matthew 18:21-35
*****
This morning’s readings are all fairly incredibly to me. In one, we read the story of the Israelites’ flee to freedom. In another, Jesus tells a parable of a man who is forgiven much, but is unable to forgive a little. In the last, Paul discusses what it means to the church body if one person eats meat but another only vegetables. At first glance, it might appear as though these readings have little, if anything in common. After all, a few thousand years passed between the time of Moses and the time of Jesus. Paul’s missive to the church was likely another decade or more removed from Jesus.
I believe, however, that these three readings have one very fundamental theme in common—which side of the divide God is standing on. In our Exodus readings, the Israelites have fled Egypt. They have been led thus far by an angel of the Lord. The angel, though, is no longer before Israel. It is now behind Israel, standing firm between the Israelites and the Egyptians. And a pillar of cloud which has been before them all this time has moved behind them as well.
This angel of God and this pillar of cloud are standing in a divide between the Egyptians and the Israelites, and they are standing on the side of Israel. The cloud is providing light to one camp and keeping the other in darkness, and preventing the Egyptians from stealth maneuvers and nighttime sneak attacks against the Israelite people.
Now Moses, in obedience to God, has come to the edge of a sea. The Israelites are cornered. An expanse of water before them, the entire Egyptian army behind them, they have nowhere to go. So, Moses stretched out his hand over the watery deep, and God drove the sea back with a mighty wind, dividing water from water, and creating dry land, on which the Israelites were able to walk to safety and freedom. A mighty wind all around them, the angel of God and a pillar of cloud behind them. God, is standing somewhere in this gap, and it’s on the side of the Israelites.
And the Egyptians, seeing that the Israelites were passing through the sea on dry land, a pillar of cloud behind them, a wall of water to their left, a wall of water to their right, the angel of the Lord their rear guard, the Egyptians follow. Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m fairly certain that if I were standing on the beach, at the edge of the ocean, watching an entire nation of people walk through on dry land, walls of water on either side, I’d be thinking two thoughts.
1. This has got to be the coolest thing I’ve ever seen!
2. There is no way on earth I’m following!
The whole of the Egyptian army, it seems, did not follow this thought pattern. Because they continued to pursue Moses and the nation of Israel, between those walls of water, walking on dry land, and with no indication that they gave even a moment’s hesitation. I sometimes wonder if this is because they were operating from a mob mentality—having lost all sense of themselves as individuals, they are wholly devoted to their Pharaoh and the cause their Pharaoh has taken up, and all independent thought has stopped.
Now, the simple fact is, it takes a lot of courage to fight and risk your life for a cause. But to do so without careful thought and without consideration for the lives you may be taking in that fight, lacks honor. But that is another sermon, for another day.
As Pharaoh’s army followed the Israelites, God in a pillar of fire and cloud cast the Egyptian army into a panic. God bound the wheels of the chariots so that they would not move. At this moment, the Egyptian army realized that God was standing in the gap between them and the Israelites, and they recognized that God was standing on the side of Israel, declaring, “Let us flee from the Israelites, for the LORD is fighting form them against Egypt.
And Moses, having reached the far side of the sea with the whole nation of Israel, obeyed God’s command, and stretched out his hand over the sea and the walls of water returned to their bed. The courage of Pharaoh’s army, though, left all of Pharaoh’s horses, and chariots, and chariot drivers awash in the deluge. The entire Egyptian army was dead. God was standing somewhere in the gap, and it’s on the side of the Israelites.
In our reading from Romans, Paul encourages the church to accept those who are weak in faith. Now, “Faith,” Hebrews 11:1 tells us, “is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Those who are weak in faith may not be so sure of what they hope for, or so certain of what they do not see. They may not have the confidence to live fully in freedom, and thus, are more likely to hold quite stringently to rules and regulations.
The weak, Paul tells us, eat only vegetables, which in a culture concerned primarily with ritual purity is significant. The weak do not yet know who Jesus truly is. They are still convinced, it seems, that they are saved by what they do or by what they refrain by doing. They do not yet understand that it is not what you do or what you believe that saves you. It is Jesus who saves you.
Thus, those are strong in faith, must accept and not judge those who are weak in faith. The Lord, it seems, is sitting at the table. God is sitting in the gap between those eat meat and those who eat only vegetables. It seems clear to me that God is sitting on the side of those who eat vegetables.
The same holds true for those who set aside one day as holy as opposed to doing no such thing. Paul tells us that “some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” There is no hard and fast rule for when we are to worship God. What is clear, though, is that we follow the rule of conscience, holding to what we have decided to be most important to us, and we are called to treat those who think differently with respect.
We are no to judge our brother or our sister. We are to accept them as they are, where they are, in that state of faith in which they find themselves. Strong or weak, we are all in this together. Those who are strong in faith, therefore, bear the greater responsibility to honor those who are weak in faith. And it seems clear to me that if faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see, then being strong in faith is less about the intensity of our convictions and more about our trust in the Lord.
It has been my experience that those hold so tightly to the rules tend to be afraid—of doing the wrong thing, of speaking the wrong words, of appearing foolish or immature. Often those holding most tightly to the rules are afraid to have fun, to delight in the ridiculous, to let go of their notions of how responsible adults conduct themselves, are truly and deeply terrified that Jesus is not who Jesus claims to be. Those who hold so tightly to rules and regulations are basing their sense of self-worth and hope for salvation in what they do and say, not in who they are as one created by God, and not in whose they are a child of God.
And those who are strong in faith, who acknowledge that while they may make mistakes along the way, while they might not do everything just right 100% of the time, also trust that God is good, and the Jesus is the only source of salvation and so have freedom to risk big whether they succeed or fail, they succeed or fail for the Lord. And these, we are told, are called to bear with those who are weak in faith. God is standing in the gap between the freedom of the strong and the fear of the weak, and God is standing on the side of the weak.
Finally, our Gospel lesson for today tells the parable of a man shown incredible grace and incapable of showing any grace to others. Now, Jesus tells this parable in response to a question from Peter: Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?
Now, Peter, for all intents and purposes, is being quite generous. Rabbinic teachings during the first century indicated that you were to forgive those who sin against you three times. Three times and no more. Here Peter is suggested that we forgive those who sin against more than twice that amount! Surely this generosity of spirit that Peter demonstrates would stand out.
Jesus, however, indicates that this is not enough. You must forgive seventy-seven times. Now, Jesus is not indicating that you should carry a notebook with you and tally every time a person sins against you and when they hit number seventy-eight, you are to immediately retaliate. Rather, Jesus was using Peter’s own language—speaking in sevens—to indicate that there really is no acceptable limit. You forgive, and you keep forgiving, as often as is necessary.
And why do we forgive other an infinite number of times?
The parable Jesus shares next answers this for us. We are all debtors. Every one of us. We have all sin and fall short of the glory of God. We are like a slave, called before our king to settle our account. In this parable, you and I are the slave. God is the king. Our debt, those 10,000 talents, amounts to twenty years worth of wages for a laborer. Now, if a common laborer today makes somewhere in the realm of $40,000 a year (which was case in 2009), this would amount to a debt of $800,000.
And this slave is called upon to pay it all, immediately, or he, his wife, his children, and all of his possessions will be sold to cover the debt. The slave, however, pleads for mercy, begs for a little more time, and promises to pay the debt. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s quite unlikely this man will ever be able to pay this debt in full. And the king seems to think so, too. Moved with pity, he forgives the man’s debt. God is standing between the debtor and the lender, and it’s clear to me that God stands on the side of the debtor.
This is rather how God treats us. We are utterly indebted to God. God created us, loves us, saves us, and we have nothing to offer in return. We owe an unpayable debt. And God, out of deep love and compassion for us says, “It’s alright, my child. You’re debt is forgiven. You owe me nothing.”
And how are we to respond to this incredible grace that God showers upon us? Well, in our parable, the slave goes out and finds a contemporary who owes him about one hundred denarii. Which equates today to about $160.00. The man demands immediate payment in full, and though his debtor pleads for mercy and a little more time to pay it back. But the first man does not listen throws the second into prison.
Now, the king, upon learning of this incident calls the first man before him again and reminds him of the grace shown, and challenges his unwillingness to show such grace to another. In great anger, the king hands the man over to be tortured until he can pay his debt in full. God is standing between the debtor and the lender, and it’s clear that God is standing on the side of the debtor.
But what does it mean that God stands on the side of a debtor, a vegetarian, an Israelite? It means that God stands on the side of the oppressed. God stands on the side of mercy and justice. God’s interest is in the weak, the least, the lost. The Israelites were oppressed in Egypt and God stood between them and the entire Egyptian army. Don’t think vegetarians are oppressed? Have you ever tried to abstain from meat at a Sunday dinner in Iowa? One man owes his entire life’s wages and is forgiven, but cannot forgive a man who owes a day’s return. The oppressed turned oppressor.
God is standing between the oppressed and the oppressor, and it is clear that God is standing on the side of the oppressed. As the people of God here on earth, where are we standing?
Romans 14:1-12
Matthew 18:21-35
*****
This morning’s readings are all fairly incredibly to me. In one, we read the story of the Israelites’ flee to freedom. In another, Jesus tells a parable of a man who is forgiven much, but is unable to forgive a little. In the last, Paul discusses what it means to the church body if one person eats meat but another only vegetables. At first glance, it might appear as though these readings have little, if anything in common. After all, a few thousand years passed between the time of Moses and the time of Jesus. Paul’s missive to the church was likely another decade or more removed from Jesus.
I believe, however, that these three readings have one very fundamental theme in common—which side of the divide God is standing on. In our Exodus readings, the Israelites have fled Egypt. They have been led thus far by an angel of the Lord. The angel, though, is no longer before Israel. It is now behind Israel, standing firm between the Israelites and the Egyptians. And a pillar of cloud which has been before them all this time has moved behind them as well.
This angel of God and this pillar of cloud are standing in a divide between the Egyptians and the Israelites, and they are standing on the side of Israel. The cloud is providing light to one camp and keeping the other in darkness, and preventing the Egyptians from stealth maneuvers and nighttime sneak attacks against the Israelite people.
Now Moses, in obedience to God, has come to the edge of a sea. The Israelites are cornered. An expanse of water before them, the entire Egyptian army behind them, they have nowhere to go. So, Moses stretched out his hand over the watery deep, and God drove the sea back with a mighty wind, dividing water from water, and creating dry land, on which the Israelites were able to walk to safety and freedom. A mighty wind all around them, the angel of God and a pillar of cloud behind them. God, is standing somewhere in this gap, and it’s on the side of the Israelites.
And the Egyptians, seeing that the Israelites were passing through the sea on dry land, a pillar of cloud behind them, a wall of water to their left, a wall of water to their right, the angel of the Lord their rear guard, the Egyptians follow. Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m fairly certain that if I were standing on the beach, at the edge of the ocean, watching an entire nation of people walk through on dry land, walls of water on either side, I’d be thinking two thoughts.
1. This has got to be the coolest thing I’ve ever seen!
2. There is no way on earth I’m following!
The whole of the Egyptian army, it seems, did not follow this thought pattern. Because they continued to pursue Moses and the nation of Israel, between those walls of water, walking on dry land, and with no indication that they gave even a moment’s hesitation. I sometimes wonder if this is because they were operating from a mob mentality—having lost all sense of themselves as individuals, they are wholly devoted to their Pharaoh and the cause their Pharaoh has taken up, and all independent thought has stopped.
Now, the simple fact is, it takes a lot of courage to fight and risk your life for a cause. But to do so without careful thought and without consideration for the lives you may be taking in that fight, lacks honor. But that is another sermon, for another day.
As Pharaoh’s army followed the Israelites, God in a pillar of fire and cloud cast the Egyptian army into a panic. God bound the wheels of the chariots so that they would not move. At this moment, the Egyptian army realized that God was standing in the gap between them and the Israelites, and they recognized that God was standing on the side of Israel, declaring, “Let us flee from the Israelites, for the LORD is fighting form them against Egypt.
And Moses, having reached the far side of the sea with the whole nation of Israel, obeyed God’s command, and stretched out his hand over the sea and the walls of water returned to their bed. The courage of Pharaoh’s army, though, left all of Pharaoh’s horses, and chariots, and chariot drivers awash in the deluge. The entire Egyptian army was dead. God was standing somewhere in the gap, and it’s on the side of the Israelites.
In our reading from Romans, Paul encourages the church to accept those who are weak in faith. Now, “Faith,” Hebrews 11:1 tells us, “is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Those who are weak in faith may not be so sure of what they hope for, or so certain of what they do not see. They may not have the confidence to live fully in freedom, and thus, are more likely to hold quite stringently to rules and regulations.
The weak, Paul tells us, eat only vegetables, which in a culture concerned primarily with ritual purity is significant. The weak do not yet know who Jesus truly is. They are still convinced, it seems, that they are saved by what they do or by what they refrain by doing. They do not yet understand that it is not what you do or what you believe that saves you. It is Jesus who saves you.
Thus, those are strong in faith, must accept and not judge those who are weak in faith. The Lord, it seems, is sitting at the table. God is sitting in the gap between those eat meat and those who eat only vegetables. It seems clear to me that God is sitting on the side of those who eat vegetables.
The same holds true for those who set aside one day as holy as opposed to doing no such thing. Paul tells us that “some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” There is no hard and fast rule for when we are to worship God. What is clear, though, is that we follow the rule of conscience, holding to what we have decided to be most important to us, and we are called to treat those who think differently with respect.
We are no to judge our brother or our sister. We are to accept them as they are, where they are, in that state of faith in which they find themselves. Strong or weak, we are all in this together. Those who are strong in faith, therefore, bear the greater responsibility to honor those who are weak in faith. And it seems clear to me that if faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see, then being strong in faith is less about the intensity of our convictions and more about our trust in the Lord.
It has been my experience that those hold so tightly to the rules tend to be afraid—of doing the wrong thing, of speaking the wrong words, of appearing foolish or immature. Often those holding most tightly to the rules are afraid to have fun, to delight in the ridiculous, to let go of their notions of how responsible adults conduct themselves, are truly and deeply terrified that Jesus is not who Jesus claims to be. Those who hold so tightly to rules and regulations are basing their sense of self-worth and hope for salvation in what they do and say, not in who they are as one created by God, and not in whose they are a child of God.
And those who are strong in faith, who acknowledge that while they may make mistakes along the way, while they might not do everything just right 100% of the time, also trust that God is good, and the Jesus is the only source of salvation and so have freedom to risk big whether they succeed or fail, they succeed or fail for the Lord. And these, we are told, are called to bear with those who are weak in faith. God is standing in the gap between the freedom of the strong and the fear of the weak, and God is standing on the side of the weak.
Finally, our Gospel lesson for today tells the parable of a man shown incredible grace and incapable of showing any grace to others. Now, Jesus tells this parable in response to a question from Peter: Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?
Now, Peter, for all intents and purposes, is being quite generous. Rabbinic teachings during the first century indicated that you were to forgive those who sin against you three times. Three times and no more. Here Peter is suggested that we forgive those who sin against more than twice that amount! Surely this generosity of spirit that Peter demonstrates would stand out.
Jesus, however, indicates that this is not enough. You must forgive seventy-seven times. Now, Jesus is not indicating that you should carry a notebook with you and tally every time a person sins against you and when they hit number seventy-eight, you are to immediately retaliate. Rather, Jesus was using Peter’s own language—speaking in sevens—to indicate that there really is no acceptable limit. You forgive, and you keep forgiving, as often as is necessary.
And why do we forgive other an infinite number of times?
The parable Jesus shares next answers this for us. We are all debtors. Every one of us. We have all sin and fall short of the glory of God. We are like a slave, called before our king to settle our account. In this parable, you and I are the slave. God is the king. Our debt, those 10,000 talents, amounts to twenty years worth of wages for a laborer. Now, if a common laborer today makes somewhere in the realm of $40,000 a year (which was case in 2009), this would amount to a debt of $800,000.
And this slave is called upon to pay it all, immediately, or he, his wife, his children, and all of his possessions will be sold to cover the debt. The slave, however, pleads for mercy, begs for a little more time, and promises to pay the debt. Now, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s quite unlikely this man will ever be able to pay this debt in full. And the king seems to think so, too. Moved with pity, he forgives the man’s debt. God is standing between the debtor and the lender, and it’s clear to me that God stands on the side of the debtor.
This is rather how God treats us. We are utterly indebted to God. God created us, loves us, saves us, and we have nothing to offer in return. We owe an unpayable debt. And God, out of deep love and compassion for us says, “It’s alright, my child. You’re debt is forgiven. You owe me nothing.”
And how are we to respond to this incredible grace that God showers upon us? Well, in our parable, the slave goes out and finds a contemporary who owes him about one hundred denarii. Which equates today to about $160.00. The man demands immediate payment in full, and though his debtor pleads for mercy and a little more time to pay it back. But the first man does not listen throws the second into prison.
Now, the king, upon learning of this incident calls the first man before him again and reminds him of the grace shown, and challenges his unwillingness to show such grace to another. In great anger, the king hands the man over to be tortured until he can pay his debt in full. God is standing between the debtor and the lender, and it’s clear that God is standing on the side of the debtor.
But what does it mean that God stands on the side of a debtor, a vegetarian, an Israelite? It means that God stands on the side of the oppressed. God stands on the side of mercy and justice. God’s interest is in the weak, the least, the lost. The Israelites were oppressed in Egypt and God stood between them and the entire Egyptian army. Don’t think vegetarians are oppressed? Have you ever tried to abstain from meat at a Sunday dinner in Iowa? One man owes his entire life’s wages and is forgiven, but cannot forgive a man who owes a day’s return. The oppressed turned oppressor.
God is standing between the oppressed and the oppressor, and it is clear that God is standing on the side of the oppressed. As the people of God here on earth, where are we standing?
Sunday, August 28, 2011
In Vino Veritas
This morning sucked.
After less than 3 hours of sleep, I showed up to church over-dressed. After swapping out my dress and heels for shorts and a t-shirt, I promptly sat in spilled soup. So, back I changed into the dress. Ugh. Church in the park is supposed to be fun! It was not shaping up to be a happy event.
To make matters worse, I was reading the Epistle. Romans 12:9-21. I scarcely got through it. I began to tear up as I read the first two verses: Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good. Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.
I was exhausted and emotional and emotionally spent and in thinking about "outdo[ing] one another in showing honor," I thought about how honored I had felt the night before in a conversation I had with a friend. And my voice caught as I tried to read the words, my vision blurring from the tears I was holding back.
After church, there was a fabulous potluck. There were all sorts of really wonderful looking foods. Most of which I, as a celiac, could not eat. Tired, weary, and with a headache of epic proportions, I changed back into my now soup-stained shorts and t-shirt, and curled up in the back of Jaguar with my dog to take a nap while my younger brother, who'd gotten a ride to church with us this morning, fished. This is neither an easy nor a comfortable feat for someone who is 5' 10" tall.
Things started to look up, however, later in the afternoon.
After we got home from church, I took a nap. In my bed! It was freakin' amazing!
Then, we headed out to the next church activity of the day.
There is a couple in my church who own a small vineyard. Just a few acres. They grow one variety of white grapes--La Crosse--and one variety of red--GR7.
A year ago, our church decided to begin offering wine as an option at communion. We began to serve wine for communion this past Easter.
Last year was our first year in what is to become an annual tradition. This time last year, I was in Colorado and missed the first annual stomping of the grapes. Today, I stomped for the first time. It was ROCK AWESOME!
After we harvested grapes from 5 vines, pulling in about 3-4 5-gallon buckets full of grapes, the stomping began. (This produced approximately 6 gallons of grape juice which will leave approximately 5 gallons wine at the end of the process). The first step is to stand in a tub of vinegar. This sanitizes the feet.
The second step is to stand in a tub of warm water. This washes away the vinegar.
Finally, into the grapes. A big, squishy tub of purple GR7 grapes. You can feel the grapes crush beneath your feet, the skin splitting, the meat popping forth and the sticky sweet juice running between your toes. It was the most disgusting fun I think I've ever had.
There seemed to be several techniques for stomping grapes. Some used stepped into the tub and twisted their way to the bottom, using their feet like a food mill, applying downward pressure and a corkscrew motion to extract the juice. Some simply stomped, marching place or stepping from side to side and back again.
I used my toes, grabbing the grapes and squeezing until they burst. I rolled large bunches over the top of my foot and used the instep of my other to crush them. I danced and laughed and delighted in the stomping of the grapes.
After this, our host and hostess--the vineyard owner and his wife--fed us an excellent meal of roast pork loin, potatoes, cole slaw, and a few varietals of wine. Lemonade and water were available as well. It was fun and church family and joy. It was the perfect ending to any day. More than anything, though, it felt like a gift from a God, a blessing, a bit of redemption and resurrection for a day which had started out so difficult.
I fully intend to this again next year!
*And did I mention? Our church's wine label reads "Ripley Redemption Red".
After less than 3 hours of sleep, I showed up to church over-dressed. After swapping out my dress and heels for shorts and a t-shirt, I promptly sat in spilled soup. So, back I changed into the dress. Ugh. Church in the park is supposed to be fun! It was not shaping up to be a happy event.
To make matters worse, I was reading the Epistle. Romans 12:9-21. I scarcely got through it. I began to tear up as I read the first two verses: Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good. Love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.
I was exhausted and emotional and emotionally spent and in thinking about "outdo[ing] one another in showing honor," I thought about how honored I had felt the night before in a conversation I had with a friend. And my voice caught as I tried to read the words, my vision blurring from the tears I was holding back.
After church, there was a fabulous potluck. There were all sorts of really wonderful looking foods. Most of which I, as a celiac, could not eat. Tired, weary, and with a headache of epic proportions, I changed back into my now soup-stained shorts and t-shirt, and curled up in the back of Jaguar with my dog to take a nap while my younger brother, who'd gotten a ride to church with us this morning, fished. This is neither an easy nor a comfortable feat for someone who is 5' 10" tall.
Things started to look up, however, later in the afternoon.
After we got home from church, I took a nap. In my bed! It was freakin' amazing!
Then, we headed out to the next church activity of the day.
There is a couple in my church who own a small vineyard. Just a few acres. They grow one variety of white grapes--La Crosse--and one variety of red--GR7.
A year ago, our church decided to begin offering wine as an option at communion. We began to serve wine for communion this past Easter.
Last year was our first year in what is to become an annual tradition. This time last year, I was in Colorado and missed the first annual stomping of the grapes. Today, I stomped for the first time. It was ROCK AWESOME!
After we harvested grapes from 5 vines, pulling in about 3-4 5-gallon buckets full of grapes, the stomping began. (This produced approximately 6 gallons of grape juice which will leave approximately 5 gallons wine at the end of the process). The first step is to stand in a tub of vinegar. This sanitizes the feet.
The second step is to stand in a tub of warm water. This washes away the vinegar.
There seemed to be several techniques for stomping grapes. Some used stepped into the tub and twisted their way to the bottom, using their feet like a food mill, applying downward pressure and a corkscrew motion to extract the juice. Some simply stomped, marching place or stepping from side to side and back again.
I used my toes, grabbing the grapes and squeezing until they burst. I rolled large bunches over the top of my foot and used the instep of my other to crush them. I danced and laughed and delighted in the stomping of the grapes.
After this, our host and hostess--the vineyard owner and his wife--fed us an excellent meal of roast pork loin, potatoes, cole slaw, and a few varietals of wine. Lemonade and water were available as well. It was fun and church family and joy. It was the perfect ending to any day. More than anything, though, it felt like a gift from a God, a blessing, a bit of redemption and resurrection for a day which had started out so difficult.
I fully intend to this again next year!
*And did I mention? Our church's wine label reads "Ripley Redemption Red".
And the Pirate in My Head Says
So many thoughts.
Someone once told me a story about their experience in a co-ed friendship. She wanted to be more than friends. He wanted to be just friends. In the course of their discussing divergent desires (nice alliteration, right?) she said to him, "I have enough friends," and walked away from the relationship. End of story.
I never understood that. If the other person means so much to you, wouldn't you be willing to accept whatever it is they have to offer, even if it's not everything you want?
Now, I get it.
When I took Field Education while finishing my Master's, we spend a week on sexual ethics in regards to the pastor-congregant relationship. The question was raised: What do you do when you find yourself developing romantic feelings for a congregant who has come to you for pastoral care?
Without hesitation, I said, "Refer out. Refer out. Refer out."
In a class of twenty, only one person agreed with me. The speaker in the seminar disagreed, saying, "It's inappropriate to punish the congregant because of your own feelings."
I understand her point. It's unfair to deny another person, one entrusted to you by your position, pastoral care. You keep your own feelings in check, and continue to minister to them.
Pastors are not, despite what church culture dictates, super-human or super-holy. There is potential, because the pastor is in a position of spiritual authority and therefore has the power in the relationship, for such a situation to become abusive, whether it's ever consciously intended or not.
As such, I stand by my original response: Refer out.
But neither of these cases is particularly helpful to me right now.
The first is unhelpful because the person who told me the story was a guy who had a consistent and well documented habit of pursuing women's hearts for sport. He was a master at getting women to fall in love with him and then playing the "friend" card. And so, at the end of the day, not much of a friend. A "something is better than nothing" philosophy only applies when there is something substantive to be had or lost.
The second is unhelpful because I haven't begun to develop romantic feelings for a parishioner/congregant. I have fallen in love with a peer, a fellow minister, a colleague, for all intents and purposes. Incidentally, back in February, I had to take the MMPI-2, as required of all ministry candidates in my Association. A list of some 500+ true/false questions, one of them reads: T/F I have never been in love. In February, this was true. As of July 19th, it's false.
Everyone I know has a list of qualities they are seeking in a potential mate. In my experience, women more than men tend to have an actual, physical, written list, as opposed to a purely mental checklist.
I started just such a list when I was in college.
It's a list that includes everything from hair and eye color (dark hair, light eyes) to IQ (140 or above), to personality (kindness, integrity, forthrightness, graciousness, quirky), to theology/faith (Christian in both word and deed, commitment to scriptural authority, desire to grow in theological understanding, openness), etc. Most of these are preferences. A few have become non-negotiables.
I've always been attracted to the idea of marriage and motherhood. I would like, someday, to get married, and have a couple of kids. A little girl with green-gold eyes and flaxen ringlets. A little boy waiting to greet the world.
I've never pictured myself as a single mother. And I've only once considered another person marriageable material, though it would have necessitated giving up the hope of children. And boy did that go down in flames.
Having recovered some from the grief that left me vulnerable to this person, from a standpoint of significant mental and emotional health, I did 2 things:
1. I thanked (and continue to thank) God that this person is no longer a part of my life and,
2. I prayed, and I prayed, and I prayed. And after much prayer and thoughtful deliberation, I set my list of preferences aside, and I made a list of non-negotiables.
It looks like this:
1. Christian in word and deed.
2. On the same intellectual playing field.
3. An absolute commitment to healthy conflict resolution as outlined in Matthew 18.
Now, in all fairness, I feel it necessary to point out that being a Christian in word and deed means any potential mate will also have to exhibit traits of kindness, honorableness, integrity, etc.
An intellectual playing field differs vastly from IQ. IQ scores are like classifications in sports: pee-wee, little league, junior varsity, varsity, college, and professional. Intellectual playing fields, on the other hand take into account both the level and the sport being played--a professional baseball player is at the top of the game, but his/her skills differ greatly from a professional football or basket ball player. I want someone in the same sport and league. Intellectually, I want a professional badminton player. Incidentally, this also guarantees that quirky personality trait.
But that last one? I actually had a Christian leader whom I greatly respect tell me to scratch it off the list because no man anywhere in the world would ever be willing to commit to Matthew 18-ing it from the get-go, because, in her words, "all men are afraid of conflict."
I threw her advice out the window. I would rather remain single for the rest of my life than compromise on those core values.
So, here I am, 3 year later. List intact. Single. And in love. And I know that I am in love primarily because not once have I even thought about changing who I am to win his heart. In part because I'm confident that he would never ask me to, and in part because I know that if he did, I'm healthy enough to simply walk away.
And so, having fallen in love, I pulled out my list, mentally. Sure enough, he meets criterion #1. And holy cheese and crackers, he meets criterion #2! This is a miracle on the order of loaves and fishes, as these criteria, by and large, tend toward mutual exclusivity in my experience.
But #3 was not yet apparent. We have not experienced conflict in our friendship. In fact, we have never really discussed our friendship. It's just kind of there--active, dynamic, lively, and a boatload of fun. As yet, no conflict to speak of.
So, I pulled out my secondary list. The preferences. Hair color--really dark brown. Eye color--pale brown, almost gold, like Tiger's Eye. Height--Tall! Kindness. Compassion. Graciousness. Sense of humor. Quirky. Enjoys dancing. Total nerd. Every single item on my list is a match. Every. Single. One. (This is excepting those items which would require a ruler, caliper, and infant medical records--or lack thereof--or a totally inappropriate Q&A session). Ladies and Gentlemen, he's shaping up to be the world's most perfect man.
And then, tonight. Oh, boy! He calls. And he tells me that he is still hung up on his ex. And though he doesn't state it explicitly, it's clear that he knows I've fallen in love with him. He tells me that he does not want to lead me on, and he deeply values my friendship, so if he does or says anything , like flirtatious banter or calling me in the middle of the night (which, for the record, equates to 10:30 pm for me) that makes me feel used or taken advantage of, he wants to know. And so, criterion #3 get a check mark.
I've got this checklist. And before me is this man who fits all of my criteria. This man is standing before me, knowing I'm in love with him, and his concern is that he's doing everything he can to safeguard both my heart and our friendship.
He's just not interested in me romantically. Which, naturally, begs the questions: What the hell is wrong with this guy? I'm amazing! And anyone would be hard pressed to find a woman as extraordinary as I am.
But, like I said, everyone has a list of preferences. Apparently someone else's name is at the top of his. I'm not what he wants, and it seems he will never want what I am.
And the pirate that lives in my head says, "Argh, lassie. The lad be an idiot not be wanting the treasures you possess."
Someone once told me a story about their experience in a co-ed friendship. She wanted to be more than friends. He wanted to be just friends. In the course of their discussing divergent desires (nice alliteration, right?) she said to him, "I have enough friends," and walked away from the relationship. End of story.
I never understood that. If the other person means so much to you, wouldn't you be willing to accept whatever it is they have to offer, even if it's not everything you want?
Now, I get it.
When I took Field Education while finishing my Master's, we spend a week on sexual ethics in regards to the pastor-congregant relationship. The question was raised: What do you do when you find yourself developing romantic feelings for a congregant who has come to you for pastoral care?
Without hesitation, I said, "Refer out. Refer out. Refer out."
In a class of twenty, only one person agreed with me. The speaker in the seminar disagreed, saying, "It's inappropriate to punish the congregant because of your own feelings."
I understand her point. It's unfair to deny another person, one entrusted to you by your position, pastoral care. You keep your own feelings in check, and continue to minister to them.
Pastors are not, despite what church culture dictates, super-human or super-holy. There is potential, because the pastor is in a position of spiritual authority and therefore has the power in the relationship, for such a situation to become abusive, whether it's ever consciously intended or not.
As such, I stand by my original response: Refer out.
But neither of these cases is particularly helpful to me right now.
The first is unhelpful because the person who told me the story was a guy who had a consistent and well documented habit of pursuing women's hearts for sport. He was a master at getting women to fall in love with him and then playing the "friend" card. And so, at the end of the day, not much of a friend. A "something is better than nothing" philosophy only applies when there is something substantive to be had or lost.
The second is unhelpful because I haven't begun to develop romantic feelings for a parishioner/congregant. I have fallen in love with a peer, a fellow minister, a colleague, for all intents and purposes. Incidentally, back in February, I had to take the MMPI-2, as required of all ministry candidates in my Association. A list of some 500+ true/false questions, one of them reads: T/F I have never been in love. In February, this was true. As of July 19th, it's false.
Everyone I know has a list of qualities they are seeking in a potential mate. In my experience, women more than men tend to have an actual, physical, written list, as opposed to a purely mental checklist.
I started just such a list when I was in college.
It's a list that includes everything from hair and eye color (dark hair, light eyes) to IQ (140 or above), to personality (kindness, integrity, forthrightness, graciousness, quirky), to theology/faith (Christian in both word and deed, commitment to scriptural authority, desire to grow in theological understanding, openness), etc. Most of these are preferences. A few have become non-negotiables.
I've always been attracted to the idea of marriage and motherhood. I would like, someday, to get married, and have a couple of kids. A little girl with green-gold eyes and flaxen ringlets. A little boy waiting to greet the world.
I've never pictured myself as a single mother. And I've only once considered another person marriageable material, though it would have necessitated giving up the hope of children. And boy did that go down in flames.
Having recovered some from the grief that left me vulnerable to this person, from a standpoint of significant mental and emotional health, I did 2 things:
1. I thanked (and continue to thank) God that this person is no longer a part of my life and,
2. I prayed, and I prayed, and I prayed. And after much prayer and thoughtful deliberation, I set my list of preferences aside, and I made a list of non-negotiables.
It looks like this:
1. Christian in word and deed.
2. On the same intellectual playing field.
3. An absolute commitment to healthy conflict resolution as outlined in Matthew 18.
Now, in all fairness, I feel it necessary to point out that being a Christian in word and deed means any potential mate will also have to exhibit traits of kindness, honorableness, integrity, etc.
An intellectual playing field differs vastly from IQ. IQ scores are like classifications in sports: pee-wee, little league, junior varsity, varsity, college, and professional. Intellectual playing fields, on the other hand take into account both the level and the sport being played--a professional baseball player is at the top of the game, but his/her skills differ greatly from a professional football or basket ball player. I want someone in the same sport and league. Intellectually, I want a professional badminton player. Incidentally, this also guarantees that quirky personality trait.
But that last one? I actually had a Christian leader whom I greatly respect tell me to scratch it off the list because no man anywhere in the world would ever be willing to commit to Matthew 18-ing it from the get-go, because, in her words, "all men are afraid of conflict."
I threw her advice out the window. I would rather remain single for the rest of my life than compromise on those core values.
So, here I am, 3 year later. List intact. Single. And in love. And I know that I am in love primarily because not once have I even thought about changing who I am to win his heart. In part because I'm confident that he would never ask me to, and in part because I know that if he did, I'm healthy enough to simply walk away.
And so, having fallen in love, I pulled out my list, mentally. Sure enough, he meets criterion #1. And holy cheese and crackers, he meets criterion #2! This is a miracle on the order of loaves and fishes, as these criteria, by and large, tend toward mutual exclusivity in my experience.
But #3 was not yet apparent. We have not experienced conflict in our friendship. In fact, we have never really discussed our friendship. It's just kind of there--active, dynamic, lively, and a boatload of fun. As yet, no conflict to speak of.
So, I pulled out my secondary list. The preferences. Hair color--really dark brown. Eye color--pale brown, almost gold, like Tiger's Eye. Height--Tall! Kindness. Compassion. Graciousness. Sense of humor. Quirky. Enjoys dancing. Total nerd. Every single item on my list is a match. Every. Single. One. (This is excepting those items which would require a ruler, caliper, and infant medical records--or lack thereof--or a totally inappropriate Q&A session). Ladies and Gentlemen, he's shaping up to be the world's most perfect man.
And then, tonight. Oh, boy! He calls. And he tells me that he is still hung up on his ex. And though he doesn't state it explicitly, it's clear that he knows I've fallen in love with him. He tells me that he does not want to lead me on, and he deeply values my friendship, so if he does or says anything , like flirtatious banter or calling me in the middle of the night (which, for the record, equates to 10:30 pm for me) that makes me feel used or taken advantage of, he wants to know. And so, criterion #3 get a check mark.
I've got this checklist. And before me is this man who fits all of my criteria. This man is standing before me, knowing I'm in love with him, and his concern is that he's doing everything he can to safeguard both my heart and our friendship.
He's just not interested in me romantically. Which, naturally, begs the questions: What the hell is wrong with this guy? I'm amazing! And anyone would be hard pressed to find a woman as extraordinary as I am.
But, like I said, everyone has a list of preferences. Apparently someone else's name is at the top of his. I'm not what he wants, and it seems he will never want what I am.
And the pirate that lives in my head says, "Argh, lassie. The lad be an idiot not be wanting the treasures you possess."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)