July 29, 2007
(Ninth Sunday after Pentecost; Proper 12)
What Would You Name Your Baby?
by The Rev. Bruce Hall, Deacon
Hosea 1:2-10 • Psalm 85 •
Colossians 2:6-15, (16-19) •
Luke 11:1-13
(From
The Lectionary Page)
Today’s readings invite us to linger over the words we have heard and read and to reflect how they appear so at odds with each other, and sometimes, even specific texts within themselves. Moreover, today’s readings consistently make use of the language of human relationship to teach us something about God and our relationship to our Creator.
I don’t know about you, but my first reaction to the readings was one of questioning and discomfort as these they appear to conflict with one another—with God angry and vengeful in one and a markedly different depiction offered in the Gospel. The text from Hosea seems, initially, even a bit more curious with what sounds like an internal contradiction where God is described as disowning God’s people only to quickly make references to these same folk remaining God’s people. Yet, on reflection I was reminded how this is not uncommon in our lectionary, and the Bible itself, as over time many of Gods people seek to share with others the powerful experience they have had with their creator. Not surprisingly, not everyone has the same experience even as the nature of God is unchanging and eternal. Leave it to us to get a piece here and a piece there and over the millenniums stitch together our theological quilt. Sometimes different pieces come from different ages and cultures and, like the bold designs from a 1970’s pattern book, they may not look familiar or even stylish to us today. But unlike a dated shirt with collars resembling with wingspan of the new Airbus, we should not toss aside the experiences of our ancestors but ask—what can they tell me about my Creator? Old Testament scholars and everyday readers have recognized that Yahweh is not a divinity necessarily known for gentle patience and quiet endurance of betrayal—quite the reverse. Volatility, moodiness, pointed jealousy, at times deceptive, and frequently contradictory have all been descriptors of Yahweh’s character. This has not been lost on you or me over the years, and now, what are we to make of this?
Some may turn to the simple notion of God as somewhat bipolar and requiring placation in order for us to avoid God’s wrath. This perspective has even worked itself into our popular culture through the renown biblical scholar of Bart Simpson, Master of Divinity. Yes, I am citing "The Simpsons." In an old episode of the show ("Radio Bart"), Bart is given a “Mr. Microphone” set for Christmas and, using a hidden speaker, fools his playmates into believing they are hearing the voice of Yahweh. Speaking in a booming voice (personally, I think Bill Cosby did a better job of it in his Noah's Ark bit) Bart commands the children to go forth to their homes and gather all the cookies therein and return to him and bringing their cookies with them in homage. Not surprisingly, this seems odd and curious to the children and they, perhaps like you and I, begin to question the voice of God. “Why?” is the simple inquiry and the response, predictable. “Look, do you want a happy God or a vengeful God?” “Happy God! Happy God! Happy God!” is the triune reply. What made me chuckle most when I first saw this was that this seems to be the why many of us relate to God, responding to a powerful God who is to be feared and obeyed because of immense power. Could not this same power be the very thing that draws us nearer to God in trust, intimacy, and love?
It is the use of just such language in Hosea that should catch our attention. Here the writer is going deeper than a cartoon gag line to speak in terms of the love and the marital relationship. Hosea is writing to a people who have walked away from Gods commandments. No, let me put that more accurately. Hosea is exposing and rebuking a people who have been unfaithful in their marriage to Yahweh. They have been seeing other Gods on the side and sleeping around. The intimate bonds of trust that facilitate deep intimacy and vulnerability have been violated in what may be the most destructive manner—sexual infidelity. The metaphor and language of marriage and betrayal is intentional. Other illustrations, breaking of a business agreement or violating a contract, for example, could have been used, but they were not. This is about broken relationships more than broken commandments. Broken hearts and the suffering of the cheated lover and used by design. This is one reason behind the provocative names given to his children, living, breathing signs testifying to God’s anger and injury; this is a God who is presented as very human in his reaction to adultery. In short, God is hurt.
Today’s Gospel likewise uses a relational metaphor to teach us about God character. In both these lesions, authors are attempting to describe the Holy and our relationship to God by using reference points, core relationships that you and I are familiar with, to describe something transcendent which our minds cannot completely capture. Using the parable of a persistent man knocking at midnight on the door of his friend, Jesus tells us as much about who God is NOT as He does who God is. The example of friend presumes a relationship of a kind, but persistence is needed in order that a friend’s plea for bread to be answered. Some see this as an indication for being persistent in prayer. Dedication in one’s prayer life is commendable and to be encouraged, but I’m not sure that’s the strongest point being made here. God is not some cosmic vending machine requiring a shove now-and-again to deliver. The friend-to-friend relationship may be a powerful one, but it is immediately compared here to the relationship between a child and a parent—a far more critical, necessary relationship, and the relationship that sets the framework for our understanding and experience of love, closeness, and intimacy. In fact, the term “our father” found in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer is more of an urgent plea, a cry for the parent to drawn near. Our closest equivalent would be along the lines of…”DADDY!” or “MOMMA” What was your reaction just then as I made this cry myself? What was your reaction when you’ve heard this from your own children or those of others? There is no pleading or begging necessary when a child is in genuine need or danger. A nightmare brings most parents to their child’s bedside, a response that seems more instinctual and less one of calculating duty or obligation. The parent loves—that is enough to respond instantly to the child’s cry for help.
You know, don’t you, that this is our God as well. God is available and responds to you and me as we call upon God to answer our prayers, “for everyone who asks, receives.” God is faithful even the face of our own infidelity as when we choose other gods, choose power over justice, money over people, or comfort over sacrifice. God continues to love us and call us out to a Holy life.
Yet, if God is so faithful, why are so many people hungry? How is that freeway overpasses serve as refuge for the poor? If God is who God claims to be—why such manifest lack by so many for “daily bread”, shelter, and the care which seems assured by Jesus’ teaching?
The answer hangs on our awareness of the importance of our relationships by reflecting deeply on the very words we’ve been considering today such as marriage, infidelity, child, parent, friend. We have been asked to consider our relationship to God through the language of various intimate relationships just as in these past weeks other lessons have asked us to consider our relationship to other people through exploring the meaning of “neighbor” and the question “who is my neighbor?”
God has sought us out as friend, as lover, as parent and as a parent has modeled for us the centrality of love in all our relationships. God has practiced faithfulness as we are reminded at each Easter Vigil. We have been taught what love is, but do we practice it? Are we faithful? Often, we are not, and that my brothers and sisters is on us, not God. People are hungry because we tolerate hunger. People are homeless because we rationalize their “situation.” People lack basic medical care because we perpetuate a system where some have tremendous support and services and other have nothing whatsoever. These ills of society are our own because we permit them. Hosea would have his work cut out for him today in this nation, this state, this city. What if the birth certificates at St. Luke’s read “Refrigerator Crate” remembering those who live in cardboard boxes. Or another named “Empty Pill Bottle,” “Dirty Needle,” or “Homicide?” My brothers and sisters, we are not remaining in relationship with our neighbor by letting these things stand unchallenged and tacitly accepted. This is sin and a sin of our own doing. God calls for you and me to remain in relation to our neighbor and to be the vehicles for God’s grace. We, the Church, are the body of Christ and we need to act like it. When the body of Christ feeds the homeless through the Kansas City Community Kitchen, this is God feeding the hungry. When people like you volunteer to teach adults to read, this is God keeping a promise to take care of a child’s needs. We have an essential part to play in manner God’s promises are kept. God is not dependant on us any more than God needed us to create the natural order. But we have been included, it seems to me, in the process by which God has decided to express His faithfulness. When we as a body demand that basic healthcare be available to all, well, the Church can be a force for securing more eggs and fewer scorpions. Each of us is called to this work and as you consider the infidelity of people ancient and modern, ask yourself, how faithful am I? When my neighbor searches for justice in the court—or in the street, what is my response? When my neighbor knocks, pounds really, at the door for bread….what is to be my reply?
