CHRISTMAS, 2008, lesson #2

Matthew 2:1-12

Last Sunday near the end of the lesson I said that, “It is difficult to believe in Christmas without that star!” Today let us add to that. “And it is difficult to believe in that special star without thinking of those three Kings from the Orient, the wise men or Magi”.

Today we will focus on the Magi. If you don’t already know, “Magi” is the plural form of the Latin word, “Magus”. We use the plural form because legend has it that there were three of them (actually, no one knows how many there were). And, they are also sometimes referred to as kings, as in “We Three Kings”; but that too is wrong. We do know they weren’t kings, even though they were far from being ordinary. These particular Magi were probably from Persia, what is now Iran, and they were from a tribe called Medians. Media was a part of the Persian Empire, and at one time they had tried unsuccessfully to overthrow its leaders . Eventually, the whole tribe became priests, much as the tribe of Levi functioned for the Jews. According to scholar, William Barclay, they were, “skilled in philosophy, medicine and natural science”, the learn-ed men of Persia; and because of the Persian reverence for astrology, Medians eventually became known as holy men or Magi. That they were astrologists, as were many of the educated elite then, bears on our story because the Magi believed that the movement of stars was predictive of events of the future. So the story about a special star in the Jesus narrative has something to recommend its historicity, even though no one today knows the exact star to which the story refers. There are many theories concerning various planets and stars, but little agreement. Even non-believers admit, though, that this event could have happened in the context of that time and place.

Just a point of historical interest here before turning to Matthew 2:1-12. The birth stories from Matthew and Luke are the only birth stories we have. And since neither Matthew nor Luke was present at the birth event, their versions of the story must have come from someone who was, or from someone who heard it from someone who was. Now we know that both Matthew and Luke borrowed extensively from the earlier Gospel of Mark, 1) but Mark does not even mention the Christmas story. He starts his gospel with the adult Jesus and John the Baptist. 2) The Gospel of John, instead of a birth story, uses the majestic words of Greek rhetoric to describe Jesus’ appearance on the pages of history, 3) and strangely, nowhere does Paul mention Jesus’ birth.

So we know that both Matthew and Luke had a source other than Mark for this special story. But the versions of their stories are different in several details, so different sources are probable. At least some scholars think Joseph, Jesus’ father, was the original source for Matthew’s story and his mother, Mary, was Luke’s source. Without going into more detail, and there are other theories about this, let me add that the whole Matthew birth story gives evidence of being told by a man, while a woman, possibly Mary, could have been Luke’s source. With that in mind, let’s now read from Matthew 2: 1-12.

What a beautiful and interesting story. It’s a blessing in itself as evidenced by the fact that millions of Christians read it every year and never seem to grow tired of doing so. Still, its beauty notwithstanding, I contend there is more to it than meets the casual eye. In fact, I don’t even think this story, at its deepest level, is about Magi. It does, though, seem that God worked his will in these real historical people much as he does us today. He blessed their venturing out in ways we can recognize in our own lives. This story, don’t forget, was written by a Jew, and Jewish writers almost always built layered levels of meaning into their stories. So this one, on the surface, meant exactly what was written. But there is a layer beneath the surface, and a profound meaning can also be found there. This is usually a metaphorical meaning and in this one the Magi are us; consequently, their attributes are what we can recognize in ourselves.

Since we have read this story many times, and certainly appreciate its surface beauty, let’s explore what is hidden and maybe even just as profound, the layered meaning with which it is underwritten, and accessible only to those who search. Now keep in mind that doing this negates not even one word of the literal meaning of the story; but it does allow us to build on it, and, most importantly, find ourselves somewhere in God’s overarching narrative, as we are legitimized by the past (these stories) and assured of the future (its prophesies).

The Magi’s quest for knowledge reveals a willingness to venture out, and I hope each of us today will seek our own willingness to venture out by seeing our qualities in them. Their first quality was intelligence, something for which the Magi were known, and indeed, a requirement of their profession. But is that any different than us? Intelligence means one has the ability to absorb information and convert it into knowledge, a process called cognition. While cognitive ability is not the same for all people, it is most rare when combined with the innate ability to reason at a high level. These are qualities with which only a few are blessed; they are special gifts. One does not know why one possesses them, no more than does a great athlete or artist; we can only be thankful if we do. But it was the proper use of some of God’s most unique gifts that was the example set for us by the Magi. They did not rest in smug satisfaction; they did what God equipped them to do. We can do no less; in doing so we, like they, honor God just by embarking on the journey.

This leads into our second point of comparison. Actually, it is two points, curiosity and motivation, but let us consider them at the same time. What a wonderful quality is curiosity. I cannot imagine life without it, yet some people never test the limits of life’s possibilities. I went to pick up a friend at his apartment complex one day in Lubbock. As he got into my car I asked him how long he had lived there. “About three months”, he said. As we exited the complex there was a stop sign before entering the street. “Turn left here,” he said. “Where would we go if we turned right” I asked out of curiosity. “I don’t know” he said, “I’ve never turned right.” The Magi had never traveled this road before either. Yet they embarked on it, seeking someone they didn’t even know.

Contrary to most Christmas stories, plays and nativity scenes, most scholars believe that Jesus was at least six months of age or older when the Magi event took place. Even the text seems to affirm as much in verses nine and eleven where it refers to Jesus as a “child” rather than a baby in a manger. Interesting as that is, though, it isn’t even the point, for the story would stand either way. The real point for consideration here is that the curiosity of the Magi is so descriptive of us. For instance, almost everyone by his or her own station in life, has shown a fair amount of curiosity. But are you curious enough to turn right, when all you’ve done in life is turn left? The second step in acquiring something of value is enough curiosity to want to go to where it lies. I know many of you have done that—maybe all of you. And many times it wasn’t easy and the journey took much longer than the six months the journey of the Magi is estimated to have taken.

It is when one combines curiosity with motivation, though, that discoveries are made. Motivation is a sort of intellectual energy that propels us on quests. It was obviously abundant in the Magi to cause them to embark on such a journey. But that same abundance of motivation I see often in you. I know you as people who are not satisfied just to exist. But are you motivated, or were you? Have you remained motivated? If not, maybe you set the bar too low. What if God’s star, as it continues to move across the heavens, is calling you to follow? In our story the Magi, once they found Jesus, didn’t stop, for their journey was not complete. They still had another journey in them; they returned to their homeland bearing new gifts.

Third, the Magi, scholars surmise, had both wealth and honor among their peers. They were listened to; they were respected. So can you imagine how many people listened and received the joy they brought home, the news of the coming of God to earth? They could bring the good news (and have it heard) because of whom and what God had allowed them to be. But what if they had 1) rested on their laurels, 2) fed only themselves, 3) profited as the sole beneficiaries of their luxury, 4) as many with similar blessings do today? Staggering numbers of people have acquired wealth, yet, never accomplished anything else of note. But the Magi did, for they obviously made courageous, decisions to venture out that enabled them far past what they ever envisioned for themselves.

And herein is the first most important point of our lesson. The Magi did not know what would be at the end of their journey, but they trusted in the journey itself. They believed. And they combined that with 1) their intelligence, which we have; 2) their curiosity, which we have; 3) their motivation, which we have; 4) their power, which we have; 5) and their wealth, which we have.

And the second most important point: what really mattered, and the only thing that mattered, was not what they had, but what they did with what they had. What if this Christmas you receive a cell phone, but no battery with it? That never happens, for manufacturers know that the value of a cell phone correlates directly with a charged battery; so it is included. It is not that the gift is unimportant, just that it needs a catalyst to unlock its real value. God gives his gifts in the same way. He includes a catalyst in the package of gifts he gives us; it may be 1) intelligence, 2) curiosity, 3) motivation, 4) power, 5) or wealth—any or all of them. It’s only in incredible shortsightedness that we correlate the value of his gifts to us with our own personal desires and refuse to use them for what he intended.

The Magi were blessed; but no more than are we. But the blessing did not end with them; they listened to that still, small voice within, that catalyst, and reacted to what they heard; only then did they reach their highest calling in life. If we do that, our star too, will finally come to the place where Jesus is. For there is a star, no less of God’s making, beckoning each of us.

So I invite you, this year, to seek, find and follow your star. Your gifts, no less than those of the Magi, will enable you to bring spiritual and physical healing to the lives of countless people who are hurting and need you. Only then will you truly have a Merry Christmas.

CHRISTMAS, 2008, #1

CHRISTMAS, 2008, lesson #1
December 14, 2008

First I want to thank you for the Christmas gift. As I use it I’ll remember your love and forbearance over this past year—and for the many years. Not all gifts are so thoughtful, though. Back when I was a basketball coach, on one December morning in the late ‘60’s after losing a close basketball game, I went to my mail box and my principal had gift-wrapped a road map for me. He was the principal who—I think it was the next spring—called me in one day and said, “Phil, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the school board has voted to renew your contract. The bad news is that the vote was 4 to 3.” So again, thank you; it has been a blessing for me to be the teacher of this class, and I try to never take that privilege for granted.

Before getting really Christmassy next Sunday, let’s look at how most latter day Christians have come to understand the Christmas story? We would like to think that for centuries and centuries the story was accepted just as first written. There have been disputes about parts of the Bible, though, since the first attempts to gather it into a canon. The ancient Christian fathers wrote much about this and had divided opinions themselves dating back to the first century. Then, in the eighteenth century came the Enlightenment era and progressively better tools for research into antiquity began to reveal inconsistencies in Bible translation. In fact, some of what we thought to be real stories of our faith turned out to be more myth than history. A true understanding, though, is more complicated than that, and usually recognizes that some of the Bible is literal/historical, portions of it are allegory, and a lot of it is somewhere in between. None of this, though, need reflect on the truth contained within. So our question for today is: should we think of Christmas as historical or allegorical?

To help us answer that let’s look at a well known passage of prophesy. In Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah tells King Ahaz, “Therefore (or behold) the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Taken literally, it was King Ahaz to whom God would give this sign; not to Mary and Joseph, nor to the shepherds or wise men. Yet most early Christian writers interpreted the verse as a historical prophesy about the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, who would be the Messiah. Such stories describing an important birth were common in those times. But did New Testament writers borrow from these stories? After all, none of them were there at Jesus’ birth. But Isaiah was a prophet and the gospel writers, looking back at his words, probably thought them a fitting way to describe the birth of Jesus; a “virgin” will conceive and bear a son. So did it really happen that way? Most Christians today believe it did.

But there are others who read this differently. First of all, let me say that there has arisen, especially since the enlightenment, a cadre of Christian scholars who adamantly oppose the traditional understanding of the Christmas story—and, indeed, other parts of the New Testament. I will ignore this concern for the time being, though, not because their scholarship is right or wrong, but because today I want to concentrate on some Jewish beliefs as put forth by an immanent Jewish scholar named James L. Kugel.

In Kugel's opinion, (now remember, he is a Jew) the passage we just read is not prophesy of a coming Messiah, but refers to a son to be born to King Ahaz of Judah. It seems, in Kugel's opinion that the reign of King Ahaz was less than stellar and, thus, his subjects looked forward to him having a son who would replace him and bring peace and prosperity to the kingdom. So the prophet Isaiah, Kugel’s theory goes, was brainstorming for ways for the king’s reign to be salvaged and put this forth as a possibility. But was it just that, only a muse to King Ahaz (Kugel's belief), as opposed to a prophetic vision shared with him which is the belief of most Christian exegetes.

For many, the answer hinges on the meaning of two words. The first word of the passage, reads “Therefore”, or “Behold”, as in, “Behold, the Lord himself will give you a sign…” If this is the correct rendering of the ancient Hebrew text, then it has to be a prophesy given by God and relayed by Isaiah to King Ahaz. “Behold” in biblical jargon means something is about to happen or already has, so for the gospel writers Isaiah’s fore-telling had to be from God—for did it not happen? God announced the messiah right then and there, some 500 years before the fact.

But there is controversy about whether the original Hebrew word means, “behold”, (the traditional Christian understanding), or as Kugel and others believe, the Hebrew word means “suppose”, as in, “Suppose the Lord himself [would] give you a sign…” If their understanding is correct Isaiah and King Ahaz would be contemplating a positive ending for Ahaz’s reign and Isaiah’s words would have a whole different meaning. An imperative from God, “Behold”, becomes humans casting about for answers; “Suppose…”

Now, here is the kicker: no one knows who’s right. Even James Kugel admits the ancient word could reasonably be rendered either way. So let’s look at another example. Respected exegetes from strong faith backgrounds also have genuine differences about this. The ancient word that we have always assumed meant “virgin” is challenged by others who say it means “young woman”. Was the Messiah to be born of a virgin or was Mary an ordinary young woman? Our text says: “The virgin will be with child and give birth to a son…” and I would hazard a guess that few of us think twice when we read that sentence. For the meaning of “virgin” is obvious, and it fits with one of the major components of the Christmas story; Jesus (a son) was born of Mary (a virgin).

But again, Kugel and others read this differently. Their contention, based on what they consider to be good evidence, is that the word “virgin” only crept into the scriptural text during the third century, B. C. when the Bible was first translated into Greek. Now the pagan Greeks had many superstitions and religious beliefs involving virgins, so it was natural for them to render “young woman” as “virgin”, believing it fit the meaning. Quite by accident this gave early Christian writers the key they needed; Isaiah’s prophesy became the Christmas story. There was no malice aforethought intended by the Greeks, mind you; remember that they did their part three hundred years before the birth of Jesus. Quoting Kugel, “…Isaiah’s “young woman” was translated as “parthenos”, which probably did mean “virgin” to the translators. (It seems unlikely, however, that in so translating they meant to imply an actual…virgin birth; more likely, they simply meant that a virgin would get married, become pregnant in the usual way, and then give birth.)”

So understandings of Isaiah 7:14 vary greatly. Mostly, they are shaped by scholars 1) who come from vastly different backgrounds, 2) many of whom were separated by hundreds, even thousands of years, 3) and undoubtedly had faith predispositions that were difficult to overcome, if, indeed, they had any desire to do so. And then there are what I call quasi-exegetes who try to attract attention by publishing headline grabbing opinions and advertise them widely as fact in order to sell books. And believe me, there are plenty of those. “But wait”, as television pitchman Billy Mays says so gratingly, “there’s more.” There is, in fact, another way to understand the Christmas story as we will hear it once again this year. We have the option to cast our adult reservations aside, allow ourselves to become vulnerable, and simply believe!

But maybe we’re just too wise for that. This past Wednesday night I spoke at the Refresh Service and made this statement: “I challenge each of you to find a time, hopefully soon … that you can slip away and be alone. Maybe it will be outside, alone in a star lit back yard … Look up toward heaven and pick out a star (Any star will do; God made them all.), and, for that one night each year, become as one with the wise men. Ponder that star as they must have; gaze at it with a believing heart, knowing it is a special sign God created just for you … the birth of Jesus the savior, can happen in the manger of your heart. That is the really good news … So be still and know that this is Christmas—a time like no other for of all who dare to claim their star.”

Later it dawned on me, there are many who, if they heard that, would think I was losing my grip on reality, wouldn’t they; speaking to adults as if they were children. They see this as another Santa Claus, or Easter bunny, or tooth fairy tale and probably cringe, a little embarrassed for me, an old teacher who is beginning to drift a little as he ages. A friend of mine once laughingly told me that his father, on his death bed, asked him, “Do you think there could be anything to that Jesus and Christianity stuff?” He hadn’t put any stock in such things in his life and he had taught his son well. But now, all the doors of his life were closing and, sadly, he knew it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote from the prison in which he would be executed, “… [The world may have] surrendered on all secular problems, [but] there still remains the so-called ‘ultimate questions’—death [and] guilt—to which only ‘God’ can give an answer...” But to truly believe God can give an answer, or even that he has an answer to give, is difficult if you don’t believe in Christmas. And you can’t believe in Christmas without that star! Yes, it may sound unbelievable; it may even embarrass you to say you believe, maybe more to say what you believe, but that star seen by the wise men remains ever present. Maybe it was because they did see and follow that star that they were called “wise men” in the first place.

Actor and comedian, Woody Allen, once said, “The lion and the lamb shall lie down together, but the lamb won’t get much sleep.” Amusing as that is, I must disagree completely. And that brings me to the point of this lesson: the Bible is both history and allegory; so may be the Christmas story. But these words, we are taught, come from God’s Spirit to ours. So if I believe in a creator God, why would I have any problem believing in his holy star; and that special star would have no meaning at all without the Christmas story.

My proof of the veracity of Christmas is that it brings me peace—a “peace that passes understanding”. I have no need to verify that Jesus stuff; I choose to believe. Consequently, I have no problem with the lamb lying down with the lion. Neither, I believe, will the lamb.

WESLEY’S PRUDENTIAL MEANS OF GRACE
(Lesson #4)
December 7, 2008

We will end our series today on John Wesley’s “means of grace”, that part of his theology many consider his most important teaching. If you remember our last lesson, and I know that’s asking a lot, they were 1) prayer, 2) Bible study, 3) the Lord’s Supper, 4) fasting, 5) and group fellowship. Since Wesley deemed these practices to be ordained by God he called them the “instituted means of grace.” In addition, though, he added three precepts of his own. These he called the “prudential means of grace”; ways of living the Christian life that prudent Christians would follow.

The three prudential means of grace differ from the five institutional means of grace—by two. Another difference is, they are less specifically biblical (as you will soon see), yet are ways Christians logically would to put their beliefs into action. There is a good part of that and a bad part, in my opinion. But before we get into the good and the bad, let’s identify the prudential means of grace; they are: 1) do no harm, 2) do all the good you can, 3) and attend the private and public worship of God. As you can see, this closely follows biblical teaching such as 1 Peter 4:10 which says, “Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.” So where do we receive these gifts we are to use? They are given to us because of God’s grace. And what are we to do with them? We are to serve others.

I mentioned that there could be a bad element in interpreting Wesley’s prudential means of grace, and let’s look at that first in something Wesley may have had in mind. According to Steve Harper, who, if you remember, is one of Wesley’s biographers, “He used these means (that is, the prudential means of grace) as conditions for continuing membership in the Methodist societies, and members were regularly examined to see how they were living up to such standards.” In other words, if you didn’t practice the prudential means of grace, you were dismissed from the Methodist Societies. And of the three, only one of them was objective, or measurable: “attending the private and public worship of God”. So one had to attend; and there were examinations to determine this. Needless to say, for most United Methodists today that would be a deal breaker. But in all honesty should we not admit that most people do better when they are accountable to someone other than themselves? But this is far too complicated to get into today, so I will leave it for another time. Still, it’s a pretty fascinating part of our history, to consider how far we’ve come from that, and if that had been good or bad.

Now let’s look at some of what is good about the three prudential means of grace. When I think of 1) doing no harm, 2) doing all the good you can, 3) and attending the private and public worship of God I immediately see that each of them involves two entities, and one of them isn’t God. They each involve me and somebody else. Whereas, of the instituted means of grace, only the last one, group fellowship, involves anyone other than God and me, the prudential means of grace involve a relationship between me and those with whom I share God’s creation. To put it another way, John Wesley believed that we receive grace directly from God, but we also receive it person to person. That implies two things: 1) we said before that grace is most akin to the idea of mercy. So God makes what we do for others an act of mercy—for us! 2) And to place it in the proper perspective, Wesley didn’t mean that we should depend on someone else to give grace to us, because God has already done that. The important idea here is that I will CONTINUE to receive God’s grace (his mercy) through what I do for others. But gosh; wouldn’t it be easier just to ask for it? Must I really do all of that—for them? I have a friend who worked his way from nothing to being very wealthy. He told me one time, everyone wants to be a millionaire—but few are willing to work hard enough to be one. Could that be the same as saying, “Everyone will admit they need continuing grace; but few are willing to do what it takes to receive it.”

There is ample precedent for this, not only over and over in scripture, where we read of people (including the prophets, Jesus and the disciples) ministering selflessly to others, but also from scholars who study the deeper meanings of our faith, and, thus, its wider implications. Let me give you three examples. First, writer and pastor, James L. Mayfield tells us, “The primary instrument God uses to give us grace is other people…People [also] are the primary instruments God uses to deliver us from our distress.” Think about that. Who put his or her arm around you as you hurt with pain, or were paralyzed by fear, or ravaged by grief? Who promised to pray for you? It is always someone who loved you enough to take, not send God’s grace to you. And this doesn’t imply, for instance, that sending our money to those in need, wherever they are in the world, isn’t good. It is! But there is more to it than that. We must take God’s grace to the ones right here in our community who are desperately in need of it.

The second example is suggested by one of my favorite twentieth century theologians, Reinhold Niebuhr, who wrote, “…the most potent form of divine grace is that which is mediated by human love.” I must confess that I struggled as I pondered Niebuhr's words here. I was shamed because of how seldom I’ve visited Gene Faires or Bill Lee or Grace Riggs. I’ve probably fallen short for many of you as well. Speaking for myself, it is just so easy to be too busy. Current writer, Barbara Brown Taylor, really nailed me when she wrote, “…the fraudulent virtue that has come up more than any other has been—talk about what comes naturally—busyness.” Can busyness really be a fraudulent virtue? I have on my desk the name of a former inmate at the Stiles Prison with whom I’ve prayed and shared God’s grace and many good times in Kairos. And now he’s out and working here in Beaumont; and I know where he’s working, but I still haven’t visited him. Yes, busyness is truly one of my fraudulent virtues!

And finally, current theologian, Miroslav Volf sort of sums up this idea of the prudential means of grace as he writes, “Inscribed on the very heart of God’s grace is the rule that we can be its recipients only if we do not resist being made into its agents; what happens to us must be done by us.” Would any of us sit here today and say, “Well if that’s what it takes to receive God’s grace, then count me out”? No, we don’t say that, but, you know, “the proof is in the pudding”; do we change anything? This is what God’s grace is all about. He does for us what he wants us to do for others. And he shows us how to do it, to be the agents of his grace. I suspect that most of us have forgotten what a blessing that is. If so, let me pose to you three questions.

1) Everyone wants to be loved—right? 2) And everyone, deep down, wants to be the hero, don’t we? 3) And do we not all like to be the one who turns on the light in someone’s eyes? Well God has given us the means to be and do all of those things—1) by taking his grace to those who need him; 2) to those who may have forgotten him; 3) and to those who may not know him. These people need a friend. I am reminded of something I read some time ago: “A friend is someone who knows the song in your heart and can sing it back to you when you have forgotten the words.” There are a lot of people out there who have forgotten the words, and we all know some of them. Let’s sing back to them the song in their hearts—as we place healing arms around them and say, “You matter to me”. To forget or neglect them is sinful if we really believe the tenets of our faith. And remember, God, knowing we are sincere in wanting to learn to love him, gives us each other on whom to practice. It’s what we do with that opportunity that tells us (and God) how sincere we are.

The more I study, the more I observe God working in my life and others, the more I understand how necessary it is to practice Wesley’s means of grace on a continuing basis. For the passing of God’s grace is primarily 1) a transfer of spiritual sustenance, the very food our souls need for us to survive. 2) It is an act of mercy, the very sustenance others need to survive, as well. But this is not a one-time occurrence; a real relationship with him doesn’t end in time, nor is it bound by the perimeter of our souls. God never intended for our spiritual lives to involve communion only with him. The most acclaimed theologian of the last century, Karl Barth, said, “…there is no private Christianity.” What God intended was for our relationship with him to be first; but that is the beginning, not the end, of spiritual completeness. It is to be followed closely by giving relationships—with all others. This is the heart of the two commandments on which Jesus said all the rest depended. In Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

It’s hardly a stretch, then, to say that Wesley’s first five means of grace follow that first commandment in which we present ourselves to God. Wesley’s second three means of grace reflect the second part of Jesus’ teaching which was to present ourselves to each other. I think John Wesley might end this series by quoting Jesus’ from Matthew 25:40: “Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me.”