Revelation: Its Not about Getting Left Behind Part II

WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
April 29th 2007
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
Revelation 7:9-17
“Revelation; It’s Not about Getting Left Behind” Part II
There are many things in the book of Revelation which invite wild interpretations and flights of fancy. However, the one place where that is not true is with worship. In fact, at the heart of the book of Revelation is worship. The concern for worship in the book of revelation is about doing worship well. Worshiping well, in this book, has little, if anything, to do with the content of worship. Instead, the central issue of worship in this book is about the object of our worship.
Although I had read the book of Revelation before going to seminary, I had never focused on the worship in the book. In fact, when the idea of worship being central to this book was presented to me I was rather unimpressed. After all, worship was something done once a week over the course of one hour. It was the time where we used ancient words which had little contemporary meaning. So when I heard this claim about the book of Revelation, it made this book even less interesting than I already found it.
This all changed when it was pointed out to me that my understanding of worship was too narrow. Worship, particularly in this book, was never meant to be confined to the private weekly affair, adorned with antiquated language which it has become. Biblical Scholar, seminary professor and organic intellectual, Stanley Saunders helped me to understand the truly political nature of worship in the book of Revelation. He says:
It is crucial for us to recognize the political character of the worship in the words spoken by the martyrs. The worship language that John cites in these verses may sound rather ordinary to us, but for John and the rest of the first-century church this language was the cultic and political language of the Roman Empire. The political rhetoric of the day claimed that salvation and peace were the gift – the grace – of the Caesars, that faith was a matter of putting one’s trust in the emperor. Justice and righteousness consisted in being a good citizen of the empire… John took the words being spoken about Caesar and the empire and related them instead to Jesus.
It is a powerfully illuminating statement that impacts all interpretations of this book. However, it also has challenging implications for all worship of the God we know in Jesus Christ.
The vision of worship John sees is amazing. There are so many faithful gathered worshiping God that he cannot count them all. Not only this, but this multitude of people comes from every nation, all tribes all peoples and all languages. The gathering of the faithful transcends all the divisions of this world. And, it means that no one nation, no one group of people, and no one language have favored status in God’s eyes.
The chorus raised by this faithful gathering is the outrageous, and seditious, claim that salvation does not come from the military or economic might of the empire but from God alone. As this chorus is echoed by the angels and creatures of heaven, it can be easy to get caught up in speculation about angels, beats and who is actually going to be ‘saved.’ However, all of those questions and speculations are distractions from the real issue which is fidelity to God alone. If we focus on the spectacular, here and elsewhere in the book, we will miss the fact that the claims about God in Jesus Christ are in direct conflict with the economic and military claims of empire.
Of the seven churches which received this book, a few of the churches, particularly the more privileged Christians had made peace with their complicity with the empire. They saw nothing wrong with worshiping Empire and Emperor along with worshiping Jesus. John reminds them of the conflict and risks of such syncretism and calls them to repentance. While these concerns appear to be relics of the past, I do believe there is contemporary relevance. However, the contemporary relevance is lost because our understanding of worship is too often narrow. As such we have a hard time differentiating worship from personal preferences for music, message, and even mission. This is why the book of Revelation can be so timely for the followers of the Lamb today.
I believe that we must look to the book of Revelation as a corrective to our modern forms of worship. Instead of struggling over the style of worship we like best, usually couched in the language – the right way to worship, we need to look to the world challenging worship in this book. I turn again to the work of Stan Saunders on worship in the book of Revelation:
In worship, God’s people gather to practice the peculiar forms of discernment and action that constituted right human responses to the God we know in Jesus Christ. Worship thus entails such practices as gathering, praise, thanksgiving, beseeching, naming God’s presence, and for forgiving, reconciling, and making space for the outsider, the marginal, and the enemy. (And) It reorders time and social relationships. It is the setting in which the gathered community retells its primary story in order to convey Christian meaning and culture.
So, worship is about reordering our lives for service and reforming our identity as children of God.
When we gather each week for worship it is a time to be conformed to the way of the lamb, to the way of Jesus, to the way of the cross. Worship is supposed reconstruct our understanding of the world and to reveal that the messages of the world do not have the last word. Worship is about reminding us that the claims of God and the claims of Jesus Christ upon our lives are not subordinate to anything, not even the claims of the market. Worship is about creating in us the belief that; “Salvation (alone) belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” Amen.

Revelation; Its Not about Getting Left Behind

WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
April 22nd 2007
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
Revelation 1:4-8 Revelation 5:11-14
“Revelation; It’s Not about Getting Left Behind” Part I
Millions and millions of people have had contact with the Left Behind phenomenon. In the ten years since the publication of the first volume there have many volumes, multiple spin-off mini-series, a couple of movies, a prophecy club, daily emails on the end times, daily devotionals, bible studies, kids books, and even graphic (read comic) books. And now, there is even a new video game. In case you haven’t heard about this one there was some controversy over the convert them or kill message given to the followers of Jesus. The impact of the series of fiction has and continues to reach far and wide.
Some of you might be aware that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church has taken the position that the theology of the Left Behind series is not in line with the reformed tradition. Our denomination is but one of many that has taken this stance. Despite this being the case, my plan for this sermon series is not to attempt to take on the immensely popular work of fiction. Ultimately, I will not condemn and certainly not commend the series to you. Instead, my hope is that over the next few weeks we will simply learn more about the book of Revelation. The goal is that by the end of our time together, that we better understand this, often misinterpreted and even ignored, book in the bible.
Our plan this morning is to use our readings as a jumping off point to talking about major themes and background information for the book. In order to guide our engagement with the book of Revelation this morning I will use three questions. Question one: What does the word Revelation mean? Question two: What is the background of this John and the Churches to which he wrote? And finally; Question three: What does worship have to do with it? With those as our guide, let us now turn to the task at hand.
Question one: What does the word Revelation mean? The word revelation is a Greek word which means to reveal, to uncover, or to make known. The book of Revelation seems quite unlike other New Testament books. However, it is not unique in the bible or in our faith tradition. It is part of a genre known as Apocalyptic Literature.
Apocalyptic Literature has its roots in Judaism. It is always written during periods of persecution or conflict. Apocalyptic scripture uses vivid imagery and coded language so that the oppressors will not understand and so those who are oppressed will be encouraged. The main purpose of this scripture is to inspire fidelity to God alone.
One commonality in this type of work is the role of human participation in violence. Apocalyptic Literature is undeniably violent. However, biblical apocalyptic literature never sanctions or calls the followers of Jesus to resort to armed struggle. Any use of the book of Revelation to justify violence is patently unbiblical. The followers of the Jesus are called to be faithful not violent.
Question two: What is the background of this John and the Churches to which he wrote? It is unclear whether the John who wrote this book is the same one who wrote the letters of John and the Gospel by the same name. On thing is clear however, the Greek language and grammar in those other books is nothing like what is found in the book of Revelation. In fact, the Greek in this book is unlike that which is used throughout most all the New Testament. In most of the New Testament the Greek is rather rough. It is the language of the street. However, in Revelation we find a level of sophistication which would indicate the author was well educated.
Another important facet of the author was the fact of his exile. We know that John writes his vision while in exile on Patmos. Exile was a form of punishment imposed upon the elite of society instead of execution. So, we know that John is not only well educated but part of the upper crust of society. This is about all we really know about John.
Unlike John, we know a great deal about the seven churches. In the words to each one of the churches in the text, we learn much about these communities of faith. Some are wealthy and some are poor but each has their own struggle with remaining faithful to the gospel. Beyond the internal information we also know that each one of the churches is located in the western most part of modern day Turkey. These churches were located in a part of the Roman Empire which did not experience a great deal of chaos. Unlike many places which had been conquered by the Romans, Gaul, Judea and others, this area saw the occupation as a gift. These communities welcomed Roman domination and had made peace with it. It was so peaceful in fact, that there was not one Roman Legion in the area around these churches. There was no resistance to the empire. This lets us know that these churches did not experience widespread persecution. Now, let us turn to our final question.
Question three: What does worship have to do with it? While that may seem like an odd transition to go from resistance to the empire to worship, it is not. In fact, since these communities were not facing widespread persecution we are left wondering why this message has such great urgency. The reasoning in the letter is fairly clear. The call is for those in the church to be more faithful. This is to be done by ceasing to participate in the many worship practices of the empire.
Worship in the empire was always very nationalistic. The liturgies and cultic practices claimed divine support for the Roman Empire as well as requiring the worshipers to pledge their allegiance to emperor and to Empire. For the churches addressed in this book they did not see a problem with worshiping God and worshiping Country. However, the main claim in the Book of Revelation says unapologetically that allegiance to God and allegiance to Empire cannot coexist.
At the heart of the book of Revelation is worship. And the understanding of worship in this book is undeniably political. It is political in the sense that worship, in the ancient world, was about making a public show of your allegiance. It is clear in the book of Revelation that there is no room for divided loyalty. God and Country, in this setting, are not to be used interchangeably. After all, the empire was the antithesis of everything pure. As a result, the followers of Jesus could only remain faithful by resisting the empire. Nowhere was this resistance more important than in worship.
I am evermore convinced that any reading or interpretation of Revelation which ignores or is unaware of this background has removed the Word of God from its very foundation. However, to take the Left Behind series to task over its clear misuse of this book is far too easy and so we will not engage it further. What concerns me most is not arguing about the book but recovering what it actually says and the messages we may glean in order to live more faithfully.
Revelation is most concerned that the followers of the Lamb, Jesus, remain faithful by resisting the ways of empire. It is clear that the followers of Jesus in these churches had become overly comfortable with the ways of Empire. Their worship had become intermingled with nationalistic liturgies and had lost focus on the risks inherent with being a follower of the Lamb that was slain by the very same empire. In order to live faithfully, the followers of the lamb needed to recommit themselves to non-violent resistance and mutual support to one another in the worshiping community.
Over the coming weeks I want to encourage each one of you to read the book of Revelation again, or for the first time. As we journey through a few passages in this book your reading will help to make the text come alive. More importantly though, is my prayer that our focus on the book will lead to more faithful living and even show us the ways in which we have become overly comfortable with the ways of Empire today. And, I pray all this in the name of the “one who is and who was and who is to come, amen.”

Its Bigger than Don Imus

WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
April 15th 2007

Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
Isaiah 11:1-9 Ephesians 2:11-22
“It’s Not Just about Don Imus”

My original plan for today was to begin a six week series on the book of Revelation called “It’s Not about Getting Left Behind.” However, because of some national events of the last couple of weeks I decided to postpone that series for one week and deal with Don Imus. In case you haven’t heard, a few weeks ago, radio personality Don Imus referred to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, as a bunch of “nappy-headed ho’s.” When I first heard about the comment, I simply dismissed it as the ranting of one more racist talk show host. I did not want to give him that much attention from this pulpit. However, when I listened to the press conference given by the coach and players of the Rutgers women’s basketball team, I decided to shelve the sermon on Revelation, at least for a week.
During the growing outrage, and finally the firing, of Don Imus, I have had and overheard many conversations about the incident. The one I remember most vividly occurred during my morning workout. I occurred between two people; a man and woman both in about their fifties and both African-American. The two of them debated with one another over whether or not the remarks of Don Imus were racist. The woman believed that his comments were not racist and that everyone was just making a big deal out of nothing. However, when the man, attempting to make his point, called her a “nappy-headed ho,” she admitted that he just might have a point. This was however, after she threatened to “smack him upside his head.” As I listened to their conversation it became clear to me that the whole incident is really much bigger than Don Imus. He is simply one part of a much larger story.
Do not hear me wrong, I do not say this to excuse the actions of Don Imus. After all, he has built quite a reputation and a career making many of these “so called jokes.” However, he is only a small part of the racist fabric of our culture which gives financial support to so many others who do the exact same thing or worse. If people did not want to hear it, no one would listen.
Over the last few years there have been an increased number of public incidents like the one with Don Imus. In fact, I have begun to see a pattern. It goes something like this: It begins with a statement or comment which is usually followed by a period of outrage often leading to the loss of a job. During the height of the outrage there is some conversation about the larger realities regarding racism in our culture. Yet, once the issue leaves the front page of the paper and web news services, no lasting change seems to be accomplished. While firing sends the message that you better not say these things, it does nothing to challenge the underlying beliefs.
The firing of Imus can become a convenient scapegoat mechanism for those of us who are white. What I mean by this is that we will join in the outrage and act as if Imus is nothing like us. He represents ‘bad’ white people. In his firing we can hide in our feelings of self-righteousness as we compare ourselves with the likes of Imus. However, I have had a number of conversations recently- in private – with other liberal and progressive white people. What I have heard, and what I know to be true is that we find ourselves surprised by those thoughts which arise inside of us that make us kin to Don Imus. Yet, instead of dealing with the root cause of these unwanted thoughts or beliefs, it is far easier to attack an easy target.
I tell this next story to illustrate my point. There is a minister in our denomination that is known for his work for justice and equality. Throughout his career he has risked his own privilege to open doors for others. On day when this former Seminary president was walking along the campus he came across a student. When the President greeted this student, an African-American male, he complimented him on the way he kept the seminary lawn. This icon of progressive causes assumed that this black man was a groundskeeper. The first few time I heard the story my inclination was to imagine how awful he was instead of recognizing the pervasive nature of racism in our country and in each person of privilege.
As I have looked at this particular insult raised from Don Imus I am left wondering why “nappy head” is still seen as an insult? I realize there is much I do not understand by virtue of my age and race. But do believe that at the heart of this insult is the simple reality that our culture continues to devalue black physical features. How often does the dominant cultural use subtlety to create division and dare I say teach self-hatred? “If you’re light you’re alright, if you’re brown stick around, and if you’re black get back.” We must open our eyes, our hearts and our minds if we want to be part of challenging and dismantling racism in our time.
While people may debate the whether Imus’ comments were racist, they were undeniably an insult toward all women. It is simply never acceptable to refer to any woman as a “ho.” As I paused this week to think about the damaging effects of all of this on our youth I began to take and inventory of the most insulting words in our culture. If I were to list the ones I came up with, and I will not, you would hear that most of them have to do with women, and non-white people. In doing this simple exercise, I realized that the words we use to belittle or humiliate people tell us a lot about our values. Language matters.
While much of the blame for all of this has been given to popular rap-stars I believe it is unfounded. After all to blame rap music for the actions and beliefs of Don Imus is a logical fallacy. How many people really think that Don Imus listens to 50-Cent in the privacy of his home or car? Instead, what is really going on is a rather clever move which conveniently takes the spotlight of racism. Do not get me wrong, I do not condone the woman hating, homophobic, glorification of violence that has become the mainstay of rap. However, one must remember that the major record labels that now refuse to promote and support the many positive messages found in the hip-hop culture, from KRS and others, bare at least the same if not more of the responsibility.
My intention today was not to claim that I have the last word on any of this. I believe that we are dealing with things that are so much bigger than Don Imus and I am worried that once he is gone we will go back to business as usual. As followers of Jesus Christ, the one who breaks down the dividing walls of hostility, we cannot allow that to happen, at least not in our community of faith, and other places in which we have influence. I wish that I could stand here and present a plan which would make everything alright. But we all know that any attempt to fix or move beyond this without getting at the root of the problem will fail. Instead, I believe that the great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us point the way.
When Paul wrote about the dividing walls of hostility to the church at Ephesus, he was talking about the divisions between Jews and Greeks. However, I believe that if he was writing to the church in North America, he would be writing about the dividing walls of hostility forged in racism and privilege. As such, our calling, in this place is about being a community of faith where the full humanity of each child of God is openly affirmed. We must teach our children that that are valued and loved for who God has created them to be. In the images we provide, the songs we sing, and the traditions we value, all must reflect the diversity of our congregation. Since we live in a society rather practiced in the art of teaching self-hatred and secondary status for many of God’s children we must be proactive. For the sake of our children and ourselves, we must make this the highest of priorities.
One thing I am sure of this week is that there is need for healing. There is need for the healing from the demons of racism and privilege that show up in the most unexpected ways. There is need for healing for the many places of pain and anger. So today, we are going to do a symbolic action which I hope can be a sign of the healing and reconciliation possible in Jesus Christ. Inside your bulletins you will find a blank sheet of paper and pens at the end of the pews. On the piece of paper you are invited to write down where the places of pain and/or the demons of racism in our culture affect you. No one will see what you write. When you are done, you are invited to roll the paper into a circle and bring it forward to place it in the wire around the cross. It is a small action meant to symbolize our need for the reconciliation and healing found in Jesus Christ. No one is compelled to do this but simply invited to participate as you are moved to do so. It is my deepest hope that this action can be an act of healing and a witness to the truth that; Jesus Christ is breaking down the diving walls of hostility, even today. Amen.

Tears for Our Jesus

WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
April 8th 2007
Easter Sunday

Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
John 20:1-18
“Tears for Our Jesus”

Jesus is dead, so Mary goes to the tomb. The reason she goes to the tomb early in the morning before dawn is not clear, at least in this gospel account of the resurrection. What was it that brought this disciple to the tomb, a place of death? Was it to spend time alone grieving for the loss of her beloved savior? The bible is simply not clear here. In fact, the writer of John’s gospel simply does not seem to care why Mary came to the tomb. Which begs the question, what is the writer interest in telling in this story? It is my impression is that the writer of this gospel had one main agenda. That agenda is this: In order to be a disciple, a witness to the resurrection, one must; turn from the places of death, and not cling to our personal experience of the risen Jesus.
Mary goes to the tomb and finds the stone in front of the tomb is missing. She runs to tell the disciples what she has seen. From her perspective, the most logical explanation is that they – grave robbers, the roman occupiers, or the religious leadership, have taken the body of Jesus. Both Peter and the disciple, who Jesus loved, run to the tomb. They find out quickly that Mary was telling the truth.
When the disciple whom Jesus loved finally goes into the tomb he sees and believes. But, his belief has nothing to do with the resurrection. He too believed that Jesus body had been stolen. Both Peter, the beloved disciple and Mary have all come to the tomb with the same preconceived notion. They all believed that Jesus is dead. As a result the only logical explanation is that an empty tomb means the body was stolen, and the grave was desecrated. Each one of them had been close to Jesus throughout his ministry and yet not one of them thought this empty tomb meant Jesus had overcome death.
The only thing left to do was to return home and remain in hiding out of fear for the authorities. So Peter and the beloved disciple go back to the house where they were staying and lock the door. But Mary cannot go away. Too full of grief she can only stay and cry. It is then that she sees two figures, angels, sitting where Jesus’ body was laid. These two angels ask her: “Why are you crying?” Mary says: “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him?” This response shows that her grief has everything to do with being unable to locate the body of Jesus.
For some reason, as she finishes speaking Mary turns away from the tomb, the place of death, and comes face to face with Jesus. And in this moment Mary believes Jesus, her Lord, is the gardener. Even after he speaks to hear and asks: “Why are you crying?” Mary says: “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” Her grief is about being unable to locate the body of the dead Jesus. It appears that Mary’s is so captured by the power of death; she is unable to see the living Jesus right in front of her. She must be called by name in order to be freed from the places of death.
Mary’s response to being called by name is at the heart of the passage, but it is not the words she speaks. Even before Mary says anything, she turns toward Jesus away from the tomb, the place of death. In the gospel of John, this Greek word for turn shows up only three places. In the previous occasion it is exclusively used to mean: repentance, change or change of mind and heart. Its use here is no different. Mary is not simply turning toward Jesus physically; she has turned from the places of death and toward the way of life. So when it is used here, it is not merely letting us know that Mary turned around. In fact, until Mary turns from the place of death, she cannot see Jesus standing in front of her.
When Mary is finally able to see Jesus she wants to embrace him, but Jesus does not allow it: “Do not hold on to me.” You cannot cling to me, weather I am dead or alive, Jesus says. Instead, Jesus shows that the role of a disciple is to go and tell the story, be my witnesses. Tell the world “that you have seen the Lord” instead of trying to grasp or take hold of Jesus. Because of this scene from John the answer to the t-shirts and bumper stickers which say “Got Jesus?” Is; ‘No, and that’s not our calling as disciples.’ When Mary is called by Jesus, she is called to be a witness proclaiming: “I have seen the Lord.”
This story points to the great struggle of all disciples. We Christians are rather practiced at clinging to our well defined understanding of the world and the way we know it works. Whenever those things are challenged how well do we respond? Despite what we may say, none of us readily embraces a new way of doing things or new ways of understanding the world. To change, or turn from what we know for sure is always hard, especially from the places of death.
This morning, we gather to hear Mary’s calling to be a witness. We too, are called like Mary to leave the empty tomb, the places of death, and to let go of the ways we cling to Jesus and become witnesses in the world. It is a story which must be told over and over. After all, each generation of Christians have preferred the tomb and the ways of death. And each generation of Christians has clung to their version of Jesus as the right one, whether proudly orthodox or proudly heretical. Yet, the good news of this story is that violence and right theology are not the calling of a witness to the resurrection. Instead, the disciples of Jesus are offered the simple invitation: turn from the ways of death and division and proclaim this simple message: “I have seen the Lord.” In this message disciples in all ages, each one of us, are invited to be witnesses that death and division do not have the last word. It is really that simple. So, it is my prayer that having heard it again that we will join in the life-giving chorus: “I have seen the Lord.” Amen.

Table Ethics

WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
April 1st 2007
Palm/Passion Sunday Communion Sunday

Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
Luke 22:14-27
“Table Ethics”

I hope we realize that because this is communion Sunday, and Palm Sunday, we can abandon any hope of an early end to today’s service. But beyond extending the worship service on the first Sunday of each month, what is this ritual meal all about? In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus institutes the ‘Lord’s Supper’ at the Passover feast. So in order to understand communion better, we need to look at the Passover in Exodus and what the celebration meant in first century Judea.
Passover is the Jewish commemoration of the release from the slavery of the Egyptian Empire by God. Deuteronomy 6:20-22 sums it up quite nicely:
When your children ask you in time to come, “What is the meaning of the decrees and the statutes and the ordinances that the LORD our God has commanded you?” then you shall say to your children, “We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. The LORD displayed before our eyes great and awesome signs and wonders against Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his household.
It is a celebration of the event and a claiming of that event in ones current setting. It is about aligning ones life to the story of faith which begins with freedom from slavery and ends with a life meant for serving God alone.
In first century Judea, the Passover celebration was always a cause for concern among the religious and political leadership. It was not good for the security of the Empire for the people to gather and celebrate freedom from oppression. As a result, each year during the Passover celebration an entire Roman Legion was ordered to “keep the peace” in Jerusalem. Their job was to prevent any riots or uprisings from occurring and to brutally end them if they did. That is how the ‘Peace of Empires’ is always maintained. So, it was into this religious and political powder keg that Jesus enters Jerusalem.
Celebrating Palm Sunday can seen rather strange. Jesus entering in on a donkey being proclaimed King on one day and less than a week later he is being executed on a cross. Because this event is misunderstood it is simply ignored by some churches. I believe this is a tragic loss because our reenacting this event can put us in touch with the imaginative ways Jesus so often chooses to interact with the deadly powers of his day. When Jesus enters the city it is not a case of mistaken identity but very elaborate street theater meant to shame the religious and political leadership and proclaim a new way of living faithfully in the world.
With the words: “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest heaven!” Jesus is proclaimed the new king in town and for the world. This so frightens the religious leaders they ask Jesus to bring an end to the spectacle. The enormity of the event is often lost on us because the worlds Peace, Lord and even King are only understood to convey religious or spiritual meaning. However, in that setting these words and titles were meant for Caesar alone. It was Caesar who bore the title son of God; it was Caesar who brought peace to the world, it was Caesar who brought the good news of the kingdom. So when Jesus is connected and claims these titles for himself they are overtly political. Palm Sunday is a day of celebration which cannot ignore the consequences of our Savior who proclaimed that peace does not come from the military might of any Empire.
From the moment Jesus enters Jerusalem the tension builds. Each encounter brings us closer to the execution of Jesus on the cross. But what is rather amazing is that in the midst of this tension, Jesus takes time to gather with his disciples for the Passover meal. It is at this celebration where he initiates the practice of communion. It is at that meal where Jesus appears to find encouragement for the coming trial. So too, this same meal of simple bread and cup shared in community becomes a means of encouragement for disciples in all ages.
However, the powerful moment quickly passes. No sooner had the meal finished then the disciples begin to argue over who is the greatest. Egos, attitudes, and personal agendas, instead of faithfulness reign supreme. Once again Jesus must remind his followers that being a disciple is not a power game. Following Jesus means following one who is equal with God but who serves people instead of demanding service himself. This is what sets the followers of Jesus apart. However, it is a lesson too often forgotten.
If we take our lead from the way Luke tells the story, living faithfully in the world or ethical living begins at the table. In order to live faithfully we need glimpses of God’s grace and reminders of the way Jesus lived in the world which had gone mad. I believe we too live in a time where the world seems to have gone mad. As a result we are in great need of the same encouragement Jesus gave those first disciples.
We need to be reminded, in the bread and the cup, that we have been called to follow the one who proclaimed peace in the midst of a world gone mad. Jesus knew what it took and what it takes, to live faithfully in a mad world. It is my prayer that what we are about to do at this table will be a time where we are each – individually and collectively – can be strengthened and renewed to live as faithful followers of the one who proclaimed peace, even in the shadow of the cross. Amen.