Westminster Presbyterian Church
June 17th 2007
Rev. Mark Bradshaw-Miller
I Kings 21:1-21a
“Corrupting Power”
Our scripture this morning is a tragic one. A man by the name of Naboth is killed simply because King Ahab wants to expand his garden. It is a story about Ahab, Naboth and Jezebel, which also served as a metaphor for larger issues facing the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The story of Naboth’s Vineyard is ultimately a story about the clash of systems and the clash of ideology facing that ancient society. And, it ends with the God Israel taking sides in the conflict in a way that is without ambiguity.
The struggle in this passage is part of a larger struggle going on throughout much of first and second Kings. The struggle is an ideological one between the followers of Baal and the followers of the God of Israel. The followers of Baal and the followers of the God of Israel are easily identified by how they interpret the role of kingship, property, and power.
When it comes to kingship, the followers of Baal often tell the king what he wants to hear. They believe that God is on the side of their king. Followers of Baal believe in a strong monarch who is above the law and who believes his desire for conquest should never be tamed. But, the followers of the God of Israel tell a contrary narrative. Their story is one which reminds the King that the law of God applies to all people. These pesky folks are the ones who proclaim God’s message that justice for lowly peasants is more important than the whims of the ruling class, even the king. Is it any wonder that that king prefers advisors who follow Baal?
Many interpretations of this story lay the blame at the feet of Jezebel, and it is unfair. After all, she is the daughter of the King of Sidon and an adherent to the ways of Baal. Her upbringing is one which teaches that the king is above the law. She is shocked when Ahab does not get what he wants. “Do you not govern Israel?’ These are the words of someone who understands that those in power are never deterred by the wishes of some peasant. Jezebel sets out to teach Ahab how things are done. Using the royal stationary, she makes Naboth an enemy of the state destined for the death penalty. It is an ancient scheme where capital punishment is reserved for those without capital. All the while, his murders have the protection a royal pardon for their actions. The first half of our reading is a text book lesson on the ways of kingship in a world where Baal reigns.
It is clear that even as King Ahab follows the ways of Baal, he is conflicted by his actions. He reacts to his neighbors’ refusal to sell his property not by scheming to take if from him, but instead acts like a child runs to his bedroom and refuses to eat. Ahab reaction is more than just that of a boyish ruler not getting his way. Instead, it reflects his understanding that the king of Israel was not above the law. However, he is derelict in his duty because he does not bother to share this with the followers of Baal who scheme on his behalf. As a result, the law is used to for the benefit of the powerful and a man is legally murdered under the guise of being unpatriotic.
The struggle over the power of the king is a recurring one. But, in order to get a clearer picture we need to go back to the time before kings. It was not originally God’s will that Israel would have a king. The people of Israel wanted to be like their neighbors so after some negotiation God granted their wish. However, God gave them this warning:
These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. (I Samuel 8:11-15)
That passage from I Samuel is amazingly prophetic given our current text and setting. But despite this warning, God did not give kings free reign to act in this way. Instead, God intended king to be responsible for upholding the law. This would mean that kings were to insure a society where the widows, orphans, and all poor would take precedent over the accumulation of property. It is because Ahab knows better that God holds him responsible for the murder of Naboth. God does not blame Jezebel but says to Ahab; you have killed this man in order to posses his property, for this reason I will bring an end to your kingdom. Over the death of one mere peasant, God is willing to bring ruin to an empire.
Nowhere did the clash of ideology show itself, than over the understanding of property rights. The followers of Baal understood property as a commodity. Ahab is working out of this understanding. He sees something he wants and moves to purchase the property at fair market value. It is a basic system which we take for granted in our modern setting. However, it clear that God does not take this system for granted. Instead, through the voice of Naboth we hear another system of values at work.
For the people of Israel, the very foundation of society was the land. But the land was not a commodity it was a gift, an inheritance from God. God’s intention was that the land be parceled out among the tribes so all people would have enough land to provide for their needs. God was aware that over time some people would accumulate land through loans and trade, God’s instructions made sure that commoditization of the land was not perpetual. The law was clear that in the jubilee year all debts would be forgiven and all land was returned. Even the king was not exempt from this part of God’s law.
As we encounter this passage we must be careful not to put this narrative in the service of any political agenda. If we do, we fall into the trap of the followers of Baal who believe God is on their side instead of seeking to be on God’s side. However, as followers of Jesus, who is the culmination of this great tradition of prophets, we can never take for granted any system which allows for the destruction of the most vulnerable in society for any reason. On this point, God is rather unambiguous. Any system or regime which allows for exploitation or destruction of anyone is not doing the will of God.
Despite the words of clear judgment against this unfaithful King, there is good news. Just beyond the bounds of this passage something miraculous happens. After being confronted with his dereliction of duty, Ahab hears what he has done and is deeply moved. As a result the king repents of his actions and forgiveness is offered. It is not the cheap forgiveness that does not require change of heart and action, but the sort of forgiveness which comes with real repentance. In this passage about deceit, murder, and condemnation, God’s final word is not destruction but transformation. Even for someone like King Ahab who believes he is above the law, God offers new life if he is willing to repent.
It is a story that I believe, we must keep close to our hearts whenever we speak for peace and justice. Ours is a world where everything can be bought and sold and human life is cheap. Ours is a world where those in power believe they are above the law. And, ours is a world where many who claim the name of Jesus believe this whole system has a divine blessing. In a world such as ours, it is easy to become shrill and forget the grace and forgiveness is available for all. So, in this world, let us seek to be prophetic witnesses for the God of Israel, the one who we have come to know through Jesus Christ. But as we do so, let us wrap our calls for repentance and change with the good news that God offers forgiveness for all, including ourselves. Amen.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
More Than We Can See
Westminster Presbyterian Church
June 10th 2007
Rev. Mark Bradshaw-Miller
I Kings 17:1-16
“More Than We Can See”
It all begins with a simple encounter between Elijah and Ahab. This passage tells little about Ahab other than he is the recipient of the news about an impending drought. The identification of Elijah is pretty extensive in comparison. Unlike Elijah, Ahab is identified as someone who has no family or place of origin. And as quickly as he arrives on the scene he disappears from the story all together. It is as if the narrator wants us to believe that Ahab is unimportant.
Despite his relative unimportance in this passage, Ahab is someone who we need to know more about. Ahab is a great King, who ruled over the northern Kingdom of Israel for twenty-two years. Given the political unrest of the time, that was rather impressive. Historians have shown that Ahab was a rather shrewd political leader. In some circles it was believed that he was God’s chosen leader. Yet, in the collection of the Kings we find out a different story. Though there is nothing to go on in chapter eighteen, chapter seventeen tells us that “Ahab son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him” and that he “did more to provoke the anger of the Lord, than had all the kings of Israel who were before him.” It just goes to show that history is never disinterested.
The biblical witness is clear in its assessment of Ahab. Ahab’s problem was that he was double minded. He worshiped the God of Israel while at the same time promoting the god Baal. It turns out that Ahab’s divine blessing was from Baal, not the God of the bible. His military and economic successes appear to have confused the king on this point. Ahab’s allegiance to Baal, which was enmeshed in economic and political gains, had trumped his allegiance to the God of Israel. This confusion is what brings Elijah to the presence of the King in our scripture this morning.
Elijah comes before the great and powerful king and says there will be no rain for three years, unless he, Elijah, says so. The King, in this encounter, is not even given his proper respect. He is only addressed as Ahab. No rain is the sort of message which may worry us but it was deviating in that setting. It was as if Elijah said to the king; I am going to bring the entire economy to a grinding halt. To grasp the enormity of what is being said, imagine Elijah speaking today and saying; ‘I am going to cease all production and drilling for oil for the next three years.’ In essence, Elijah’s pronouncement to the King is a very real threat to national security. It is with these very dangerous words that this passage begins.
On the heels of this dangerous pronouncement, God provides Elijah with a refuge. It is not a promise of long term security but simply a safe place called the Wadi Cherith where ravens will provide him with food. In fact, this is not much of a promise at all. The Wadi was known to dry up during periods of drought and the ravens were an animal that ritual law said was unclean. Not much of a long range plan!
God’s promise of sustenance comes in as a rather unbelievable message. Yet, Elijah stakes his future, and his life on the promise that God will provide, even through uncertain sources. While Elijah is on the run, God provides. However, the means of provision are rather tenuous. One resource, the river, is uncertain, unpredictable, and unreliable. The other resources, ravens, are unclean and unwelcome in religious circles. Yet, for a time, these unexpected sources provide life. Once the river drives up God provides again. This time Elijah is sent to find a widow to provide for his needs. And again, God provides, through another unreliable resource.
Elijah’s journey brings him face to face with an unnamed widow. It is not a promising scene. When Elijah asks for food she responds:
As the Lord your God lives, I have nothing baked, only a handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a jug; I am now gathering a couple of sticks, so that I may go home and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.
It is a harsh personal struggle which is also meant as an indictment against the King. By not worshipping God alone, Ahab has built a society which no longer provides for the poor, the widow and the orphan. Ahab’s worshiping of Baal has led to domestic and economic policy which breaks the covenant God has made with the people of Israel.
In response to the words proclaiming death Elijah says: “Do not fear… go and do what I have asked and the God of Israel will provide.” And now the unnamed widow has a decision to make. Will she respond by offering hospitality, believing God will provide or will she respond out of fear hoarding what little she has? It is not clear why, but she does as Elijah asks and her actions bring life.
Elijah, the widow, and her entire household have enough. It turns out that despite meager resources, there is enough for everyone. It is a powerful statement in the midst of desperate times to share resources. When faced with atrophy and even death, this widow takes a risk to help a stranger. And as a result, there are enough resources for all.
While this is a passage about God’s miraculous provision, it is so much more. This story of our faith is a message about the givens of our world. At each stage of this story the gives of the world, or conventional wisdom, are being challenged. This passage is the call to become more aware of the ways in which God is at work, providing resources beyond what we can see at any given moment. God does provide for us, but not often in the ways we expect or even prefer. The resources God provides might just come in the form of an unpredictable river, or in the form of a religiously impure raven. However, the most challenging call in this passage might just be the one presented to the widow. That is the call to move beyond the ways of hoarding to the ways of hospitality which so often surprise us with their life-giving power. Our faithfulness, in fact, our very survival may require us to risk, what we believe, is our last meal before we go and die, in order to find life in all its fullness. So let us pull out our jar of meal or jug of oil, whatever it might be, and decide that we follow the faith of the unnamed widow and choose to follow the way of hospitality rather than fear. Amen.
June 10th 2007
Rev. Mark Bradshaw-Miller
I Kings 17:1-16
“More Than We Can See”
It all begins with a simple encounter between Elijah and Ahab. This passage tells little about Ahab other than he is the recipient of the news about an impending drought. The identification of Elijah is pretty extensive in comparison. Unlike Elijah, Ahab is identified as someone who has no family or place of origin. And as quickly as he arrives on the scene he disappears from the story all together. It is as if the narrator wants us to believe that Ahab is unimportant.
Despite his relative unimportance in this passage, Ahab is someone who we need to know more about. Ahab is a great King, who ruled over the northern Kingdom of Israel for twenty-two years. Given the political unrest of the time, that was rather impressive. Historians have shown that Ahab was a rather shrewd political leader. In some circles it was believed that he was God’s chosen leader. Yet, in the collection of the Kings we find out a different story. Though there is nothing to go on in chapter eighteen, chapter seventeen tells us that “Ahab son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him” and that he “did more to provoke the anger of the Lord, than had all the kings of Israel who were before him.” It just goes to show that history is never disinterested.
The biblical witness is clear in its assessment of Ahab. Ahab’s problem was that he was double minded. He worshiped the God of Israel while at the same time promoting the god Baal. It turns out that Ahab’s divine blessing was from Baal, not the God of the bible. His military and economic successes appear to have confused the king on this point. Ahab’s allegiance to Baal, which was enmeshed in economic and political gains, had trumped his allegiance to the God of Israel. This confusion is what brings Elijah to the presence of the King in our scripture this morning.
Elijah comes before the great and powerful king and says there will be no rain for three years, unless he, Elijah, says so. The King, in this encounter, is not even given his proper respect. He is only addressed as Ahab. No rain is the sort of message which may worry us but it was deviating in that setting. It was as if Elijah said to the king; I am going to bring the entire economy to a grinding halt. To grasp the enormity of what is being said, imagine Elijah speaking today and saying; ‘I am going to cease all production and drilling for oil for the next three years.’ In essence, Elijah’s pronouncement to the King is a very real threat to national security. It is with these very dangerous words that this passage begins.
On the heels of this dangerous pronouncement, God provides Elijah with a refuge. It is not a promise of long term security but simply a safe place called the Wadi Cherith where ravens will provide him with food. In fact, this is not much of a promise at all. The Wadi was known to dry up during periods of drought and the ravens were an animal that ritual law said was unclean. Not much of a long range plan!
God’s promise of sustenance comes in as a rather unbelievable message. Yet, Elijah stakes his future, and his life on the promise that God will provide, even through uncertain sources. While Elijah is on the run, God provides. However, the means of provision are rather tenuous. One resource, the river, is uncertain, unpredictable, and unreliable. The other resources, ravens, are unclean and unwelcome in religious circles. Yet, for a time, these unexpected sources provide life. Once the river drives up God provides again. This time Elijah is sent to find a widow to provide for his needs. And again, God provides, through another unreliable resource.
Elijah’s journey brings him face to face with an unnamed widow. It is not a promising scene. When Elijah asks for food she responds:
As the Lord your God lives, I have nothing baked, only a handful of meal in a jar, and a little oil in a jug; I am now gathering a couple of sticks, so that I may go home and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it, and die.
It is a harsh personal struggle which is also meant as an indictment against the King. By not worshipping God alone, Ahab has built a society which no longer provides for the poor, the widow and the orphan. Ahab’s worshiping of Baal has led to domestic and economic policy which breaks the covenant God has made with the people of Israel.
In response to the words proclaiming death Elijah says: “Do not fear… go and do what I have asked and the God of Israel will provide.” And now the unnamed widow has a decision to make. Will she respond by offering hospitality, believing God will provide or will she respond out of fear hoarding what little she has? It is not clear why, but she does as Elijah asks and her actions bring life.
Elijah, the widow, and her entire household have enough. It turns out that despite meager resources, there is enough for everyone. It is a powerful statement in the midst of desperate times to share resources. When faced with atrophy and even death, this widow takes a risk to help a stranger. And as a result, there are enough resources for all.
While this is a passage about God’s miraculous provision, it is so much more. This story of our faith is a message about the givens of our world. At each stage of this story the gives of the world, or conventional wisdom, are being challenged. This passage is the call to become more aware of the ways in which God is at work, providing resources beyond what we can see at any given moment. God does provide for us, but not often in the ways we expect or even prefer. The resources God provides might just come in the form of an unpredictable river, or in the form of a religiously impure raven. However, the most challenging call in this passage might just be the one presented to the widow. That is the call to move beyond the ways of hoarding to the ways of hospitality which so often surprise us with their life-giving power. Our faithfulness, in fact, our very survival may require us to risk, what we believe, is our last meal before we go and die, in order to find life in all its fullness. So let us pull out our jar of meal or jug of oil, whatever it might be, and decide that we follow the faith of the unnamed widow and choose to follow the way of hospitality rather than fear. Amen.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Trinity: It's Not Just for Theologians Anymore...
Westminster Presbyterian Church
June 3rd 2007
Rev. Mark Bradshaw-Miller
Proverbs Romans John
“Trinity: It’s Not Just for Theologians Anymore!”
Last year the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church recommended a document called: “Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing.” In the days following its approval the press made claims that we had stopped believing in the classical Trinitarian formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The press coverage caused a great deal of concern for a number of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters. In fact, on one website from a group of concerned Presbyterians, it was claimed that ‘Godless-Wiccan-Feminists’ were to blame for this blasphemy. And that was some of the more gracious commentaries.
While we could spend our time unpacking what is actually in the paper, I believe we have more important things to talk about. However, it is important to know that these ‘crazy liberal folk’ got their ideas from such dangerous publications like; the Bible and that bastion of blasphemy; John Calvin. It is clear that many people who spoke publicly did so without concern for the actual substance of the report. While I was not one who was angered by the report, I was disappointed with it. My disappointment had to do with my hope that the report would make it clear to non-church professionals and interested parties why the Trinity matters.
It is my opinion that many people in the church, and most outside the church, do not see the necessity of this particular Christian belief. It is almost as if the Trinity is a mere appendix to the life of faith, a part of the body of faith but not necessary. On this account, the report was less than satisfactory. But, in fairness, that was not the goal of their work. So, my plan this morning is to attempt to make a case why the Trinity actually matters in our day-to-day life.
I have not always believed that the Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian belief. However, I am personally convinced that it is essential and worthy of recovery in the church. But, before I get to why I believe that, let us take a few moments with the particulars of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be easily pointed to in the bible. It can be inferred but it is not explicit. For the first three hundred years after Jesus death, the Trinity was not a universally accepted Christian belief. It wasn’t until the Council of Nicaea in 325 that it became a uniform Christian Doctrine. Since this is not a sermon on that first Christian council, where believers from all over gathered to solidify doctrine, I will not go into the intricate details of the religious and Political intrigue. However, until that time there was diversity in Christian belief that would boggle the modern imagination.
One of the major issues facing the church at that time was the person of Jesus. Questions about the nature of Jesus were instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The accepted formula was the Jesus was both fully human and fully God. Jesus became to be understood as not only existing at the moment of his birth, but since before creation. So Jesus became identified with woman wisdom found in Proverbs as well as the Logos or Word of God which was also present at creation. Along with the Spirit, Jesus, and the Father, it could have been construed as having multiple God’s but this would not do. The scripture is clear that God is one, and yet made known to us in the three persons of the Trinity. This is represented in the classic formula; Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
In speaking to his followers Jesus called God Abba. In doing so he invited others to do the same. The invitation was not about claiming that God was a male. Instead it was a sign and symbol meant to express deep intimacy. After all, Abba is a word better translated as daddy, a term of love and informality. So insistence on ‘Father-language’ in our setting does not convey the same intimacy. In fact, it establishes a formality which Jesus was out to undermine. I have come to believe strongly that until we are able to express the central role of the love of God and the intimacy offered in our relationship with God, the ongoing struggles over language are revealed as more about power and uniformity instead of orthodoxy.
What I find most compelling about the doctrine of the Trinity has to do with another doctrine all together. The doctrine is found in Genesis where God decides to create human beings, male and female, in God’s image. If God is triune that means that God’s being and essence is about interrelatedness. What comes from this is that we, as people created in the image of God cannot be fully human, let alone Christian, unless we are in relationship with other people. It means that human beings were created to be in relationship. Interrelatedness is at the core of human nature.
As we wrestle with the mystery of the Trinity we learn how we are to relate with one another. Theologian Catherine LaCugna writes that "The doctrine of the Trinity is about God's life with us and our life with each other.” So, instead of becoming a remote philosophical doctrine, it is the ground for our actions and relationships with one another and the world. How we treat our neighbors, those next door, next to us in the pew, on the other side of town, and even those living on the other side of the world (even those we call enemy) is, in fact, a living expression of our faith in God.
We live in a time which thrives on divisive politics and inflamed rhetoric. Too often the church, our denominations and others, seems to offer little different than the Sunday morning talk shows and the minions who dominate talk radio. So, instead of providing fodder for these folks, let us find, in the doctrine of the trinity, the ground for our corporate witness in the world. I believe that the Trinity is not a doctrine which can be discarded from our faith. It is through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, that we come to understand that the triune God is love. Made in the image of the loving God we are called to live this love each day of our lives. As we prepare to join together in the Lord’s Supper, let us pray that it be a sign, a public witness to the triune God’s love for the world. Amen.
June 3rd 2007
Rev. Mark Bradshaw-Miller
Proverbs Romans John
“Trinity: It’s Not Just for Theologians Anymore!”
Last year the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church recommended a document called: “Trinity: God’s Love Overflowing.” In the days following its approval the press made claims that we had stopped believing in the classical Trinitarian formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The press coverage caused a great deal of concern for a number of our Presbyterian brothers and sisters. In fact, on one website from a group of concerned Presbyterians, it was claimed that ‘Godless-Wiccan-Feminists’ were to blame for this blasphemy. And that was some of the more gracious commentaries.
While we could spend our time unpacking what is actually in the paper, I believe we have more important things to talk about. However, it is important to know that these ‘crazy liberal folk’ got their ideas from such dangerous publications like; the Bible and that bastion of blasphemy; John Calvin. It is clear that many people who spoke publicly did so without concern for the actual substance of the report. While I was not one who was angered by the report, I was disappointed with it. My disappointment had to do with my hope that the report would make it clear to non-church professionals and interested parties why the Trinity matters.
It is my opinion that many people in the church, and most outside the church, do not see the necessity of this particular Christian belief. It is almost as if the Trinity is a mere appendix to the life of faith, a part of the body of faith but not necessary. On this account, the report was less than satisfactory. But, in fairness, that was not the goal of their work. So, my plan this morning is to attempt to make a case why the Trinity actually matters in our day-to-day life.
I have not always believed that the Trinity is a cornerstone of Christian belief. However, I am personally convinced that it is essential and worthy of recovery in the church. But, before I get to why I believe that, let us take a few moments with the particulars of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be easily pointed to in the bible. It can be inferred but it is not explicit. For the first three hundred years after Jesus death, the Trinity was not a universally accepted Christian belief. It wasn’t until the Council of Nicaea in 325 that it became a uniform Christian Doctrine. Since this is not a sermon on that first Christian council, where believers from all over gathered to solidify doctrine, I will not go into the intricate details of the religious and Political intrigue. However, until that time there was diversity in Christian belief that would boggle the modern imagination.
One of the major issues facing the church at that time was the person of Jesus. Questions about the nature of Jesus were instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The accepted formula was the Jesus was both fully human and fully God. Jesus became to be understood as not only existing at the moment of his birth, but since before creation. So Jesus became identified with woman wisdom found in Proverbs as well as the Logos or Word of God which was also present at creation. Along with the Spirit, Jesus, and the Father, it could have been construed as having multiple God’s but this would not do. The scripture is clear that God is one, and yet made known to us in the three persons of the Trinity. This is represented in the classic formula; Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
In speaking to his followers Jesus called God Abba. In doing so he invited others to do the same. The invitation was not about claiming that God was a male. Instead it was a sign and symbol meant to express deep intimacy. After all, Abba is a word better translated as daddy, a term of love and informality. So insistence on ‘Father-language’ in our setting does not convey the same intimacy. In fact, it establishes a formality which Jesus was out to undermine. I have come to believe strongly that until we are able to express the central role of the love of God and the intimacy offered in our relationship with God, the ongoing struggles over language are revealed as more about power and uniformity instead of orthodoxy.
What I find most compelling about the doctrine of the Trinity has to do with another doctrine all together. The doctrine is found in Genesis where God decides to create human beings, male and female, in God’s image. If God is triune that means that God’s being and essence is about interrelatedness. What comes from this is that we, as people created in the image of God cannot be fully human, let alone Christian, unless we are in relationship with other people. It means that human beings were created to be in relationship. Interrelatedness is at the core of human nature.
As we wrestle with the mystery of the Trinity we learn how we are to relate with one another. Theologian Catherine LaCugna writes that "The doctrine of the Trinity is about God's life with us and our life with each other.” So, instead of becoming a remote philosophical doctrine, it is the ground for our actions and relationships with one another and the world. How we treat our neighbors, those next door, next to us in the pew, on the other side of town, and even those living on the other side of the world (even those we call enemy) is, in fact, a living expression of our faith in God.
We live in a time which thrives on divisive politics and inflamed rhetoric. Too often the church, our denominations and others, seems to offer little different than the Sunday morning talk shows and the minions who dominate talk radio. So, instead of providing fodder for these folks, let us find, in the doctrine of the trinity, the ground for our corporate witness in the world. I believe that the Trinity is not a doctrine which can be discarded from our faith. It is through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, that we come to understand that the triune God is love. Made in the image of the loving God we are called to live this love each day of our lives. As we prepare to join together in the Lord’s Supper, let us pray that it be a sign, a public witness to the triune God’s love for the world. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)