Proper 16, Year B: Sunday, August 26, 2018

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY

Br. Josép R. Martínez-Cubero, OHC
Proper 16- Sunday, August 26, 2018

To hear the sermon in its fullness click here.

Br. Josép Martínez-Cubero, OHC 

During the last few Sundays the gospel readings have all come from the sixth chapter of John, which concerns Jesus’ Discourse on the Bread of Life. John’s Gospel combines two ways in which the author has Jesus relate this teaching. This first is based on a passage from the Apocryphal book The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach:

“Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my fruits. For the memory of me is sweeter than honey, and the possession of me sweeter than the honeycomb. Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more.”(NRSV) 

So in the light of the gospel passage, this wisdom teaching tells us that those who come to know Jesus will never have too much wisdom and will always desire more, and they will never hunger or thirst for anything other than Jesus’ revelation and teaching, referred to in the gospel as the Bread of Life. This means that he is the revealer of the truth, the divine teacher who has come to nourish people with wisdom. In claiming to personify divine revelation, Jesus says that those who believe in him shall never be hungry or thirsty. With these metaphors of bread, water, and life, Jesus reveals a reality which once possessed, makes one understand physical hunger, thirst, and death as insignificant.
 
The second way in which the author of John’s gospel has Jesus relate his teaching concerns the Eucharist as it was promoted and practiced within the Johannine community. Jesus promises eternal life to those who eat his flesh and drink his blood. Eternal life is the fourth gospel's way of speaking about what the synoptic gospels call the "Kingdom of God." It is presented in both, the present tense and the future tense. Eternal life is both present now, and a promise for the future. The Greek word used for "life" is not about physical life, although physical life certainly flows from it, but is connected to the very source of all life, the Life Principle itself. For the author of John’s gospel, through the Eucharist, our consciousness is expanded beyond the earthy and the physical toward the true source of all life.
 
When the disciples heard him, their reaction was: “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” There are different opinions as to what it was that the disciples found difficult to accept. Some say it was Jesus’ claim to have come down from heaven. And then, there is the whole business of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. I have pondered about who I would have been in that particular instance among Jesus’ disciples. And I can think of my righteous indignation flaring up, taking Jesus aside, or perhaps waiting until an appropriate moment to tell him: “Jesus, I support you, and I want to cooperate, but I really think you need to find a better way of relating whatever it is you are trying to tell us, in a way that it can be heard.” As wrong as it may sound, sometimes it's easier for me to identify with the crowds who misunderstood and questioned Jesus. It’s tempting to write off those who gave up on Jesus as people too stupid or unfaithful to believe. But note that the author of John’s gospel calls these people not simply "the crowds," as in earlier passages, but "disciples." They had been following him and trying to figure out what he was talking about, and they just couldn’t get it.
 
It’s tempting to think that the disciples who stayed with Jesus were the ones who understood who he was, so they stayed with him because of their deep understanding whereas those who walked away didn’t have that depth of understanding. Well, that’s just not true… The disciples who stayed with Jesus had no deeper understanding about him than anyone else. Time and time again we read in the gospels that the disciples didn’t understand what Jesus was talking about half of the time. They misinterpreted his parables or were completely puzzled by them. They didn’t get why he was healing people, and they tried to prevent him from going to Jerusalem where he would be crucified, so it’s not as if they understood what he was going to achieve by dying on the cross.
 
Peter says: “You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Where did Peter and the other eleven get their faith? What makes them different from all those who gave up on Jesus and went away? It is clear from all four gospels that the twelve were also plagued by doubt and fear. They suffered at times from an overabundance of pride or a lack of courage. They, too, eventually deserted Jesus at the very time he needed them the most. So, what is it that sets them apart?
 
“Lord to whom can we go?” Peter’s admission of having no alternative becomes an expression of faith and commitment. These young people, the twelve, went all in. Part of going all in is letting go of the idolatry of security, and taking your foot out of whatever other doors you’ve been trying to keep open. So here they are. In John’s Gospel, this is how the twelve immerge. Some of the disenchanted go away. The twelve go deeper into their commitment, their curiosity, their struggle, and their faith. And it was that faith and commitment that completely change the course of humanity. Later on in this gospel, Jesus will say that whenever he is lifted up he will draw all people to himself. The twelve having come into being, Jesus then prepares to go once again to Jerusalem. There, in time, he will be the seed that goes into the ground that becomes the grain that is made into bread that we being gathered together in unity by the Holy Spirit eat in continual remembrance that Jesus gave himself fully in love, that we may have life, and have it abundantly. Que así sea en el nombre del Padre, del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo. ~Amen+
 

References:

1. Ravi Ravindra, The Gospel of John in the Light of Indian Mysticism (Inner Traditions, 2004)
2. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997)
3. Br. Roy Parker, OHC, Sermon for Proper 16, Year B- Holy Cross Monastery, August 26, 2012

 

Proper 16 B - Aug 23, 2015

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY
Br. Reinaldo Martinez-Cubero, n/OHC
Proper 16 B – Sunday, August 23, 2015


Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18
Ephesians 6:10-20
John 6:56-69-31

Take up the whole armor of God

“Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”

There is nothing on earth that could entice me to re-live 2005, the year during which I went through some very difficult experiences, one after the other. But it is one of those experiences that stands out in my memory when I read the lesson from the Letter to the Ephesians.

An employee of the church where I worked, who lived on the premises, had become addicted to methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as crystal meth. I was extremely concerned about the safety of the children of the theatre program that I ran at the church. I had been aware of the comings and goings by the entrance to his apartment. We were handling the situation in no uncertain terms, but also with much care and caution. In spite of tireless efforts, warnings, and some progress through outpatient rehabilitation, the behavior continued, and the situation worsened. After much consideration, and prayer it was decided that the situation as it was, was not helping this individual, and indeed, was putting the children of the church’s programs at risk. An intervention was needed, and we needed to demand that he go for in-patient rehab. Every step was taken with an immense amount of love, concern and care for the dignity of this person. In the intervention group were two psychotherapists, one of whom specialized in addiction. They guided us on how to proceed. Unfortunately, in spite of our efforts, and wishes for a peaceful resolution, the intervention was quite messy. The individual became very violent, striking someone physically, and the police had to be called to take care of the rest of it.

The Bishop Suffragan of the diocese who had been aware of what we were going through praised our efforts, and said that, “with love we had withstood against the work of the devil”. I remember feeling instantly uncomfortable with that statement. Did she mean a supernatural force? At the time, if I was going to think about evil at all, my post-enlightenment, intellectual, liberal theology felt more comfortable thinking of it in the human realm: corrupt corporate empires or political regimes; those who get as much wealth as they can, and as quickly as they can for themselves instead of allowing for equal distribution of resources; and so on. But the older I get, the more I realize that, if I am really going to be honest and honor my Baptismal Covenant, the Scriptural understanding of evil is something I must consider very seriously, and that there is often more to our struggles than meets the eye. If we don’t see our journeys in this world as part of a much bigger story, we are surely being limited about the nature and power of evil and are also overruling a substantial part of Scripture.

According to the New Testament in general, there are cosmic powers at work all the time. The personal agent in whom these forces originate is Satan, who is determined to destroy all of God’s Creation. The gospel according to John speaks of the Prince of This World. In her book “Buying the Field”, Sandra M. Schneiders, I.H.M. explains that “World” in this context means “a construction of reality, which is in opposition to Jesus and his own and which can be incarnated in multifarious ways”. She further writes: “It is difficult for us to understand in the abstract what this ‘world’ is. Because we never see or engage it except as embodied in some person, system, ideology, institution, and so on, we naturally tend to concretize it as a place, a people, … a political party or social system, … something which we can identify and engage as if it were free standing and clearly distinct from the ‘good world’. However this evil world pervades the natural and historical world in which we live, the good Creation of God and the struggling human beings who are torn between good and evil.”

The book of Revelation speaks of the ferocious dragon with tremendous size and awesome power that is behind the beast. This dragon represents active, powerful, satanic power. Often, we cannot describe these cosmic powers exactly, but we get closer to what the author of the Letter to the Ephesians is trying to describe when we can see particular behaviors at work. For example, when a group of people will stop at nothing until they achieve the destruction of someone or some cause, or when groups of people are outcast, or their dignity and basic humanity is taken away. I believe that perhaps it is better to think of evil in terms of behaviors rather than individuals. Anyone who is so tightly connected with something that takes away his or her human freedom is not evil, but is likely being exploited by powers that are bigger than they are.

What do we do when we are faced with these forces or with individuals who have clearly been invaded by these forces? As Christians, we are clearly called to love and to forgive. But to love and to forgive does not mean that we let a perpetrator get away with wrongdoing, because, well, that really is not love. In that very sad and difficult situation at my work years ago, we prayed together, we sought advice, we stood firm, we loved, and we did the best we could. As for those who exploit others, well, the Scriptures do assure us that there will be justice, but that justice is ultimately for God to reveal, and it may not happen in our lifetime. In the meantime, we are to put on that spiritual armor of God. That armor is our Lord Jesus Christ who breaks through time and space to live in the world here and now, and who tells us, in the lesson from the gospel according to John that through his body and blood we abide in Him and He in us.  We are to fasten the belt of truth, the truth about the Word of God around our waist. Without that belt, we have no place for the scabbard, and thus no place for the sword, which is the Living Word of God itself. By putting on the breastplate of righteousness we put into practice what we believe in our hearts.

Like the Israelites in the story from the Book of Joshua, who are constantly turning to God, and then turning away, and then turning to God again, putting on the breastplate of righteousness requires that we stop compartmentalizing God to “Christian activities” in church and during spiritual practices, but then stop thinking about God if it is not convenient because we just want to be self-indulgent. When the devil is at work to fill us with doubt, and entice us with instant gratification, the shield of faith recognizes the deceptiveness of these tactics and quickly extinguishes the flaming arrows. The two edges of the devil’s sword are discouragement and doubt, pointing at our failures, our unresolved problems, or to whatever else seems negative in our lives, to make us lose confidence in the love of God. The helmet of salvation gives us confidence and assurance that our present struggles will not last forever and we will be victorious in the end. And finally, we are to pray, “pray in the Spirit at all times”, because as psalm 34 says: “The righteous cry, and the LORD hears them and delivers them from all their troubles.” 

Our Holy God in Heaven, fill us with your Holy Spirit, that we may keep your word alive in us through the teachings of Scripture. Keep us alert and ever more sensitive to the spiritual reality of cosmic powers. 

Amen.

Proper 16 B - Aug 26, 2012

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY
Br. Roy Parker, OHC
Proper 16 B – Sunday, August 26, 2012


Joshua 24: 1-2a, 14-18
Ephesians 6: 10-20
John 6: 56-69

The previous several Sunday Gospels have all come from the sixth chapter of John and comprise Jesus’ Discourse on the Bread of Life which concludes in today’s gospel.

The Discourse is notable in that it consists of a Wisdom version of the Bread of Life teaching and a second, distinct, Eucharistic version. The Wisdom version speaks exclusively of the bread come down from heaven and depends extensively on parallels from the Apocryphal book The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. The Eucharistic version refers to Jesus’ flesh and blood and is thought to have been transposed from John’s account of the Last Supper which in its present form lacks a so-called Institution Narrative; Raymond Brown, the gold standard of commentators on John, considers the Eucharistic version the product of later Christian insight while the Wisdom version represents earlier tradition.

In the editing of the Fourth Gospel it was felt, apparently, that the Eucharistic version of the Bread of Life Discourse would make an appropriate companion for the Wisdom version, and vice versa. A look at underlying texts of the Wisdom version demonstrates that the Bread refers to Jesus’ revelation and teaching rather than to his flesh and blood referred to in the Eucharistic version.

For example:
As to the miracle of the Feeding of the Five Thousand which directly precedes the Discourse on the Bread of Life, the words of Amos are appropo in light of the hunger of the crowds and their search for Jesus: “Behold the days are coming when I shall send a famine on the land, not a famine of bread or a thirst for water, but for hearing the word of the Lord . . . They shall run back and forth seeking the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it.”  Further, in the Book of Sirach: “Wisdom declares

. . .Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my fruits. For the memory of me is sweeter than honey, and the possession of me sweeter than the honeycomb. Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more . . .

The one who fears God, Wisdom will nourish with the bread of understanding and give them the water of learning to drink.” To summarize, then, in the light of the Gospel passage: People will never have too much wisdom and will always desire more, and people will never hunger or thirst for anything other than Jesus’ own revelation. The Synoptic Gospels reinforce the identification of bread with teaching inJesus’ warning to beware of the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees which he characterizes as yeast.

Jesus speaks of God’s bread come down from heaven to give life to the world and proclaims that the Son of Man is the only one who has come down from the Father, leading to the belief that Jesus is talking of himself as the bread.  But the crowd does not understand and Jesus must specifically identify himself as the bread that gives life.

This means that he is the revealer of the truth, the divine teacher who has come to nourish people with wisdom. In claiming to personify divine revelation Jesus advances beyond the preparation in the Wisdom literature. When he says that those who believe in him shall never be hungry or thirsty, he is expressing the same idea that he will proclaim to Martha grieving the death of her brother: “I am the life . . . whoever believes in me shall never die at all.”

Under all these metaphors of bread, water, and life, Jesus is symbolically referring to the same reality, a reality which, when once possessed, makes one see natural hunger, thirst and death as insignificant.

In the light of this and with the reminder that the Wisdom version of the Bread of Life Discourse is the principal foundation of this chapter of the Gospel, we make the point that what scandalizes the disciples is not concerned with Jesus‘ eucharistic flesh and blood, but with his identification of himself as the bread, that is, wisdom, come down from heaven of which one may eat and live forever.

The disciples are indignant about this and murmur even as the crowd murmured about the same claim earlier. The disciples cannot bear to LISTEN - notice that all the references in today’s passage concern hearing or believing Jesus’ doctrine; there is not a single reference to refusing to eat his flesh or to drink his blood. Since they complain that they cannot listen to his claim to have come down from heaven, Jesus asks what they will think if they see him ascending to where he was before. He uses the term Son of Man to identify himself with a figure whom both Daniel and Enoch characterize as celestial.

We have somewhat of a parallel to this earlier in John.  When Nicodemus cannot understand how one can be begotten from above of water and Spirit, Jesus calls upon the ascension into heaven of the Son of Man; for it is the ascended Son of Man who can give the Spirit. So also in today’s passage the Spirit is mentioned immediately after the reference to the ascension of the Son of Man. In contrasting Spirit and flesh here, Jesus is speaking of flesh as the natural principle in humanity which cannot give eternal life. The Spirit is the divine principle from above which alone can give life. This contrast between flesh and Spirit appears also in Paul, as, for example, in Romans: ” . . . those who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” The Synoptic parallel to the phrase “the flesh is useless” is found in the Caesarea Philippi scene of Matthew where Jesus says to Peter, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”

In today’s passage Jesus says, “It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Thus Jesus is once more affirming that one cannot gain life on one’s own. If Jesus is divine revelation come down from heaven, like nourishing bread, his purpose is to communicate the principle of eternal life.  The one who accepts the words of Jesus will receive the life-giving Spirit.

Jesus never answers the question about his origins on a human plane; the words he gives are an answer, but on a theological plane. He is sent by God and he is from God, and that is how he can claim to have come down from heaven. If the disciples will desist from their murmuring, which indicates a refusal to believe, and will leave themselves open to God’s movement, God will draw them to Jesus. This is the age spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when they are being taught by God, if only they will listen.

This teaching is embodied, externally, in Jesus who walks among them, but it is also internal in that God acts in their hearts, fulfilling what Jeremiah had promised: ‘I will put my law within them, and on their hearts will write it.‘ This internal moving of the heart by God will enable them to believe in Jesus and thus possess eternal life.

God will draw us to Jesus and will move our hearts; for that matter, Jesus will draw us and will move our hearts; here’s a possibility called ‘Postulant’s Encouragement.’

This Order, and I daresay the Episcopal Church at large, has developed a certain reverence for our departed brother Alan Whittemore in recognition of his becoming in the course of his life a genuine American mystic. For this reason, toward the end of his life in the 1950’s when he lived here as a contemplative he was appointed confessor to the novitiate. His counsel to a new postulant would sometimes proceed in this vein of God’s drawing them to Jesus, a drawing characterized by cords of God’s steadfast love, which he would describe as Jesus standing before you with an inviting hand. “Imagine our Lord standing before you, holding out his hand for you to take it and follow him. Will you take it? He wants you to.” And then Alan Whittemore would say with great emphasis: “But be careful! There’s a wound in it!”

Proper 16A - Aug 21, 2011

Holy Cross Monastery, West Park, NY
Br. Adam McCoy, OHC
Proper 16A - Sunday, August 21, 2011

Isaiah 51:1-6
Romans 12:1-8
Matthew 16:13-20

As all the brethren know, I have just returned from two weeks away. I left, as I always do, with a small library of books I intended to read: David Brakke’s Athanasius and Asceticism; another book on asceticism, Margaret Miles’ Fullness of Life, which I should have read when it came out in 1981; two recent compilations of essays on the Venerable Bede; and Harold Bloom’s latest work of literary criticism, The Anatomy of Influence. I always do this: I pack the books I ought to read. I know I will return a much better person if I read them all, and I never do. I crack them, read a chapter or two, and then, somehow, mysteriously, move onto something else. This time I read two books which were actually a lot more fun: Jonathan Yardley’s wonderful short essays on neglected classics called Second Reading, and John Julius Norwich’s just-published narrative romp, Absolute Monarchs: A History of the Papacy. If you want the serious history of the popes, of course, you have to go to the Germans, someone like Bernard Schimmelpfennig, who thinks it is terribly important that the reader understand that the likelihood that Peter ever even got to Rome at all is practically zero. He dissects the papacy like a coroner dissects corpses, looking for evidences of foul play.

Norwich is not of the Schimmelpfennig school. He nods his head to the grim truth that much has been lost to us in the mists of time. But he loves to evoke the living reality, so he tells the stories, and there are a lot of good and juicy stories to tell. The papacy has been around in one form or another going on two thousand years, and its story is a fascinating narrative with a cast of hundreds in the starring roles and thousands surrounding them. The Vatican officially lists Benedict XVI as number 265, and that doesn’t count the numerous popes of disputed title. There are lots of saints and quite a lot of remarkable and admirable men on that list. But there are also more than a few scoundrels, and some stories that will curl the hair of the most ardent proponent of the See of Rome. My personal favorite among the flagrantly ambiguous reigned from 1492 to 1503. Alexander VI, the first Borgia pope, was a great administrator and diplomat, a patron of the arts and of learning, and devoted to his family. He was a man of enormous charm which he used to great and positive effect at some quite dangerous and difficult moments. But as greatly charming persons sometimes are, he was also possessed of dubious personal holiness and habits of life. Among the four publicly acknowledged children by his mistress Vanozza dei Cattanei, all of whom he provided for in quite a grand way at the expense of the Church, was the irrepressible Lucrezia. I recommend Norwich to you to fill in the details.

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Whatever construction later ecclesiastical theory put on this statement, and it is the key scriptural basis for the primacy of the successors of Peter, it is clear that the early church thought that the Lord’s words to Peter were central to its self-understanding. Something essential about the leadership of the Church is indicated by the exchange between Jesus and Peter. Something worth looking at.

Jesus is asking his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, one of the prophets. “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter, without any hesitation, answers, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." An amazingly rich and complicated exchange, using in such a short space three of the most loaded titles in all of scripture, about which commentary has swirled and proliferated likely since the moment this conversation was uttered. Indeed, the first commentary on it comes from Jesus himself: The one who has identified Jesus as Messiah and Son of the living God is the rock on which the Church will be built. That is how important Peter’s statement is.

I find it interesting that Jesus uses the word rock here, and also that the early church remembered it and made it central. Remember the parable of the two houses, one built on sand and the other on rock? The one built on sand is swept away. The one built on rock outlasts the storm. Jesus wants his movement to continue long after he is gone. But he seems to be worried that it won’t last, that it will be built on a false foundation. The church requires rock for its foundation. It may be, as later was taught, that the rock is the character of Peter, and it may be that his official successors will inherit his strength of character and immovability. The colorful story of Peter’s successors shows that some were rocks and some, well, not so much. Yet mysteriously, the church endures.

But I wonder if Jesus’ statement is not about something more direct in his exchange with Peter. The rock to which Jesus refers can be interpreted as Peter’s confession, that Jesus is Messiah and Son of the living God. This is what calls forth the Lord’s declaration. Perhaps Jesus is suggesting that if a leader wants to follow in Peter’s steps, it is Peter’s confession that provides the strength and solidity, the genuineness, the integrity on which the church can continue to be built. What matters in a leader of the Church may include being a good administrator or a good diplomat, or a person devoted to his or her family (and what family doesn’t have its ups and downs!). But what makes Christian leadership genuine is that the leader points to Jesus of Nazareth and declares to all who may care to hear that it is this one – not some other – who is the one anointed to bring in the kingdom of God, that is to say, this is the one who is the answer to how we should order our lives, individually and collectively; that it is this one – not some other – who bears the divine nature in human form, that is to say, this is the one who shows us what it ultimately real.

The rock solid foundation of the Church is its understanding of who Jesus really is. Leaders who truly follow Peter, who are genuine rocks on whom the church is built in every age, indeed in our own age, are those who say with unequivocal certainty that Jesus is the one who brings in the kingdom and shows the true nature of God to us.

In eight days, on August 29, the list of official nominees for the election of the 16th Episcopal Bishop of New York is to be announced, and exactly two months later the Convention will vote, and, one hopes, elect. There are many qualities which one can desire in a bishop of a diocese as large and as complex as New York. We have had good administrators, diplomatic personalities, and men devoted to their families, though not all of them quite as colorful perhaps as Alexander VI. Whoever is elected will need many gifts, but more gifts will be needed than any one person can possess. Inevitably he or she will lack some important ones, and in ten years or so it will be clear what they are.

But there is one gift this new Bishop, in fact every bishop, in fact every Christian leader, in fact, every serious Christian, must absolutely possess. When asked the question, Who do you say that I am? by the Lord, or when asked by others, Who is Jesus?, that person should be one who, with Peter, can say with unequivocal certainty who Jesus is: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." And mean it. And understand it. And interpret it to others. And put it into effective practice in this time and in this place. And build the church on it.