Here in the UK Mother's day is in Lent, so I don't have that complication to worry about, and I'm wrestling with John 17:10, "I have been glorified in them". I'm planning to build the sermon round the question "Are you glorious?" - banking on the fact that most people won't feel or want to claim that they are, but actually the implication of the text is that they should; I want people to leave feeling exalted.
To my own surprise, I'm going to use the hymn "Mine eyes have seen the glory...", and talk about it a bit. This is a hymn that normally irritates me, not least for unscripturality ("In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born..." doesn't sound like any Palestinian stable I can imagine). But in context, what fits perfectly is the idea of the patrician Julia Howe seeing the glory of the Lord in the ordinary Union soldiery, who were presumably as rough and ready as any other army - and given her husband's position in the Sanitary Commission she presumably had every reason to know just how rough and ready.
But of course this hymn has no patriotic or political resonances in this country, and I'd be interested to know how the above falls on US ears.
Stephen in Exeter UK
The contrast between the mystic John, and Matthew, with Luke and Acts concerning Pentecost is awesome. The empowerment through the Holy Spirit for ministry ("grater works than these will you do")is, I believe the common core. Also comparing Old Testament stories of ascension is meaningful. At any rate I can hear the meaning of the ascension in Paul's afffirmations and/or faith visions: Let this mind bein you which was in Christ Jesus; Christ in you, the hope of glory; and, it is nit I but Christ that lives in me. This insightful visions I believe embrace Jesus in John's gospel unveiling the manifestation of the mystical covenant community within...the holy one-ness...Father in me, I am in the Father, I in you. John 14 and prayer in 17.
Thanks Nailbender for the review of the Golden Cross Sunday last week.
PaideiaSCO reflecting in north GA mts.
With this Sunday being Mother's day, a theme that jumped out at me is that of a protective parent. Although we often think of father's as being the protective ones, Jesus used the image of a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings as an illustration of his bringing his own into unity. Unity is often lacking in local congregations and within the greater church. As in the word sanctuary, we need the power of God to protect us(not just in the sanctuary but in the world to which the people of faith are called to serve). How do we protect our children? Ultimately by placing them in the hands of God, which would obviously include the Holy Spirit guiding and empowering parents into right actions and decisions. TN Mack
The greatest gift my mother ever gave me was the gift of prayer. I knew she was praying for me and I know now that her prayers made a difference. The greatest gift a parent can give a child is prayer. We often down play prayer or use it as a last resort. But the prayer of a mother or father for a child is an awesome gift.
Isn't it awesome to know that Jesus prayed for His followers? I think it is a good tie in for Mother's Day. My mom is gone now but I know that Jesus' prayers for me continue on.
Some early thoughts from Pastor John in CT
TN Mack--
That hen image of Jesus's is, so far as I've ever noticed, the ONLY hen in the entire bible... apart from the cockerel that crowed to mark Peter's desertion. And one other reference to "cockcrow" in Mark. I'm not sure what this means, if anything, but it makes a nice tie-in from Jesus's motherly care for us to our cowardly desertion of him.
Stephen in Exeter UK
Tn-Mack, in the Faith we Sing there is a wonderful song, Lord prepare me to be a sanctuary. Nancy-Wi
Another English contribution!
Next Sunday is also Christian Aid Sunday here and I was wondering if it might be good to take that great idea from Stephen in Exeter (i.e. "I have been glorified in them") and link it to the poor of the world? Maybe urge people to see the glory of Christ in the bereaved mother in Israel / Palestine (the "/" there means BOTH!!), the dispossessed in Sierra Leone etc. etc. (a depressingly long list). Where does that lead us?
Afraid I can't summon up any enthusiasm for "Mine eyes have seen the glory ..." - the image of people trying to kill each other is all that comes to mind when that is sung, rather than anything Christ-like. Maybe that's just me though.
Peter in Lancaster (UK)
"This is eternal life, that they may know You...." Eternal life as a relationship rather than a place... Eternal life beginning now rather than at the end of this life....this understanding might help us to become Marys instead of Marthas, something much needed in our culture! PJ in Spring Valley
"eternal life is a relationship, not a place": great comment. Meanwhile, Stephen in Exeter, as an American, I associate the Battle Hymn of the Republic with the Civil War, of course. The hymn does seem intimately tied to war, despite its promise of redemption or transfiguration. I'm not sure anyone hears the words- more the aura of the 19th century coming through, I think, especially with the non-inclusive language and archaic speech liike "a glory in his bosom". So if the 19th century works for you, fine. I am working on a sermon theme of the Holy SPirit as kind of a Frodo invisibility cloak for us - a weapon, to be sure, as we go into the world (a weapon not producing violence- though, perhaps overcoming the violence?)
--AEA
Thanks Eric,
That is the site I was looking for. Rev. Tim, Ontario, Canada
Stephen in Exeter,
I've always taken that line in "Mine eyes..." about Jesus born in the lilies' beauty to be a reference to Mary, whose flower has traditionally been the lily...
Heather in Sharon
Nancy and Stephen,
Thank you for your responsive comments. I had an additional thought on the issue of protecting the child. We have been bombarded with news about priests who have sexually abused children, about children who are kidnapped, and about children dying innocently in acts of war and terrorism. Even the internet has become an avenue for sick persons to prey upon children and youth. Most parents today try harder than parents of past generations to off their children instruction on how to avoid such horrible things and experience protection. The awful fact of the matter is that no such guarantee exists that something bad like that or even that the misfortune of accident or illness can be avoided. Living as a parent in these days requires no small amount of trust that, as long as we place our lives and the lives of our children in God's hand, ultimately we are safe in the everlasting arms of God. TN Mack
Help. I don't want to sound so skeptical Sunday. But I am struggling to find integrity in this passage.
Many things in John differ from the same stories in the synoptics. In the synoptics we are told of a passionate prayer that Jesus prays in the gardin of Gethsemeny. We are given some snippits of this prayer.
Here John changes the setting, putting the prayer in the upper room before they go back across the Kidron Vallety to the Mt Of Olives. John has good reason for changing the setting of the prayer. If it is a private prayer with Jesus removed from the other disciples even a ways from Peter, James and John, then any verbatim of this prayer is something the disciples could only have had if Jesus wrote it down or repeated it to them word for word. When would he have done that?
Any verbatim of that prayer is bogus. So what is John selling us here? Who can tell me a way to preach on this text with integrity?
Stepehen, as a child I loved to sing "mine eyes have seen the glory" Later that hymn ant others with militaristic images became suspect. Not only that, the very words glory and glorify once sounded great but now leave a bad taste.
Those places in the Bible where these words and concepts are use feel as if they have already been had by the spin doctors. See the movie, Will Wild West with Will Smith for an example of the kind of feeling this leaves.
It has a song, Come to Glory...
One thing I heard Dr. James Nestingen say that I want to pass on to the group is that we need to remember that Jesus is praying to God, not to us. It is not our responsibility to make happen what Jesus prays for in this text.
My thoughts are still not clearly formulated on what I am to do for this Sunday. It is difficult to know what to do with this, since Jesus says, "I am no longer in the world." If the prayer actually happens before the crucifixion... still working.
Michelle
I've always thought that if "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory" is to be rehabilitated as a non-militaristic hymn, it should be seen as an Advent hymn, especially appropriate on Advent 1. After all, much of the imagery and language is taken from Revelation and the other apocalyptic portions of the Bible. And the last verse is a prelude to Christmas. -- Mike in Maryland
One more Battle Hymn comment --
I agree that the language is difficult to redeem.
However, my recollection is that the text is actually -- "In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was borne (carried) across the sea," which I have always taken as a reference of the spreading of the gospel to the new world. Maybe that's just my revisionist memory.
RevEv in Ks
The copy I have says "Christ was born" no "e", but I like the imagery of witness to the new world.
One more comment on that hymn, the original words were, "As he died to make men holy, Let us die to make men free..."
Many a good hymn for the unity of the church (verse 11) would be "The Church's One Foundation"
Michelle
I don't usually tie in to the secular holidays unless it seems to fit. This one does. When my first child was born, I discovered a dimension of love I had never known before. I thought, "if God loves me 1/2 as much as I love this child, I have nothing to fear." Of course, God's love is much bigger! I also felt an overwhelming desire to protect this tiny child from the "big bad world". I still want to do that, but also realize my kids will have to learn some lessons the hard way - however, they know that through it all God, and Mom and Dad will never stop loving them and praying for them. Anyone else see a connection here? REVMOM
I don't usually tie in to the secular holidays unless it seems to fit. This one does. When my first child was born, I discovered a dimension of love I had never known before. I thought, "if God loves me 1/2 as much as I love this child, I have nothing to fear." Of course, God's love is much bigger! I also felt an overwhelming desire to protect this tiny child from the "big bad world". I still want to do that, but also realize my kids will have to learn some lessons the hard way - however, they know that through it all God, and Mom and Dad will never stop loving them and praying for them. Anyone else see a connection here? REVMOM
You might find some help in the "homiletic theory" about John's gospel, i.e. that it basically consists of a series of texts (which can be identified back to the same sources as the synoptics) followed by the evangelist's sermons on them; and the literary conventions of the time, not to mention the complete absence of punctuation in the early manuscripts, mean we can't be sure where one starts and the other stops.
This would not be suitable fare for all congregations, and would inflame some regulars on this list, but it was only taking that perspective that enabled me to start taking John seriously at all as a source of insight about Jesus - for the same sceptical reasons you advance. And having found a way into it, as it were, I have tended to become less sceptical.
You can find a reasonably accessible introduction to this way of thinking (which is fairly commonplace among New Testament scholars) in Barnabas Lindars' book "John", published by Sheffield Academic Press.
--Stephen in Exeter UK
All--
Thanks for those contributions on the Battle Hymn, which were very helpful.
I don't think that the idea that "born across the sea" means "carried" will do,
unless Julia Howe was a poor speller (or the conventions of the place and time
were different from mine).
But on the basis that the text once written acquires a life of its own, it's a valid thought.
Except that I suspect that transatlantic travel until the 20th century hadn't got much more to do with lilies than Palestinian stables have... But let's not break butterflies on wheels here.
I'm still aiming to tell my congregation they're glorious, and I'm still going to have them sing the Battle Hymn.
--Stephen in Exeter UK
Stephen
Thanks so much for your comments on John - I think you may have rescued me in the same way you were rescued. I was getting lost in the detail.
I think I won't preach on this as I too really can't imagine how anyone could have remembered the words Jesus actually prayed in that upper room especially with all the clauses and sub-clauses. I don't suppose that HANSARD were there with a stenograph! However, to try and explain that to a congregation would probably mean that some of them would miss the whole of the rest of the sermon!
I'm going with the "wait on the HS" and be ready for a hard time in the Acts and Epistle readings.
Regards
Adam in Hertford, UK
PS Good to have some UK input into all this. I'm a Methodist Local Preacher - third year, very behind with the studies!!
Adam in Hertford,
I guess the ability to interpret John, involves the way in which most human beings understand fact and truth. We tend to believe that the synoptic gospels record the "actual" words of Jesus, whenever they quote him. I would find this extremely difficult to actually believe. Whilst I can believe that the people of the era had extremely good memories, the precise words that Jesus used could not possibly have been accurately recorded in the same manner as tape recording is done today. There is some editorial licence contained in all of them, and that has been the difficulty when attempting to lay the synoptics alongside one another. The 3 accounts don't always correctly correspond.
When we come to John's gospel, we are thrown completely because his chronology, his format and his language seem totally foreign.
Let me try to explain my own thinking on this dilemma.
If four people were to view an incident from four different angles, each would have their particular perspective and each would believe they were giving a factual account of the incident. If we then asked the fourth to relate to us the emotional content of their experience as each part of the incident was played out, we would get an entirely different picture of the incident.
John mixes metaphor and reality, he expands upon a simple text in the synoptics with long discourses of feelings and emotional content, he describes at length what is happening within the person of Jesus, where the synoptics simply relate the event. John provides us with insight into the nature of the divine and the human struggling with life and purpose under God. Every line is rich in double metaphor, sometimes quite complex reasoning has been applied to the person of Christ and his purpose for coming to us. His theology is Word made Flesh.
Everything associated with John's gospel relates back to the prologue at the beginning, in which John believes that Jesus and human beings for that matter, have been made flesh simply by the word of God. Words become more than words to him.
Human beings seem to prefer the synoptic, because they don't make us think and ponder as much. We prefer simplicity, rather than the complexity of John's thinking gospel.
I find John exciting and challenging, puzzling and enlightening all in the same breath. Remember there was a long debate over whether it should be included in the canon.
I hope this has been of interest.
An Aussie.
Dear Aussie Friend
John has always been my favourite too and I was aware of the whole "redaction" thing. It's just that sometimes you are led to forget it whe the "words of Jesus" appear in Red in QuickVerse! and I'm not sure that my congregation for Sunday has made the leap that I did when I first understood that it wasn't just the bits where the gospels don't agree chronologically etc but that the Gospels weren't actual "Gospel Truth" as the world puts it after all!
Thanks
Adam
In Quickverse, if you go to the fonts menu, then click on colors, you can change the "words of Christ" to any color you wish, even the black that the normal words are.
Michelle
I see that it remains true that God uses the foolish to confound the wise.
Why do you try so hard to be smarter than God? Did God not preserve the Gospel accounts that we have in the face of tyrannt and kingdom set against them?
Is your faith only in what measures to up your wisdom?
I think we are foolish to impose our 21st century ideals of journalism on storytellers from the Mediteranean who simply wish to tell us that God is awesome, we are loved, and Christ is Lord.
You are working far too hard - God's love is here!
BINNY
Thank-you Binny for your simple faith.
Then lets not have a bible at all!
Lets just dispense with all this discussion about God at all!
Lets just all get lost in wonder, love and praise.
Lets not try to persuade or influence anyone else in our belief. Lets just allow them to discover this all by themself.
You want simple. Simply burn every book, every technological advance of medical science and the mechanical world. Destroy every bit of understanding and learning that we have ever experienced and return to the primeval life.
Then it was just so simple.
Get up with the sun, kill eat, have sex, kill, eat, go to sleep with the sun, die.
In that context, God was simply any element that worked against our being able to do any of these things.
Simple does not necessarily mean utopia!
Why do people want their Christianity, without having to think about it and to discuss what they believe? I can't fathom that thinking.
If you want to suggest that John didn't think about Jesus a WHOLE lot, then I don't know what to say.
Have a great life.
A loving caring Christian.
