Scriptures:
Genesis 15: 1-6; Psalm 27; Philippians 3:15-4:1; Luke 13: 31-35
In
the current debate over same-sex marriage, the chief mystery to me is why
anyone wants to prevent two adults from promising to love and care for one
another. Why would we stop
two people from pledging deep devotion?
How does a till-death-do-you-part vow harm those two people, their
community, or their God? All sorts of
vows, promises, pledges, pacts, treaties, agreements, contracts, and covenants can
be harmful if made through coercion or in bad faith or with bad intentions. But an earnest vow of love holds potential
good for all. The grand arc of Christian
scripture testifies that the experience of the Holy is activated in committed
human relatedness. The biblical concept of covenant starts in the book of
Genesis and extends through the New Testament’s witness to the “new covenant”
Jesus made in pouring out his life in love, which is remembered each time we
come to Christ’s table.
That
which is sacred happens in the loving interactions between two lovers, between
parent and child, between a human being and a beloved pet, between a people and
the land they tend with care. God is
there . . . in the inbetweeneness. Or
maybe it’s more accurate to say God IS the betweenness.
Oh,
I know. We tend to think of God as the object
of our adoration and the One who loves us. But what if God is the generative
power that forms and exists in relationships and comes out of
relationships? Sure, it’s easier to
image God as a being—like a super powerful person, a heavenly parent in some distant
location. It’s harder for creatures like
us, who think and relate visually, to fathom God as the force or power of love
itself. You’re probably trying visualize
now a physics diagram rather than a person.
Let’s take a moment to walk around inside this idea: Picture me . . .
and you . . . and flowing invisibly between us is God—not as a third party in
our relationship but as the force attracting and connecting us, the glue that
bonds us, the creative energy generated by and coming from our relationship --
when we’re in right relationship. Yes, some relationships emit destructiveness.
But that which we call God makes possible life-giving and love-producing
relationships which produce new life and love.
For Christians, Jesus's life gives us that needed visible picture of right
relatedness.
A
caveat: God-as-right-relatedness may complicate your prayer life at first. It’s easier to pray in traditional ways to a
heavenly parent. But certain images of God—as
father, warrior, king—might, if used exclusively, limit our growth in God.
Let’s
look specifically at relationships based on formal or informal covenants. I find
little in scripture to affirm what many today hold up as traditional marriage.
The Bible really knows nothing about marriage as it exists in 21st
century Western culture. But the biblical word speaks volumes about commitments
we make to God and to one another. So in
an age when many take too casually the responsibilities we bear one another,
the word covenant is worth dusting off again.
On this evening I am interested in three specific kinds of covenant
relationships: covenants a group makes with another group, covenants we as
individuals make with God, and covenants we as individuals make with other
individuals and groups.
1.
As Open
Table eagerly anticipates becoming a church "in full standing" in the United Church of Christ, we do so aware of
covenants that congregations make with other congregations or denominations. Our church will enter into a trustful
covenant with all other congregations and expressions of the UCC to “listen, hear and carefully
consider their advice, counsel and requests as they listen hear and carefully
consider our advice, counsel, and requests.” Although no person and no part of
the UCC has authority to require us to affirm any beliefs or behave in any
ways, we will be promising one another to try to walk together in God’s ways—in
love and mutuality. We will be in a committed and caring relationship.
2.
A more
ancient idea of covenant is developed in the book of Genesis. In today’s Hebrew Bible reading, we encounter
a chapter has been “judged by many scholars to be the oldest statement of
Abrahamic faith, from which the others are derivative.” Although the word
translated as covenant does not
appear until several verses later, “there is no doubt that this chapter offers
crucial resources for the theme . . . of covenant,” says Walter Brueggemann in
his commentary on Genesis (p. 140 ).
Verse
1:After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, “Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your
shield; your reward shall be very great.”
Abram has just had a close call with
some foreign armies. His thoughts perhaps
turn to his own mortality. Notice that God begins this encounter.
God's grace initiates the covenantal relationship. This story clearly says Abram images God in
human terms, but in a vision.
There are other more literalized encounters with God in scripture, but
this is not. Notice,
too, the image Abram has of God includes God as a shield—clearly a
metaphor. So set your postmodern hearts
at ease, my friends, and appreciate this as a nonliteral conversation with the Divine.
Verses
2-3: But Abram said (in this dream or vision), “O Lord God, what will you give
me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”
3“You have given me no offspring, and so a slave born in my house is
to be my heir.”
God is for Abram,
something like a feudal lord who promises reward for those who serve him. But God is also Abram’s source of life and
legacy. Eternal life for Abram is
possible through his descendants since life after death is a concept early
Israel had not yet evolved. To Abram, God is the power which brings a child
into a human family and offers new and enduring life.
Verses
4-6 4But the word of the Lord came to him, “This man shall not be
your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir. Look toward
heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them. So shall your
descendants be.” 6And he believed the Lord; and the Lord reckoned it
to him as righteousness.
The first explicit covenant in Genesis
was the one in which God promised never again to flood the earth—a covenant
made with Noah and all creation. In this
next covenant God promises not only to withhold destruction but actually to
make a way for ongoing life and relatedness. God promises descendants and, a
few verses later, land where they may dwell and multiply. What we learn about
Abram’s God here is that God opens up the possibilities of relatedness and,
through relatedness, life itself: the creation and continuation of life. Now I’ll admit that Abram has a tribal notion
about how life ought to continue—with his seed, with favoritism toward a
particular line of the human family. But the text still holds out a larger
view: “Look at the stars, Abram,” says
God. “That’s the vast picture we’re
ultimately aiming for. The cosmos is
your family. The vastness of what God is
is way above your head and all human thought.
But you are nevertheless connected to all that—through me.”
God through science has more recently been teaching us that we
are the stuff of stars. The materials
that make up all life on our planet came from the stars of the wider
universe. To alter the Ash Wednesday
formula: It’s “stars to stars” rather
than “ashes to ashes, dust to dust.” I
wonder how human history might have changed if the human race had focused a
little less on gaining territory and more on appreciating the beauty and
vastness of God’s full progeny.
Still, Abram was a man of faith. And the God of Genesis said that counted for
much. God works through trust, through
trusting, committed relationships. The covenant God continues to make,
metaphorically, with those who inhabit any part of our planet is this: if you
can trust and be trusted, you make serve the vast and enduring enterprise of
love and life.
3.
A
third type of covenant, implied in the verses Jerry read from Philippians,
is found in a covenanted community where individuals have pledged their
commitment to that particular faith community.
Paul calls the church at Philippi to “hold fast” to their
commitments. This is a communal call to
remain brothers and sisters—even though some “think differently” than others in
that church. Can you imagine that? Folks in a
church who have different and potentially divisive thoughts?! The “mature” brothers and sisters have the
responsibility for “being of the same mind,” which Paul elsewhere says is “the
mind of Christ,” which is different from saying they have to all share the same
opinions. Instead, this complex
relationship of diverse members of unequal maturity and divergent opinion are equalized
by their relatedness as sisters and brothers in Christ. Their community is rooted in the love of
Christ, a love Paul effusively professes and models. It is this same love that brings us
together—another group of diverse Jesus followers--to Christ’s Open Table. We may not agree on how to think about God,
but we share the theological premise that the life of God is always about relationship
and relatedness. Our congregation’s
central metaphor is that of table fellowship, where relationship is based on
and supported by the most elemental of human connection—a shared meal.
The
verbal covenant of membership we at Open Table make with each new member addresses them as our sisters
and brothers and includes these words:
“Today we formalize a covenant that we hope has been
implicit in all our dealings with you: that we will try to bear one another’s
burdens, hear one another’s stories, support one another in spiritual growth,
and serve God by serving one another and our world. In our congregation and in our denomination,
we will together strive for unity without seeking uniformity.”
But
the covenant of love we make with God and with our church family is not a
tit-for-tat contract. In our culture we’re
used to getting out of our contracts—with Verizon or AT&T—if we can get a
better deal elsewhere. The church’s
covenant of love is not contingent on how happy everyone else here is making us. In the Gospel reading for today,
Jesus is warned that the epicenter of his religion’s life, Jerusalem, sometimes
kills prophets—yet Jesus weeps with compassion for those within that religious
system and commits himself to “finish [his] work.” Jesus expresses God’s desire
to cover Jerusalem protectively as a mother hen would protect her chicks. But Jerusalem was “not willing.” Covenant
works only when both parties earnestly give and receive the challenges and
blessings of church life. Sometimes we are not willing, to use Jesus’s words about
those in Jerusalem. We are not willing
to extend ourselves, to trust, to listen, to risk being hurt.
The
image of Jesus as a mother hen spreading her wings protectively over her chicks
might have more sacrificial connotations than we've assumed. Some have reported after a barnyard fire
picking up the charred bodies of mother hens only to find living chicks
beneath. Love in general and life in a faith community in particular can
call for sacrifice, more give than take at times. We aim for equality but
rarely achieve it completely. Our life together requires sincere commitments
from all with recognition that God’s forgiving grace will be needed by all.
Making
covenants is risky. The biblical word
says covenants bring us closer to relatedness at the heart of the life of
God.
Friends, I thank God for our life together in a covenant of love and care.
Friends, I thank God for our life together in a covenant of love and care.
In
silent prayer, let’s consider vows we would renew in our hearts as part of our
Lenten journey: relationships that deserve greater attention, commitments grown
dull.
May
the God who calls us into a fresh future lead us into responsible relationships
with individuals, with groups, with creation. Amen.