While Proverbs 8 and Psalm 8 both speak
eloquently and picturesquely of creation as sparked, surrounded, and permeated
by God’s Trinitarian presence, I want to focus this week on Romans 5:1-5 and John
16:12-15. It’s Trinity Sunday. In March I did a Q&A with our confirmands,
and one asked why the Trinity isn’t polytheism – and we were exactly 3 minutes
before the hard stop time. A sermon similarly doesn’t provide enough time to do
anything but hint at the wonder of God as an eternal fellowship of love.
I do recall that back in seminary we had a
talent show each year. A favorite moment came when students would do impersonations
of professors, and we’d guess who was being impersonated. My friend Pat walked
on stage, spoke a complete sentence or two about the Trinity, then he began
incomplete sentences, then took off his glasses and grimaced as he pressed his
hand to his brow. We all rightly guessed Tom Langford, theology professor who
did what preachers should do more of: embody the fact that we are speaking of
something too vast, too complex - knowable, adorable, but mind-boggling.
So our epistle, Romans 5:1-5. I keep
imagining Paul, pacing, thinking out loud, grimacing like Tom Langford,
dictating to a scribe what we now read. He had to be uber-inspired as he sorted
things out without the benefit of a New Testament or even one volume of
theology on his shelf. He’s not figured out a Trinity yet, but he wrestles with
the idea of “peace with God the Father through Jesus,” and “the Spirit poured
into our hearts.” I wonder if a sermon might look like Tom Langford, and we
simply restate, with uhs and sighs, the notion that we are at peace with God
the Creator, through the agency of Jesus (his cross being, perhaps, like a
wooden bridge from us into the heart of God, as Catherine of Siena suggested) –
and as we weigh all this, our hearts pulsate with joy and energy, the Spirit
not so much an emotional jolt but an undercurrent of understand, insight, aha!
And then I always like to repeat Paul’s stunning
litany – and maybe without explanation: “Suffering produces endurance, endurance
produces character, character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint.” I
might pause there and say hope might not disappoint? Or rather, segue into what
Christopher Lasch taught us about hope’s ability to cope with disappointment,
and how it is so very different from optimism: “Hope doesn’t demand
progress; it demands justice, a conviction that wrongs will be made right, that
the underlying order of things is not flouted with impunity. Hope appears
absurd to those who lack it. We can see why hope serves us better than
optimism. Not that it prevents us from expecting the worst; the worst is what
the hopeful are prepared for. A blind faith that things will somehow work out
for the best furnishes a poor substitute for the disposition to see things
through even when they don’t.”
Optimism depends on us;
it’s Scarlett O’Hara’s naïve view that things will somehow be better tomorrow.
Hope depends on God; it can bear tomorrow being worse.
Our Gospel, John
16:12-15, is so titillating. Jesus has “many things to say, but you can’t bear
them now.” Jesus will continue to speak long after Good Friday and Easter,
though the Spirit – and I wonder if there’s some hint in there that the
fullness of Jesus’ truth is something you can only grasp over time, only after
much pondering and getting ready. The preacher would be wise to remember this:
that you can’t just download the riches of the Gospel into people’s heads. They
aren’t ready for it all just yet. Be patient. Dole out some, hint at more to
come.
This “spirit of truth”
is perilous, as too many Christians treat “truth” as some sledgehammer to judge
or belittle others. St. Ephrem the Syrian (4th century): “Truth and
love are wings that cannot be separated, for Truth without Love is unable to
fly, so too Love without Truth is unable to soar up; their yoke is one of
harmony.” Denominations are lousy about truth; both “sides” blithely presume to
have cornered it. I love Ephraim Radner’s insight: “When the greatest decision that human
beings ever made was to be made, what did Jesus say? How did he contribute? When the truth was debated, did he speak his
mind? They led him to Pilate’s bar, and he
never said a mumblin’ word; not a word, not a word, not a word.” Indeed, “Jesus leaves behind his conscience
as he moves toward those who would take it from him. So that his truth becomes a way into a life for
others.”
Truth somehow begins, ends and may well be
fulfilled in silence. Our people, and we clergy ourselves may feel
uncomfortable with silence, or exasperated by it. Oscar Romero, speaking to hurting, fearful Salvadorans
feeling forsaken by God – on Good Friday, 1980! – said, “God is not failing us when
we don’t feel his presence. Let’s not say: God doesn’t do what I pray for so
much, and therefore I don’t pray any more. God exists, and he exists even more,
the farther you feel from him. God is closer to you when you think he is
farther away and doesn’t hear you. When you feel the anguished desire for God
to come near because you don’t feel him present, then God is very close to your
anguish.”
Our text underlines what Frederick Dale
Bruner once suggested – that the Holy Spirit is the “shy” member of the
Trinity, preferring to glorify others, like the backstage help doing everything
to make the star on stage shine.
We are having Holy Communion this Sunday at
my place – which draws me to reflect on the Rublev icon. Once I spoke of it and
imagined three friends at dinner, inviting you, us, to join at our viewer’s
side of the table. God’s Threeness yearns for the one who’s not yet there,
maybe like that shepherd leaving 99 sheep to seek out the one.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.