Prayer in Change

I am slowly working through a book called 'Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals.'  I have loved the book so far and I think I will enjoy using it more frequently at the start of the next liturgical year (Advent).  There is a section in the book that has 'Occasional Prayers' for a variety of different situations.  There are prayers for households and workplaces which are excellent.  But I stumbled across a prayer to pray in the midst of change and thought I would share it here:

"Lord, help me now to unclutter my life, to organize myself in the direction of simplicity.  Lord, teach me to listen to my heart; teach me to welcome change, instead of fearing it.  Lord, I give you these stirrings inside me.  I give you my discontent.  I give you my restlessness.  I give you my doubt.  I give you my despair.  I give you all the longings I hold inside.  Help me to listen to these signs of change, of growth; help me to listen seriously and follow where they lead through the breathtaking empty space of an open door."

I don't think this prayer resonated with me specifically because of a need to handle change better.  I can usually handle change pretty well.  But there were some key words in there that do speak to me in specific seasons:  Discontent; restless; fear; doubt.  There are days when I feel so incredibly restless and I never really know what to do with that pent-up energy.  It is frustrating and hard to put into words what I feel like inside of myself when that happens.  I think this prayer speaks directly to some of those things - better than I've been able to articulate before.

Back to the gospel of Matthew tomorrow!

Hauerwas on Matthew 1 (4)

After four posts, we finally come to the end of Matthew chapter 1!  Today, the focus is on the birth narratives:  Matthew 1:18-25.  We get the viewpoint of Joseph - but Matthew does not diminish Mary.  Her obedience to receive the Holy Spirit is what leads to the pathway of salvation being opened to humans.  SH mentions that Mary has been called ‘the second Eve’ but that ‘a second Abraham’ might be more in order:  “Just as Abraham obeyed God’s call for him to leave his familiar land to journey to a foreign destination, so Mary through her willingness to become the very Mother of God is the beginning of the church" (p.36).  This is a comparison that I have not heard before - and I think it works well.  Both individuals were obedient to something uncomfortable… and through their obedience… God was able to produce a group of people that He would lead and bless (Abraham - Nation of Israel; Mary - Church of Christ).

There are two facets to the story, which are traditional and orthodox, to which SH affirms.  1) Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit.  2) Jesus was born of a Jewish virgin.  Removing either of these facets will change the story in ways that make it no longer work.

It must be noted that the Holy Spirit’s role is present in Matthew from the very beginning of his story (v.18).  We will see the Holy Spirit again in this gospel.  SH suggests that “for Matthew, the work of the Spirit is to point to the humanity of Christ" (p.33).  

Jesus was born through a Jewish woman - we cannot separate out the fact that Jesus has Jewish flesh... that frames the entire gospel.  The virgin birth gives us a very clear picture of the sonship of Jesus next to God the Father.  This is also a part of the story that cannot be told without the virgin birth.  And it fulfills the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy (v. 22-23).  Matthew sets up a pattern in verse 22 that will be repeated throughout the gospel:  “all of this occurred to fulfill the Lord’s message through the prophet.”

I really did not do justice to SH’s thoughts on Matthew 1.  I had to leave out so much good stuff that he observed!  I need to move forward and begin working ahead in Matthew.  But first: tomorrow I’ll take a short break in between chapters and focus on something else.  Stay tuned.  We’ll pick back up on Matthew 2 on Saturday. 

Hauerwas on Matthew 1 (3)

There is one other point that Hauerwas makes about the genealogies:  The names of four woman are included in this history.  

Tamar (v.3); Rahab (v.5a); Ruth (v.5b); Bathsheba (v.6).

Stanley Hauerwas (SH) wrestles with the question of why these four woman were included specifically - and why women were included at all - given that this was an anomaly for genealogies written in Matthew’s day… and the OT genealogies only include males.

One proposition that SH rejects is that these four were included because of their sexual promiscuity.  The inclusion of Ruth in that equation makes this proposition void.

SH actually lands on the idea that these woman represent outsiders.  “These women are not clearly from the people of Israel, yet they serve as God’s providential care of Israel by quite literally making the Davidic line possible (p.32).”  And more:  “These women represent the undeniable reality that God’s promise to Israel has spread to the Gentiles (p.32).”  I love this interpretation and when put next to the Great Commission found at the end of the gospel - "Gentile inclusion” literally frames Matthew’s retelling of the story of Jesus.  Cool stuff there.

Though SH does not state it this way - I also wonder if Matthew is beginning to frame a new way of looking at the vocation of women in light of this new thing that Jesus was bringing to this world.  Admittedly, Matthew does not have much more to say about specific women:  He introduces Mary (Mother of Jesus) in the next section - but Joseph is more of the active viewpoint found in Matthew’s birth narratives.  Two stories are included (9:20-22; 15:21-28) of woman who show faith and initiative.  Women are found around the passion and resurrection scenes (26:6-13; 27:55-56; 27:61: 28:1-10).  Maybe I am just trying to “read” my heritage as a Wesleyan into the gospel - but I find it refreshing that NT writers included the various contributions of women into the story - and I do not believe (as a whole) that Matthew gives any sort of "red light" to allowing women to take on roles of leadership and influence.  (In fairness - he never directly addresses the issue either.)

Regardless, most of the NT writes very redemptively about the vocation of women and I am so glad that I find myself in a tradition that attempts to empower women, rather than silence them. 

Hauerwas on Matthew 1 (2)

Continuing on from yesterday’s post… Hauerwas moves along to the genealogy that is found in verses 2-16.  He makes several interesting points about the genealogy: 

There are three ‘movements’ in Matthew’s genealogy:

Movement 1: (verses 2-6; 17a) Abraham to David

Movement 2: (verses 7-11; 17b) David to Exile

Movement 3: (verses 12-16; 17c) Exile to Messiah

The first movement is meant to encapsulate the story of Israel’s triumph.  Hauerwas:  “David clearly represents for Matthew the climax of Israel’s history” (p.31).  The second movement tells the story of Israel’s loss - “climaxing” with the Babylonian exile.  The third movement tells the story of restoration - climaxing with the birth of Jesus - the long-awaited king.

Again, I really enjoy this kind of thing - because I love seeing the intention behind the writing of the gospel.  There is so much more going on than we often realize.  In terms of the genealogy in particular:  how often have I skipped over the first 17 verses of Matthew in order to get to the birth (Christmas) narratives?  More times than I care to admit.  But between yesterday’s post and today’s - it’s clear that the first 17 verses were pregnant with meaning for Matthew.

He infers the entire history of Israel - simply by the way he groups generations together - and he telegraphs the significance of Jesus - simply by connecting his name to the name of two other important figures in OT history.  Whether Matthew really meant all this - I don’t know.  Whether Hauerwas is right on all of this - I also don’t know.  But what I do know and have experienced:  God is able to continually shine new light upon the scriptures.  It is remarkable what can be found there - even after hundreds of readings.  I appreciate this about the scriptures - they are alive and active - so they never grow static or stale… they can never be completely mastered - because they speak afresh to each new generation and each new set of problems and issues that each generation is tasked with facing.  I am grateful to God for the depth and breadth of the scriptures He has given to us.

And we aren’t even done with Matthew 1! 

Hauerwas on Matthew 1 (1)

I can't believe that it's been almost two years since I posted on my blog!  I also can't believe that I've had this blog since 2004.  Time absolutely flies by.  The older I get - the faster it goes.

I wanted to get back into a discipline of spiritual writing.  I feel like I read a lot, but I'm not sure how much I retain when I don't process it through writing.  Thought I'd give it a shot on this forum.  May only last today - I don't know.

I've been reading the Brazos Theological Commentary on Matthew, written by Stanley Hauerwas.  I'm a huge fan of Hauerwas - was exposed to him while in Wheaton and through a family member who attended Duke.  Today - I started in on his thoughts on Matthew 1.  I really appreciated some of the things he communicated.

For one:  He observes that Matthew 1:1 designates Jesus as a descendant of 'David and Abraham.'  He thought it was curious.  Why not just go all the way back to Adam?  There must be a reason why Matthew writes it this way:  Hauerwas speculates that it's because Matthew wants Jesus connected with kingship (David) and sacrifice (Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac.)  "Matthew prepares us to recognize that this is a king who will end up on the cross (p. 27)."

Hauerwas thinks that there is great intention in the names and order of 1:1.  I'm a sucker for this kind of thinking.  He may be wrong - but I love making those interesting connections... and understanding that original readers/hearers would pick up on those types of connections because of their familiarity with the OT.  I LOVE that Matthew had a specific strategy for his gospel and starts unpacking it right away in the first sentence!