In Sunday School this week the question was asked: "What's on top of your Christmas Tree?"
Apparently, the hands-down winner is a star, followed distantly by an angel. It occurred to me that these two favorite tree-toppers were yet a further demonstration of our being caught between two stories. The star, of course, is from the Matthean birth narrative (it's not mentioned in Luke at all), while the angel is clearly Lukan (it appears only in dreams in Matthew's version of the story).
Anyhoo, Happy Christmas to all!!!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
A Reflection on the Birth Narratives
I recently offered a three-week Bible study at my church on the Stories of Christmas. We did a close reading of the Matthew and Luke accounts of the birth of Jesus. About a half-dozen people gave up their Monday nights to attend. I hope they enjoyed it, I certainly did.
Too often we fall into the Trap of the Well-Known. We hear something so often that it no longer registers on our consciousness. Our brain just clicks off, because it knows what's coming (and it knows that it knows). We go on auto-pilot, as when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance or (heaven forbid) the Lord's Prayer. This is one reason why reading common Bible stories in new translations is important. The new words cause our brains to actually pay attention. What we discover may be surprising.
When we really pay attention to beloved stories, what we discover is that our memory is faulty. We think we remember, but often the details escape us (and God is in the details). So, our Bible study group came to these familiar stories with fresh eyes and ears. We wanted to find out what they actually said, not what we thought they said.
Overall it was a good exercise. Most modern re-tellings happily conflate the two stories, so that we have wise men tripping over shepherds on the way to the manger. A simple reading of the texts, however, reveals two very different stories. Each author has to conform to a few known facts, e.g. that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but grew up in Nazareth. Each chooses to conform his story to these facts in a different way. The early Christians were comfortable with these differences, and made no attempts (well... few attempts) to join them. Literal-minded moderns are not so content; we've stitched the two stories into one big (non-Biblical) story. I find the greatest value, however, in the differences in the two accounts, rather than the similarities.
Matthew's account (chapters one and two) is a tale filled with images and references to the Hebrew Bible. Every step in the story is a re-telling of a familiar story, from the dreams that God sends to Joseph (like the patriarch, Joseph, whose skill at dream interpretation was renowned) , to the flight to Egypt (another Genesis story) and the slaughter of the innocents (as Pharaoh ordered the slaughter of the Hebrew babies in Exodus). First century Jewish hearers of this story would be on very familiar ground, the story of the birth of Jesus would appear to rise out of the history of God's work in the Hebrew Bible.
What's more, the author of Matthew explicitly references the story to Israel's past. Five times in the first two chapters we hear the phrase "this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet..." The idea of fulfillment is a key theme in the Matthean story. The birth of Jesus is rooted in the stories of the Hebrew Bible. Careful observers (like the wise men) would not be surprised by the events. Rather, Israel's history seems to point to the coming of this child. From the settings and actions of the characters to the multiple citations from prophetic texts, the story is deeply rooted in what has come before, and is an expected consequence of it. The way the story is told shows the reader not only that the events were expected, but that they were (in retrospect) obvious.
In Luke's Gospel, the account of the birth (chapters one and two) is quite different. Central to the Lukan story are images of the improbable and the unexpected. It opens with the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and elderly, barren couple. This is a familiar image from the Hebrew Bible, and like earlier accounts ends in the miraculous and unexpected conception and birth of a child. When told by the angel that he and Elizabeth would have a child, Zechariah's first reaction is disbelief, "I am and old man, and my wife is getting on in years" (Luke 2:18). We're reminded of Sarah, overhearing Abraham and his (divine) visitors speaking of their future child, "I have grown old, and my husband is old" (Gen 18:12). Neither, at first, believes that it can happen.
The events of the Lukan birth narrative point to improbability and unexpectedness. That the Son of God would be born in a stable, to an unknown young girl, is shocking in itself. And who does the angel of the Lord choose to tell of this miraculous event? Kings? Priests? Prophets? No. The angel appears to the shepherds guarding their flocks by night. Not to the highest, but to the most lowly. The reversal is predicted in Mary's song, the Magnificat, "He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly" (Luke 1:52). At every turn, the birth is presented as unexpected, just opposite of the Matthean story.
What are we to make of these two stories and their differences? Matthew's Gospel tells of the long-foretold coming of the Savior, with attendant wise men and rich treasures. Luke's Gospel shows God working at His most mysterious. The coming of the Savior is improbable and unforeseen--so much so that he was born in a stable. No one came looking for him in the cold stable except the shepherds to whom the birth had been announced. What do these differences reveal about the communities among whom these stories came to be told? Are they self-portraits? Have they written themselves into the story of the birth of Jesus?
Where do we put ourselves in these stories? Are we careful observers, keen for clues to the coming of the Saviour? Or are we going to be just as surprised as everyone by the Saviour's miraculous and unexpected return? Which characters speak to us? Who are we most like and unlike? Most importantly, are we capable of holding on to these stories simultaneously, while resisting the impulse to squish them together?
Too often we fall into the Trap of the Well-Known. We hear something so often that it no longer registers on our consciousness. Our brain just clicks off, because it knows what's coming (and it knows that it knows). We go on auto-pilot, as when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance or (heaven forbid) the Lord's Prayer. This is one reason why reading common Bible stories in new translations is important. The new words cause our brains to actually pay attention. What we discover may be surprising.
When we really pay attention to beloved stories, what we discover is that our memory is faulty. We think we remember, but often the details escape us (and God is in the details). So, our Bible study group came to these familiar stories with fresh eyes and ears. We wanted to find out what they actually said, not what we thought they said.
Overall it was a good exercise. Most modern re-tellings happily conflate the two stories, so that we have wise men tripping over shepherds on the way to the manger. A simple reading of the texts, however, reveals two very different stories. Each author has to conform to a few known facts, e.g. that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but grew up in Nazareth. Each chooses to conform his story to these facts in a different way. The early Christians were comfortable with these differences, and made no attempts (well... few attempts) to join them. Literal-minded moderns are not so content; we've stitched the two stories into one big (non-Biblical) story. I find the greatest value, however, in the differences in the two accounts, rather than the similarities.
Matthew's account (chapters one and two) is a tale filled with images and references to the Hebrew Bible. Every step in the story is a re-telling of a familiar story, from the dreams that God sends to Joseph (like the patriarch, Joseph, whose skill at dream interpretation was renowned) , to the flight to Egypt (another Genesis story) and the slaughter of the innocents (as Pharaoh ordered the slaughter of the Hebrew babies in Exodus). First century Jewish hearers of this story would be on very familiar ground, the story of the birth of Jesus would appear to rise out of the history of God's work in the Hebrew Bible.
What's more, the author of Matthew explicitly references the story to Israel's past. Five times in the first two chapters we hear the phrase "this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet..." The idea of fulfillment is a key theme in the Matthean story. The birth of Jesus is rooted in the stories of the Hebrew Bible. Careful observers (like the wise men) would not be surprised by the events. Rather, Israel's history seems to point to the coming of this child. From the settings and actions of the characters to the multiple citations from prophetic texts, the story is deeply rooted in what has come before, and is an expected consequence of it. The way the story is told shows the reader not only that the events were expected, but that they were (in retrospect) obvious.
In Luke's Gospel, the account of the birth (chapters one and two) is quite different. Central to the Lukan story are images of the improbable and the unexpected. It opens with the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and elderly, barren couple. This is a familiar image from the Hebrew Bible, and like earlier accounts ends in the miraculous and unexpected conception and birth of a child. When told by the angel that he and Elizabeth would have a child, Zechariah's first reaction is disbelief, "I am and old man, and my wife is getting on in years" (Luke 2:18). We're reminded of Sarah, overhearing Abraham and his (divine) visitors speaking of their future child, "I have grown old, and my husband is old" (Gen 18:12). Neither, at first, believes that it can happen.
The events of the Lukan birth narrative point to improbability and unexpectedness. That the Son of God would be born in a stable, to an unknown young girl, is shocking in itself. And who does the angel of the Lord choose to tell of this miraculous event? Kings? Priests? Prophets? No. The angel appears to the shepherds guarding their flocks by night. Not to the highest, but to the most lowly. The reversal is predicted in Mary's song, the Magnificat, "He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly" (Luke 1:52). At every turn, the birth is presented as unexpected, just opposite of the Matthean story.
What are we to make of these two stories and their differences? Matthew's Gospel tells of the long-foretold coming of the Savior, with attendant wise men and rich treasures. Luke's Gospel shows God working at His most mysterious. The coming of the Savior is improbable and unforeseen--so much so that he was born in a stable. No one came looking for him in the cold stable except the shepherds to whom the birth had been announced. What do these differences reveal about the communities among whom these stories came to be told? Are they self-portraits? Have they written themselves into the story of the birth of Jesus?
Where do we put ourselves in these stories? Are we careful observers, keen for clues to the coming of the Saviour? Or are we going to be just as surprised as everyone by the Saviour's miraculous and unexpected return? Which characters speak to us? Who are we most like and unlike? Most importantly, are we capable of holding on to these stories simultaneously, while resisting the impulse to squish them together?
Friday, December 7, 2007
Holiday Housekeeping!
We're holding an Open House next Friday (in one week!) and I have lots to do to get ready. There are some small, home improvement projects (like replacing our porch light with a more traditional model) and lots of putting away and straightening up. We still have loads of pictures that need hanging on the wall. We also have a large quilt hanger and really want to start displaying our quilts. So, I should have my work cut out for me in the next seven days!
The end result will be a house that looks much more Lived In, which will be nice. We've got lots of company coming in the weeks to come, so it'll be good to get ready.
The end result will be a house that looks much more Lived In, which will be nice. We've got lots of company coming in the weeks to come, so it'll be good to get ready.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Plans for the Season
Happy Hanukkah!! Last night was the first night of Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights. You know the story: the Maccabees drive out the foreign oppressors and cleanse the Temple in Jerusalem. They need to rededicate the Temple to the Lord, a ceremony which will require eight days worth of oil for the lamps. They don't have that much, but the begin the ceremony anyway. Miraculously, their insufficient oil supply lasts the eight days and the Temple is cleansed and rededicated! Yeah!!!
This is a great story for many reasons. Chief in my mind is the role of scarcity in our lives and God's answer to it. They didn't have enough oil to finish their rededication ceremony. God saw this and what did he do? Did he miraculously provide rivers of oil--enough to light the world? No. He provided enough to get through the ceremony. God's answer to scarcity is not abundance, but sufficiency. They have enough. In our culture, where so much value is placed on abundance, this is an important lesson!
With the change in the seasons, I've been thinking about sustainability. As we beat back the cold, I'm thinking about both the price and the cost of our lifestyle. I've got an old programmable thermostat that I bought 20 years ago. I've NEVER been able to install it anywhere, but I think It can go in our house now, so I'm going to look into it this week. We're also starting to talk about planting a modest garden in the spring.
Think Green!!
This is a great story for many reasons. Chief in my mind is the role of scarcity in our lives and God's answer to it. They didn't have enough oil to finish their rededication ceremony. God saw this and what did he do? Did he miraculously provide rivers of oil--enough to light the world? No. He provided enough to get through the ceremony. God's answer to scarcity is not abundance, but sufficiency. They have enough. In our culture, where so much value is placed on abundance, this is an important lesson!
With the change in the seasons, I've been thinking about sustainability. As we beat back the cold, I'm thinking about both the price and the cost of our lifestyle. I've got an old programmable thermostat that I bought 20 years ago. I've NEVER been able to install it anywhere, but I think It can go in our house now, so I'm going to look into it this week. We're also starting to talk about planting a modest garden in the spring.
Think Green!!
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
More Snow! Doggie Cold!
This past Sunday was the church's annual Hanging of the Greens service. It was held in the evening and has beg a big draw for the surrounding communities in years past. I went out Sunday morning to take the dog for her morning outing and was pleasantly surprised by six inches of perfectly-powdery snow. It's been snowing lightly ever since, a beautiful drifting of big, perfect flakes in the air most of the day.
It's also been quite cold. We bought that film you put on your windows and blow-dry. Our upstairs is quite a bit colder than downstairs, so we're weather-proofing it a bit. Since she's an indoor dog now, Baby has not developed a winter coat, which mean she get a bit cold on out outings. Kristen's looking into buying or making a jacket for her. She seems content to wear clothes. Kristen took her for a test walk yesterday with a t-shirt on (the dog, not the wife).
It's also been quite cold. We bought that film you put on your windows and blow-dry. Our upstairs is quite a bit colder than downstairs, so we're weather-proofing it a bit. Since she's an indoor dog now, Baby has not developed a winter coat, which mean she get a bit cold on out outings. Kristen's looking into buying or making a jacket for her. She seems content to wear clothes. Kristen took her for a test walk yesterday with a t-shirt on (the dog, not the wife).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)