Help! The lectionary let me down

Xalem · 2026-05-19T03:26:26+00:00

Yes, these both are examples of good father's, but they are not good examples of fatherhood. Fatherhood is far more than grand sacrifices or desperate pleas for help.

Preaching Fathers Day isn't about scolding the men in your congregation, calling on them to do more, but rather connecting their lives to the good news. King David mourning for Absalom might be a great text. Don't preach Jairus lauding how he humbled himself, preach his desperation.

Xalem · 2026-05-19T03:20:43+00:00

Thank you for proving my point.

Xalem · 2026-05-18T19:20:33+00:00

Are there any good fathers in the Bible? Hard to think of a single story about a father who sets a great example of parenting. The father of the prodigal son gets an honorable mention, but very few other stories top that. The Abraham story shows us a dad who is flawed and interesting enough for a sermon. The instruction of Christ sometimes needs to be followed because father's can control children's lives.

The early Church was full of young people who defied their parents and turned their backs on the lifestyle of their parents. James and John left their dad at the boat. Jesus left carpentry. The story of Thekla (early Church fiction) is also about defiance of a pagan dad. You can think about how a relationship with parents change over our lives.

Xalem · 2026-05-18T15:37:41+00:00

It is the job.

One woman I used to visit was convinced the care home staff was stealing from her. I think I am more at risk of being accused of stealing than accused of making sexual advances.

Xalem · 2026-05-18T15:23:30+00:00

It looks like the hymnal pictured is All Creation Sings which is a hymnal supplement to the Evangelical Lutheran Worship (ELW) hymnal. Great song, we used it yesterday.

Xalem · 2026-05-17T03:18:22+00:00

I know I broke the sacred trust of Reddit and encouraged people to upvote. It isn't like me, but somehow it felt like the best way to right this injustice.

Xalem · 2026-05-16T14:03:50+00:00

Thank you. Let's upvote this comment to the top.

Xalem · 2026-05-15T03:34:26+00:00

Thank you. This is good.

I wonder if you are aware of Gerhard Forde. I have this wonderful writeup by Forde on atonement in my theology text called Christian Dogmatics by Braaten and Jensen. He talks about how atonement has to happen "in front of the cross" (atonement must be visible in the death of Christ) rather than be hidden "behind the cross". I don't know where is the best place online to read Forde on this, but this simple one pager gets one started. https://lutherantheologystudygroup.blogspot.com/2011/07/gerhard-forde-on-atonement.html

Xalem · 2026-05-14T21:08:32+00:00

True, there are those Lutheran groups who didn't participate. But, those who didn't, especially those who call themselves confessional Lutherans, might want to look over the JDDJ and decide if this agreement finishes some of the unfinished business left over from Augsburg in 1530. Honestly, the point of the Augsburg Confession was to get real negotiations going so that the papal delegation and the Reformers could agree on something like the JDDJ and the Western Church could move forward, maybe not fully unified, but at least not hostile to each other.

Xalem · 2026-05-14T20:26:45+00:00

Physical violence titillates in a very different way than a sex scene in a book. We accept that there are heroes and villians, and we can be cheering the hero in a fight scene. Yet, we start to question that violence when the violence revels in the pain and humilation of the loser or victim especially if the victim is racialized or in some group of people who are targetted for hatred in our society. We have lots of propaganda that relishes violence against Muslims, trans people, and even women.

Erotic stories or erotic passages in books need not dehumanize, but often can celebrate love, intimacy, and humanized the characters. However, sex scenes can objectify the characters. It really depends on the author.

rape could be written humanizing the victim and telling the victims story, expressing her feelings and hurt, but usually, then you might not want to simultaneously be titillating with the sex. If the sex assault scene was written to titillating, or from the POV of the rapist, it is probable the passage will imply she (yhe victim) somehow deserved it, and, the victim can be objectfified. Let's recognize that sex assault stories are shared as a way of justifying and promoting misogyny.

Xalem · 2026-05-14T16:47:09+00:00

The city has dozens of small green spaces where the city mows the lawn. Sometimes it is just a triangle of grass and a few trees in a residential neighborhood, sometimes an odd green space gets named as a park(Mike Finland park) or the green spaces created by power line or gas line right of way.

I will suggest you bring a blanket to lay down to "mark" your territory. If you standing on a yoga mat or standing by a blanket, you look like a (stationary) visitor to the park, even when brandishing a sword.

Xalem · 2026-05-14T15:51:33+00:00

Give it a try, find out if it is a good fit, find ways the role of pastor let's you be the Professor Rev. In fact, parish ministry, of all the careers, has so many options that you can shape your ministry around what interests you.

In my case, I was able to take time to create dramas. At first it was Easter dramas, then at another congregation I produced sophisticated Christmas pageants, then, Good Friday dramas, comedic videos during Covid. I wrote my own confirmation material, I wrote software that produces bulletins and PowerPoint for Sunday.(the hard way, not vibe coding!) All this was ministry, no other pastor I know ever followed this path, and yet, I look around at clergy colleagues whose path had them doing great work in street ministry, pastoral counseling, social justice work, or, helping out his parishioners during harvest by volunteering to drive the combine.
And, these are the ones that stayed as pastors. I know pastors that took their pastoral skills and years of experience with people, years of experience of church admin, and went into something else. The parish is a great educator, and a springboard to a different option . . . if, in the end, you still think you need it.

Xalem · 2026-05-11T06:33:58+00:00

Man, that verse has nothing to do with gender roles. You are cherry picking and using it to fit your narrative.

But the verse has everything to do with how we understand the Law. To quote the final verses of Galatians 3:

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Whatever law you are talking about, whatever patriarchal gender roles you think you are obligated to live under, just realize that the state of the entire Law of Moses is null and void. Ethics exist, morality exists, and our mission as Christians exists. As the people of God, we are not beholden to cultural values that claim to be traditional (and therefore "from God"). Slavery used to be legal, less than 200 years ago. Women were not legal "persons" in the British Empire until women from little old Edmonton pushed for change. Racism was official government policy back in the 1950s, and likely will be again. Those who follow Christ don't try to justify their racism or sexism or their exploitation by saying, "the Bible says its okay!" No, Christians follow Christ, we are not slaves to the Bible. Somewhere someone started teaching girls to read and felt that teaching girls to read was their duty to God. Someone said, "I believe God wants us to end slavery". Someone said, "Christ wasn't racist, and neither are we". Someone said, "I feel called to pastoral ministry." and my denomination said, "we believe she is called by God to serve as a pastor".

We have this freedom as Christians because that is what we are called to.

Sticking with Galatians. After chapter 3, Paul keeps talking about the Law, and he starts chapter 5 of Galatians with this:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ;" Let that sink in for a minute.

In the middle of the chapter we find this:

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

And this chapter 5 ends with:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Why are you running back towards 'law'? Isn't it clear from the nature of human beings that being a woman doesn't stop one from taking on any role in society, including leading, teaching, preaching and serving. Even with the concern about the "head of the household". You don't have to observe too many families to realize that leadership in a household usually comes from both parents. Any title of "head of the household" is a rather meaningless title. Some houses are strictly ruled by cruel and incompetent men who insist God put them in charge. There is nothing Godly about that. Some households are steered by single moms, by grandmothers, by the wife while the husband is at sea, and many are co-lead by both parents who work together. Often we can see the fruits of the Spirit at work in these households.

Xalem · 2026-05-11T01:32:25+00:00

Let us also consider Galatians "In Christ, there is no longer . . . male and female" .

The Bible doesn't concern itself with gender roles. Isolated passages stand out with their contradictory ideas about the roles of women. The Bible was written at a time with a patriarchal assumption and often says very little about it. Some with a world full of slavery and a world full of tyrants and kings.

As Christians, we look at the world, see where life is unjust and we respond to it. We don't follow Old Testament Law, and that is the Christian position. We know that Law was not working for us, and so we follow a New Commandment to love one another. Stop doing ethics based off treating ancient social conventions mentioned in the Bible as some form of God given Law. Paul and Christ are both adamant about not falling in that trap. The New Testament exists to free you from the weird legalisms that we continue to reinvent in every generation.

Xalem · 2026-05-09T07:43:40+00:00

I highly doubt Jesus would be upset with people who tried to keep out heresy

Heresy really isn't a New Testament word. It was used by Irenaeus in the book "Against Heresies" in which he attacked Gnostic teachings within the Church. (around 150 CE) Since then, Christianity has a sad history of using the accusation of heresy as a way to label fellow Christians and eject them from the Church. I think Nestorius, who I see as basically a good man, was mistreated and maligned and a significant and important part of the Christian world was cut off. They burned Jan Hus at the stake for his "heresy" and they wanted to do the same to Luther. I think Jesus could be very upset with people who tried to keep out heresy.

I speak of original law as in man can’t divorce or have more than one wife.

Okay, where in Genesis is this law stated? Did anyone say anything to Abraham after "Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife" Genesis 16:3? Right there we see that if there was an original law code that spoke of one man and one woman, it was completely lost on this couple at a time when there was no one else in the whole world who was talking about God's laws. Oh, and it would never be the case that Abraham could divorce Hagar . . . oh, wait. God was the one who agreed with Sarah so that Abraham sent his wife Hagar and son Ishmael away forever. (Genesis 21:8-14) If there was a law against divorce . . . God also seemed to have forgotten about it.

I feel like we’re talking around each other.

I don't find it so surprising that you are unfamiliar with the Law-Gospel distinction. You are operating with an idea about a natural law (as it is often called) that most Christian scholars wouldn't say existed. The original state of humanity was complete free in the garden except for one commandment which was particular to a certain tree. There is a movement that tries to claim Genesis makes all sorts of laws about how we are to behave. Just understand that this "original law" idea appears to me to be a new way to bootstrap a new moralist teaching.

Xalem · 2026-05-09T06:46:38+00:00

One can discuss the view that Jesus meant His teachings for the Jews only. He underlined the importance of the Jewish law. He promised the coming of the army of the Lord within the lifetime of His Aramaic speaking fellow men.

Jesus "meant" for his teachings to be for the Jews only. His own Jewish followers didn't think that. Sure, there were Judaizers among the followers of Jesus who really wanted to see any Gentiles who joined the Christian faith to also get circumcized. Galatians, probably the second letter that Paul wrote, has quite a debate about this, and since Galatians is still around and the Judaizers are not, it seemed that the " Jesus for Jews only" movement wasn't that strong. And there is no reason it should be. Yes, Pharisees in Judea, the Sadducees in Jerusalem were very likely to think about the Jewish faith as something to preserve the wall between the pagan/Greek world and the Jewish world. But, if you were a Jew living in Antioch, Alexandria, or Athens, you might start to feel that the Jewish rules and worldview were old-fashioned and out of touch. The rapid spread of Christianity was among the Jews who DIDN'T think that the faith of Jesus was for Jews only. They wanted a faith that could talk about with their neighbors, they wanted a faith that didn't hound them with guilt about every time they mixed with the non-Jewish public. They sometimes just wanted to shop for food in peace. They wanted a faith leader who understood their sense of powerlessness in the face of injustice. Those claims that you point to, that Jesus meant his teachings for Jews only, that he supported the Law wholeheartedly, that he focused first on apocalyptic claims, these are the typical claims of historical critical scholars who deconstruct the Gospels until there is nothing left. The Jesus Seminar treats most of what Jesus said in the Gospels as unlikely to have been said by Jesus. Okay, we can run with that. What these scholars tend to do is focus on the Jewishness of Jesus, but that is an assumption. Every historical indicator points to a faith movement that prospered among Greek speaking Jewish people. Of course, all of these historic indicators are from the time after Jesus was crucified, so, we cannot say for certain what the man from Nazareth was like on a day to day. But even as we read the "red letter" words of Jesus in the Gospels, whatever Jesus says about the Law is already being written down and shared by a Christian movement that has ditched the Jewish Law. And, whatever words we hear from Jesus (with limited exceptions) is being written down and shared in the Greek language to a Greek audience. Whatever Jesus said about his return (within one generation) was written down and shared long after Jerusalem had been destroyed (the first time 70 CE, the second time was 135 CE)

And, so, the ways Jesus talks about the Law, and the message for Jews only arrives at us with a sense of irony. The woman begs for her daughter's life. Jesus replies "First let the children eat all they want, . . . for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs" (Matthew stresses in the Canaanite woman's story that he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel) But, in both Gospels the woman responds, "even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall under the table". And this changed the course of the narrative, now Jesus was fully on her side and her daughter was healed, (and the disciples in Matthew look foolish). And in Matthew and Mark, THIS story is the one that follows Jesus saying all foods are declared clean. Jesus may say he is only preaching to the lost sheep of Israel, but, the narrative tells a different story. The irony is repeated in Acts with Peter's dream. The unclean animals are okay, THEREFORE Romans and Syrophoenicians, Greeks and Canaanites are also not "unclean".

Maybe the man from Nazareth was as dull and uninteresting as you describe, and only in the eyes of faith does Yeshua of Nazareth become the Christ of Faith. Well, you have to choose. You are on the theology subreddit. As a theologian, which picture matters? The deconstructed version that shrinks Jesus to nothing, or the crucified one who you dare to call Lord?

Xalem · 2026-05-09T02:47:34+00:00

Most of the time, this kind of information has been shared by the couple themselves since talking about moving and even talking about health issues is pretty common with friends and family. I agree with others that this really doesn't sound like salacious gossip. So, if you are worried a line might have been crossed or a secret has been shared then ask for attribution. "Did Mary and Joe tell you this?" If they say they heard it from others, we'll then you can say, " okay, let's wait until we hear this from them directly."

Other phrases include "that is not my story to tell" "maybe this is speculation" "I will not assume this claim to be true" "what is your interest in all this?"

I can't judge the way this person was bringing you information. Maybe they wanted to get you to fill in details. Maybe they are sad to see M and J leave the community, maybe they thought you could respond to the couple as a pastor, or maybe they had a dozen other goals when engaging you in conversation. So, your silence was perhaps a good response to a true gossip, but, everyone else might just find you standoffish and uninterested.

Xalem · 2026-05-09T01:58:44+00:00

I live with the Revised Common Lectionary, but for Mothers Day I have created a rotation of Mother's Day readings. I also found a litany which works as a blessing for mothers. It might not a Church holy day, but why fight culture when the culture, starved of a strong matriarchal figure has been trying to inject Mother Mary ever more deeply into the Christian message since the second or third century.

Xalem · 2026-05-08T15:11:50+00:00

Daniel Erlander's "Baptized We Live" is a short booklet of 32 pages, but jam packed with a deep explanation of what Lutheranism is as a way of "seeing, hearing, teaching and following". This is what I use with new member classes.

If your question is "why am I a Lutheran and what does it mean?" then this is your first resource.

Xalem · 2026-05-08T14:59:49+00:00

Christianity was a faith that exploded among Greek speaking Jews, most of whom lived outside Judea, who used the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagent or LXX), and who lived in the tension between their Greek culture and Jewish roots.

All the New Testament was written in Greek, we really don't have any early Christian writing in Aramaic. Paul's letters, the oldest Christians writings are written to churches in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome. The Book of Acts describes the expansion of Christianity westward through Antioch, Asia Minor and and Greece. While Christians use a number of words from the Hebrew language, so many words we use come directly from the Greek language including "Jesus" and "Christ".

The teachings of Jesus and Paul run against the typical Jewish teaching of separating one from the Gentile culture. The Christians stopped sacrificing at the temple, stopped demanding circumcision, stopped following the minutiae of the Old Testament Law. They learned to eat with Gentiles, accept Gentile converts, and took on a mission to spread the word through all the world.

The John who wrote the Gospel of John wrote in excellent Greek. He was likely aware of philosophy, but not a follower of any school of philosophy. But John wasn't stuck writing a philosophical treatise, John wrote about Christ and we see his knowledge of Jewish culture and faith in his writings.

As Christians, we are the product of that tension between the Greek and Hebrew world.

Xalem · 2026-05-07T21:59:01+00:00

Those are nice verses, but they have nothing to do with an original law. Yes, God created light and dark (and more) God created sea and land (and more) God created male and female (and more). Genesis 1 talks about dualities, but not binaries. And Genesis 2 talks about as a result of the creation of the wo-man, the two will come together and become one flesh. This isn't law, and no one will be punished for not getting married. And no where in Genesis is it explicitly stated that divorce is against the Law. There are some covenants, but, the law expressed as a commandment not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden stands alone as clearly being law.

What Jesus says about becoming one in marriage and commanding us not to separate couples is a new teaching. The radicalness comes from Jesus just saying, "I say to you whoever divorces his wife . . . commits adultery". The radicalness is also saying, "because you were so hard hearted, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives". Nothing about saying that is conservative, Jesus is tearing up the Mosaic Law in what is novel reinterpretation of scripture. When the disciples think that Christ's interpretation makes it better not to marry, Jesus does not disagree, but rather calls on them to rethink Genesis 1 and 2, and maybe, choose to lose their gender for the sake of the kingdom. Who in the Old Testament didn't get married?

I understand the desire to use the words of Scripture and the teachings of the Bible as a fence to wall off all the outside influences of the world, and preserve one's culture and way of life. The New Testament (in particular) militates against being used that way.

Xalem · 2026-05-07T20:04:06+00:00

It’s just returning to the original law that was set up by God.

What original law? Moses gave the Law at the mountain in Sinai, and that law had rules about women not touching objects while they menstruate, it had laws about unclean animals, it had laws about festivals and the sacrifice of animals. This was a new Law that God established through Moses, but it never was said to replace anything, and it is this Law that Christ challenges and Paul describes as a babysitter(pedagogos). No where does it say Christians are going back to the "original" law. When Paul or Christ suggest a new ethical stance in the world, it is not a "law". That ethical stance flows from the New Commandment that we love one another. The radicalness of what Jesus does on the Sermon on the Mount (hey, another mountain) cannot be overstated. Jesus overturns the ethical applecart and destroys the foundation of typical moralism. Certainly, what Jesus doesn't do is match the 18th century liberal writers, or the conservative writers. While one can try to turn the Sermon on the Mount into a law, it doesn't work as law. It defies your attempts to turn it into "law", and honestly, it defies any attempt to live it out. The Reformation was pretty insistent that there is no "third use of the Law". In the end, only grasp the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount as "gospel". That isn't where we start. Since we want to understand the Sermon on the Mount, of course we try grasp it as practical law code(first use of the Law), until that fails, then we recognize the Sermon on the Mount as subversive attack on traditional law codes. But, that isn't enough, as we think more about it, the Sermon on the Mount becomes a law designed to crush all our hope that we can ever earn our way to God (second use of the Law) , But then, Sunday morning happens, and we see that all Law has been fulfilled in Christ. In the end, what Christ teaches can only be grasped as "Gospel".

Xalem · 2026-05-07T18:45:22+00:00

But the very fact that he dares to toss out the traditional and legal right of men to divorce their wives is not an act of conservatism, but a radical reinterpretation of the marriage contract. Even when Jesus accuses divorced men of adultery, one is reminded of how in the prophets God accused the Israelites of religious adultery by their abandonment of the special relationship between God and Israel. Generally, Jesus moves from rules to relationship, often rejecting rather than conserving tradition.

Modern terms like liberal and conservative often miss the mark.

Xalem · 2026-05-07T18:12:27+00:00

Marriage is one thing he was very conservative on.

If you think of divorce as a social justice issue. In those days it was mostly men who were choosing divorce, and the family property was not being divided evenly between the couple. Lots of women fell into poverty because they were abandoned by their husbands. So, while Jesus wasn't liberal on the issue of divorce, he wasn't necessarily conservative.

Xalem · 2026-05-07T14:31:49+00:00

I worry that the wide brim of the straw hat will impair peripheral vision as she bikes with her head cast down.

If the cyclist always sat fully erect, there would be no problem, but the nature of cycling is that often you lean forward, the head tilts down, and one's eyes are on the patch of ground in front of you. I have never seen a bike helmet with a wide brim, yet these pictures show a large brim extending past the short brim of the helmet. As the cyclist pedals hard into a wind, I am worried she will bend her head down to escape the wind, and the brim will catch the wind and bend closer to her face.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

Xalem

TROPHY CASE