Using Luke's account of Jesus reading Isaiah, the preacher examines how Jesus omitted vengeance from his message, disappointing crowds who expected violent revolution. This connects to modern political rhetoric, emphasizing integrity between words and actions while serving the common good rather than echoing anger. The sermon concludes with Ukrainian translator Natalia Dmitruk's act of defiance during fraudulent elections, illustrating how truthful voices can inspire justice movements and embody gospel values.
It is a common human trait
That we gravitate toward people
Who explicitly agree with,
Or independently affirm
Our opinions
In his satire, Candide, French philosopher Voltaire wrote
“Fools have a habit of believing that everything written by a famous author is admirable. For my part I read only to please myself and like only what suits my taste.”
While I do try to engage ideas
That expand and challenge my own thinking
I also share Candide’s delight
About reading things that suit my taste
And maybe even reinforce my instincts
That I am right about something
This past week I ran across such an article
submitted to a book I am editing about preaching
on the topic of “narrative preaching”
An article that provided a theoretical basis
For my sometimes subversive
Sometime cheeky approach to the lectionary readings
Each week
Now from the title, you might think - as I originally did
That narrative preaching is about using stories
But actually telling stories during a sermon
Is not of the essence of narrative preaching
Rather narrative preaching is about putting God’s story
As revealed in the lectionary readings
In dialogue with people’s story
In a reciprocal, critical dialogue
And it begins not by showing how a biblical text fits our lives
But by raising problems with the biblical text
By problematizing the text
Illustrating that it is not as simple or one dimensional
As we might think
And it actually could have something to say
About the way our lives are problematized
Today, for example,
Could seem like a very ho-hum text from Luke
In the spirit of David Lettermen
It could make it on the list of the 10 dullest passages in Luke
No great parable like the prodigal son
None of the tension that arises
When Jesus takes on the Pharisees
None of the intrigue of the last supper and betrayal
Nope ... just Jesus preaching
And we all know how dull preaching can be
But in the spirit of narrative preaching
We have to problematize the text
Or, better, discover the surprise in this gospel
To unearth what is sometimes called “the homiletic plot”
While it might sound far fetched
To look for an underlying problem in today’s gospel
To suggest that putting it in juxtaposition to
The stories of our lives, our city, our country
Might be an explosive mix
Luke doesn’t seem to think so ...
For if you read ahead just a few verses
In this same 4th chapter
[I confess ... I peaked]
The crowds that were so adoring
the praise that followed his other preaching evaporates
and the assembly turns against Jesus
a possibility that every preacher
needs to keep in mind
So why did the crowd turn on Jesus
In a word, his use of the Isaiah text
And his preaching on that text
Did not demonstrate that he was credible!
That he was the true messiah
In the current political circus
That we dignify as the “race to the Whitehouse”
There are lots of people
Standing up in front of pulpits and podiums
Proclaiming themselves to be our new political messiahs
Their opponents expend enormous energy
Disputing these messianic claims
Mostly by trying to illustrate
That their words don’t match their actions.
How can you vote for someone as President of the U.S.
When they were also a citizen of Canada 18 months ago?
How can you vote for someone as savior of the middle class
When you own among other things a customized
Lavishly appointed, 757 airplane
With your name emblazoned on the side
How can you elect someone to clean up Wall Street
When Wall Street is a major source of a candidate’s income
How can you elect someone as leader of all the people
When their politics are way to the left
Of 95% of the electorate ...
I was pondering this credibility factor this past week
When I caught one more news story
About the health disaster in Flint Michigan
I’ve heard and read the reports
About the lead in the water
The toxic disaster
And the racial undercurrents of the politics
I thought ... ok ... one more story
Which expert from the EPA
Or politician, or journalist
are they going to interview now
I was about to turn the program off
When Erin Brockovich come on the screen
You know ... the environmental activist
who successfully sued Pacific Gas and Electric for $333 mil
For the town of Hinkley for water pollution
I perked up ...
There’s someone, I thought, who both talked the talk
And walked the walk
Here was someone, who in the words of St. Paul
appeared to reflect no division in the body
understood that one when suffered
The whole body suffered
Jesus, I would contend,
Had that kind of integrity in spades
But it was not because of his integrity
That the crowds rejected him
And this is the nub of the homiletic plot
It was because he did not talk the talk
And walk the walk
That the locals wanted to hear.
what they wanted to hear
Was that Jesus would be a messiah
who would revenge the suppression of the Jewish state
who would lead a bloody revolt
in the spirit of their ancestors
and would overthrow the Roman Government
And they believe they should have gotten that message
Because it was in the passage from Isaiah Jesus read
But it seems that Jesus the subversive
At least according to Luke
edited the prophet
And conveniently dropped out a line
For yes the text speaks about
proclaiming good news to the poor
binding up the brokenhearted
releasing prisoners
and to proclaim not only the year of the Lord’s favor
but also the day of vengeance of our God!
But they didn’t get the vengeance
Either in Jesus’ words ... nor in his deeds
Jesus removed vengeance from his speech
And his body language
From his text and his context
From his words and his deeds
And this peaceable integrity
Pulled the rug out from under their messianic expectations
And showed them the face of a loving God
That sadly some could not accept
There is no doubt
That in the contemporary political arena
Like in our own lives
We judge people
According to whether their actions match their rhetoric
Whether previously stood up for the middle class
looked out for little guy, marginalized, erased
But it seems to me, because of this subversive gospel
We also need to examine the ethics of the rhetoric
Virtually every commentator across the political spectrum
Acknowledges that the U.S. electorate is mad
Angry, upset, disappointed, and fed up
when you listen to the politicians
Many are doing what they can
To echo back the anger, an disappointment of the electorate
Jesus, on occasion, was angry as well
even appears to have lost his temper once or twice
But even in his anger
He never belittled a sinner
Never scapegoated the outsider
Never disrespected even those who opposed him
Never attempted to divide Paul’s body
Today’s gospel
Especially in light of Paul’s text
Not only reminds us about the power of our words
And calls us to integrity
Between what we say and how we act
But also underscores that both speech and act
For any who call themselves a follower of Christ
Must serve the common good
Protect the vulnerable
Eschew every form of hate talk
or vengeance speak
and meet the litmus test of a justice
that upholds the dignity of all
and not just those who agree with us.
In 2004 Victor Yushchenko stood for the presidency of the Ukraine. Vehemently opposed by the ruling party Yushchenko’s face was disfigured and he almost lost his life when he was mysteriously poisoned. This was not enough to deter him from standing for the presidency.
On the day of the election Yushchenko was comfortably in the lead. The ruling party, not to be denied, tampered with the results. The state-run television station reported “ladies and gentlemen, we announce that the challenger Victor Yushchenko has been decisively defeated.”
In the lower right-hand corner of the screen a woman by the name of Natalia DMItruk was providing a translation service for the deaf community. As the news presenter regurgitated the lies of the regime, Natalia Dmitruk refused to translate them. “I’m addressing all the deaf citizens of Ukraine” she signed. “They are lying and I’m ashamed to translate those lies. Yushchenko is our president.”
The deaf community sprang into action. They text messaged their friends about the fraudulent result and as news spread of Dmitruk’s act of defiance increasing numbers of journalists were inspired to likewise tell the truth. Over the coming weeks the “Orange Revolution” occurred as a million people wearing orange made their way to the capital city of Kiev demanding a new election. The government was forced to meet their demands, a new election was held and Victor Yushchenko became president.
An inspiring story
That from my perspective
Not only gives new meaning to the gospel promise
That the deaf will speak
But also underscores that in true gospel embodiment
the voice of the just
the cry of the silenced
the hopes of the marginalized
should not go unheeded
will not go unheeded
cannot go unheeded
through Christ our Lord.
