The Rev. Scott King’s Sept. 20, 2018 “Guiding One Another” Sermon


Guiding One Another

by The Rev. Scott King

I would like to thank Pastor Gatton for inviting me into the pulpit
this morning, and to you, for welcoming me to the pulpit today.

A couple of weeks ago I got a partial root canal. It turns out that
I’ve been grinding my teeth and eventually a cracked one of them. I
may end up still losing the tooth. I might lose other teeth besides,
because I keep gritting and grinding my teeth. Lately, I’ve been
grinding my teeth every day. Perhaps you understand.

The last two times I preached in this pulpit, the president had done
something awful and I thought it was my responsibility to address that
in theological terms. The hearings of the Senate last week, including
the harrowing testimony we heard, also counts as something awful. But
I want to continue with my prepared remarks, and hope that what I have
to say might spare me some teeth, and spare you some pain, by giving
you strength and resources that the Executive, Legislature and the
Judiciary can neither give nor take away.

I looked at the texts assigned for today in the Revised Common
Lectionary, an ecumenical readings calendar that breaks up the bulk of
the Bible into a three-year cycle. It’s online; you can search
for it. You might be interested in the scope of readings, what
thoughts and feelings they evoke and how the readings relate to one
another. (It’s also a point of pride. The committee that produced the
Revised Common Lectionary included Unitarian Universalist Christians,
and we don’t often have a place at the ecumenical table.)

So, we have for today a lesson from Esther, about her daringly
exposing Haman as the plotting enemy of the Jews, with a psalm to
match, used today in the opening words. There’s a gospel reading from
Mark, with teachings from Jesus, including the well-known phrase
“Whoever is not against us is for us.” But to be frank, Esther’s
passage ended in violent death for the baddie and Jesus teaches one of
those passages that makes Universalists itch, and I did that last
time. And I saw something the other two had in common: teaching about
the practice of faith itself.

So, I’d like to visit some of the practical and pastoral guidance the
Bible has passed down the generations, and pull out some parts that
apply to us today. And while I already have the curtain pulled back,
and looking at how the sausage is made, let’s be clear about about
what we might find in scripture.

Despite how some big-platform preachers might act, there’s not a
one-to-one correlation between what the Bible records and what people
do, much less what people ought to do. The Bible, in this
sense, does not speak. It is not a guide book, instruction
manual or cookbook. When I was a youth in Georgia, there was a popular
bumper sticker that read “The Bible says it. I believe it. That
settles it” which is entirely the wrong approach, because
that all too easily becomes “I believe it. I will show that the Bible
backs me. Don’t you dare cross me.” We have to be continuously on
guard against self-validating appeals to divine power: self-validation
that empowers bullies and fanatics, and builds walls between us and
where God might lead us. The world is loud and scripture

There’s another risk. Take the current political moment. I find it
intensely frustrating and often frightening. It would be all too easy
to withdraw from awkward conversations, rigorous engagement and public
participation and enjoy a private life. That’s what the Amish did;
they are descended from one of the most radical Christian traditions
of the Reformation and were so brutally persecuted that they withdrew
from society.

And one last thing. And if we’re honest, we know these works have been
compiled and edited within a particular historical and cultural
contexts. This human hand does not distract from its divine origin,
but reminds us that while they were lived in the Iron Age, we do not.
We have to interpret these words for our time. We have to figure out
what these words meant in their time, and hear that anew. This is what
distinguishes the liberal approach.

Now, let’s review the reading book of Numbers (Numbers 11:4-6, 10-16, 24-29).

Numbers is the fourth book of the Bible, and in the Torah, the heart
of scripture, so shared by Jews and Christians. The Hebrew name
translates to “in the Wilderness” and the English name refers to the
censuses recorded in it. On the whole, it can be drowsy reading; this
is practically an action scene, so it does take special care to
uncover its meaning.

If you have not read Numbers — there was no homework — have not read
it, or heard much about it, the “story line” follows much what we find
in the second half of that monumental film, “The Ten Commandments.”
The Hebrew people had been released from captivity in Egypt through
God’s action. Numbers covers the time from God’s self-revelation to
Moses on Mount Sinai to the entrance of the people Israel into the
land of Canaan.

But what’s this “mixed multitude” really forty years in the
wilderness? At least one English Baptist scholar (Harold Henry Rowley;
see note in Plaut’s Torah, p. 1011.) thinks that the Exile in
the wilderness was only 2 years long: the 2 years that are mentioned
in Numbers as the first and last year. The other 38 years were slotted
in between.

Why would someone do that?

The Exodus narrative here and in the book of Exodus show how the
people stopped being slaves, went out of Egypt and became a people in
their own right, seeking a new homeland. But that it was a challenge
and a process, and that they failed to hear and mind God along the

It’s easier to believe this idea of a nation developed over the course
of generations, and not a single trip through the scorching and
hostile desert, however long. What the point of the story is to say
that one generation died that another generation and people would

And the number 40 is important to suggest a long duration. Where else
do we see this number? The 40 days of the flood. Jesus’s 40 days in
the wilderness. A number which suggests a long time, and not to be
understood literally. But the meaning is clear enough, once you
understand the intent. It’s not a matter of deception or exaggeration,
but coding the story with extra meaning. Which is fair, if
you know what the code is.

One way to understand scripture is to understand where you are in the
story. In this view, you have to think of yourself as being a part of
the story rather than it happening to someone else. This way, we grow
in empathy and see if there are parallels in how those people found
God in lives to see if we can find God in our
own. A borrowed life lesson that provides a common language.

And also a link that provides context for other parts of the Bible.
For example, Jesus would have known this passage, of course, and
alludes to the manna in the sixth chapter of the gospel of John:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath
eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat the manna
in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which cometh down
out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die” (vv. 47-50,
Revised Version).

This changes our understanding of John: that Jesus was the renewal of
promise, provision for the liberated, and reward for the wandering. It
makes comments about pride or cannibalism seem silly and doctrinaire.

So, a few passages before today’s reading, we headed out into the
wilderness with the people Israel, from the mountain of the Eternal,
following the cloud that rose from the Ark of the Covenant. They went
out in ranks, like an army. The people moved, and encamped, and
grumbled. A mixed crowd; a little bit of everyone. A “motley crew”
long before that became the name of a metal band.

What makes this telling of the story different from the one in Exodus
(or Cecil B. DeMille) is how it was edited and  what it
focuses on.

Also, since we ascribe great worth to the Bible, it’s worth knowing
how it came to be. The usual, pious understanding is that the first
five books of the Bible — the Torah — were written by Moses
personally. But there have also been serious and faithful questions
for hundreds  of years. But a simple reading of scripture
should throw that into doubt. For one thing, how could Moses be the
author if it records his death?

The work of “lower criticism” looks at the books, their structure and
vocabulary, and try to understand the sources that we were developed
to make these works as we know them. Written works don’t last forever.
We don’t have a “first edition” or manuscript of any part of the
Bible, and until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940′s
and 1950′s, the oldest portions of the standard Masoretic version of the
Torah we have is about eleven centuries old. The oldest biblical text
we have today — say, 26 centuries old — is a in a rolled up silver
amulet, so fragile that it had to be read with modern imaging
technology: a part of the priestly blessing, from Numbers.

According to lower theory, there are four main sources for the Torah.
Two  –  known as the E and the J sources, based on how God in named in
the text.  A D source, for Deuteronomy, which seems to be its own
thing, and a P, or “priestly” source.

(We see a similar kind of development in play in the the four
Gospels.) So where critics of scripture see contradictions and
foolishness we see development, versions and alternatives.

Numbers relies on the priestly source, suggesting the book is about 25
or 26 centuries old, and based on the older E and J sources. That is,
the underlying question in Numbers is “what is the role of priests in
the community?” That doesn’t mean so much for us today, but it means
there’s an editorial viewpoint that means the text cannot be read at
face value, leading us to the historical or “higher” criticism.

This is where we pick up our lesson. Our passage skips over the manna.
This strange, monotonous food; I imagine it would be like eating
nothing but chia seeds. And, what do we have now? What is
this? But, oh, remember the food in Egypt! he people are on their
last nerve, “the Lord was very angry, and Moses was distressed.”
(11:10, Plaut trans.) Then the Eternal God bid Moses bring seventy of
the “elders and officers” of the people to the presence of the Eternal
God, with Moses so that he would not bear the responsibility of
leadership alone. (10:17) Those gathered with Moses spoke in an
ecstatic voice when the spirit of the Eternal God came upon them, but
not those leaders alone. Two others, named Eldad and Medad, did too:
Moses would not restrain them. And then the feast of quail come down
– maybe 50, 100 bushels full. The people were hit with a plague, and
the motley crew, having buried their dead at the place named “graves
of craving” set out again.

And perhaps the hunger for meat meant a return the familiar life of
Egyptian captivity. One of relative ease and luxury; something more
than literal meat, and something manna couldn’t feed.

Dear friends, we have the ability to be a great blessing to ourselves
and to others. We have within ourselves the seed of greatness; “the
kingdom of God is within you.” This is not an escapist fantasy. It
however does take imagination. An imagination that resists
the deadening pall of convention and the limitations of second
guessing: an imagination and a direction that bubbles up possibilities
inside us, and that God has set before us. Possibilities that create a
hunger for something different, and before you know it, this faith has
us wanting something better and seeking to make it real. I
believe that there is a Divine path that we can take — one that we
have no monopoly over — and welcomes companions. A way described in
our passage from James:

Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They
should sing songs of praise.

Now, none of us alone can make the world right, but each of us can do
our part to make it better.

As we proceed, we must ask ourselves: in what way do we mean
better? A thin 51% control over the other 49%? Luxuries that
we enjoy that others could not possibly also have? Sympathy that stops
at the D.C. line or some other border? Lip service to full
participation in the economic, moral, political and spiritual matters
but acquiescence to the various systems that make this participation
impossible? Not any of these, of course.

So taking the love of God, a humble and prayerful heart and a great
deal of hard work; we must pray God to raise up scouts and guides for
the journey, wherever they may come from; to apply ourselves to prayer
and praise; confession and healing; guidance and counsel; and no less
than all of these to use our minds and good sense to “prove all
things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21)

This is what we may enjoy and offer future generations. May God bless
us now and forever.