ROSLIN-THOMASBURG PASTORAL CHARGE
July 19 2015: Eighth Sunday after Pentecost
2 Samuel 7:1-14a; Psalm 89:20-37; Ephesians 2:11-22; Mark 6:30-34, 53-56
Prayer: God who goes before us and all those willing to follow, help us hear your whispers and to learn, to ask questions and to evaluate ourselves in light of your vision for us in the present and in the future. Amen
2 Samuel 7:1–14 tells the story of David’s desire to build a structure worthy of being the permanent resting place for the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of God’s presence with the nation of Israel.
David had solidified the nation and his armies had defeated all its many foes. Peace had become a reality and now a king’s palace had been built. This seemed to have sparked Davis conscience. Why should he live in such posh surroundings while there was nothing to house the throne of God? So he called Nathan the prophet, one of his royal advisers and offered the thought to him. Nathan tells David that if he has a good idea, he should go with it since it is obvious that God is behind David. But that night, God has a conversation with Nathan that he is to relay to David. This conversation boils down to three main points: 1) God has never complained about living in a tent and has never asked for anything different; 2) in refusing David’s gift, God will give David one – a house or dynasty that will live on and on and on and 3) God will chose one of David’s heirs to build a temple for God’s presence.
Later on we discover that one of the reasons God denied David’s offer is that David was a man of war – loosely that David was a destroyer not a builder.
I have said on several occasions that much of what we read in the Hebrew Scriptures are physical representations of things that are far more lofty. It is true that David’s son Solomon, after David’s death, built the first temple in Jerusalem but is that what this passage is ultimately referring to? I think not. Why? Well, because verses twelve through fourteen “a” read this way, “12 For when you die and are buried with your ancestors, I will raise up one of your descendants, your own offspring, and I will make his kingdom strong. 13 He is the one who will build a house—a temple—for my name. And I will secure his royal throne forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son.” (Emphasis mine. NLT)
These same thoughts are expressed in many ways in various passages throughout the Hebrew Bible all referring to the Messiah.
It seems to me that this passage conveys several thoughts.
It was never God’s preference that there should be a temple, a monument to God’s presence. Perhaps the temple came about in the same way as Israel’s first king – because it was the common practice of all the surrounding nations and the Israelites felt deprived because of this lack. If all the other nations had a king, shouldn’t they? If all the other nations honoured their gods with large elaborate buildings shouldn’t they?
Perhaps the story of the Children of Israel wandering in the desert is more than a story. Perhaps being led in their journey by the Pillar of Smoke and the Pillar of fire and by the Ark of the Covenant born by God’s people is more than just a story. Perhaps these stories present for us a model by which we should live, encountering life as we are led by God.
Perhaps God preferred to not have a temple, a monument to God’s presence because God didn’t want to set a bad example by suggesting it is time to rest rather than to continue the journey. God chose to create the Children of Israel, not so they could build God a temple, a monument to God’s presence but to be a temple, a movement designed and enlivened by God to represent God to the world.
Is this not what the reading from Ephesians says of the church? Eph. 2: 19b – 21 reads, “…You are citizens along with all of God’s holy people. You are members of God’s family. 20 Together, we are his house, built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. And the cornerstone is Christ Jesus himself. 21 We are carefully joined together in him, becoming a holy temple for the Lord.” (Emphasis mine NLT)
So, what does any of this have to do with our circumstances as a church or as Church in the 21st century?
Let me start by saying that as usual, I spent some time scouring the internet looking for jokes about church buildings. I couldn’t find any. I guess there is nothing funny about church buildings but there reams of jokes about those who attend church.
Let me also state that I know there are great potential benefits of having a congregational home. Buildings offer meeting places for congregational worship, for various programs, for initiatives reaching out to the community and for providing community space. However, there are disadvantages as well. Whether we are speaking of our own setting, our denominational setting or referring to most church buildings in North America, the reality is that for the most part our church building sit empty except for Sunday mornings and perhaps one or two mid-week, sparsely attended meetings. For the most part our buildings are made up of single use rooms built in a time when the proportion of younger people to elderly was significant enough that little thought was given to accessibility. For the most part whether because of monies currently being spent or failed to be budgeted for ongoing maintenance, our buildings represent a financial liability beyond our ability to meet. For the most part our buildings are monuments to the past that have such a strong hold on us that we find it impossible to face the here and now let alone consider the future realisitcally. For the most part, even though most congregational members are engaged in vital, ongoing ministries, there is a reluctance to view those activities as ministries because they see “ministry” as something that somehow has its roots in the building rather than in the God who works through us as individuals and as groups because, we are God’s temple and as such God’s movement on earth to demonstrate the reality of God.
On occasion, I have said some seemingly ridiculous things. One such thought I have expressed is that in my opinion, the best thing that could ever happen to the United Church of Canada is that every one of our church buildings be hit simultaneously with massive lightning strikes, given a five minute warning to ensure no loss of life.
Because of technology, there has never been a more opportune moment to see church buildings as unnecessary. With some planning and training, there is nothing we are currently doing as church or should be doing as church that cannot be accomplished using other avenues. There has never been a better time to let go of our monuments and direct our focus and energies toward the movement that Scripture, whether Hebrew of Christian (Old or New Testaments) advocate of which we should be part.
In researching this passage, I read the summary of a three point sermon by a J. Lawrence McCleskey entitled Steps to Greatness[1]. His main premise is that when God rejected David’s offer to build God a temple, God was calling David to a higher purpose. His three points bear repeating. They are, “Accept the Call to a Greater Vision”, “Accept the Call to a Greater Mission” and “Accept the Call to a Greater Blessing.”
David’s offer stemmed from good intentions as did the construction of our church buildings. However, sometimes good intentions yield less than good results. Do you think that God was incapable of preventing the Temple’s destruction? Perhaps, God had better things in mind.
Have we let our church buildings become monuments to the past and in so doing making us a monument as well or are we sufficiently free from their hold and sufficiently trusting of God so that we are the movement God intends us to be?
[1] McClersky, Jay Larwrence. Steps to Greatness: 2 Samuel 7:1-14a in Sermon Options: July 19, 2015. June 15th, 2015. MinistryMatters.com.