Listening to the "voice" of the Psalmist, I hear a word of confidence rooted in experience. Memory allows the author to affirm trust in the sufficiency of God, in a time where circumstance has turned against hope.

Drawing on my own experience with the sufficiency of God I am able to identify with the author. I too am troubled by the diverse powers which vex creature and creation by their pursuit of profit and power. It is quite likely that I am not alone in this.

I too am, as you may be, longing for deliverance. Not simply a personal liberation, but a radical reversal of circumstance by which such longing may be answered and affirmed in the experience of all creatures and creation itself.

Luke presents a narrative account of a particular person troubled by a particular affliction. He makes it plain that this affliction is rooted in a spirit and not in some physical cause.

This presents us with a rich metaphor of the Church in its present predicament. Are we not bowed down with the weight of our insufficiency; in the face of historical circumstances seemly oriented decisively against our aspirations to relevance and efficacy?

Have we not been so bowed down for a substantial number of years, with each passing year reducing our dignity and confidence?

Luke's narrative introduces the sufficiency of Jesus. Noticing the afflicted person Jesus speaks a word of reversal. The limiting circumstance, by which life is diminished and troubled, is overcome and the potential for vigour and efficacy is restored.

This makes present a central affirmation of the gospel, which is deeply rooted in the prophetic word and tradition. Troubled circumstance is not well addressed by resignation or passivity. Rather, troubled circumstance offers opportunity for the taking up of responsibility.

In the first place, with us as with the woman in Luke's narrative, there must be a relinquishing of the troubling spirit. It has to be surrendered so that it may be displaced by the spirit of God at work in the gospel of Jesus and among us, as others, through the Holy Spirit.

So I wonder about the spirit by which the Church is limited, rendered ineffective and irrelevant. We have learned to talk about the imperial trajectory by which the world is spoiled and oppressed. Has this talk been verified in our effective move to dedicated reversal? Have we determined to abandon the claims of empire and displace them by the claims of the gospel?

My suspicion indicates that we have wanted to have it both ways. My conviction has it that this is impossible. We are called to informed and committed decision, which will set us apart, sanctify us, for the work of redemption; which is made possible by the new spirit given in the gospel of Jesus appropriated by faith.

What then would this look like? I am persuaded by insight and experience that the key is present in the words of Isaiah open to our consideration this morning.

First we have the echo of the Psalmist, who longs for God's intervention, as well as the implied longing for restoration in Luke's narrative presentation of a woman bent over by a troubling spirit:

"Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer" says the prophet. Isaiah goes on to make plain that this answer comes in the form of a prescription by which remedy will come into play and produce the outcomes of health and vitality.

Two things are presented as conditional to healing and restoration. The first indicates a change in our way of being together. We must stop burdening oneanother, and perhaps more particularly, the broken and wounded all around us (including creation), by refusing the us and them distinctions by which we privilege our own place in the world and denigrate the place of others. 

We will find no relief while we cherish even the smallest vestige of our personal privilege and pride. This calls for deep honesty. We may deceive ourselves, by the clever us of language, but we are not able to deceive God.

There is no possibility of us and them in the universal rule of God's love of all creatures and the whole of creation. 

This brings the second aspect of the means by which remedy will come into play to produce that for which we are longing. We are instructed to take up the work of restoration by the practice of full inclusion.

This latter aspect is simple to affirm but will cost us much to make manifest in spirit and truth. First, we will have to put behind us the notion of charity as indicative of our own goodness. Charity, as we practice it, is the avoidance of justice. We do not give our whole heart, mind, soul and strength to the desire for unqualified inclusion of all persons in the benefits of a common social economy.

Giving ourselves wholly to the pursuit of justice, we hold nothing back. We consciously eliminate even the slighted suggestion or indication that we are deserving in a way that those about us are not. Again, easy to say but difficult to embrace as practice.

The Psalmist longs for relief. Luke presents Jesus as the one who brings relief into concrete expression. Isaiah offers the means of Grace by which we may practice renewal and restoration, in this practice being the agents of relief, servants of the living God.

On a sunny Sunday morning in Manitoba,

George

George,

I apologize for the nitpicking nature of my comments. Your thoughtful reflection on the three lectionary passages deserves a better response. Perhaps my poor response will encourage others to respond.

I don't see where Luke presents this metaphor. I read this metaphor more as the lense through which you want to interpret the passage. I agree that it makes for an interesting point, but I don't see a strong connection with what Luke wants to say.

As a general observation this may be true.

What Luke tells us is that "immediately she stood up straight and began praising God." Is this what you mean by "taking up responsibility"?

I don't see where Luke indicates any "relinquishing" or "surrendering" of the troubling spirit. As I read it, Jesus freed her from bondage. The woman's part was to go to Jesus when he called her over and to allow him to touch her.

Of course Isaiah's point stands, but in this situation Luke mentions no call from the woman, only that Jesus saw her, called her, and freed her. Perhaps it is indeed implied. Or perhaps the implication is that God also takes the initiative to free those in bondage, without needing to be called?

"And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years... When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said ..."

As I said, I enjoyed what you wrote and hope others will comment. However, you can also see that I (speaking as someone who does not preach and has never studied how to preach) feel uncomfortable with the way you treat Luke's narrative.

I spoke to not knowing what bent this person over. I spoke to our assuming and letting ourselves off the hook. It does not have to be ancient times. It could be today. It could be kyphosis. It could be osteo.... it could be burdens. It could be being marginalized, spending a lifetime of looking at the ground... It could be life in a male dominated society (women of the Wall, etc) or a society dominated by those who see you as "others".....It is easy to see just the miracles and Jesus fixing everything. It is harder to perhaps look at what we do to each other. As a minister, I cannot preach of healing kyphois. For me, I cannot forget those who are not "cured" and that theology that comofrts us can make God a monster to someone else.  What I can do is I can preach that we can help heal "all the other stuff" that bends over God's people.

Hi RAN,

No need for apology. I have found that my personal growth in the way of hope is well served by even the smallest critical concern. I have been working for nearly three decades, trying to get my language to the point where everybody gets it fully and beneficially. I am at about 3 to 3.5 % and grateful for the eternal frame, which allows me to imagine reaching something a little closer to a 100% if I am patient and persistent.

That said, I will make a few observations in response.  

This is from the opening post, in which I try to make clear that I am not all that interested in the criteria imposed by the historical critical method. So I am not trying to talk about what Luke meant or what Luke's original hearers might have taken from the text.

Rather, and you have me well in view on this, I am presenting my reading of the text in our present milieu. In this I take the text to be something like the "ink blot" tests we were presented with in my junior high days.

The question for me is not what does the text say. My point of departure is what raises into my awareness in response to reading the text? This was not well received in the seminary. It is very well received in the hearing of congregations. The folk are not much concerned with the intricacies of biblical scholarship. They are very interested in hearing words that will encourage and challenge them in their present lived experience.

I am quite persuaded that the preoccupation with critical historical questions has not served the congregations of the church well. It has seemed an attempt to be credible to the empirical ideology by which the modern milieu was and is shaped. Evidence suggests that this endeavour seeking relevance on "scientific" terms has not been nearly so succesful as might have been hoped at the outset.

 You have this right. Luke presents a person with a problem which is resolved by the intervention of Jesus, liberating the person. I hope that I did not give the impression that Luke uses the healing story as a metaphor. Just as you say, I employ the episode as a narrative by which I hope to illustrate our own dilemma and the possibility of our own liberation, should we welcome the intervention of Jesus.

I will not go through each of your observations. None of them miss the mark. I use the text to serve a purpose and not to explicate its historical substance. In this I make a clear departure from the modern school of biblical scholarship. This departure is not random. Rather, it makes clear my own commitment to rabbinic hermeneutic traditions and methods.

I do not think of the relationship of rabbinic and historical interpretation to be a rivalry. For me the rabbinic mode offers and alternative means. I also take it that the rabbinic mode allows us to draw near to the methods of biblical interpretation common to the biblical authors and those who first heard them.

Among others, my main source for this position is Walter Brueggeman. A introduction to the notions I express may be found in a short work "Abiding Astonishment".

With appreciation for your willingness to engage in conversation about things that matter as the world seems set to come undone at the seams.

George

Thanks for your response George.

Since I do not preach, I can afford to pursue my interest in trying to understand what the author was trying to say. If I did have to preach, I know that I would find great difficulty taking what the author meant and from it expressing something that would reach contemporary Canadians. I admire and appreciate your ability to do that. I hope you won't mind if from time to time I give in to my tendency to nitpick.