The loaves and fishes mosaic from a church in the town of Tabgha, on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee.
Text study Matthew 14:13-21
Lectionary text for July 31, 2011
“Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the fives loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds” (Matthew 14:19).
We all know what came next. The feeding of the 5,000 men plus women and children that left baskets of leftovers is overwhelmingly powerful. But let’s not go there too quickly.
Imagine the moment of verse 19. The crowd did not know what was going to happen next. The disciples had no idea what was going on, nor could they even imagine the possibility of the miracle to come.
The hungry crowds were a problem to be solved. Everyone is hungry. There either had to be more food or less people. The most creative solution they could come up with was to send the crowd away to the surrounding towns to buy food.
But Jesus would have none of it. No one knew whether the people in the crowds had the money or if the nearby towns could accommodate their needs.
Instead of following the limited human imagination, Jesus lifted up the pathetically small amount of food above his head and blessed it.
What were the crowds thinking? “Oh, you’ve got to be kidding! That’s not enough food for everyone.” “Now what?” “Is it first come, first served?” “Are the only ones who are going to eat the inner circle of disciples?” “Are they going to pick and choose who is going to eat?”
There had to have been a moment when the crowds wondered if this was pure foolishness or a profound act of faith. In the moment of Matthew 14:19, Jesus acted in an unexpected way with audacious trust and faith in God’s provision for God’s children.
Too little for too many
We live in a world where it seems there are too many people and too little to go around. We know all too well the fear and panic that arises from limited resources. We want to ensure our own security in whatever way we can imagine.
As of the writing of this blog, there has been no decision or compromise about this nation’s debt ceiling. The deficit increases. The fragile economy limps along. Unemployment remains unbearably high.
States are decreasing funding in all directions, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Many households decide daily which bills to leave unpaid, which prescription will be left unfilled, which meal will be skipped or even where to sleep tomorrow. In Africa, children die while seeking a morsel of food.
We are in a Matthew 14:19 moment that calls us to the unexpected path of audacious trust and faith in God’s provision for God’s children.
We are a people of faith and hope. As Paul assures us in Romans 8, we need not fear anything on account of Christ’s death and resurrection. The solution to the needs of the world will need to be audaciously trusting of the resources God provides.
God’s abundant care for God’s children provides beyond our imagination and fear. Let us give thanks for what we have and open our eyes to see how God will provide abundant life, faith and hope.
Talkback:
Where are the needful and wanting places you see in your life or community?
How do you give thanks even when that for which you give thanks seems meager or “not enough”?
Where have you seen God provide abundance beyond your imagination?
Matthew Ollikainen is the pastor of Christ Lutheran Church, Barto, Pa.
How very sad that the Church was fractured and broken by the Reformation! Just imagine if we could all work together in Unity to feed a hungry world! Imagine.
Hey Karen V,
What is sad is the fact that the reformers had to do what they did to bring the church back to its senses. They did away with the saying “when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs”. The church had lost its way and would not return to Biblical principles. The church was convincing the unwashed masses that they could purchase forgiveness (indulgences). The fracture would not of had to take place had the church changed course on its own. While I am sad that we are divided, I am glad we are not having to buy our salvation from some Cardinal or Bishop. Would you not have tried to change the church’s policy in that day? Would you not have joined the reformers in protest of an errant church? Eventually, the church did renounce a great deal of these practices because of the reformers. That’s why I say a bitter / sweet pill.
I admire you for your stances on many of the issues of today's church. I think you would have made an excellent reformer!
Davebob, my dear friend, I would strongly suggest that you read some good, unbiased Church History. There is so much information available today -- why not use it?
Since I do care, I will respond to some of your comments.
1) "While I am sad that we are divided, I am glad we are not having to buy our salvation from some Cardinal or Bishop." Please, this is totally absurd. No one buys or sells salvation in the Catholic Church.
2) "Would you not have tried to change the church’s policy in that day?" Yes. One of my favorite saints is Teresa of Avila. She was a reformer WHO STAYED WITHIN THE CHURCH.
3) "Would you not have joined the reformers in protest of an errant church?" If you mean leaving: No. With the help of the Holy Spirit, I would have tried to make reforms, with humility and obedience, within the Church Family. My favorite saint is Thomas More.
I am thankful for the different denominations of faith on this small planet. They are needed because people are bull-headed, dumb, self serving and cowardly. Only by finding a place they are comfortable in will they then open themselves to the teachings of the church.
There is one God, and how people are drawn to him varies by so many factors. Possibly genetics as much as societal and familial influences. Our beliefs once found range broadly, too. In the end, though, we are drawn to Him (Her)(It)(Take your pick) and hopefully we show our love of God through actions pleasing to him.
I don't care what your faith is as long as we can serve side by side and enjoy each other's company. Horribly paraphrasing how Jerry Falwell and some rabbi once settled it - "Let's hope we meet on the other side and find out we were both right enough to get there!"
God is waaaay smarter than any of us here. Accentuate the positive, there is much to be gained, and much to be done. Don't speak to the negative in others.
May the peace of our Lord be with us always.
Matthew 14; If we see the miracle as Jesus multiplying the food, then we live in a world of scarcity waiting for Jesus to fix it for us. If we see the miracle as Jesus opening the hearts and multiplying the love so that people share what they perceive to be the little they have, then we live in a world of plenty. If we see it totally as a Jesus thing, then we can fault Jesus for not providing for both the need and the greed. If we see it as a Kingdom thing, then we too are called along with the disciples to hear the words "You feed them" and act on it.
www.coslcgrace.blogspot.com
I totally agree with the SPIRIT or Rich Hall's comment, and I loved several of his actual statements. Since I am by nature contrarian, I will take issue (only) with his characterization of "people" -- I happen to belong to that particular group. I think "people" -- with Jesus -- can be open-minded, smart, generous and brave. A "comfortable" place for that particular type of "people" would be a place where the Truth is proclaimed and taught.
The problem, Pastor Dan, is HOW? Are you, like St Francis, going to give away everything to the poor?
Rich,
What you've described ('we show our love of God through actions pleasing to him') is a religion without Jesus. Worse, it's completely contrary to His mission. Here's the problem: if we're judged by our actions, we hate God. The miracle is a totally Jesus thing-- it is through Jesus alone and only that even God-haters like us can be healed and even spread that healing to others.
One denomination is not required for unity, but our unity comes from shared trust in the Gospel, and nothing else.
Karen,
The Reformation changed the Western church, but perhaps you've forgotten about the Orthodox, among other groups. As I understand it, they still live with a fractured church waiting for the Pope to repent of overreaching his authority and return to only supervising the primacy of Rome.
Oh, Peter, for heaven's sake. I happen to live across the street from a huge Greek Orthodox Church. The last I heard (or I should say read), was that the Orthodox and the Pope were trying to work out something. We can check online.
Karen V.
I know we don't buy our indulgences anymore. But we once did. My point is mainly about how the church was fractured, and then healed. The church was in error, and it corrected itself. But by the time the church corrected itself, the denomination scorpion was already out of the bottle, which was very destructive to Christ's mission. Are you telling me you could stay and try to reform a church like Ebenezer? Is there not any line that you would not cross in hopes of unity and reform? You have much more patients than I Miss V!
Davebob: Thanx for asking questions. We may have a little communication prob. i.e. the diff. between church and Church. No, I couldn't stay in a church like Ebenezer. In fact, I have left 2 Catholic parishes in my long life because of disputes with the pastors. That's not what I meant. I meant that I would never leave the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Now, my question for you is "what does that mean?"
Is this now a Lutheran/Catholic schism blog? My take on it is this, more people just need to get along. The ELCA just passed "Bound Conscience" which kind of sums up the idea. Otherwise, you end up with no-gooders like the guy at exlutheran.
Sorry Karen V.
Maybe I didn't understand right. You said that the Church was fractured and broken by the reformers. My point is that everybody has a breaking point where they will leave (fracture) their Church. Sometimes it is for justifiable reasons and the overall out come of the fracture is desirable.
I'm not sure what you are asking me with your question….I can be dense sometimes.
Abundance beyond ones imagination... a few stories.
I was a maintenance guy at a Bible camp, and we operated on less than a shoestring. Donated goods were numerous, but in and of themselves, far too many should have probably been scrapped rather than donated. However, such donations in combination with others and a lot of legwork, we were in many ways blessed beyond measure. Ie we were probably the only Bible camp that had a electric golf cart with a DC9 landing light. :)
Back in my days as a traveling musician, it seemed there was a major disaster in the making every few days, but it seemed there was always a brother of sister in Christ who stepped up to the plate to help out just when we needed it. Everything from finding obscure parts for our soundboard in Belfast, to getting our bus A/C fixed in no time flat in Phoenix... and of course churches kept us very well fed.
Bob Sorenson: This blog is not about not getting along. (I am totally a Rodney King kinda gal.) I do not know if I am writing from a "Bound Conscience;" after all I am a Catholic and my conscience feels kinda free, but I find this "conversation" (to use the worn-out Liberal term) very helpful. As for the guy at exlutheran, how do you know he's a "no-gooder"? Are you God? Aren't you being just a tad judgmental, and I thought being judgmental was a no-no in the ELCA.
Actually, indulgences are still for sale. Ever see a mass card at a funeral home? That's an indulgence. Ever read the inside cover of a Roman Catholic Bible? It usually talks about a plenary indulgence for Bible reading. Jubilee Year? Year of indulgnces! And St. Anthony's in Pittsburg, PA, USA, has the largest collective of relics in North America.
For a fairly scholarly and fascinating (and objectively secular) discussion of the origin of indulgences, may I suggest the chapter "Sin, Crime and Punishment" in the book "The Medieval Underworld,"
Thanks, Chemnitz! What's wrong with Indulgences? Nothing! Let's just be scholars and let's be objective!
Chemnitz and Karen V.
Mass Card: A card sent to a bereaved person or family indicating that the sender has arranged for a Mass to be said in MEMORY of the deceased. ...
This is not a purchase made to guarantee the early release of some poor soul from purgatory. Likewise, a plenary indulgence is not for the dead, it for the living, and cannot be purchased with money. Its work a person performs for a wage; and that wage is the elimination of some perceived future punishment that God will remove. It might temporarily make the person working feel better, but no one will ever be able to prove it worked. After all, I would be willing to bet that this plan has back fired on at least some folks that met a horrific demise even after all their hard work.
Scholarly and objective? Please show me one iota of Biblical support for any type of indulgent. While you’re at it, please explain why we should pray for the intention of the sovereign Pontiff. What good does it do to hail for Mary? Praying for the dead is like baptizing the dead, it too late, and does absolutely nothing for their eternal condition.
Wow, Ebenezer church is starting to look more mainstream after learning so much about Catholicism in one day! Who knew?
Hey, Davebob, I am a bit overwhelmed by all these questions, but I will try to respond. I will tell you a little secret -- although from your last comment, it looks like you have already discovered it -- you can find the answer to all your questions by STUDY.
Indulgences: You can find an excellent explanation in the Catechism (CCC), but I will just tell you my own personal understanding. I envision a beautiful treasure chest (this is the merits of all the saints) and a golden key (the Keys of St Peter, Mt 16). The chest is opened by the Power of the Keys, and what we call "indulgences," and wonderful gifts will come out. Maybe this is not perfectly theologically accurate, so check the Catechism.
Praying for the Pontiff. Do you pray for your Dad? Well?
Hail Mary. This is totally Scriptural. It is called the Annunciation, and the greeting of the Angel Gabriel. "Hail" means "Greetings" or "Hello."
How do you know praying for the dead does nothing for them? By whose AUTHORITY? As I have said a million times, this is the central question and problem with Lutheranism.
Karen V.,
Where do I begin?
Indulgences are non Biblical and therefore nonexistent. Please don't place your faith in them!
Your "personal understanding" means absolutely nothing to me because I don't understand either your personal understanding or your true belief. As far as I know you are praying to Mary for forgiveness (just like praying to sophia). You are praying to a personage outside the Holy Trinity. This does no good!
What merit do the Saints have without Christ? There is no Merit!
Only the Catholics have "the keys"? are you kidding me? You must be joking! This is the superiority complex I am talking about!
What "wonderful gifts" can possibly come out of an institution of man?
Praying for my living dad, and praying for the "intent of the holy see" are entirely differently things. I will never pray for the intent of any human being!
Greeting of the angel Gabriel? For what purpose? Do we bow down to this angel, or do we treat him biblically by standing back up and talking to him like he is under us? "For angels are under man" Let him come talk to us!
As for praying for the dead: it is given once for man to dwell on this earth, and after that judgment. "AND THEN JUDGEMENT! Read your Bible Miss V. it is hard to act scholarly without doing that! The Mormons baptize the dead too!
As for the "keys to the kingdom" this demonstrates the "superior nature" of the Catholics claim to have a corner on the Christian market.
You are really so far away from Lutheran theology I wonder why you are here. while I am out of the ELCA, I am still, and forever, Lutheran! Do you not have a Roman Catholic site to Haunt?
davebob,
While I would prefer that everyone adopts Lutheran theology, my ideal hope for LivingLutheran would be a site where Lutherans and non-Lutherans together explore and tackle difficult issues of faith and learn what Lutheran theology has to say about them.
That's a long way of saying there's nothing wrong with putting Catholic theology forward here.
Karen,
I know my prayers for the dead do nothing for them because of Jesus' authority. He has already done everything that needs to be done for them. This is also the central authority for Lutheranism: Jesus Christ crucified for us alone and only, not St Peter, not the Pope. I go so far as to say it is that authority that gives the Bible any meaning.
As to Orthodox/Catholic relationships... can you take Communion there? Can they take Communion at your church?
You are right Peter,
I’m sorry Karen; it’s probably hard to imagine me smiling when I wrote that last sentence; but when I read it now it does sound offensive. I would surely not want you to go away! And I agree with Peter that diverse theologies make for excellent discussion. The things I have learned about other beliefs while searching around is priceless.
Thanks, Davebob. I did e-mail the editor and she seems OK with me leaving my comments on this blog. To be clear, I am a Lutheran (LCA) who became a Catholic in 1974. I really enjoy commenting. I am the manager of a condo in downtown Miami, and just this morning we had another break-in, so I have been dealing with the police, etc., since around 8 AM. Typing on this blog relaxes me, and I need that.
You have probably guessed that I am not a young person, to put it delicately, and "I've been around the block a few times," as we used to say. Among many things, I have done door-to-door evangelism and prison ministry, so by experience, I have learned, to some small degree, the art of apologetics.
I am absolutely delighted to deal with your reactions and especially your questions. I love them! They give light.
Peter: Thanks for your support. To answer your question about the Orthodox, no, we cannot take Communion there and visa versa. "Communion" means communion. If our beliefs are not in communion, then receiving the Sacrament would be a form of a lie. No one wants that. (My attitude is that I just relax and leave it in God's hands.)
Dear Karen and Bob,
I appreciate that my reflection has sparked such deep debate between the two of you. As I reflect on this Sunday’s passage I think that Karen’s initial sadness that the product of the Reformation was church division and hope for church unity to feed a hungry world is appropriate. It is undeniable that a product of the Reformation was that the Church, as it became expressed in the Western Europe, was fractured. Unfortunately a fractured following of Jesus has always been the norm. In fact, at no time have the followers of Jesus ever been truly united. The disciples bickered about how to feed the multitude. They bickered about their own greatness and about who would sit at Jesus’s right and left. Jesus rebuked his disciples when they complained that others, who were not the of twelve, were casting out demons in Jesus’s name. The in the Book of Act Christians in Jerusalem led by James and John fought all other Christians outside of Jerusalem, especially with Paul. There were the divides of the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries between the churches in North Africa, the Middle East and the Rome. Just when these divides looked like they were going be reconciled by several Church Council, there came the Great Schism between the East and West creating what would become the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
We Christians have a rich tradition of division. The voracity of your exchanges, thinly veiled in polite etiquette, wonderfully illustrates and maintains this rich tradition. As the disciple turned away from the solutions they would propose, and came together to follow Jesus’s command at the feeding of the multitude, so too sometimes we have to agree to disagree and agree in unity to do as Jesus commands us. And what is this command? Well, from the Gospel lesson assigned for this Sunday, it would be to feed the people. We live in a hungry would where many do not know the Grace of Jesus Christ. As far as I can read, the essence of your blog exchanges has been a heated, esoteric and scholarly debate, relying heavily on reformation history, to elucidate the virtues of differing means of proclaiming Christ. As nobly and earnestly as you have pursued your endeavor, I humbly beseech you, where is the fruit in this blog that would feed the hungry I am called to minister to on a daily basis, who face the real life challenges of today?
Karen V.,
To your original point - why do we have to be of the same church to work together in Unity?
I think one thing that we always, as people, forget is that it isn't about how I "perceive" salvation, but how salvation is offered and whether or not I will accept. The terms are severe, and many who profess to accept them (myself included) do not with our whole heart, mind and soul. That is the essence of the schism, Great or small. When we insist on our own understanding of how things should be, the schism is inevitable. When we ask HOW? Do you plan on giving away everything to the poor?, we have completely missed the point. We are being little children arguing over plenty. We are trying to squeeze through the eye of the needle.
When we ridicule, when we "troll", when we act on our first impulse to defend, when we close ranks, when we otherwise hide our Light, we ARE the Schism. When we feed each other (gently, not so much mashing it each others' faces) we act on the call from John 21:16 to "feed my sheep". We do have to be careful of giving the needle - Rom 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. All of Romans 14 seems to speak to this, but this in particular seemed appropo: Rom 14:v13-19 - 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
I guess Matthew beat me to it, but I typed and thought and thought and typed, and I seek validation, just like (seemingly) everyone else. To me, it comes down to this - Rom 14:9-10 - 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
Be blessed and be blessings.
Matthew: Although I very much appreciate many of the things you wrote, I will strongly disagree with: "Unfortunately a fractured following of Jesus has always been the norm. In fact, at no time have the followers of Jesus ever been truly united." The Book of Acts tells of a completely united Church. The Will of Christ is for Unity. Why do you want to settle for second best??? Or almost OK?
Wade Gardner: I understand exactly what you mean; "where you are coming from," so to speak. It is important for us to just calm down and work through the issues.
Davebob:
I wasn't saying I am in favor of indulgences. Quite the contrary. I was just saying the Roman church still has them, in various forms, despite the Joint Statement on Justification.
My reference to the "Medieval Underworld" was to say that it gives an interesting (and neutral -- the author is probably an agnostic) history of the evolution of indulgences, not that I think that indulgences are a good thing.
Indugences were the spark that ignited the Reformation, and I am in agreement with Luther and the Reformers.
Chemnitz, as you know, I am a big fan of yours, and what I just typed out is not "thinly veiled in polite etiquette." However, and I certainly do not intend to be rude or to "troll," BUT -- Indulgences did NOT spark the Reformation, the SELLING OF Indulgences sparked the Reformation. If we are to arrive at the truth, we must pay careful attention to detail, language and all the many complications of life, as I'm sure you know.
Dear Karen: The feeling is mutual. I think there is much on which we agree, and I appreciate how you disagree in a friendly tone. Thank you for your well reasoned comments.
Have any of you in this catholic/lutheran dialog read this book on Martin Luther? I'm wondering if the author is correct about the Large Catechism (we only read the small catechism when I was younger):
http://www.heritagebbc.com/library/martinluthermasterofdeceit.pdf
Bob
Matthew Ollikainen:
I read again what you wrote in your comment, and I want to make certain I understand you. Are you saying: There has always been dis-unity in Christ's Church, therefore dis-unity is the norm, therefore dis-unity is acceptable? Is that not the same as saying: There has always been poverty, hunger, wars and disease, therefore poverty, hunger, wars and disease are the norm, therefore they are acceptable?
Do you understand Martin Luther's view of Human Nature? The following is the Confession of Sins in the Lutheran Church: "All: Most merciful God, we confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean." The Catholic view is that Man was created good, but we fell. We were not created bad, but good, then we messed up. This is Scriptural, as everyone knows.
We need not, and should not, accept bad things like hunger... and dis-unity.
Bob Sorenson: I just clicked on to the website, and read the title of the book. Looks like a piece of baloney to me. I know that's a snap judgment, but Luther is a well-respected historical figure, who has made a great contribution to Christendom. Personally, I still go to the Bainton classic. I trust that book.
Hello Karen,
Let me reiterate, I believe that the dis-unity of Christ followers is every bit as lamentable as you point out in your very first post. I agree with your first post. If you read closely the second paragraph of my post, you will notice I am actually advocating for unity. To say dis-unity is the norm and yet to advocate for unity is not a contradiction. It is no different that Bonheoffer advocating for the church when the persecution of the church was the norm of the Nazis regime or to advocate for righteousness when original sin is and will continue be a norm of the human condition in this temporal world until Christ second coming. In fact our dis-unity is a product of original sin. Adam and Eve where created to be united to one another (help-mates) and showed dis-unity only after eating the forbidden fruit (she made me do it). To put it simply “norm” is a quantifying, not a qualifying, word. “Norm” indicates that which is most common or happens the most often. To use “norm” in a qualitative manner it needs to be accompanied by qualifying words like, “should be the norm” or “should not be norm”.
Karen, are you willing to engage the primary question of my query? Where is the fruit in this very long blog that would feed those in our world who hunger for the Gospel?
Yes, Matthew, of course I will tell you where I think the fruit is. First, let me say that sometimes I find it very hard to be serious about so many things. You and I are getting very close to something my Grandpa -- a Lutheran minister -- did not like at all: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" He had a strange word for it, a verb that you will not find in any dictionary: "to bejesuit." I, personally, do not want to be bejesuited or to possibly bejesuit my fellow man or woman -- oops! -- I mean "person."
Now to your question: I am assuming that you meant physical hunger, even though you wrote "hunger for the Gospel." (Was that a mistake? We have to be very clear, and not obscure the issues with pretty words.)
To me, it is simple common sense that two heads are better that one, and if the two heads are in unity, they can solve more problems (hunger) than if the two are separated, and even at odds with one another. Also, have you ever heard of CRS? They feed millions of people, by far the largest relief organization in the world. I just read on the ELCA site, that Bishop Hanson sent $400K to Africa. Now, I certainly do not mean to be rude, but $400K is the price of a McMansion here in Miami. Wouldn't it be better if we just pooled our resources???
Matthew,
I think you raise an important question: what's the point of all this theologizing on a practical level?
Put simply, it's a disagreement over the Gospel itself. Multiple different gospels are being put forward, and only one leads to life. To use the bread imagery of John, Jesus continually contrasts between eternal bread (or water) and perishable bread (or water). Not all bread and water satisfies.
Technically, when one is trolling, one is trying to elicit a long and impassioned response with as little effort as possible.
Unity also requires a lot of dialogue, which is what you see here. Unity also brings us to a reply to Karen about Communion. I stick with the Reformers' idea of unity, as outlined in the Augsburg Confession: Unity exists so long as we trust the same Gospel. Widely divergent traditions of people are fine, so long as we share the same Gospel. Sharing Communion is a statement about whether or not you share the Gospel. That one refuses to share Communion is a statement that one does not believe the other proclaims the Gospel. This is why closed Communion puts the lie to unity efforts.