Lost Lent Sermon: Yellow on the Cross

So as we wrap up lent I thought I would take a moment to add what I've been meaning to incorporate for a week now, my lost sermon from our midweek Lenten series "Colors of the Cross" which comes to fruition with a special take home in our Good Friday service this evening. Unfortunately one of the weeks we had to cancel due to weather, with no real opportunity for make-up. So for those interested, here it is. Since I did not write it out then, it is a bit different but preserved best I can in this hectic time.

Readings were from Isaiah 2:1-5 and 1 John 1:5-9; 2:9-11.

Tonight we add to our cross the color yellow which represents God's perfect light.

God's perfect light. So light becomes an image for goodness in scripture, and particularly for a goodness God brings into the world. Right? Think of Genesis chapter 1, the beginning of creation God said "Let there be...light!" And God saw that the light was...good! So light was the first good that God brought into the world and thereafter it often becomes in scripture an image for goodness in some fashion, often a goodness associated with God like where our reading today says "God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all". Light is then even a part of God's own goodness shared in this world.

In that respect, the cross makes sense to have yellow for one of its colors, because there the most perfect goodness of God was shared, there was good news, there was Jesus, the Good Shepherd who came from God's own being. It also in no way belongs on the cross, since Jesus in no way belonged there. He, the perfect goodness, he, the light of the world, should be anywhere but the cross. But since he was there, yellow belongs on the cross.

But I want tonight to get more specific, at least in regards to our readings. Since in these readings light speaks not for goodness in general but for a specific form of goodness. In our readings, the light of God has to do with bringing peace.

Isaiah says that from Jerusalem shall go out instruction - a teaching - that would indeed allow God to arbitrate between nations, to settle disputes and bring peace. This was a peace, if you will, between peoples. Whenever we have a "them". Us and them. Us and Mexicans - that's a big "them" group lately. Or us and Russians - that's a longstanding one. Or how about democrats to republicans? Anytime we see a group of people to whom we feel we cannot be one. That is precisely the people this passage calls to peace. He says that people will "beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks". It's weapons repurposed - like turning tanks into tractors or carriers into cruise ships. Weapons are not needed anymore. It's like that song (sing it with me) "I'm gonna lay down my sword and shield down by the riverside, down by the riverside, down by the riverside. I'm gonna lay down my sword and shield down by the riverside, gonna study war no more. Ain't gonna study war no more, ain't gonna study war no more. Gonna study war no more. I ain't gonna study war no more, I ain't gonna study war no more. Gonna study war no more."

That song holds to the promise that God is leading us away from war into peace and invites us as we sing it to already join into that peaceful gathering. And Isaiah likewise invites us in the words "O house of Jacob, come, let us walk in the light of the Lord!"

Now if Isaiah speaks of peace between peoples then 1 John is very much about peace between people. For after saying that God is light and there is no darkness in him, then it begs us to ask ourselves if and in what ways we are in darkness. And one of John's major themes is this: there is no greater sign of living in light than loving one another, and no greater sign of living in darkness than hating one another. Thus, though the word is love, the love is one that brings peace between people. It calls us to lay aside our hatred and disputes in order to love. Or as he says, "If we walk in the light, we have fellowship with one another..." Love and fellowship between people, for if God's light brings peace between nations, we cannot pretend that it has no intention of bringing peace into the disputes in our lives.

And now we return to the cross, since our focus this Lent is not just on concepts of our faith but how they keep going back to the cross. Now we return to Jesus, God's perfect light, who didn't belong there but went there anyways for us. If our two readings today as they speak of light speak of being drawn into a peace that God brings, we look to the cross to do just that. This isn't about saying "can't we all just get along" or "you need to find a way to get along". Those efforts have failed miserably. They are noble, and we should always listen and strive to find common ground, but if peace only comes when all people agree I find it more far fetched than anything our faith has ever promised.

But the cross says that God didn't wait to see if we'd all get along. Instead he came and shined a peace we've been struggling to bring. Among our "Scriptures of the Cross" which we've been reading each week this series there was another one I originally included but then took out because of space and length. It's from Ephesians 2, where it says:

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, 16 and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.

"He is our peace" He has "made both groups into one" and created "one new humanity...in one body through the cross". Notice the language Paul uses here. Notice how God makes all this happen. The light of the cross includes a peace that the world cannot give. In Christ, in the Church as a whole and in our part within it, Christ is bringing together people who otherwise have no business being together. And he has given us a blessing and a faith in common, he has given us the grounds to be together.

The instruction we have that came from Jerusalem was the witness of the apostles, the story of Jesus, the cross that consistently is reaching beyond the limits of where we think it can stretch - making us and them into a new "we". If you aren't living in that peace - either because you refuse to love those whom God has brought you or because you will only accept a peace you yourself can agree on - you are in darkness. But even if you are in darkness, Jesus has come to shine his light in that darkness that you too could walk in the light of the Lord. For he did not go the the cross to let you remain a "them" in darkness, but rather to draw you to the light.

He is our peace, and as 1 John says today his blood will cleanse us from all sin. So come, let's not simply try to make our own peace but join up already in the peace that was promised by his cross. Let's lay down our sword and shield. Let's walk in the works he has prepared for us. Let's walk in the peace he has won for us. Let's walk as the people the cross made you to be. Come, let us walk in the light of the Lord! Amen.

2019 MLB Predictions

I can't begin to describe how happy I am that Major League Baseball is back. And with it comes my predictions for the upcoming season so I can have it in writing when you want to rub it in my face again. Like how last year I predicted the Nats would go to the World Series or the Twins would win the Central. That made me look dumb.

Although, props for picking a Mets pitcher to win Cy Young (albeit I picked the wrong one), or Acuna as my back-up ROY, but my proudest prediction (since most of those were safe picks) was my darkhorse pick for MVP: Christian Yelich!

Disclaimer, I wanted to wait on this post until Kimbrel and Keuchel signed because they are significant additions, but with Opening Day yesterday (plus the two game Japan series for the Mariners and A's) I just couldn't wait any longer.

World Series Winner: Let's get this out of the way...the Patriots of Baseball, the Evil Empire, the New York Yankees will win the 2019 World Series.

NATIONAL LEAGUE
EAST I think this is the hardest division to predict as the top four are all really close in my mind.

1. Phillies - They have the payroll to add Keuchel or Kimbrel if they need or acquire a guy at the deadline. I think yesterday's game showed this team feels energized. A good start could go a long way for them so I am boldly picking them for top spot.
2. Nationals - This team could be first, but let's not forget that they did lose Harper. Strasburg's health is too unreliable and it is TBD if Corbin will be as good as he was last year.
3. Braves - Loved the Donaldson addition, hated that they basically stopped there. They have depth and prospect capital so a good start and they could make the biggest splash at the deadline.
4. Mets - They made a lot of excitement, they have all the pieces to win the division. But their lack of depth puts them 4th since bad health/slumps will probably hurt them more than anyone ahead of them. Kudos for working to put together a winner though.
5. Marlins - Yeah, they are wayyyy behind the rest. Probably the worst team in the NL.

CENTRAL If the East was hardest, the NLC ain't much easier. It figures to be the most competitive division 1-5 in baseball. But that also may be bad news for them as they will be beating up on each other quite a bit.

1. Cardinals - I hate doing this, but they have great depth. I was hoping they'd deal Martinez because (as we nearly saw yesterday had Lorenzo Cain not saved the day) he is a dangerous weapon off the bench. Goldschmidt is likely going to kill in this division. Ozuna should be better too. 
2. Brewers - This team is so hard to predict. Last year I put them third and they happily stole the show. But a lot went right, including a near-perfect September, a ton of walk-off victories, and a crazy MVP finish by Yelich. Also, perhaps no team benefited more last year from September roster expansions than the Brewers. Can't expect it all to play out that way again. But the team added Grandal and will have Moose for a whole season. The extent of injuries and time not playing by Nelson, Jeffress, and Knebel (maybe whole season) could really derail this team. Kimbrel would be in my estimation a wise investment.
3. Cubs - Like the Braves, what an awful offseason. Especially with how strapped for cash they were the decision to keep Hamels may backfire, but as good as he was it is hard to say no. But a healthy Drew Smyly who they had to dump just to have enough money for Hamels may be just as good. Still, this team won 95 games last year and has some electric players. They could easily win the division.
4. Pirates - A lot of their guys underperformed last year. A return to form and a whole season from Archer could be dangerous. They are sort of a "if a few things go right we will be great" or "if things few things go sour it will be a long season" kind of team. In the end I expect them to tread water.
5. Reds - loved their offseason, and they are good enough that if enough goes right they could be towards the top of this division but I don't expect it. Gray and Wood were great additions, Votto will always be a tough out it seems but they lost Gennett for a period and their outfield overall does not impress me. In a weaker division they would have really shot up in the standings, but these teams still look better to me. They'll enjoy a better, hopeful, but not successful 2019.

WEST If the Padres take a step forward things will be very interesting. Otherwise there isn't much excitement in predicting this division.

1. Dodgers - No question. Still a powerhouse, and they were able to unload some salary and deadweight. Although I think they will miss Wood. That said, they've held onto their best prospects and still have some great young arms to supplant him. Kershaw's looking old fast.
2. Rockies - They have probably the best rotation in franchise history to go along with two of their finest hitters in franchise history (Blackmon and Arrenado). 
3. Padres - Why not get optimistic? After AJ Preller's initial offseason when he tried to build an instant winner, he's had to slowly build back up that farm system. Then he went and added Manny Machado. If Hosmer and Myers could have a season that doesn't make their contracts look like sunken costs this team could be quite solid. Kudos for starting Tatis in the majors rather than delaying his service time to get an extra year of control.
4. Diamondbacks - I like what they got for one year of Goldschmidt since they were not resigning him or likely contending. But they lost their two best hitters and did not really do much else. So here they are in 4th place.
5. Giants - They are like one injured pitcher or hitter away from being awful. Sure a surprise breakout or two could change a lot. Shark and Cueto and Bumgardner pitching like they are four years younger and this team is a contender. But what are the odds?

NL WILD CARDS: Rockies and Nationals. The NL Central teams are better, but because they have to play each other so many times and don't have the luxury of 19 games against teams like the Marlins and Giants leaves me to conclude they will pummel each out too far down in the standings to make the postseason even though on paper both Wild Cards should probably come from the NLC.

AMERICAN LEAGUE

EAST A top heavy division with really only one wild card factor.

1. Red Sox - It's tough to pick them over the Yankees, but this team was amazingly good this year. I know many made a point of their weaker bullpen, although is there anything easier to fix? 
2. Yankees - I would love for them to come out on top and they easily could. Their starting pitching could be great or terrible, it really is that variable. Expect a big year from Stanton.
3. Rays - Somehow they won 90 games last year. I don't even know when or how that happened. That's what makes them so dangerous. They practically stole Tommy Pham from St. Louis. I have no idea how to predict this team's success this year, so we'll just keep them here.
4. Blue Jays - The Guerrero injury hurts, and this team was already only a borderline contender. Stroman and Sanchez may also become big time trade bait at the deadline if they are performing and the team is not. Perfect season to sell high.
5. Orioles - this team was so terrible last year and they had guys like Britton, Machado, and Gausman with them for half the season. How bad is it gonna be this year? Answer...real bad!

CENTRAL The most boring division in all of baseball.

1. Indians - They basically got worse, perhaps even a lot worse. But in a division this bad it doesn't really matter. Save some money and win big. That's having your cake and eating it too.
2. Twins - They are probably the only team that can really challenge for the division, but they had a joke of an offseason. There is still a lot of talent on this roster. 
3. White Sox - A lot would need to go right to contend, but the talent is there is could. But the greenness of this team and the table-holders suggest to me they are more likely to do worse than third than better. Eloy for a whole season should be great for them. Had they added Manny and Keuchel they'd be in the 2 spot. But they didn't, so they aren't.
4. Royals - I would love for this team to like the champion Royals before them defy projections and expectations. At the very least, in this power-game of strikeouts-homers the more contact/speed roster should be fun to watch.
5. Tigers - They want to be bad. They will trade anyone good to anyone who wants them. They lost their best pitcher (and trade chip) already. They will be bad. Mission accomplished.

WEST A tougher division outside of the first and last team to predict.

1. Astros - the core is still together. They did lose two good pitchers to their rotation, but they have had some great pitching prospects waiting for a chance. This year will be that chance. I'm a little surprised they did not add a true DH.
2. Angels - Made some risky upside moves for the rotation. Now if only they can stay healthy. Nice to see Trout stay an Angel for life. A lot of guys have room for improvement, even if not full return to form. That makes this team well positioned to make a solid run this year.
3. Mariners - Most exciting GM in baseball. I hope he goes to another team soon just to keep things interesting. He still has some talent on the field and I like the Kikuchi signing.
4. A's - Like the Rays, I don't know how they did it last year. I don't expect them to do it again.
5. Rangers - Felt like the offseason bad teams used to have, where they add third string guys, trade a few, get a few. Just shuffle in the hopes you might be better but in no way make a splashy investment. Hard to expect them to be anywhere but last this year.

AL WILD CARDS: Yankees and Rays. The Yankees feel obvious. I wouldn't be surprised if a West team claims the second Wild Card but between the Rays' 2018 success and the opportunity to play the Oriole 19 times I'm gonna bet on two East Wild Card teams.

PLAYOFFS

Wild Card Play Ins: Yankees over Rays, Nationals over Rockies

Division Series: Yankees over Astros 3-2, Red Sox over Indians 3-1, Cardinals over Dodgers 3-2, Nationals over Phillies 3-2. The biggest upset predicted here would be the Dodgers failing to return to the Championship Series for the fourth straight year. Nats will have last laugh by eliminating Harper in his first year in Philly.

Championship Series: Yankees over Red Sox 4-2, Nationals over Cardinals 4-2. The Yankees have a bone to pick with Boston and are hungry to get back to the World Series. Their bullpen is such a powerhouse weapon for the postseason I think it will edge them over their rivals. Though they made me look foolish for picking it last year I will predict a Washington pennant again because I lover their rotation over St. Louis'.

World Series: Yankees over Nationals 4-1. The Yanks are built for the postseason and especially after just missing going in 2017 and the Red Sox winning in 2018 I have to think they are about as hungry as ever. 

AWARDS

NL ROY: Fernando Tatis Jr. When one of baseball's best prospects gets to play the entire year ya gotta go with him. For my backups I will take Alex Verdugo from the Dodgers (who always get Rookie love for their good players) and Victor Robles of the Nationals. For my sleeper I'll take Alex Reyes.

AL ROY: Eloy Jimenez. Like with Tatis Jr. above I gotta go with the top ranks guy who will be playing all season. That extension effectively began his service clock and near guarantees he will play all year. The easiest backup is Vladimir Guerrero Jr. who most have picked for ROY, although injury and service considerations will hamper his opportunity. I'll also backup with Justus Sheffield. For a sleeper, I was torn because Jesus Luzardo might be worth picking but will ultimately go with Bo Bichette.

NL Cy Young: Hard not to pick Jacob DeGrom after the season he had and watching him pick up right where he left off last year. For a backup I will take the ever contending Scherzer and Aaron Nola. My sleeper pick is Walker Buehler.

AL Cy Young: Gerrit Cole. He's in a contract year, and was amazing last year. Any step further and he'll be the best. For back-up we will take the ever perennial Chris Sale and Justin Verlander. For my out of the box sleeper I guess I will take the man I've been big on for a while now Jose Berrios.

NL Comeback Player of the Year: Josh Donaldson. Not hard to win when all you gotta do is play healthy. I'll take Cory Seager for a backup along with Jimmy Nelson. My sleeper is Nelson's teammate Eric Thames.

AL Comeback Player of the Year: Jonathan Schoop which would be huge for his team. A fresh year, fresh start, low expectations all make for a good atmosphere to return to elite 2B form. Christ Davis would be vastly improved if he hit the mendoza line so it's hard not to bet there for a backup along with Zack Cozart who also would not need to do much to be much improved. For a sleeper I will opt for fellow teammate Kole Calhoun.

NL MVP: Paul Goldschmidt. I've picked him before and now he gets in a better line up and plays 19 games against the Brewers, a team he has clobbered historically. Plus he has to be happy and comfortable to have that nice big extension. Back ups will be Cory Seager and Bryce Harper. For my sleeper I'll with Anthony Rendon.

AL MVP: Jose Ramirez. Ya always gotta something wild and bold for a prediction. How about not taking the safe pick of Mike Trout who I will take for my back up along with Betts. Don't sleep however on Carlos Correa.

I'm skipping manager of the year this year because I can. It's my blog. So there.

Happy 2019 Baseball!

Destinations for MLBTradeRumor's Forgotten Free Agents

So today MLBtradeRumors put up a post of 10 Forgotten Free Agents who may still provide some solid value for teams. As I read them, I immediately had some ideas as to where some of them could go, so I thought I'd throw my ideas out there. Disclaimer: I looked at my top 50 free agent predictions this morning, and so far I've only gotten one right (Joe Kelly to the Dodgers), so given that track record I'll be lucky to be half right on one player. How can you be "half right" you ask? Well I could pick the right city but wrong team (like New York Yankees instead of Mets).

Jose Iglesias: Yankees. Speaking of the Bronx Bombers, here is my first match. The Yankees are planning on giving the starting SS gig to Troy Tulowitzky, at least until Didi Gregorious can return midseason from his injury. In general I like the plan because Didi has been a great Yankee and Tulo for the league minimum (and off of Turf again) at least should provide solid production with some upside. But given Tulo's own injury risk, and the uncertainty of how Didi will return from the DL (sorry MLB, it is still the DL to me), they would be wise to stack some depth there. Iglesias would provide glove value not offensive value, but for this team that may be all they need, and the good thing is that gives him a high floor, which is what they should get. Preseason I picked Orioles, where he still stands to be an upgrade.

Ervin Santana: Padres. The Pads just made the big waves with the $300mm signing of Manny Machado. Given that he's likely to give the most value on the first 3-4 years of that deal they should be pushing hard to improve and I think Santana may be one of the best bargains available on the market because he has some of the largest bounce-back potential given that his value is down primarily from an injury (and ineffectiveness likely tied to that injury). Given the years of strong performances that preceded it there is more reason to believe he can bounce back than say...Troy Tulowitzky. The Pads clearly need to improve in their pitching, and given their ballpark that should be the easier thing to improve. In my preseason prediction for him I listed the Mariners which still also seems reasonable but given their soft-rebuild they seem to need him less.

Denard Span: Reds. I have to applaud the Reds for their offseason. I still think they are the bottom dwellers of this division, but not by much (the NLC and NLE look to be fun division races this year). Since there really were no good moves to further tank/rebuild, they opted to push towards competitiveness. But since they let Billy Hamilton go their CF situation is not as reliable (Billy may not have been great with the bat, but you knew what to expect from him overall as a player). Span would be a great 4th OF. He measured out well as a hitter and runner last year, and while his defense is not what it used to be he could still probably fake it in CF if they need to. And let's not forget this team is considering putting Matt Kemp in OF, so....

Logan Morrison: Rockies. Whereas a guy like Iglesias has a high floor and low ceiling, LoMo is more the opposite. And in the last two years we've seen how high his ceiling can be and how low his floor really is. Now the Rockies did add Daniel Murphy with the idea he'd be playing a lot of 1B, but Morrison might just crush it in Colorado. The guy is one year removed from a massive offensive outburst and his ISO and BABIP last year both suggest he could possibly perform at that level again. He's not likely going to cost much either. I say put him at 1B and Murphy at 2B. You can do late game defensive shifts or move Murph back over if LoMo doesn't pan out. But the Rockies have had a revolving door at 1B for some time with surprisingly little results it seems. This just seems like a low cost risk worth taking. The original intent to play Murphy out of his natural position (which has no clear-cut replacement as-is) is what makes this such a good move. If it doesn't pan out plan B is their current plan A, but if it does they are a much better team.

Carlos Gomez: Brewers. This is a pure depth move and may not be the best chance for Go-Go. Teams like the Giants and Orioles strike me as possibilities there, and like LoMo, his track record was better than his previous season so someone may believe in him enough to give him a legit shot at starting. The reason I like the Brewers for him is two-fold: The Brewers have traded away a lot of their OF depth this season, sending Domingo Santana to Seattle (where I think he will do well) and Keon Broxton to the Mets (where I'm less bullish on his outlook given the fact they already have a great defensive-RHH CF in Lagares). While Ben Gamel looks to be the 4th OF, and guys like Perez can handle OF, there are no clear guys to come up in the event of an injury, and having Gomez's upside in their depth would be good for a team looking to compete in a tough division. For Gomez the reason would be he was at his best in Milwaukee. Fans loved him (some wild swings and inability to hit cut-off men aside) and he has not performed at the level he did when he was here, so I'm banking a bit on the comfort factor perhaps coming into play. Don't forget that he liked it here so much he signed a very team friendly extension to stay (and that's with his agent Scott Boras likely counseling against it).

James Shields: Athletics. The A's somehow were a great team with a terrible rotation last year. Terrible on paper at least. This year they still need to cobble together some semblance of a rotation. With Shields they are likely going to get innings, not quality innings. But really, that may be important for them at this stage. They have a lot of guys who will be coming back at some point from injury, best not to put too many innings on those arms. Shields can be our modern day Livan Hernandez. Nothing fancy or special, but somehow good for 180-200IP. I would think moving to that spacious stadium might be helpful too.

Hanley Ramirez: Unemployment. This guy was available for a box of cracker jacks last year and no one bit. Now he is a year older and a year less likelky to produce at his past herculean levels. He probably should be worth a minor league invite, but I am not convinced he will get one. I predict independent league ball for him, and least for starters. If he does well, that + his solid dominican league play + an injury or grave underperformance might = a midseason contract.

Jose Bautista: Indians. Cleveland has done nothing to improve its outfield this offseason and generally have put their foot to the breaks, focusing more on decreasing spending. Lucky for them Jose shouldn't cost much of anything. He is defensively limited, and his bat is diminished. He likely won't hit for much average. But he walks and still has some pop, which is great for an outfield that seems to lack certainty in those two areas. He's a role player for them, but one who could help keep this outfield from killing much needed late-inning rallies for the Indians. While they are the clear favorites in the division, their offseason (mixed with real chances for improved results from the Royals, Twins, or White Sox) and the gap may not be as wide as it first appears.

Matt Holliday: Braves. The Nick Markakis signing really inspired no one, expect maybe the Markakis family. Some outfield depth would be wise for a team that made a quick splash with the Josh Donaldson signing (which I love for them btw), and then has had an underwhelming offseason. Holliday could be like this year's Jose Bautista for them. A solid veteran who comes up when they need him most and then is cut loose when they don't need him anymore. But if they guy can get on base at a crazy clip again, he - like Bautista before him - will be a valuable bat off the bench.

Tyler Clippard: Red Sox. Any reader of MLBTradeRumors.com have seen the criticism the Sox received for essentially letting their bullpen suffer loses to free agency with no relief. And any reader would also know that cost is a major factor because of where the Red Sox are in regards to spending and luxury tax (funny no one ever calls them the "evil empire" now that they have been top spenders and one of the 21st century's winning-est ball clubs). This puts them in a position to really likely go with what they got, at least for now. As the chats on traderumors puts it: they have a reasonable shot at a wild card at least if not the division as they are currently constructed, so start the season seeing what you got and react accordingly. It's not a terrible plan, but if a quality, experienced, late-inning arm is available at an affordable rate (as I suspect he will be at this stage) then they should add him. Bullpens are volatile, more than anything else in this game. Therefore you need to stack them with depth and guys with long history of bullpen success are a wise addition.
*Note: Shortly after publishing this I see Clippard signed with the Indians. My terrible choices continue...

From Constance to Worms: Hus & Luther

"Today you roast a goose, but you will hear a swan rise from the ashes whom you will be unable to roast."

-Jan Hus

The above quote is unlikely to be authentic from Hus, if for no other reason one only need look at the various versions of it out there (and especially the ones that give a date of "a hundred years from now" after the word "but"), but its attribution is nonetheless important as it has long been used (by those who believe it to be true or those who doubt its authenticity) to draw a connection between the Czech Reformer and the German Reformer Martin Luther, who just over a hundred years later posted the 95 Theses upon the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.

This picture depicts Hus (right) and Luther (left) together serving communion in both kinds - a common point between their individual reformations.

Last year when teaching for my local synod's school of theology a class on the Reformation, I found myself reading quite a bit about the Council of Constance, which was a significant moment in studies of Reformation History for both its role in the rise of concilliarism (the laying of ultimate church authority upon a council) and the execution of one of the single most prominent reformers of the church prior to the period of Reformation that came with Martin Luther: Jan Hus (often put as John Huss in English). As I read a detailed accounting of the council (particularly from History of the Christian Church Vol VI by Schaff) I remember being struck by how many similarities existed between Hus' trial and that of Luther at the Diet of Worms. And today felt it might be a nice day to share some of those commonalities.

It should also be noted that Luther himself had exposure to Hus' works and had carefully examined the decrees of church councils, especially in advance of and in the aftermath from the Leipzig debate of 1519 where he and Johann Eck debated the topic of church (and especially Papal) authority. There Hus was directly cited and used by Eck to decry Luther's teachings and Luther (after examining some of Hus' teachings that were condemned) claimed the church may have wrongly charged him a heretic. The next year in his Address to the German Nobility he outright stated :

"...we must honestly confess the truth and stop justifying ourselves. We must admit to the Bohemians that John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned at Constance against the papal, Christian, imperial oath, and promise of safe-conduct...Second, the emperor and princes should send a few really upright and sensible bishops and scholars [to the Bohemians]. On no account should they send a cardinal or a papal legate or inquisitor, for such people are most unversed in Christian things. They do not seek the salvation of souls, but, like all the pope's henchmen, only their own power, profit, and prestige. In fact, these very people were the chief actors in this miserable business at Constance." 

These words suggest that Luther has some knowledge of the events of the Council of Constance. They are significant to me, because they cause me to wonder if (and this is something I have never heard any scholar suggest or reflect upon) Luther's words at the Diet of Worms were drawn from his knowledge of the Hus' words at the Council of Constance, especially since we also know Luther came to hold Hus in high esteem as a Christian, saying at one point that if Hus "is to be regarded as a heretic, then no person under the sun can be looked upon as a true Christian."

Luther before the Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms

Let's begin with Luther. Expecting an opportunity to speak before the emperor he was met instead with two questions that were to be answered in the affirmative or negative (yes or no): was the pile of books on the table before him his (to which his lawyer asked the names of those books to be read aloud) and would he recant of their errors, which had already been judged? To the first question he answered in the affirmative, and indicated he had written more than what was laid out on the table. He asked for time to consider the second question since it touches God, the Word, and salvation. Following a one day reprieve he then gave his reply. It was roughly a 10-minute speech (first given in German, then repeated in Latin), during which he was being pressed for a simple answer. He divided his works into three parts: the first laying out clear and plain Christian truths that even opponents embraced, and he certainly could not recant those. The second were directed against the errors of the pope and papacy, which he again could not recant for fear of encouraging such tyranny. The last portion were directed at his opponents and there he confessed of speaking too harshly, but he could not recant the works themselves because these individuals were defending the pope's tyranny. In the end he was reminded that he had not answered the question clearly laid before him, and he was to give a simple answer. It is at this time that we come of the point of Luther's trial at Worms that many know and which I see as having some direct connections to Hus. Luther replies:

Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed: Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, amen.

While most assume that was the end of the diet, or at least Luther's part in it, that was not quite accurate. Though it was hardly as dramatic as the formal hearing or the shouts of "long live Luther" coupled with "to the fire with him" by opposing camps, for days after various dignitaries met with Luther to try to dissuade him from his position. It was only after it was clear all that would not dissuade him and the Emperor Charles gave him permission to leave, choosing to honor the safe-conduct promise he made, that Luther departed.

Now lets look at Hus. His time in Constance lasted months as opposed to days, however his replies at certain moments are significant as we look at Luther's. Hus was invited to the Council by the "King of the Romans" Sigismund under a promise of safe conduct to confess his faith and teachings before the council for examination. Much like Luther, he was warned by friends not to go but answered the summons in full realization it may cost him his life. He spent a good deal of the time imprisoned after he was accused of attempting to flee (what many scholars argue was a superfluous charge), first in the dungeon of a convent, later in a bishop's castle. Unlike Luther, he was not granted an advocate for his hearings. Unlike Charles, Sigismund did not honor his promise of safe-conduct (the very thing that made Luther nervous to trust Charles' promise). The council defended the decision by stating heretics had no right to safe conduct, since any promise made that would be prejudicial against the church was a promise that could (indeed must!) be broken. When Hus was finally brought before the Council's committee to judge his case, his responses were also constantly interrupted, and he was prompted to reply "Yes or No". It was then in his second hearing, when asked about his response to the charges laid against him, he too invoked God and his conscience being on his side and that being enough. Hus too had regular meetings with ecclesiastical dignitaries urging him to recant and submit to the church's decision, to which Schaff writes "He was convinced that none of the articles brought against him were contrary to the Gospel of Christ, but canon law ruled at councils, not Scriptures." In meeting with his chief inquisitors on July 5th, he stated that he would gladly be burned a thousand times than abjure which would offend those whom he had taught. Most notable may however be his response, first given on June 8th, 1415 when the 39 charges were read against him (later repeated in one of the final attempts by the cardinals to convince him to retract his work), he expressed himself ready to revoke his statements that were proven by scriptures and good arguments to be untrue, but he would not revoke any that were not so proved. Unlike Luther, his persistence would not end in him walking away but rather being condemned, burned, and his ashes scattered down stream.

Jan Hus before the Council of Constance. 

We can see in his responses many elements of Luther's final speech in his own trial. Like Luther, Hus appealed to God and his conscience (well, Luther to God's Word and conscience). Hus also showed distrust in the decisions and did not hold high the authority of councils and insisted that it must be by scripture and sound arguments - something Luther did too (although he was generally more skeptical of the philosophy of his day being so steeped in Aristotelian thought and asked for "clear reason", more akin to his concept of the "plain meaning" of things). And lastly, they both were clear they would recant on those grounds, but only those grounds and otherwise would not.

Luther drafted his own defense for his trial, but when that was brushed aside and he was asked for a simple answer of yes or no, his response may very well have been formulated by his knowledge of Hus' response 106 years earlier. This may be especially true if Luther felt at that moment, when his words were brushed aside that he was bound to die. At that point, we may wonder if he felt it best to go out in a similar manner to Hus, trying to tie himself in succession (although Luther's triumphant arm raise as he walked out of his hearing has been likened to that of knights raising their lance after a successful joust). We may never know for sure, but given the similarities of their responses (granted Hus had more as well and his were spread out over some time as opposed to Luther's being condensed in a single speech), it is surprising that I have yet to encounter any discussion on the similarities of their responses (even if one simply postures that they are similar by coincidence and not intention as I am more inclined to believe).

Perhaps there is a letter by Luther saying he made the whole speech up himself. Perhaps the themes of his speech are too similar to what he'd been saying all along to not feel so clearly and authentically Luther. Or maybe he was once asked about a connection and denied it. It should perhaps be noted that in Address to the German Nobility he did at one moment say the jury on Hus as a heretic was still out for him, and that was one year before Worms. Although his response upon reading Hus that year when some Hussites sent him some of the man's work, along with his exposure to some of Hus' sermons during his time in Erfert were all positive and his hesitancy in that treatise may also be out of concern that he might lose support if deemed a Hussite which Eck was already charging him of being after the Leipzig Debate.

Nevertheless, one thing is certain: Luther's survival at Worms was owed in part to Hus' death at Constance. For one, Luther's refusal to go to Rome (and Frederick's refusal to surrender him) prior to Worms was owed in part to the knowledge that Hus was not given a fair trial nor was his safe passage honored. And when the German princes upon Charles' election insisted upon (among other things) his promise that no German would be sentenced without a trial in Germany they wanted that honored for Luther. The sad reputation that many (especially out of Bohemian and Polish lands) held for Sigismund may also have shaped Charles' willingness to honor his word, considering he wanted Luther killed and Lutheranism to be snuffed out (something he finally moved for in the Smalcald Wars). With the delicate state of his wars with France and Turks he could not afford rejection by the German princes. But even the Catholic princes did not want Luther put to death. While some of that may be based in the power struggle that was going on between the princes and emperor, it also is almost certainly because of their knowledge of the fallout of Hus' own death, which entailed a bloody war in Bohemia and a crusade called against Hussites that ultimately failed and required concessions to the Ultraquists. That coupled with the greater success under the Borgias of suppressing the movement of Giralomo Savonarola they knew it was better for Luther to recant than to be a martyr.

One last note. Both men end with appeals to God for help. Luther finishes his speech "God help me" and Hus dies singing "O Christ, Thou Lamb of God, have mercy on me."

What do you think? Am I stretching things too thin or am I onto something?

John 2: The Mary Question

So I like to sometimes go into unpreachable but ponderable elements of the Bible texts on here from time to time and today lends us one of those opportunities. For those not up on our Gospel reading for Sunday from John 2 (the miracle of water turned to wine) allow me to post it below for a quick catch up:

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." 6 Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 8 He said to them, "Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward." So they took it. 9 When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now." 11 Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.


Now the question that I ponder this week is this: who is Mary to this wedding that she is aware of the situation before even the chief steward or the bridegroom? I call this unpreachable because we are very firmly going into the realm of speculation in the possibilities I ponder, but I find them interesting to consider:

Scenario 1: For years I assumed Mary must be a family friend. After all, why else get so involved and be so in the know. My problem with this assumption is that it doesn't really answer for me why she would be aware of the wine situation before the steward or bridegroom. Perhaps she happened to be at the right place at right time to overhear the dilemma or maybe she even asked for wine and they told her they were out. But for some reason, the more I contemplate other possibilities, the less likely this one seems to me since it requires her to somehow happen to be in the know. It could happen, but seems odd. Although Jesus' response to his mother may give some weight to it.

Scenario 2: The next one I considered this week - and perhaps most interesting one in terms of the light it sheds on characters of the story - is that Mary is in fact one of the servants. This would answer a lot: how she was aware of the situation, since the other servants appear to be the only other people in the know at the time. It would also explain what Mary is doing in Cana, John mentions her presence before and apart from Jesus (whereas his disciples are more clearly linked with his arrival). Thus this may indicate she was working at this wedding. This would shed a lot of light on Mary's situation presently (especially if, as is generally assumed, Joseph is dead by this point), and would in general jive with the reality that she was not well off (remember Luke tells us that she and Joseph paid the poor man's cost when they presented Jesus to the Lord at the Temple. See Luke 2:24, Leviticus 12:8). The difficulty I have with this is perhaps how easily Mary appears to leave the host's service, as John 2:12 states she leaves with Jesus to Capernaum and I'm unsure if it would be so easily done (although the Greek word here is diakonoi for the servants and not douloi which would be a much more likely term if her service was entered into as a slave).

Scenario 3: This is a family wedding. And to be specific, I'm not thinking simply distant relation (which would be similar in situation and issues as scenario 1) but that this is an immediate relation, perhaps one of Jesus' siblings. A brother seems less likely given the Bridegroom has servants and a steward, and as we mentioned in Scenario 2 Mary and Joseph did not seem to be well off to put on such a gathering, of course that could explain not having enough wine to supply the party. It could also explain why Mary was "there" in Cana, potentially living under the care of that son at this time. Although Jesus' response to her suggests he doesn't see the shortcoming of wine to be the responsibility of her or him. Perhaps then it is a daughter (sister to Jesus), as sisters are mentioned in Mark 6:3. In that situation Jesus' family would only be providing the dowry (*I think - will have to look into this later) but not be responsible directly for the wine, yet it would explain why Mary is in the know and still why she might be concerned about the wedding running out of wine. It would also explain why sisters are not mentioned in the following verse of the family move to Capernaum for a short time. However the Mark reference makes it more likely they were living in Nazareth (though Cana is not far north of Nazareth). Also, I'm still not sure that adequately explains Jesus' puzzled response to his mother.

So that's some of what I'm pondering. Perhaps I missed an idea. What do you think?