Mother Claire's Sermons

20th century theologian Karl Barth was once at a party where he was asked if the snake in the garden did indeed talk, to which he responded, “Madam, it does not matter whether or not the serpent really spoke; what matters is what the serpent said.” No text in Genesis (or likely the entire Bible) has been more used, interpreted, and misunderstood than the story of the snake and Eve. This applies to careless, popular theology as well as to the doctrine of the church. (Brueggemann, 41) It has been assumed that today’s text from Genesis is a decisive text for the Bible and that it states the premise for all that follows. In fact, this is an exceedingly marginal text. No clear subsequent reference to it is made in the Old Testament. And even in the New Testament the linkage developed in the Augustinian tradition of anthropology regarding original sin and human nature is based on the argument of Paul in the early chapters of Romans. Even Paul does not make general appeal to this text. (41) F...

Commentator Paul Hanson titles his chapter on Isaiah 58, “Your Own Interests, or the Interests of God?” In order for that question to really sink in, it’s important to remember that the “I” in the reading is not Isaiah, personally. What makes the people listen to Isaiah is that he speaks on behalf of God. He’s God’s mouthpiece. Or perhaps it is better stated that they are God’s mouthpiece. Because, Isaiah is not even one person; there are at least three separate voices from the person called “Isaiah”, probably more. What matters is that all of the “me”s, “my”s, and “I”s in here are God. Even more than that, they are a God who speaks in poetry, not prose. In today’s text we are two chapters into what Bible scholars call “Third Isaiah”. We are coming out of the reminder in Second Isaiah that the redemptive activity of God occurs within the real stuff of human experience and world history. Although it is poetic in its language, it is not to be diminished as being solely metaphor. The savi...

My husband and six-year-old took advantage of the bitterly cold weather last weekend to finish playing the Legend of Zelda game Tears of the Kingdom together. She loves to backseat game with him. She has many questions about the plot and many suggestions about what he ought to do. At one point in the game, Zelda swallows this stone that turns her into an immortal dragon, incapable of human thought and feeling. The dragon embodies her innate light, allowing her to live until the Master Sword and Link are prepared for the final battle. Zelda sacrificed her personhood to immortality to save her kingdom. My husband said the first time he played Tears of the Kingdom , that scene almost brought him to tears. This experience of Zelda has got me thinking about ways in which immortality is presented in stories. Typically, whoever is immortal is not to be envied, but rather pitied. Those who strive for immortality typically don’t receive it, or they do so in such a way that makes them instantl...