Monday, August 24, 2026

Sermon for the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Year A, "Good Trouble," Exodus 1:8-20 (Proper 16, Ordinary 21)

Sermon 8/23/2026 

Exodus 1:8-20


Good Trouble



8 Now a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. 9 He said to his people, “Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor. They built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh. 12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread, so that the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites. 13 The Egyptians subjected the Israelites to hard servitude 14 and made their lives bitter with hard servitude in mortar and bricks and in every kind of field labor. They were ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them.


15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 “When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this and allowed the boys to live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” 20 So God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and became very strong.



The book of Exodus quickly brings us to troubling words, just a few verses in to the very first chapter. “Now a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph.” Someone doesn’t remember the nation’s history, and it immediately sets the stage for oppression and mistreatment. That’s an unfortunately familiar story, and it is one that is as ancient as the Bible. The “Joseph” this text speaks about is the “Joseph” of coat-of-many-colors fame, whose story we find in the last several chapters of the book of Genesis. He was a favorite child of his father, Jacob, and his jealous brothers had him sold into enslavement and faked his death. But Joseph was smart and clever, and he had a gift for interpreting dreams - well, the dreams of others. He wasn’t so good at understanding his own dreams. His gift led him to become a major asset to the Pharaoh, the King of Egypt, as Joseph helped Egypt, and his brothers and the emerging Hebrew people along with them, avoid starvation during a years-long famine. Joseph was a hero to the Egyptians and to the Hebrews. 

And so when we hear that a new leader in Egypt doesn’t remember any of this history, we know that there will be consequences, and we see that very quickly in our reading for today. The new king observes that over the years, the Hebrews who moved to Egypt were growing in number. And he thinks ahead, calculating, and fearing the day when there will be more Hebrews than Egyptians. When this happens, worries the Pharaoh, surely the Hebrews will join with the Egyptians’ enemies to overthrow them and take the land for themselves. If this sounds to you like the Great Replacement Theory, an ideology of the ultra-far right that suggests that immigrants and minorities are intentionally trying to replace and eliminate white people in Europe and the US, you’re right. It is basically the same fear the Pharaoh expresses, millennia earlier, fueled by the same fear of the “other.” 

So, even though we hear of no such colluding on the part of the Hebrews to work to overthrow the Egyptians, the king decides to enslave all of the Hebrews into forced labor, making the lives of the Hebrews bitter and hard. Yet, this does nothing to reduce the burgeoning population of Hebrews. So the Pharaoh goes a step further. He orders Shiphrah and Puah - two Egyptian women who act as midwives to Hebrew mothers - he orders them to kill any baby boys who are born.

Shiphrah and Puah, though, do not comply, do not follow orders. Exodus tells us that they “feared God,” a description for non-Jewish people who respect or connect with the God os Judaism - they are words that are an expression of a person’s faith. And they let the boys live. When Pharaoh confronts them, they lie. They tell him that the Hebrew women simply give birth too quickly, already giving birth before the midwives arrive. Their actions save lives. Indeed, after this passage we see that a baby boy, allowed to live, and eventually adopted by Pharaoh’s own daughter, is Moses - the very child who will become the leader who leads his people to freedom.  

The Pharaoh says that he’s trying to be shrewd - showing cleverness, practical smarts. But he’s really just cruel. It’s Shiphrah and Puah who are shrewd. They know what the Pharaoh is doing is cruel and wrong. And maybe they don’t feel they have the power to speak up and risk a direct confrontation with him. But instead, they assess the power that they do have, and they use their situation to the best of their ability. They don’t see themselves as helpless. They’re aware of how they can wield their positions, and they do it. They take a risk. And maybe because they’re women, or they’re working with enslaved people, or other reasons - no one double checks what they’re doing. They’re discounted. And they change everything because of their daring. 

It can be scary, trying to resist oppression and injustice. Unfortunately, those who seek to oppress and belittle often have incredible resources of money and position on their side. It can feel like pushing back, resisting, is nearly impossible. And yet, our history, too quickly forgotten, gives us stories like Shiphrah and Puah’s, and more recent stories too. When I was reading over the text this week, what came to mind was the phrase “good trouble.” You might know a little of this history: Civil rights leader and longtime congressman from Georgia, the late John Lewis was the chair of the student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, or SNCC, during the 1960s. Lewis is remembered for a life of activism, often putting himself directly in the way of danger. In 1965, for example, Lewis and others marched from Selma, Alabama and attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, protesting against the police brutality against civil rights protesters. As Lewis and others tried to cross the bridge, state troopers attacked the marchers, leaving several, like Lewis, bloodied and beaten, an event eventually known as Bloody Sunday. 

Reflecting on his life’s work across various occasions, Lewis focused on the phrase, “Good Trouble.” At a commencement speech in 2014 at Emory University, he told graduates, ““You must find a way to get in the way. You must find a way to get in trouble. Good trouble. Necessary trouble. Use your education . . . use what you have, use your learning, use your tools, to help make our country and make our world a better place where no one will be left out or left behind. You can do it and you must do it. It is your time.” Just months before his death, at a commemoration of the Bloody Sunday events, he said, “I want to see young people in America feel the spirit of the 1960s and find a way to get in the way. To find a way to get in trouble. Good trouble, necessary trouble and redeem the soul of America.” 

These words really resonate with me: “Use your education . . . use what you have, use your learning, use your tools, to help make our country and make our world a better place where no one will be left out or left behind. You can do it and you must do it. It is your time.” Maybe we’re not like Moses, who took on the Pharaoh directly and led a whole people to freedom - although Moses also didn’t think he was Moses - didn’t think he could do what he did! - but we can all make good trouble in the face of injustice, even if we operate like Shiphrah and Puah. They knew what they did have the power to do, they used what they had, rather than dwelling on what was out of their control. They took action. And they saved lives. 

What can we do? Very recently, an issue came to my attention where I could see the opportunity for justice and reconciliation to take place, for reparations for past harm to come to fruition. I don’t mean to be vague, it’s only that the situation is still unfolding. What’s more important than the specifics today is how I responded, and how I wanted to respond. In this situation, where I saw what might be done to bring about justice, my impulse, my first action, was to tell my idea to some other people because I hoped they would do something about it. I wanted to hand it off, the concern I had, and let some others do the hard work. And they did give me advice, but they put the ball firmly back in my court. I’m trying hard not to make excuses for myself to not follow through, to convince myself I can’t make a difference before I’ve even begun to really try. I’m trying to remember the gifts and abilities and experience I have at my disposal to act for justice. I hope I can be brave and persistent, and make some good trouble. 

What good trouble can you stir up? Friends, in a world that seems doomed to ever forget its own history, oppression and injustice bubble up in new and insidious ways. Part of Christian witness is calling each other into remembrance - when we read the scriptures, when we sing the songs of faith, when we remember God’s acts of grace as we share in sacraments together. Remembering our history is part of our witness. And then, inspired by the stories of the good troublemakers, the saints of God who have gone before us, using whatever gifts God had given them, we go forth to join the struggle. Will we take all that we have, all that God has given us, and use it for some good trouble? Let us say yes, with God’s help, we will.

Amen.   




Tuesday, July 14, 2026

Sermon for the Feast of the Annunciation, "Between the Question and the Answer," Luke 1:26-38

I've been meaning to post this sermon for several months now!


Sermon 3/24/26

Luke 1:26-38


Between the Question and the Answer



I’ve been a United Methodist my whole life, and so I can’t say that I have ever celebrated the Feast of the Annunciation before, which is technically tomorrow, March 25th. The small Methodist community of my childhood, ever mindful of doing anything that seemed “too Catholic,” would definitely have been suspicious of a Feast Day focusing on Mary, mother of Jesus. As I was looking at the lectionary readings for this week, though, I noticed the readings for the Feast of the Annunciation tucked in there, and I just couldn’t pass them over. And then when WoMA focused on Mary’s Magnificat for part of their chapel last Tuesday it felt even more “right,” this tugging toward Mary’s story. 

The Feast of the Annunciation is the day that we remember the Angel Gabriel visiting Mary with the news that Mary has been chosen to carry and give birth to God-in-the-flesh, a child who will be named Jesus. In the Roman Rite, the Feast of the Annunciation is a solemnity, a holy day that celebrates a mystery of faith. And indeed, the incarnation of Jesus, and Mary being filled with the Holy Spirit as means of the incarnation - that is full of mystery, isn’t it? The Feast of the Annunciation is celebrated, sensibly, nine months before Christmas - the length of a pregnancy. And so it falls, always, during Lent - only adjusted if it actually falls during Holy Week itself. Today, then, we celebrate the Annunciation - the beginning of the beginning of Jesus’s life - even as next week we will remember his crucifixion. The juxtaposition is a little jarring. 


I, like many of you, am preparing to graduate from Drew this May, but also like many of you, I am not quite there yet. I have a dissertation that’s written, but not yet defended, and a graduation fee that’s been paid for months, but no diploma in my hand. But even though I am not yet finished, and there is no guarantee yet of finishing, I’m planning for, I must plan for, and imagine the future, working on the assumption that there is a “what’s next” after this. I know some of you are in similar situations - making plans for a future that isn’t yet guaranteed, not quite. To draw on President Obama’s language, it is the audacity of hope. 

And I think that’s what celebrating the Annunciation during Lent is like. It’s this audacious, bold hope that is planning on new life that comes after heartache. In the sombre wilderness of Lent, we’re already hearing about the incarnation of God in our midst that is to come. It’s Dean Tanya’s family preparing for new life in their midst even as they are mourning her death. It’s people living under fascist and authoritarian rule planning for a future that’s dependent on the end of oppressive regimes. It’s building for a future that trusts that the present heartache is not endless, not the only thing, and not the last thing. And so, Annunciation. An announcement of good news. This incredible, miraculous, seemingly impossible hope for the future that shows up right in the thick of Lent.    


So, what exactly happens in this annunciation text, an account we find only in Luke’s gospel? God sends the angel Gabriel to deliver a message to Mary, a young women - a virgin, we’re told, who was engaged to a man named Joseph, who was of David’s house, and who was living in Galilee, in Nazareth. Gabriel shows up and says, “Greetings, Mary, favored one” - which literally means one to whom grace has been shown. “God is with you,” Gabriel says. This greeting alone is confounding to Mary, and she ponders the angel's words - which here means that she has a kind of internal debate about them, weighing and measuring these words. Although it would make for some nice symmetry, the word used here is not the same as when Mary is pondering everything that happens with Jesus’s birth in Chapter 2. This pondering is a bit more deliberative, perhaps even more skeptical, or at least uncertain. 

Gabriel, perhaps reading that uncertainty, tries to assure Mary: “Don’t be afraid.” He reiterates that Mary has found favor with God - God’s grace is with her. And then the Big Thing: “You will conceive and bear a son named Jesus, and he will be the Son of God, who will have an eternal claim to the throne of David, and he’ll reign endlessly. 

Mary asks, “How can this be, since I have never had sex?” 

Gabriel responds that the Holy Spirit will come upon her, and she will be “overshadowed” by the power of the Most High - language that we see again during the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountaintop. Mary’s child will be holy. Mary’s child will be God’s son. And, in case that’s not enough, Mary’s relative Elizabeth, an older woman, who was thought to be unable to have children, is pregnant too. Because, as Gabriel concludes, “nothing will be impossible with God.” 

And then Mary says, “Here I am, a slave of God,” language that Mary returns to in Magnificat, when she envisions the systems of domination-upending that God will do through her. “Let things happen to me just as you’ve said.” And Gabriel, satisfied, departs. 


I don’t know about you, but my initial reaction to this text is that I’d have had a few (hundred) more questions than Mary seems to have. She asks one question, which Gabriel answers in weird language. And that’s enough for Mary to respond, “Yes, fine, that works for me.” Uh, what? How about: Why me? How about: What will I tell Joseph? How about: How much trouble will this get me in? How about: What do you mean, God’s child? How about: Will you protect me if I agree to this? How about: so many other questions! 

I’d like to believe that we’re seeing here what we often see in Biblical accounts of conversations. The scriptures have a different sense of time than we do. This conversation seems to take mere seconds as we read it through. But maybe this exchange happens over the course of hours, or days. Maybe Mary’s pondering lasted for some long time, giving her ample time to think it all over. And maybe we’re not seeing here what we regularly don’t see in Biblical conversations: the whole story. So many conversations in the scriptures seem to drop off without resolution, like how on TV shows people never seem to end conversations when they’re on the phone. They don’t say goodbye. They just hang up. So I’d like to believe that Mary really asks every question she has, but that Luke considers all of this uninteresting. All that matters to Luke is that Mary agrees with the plan. 

And no doubt, that’s an important detail. But there are some other parts of this exchange between Gabriel and Mary that interest me too. What I find most interesting is this: Although we don’t hear Gabriel pose God’s plan as a question to Mary - “Would you be ok, Mary, with being overshadowed by the Most High?” - she seems to receive it as one. Mary says “Yes,” and her yes, her consent, implies her understanding that she was being asked, even if everything we read in this story is expressed as a statement of what will assuredly be according to God’s plan. 

Mary says yes - and her yes implies that she could also have said no. And that is so, so important. Because I don’t believe that “God’s will” is something that is supposed to be visited upon us by force, without our consent, without our participation. Rather, I think we do better when we think of “will of God” as God’s dreams, God’s best hope, God’s most creative, inspired plan for what might be, what might become, what might be called forth if we, God’s partners, God’s co-creators, you and me - if we say yes to God’s imagination. I like all of those images better than “God’s will,” which makes God a dictator, and us passive recipients. Mary did not hear Gabriel’s announcement passively. Indeed, many biblical figures do not. Jesus does not. Mary listens, ponders, and decides that she can see God’s vision, can see that saying yes will lead to the liberative work she proclaims just verses after our text in the Magnificat. 

Mary could have said no, I think. And thinking about that made me wonder - maybe there were others who were visited by Gabriel who did say no. Maybe Mary was not the first. Maybe she was just the first to say yes.  

We do not have to say yes to the potential futures God lays before us. God’s will - if we must call it that - isn’t coercive. We can say, “I just can’t imagine that future right now, I’m sorry.” And I think that’s ok - truly. I don’t think God punishes us for not being ready, for not embracing God’s dream. Sometimes, we are not ready. Sometimes, we have a different vision to offer to God. Sometimes, we need to do some more healing, or more growing first. Sometimes, we need to ask a lot of questions before we’ll be ready to say yes. And sometimes, we just can’t grasp, yet, the new life that’s coming beyond the Good Friday that looms large before us. We can say “Take this cup from me.” We can say no. Or not now

But I do think we miss out, then, on being part of the impossible becoming possible. Saying “yes” is like imagining, even in the midst of our worst grief, that there will yet be joy. 

Somehow, Mary could imagine exactly what God was imagining, and ever is imagining: the humbled exalted and the exalted humbled, the hungry filled with good things. Liberation. Justice. Life. She could imagine with God, and so she answered what she knew to be an invitation. “Here I am. May it be so.” 

In these days of Lent, in these quickly waning days of another semester, in these days where we can barely stand to look at the news, in these days when our community is in mourning, in these days when it seems that less and less is possible for our planetary future, in these days when it sometimes feels as if evil will prevail… in these days, can you imagine - will you imagine - will you cultivate your imagination - will you listen to what God is imagining - what comes after this grief? 

Amen.



Sermon for the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Year A, "Good Trouble," Exodus 1:8-20 (Proper 16, Ordinary 21)

Sermon 8/23/2026  Exodus 1:8-20 Good Trouble 8 Now a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. 9 He said to his people, “Look, the ...