Thank God for Amos!

 

Sermon. 13 July 2025. Saham Toney. Trinity 4 (Year C)

(Old Testament readings from Continuous Track)

Amos 7.7-17

Luke 10:25-37

 

Amos.

 

Amos. I have said the word, and the roof hasn’t fallen in, and we haven’t fallen out. So I’ll say the word again:

 

Amos!

 

If there is anyone who doesn’t know, “Amos” was one the options for the name of our benefice, our benefice of Ashill, Merton, Ovington, and Saham Toney churches. A.M.O.S. It was not to be. The bishop said no. That battle is over. I had no part in the discussion or the decision. It predates me. But it’s not a secret that some would still like us to be “AMOS”. And so controversy attaches to the very name.

 

Actually, controversy attaches to this morning’s reading from Amos in another way. “Controversy” is a bit strong. I mean: a decision was made which can fairly be questioned. What do I mean? I need to go back a stage.

 

Our readings come from a set cycle which is actually ecumenical, shared with many others, most notably with our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers. It is called the “Revised Common Lectionary”. But! But every now and then the Church of England allows itself to deviate from that common, ecumenical cycle of readings. And one such time is actually the whole of this long season of Green that we are now well into. The season after Trinity, sometimes called “Ordinary Time”. When it comes to this season, there are two tracks of readings from the Old Testament. And we Church of England people are supposed to choose between one track or the other. (You’re not supposed to keep switching, week by week.) One track is called “Related”. And “Related” means related… to the Gospel. Yes, like on other Sundays of the year, the Old Testament reading anticipates, or echoes, or augments, or helps us reflect on one theme in the Gospel of the day. But the Church of England allows itself a whole other track of readings. And that is called… “Continuous”. The idea is that we let the Gospel stand on its own, and we work our way through some books of the Old Testament “continuously”. Except of course we do no such thing. The Old Testament – at least four times as long as the New – is just too big for that. So what we do is work our way through some “edited highlights” of some Old Testament books. 

 

Is the Church of England right to let us go our own way, differing from other churches, in this way? It is, as I have intimated, controversial – at least in those circles where these things are discussed. I won’t hide my own view from you. I think the case for it is weak. So it’s the sort of thing we might do every now and again (every year and again!), but not normally. But, hey, here we are! We are doing it this year. So a note to all those who prepare for worship here (whether as leaders or just as interested people), in these Green Sundays, this year, don’t go looking for a deliberate link between the Old Testament and the Gospel. There may be links, but they are coincidental, not intended.    

 

I can see that you are finding this discussion a detail of the shape of our readings scintillating! Or just maybe not. So let me cut to the chase. Let me give you a very clear, very practical message. This sermon is going to give you something to do (something I’ll do only rarely). My suggestion is this. In the week ahead – maybe in the heat of the day, when you have your curtains and blinds drawn, or maybe in an evening, when you can sit in your garden in the cool of the day - read through the Book of Amos. It’s not that onerous. It’s called a “Book” by convention only. Amos is a mere nine chapters. It’s as little as six pages, or thereabouts. So: read Amos.

 

Here’s some context. Amos arose in the middle of the 8^th century before Christ. So around 750 BC. In today’s reading we get to know his background. He was a cattle-herder and a sycamore-tree-dresser. (I’m still not quite sure how you dress sycamore trees, and to be fair, nobody is.*) He was from Judah, the Southern Kingdom, and felt compelled to go to Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and speak words from Gd, words of judgment, of sharp, sharpest criticism. So he wasn’t a prophet by profession. He was a farmer first. And when he says he wasn’t a prophet’s son, he isn’t really telling us anything about his father. He is saying he is not one of the “Sons of the Prophets”, which really means be didn’t belong to a “Guild of the Prophets”. He wasn’t a civil servant who got paid by the king to speak holy words or encouraging words or esoteric words, to order. He was a man on a mission, his own unique mission. He is also, by the way, the first prophet to write down his words, in beautiful Hebrew poetry.  

 

It happens that Amos is one of my heroes. That the Book of Amos is in the Bible is one of the things that gives me hope. It is one of the fascinations of the Bible. It is proof that the Bible was not a book put together by religious people for the edification of other religious people. It’s much, much stranger than that.

 

What is it about Amos that so draws me? It’s that he condemns religious people in the strongest terms. Hear this from chapter five. Gd says:

I hate, I despise your festivals,

and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.

Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,

I will not accept them;

and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals

I will not look upon.

Take away from me the noise of your songs;

I will not listen to the melody of your harps. [5.21-23; cf. 4.4-5]

 

And the objection is not to idolatry. There are two – just maybe three – references to idolatry in Amos [2.4??; 5.26; 8.14]. But these are hugely outweighed by other references. So the worship that Gd hates is actually worship of Gd, of Gd named aright, of Gd of the covenant. Israel is worshipping the Gd of Israel… and Gd of Israel hates it! What is going on? Amos is clear that the people are combining worship that is right in its form with mistreatment of the poor among them, a mistreatment that is nothing short of cruelty. Here’s how he puts it, back in chapter two: '[you] trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way'. Strong stuff.

 

To be clear about two things. Gd’s harsh criticism of Gd’s people in Amos’ mouth is not that they combine worship with sin. We all combine worship with sin. That is our human condition, in this life. This is why seeking forgiveness is so central to our worship. The forgiveness of our sins both enables worship and is a large part of the content of our worship, and thank Gd for that. Amos’ criticism is so dramatic because they are so lost in their sins that they cannot see them. They are lost in their comforts, and their excesses, and truly have no sense of the price poor people are paying for their lifestyles. They combine worship that is right in form with utter smugness. And that – that Gd condemns.

 

We are not left in condemnation. We know what we have to do to avoid Gd’s condemnation: come carrying the needs of others in our hearts; come humbly, come indeed with compassion, the compassion of the good Samaritan, like Amos, another outsider who got things right.

 

To avoid any doubt, Amos was not named after the villages of Ashill, Merton, Ovington, and Saham Toney (sorry about that)! We don’t know the meaning of his name. It may well have something to do with burden, or weight, or load. So let me say again: we do come here carrying a certain kind of burden. Not of guilt. Not of shame. But the burden of authentically carrying the needs of others in our hearts. We come humbly. We come indeed with compassion. Compassion to meet Gd of compassion.

 

Amen.

* A member of the congregation did spend the afternoon reading Amos, and looking into what a dresser of sycamore trees might actually do. He says that he found out it really means figs. Discuss? 

 

Gd's Offer of Love and Our Response

Sermon. 8 October 2017. St Michael and All Angels, Little Ilford

Trinity 17 (Year A)

Isaiah 5.1-7

Psalm 80.9-17

Matthew 21.33-end

Isaiah 5.1-7 - own over-literal translation [not preached]:

Let me sing now for my beloved

the song of my love, about his vineyard.

A vineyard there was for my beloved

on a ‘horn’ a ‘son of oil’ [of a hill].

And he dug it over, and he de-stoned it, 

and he planted it [with] [a] vine.

And he built  a watchtower in its midst, 

and even a wine-press he dug in it. 

And he hoped for [it] to make grapes,

but it made stinking things.

And now, dweller of Jerusalem, and man of Judah,

judge [ye] now between me and [between] my vineyard.

What [would be] to do more for my vineyard

that I did not do it in it?

Why did I hope for [it] it to make grapes

and it made stinking things? 

And now let me make you know now

what I myself am on the point of doing to my vineyard.

Making turn away its hedge, and it will be for devouring;

breeching its wall, and it will be for a trampling. 

And I will make it a desolation [Hebrew uncertain - Greek: I will forsake my vineyard]

and it will not be pruned and it will not be hoed

and there will grow up thorn and thistle.

And to the clouds I will command

away from raining upon it rain. 

For the vineyard of YHWH of Forces is the House if Israel

and the Man of Judah is the planting of his delightful-delight.

And he looked for fairness but behold blood-flow;

for rightness but behold roaring! 

There is a school of thought in Christian teaching which has been very influential and powerful. I’ll give you its names. It is known as ‘supersessionism’ or ‘replacement theology’. (Those two tend to mean the same thing.) The terms may sound abstract or complicated. But it’s not hard to say what it means. 

It’s this: the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible can be divided up. Systematically. 

All the blessings and promises move from the People Israel to the Church; 

all the curses and threats stay with the People Israel. 

• Blessings, promises - Church
• Curses, threats - Jews. 

I say this because our First Reading and our Gospel today (they hang together, remember) have been used to reinforce this line of teaching. In the first reading, a vineyard goes to seed, or goes wrong. And the text is clear: the vines are the Houses of Israel and Judah, and are judged for it. Even: devoured and trampled on. The gospel clearly echoes precisely this story (even down to some of the vocabulary), but the parts are altered. Now it’s the people in charge of the vineyard who mess up. And Jesus is just as clear: these represent the leaders of the Jewish people, and the kingdom is to be taken away from them. 

So you can perhaps see how the idea arose:

• Blessings, promises - Church
• Curses, threats - Jews. 

Sisters and brothers, we know each other fairly well by now. You will know that I think this school of thought is wrong, very wrong. It is wrong for all kinds of reasons. The most fundamental reason is this: if Gd is such a Gd that Gd makes a promise, and then changes Gd’s own mind when people fail and fall into sin, withdraws the promise, and hands it over to others, then how do we know that Gd is still with us? After all, Christians have sinned, and the Church has failed, in all kinds of ways. Surely (if Gd changes Gd’s mind), we too deserve the curses and the threats, and Gd’s best bet is to try again with a third people, a fourth community? 

No, Gd as Gd is not like that. Gd does not change Gd’s mind. Gd is, as we say (and mean), faithful. When Gd makes a promise, the promise stands, whatever people do or don’t do. When Gd calls a people, called is who they are. It is their nature to be called. And if that is true of the Church (as we believe it is), then it must also be true of the People Gd called first (as, to exaggerate slightly, pretty much every page of the Bible insists), the People Israel. 

There are many other reasons why that division (blessings/promises - church; curses/threats - Jews) is so wrong.  One I want to draw out from the First Reading from the Hebrew Bible, from Isaiah. It is summed up by this phrase 'more in sorrow than in anger'. It’s a phrase we might hear in all kinds of contexts. I want to suggest it is a phrase which sums up how Gd is, when Gd makes negative statements. Gd speaks more in sorrow than in anger. 

For that first reading is a poem (isn’t it?). And as a poem it is a lament. It is a song of grief for a vineyard which had such great promise. It was made with the kind of care and attention which is love. Indeed, quite explicitly, this is the ‘song of my love’ about and for “my beloved”. Two terms are used (yadid and dod). The second we find throughout the great Love Song of the Bible, the Song of Songs. And here the repetition is quite intentional: ‘my beloved... song of my love... my beloved’. There is love here, intimacy (or a desire for intimacy), passion. That Gd loves us is not an idea which first comes with Jesus and in the New Testament. Isaiah (and other prophets) already knew of Gd’s love. Which is why it is so painful - for Gd, for people, for all parties - when human beings mess up - spurn Gd - when they do not respond to Gd’s love with love for Gd and one another. 

Our translation speaks of grapes and wild grapes. Gd loved the people so that they had every chance to build a community of love. They could have been fruitful. Indeed more than fruitful:  we are talking about grapes for wine; they could have been joyful, feasting, full of wine, company and song, we might say. 

But instead…  well, wild grapes doesn’t capture the Hebrew. The Hebrew means more literally ‘stinking things’ - so ‘foul fruit’, maybe. That’s the imagery that fits how wrong is the response of the people. It is summed up in that last line: the beloved hoped for ‘justice but saw bloodshed; righteousness, but heard a cry’. Again, the Hebrew is more powerful, with a play on words: 

he hoped for mishpat and got mispach, for tzedekah and got tza’akah.

So the message here is not that Gd is giving up on Gd’s People, and moving on. 
It is Gd’s own cry, urgent cry, desperate cry (we might almost say) 
for justice and righteousness - 
to and from the People Gd is sticking with. 

This cry has been Isaiah’s burden from the very beginning. In Isaiah’s opening chapter, he has Gd saying that Gd cannot abide the People’s religion - not even their prayers - and commands: 

‘cease to do evil, 

learn to do good; 

seek justice, 

rescue the oppressed, 

defend the orphan, 

plead for the widow.’ [1. 16bf] 

The message then is strong. Let me put it like this: 

‘Only worship me as much as you care for one another. 

Anything more than that stinks, stinks like rotten fruit. 

And if you want to know whether you are caring for one another, 

don’t look in the obvious places, 

like among your family and friends or people you are drawn to;

look to, well, “widows and orphans” in biblical language -

those who are weak, who are different, who are pushed out.

Only worship me as much as you care for the un-cared-for.’

A strong challenge. And one we can only bear if we remember the context. 
Remember: more in sorrow than in anger. 
The warning always comes within a love song. 
It is a song of unrequited love, for sure, and so is also lament. 
Gd loves us, and we… 
we do not hate Gd. 
But we somehow never quite get round to loving Gd back with any kind of consistency. 
So the fruit we might be bearing sometimes turns foul. 
As and when this happens, we don’t beat ourselves up.
We return to the love-song of Gd:

‘Let me sing for my beloved my love-song concerning his vineyard: 

My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. 

He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; 

he build a watch-tower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it’

so that it has all that it needs, to yield finest grapes.

Amen. 

Sermon. Read Amos - the Giant, Minor Prophet

Sermon. 18 September 2016, St Michael and All Angels, Little Ilford

Trinity 16 (Year C)

Amos 8:4-7:

Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land, saying, "When will the new moon be over so that we may sell grain; and the sabbath, so that we may offer wheat for sale? We will make the ephah small and the shekel great, and practice deceit with false balances, buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, and selling the sweepings of the wheat." The LORD has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds.

I was hoping today's would be short by my standards. Do you think I manage it? Of course, it's too late to take bets on it, but maybe you won't have to wait long to find out. What I can promise you is a very short summary. In fact, two words...

READ AMOS.

Or, more extensively, read the whole of the Book of the Prophet Amos, from which today's First Reading comes. What do you think?

Well, the good news is that to call it a 'Book' is just a convention; It is in fact just nine chapters. Here it is [shows], over six pages. It can be read in twenty minutes. So, will you do it? Or would you prefer a longer sermon...? Let's see...

Who was Amos? Amos was a prophet who was around, early-to-middle eighth century before Christ. Although he was from the South, Judah, he prophesied in the North, Israel. In his days, Judah and Israel are indeed divided, but they are rubbing along and doing pretty well. The Northern Kingdom has expanded northwards, and the two kingdoms together may even cover the same territory as at Israel's glory days – by which I mean, of course... back in Solomon's day. And with that expansion, there is much wealth; the rich are flourishing.

That's the context into which Amos (like most, well, all the prophets) spoke hard, negative things. To the rulers he threatened poverty, calamity, exile, and death. (Yes, it's as bad as that.) So he was 'advised' (by a cautious, bureaucratic priest; who else?) to leave the North and go home. That is presumably why he wrote down his prophecies. And, note: that is actually a new idea; Amos is the first prophet we know of to write down prophecies, the earliest of the written prophets. He's called a 'Minor Prophet', but that's only because his text is short; he's actually a revolutionary.

And Amos is revolutionary in other ways. It's actually evident in today's passage. You see, Amos is very critical, but one thing he does not criticise the people, or the rulers for... he does not condemn them for being religiously faithless. On the contrary, there's no doubt about it: the people of Israel are very, very religious. You have heard it in today's reading: they are good at observing both the Sabbath and the New Moons (and since new moons aren't all that important in the Israelite pattern of worship, presumably they kept all the festivals). Elsewhere, Amos insists they love and relish their religious practices [4.4-5].

What is more, at least in their own minds, subjectively, their religious activity is addressed to the true Gd. For Amos, the problem is not that the people are lost or trapped in idolatry (as for some prophets). There are two, or if you really stretch things maybe three references to so-called 'other gods' or alien religious practices in Amos – and that is it [2.4 ??; 5.26; 8.14]. When the People name Gd in worship, they do indeed use the nameless name given to Moses [e.g.5.18]. They are – in that formal sense – faithful to the One Gd.

What then is the problem - the devastating problem which means the prophet promises their devastation? It is that the powerful and rich among the people combine their worship of One Gd (which is on the face of it quite proper) with neglect of, and scorn for, and even violence against the poor and powerless people among them. We've already heard it: 'you that trample on the needy and bring to ruin the poor'. As you will see, when you read the whole book, that is something of a refrain for Amos. Earlier he says that the people 'trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and push the afflicted out of the way' [2.6].

This combination of piety and cruelty leads Amos to have Gd say:

I hate, I despise your festivals,

and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.

Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,

I will not accept them;

and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals

I will not look upon.

Take away from me the noise of your songs;

I will not listen to the melody of your harps. [5.21-23; cf. 4.4-5]

Plenty of meetings for worship going on. All of it hated by Gd. Notice that it is not that Gd is against animal sacrifices as such; Gd is as much against hymn singing, even hymn singing that is addressed to him. Because when you sing hymns and wilfully neglect people, you harm rather than help your relationship with Gd. Bracing, we can even say scary stuff.

When you sing hymns and wilfully neglect people,

you harm rather than help your relationship with Gd.

I'd say this bluntness from Amos, the 'Minor Prophet', is what makes him a giant among biblical writers, calling out to each generation of worshippers throughout time every since.

When you sing hymns and wilfully neglect people,

you harm rather than help your relationship with Gd.

I do though need to add one thing: the problem for Amos is not that the people both worshipped Gd and still sinned. That's a position we are all in, always. We are all always glorious in our worship and sinning in some parts of our lives. That is why repentance and forgiveness are part of our worship – indeed, the beating heart of our worship. Far from having to be morally perfect to worship, our worship is a place of healing of the wounds our own sins have inflicted on us. It has to be so, and it is so.

So to be clear: the problem for Amos isn't that the people can be sinful, it is rather that the people were so trapped by their sins, and so lost in love and enjoyment of them, they could not even see them. Their problem was not imperfection; their problem was smugness. They were rich, safe, contented, stuffed, and cocooned and blinded to the needs of others. It's not that they went about being literally violent to the poor; it's that the way things were set up amounted to a form of violence against the poor, where they lacked what they needed just to get by. It's worship of the One Gd combined with smugness and a willingness to pretend other people don't even exist which pushes Gd out of our worship.

May it never happen to us! There may or may not be contemporary resonances. I'm inviting us to think about that, but leaving that open for our discernment. The main thing is: take heart; it does not have to happen to us. We can say: if we are at all troubled by our coldness of heart to others, then we are not in the position of those condemned by Amos.

I don't suppose for one minute that I am saying something you have not heard before. Still, I am insisting that when it is said as powerfully bluntly as Amos says it, then we should give thanks. Read Amos. Amen.