Let's party
Commentary
Object:
Everybody loves a party. Children enjoy the festivities of a birthday party, especially if they are the guests of honor. Teens enjoy the excitement and high energy of dance parties, especially if the music is loud and dissonant. Young adults enjoy the sophistication of power parties, especially if the chances are good that business or social connections can be made. Older adults enjoy the quiet company of dinner parties, especially if the conversation is interesting. Seniors enjoy the beehive activity of family parties, especially if they can sit and watch and then leave whenever they want.
Parties are celebrative. Parties are commemorative. Parties are memorable. But mostly parties are just plain fun. However, not all parties are created equal. Some parties strengthen bonds of love and community -- other parties cater to humankind's baser attitudes of rebellion and promiscuity. Today's texts are about good parties gone bad and bad parties seeking transformation.
Exodus 32:1-14
As the interpreter approaches today's passage there are a couple of things to keep in mind. The first is to distinguish between archeological reality and cinematic reality. Probably many if not most of the preacher's congregation are familiar with the movie The Ten Commandments, in which the golden calf is the size of a Tournament of Roses float. If the cinematic version reflects reality, then one has to wonder just how many and how big were those earrings anyway? In fact, archeology has unearthed a number of golden calves (bulls) that have been identified as objects of worship. These idols measure somewhere around three inches by five inches and stand about four to five inches high. Biblical Archeological Review would be a good resource to check for more details about these statues: where they have been found and what they represent. What is clear, however, is that any idea of a larger-than-life statue is likely more fantasy than fact.
Another bit of interpretive theology that might be kept in mind is the religious context in which this exodus incident came to be written down. One must remember two rules of Hebrew scripture interpretation: 1) the date of a story's written version does not necessarily indicate its age; and 2) early stories were likely not committed to writing until much later in the history of the Hebrew people. What that means for this particular text is that the story of the golden calf predates by a considerable number of years its commitment to written form and that when it was written down there was more going on than just a history lesson.
It is generally assumed that the stories of the early formation of the Hebrew people were committed to writing during and just after the reign of Solomon. One will recall that due to the foolishness of Solomon's son, Jeroboam led a civil revolt that resulted in a division of the formerly united monarchy. Jeroboam had one major difficulty, however, in keeping the newly formed Northern Kingdom of Israel loyal to his movement -- namely, the people were used to going to Jerusalem to worship. To counter this cross-border division of loyalty, Jeroboam set up two alternative worship sites -- Dan in the north and Bethel in the south. Additionally, to compensate for the lack of a central sanctuary Jeroboam had golden bulls (calves) molded and set up in the shrines of Bethel and Dan. The editors of the ancient history writing from Jerusalem took special delight in recording this wilderness remembrance, not only for archival purposes, but also to make the political statement that whatever Jeroboam was doing in the north, it was no more pleasing to God than Aaron's actions at Mount Sinai.
Apart from the historical allusions of this text there is the startling encounter between God and Moses. What I find startling is not so much God's anger but rather God's repentance. God was about ready to make Moses into a new Noah. These people who persisted in their griping and complaining and who figured that a god in the hand was worth two on the mountain had just about exhausted God's patience. God was ready to take Moses and find a whole new group of folks to bless, except -- except for the intercession of Moses.
Moses dared to tell God, in so many words, that God was wrong, that what God intended to do was counterproductive, and that if that was where God was going, he (Moses) did not want to go there. Amazingly, shockingly, God had a change of heart -- God repented. Could it be that what God wants of us is not passive sycophants but folks who feel so passionately about the bruised and broken, the maligned and unjustly treated, the hungry and unsheltered that we are willing to argue before God on their behalf? Could it be that God rejoices in repenting because in so doing God is able to acknowledge the unselfish compassion of God's servants? It seems to me that there is more than routine intercession going on here but a willingness to take God on -- on God's own terms -- and win.
Philippians 4:1-9
Estate planning has become big business these days and for good reason. Individual wealth in this country has reached an all-time high and the desire to pass along as much of that wealth as possible to one's inheritors has risen along with it. Even if one does not have great financial assets, the accumulation of life's treasures and keepsakes and the desire that those items get to the intended recipient lead individuals to write out legal instructions for the disposition of their property.
Imagine, however, that you were going to write out a will, not for the disbursement of your physical property, but for what you would like to see become of those you leave behind. In other words, what final thoughts about character and attitude, about dreams and wishes would you leave as an inheritance to family and friends?
The writing of this "spiritual" last will and testament is exactly what Paul is about in the passage before us. So just what is it that Paul wishes to leave to his beloved Philippians? First, Paul wishes to bequeath the Philippians restored relationships. For reasons unspecified, two of Paul's most faithful and trusted coworkers, Euodia and Syntyche, have experienced a break in their relationship. Still part of the same congregation, still, no doubt, working for the same cause, still admirers of Paul and lovers of God, these two women have nevertheless allowed some misdeed or unthinking word to keep them at odds one from the other. As a result the congregation at Philippi has been placed in an awkward situation. The congregation has probably been forced to take sides. There is an edginess in worship as members attempt the fine art of eggshell-walking. New converts sense a tension-filled atmosphere that is as palpable as it is indefinable. Among Paul's final wishes is that reconciliation become not just a theological concept but also a personal reality for these Christians.
Second, Paul wishes to bequeath joy to the Philippians. It is more than a bit strange that an imprisoned Paul should speak of joy to those who know complete freedom but he does. The joy described here is different than happiness. Happiness is the result of pleasant outward circumstances -- joy is an attitude of the heart despite outward circumstances. Paul could be joyful in prison while not particularly happy about it and it is this unqualified experience that he desires to leave with the Philippian church.
A third "spiritual" inheritance Paul wants to leave to his friends is a vibrant communion with God. Paul has indicated over and over again in his letters how prayer has kept him going about those things God had laid before him to do. In the middle of the most trying and lonely experiences of Paul's ministry, he did not despair because of the intimate and prayerful communion he enjoyed with God. Paul wants his brothers and sisters in Philippi to know that same sense of God's presence and the peace that emanates from persistent and faith-filled prayer.
Finally, Paul wishes to bequeath to the Philippians a mindset that soars in the lofty heights of truth, nobility, and love. One is as the heart thinks and Paul wanted his readers to be people of truth and love not because it was somehow required of them but because that was how they truly were inwardly. One cannot love while harboring vindictive thoughts, nor can one practice the truth while devising devious plans. Paul wants the folks at Philippi to act rightly because they thought rightly.
So, now it is your turn. You must write your own "spiritual" last will and testament. What will you bequeath to your family? To your friends? To your church? What do you hope to see them become?
Matthew 22:1-14
The interpreter would do well to remind herself/himself of the distinction between a parable and an allegory each time one attempts to understand a parable. Generally speaking, in an allegory each of the components of the story represents a specific reality. For instance, in today's lesson each of the elements in the story -- the king, the banquet, the servants, the guests, the ill-dressed guest -- would represent specific people, groups, or events. A parable, by contrast, has basically one main point it is trying to convey. The elements of the story are simply vehicles to move the story along to its central point.
It is certainly true that in the history of biblical interpretation, Christian interpreters have approached much of scripture as allegory. It is also true that in at least one parable, the parable of the soils, Jesus himself treats the story as an allegory when his disciples ask for an explanation of the story. So, it is not a matter of whether an allegorical interpretation is less appropriate than a parabolic one; rather it is a matter of deciding what kind of story is in front of the interpreter and then treating that story in keeping with its nature.
With that being said, even parables have contexts and understanding the context is vital to determining the main point of the story. However, once again the interpreter is faced with a challenge. Not only is there the context out of which the story is first told, but there is also the context out of which the story is remembered and recorded. In other words, Jesus originally told this parable in a specific context and for a specific purpose. Matthew, in recording the parable, may or may not have retained the original context. He may well be using the parable for his own purposes and in a wholly different context. When we read Matthew are we reading the intentions of Jesus or the intentions of Matthew? My bias is that the modern reader can likely know the purpose and context of the writer but the purpose and context of the original speaker of the parable can only be guessed at. To put it another way, the interpreter can be fairly successful in figuring out what Matthew is trying to say but far less successful in arriving at Jesus' original intent.
So how does one approach this story? First, the assumption will be made that this is a parable rather than an allegory. However, it is a parable with two movements. Following the main point of the originally invited guests functioning as no-shows, there is a secondary addition concerning one who did show up but who was inappropriately attired. If this is a parable, what might be its main idea? I suggest that it is something like this: In the kingdom of God, the host determines the conditions for the feast, not the guests.
In our egocentricity it is easy to imagine that God's actions and religious faith are all about us. Not only are we the center of our own universe but we assume that we are the center of God's universe as well. God created the world for us, the scriptures were recorded for us, Christ died for us -- it is all about us. And since it is all about us, we can pick and choose what of this relationship with God we want to enjoy and what we want to ignore. Faith, in our egocentricity, becomes a cafeteria in which the choices are all ours to take or to leave.
This parable provides the reader with the stark reminder that God is God and we aren't. Once we have accepted the original invitation to the divine feast, we are at the mercy of the host. We do not decide if or when we will show up. We do not decide whether some other interest of ours takes priority. We do not even decide the dress code for our participation. In the kingdom of God, God calls the shots and if we find such conditions unacceptable, well, God has other guests who would be delighted to take our seat.
We do not have to accept God's invitation to the banquet in the first place but if we do we can only attend on God's terms.
Application
Two of today's lessons are clearly about parties. In Exodus we read of a party born out of discouragement, fed by the passions of anarchy and ending in a spiritual hangover that left the participants with a headache larger than they bargained for. Many of us have thrown ourselves parties not too dissimilar than this one. The party begins with a sense of dissatisfaction with how life is going for us. Perhaps family relationships have bent to the breaking point. Perhaps cherished dreams lie at our feet like so many broken shards. Perhaps our confidence in God has reached a crisis point and our faith feels hollow and platitudinous. Whatever it may be, we grow weary waiting for God to act on our behalf so we take matters into our own hands, buoy ourselves with mock confidence, and begin to celebrate the salvation wrought by our own hands. It is not long, however, before the emptiness of our efforts becomes apparent and the God we abandoned but who did not abandon us calls to us out of the fog of our confusion. We quickly realize that what we thought was a party was in reality a prison and that we were both the jailer and the jailed.
In Matthew we read of another party. At this party we are the honored guests. When the invitation came for the Messianic banquet, we were ready to accept. We had heard about the party from others who had already accepted the invitation and who had even petitioned the master of the feast on our behalf. We had grown tired of the meaningless parties to which we had given so much of our time and attention and when the invitation came it was like a new birth for us. The banquet was scheduled for some future date yet to be determined but that did not lessen our enthusiasm, for we took delight in anticipating the party with the other invitees. Until -- until other interests began competing with the party-to-be for our time. Eventually the attractiveness of immediate pleasures and demands and interests took the place of the daily party preparation and when the master of the party called to us, we found plenty of excuses at hand to ignore the party master. There is no doubt that the party will take place -- the only question is when it does will our invitation be recognized?
Philippians is only indirectly about a party -- one might even call it a non-party party. Paul's imprisonment is certainly not a party moment. There is no place for balloons and streamers, party hats and whistles, sumptuous feasts and merry-making guests where Paul is. Still, one would be hard-pressed to find a partygoer more joyous than Paul. The contribution Paul makes to our party thoughts is that one need not be at a party to be in a party mood. One can celebrate wherever one finds oneself, for true parties are parties of the heart. These non-party parties are the result of a deep and abiding communion with God and of a deep and abiding communion with those who share in the love of God.
Church folk are good about throwing parties for any reason and for no reason. So in the midst of our gatherings, let's remember that the parties that matter are the ones given by God, not those we devise on our own; that the God parties require daily preparation; and that in the meantime we can experience the party joy no matter where we are.
Alternative Applications Exodus 32:1-14. Almost lost in this narrative is Aaron, the one who facilitated the golden calf episode. What do we understand about Aaron's character through this incident? He did not initiate the demand for an alternative worship object but neither did he do anything to stop it. He was charged with keeping the people together in Moses' absence -- is keeping them together in disobedience an acceptable fulfillment of his task? What might this say about the relationship between means and ends? The excuse he offers to Moses is laughable but are not our excuses for our own disobedience no less lame?
Philippians 4:1-9. Paul invites his Philippian readers to put into practice the same attributes and actions that they had seen in him. We, by contrast, usually admonish others to do as we say, not as we do. What would our families be like if everyone acted as we did? What would our congregations be like if all the members reflected our attitude? What would our communities look like if they fashioned themselves after the local congregation? What would our world look like if all nations behaved like we behaved?
Matthew 22:1-14. The B-list guest who showed up at the banquet inappropriately dressed was not only asked to leave but was cast into the outer darkness. What are the implications of this incident for us who take our faith commitments so casually? What is inappropriate dress anyway? Can we really be held accountable for our unpreparedness? Why isn't just showing up enough?
Parties are celebrative. Parties are commemorative. Parties are memorable. But mostly parties are just plain fun. However, not all parties are created equal. Some parties strengthen bonds of love and community -- other parties cater to humankind's baser attitudes of rebellion and promiscuity. Today's texts are about good parties gone bad and bad parties seeking transformation.
Exodus 32:1-14
As the interpreter approaches today's passage there are a couple of things to keep in mind. The first is to distinguish between archeological reality and cinematic reality. Probably many if not most of the preacher's congregation are familiar with the movie The Ten Commandments, in which the golden calf is the size of a Tournament of Roses float. If the cinematic version reflects reality, then one has to wonder just how many and how big were those earrings anyway? In fact, archeology has unearthed a number of golden calves (bulls) that have been identified as objects of worship. These idols measure somewhere around three inches by five inches and stand about four to five inches high. Biblical Archeological Review would be a good resource to check for more details about these statues: where they have been found and what they represent. What is clear, however, is that any idea of a larger-than-life statue is likely more fantasy than fact.
Another bit of interpretive theology that might be kept in mind is the religious context in which this exodus incident came to be written down. One must remember two rules of Hebrew scripture interpretation: 1) the date of a story's written version does not necessarily indicate its age; and 2) early stories were likely not committed to writing until much later in the history of the Hebrew people. What that means for this particular text is that the story of the golden calf predates by a considerable number of years its commitment to written form and that when it was written down there was more going on than just a history lesson.
It is generally assumed that the stories of the early formation of the Hebrew people were committed to writing during and just after the reign of Solomon. One will recall that due to the foolishness of Solomon's son, Jeroboam led a civil revolt that resulted in a division of the formerly united monarchy. Jeroboam had one major difficulty, however, in keeping the newly formed Northern Kingdom of Israel loyal to his movement -- namely, the people were used to going to Jerusalem to worship. To counter this cross-border division of loyalty, Jeroboam set up two alternative worship sites -- Dan in the north and Bethel in the south. Additionally, to compensate for the lack of a central sanctuary Jeroboam had golden bulls (calves) molded and set up in the shrines of Bethel and Dan. The editors of the ancient history writing from Jerusalem took special delight in recording this wilderness remembrance, not only for archival purposes, but also to make the political statement that whatever Jeroboam was doing in the north, it was no more pleasing to God than Aaron's actions at Mount Sinai.
Apart from the historical allusions of this text there is the startling encounter between God and Moses. What I find startling is not so much God's anger but rather God's repentance. God was about ready to make Moses into a new Noah. These people who persisted in their griping and complaining and who figured that a god in the hand was worth two on the mountain had just about exhausted God's patience. God was ready to take Moses and find a whole new group of folks to bless, except -- except for the intercession of Moses.
Moses dared to tell God, in so many words, that God was wrong, that what God intended to do was counterproductive, and that if that was where God was going, he (Moses) did not want to go there. Amazingly, shockingly, God had a change of heart -- God repented. Could it be that what God wants of us is not passive sycophants but folks who feel so passionately about the bruised and broken, the maligned and unjustly treated, the hungry and unsheltered that we are willing to argue before God on their behalf? Could it be that God rejoices in repenting because in so doing God is able to acknowledge the unselfish compassion of God's servants? It seems to me that there is more than routine intercession going on here but a willingness to take God on -- on God's own terms -- and win.
Philippians 4:1-9
Estate planning has become big business these days and for good reason. Individual wealth in this country has reached an all-time high and the desire to pass along as much of that wealth as possible to one's inheritors has risen along with it. Even if one does not have great financial assets, the accumulation of life's treasures and keepsakes and the desire that those items get to the intended recipient lead individuals to write out legal instructions for the disposition of their property.
Imagine, however, that you were going to write out a will, not for the disbursement of your physical property, but for what you would like to see become of those you leave behind. In other words, what final thoughts about character and attitude, about dreams and wishes would you leave as an inheritance to family and friends?
The writing of this "spiritual" last will and testament is exactly what Paul is about in the passage before us. So just what is it that Paul wishes to leave to his beloved Philippians? First, Paul wishes to bequeath the Philippians restored relationships. For reasons unspecified, two of Paul's most faithful and trusted coworkers, Euodia and Syntyche, have experienced a break in their relationship. Still part of the same congregation, still, no doubt, working for the same cause, still admirers of Paul and lovers of God, these two women have nevertheless allowed some misdeed or unthinking word to keep them at odds one from the other. As a result the congregation at Philippi has been placed in an awkward situation. The congregation has probably been forced to take sides. There is an edginess in worship as members attempt the fine art of eggshell-walking. New converts sense a tension-filled atmosphere that is as palpable as it is indefinable. Among Paul's final wishes is that reconciliation become not just a theological concept but also a personal reality for these Christians.
Second, Paul wishes to bequeath joy to the Philippians. It is more than a bit strange that an imprisoned Paul should speak of joy to those who know complete freedom but he does. The joy described here is different than happiness. Happiness is the result of pleasant outward circumstances -- joy is an attitude of the heart despite outward circumstances. Paul could be joyful in prison while not particularly happy about it and it is this unqualified experience that he desires to leave with the Philippian church.
A third "spiritual" inheritance Paul wants to leave to his friends is a vibrant communion with God. Paul has indicated over and over again in his letters how prayer has kept him going about those things God had laid before him to do. In the middle of the most trying and lonely experiences of Paul's ministry, he did not despair because of the intimate and prayerful communion he enjoyed with God. Paul wants his brothers and sisters in Philippi to know that same sense of God's presence and the peace that emanates from persistent and faith-filled prayer.
Finally, Paul wishes to bequeath to the Philippians a mindset that soars in the lofty heights of truth, nobility, and love. One is as the heart thinks and Paul wanted his readers to be people of truth and love not because it was somehow required of them but because that was how they truly were inwardly. One cannot love while harboring vindictive thoughts, nor can one practice the truth while devising devious plans. Paul wants the folks at Philippi to act rightly because they thought rightly.
So, now it is your turn. You must write your own "spiritual" last will and testament. What will you bequeath to your family? To your friends? To your church? What do you hope to see them become?
Matthew 22:1-14
The interpreter would do well to remind herself/himself of the distinction between a parable and an allegory each time one attempts to understand a parable. Generally speaking, in an allegory each of the components of the story represents a specific reality. For instance, in today's lesson each of the elements in the story -- the king, the banquet, the servants, the guests, the ill-dressed guest -- would represent specific people, groups, or events. A parable, by contrast, has basically one main point it is trying to convey. The elements of the story are simply vehicles to move the story along to its central point.
It is certainly true that in the history of biblical interpretation, Christian interpreters have approached much of scripture as allegory. It is also true that in at least one parable, the parable of the soils, Jesus himself treats the story as an allegory when his disciples ask for an explanation of the story. So, it is not a matter of whether an allegorical interpretation is less appropriate than a parabolic one; rather it is a matter of deciding what kind of story is in front of the interpreter and then treating that story in keeping with its nature.
With that being said, even parables have contexts and understanding the context is vital to determining the main point of the story. However, once again the interpreter is faced with a challenge. Not only is there the context out of which the story is first told, but there is also the context out of which the story is remembered and recorded. In other words, Jesus originally told this parable in a specific context and for a specific purpose. Matthew, in recording the parable, may or may not have retained the original context. He may well be using the parable for his own purposes and in a wholly different context. When we read Matthew are we reading the intentions of Jesus or the intentions of Matthew? My bias is that the modern reader can likely know the purpose and context of the writer but the purpose and context of the original speaker of the parable can only be guessed at. To put it another way, the interpreter can be fairly successful in figuring out what Matthew is trying to say but far less successful in arriving at Jesus' original intent.
So how does one approach this story? First, the assumption will be made that this is a parable rather than an allegory. However, it is a parable with two movements. Following the main point of the originally invited guests functioning as no-shows, there is a secondary addition concerning one who did show up but who was inappropriately attired. If this is a parable, what might be its main idea? I suggest that it is something like this: In the kingdom of God, the host determines the conditions for the feast, not the guests.
In our egocentricity it is easy to imagine that God's actions and religious faith are all about us. Not only are we the center of our own universe but we assume that we are the center of God's universe as well. God created the world for us, the scriptures were recorded for us, Christ died for us -- it is all about us. And since it is all about us, we can pick and choose what of this relationship with God we want to enjoy and what we want to ignore. Faith, in our egocentricity, becomes a cafeteria in which the choices are all ours to take or to leave.
This parable provides the reader with the stark reminder that God is God and we aren't. Once we have accepted the original invitation to the divine feast, we are at the mercy of the host. We do not decide if or when we will show up. We do not decide whether some other interest of ours takes priority. We do not even decide the dress code for our participation. In the kingdom of God, God calls the shots and if we find such conditions unacceptable, well, God has other guests who would be delighted to take our seat.
We do not have to accept God's invitation to the banquet in the first place but if we do we can only attend on God's terms.
Application
Two of today's lessons are clearly about parties. In Exodus we read of a party born out of discouragement, fed by the passions of anarchy and ending in a spiritual hangover that left the participants with a headache larger than they bargained for. Many of us have thrown ourselves parties not too dissimilar than this one. The party begins with a sense of dissatisfaction with how life is going for us. Perhaps family relationships have bent to the breaking point. Perhaps cherished dreams lie at our feet like so many broken shards. Perhaps our confidence in God has reached a crisis point and our faith feels hollow and platitudinous. Whatever it may be, we grow weary waiting for God to act on our behalf so we take matters into our own hands, buoy ourselves with mock confidence, and begin to celebrate the salvation wrought by our own hands. It is not long, however, before the emptiness of our efforts becomes apparent and the God we abandoned but who did not abandon us calls to us out of the fog of our confusion. We quickly realize that what we thought was a party was in reality a prison and that we were both the jailer and the jailed.
In Matthew we read of another party. At this party we are the honored guests. When the invitation came for the Messianic banquet, we were ready to accept. We had heard about the party from others who had already accepted the invitation and who had even petitioned the master of the feast on our behalf. We had grown tired of the meaningless parties to which we had given so much of our time and attention and when the invitation came it was like a new birth for us. The banquet was scheduled for some future date yet to be determined but that did not lessen our enthusiasm, for we took delight in anticipating the party with the other invitees. Until -- until other interests began competing with the party-to-be for our time. Eventually the attractiveness of immediate pleasures and demands and interests took the place of the daily party preparation and when the master of the party called to us, we found plenty of excuses at hand to ignore the party master. There is no doubt that the party will take place -- the only question is when it does will our invitation be recognized?
Philippians is only indirectly about a party -- one might even call it a non-party party. Paul's imprisonment is certainly not a party moment. There is no place for balloons and streamers, party hats and whistles, sumptuous feasts and merry-making guests where Paul is. Still, one would be hard-pressed to find a partygoer more joyous than Paul. The contribution Paul makes to our party thoughts is that one need not be at a party to be in a party mood. One can celebrate wherever one finds oneself, for true parties are parties of the heart. These non-party parties are the result of a deep and abiding communion with God and of a deep and abiding communion with those who share in the love of God.
Church folk are good about throwing parties for any reason and for no reason. So in the midst of our gatherings, let's remember that the parties that matter are the ones given by God, not those we devise on our own; that the God parties require daily preparation; and that in the meantime we can experience the party joy no matter where we are.
Alternative Applications Exodus 32:1-14. Almost lost in this narrative is Aaron, the one who facilitated the golden calf episode. What do we understand about Aaron's character through this incident? He did not initiate the demand for an alternative worship object but neither did he do anything to stop it. He was charged with keeping the people together in Moses' absence -- is keeping them together in disobedience an acceptable fulfillment of his task? What might this say about the relationship between means and ends? The excuse he offers to Moses is laughable but are not our excuses for our own disobedience no less lame?
Philippians 4:1-9. Paul invites his Philippian readers to put into practice the same attributes and actions that they had seen in him. We, by contrast, usually admonish others to do as we say, not as we do. What would our families be like if everyone acted as we did? What would our congregations be like if all the members reflected our attitude? What would our communities look like if they fashioned themselves after the local congregation? What would our world look like if all nations behaved like we behaved?
Matthew 22:1-14. The B-list guest who showed up at the banquet inappropriately dressed was not only asked to leave but was cast into the outer darkness. What are the implications of this incident for us who take our faith commitments so casually? What is inappropriate dress anyway? Can we really be held accountable for our unpreparedness? Why isn't just showing up enough?
