SermonStudio

(See Lent 5, Cycle A, for an alternative approach.)

Because the organizing principle of the lectionary is that the psalm is supposed to be a meditation on the First Lesson, we may be forgiven for puzzling about the pairing of Psalm 130 with 2 Samuel 1. The two readings match in neither subject nor tone. The 2 Samuel lection gives us David's lament over the death of Saul and Jonathan, while Psalm 130 is a penitential prayer and a plea for help (and no, we don't buy that mourning over the death of a loved one is akin to mourning over one's sins).

Be that as it may, the psalm offers its own preaching possibilities. It comes as a prayer "out of the depths" (v. 1). "The depths" literally refers to Sheol, the place of the dead, but the psalmist is probably speaking metaphorically, thinking not so much of his physical death in the future as of his current separation from God, the source of life. This separation is the result of his "iniquities," which, if tracked by God scorekeeper fashion -- "If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities" (v. 3) -- would doom the psalmist to ongoing alienation from God.

But having asked for restoration and redemption, the psalmist "waits for the Lord more than those who watch for morning" (v. 6) -- that is, more than those who for whatever reason have been awake through the long hours of the night and look eagerly for the dawn.

Here is an opportunity to talk about the nature of sin. The psalm defines sin as separation from God. That is a useful definition, but let's put that in a modern context. There are some people who like to play golf. Nothing wrong with that. There's certainly nothing sinful about the game as it stands. Now suppose those people like to play golf so much, they abandon their families every Saturday, despite repeatedly promising to participate in some activity with them. Under those circumstances, could playing golf become a sin?

Or let's suppose some other people enjoy sitting around a restaurant with a group of buddies drinking coffee. No sin in that. But now let's say those people do that when they are supposed to be working at the sort of job where they work on their own recognizance. Is it quite so innocent an activity now? Even further, let's lay that scenario out in a real-life situation:

Back in 1981, an inside concrete-and-steel walkway in the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Hotel collapsed, killing 114 people and injuring many others. When the inevitable investigation took place, a large share of the blame fell on the two city building inspectors who had overseen the Hyatt project. Investigators discovered that these two, along with many other Kansas City building inspectors, routinely falsified work logs so they could spend their time bar-hopping during working hours -- merely driving by sites they were supposed to be inspecting.

Were the actions of these inspectors sin? Yes -- but not just because, in one case, these actions ended up being a factor in the deaths of many people. It was sin back on the days of the inspections when these men issued the certificates saying everything was safe -- without actually checking to see that it was. The sin was present in their overall attitude, not just in the consequences of their actions. Although they probably didn't think of it in so many words, their attitude said, "So I'm supposed to protect my fellow citizens. But I don't care about them. I don't love my neighbor as myself. What I want to do is more important to me. Forget about God's Laws."

At the heart of sin is an attitude that fails to honor God or fails to love our neighbors. Sinful acts are what follow from that attitude. "If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?"

-- S. P.