This sermon was preached at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on October 29, 2006.
Job 42:1-6, 10-17
Psalm 34:1-8, (19-22)
Hebrews 7:23-28
Mark 10:46-52
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
It is the job of advertising and marketing people to put names on products for us to remember. You might remember this slogan, “With a name like Smucker’s, it has to be good.” The implication here is if you are going to saddle a product with the name “Smucker’s” you had darn well better make it a very, very good product. Considering their products have carried this moniker since 1897, it seems be working out pretty well for them.
So how did a company which produces such fine jams, jellies, peanut butter, and ice cream toppings (and you gotta love that Magic Shell stuff) come up with such a funny name? Like many other companies, it was named after its founder, in this case Mr. Jerome Monroe Smucker. And since that first day, the company has been operated under the family name, now four generations strong.[1]
Four generations of Smucker’s… this isn’t unusual in industry; many products are named after their founders. Then again, many of us are named after our founders. Take my name for example, Andresen. This has a Nordic variation on spelling, but its literal meaning is son of Andrew, or “Son of Man.”[2] As for Lucille Zimmerman, her last name comes from high middle German for “carpenter’s son.”[3] Also there is Alice Martinson. Martin is derived from Mars so Martinson can mean “Son of a Warrior.”[4] Some of our names seem fair enough, I suspect none of us have a problem with the meanings of our last names. If you have ever seen Alice work with a patient, you’d know she is a warrior herself.
Our gospel reading today has a lot of different labels. First comes a man identified as the Son of Timaeus. The word Timaeus is from the Aramaic meaning highly prized.[5] What a joy it would be to carry the name “highly prized” into the world. The one who bears this name would be welcomed and treasured. The person who has earned this name has received many blessings. Especially in ancient times, to have a son is a blessing, and Timaeus is blessed for having a son.
Unfortunately, this tag becomes ironic for his son, a blind beggar. The Son of Timaeus is forced to live in this irony, his name a mockery of his life. The blessings of Timaeus have not become the blessings of the son. The Son of Timaeus is left to the side of the road, only a cloak to his name. And truly all that he has is a cloak; he doesn’t even have a name of his own. Yes, we know him as Bartimaeus, but this Aramaic for Son of Timaeus. It is like being called “Junior.” We think that we know him so well, but in fact we don’t even know his name.
We learn in this passage that Bartimaeus carries the label “blind.” In scripture, this dreaded affliction is often the result of sin that can only be cured by God. Also possible is a curse which invoked blindness as a punishment for misconduct. While blindness makes life more difficult in our day and time, it is by no means the harsh affliction it was in biblical times. In Jesus’ time and place, poverty and hardship were the inevitable lot of the blind.[6] A man who is blind is not highly blessed. Being called Bartimaeus mocks him and his family.
This son of Timaeus has also become a beggar. Almsgiving is the responsibility of those who have been blessed by the Lord. Almsgiving is a means of giving thanks to the Lord for blessings received.[7] Oh, how the mighty have fallen: from being able to give generously to being forced to beg in one generation. The lot of this blind beggar Bartimaeus is cast in the way he is described by his label, a label so impersonal it does not even include his given name.
The next person who enters the story is Jesus of Nazareth. The first label he carries is a traditional name for biblical times. It is the name of the man and the city of his residence. He is Jesus of Nazareth. And at the time, Jesus was a very common name in Palestine, so having the city of residence is a way of differentiating him from all of the other men called Jesus.
But then we get a real kicker of a label, “Son of David.” This is a label! The Lord promised that it is the Son of David who will build the house of the Lord.[8] Of David it is written in the Psalms, “I will establish your descendants for ever, and build your throne for all generations.”[9] This is the first time in Mark’s gospel that the phrase “Son of David” has been used to describe Jesus. Other Messianic titles have been used, but this is the first time the words “Son of David” have identified Jesus of Nazareth. This is a momentous time of praise and affirmation.
These two labels, one very common and the other heavenly, describe our Lord in ways we have come to understand him. In this little exchange, Bartimaeus tells us—and he tells the world that Jesus is fully human—Jesus of Nazareth and fully divine—Son of David. As hard the concept of Jesus’ full and complete humanity and divinity is to grasp, it is fully and completely seen—by a blind man.
There is one more label given to Jesus in this story. Depending on the translation, Bartimaeus calls Jesus My Teacher, or Rabbi, or My Rabbi, or Rabboni.[10] Regardless of the translation, the blind man calls out to Jesus with a term of respect and reverence reserved for one of authority in the Synagogue. The word he uses is traditionally reserved for a religious leader. He cries out he wants to be healed by one with holy authority.
To think, the crowd was telling him to hush.
Blind Bartimaeus sees more than those who are sighted.
We all carry labels, some of them appropriate, some of them not. We are sons and daughters. We are mothers and fathers. We are siblings—brothers and sisters. Many of us are aunts and uncles. Some of us also carry these family relationships with grand or great-grand.
Many of us are identified by our jobs. Some of us work in health care, others in education, some in retail, others in service, and some in agriculture and others in food processing. Some of us are “retired” from work in the “real world” and work jobs that take far more time and energy than the “day job” ever did.
As for labels I have carried; for years, I have worn hats. This one is one of my favorites.[11] I purchased it at Brooks Brothers about 25 years ago and have worn it since. I have received similar hats, but this one fits me best. While working at the University of Arkansas, on a chilly day, people would see me walking in a trench coat and this hat and say, “Hey, Blues Brothers!” Well, I am a fan of John Belushi, and I might carry his shape, but this is not a pork pie hat like the one he wore in the movie and he didn’t wear a trench coat. Then one day a student of mine named Jeff saw me walking across campus, recognized me and cried out, “Hey, Uncle Buck!” I laughed out loud! He was right; it was definitely an Uncle Buck look and I am not unlike John Candy in character, shape, or demeanor.
What made this amazing was not that he was the only one who discerned this label (though he was), or the fact that he did it from fifty feet away (which he did). What was amazing is that he, like Bartimaeus, was blind. Jeff has only about 10% of his sight and saw only a narrow slit clearly. But on this bright sunny day, he was able to see my silhouette against the horizon, recognize me, and apply an apt label. Jeff was one of my favorite students because he showed me anything was possible with God.
This story is told by the PC (USA) Director of World Wide Ministries, the Reverend Doctor Marian McClure, in today’s entry in this year’s PC (USA) Mission Yearbook:
"Our inheritance contains not only the wealth of God’s grace but also the wealth of relationships our ancestors formed as they shared that grace in mission. One of my first experiences in discovering this heritage was during a trip to visit fellow Christians in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Presbyterians have been involved in partnership well over one hundred years. I was meeting with some of the pastors to hear about ministries at the grassroots of that church.
"Suddenly I was informed that according to local custom the eldest man in the room was going to discern a new name for me in the Tshiluba language. An elderly pastor interrupted us to say, 'Her name is Mama Dinanga,' which means love. That sounded really good to me. But someone disagreed! He said, “Her name should be Hope!” With this disagreement in the air, a diplomatic pastor stepped forward and said, 'Dinanga is the right name, because her love is our hope.'"[12]
Labels, some are appropriate, others are not. Some cast us in embarrassing ways, like the blind beggar Bartimaeus. Others graciously hit the nail on the head like Mama Dinanga. Some are in transition; Bartimaeus was no longer a blind beggar after his encounter with the Living God. Others change over time; like a child becoming a parent becoming a grandparent. Others hold for generations like Smucker’s. But there are other labels we must consider. I want us to consider our labels here today.
There is one family relationship which we must never forget. The label we all carry, each and every one of us, is the adopted child of God. God claims us before time begins. We have been the children of God since before we were the children of our parents.
We are labeled members of the Body of Christ. We are identified with Christ in the waters of our baptism. In these waters we take the same mark Jesus took so long ago, a mark Jesus took that we may take it ourselves.
We have received the gift of God’s grace through faith. We share the wealth of God’s grace and the wealth of relationships formed through this shared grace.
We are called respond, to be labeled, as good stewards to the gift of God’s grace. As a church, we bear this label giving to those in need. This congregation has offered over one-sixth of this year’s annual budget to the needy through the denomination, the Loaves and Fishes foodbank, Project Self Esteem, and others. Some give time, talent, and treasure at the food bank or the hospital, the Regional AIDS Interfaith Network, and here at the church. We respond as good stewards of God’s bounty by giving alms in response to the world’s needs.
The love of God is our hope. With the love of God, it is my hope that if you haven’t, you will consider joining Christ in the waters of baptism.
It is my hope that if you haven’t, you will consider joining this part of the body of Christ.
It is my hope that you will be a good steward of the grace God so wonderfully offers.
It is my hope that if nominated you might consider the call of ordained ministry as an Elder.
It is my hope that you will consider responding by giving alms to the church that the work of the body of Christ may continue and expand.
It is my hope that we will all be like the sighted Son of Timaeus.
It is my hope that we will all be labeled highly prized.
And it is my hope that as we gain our sight, we will follow Jesus.
It is my hope that we will consider these old and new labels: member of Christ’s body, recipient of Grace by faith, steward, Elder, but first and foremost—Child of God.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuckers
[2] http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/a/bl_name-ANDRE.htm
[3] http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/z/bl_name-ZIMMERMAN.htm
[4] http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/m/bl_name-MARTIN.htm
[5] Strong’s Concordance, word number 5090, edition unknown.
[6] Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1962, “Blindness” entry.
[7] Ibid. “Alms” entry.
[8] 2Samuel 7:4-14
[9] Psalm 89:4
[10] In order, the New Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the New Living Translation, and the New American Standard Bible
[11] A gray tweed hat from Block and Hatters made exclusively for Brooks Brothers.
[12] The Mission Yearbook for Prayer and Study, 2006. Louisville, KY: Presbyterian Distribution Service, PC (USA), 2005, page 304.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Outrageous
This week was Gideon Sunday at First Presbyterian-Berryville. Preaching duties were handled by Mr. Don Kerr of the NorthWest Arkansas Gideon Camp. So...this is the sermon I preached on September 10, 2006 at First Presbyterian-Berryville. (The Marie I mention in this sermon is my wonderful wife Marie Andresen.)
Proverbs 22:1-2, 8-9, 22-23
Psalm 125
James 2:1-10, (11-13,) 14-18
Mark 7:24-37
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.
A dictionary contains a lot of interesting information about words: syllabification, pronunciation, history, lots of stuff. In a list of definitions, the most common use is always listed first. The word “outrageous” has several definitions. According to my dictionary, the most common definition of outrageous is: “involving gross injury or wrong.” The second is: “grossly offensive to the sense of right or decency.” Next is “passing reasonable bounds; intolerable or shocking.” Forth is “violent in action or temper.” The final definition of outrageous is: “highly unusual or unconventional; extravagant; remarkable.”[1] There is a lot of outrageous stuff happening in this reading from Mark’s gospel.
By which definition is this stuff outrageous? Let’s find out.
Our reading begins as Jesus travels north to Tyre where he finds a place to lay his head for the night. Since we are talking about Jesus here, as soon as he reaches the city limits, the word of his presence spreads like wildfire. According to Mark’s gospel though, it seems that only one person is willing to approach Jesus’ refuge, a woman of Syrophoenician origin. Seeing a gentile of Syrophoenician origin isn’t so outrageous; Jesus is in Syria! Finding a gentile in Syria is as outrageous as breathing air. But what is outrageous is that a gentile woman, all alone, would be seeking the Rabbi. A gentile seeking out a Rabbi—that’s outrageous. This fits into the “highly unusual” definition of outrageous. Jesus has made no pretense that his ministry is to the nation of Israel and the twelve tribes. So a gentile seeking the master is highly unusual in Mark’s gospel.
Try this one: a Rabbi having contact with a woman who is not his wife—that’s outrageous. This finds its way into the “outside of the realm of decency” definition of outrageous. A woman, by herself, regardless of their marital status, did not approach men. Period! And approaching a Rabbi is playing the trump card on this little slice of outrage, it simply is not done. So the question becomes whose outrage is this? To whom does this outrage belong? The answer, the only conclusion I can come to, is that they both share this outrage. Oh, yes, the woman initiates the outrage by approaching Jesus, but Jesus responds to her; sharing the outrageous behavior.
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound. The woman begs Jesus to cast a demon out of her daughter. Not so bad, Jesus has cast demons out of people before. Shoot, in the fifth chapter of Mark, Jesus casts a legion of evil spirits from the Gerasene Demoniac, what’s one more? Nothing additionally outrageous here.
But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Wow! That’s outrageous! We’re back at the “outside of the realm of decency” definition of outrageous. As a church, as a people, Christians have been reading this for nearly two thousand years. We know how it ends, so we may be tempted to gloss over the outrageousness of this answer. But Jesus is way off the deep end here. Is he tired and cranky? Perhaps, but my mother would say that’s no excuse. Is he trying to better define the scope of his ministry to this woman and all who have ears? Maybe, but who can hear Jesus’ intent over the words he said? Is he comparing the relative worth of the Israelites, the children of God with the gentiles, the mongrel dogs who wait under the table? This would be culturally accurate—and he does it without any tact what’s so ever. In this exchange, it seems that Jesus is terribly over-focused on his mission and on her status (or lack of status) in that mission.
So she answers him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Wow. This is outrageous. She took his example and twisted it around on him. This is how Rabbis argue with each other. The words of the Lord were twisted back on him, and it was done by a woman. In tennis, this is called serve and volley. In boxing—it’s called a counterpunch. That’s outrageous!
She had nothing to lose. If Jesus says go away again, she loses nothing, but if he says yes, she gains everything.
The exchange ends when Jesus says, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.” Does Jesus heal the girl because of her mother’s faith? Really he does not. The woman goes to Jesus because she has faith, but this has nothing to do with Jesus’ response.
He does it because he has been bested. Jesus is bested in a verbal joust. This fits either into the third definition of outrageous, “shocking,” or the fifth, “unusual.” The only other time I can think of God being bested in a verbal tête-à-tête is in Exodus when Moses begs the Lord not to kill the nation of Israel and start over again. Moses’ winning argument: How would that look to the Egyptians? Getting the better of God in a verbal sparring match is both shocking and highly unusual. A gentile woman accomplishing this again trumps Moses’ example. Out-rageous.
What we believe, what we testify is outrageous. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We believe that a family relationship exists between this man of Galilee and the unseen, all knowing, all powerful, Lord God. And we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the one set aside since before time even existed. Outrageous.
We believe that Jesus, God in the flesh, was crucified, dead, and buried. We believe God suffered on a tree, died, and was put in hole in the earth. We don’t believe Jesus just fell asleep or that God miraculously put Jesus into some sort of “Star Trek” stasis field. We believe God died. Outrageous. God died.
We know nothing stronger than death. Death is the siren’s song that one day, like Jesus, we will all hear. But Jesus shatters death and takes its power. We believe not only that he died, but that he rose from the dead. Body and soul, Jesus breaks the grip of death on us all. Humanity had never heard of such a thing. Outrageous.
We believe that some time after our deaths, after the “ashes to ashes—dust to dust,” we too will be resurrected and share in the eternal life of Christ. So not only do we believe in the resurrection of the Son of God, we believe in the same resurrection for ourselves. Outrageous.
We believe in another person of God, God the Holy Spirit. We believe that these three persons are God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all distinct, and all one. We believe that this is not believing in more than one God, instead we believe this is what scripture says about how God shows himself in the world. Outrageous.
We believe sins are forgiven. Now that’s a tough one. We believe all of the wrongs we have committed against God and one another are miraculously forgiven, taken away by this same one who suffered and died on our behalf.
Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks expresses the tension of forgiving and forgetting in the hit song “Not Ready to Make Nice.” She sings, “Forgive, sounds good./Forget, I'm not sure I could.”[2] Even if Natalie is unable to forgive (and after death threats and the American Red Cross’ refusal of a one million dollar donation from the Chicks,[3] do you blame her), our Lord forgives us, without strings attached. This forgiveness is an outrageous lesson all of us are called to practice.
Now forgetting, that’s another matter. Whether God forgets or not matters, because when forgiven, sin is taken away. Sin happens, but it is cleansed. When forgotten, it is excused like it wasn’t our doing, not our fault. And surely, sin is our doing. Sin must not be forgotten, but it must be forgiven.[4] That rubs our wisdom the wrong way. Outrageous.
That’s a lot of outrageous stuff to believe in one fell swoop…and these statements come from the Apostles’ Creed, one of the benchmark confessions of the faith. We as Christians have believed these things since 381 AD and I don’t see it changing any time soon. Thanks be to God!
We read in Mark’s gospel, after Jesus expels the demon from the little girl, he goes to the Decapolis region, the Ten Cities, another pagan, gentile territory. The last time he was here he was politely, in no uncertain terms, asked to go away because he had just rushed a herd of swine down a steep bank and into the sea. While the Jews had nothing to do with pigs, the gentiles loved a good BLT. Jesus was not a popular figure after sending the livelihood of probably several families into the wake of the sea. Yet Jesus returns to the Decapolis. Jesus answers prayer when he heals a deaf mute. Once rushed out of town, now welcomed—again, outrageous.
And this time he heals with wild, even grotesque kinds of actions. Jesus goes from creating healing like God—with a simple word—and becomes like a baseball player—spitting and touching and looking to the heavens. Outrageous.
Both healings in today’s readings are done not at the request of the injured persons, but by someone else. Generous, and outrageous.
We are mindful to learn from these outrageous things, these acts and sayings.
First, we must never put God in a box, trying to contain our Lord. We must not say God works only one way or with only one people. Yes, Jesus was sent for the nation of Israel, but he has come to redeem all of us. We see this in Mark’s gospel. There is no longer rich or poor in the kingdom of God—we are all rich in the life of God. As James teaches, we are called to show favor to all God’s creatures, not just the honored ones.
We are called to act. We are to kneel at the feet of our friends, and we are called to wash one another’s feet as the first disciples were called to do. We are to serve one another as we are to serve the Lord our God, and as the Lord our God serves us. We are to forgive, but we must never forget.
We are called to go into the world, even into places we are not particularly comfortable. Like Jesus going into the gentile lands, we are called to go into the wilderness and serve one another. We are called to a living faith, not one that fades away as soon as we leave the doors of this sanctuary. We are called to take this faith and use it for the good of all God’s creation. James reminds us that faith without works is dead, and ours is a living faith. Yet, we must be reminded that James does not teach that our righteousness comes from our works. That would be outrageous.
Outrageous, outrageous…this is incidental, but it makes a point, please indulge me.
Five years ago tomorrow, I was sitting in class, Introduction to the Old Testament. We were learning the Hebrew alphabet. After we got out of class, everyone who hadn’t been in a class had a look of shock on their faces. I went into the financial aid office. The Financial Aid Officer, Glenna was her name, had the radio on, she was listening to the news broadcasts of the 9/11 tragedy. I stayed and listened for a few minutes. I imagined this is how people felt listening to the original broadcast of “The War of the Worlds” in 1938, except this time, it was real. I rushed home. Marie was on the edge of her seat as she caught me up on the details. We, like most of the rest of the nation, were glued to the television. What we saw was outrageous, by the forth definition: violent in action or temper.
The next day, I walked into my History of Christianity class at 8:00 AM. The professor, the Reverend Doctor Ellen Babinski, said to us, “Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a choice. We can either choose to watch the news or we can do something. You have chosen to do something—you have chosen, you have been chosen, to serve the church and the world. Let’s get to work.”
Our faith, our call, our vocation is outrageous. We are called to a God who works like no human being ever could. Yet our God walked the earth like every other human being does. We are called to believe wild and unusual things, some that offend our sensibilities—and the sensibilities of the world around us. And I say so let it be. Let us be outrageous together, as the church of the one holy God who lives in three persons. As Rev. Babinski said, let’s get to work. Let’s be outrageous in the name of the Lord.
[1] "outrageous." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 09 Sep. 2006.
[2] Dixie Chicks, “Not Ready to Make Nice,” Taking the Long Way CD.
[3] http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14728090.htm, accessed September 10, 2006.
[4] Paraphrased from C. S. Lewis, “On Forgiveness,” in The Weight of Glory.
Proverbs 22:1-2, 8-9, 22-23
Psalm 125
James 2:1-10, (11-13,) 14-18
Mark 7:24-37
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.
A dictionary contains a lot of interesting information about words: syllabification, pronunciation, history, lots of stuff. In a list of definitions, the most common use is always listed first. The word “outrageous” has several definitions. According to my dictionary, the most common definition of outrageous is: “involving gross injury or wrong.” The second is: “grossly offensive to the sense of right or decency.” Next is “passing reasonable bounds; intolerable or shocking.” Forth is “violent in action or temper.” The final definition of outrageous is: “highly unusual or unconventional; extravagant; remarkable.”[1] There is a lot of outrageous stuff happening in this reading from Mark’s gospel.
By which definition is this stuff outrageous? Let’s find out.
Our reading begins as Jesus travels north to Tyre where he finds a place to lay his head for the night. Since we are talking about Jesus here, as soon as he reaches the city limits, the word of his presence spreads like wildfire. According to Mark’s gospel though, it seems that only one person is willing to approach Jesus’ refuge, a woman of Syrophoenician origin. Seeing a gentile of Syrophoenician origin isn’t so outrageous; Jesus is in Syria! Finding a gentile in Syria is as outrageous as breathing air. But what is outrageous is that a gentile woman, all alone, would be seeking the Rabbi. A gentile seeking out a Rabbi—that’s outrageous. This fits into the “highly unusual” definition of outrageous. Jesus has made no pretense that his ministry is to the nation of Israel and the twelve tribes. So a gentile seeking the master is highly unusual in Mark’s gospel.
Try this one: a Rabbi having contact with a woman who is not his wife—that’s outrageous. This finds its way into the “outside of the realm of decency” definition of outrageous. A woman, by herself, regardless of their marital status, did not approach men. Period! And approaching a Rabbi is playing the trump card on this little slice of outrage, it simply is not done. So the question becomes whose outrage is this? To whom does this outrage belong? The answer, the only conclusion I can come to, is that they both share this outrage. Oh, yes, the woman initiates the outrage by approaching Jesus, but Jesus responds to her; sharing the outrageous behavior.
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound. The woman begs Jesus to cast a demon out of her daughter. Not so bad, Jesus has cast demons out of people before. Shoot, in the fifth chapter of Mark, Jesus casts a legion of evil spirits from the Gerasene Demoniac, what’s one more? Nothing additionally outrageous here.
But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Wow! That’s outrageous! We’re back at the “outside of the realm of decency” definition of outrageous. As a church, as a people, Christians have been reading this for nearly two thousand years. We know how it ends, so we may be tempted to gloss over the outrageousness of this answer. But Jesus is way off the deep end here. Is he tired and cranky? Perhaps, but my mother would say that’s no excuse. Is he trying to better define the scope of his ministry to this woman and all who have ears? Maybe, but who can hear Jesus’ intent over the words he said? Is he comparing the relative worth of the Israelites, the children of God with the gentiles, the mongrel dogs who wait under the table? This would be culturally accurate—and he does it without any tact what’s so ever. In this exchange, it seems that Jesus is terribly over-focused on his mission and on her status (or lack of status) in that mission.
So she answers him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Wow. This is outrageous. She took his example and twisted it around on him. This is how Rabbis argue with each other. The words of the Lord were twisted back on him, and it was done by a woman. In tennis, this is called serve and volley. In boxing—it’s called a counterpunch. That’s outrageous!
She had nothing to lose. If Jesus says go away again, she loses nothing, but if he says yes, she gains everything.
The exchange ends when Jesus says, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.” Does Jesus heal the girl because of her mother’s faith? Really he does not. The woman goes to Jesus because she has faith, but this has nothing to do with Jesus’ response.
He does it because he has been bested. Jesus is bested in a verbal joust. This fits either into the third definition of outrageous, “shocking,” or the fifth, “unusual.” The only other time I can think of God being bested in a verbal tête-à-tête is in Exodus when Moses begs the Lord not to kill the nation of Israel and start over again. Moses’ winning argument: How would that look to the Egyptians? Getting the better of God in a verbal sparring match is both shocking and highly unusual. A gentile woman accomplishing this again trumps Moses’ example. Out-rageous.
What we believe, what we testify is outrageous. We believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We believe that a family relationship exists between this man of Galilee and the unseen, all knowing, all powerful, Lord God. And we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the one set aside since before time even existed. Outrageous.
We believe that Jesus, God in the flesh, was crucified, dead, and buried. We believe God suffered on a tree, died, and was put in hole in the earth. We don’t believe Jesus just fell asleep or that God miraculously put Jesus into some sort of “Star Trek” stasis field. We believe God died. Outrageous. God died.
We know nothing stronger than death. Death is the siren’s song that one day, like Jesus, we will all hear. But Jesus shatters death and takes its power. We believe not only that he died, but that he rose from the dead. Body and soul, Jesus breaks the grip of death on us all. Humanity had never heard of such a thing. Outrageous.
We believe that some time after our deaths, after the “ashes to ashes—dust to dust,” we too will be resurrected and share in the eternal life of Christ. So not only do we believe in the resurrection of the Son of God, we believe in the same resurrection for ourselves. Outrageous.
We believe in another person of God, God the Holy Spirit. We believe that these three persons are God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all distinct, and all one. We believe that this is not believing in more than one God, instead we believe this is what scripture says about how God shows himself in the world. Outrageous.
We believe sins are forgiven. Now that’s a tough one. We believe all of the wrongs we have committed against God and one another are miraculously forgiven, taken away by this same one who suffered and died on our behalf.
Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks expresses the tension of forgiving and forgetting in the hit song “Not Ready to Make Nice.” She sings, “Forgive, sounds good./Forget, I'm not sure I could.”[2] Even if Natalie is unable to forgive (and after death threats and the American Red Cross’ refusal of a one million dollar donation from the Chicks,[3] do you blame her), our Lord forgives us, without strings attached. This forgiveness is an outrageous lesson all of us are called to practice.
Now forgetting, that’s another matter. Whether God forgets or not matters, because when forgiven, sin is taken away. Sin happens, but it is cleansed. When forgotten, it is excused like it wasn’t our doing, not our fault. And surely, sin is our doing. Sin must not be forgotten, but it must be forgiven.[4] That rubs our wisdom the wrong way. Outrageous.
That’s a lot of outrageous stuff to believe in one fell swoop…and these statements come from the Apostles’ Creed, one of the benchmark confessions of the faith. We as Christians have believed these things since 381 AD and I don’t see it changing any time soon. Thanks be to God!
We read in Mark’s gospel, after Jesus expels the demon from the little girl, he goes to the Decapolis region, the Ten Cities, another pagan, gentile territory. The last time he was here he was politely, in no uncertain terms, asked to go away because he had just rushed a herd of swine down a steep bank and into the sea. While the Jews had nothing to do with pigs, the gentiles loved a good BLT. Jesus was not a popular figure after sending the livelihood of probably several families into the wake of the sea. Yet Jesus returns to the Decapolis. Jesus answers prayer when he heals a deaf mute. Once rushed out of town, now welcomed—again, outrageous.
And this time he heals with wild, even grotesque kinds of actions. Jesus goes from creating healing like God—with a simple word—and becomes like a baseball player—spitting and touching and looking to the heavens. Outrageous.
Both healings in today’s readings are done not at the request of the injured persons, but by someone else. Generous, and outrageous.
We are mindful to learn from these outrageous things, these acts and sayings.
First, we must never put God in a box, trying to contain our Lord. We must not say God works only one way or with only one people. Yes, Jesus was sent for the nation of Israel, but he has come to redeem all of us. We see this in Mark’s gospel. There is no longer rich or poor in the kingdom of God—we are all rich in the life of God. As James teaches, we are called to show favor to all God’s creatures, not just the honored ones.
We are called to act. We are to kneel at the feet of our friends, and we are called to wash one another’s feet as the first disciples were called to do. We are to serve one another as we are to serve the Lord our God, and as the Lord our God serves us. We are to forgive, but we must never forget.
We are called to go into the world, even into places we are not particularly comfortable. Like Jesus going into the gentile lands, we are called to go into the wilderness and serve one another. We are called to a living faith, not one that fades away as soon as we leave the doors of this sanctuary. We are called to take this faith and use it for the good of all God’s creation. James reminds us that faith without works is dead, and ours is a living faith. Yet, we must be reminded that James does not teach that our righteousness comes from our works. That would be outrageous.
Outrageous, outrageous…this is incidental, but it makes a point, please indulge me.
Five years ago tomorrow, I was sitting in class, Introduction to the Old Testament. We were learning the Hebrew alphabet. After we got out of class, everyone who hadn’t been in a class had a look of shock on their faces. I went into the financial aid office. The Financial Aid Officer, Glenna was her name, had the radio on, she was listening to the news broadcasts of the 9/11 tragedy. I stayed and listened for a few minutes. I imagined this is how people felt listening to the original broadcast of “The War of the Worlds” in 1938, except this time, it was real. I rushed home. Marie was on the edge of her seat as she caught me up on the details. We, like most of the rest of the nation, were glued to the television. What we saw was outrageous, by the forth definition: violent in action or temper.
The next day, I walked into my History of Christianity class at 8:00 AM. The professor, the Reverend Doctor Ellen Babinski, said to us, “Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a choice. We can either choose to watch the news or we can do something. You have chosen to do something—you have chosen, you have been chosen, to serve the church and the world. Let’s get to work.”
Our faith, our call, our vocation is outrageous. We are called to a God who works like no human being ever could. Yet our God walked the earth like every other human being does. We are called to believe wild and unusual things, some that offend our sensibilities—and the sensibilities of the world around us. And I say so let it be. Let us be outrageous together, as the church of the one holy God who lives in three persons. As Rev. Babinski said, let’s get to work. Let’s be outrageous in the name of the Lord.
[1] "outrageous." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 09 Sep. 2006.
[2] Dixie Chicks, “Not Ready to Make Nice,” Taking the Long Way CD.
[3] http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14728090.htm, accessed September 10, 2006.
[4] Paraphrased from C. S. Lewis, “On Forgiveness,” in The Weight of Glory.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The One Thing
Sermon from October 13, 2006 at First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas
Job 23:1-9, 16-17
Psalm 22:1-15
Hebrews 4:12-16
Mark 10:17-31
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
It’s time for me to admit a guilty pleasure. I love watching poker on television.
When watching the World Series of Poker on the tube, there are all of the modern technological advances that make watching Texas Hold ’Em Poker look like any other televised event. There are special camera angels, there are special features on the players, and of course, there are the announcers like Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, Gabe Kaplan, and most recently, Norman Chad and Lon McEachern.
I love watching the players. What catches my eye is that in some events the players wear so much advertising they rival NASCAR drivers. There are caps and shirts advertising for PokerStars.Com, 888.info, FullTiltPoker.com and other internet poker sites. The players themselves make commercials for their latest books, web sites, and whatever. The tournaments are sponsored by big rollers including Miller Brewing and Coca-Cola. Televised poker has gone big time.
The World Series of Poker hasn’t always been such a big deal.[1] The first World Series of Poker event in 1969 was an invitational tournament in Reno, Nevada. In 1970, seven men played several different games and the winner was determined by a vote of the players. The winner took home a silver cup. The first modern style tournament was in 1971. The winner of the main event paid in $5,000 to play and took home $10,000 in winnings. These tournaments were very exclusive, only elite players received an invitation to play.
These days, it’s no big deal to get into any World Series of Poker event. There are no more invitations, no more making your bones. All you need is enough money to pay the entry fee. Since 1972, the buy-in, the entry fee, to the Main Event has been $10,000. But not everyone pays to play the event. Many internet poker sites buy seats and give them away to their on line tournaments winners. In 2003, the winner of the Main Event of the World Series was Chris Moneymaker. He got his seat at the table after winning a $40.00 qualifying tournament. Fending off 838 others, he won two-and-a-half million dollars.
Another thing that made Moneymaker different was that he was an accountant, and the first amateur to win the main event. In the last four Main Events, three of the winners have been amateurs. This year’s winner was an amateur named Jamie Gold. He won the largest poker game in history, 8,773 other players, winning $12 million.
I was watching poker on TV the other night and after watching chips being recklessly bandied around the table, I heard Norman Chad lament “These kids don’t know the value of money.” I’ve come a long way to say this, Norm’s got a point.
What do we expect? The new wave of poker players are amateurs—not the grizzled professionals of yesterday. The old pros used their own money to get into tournaments. Many of the young guns of poker cut their teeth on games that are free or have an inexpensive buy-in. They play with hundreds of thousands of chips that have no relation to real money. Players bet all of their chips on hands that are suspect hoping for the best. Many entering the Main Event don’t even buy their own way into the event; they’re playing with other people’s money from the first hand. It’s not the same game it was anymore.
And honestly, $10,000 just isn’t what it was in 1972 anymore either.[2]
But all things considered, at the most basic level, nothing has changed since biblical times. People do all sorts of things for money; some play cards. Others invest in securities, some of these being a crapshoot at best. Others inherit their fortunes. Players know that the one with the biggest stack at the end wins.
Today’s gospel reading is traditionally called the tale of the rich young man. He is a humble man. He shows he has the makings of a follower of Jesus. The rich man reaches Jesus as he sets out on his final journey to Jerusalem and he kneels before him. This act of contrition is often the way the sick approached Jesus seeking healing. This is not a test of the Pharisees; this is the supplication of a humble and hopeful man. He asks, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
The man is sharply focused. Jesus asks him a question: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” The man misses this question focusing on his own. We know the irony of his statement “No one is good but God alone.” He is God! He is Good! Jesus hints at this with his disciples, but in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus never equates himself with God. This is left for us, the worshipping community past and present. The man, on his knees, just lets this statement wash over him. The sharply focused man awaits his answer.
He is a confident man. In verse 19, Jesus quizzes him about his piety. Jesus asks the man about whether he has kept the commandments that concern how people are to live together. “You follow these commandments, don’t you?” Here the young man shows he has the makings of a Pharisee. “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” The man is confident he has done what is required of a good child to inherit eternal life.
Now, it is tempting to look at this man with contempt. We know how this ends for the man, but we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. Verse 21 begins with the glory of God shining upon this man. “Jesus, looking at him, loved him.” Jesus does not scorn him. Jesus does not hold the rich man in contempt. Jesus does not rear back and let him have it. Jesus loves him.
No where else in Mark’s gospel is it said Jesus loves any other person. Jesus loves him. And because Jesus loves him, he wants what is best for him, what is good, what is holy. “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” Jesus asks this man to get rid of what ties him to this life and dump it in favor of eternal life. The man asks Jesus “what must I do?” and Jesus tells him the one thing he lacks.
It is tempting to ask ourselves, “What is that one thing I lack. What is the one thing Jesus asks of me? What ties me to this life keeping me from eternal life?” It’s a very good question, with a very good answer, but again we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. We are trained to know that Jesus wants our time and our talents and our treasure. But Jesus is specific in this exchange, he is talking about treasure.
He doesn’t invite the young man along because he has talent Jesus needs. Jesus never says to him or to any of us, “You’re gifted; I need someone like you in the organization.” No, Jesus needs him—unencumbered of the things that tie him to this life. Jesus needs all of him so that he may inherit treasure in heaven, eternal life. Jesus needs all of him so that he may share the wealth of His vocation and the riches they bring.
It is tempting say that we are not rich. John Stossel of the ABC TV show 20/20 has an interesting take on this. In his “Give Me a Break” segment, he once approached a group of people waiting for assistance.[3] He asked why they were there. They said it was because they were poor. Then he asked about their stuff. People admitted to having a place to stay, and cars, and cable television, and microwave ovens, and large music systems, and all sorts of stuff. His take was “These people need a handout? Give Me a Break!”
But I am not fond of this take. Sure, it shows that American poverty is some of the best poverty in the world. People from all over the world long to come to America for our brand of poverty. But seemingly, Stossel says this without love or compassion. The segment also fails to show the truly poor that do live in the boundaries of the greatest nation on earth, those who know real hunger, those who do not have a roof over their heads.
John Stossel doesn’t seem to have approached his subjects with love.
Jesus loved the rich young man.
It is easy to beat people over the head with this piece of the gospel. It is easy, far too easy, to say to you from the pulpit that “we are all rich, richer than most, and we are called to give, give, and give more for the glory of the gospel. Remember, ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven!’”
I recently read an article said that when we get caught up in the processes of the faith, we tend to treat the processes like idols. The author writes, “It is certainly idolatrous when the Book of Order is used as a club to beat somebody with.”[4] I believe this applies to scripture too.
Many, rich and poor alike, have been intimidated with this piece of the Good News, me included. But Jesus says more than go, sell, and give. He also says come and follow. This is more than a call to give to the cause of those in need, the cause of the Gospel. It is a call to good discipleship. Discipleship involves the good use of our God given treasure. It also involves what we allow God to do with our lives after we surrender them back.
The disciples are astounded. Oh Jesus, If what you say is true, those who have been blessed by the Lord with great wealth (a common thought in ancient Judaism), if they cannot be saved then who can?
“For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.” Jesus reminds them, and us all, that God is sovereign. For God…all things are possible.
I said we know how it ends for this man, but really, we don’t. We know he leaves—shocked, saddened, and grieving. It is true, we never hear about this man again. But the gospel is silent about this man. We suppose he left Jesus to be with his fortunes. This is how this passage leaves us. But then again, we do not know how his encounter with the living God left his life. We don’t know that the Holy Spirit was able to keep gnawing away on his life until he was able to leave his things behind for the things of God. We just don’t know. I certainly hope so. There is only one thing in the scripture that leads me to believe this may be true, for God, all things are possible.
This piece of scripture deals with the current day and with the final days too. As we talk about eternal life we are compelled to consider what that means for our time and for the ages. Returning to the poker metaphor, the final table is no longer for the elite, Jesus invites us all to come and play. The rules are not the same as they were before the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Before, our wealth was seen as the way to buy our seats at the final table. Now we are invited to sit at the table of God by Jesus. We are told to take our earthly binds and cast them where they will help the people of God. And we are told to come and follow Him. This is about stewardship, and this is about discipleship. But of course, as Jesus tells us so well in verse 21, these are part and parcel.
“Go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” He gives us these difficult instructions not because he wants to inflict hardship upon us, but because he loves us.
[1] Poker references come from Wikipedia.org, accessed the week of October 10, 2006
[2] $10K in 1972 is worth $45,611.08 in 2005. $10K in 2005 is worth $2,192.45 in 1972
[3] This was years ago, I do not recall the date of the broadcast.
[4] Johnson, David W. in “Spirituality as a Response and Concern.” Insights, The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary, v. 122, no. 1, Fall 2006. Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary: Austin, Texas, page 15.
Job 23:1-9, 16-17
Psalm 22:1-15
Hebrews 4:12-16
Mark 10:17-31
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
It’s time for me to admit a guilty pleasure. I love watching poker on television.
When watching the World Series of Poker on the tube, there are all of the modern technological advances that make watching Texas Hold ’Em Poker look like any other televised event. There are special camera angels, there are special features on the players, and of course, there are the announcers like Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, Gabe Kaplan, and most recently, Norman Chad and Lon McEachern.
I love watching the players. What catches my eye is that in some events the players wear so much advertising they rival NASCAR drivers. There are caps and shirts advertising for PokerStars.Com, 888.info, FullTiltPoker.com and other internet poker sites. The players themselves make commercials for their latest books, web sites, and whatever. The tournaments are sponsored by big rollers including Miller Brewing and Coca-Cola. Televised poker has gone big time.
The World Series of Poker hasn’t always been such a big deal.[1] The first World Series of Poker event in 1969 was an invitational tournament in Reno, Nevada. In 1970, seven men played several different games and the winner was determined by a vote of the players. The winner took home a silver cup. The first modern style tournament was in 1971. The winner of the main event paid in $5,000 to play and took home $10,000 in winnings. These tournaments were very exclusive, only elite players received an invitation to play.
These days, it’s no big deal to get into any World Series of Poker event. There are no more invitations, no more making your bones. All you need is enough money to pay the entry fee. Since 1972, the buy-in, the entry fee, to the Main Event has been $10,000. But not everyone pays to play the event. Many internet poker sites buy seats and give them away to their on line tournaments winners. In 2003, the winner of the Main Event of the World Series was Chris Moneymaker. He got his seat at the table after winning a $40.00 qualifying tournament. Fending off 838 others, he won two-and-a-half million dollars.
Another thing that made Moneymaker different was that he was an accountant, and the first amateur to win the main event. In the last four Main Events, three of the winners have been amateurs. This year’s winner was an amateur named Jamie Gold. He won the largest poker game in history, 8,773 other players, winning $12 million.
I was watching poker on TV the other night and after watching chips being recklessly bandied around the table, I heard Norman Chad lament “These kids don’t know the value of money.” I’ve come a long way to say this, Norm’s got a point.
What do we expect? The new wave of poker players are amateurs—not the grizzled professionals of yesterday. The old pros used their own money to get into tournaments. Many of the young guns of poker cut their teeth on games that are free or have an inexpensive buy-in. They play with hundreds of thousands of chips that have no relation to real money. Players bet all of their chips on hands that are suspect hoping for the best. Many entering the Main Event don’t even buy their own way into the event; they’re playing with other people’s money from the first hand. It’s not the same game it was anymore.
And honestly, $10,000 just isn’t what it was in 1972 anymore either.[2]
But all things considered, at the most basic level, nothing has changed since biblical times. People do all sorts of things for money; some play cards. Others invest in securities, some of these being a crapshoot at best. Others inherit their fortunes. Players know that the one with the biggest stack at the end wins.
Today’s gospel reading is traditionally called the tale of the rich young man. He is a humble man. He shows he has the makings of a follower of Jesus. The rich man reaches Jesus as he sets out on his final journey to Jerusalem and he kneels before him. This act of contrition is often the way the sick approached Jesus seeking healing. This is not a test of the Pharisees; this is the supplication of a humble and hopeful man. He asks, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
The man is sharply focused. Jesus asks him a question: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” The man misses this question focusing on his own. We know the irony of his statement “No one is good but God alone.” He is God! He is Good! Jesus hints at this with his disciples, but in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus never equates himself with God. This is left for us, the worshipping community past and present. The man, on his knees, just lets this statement wash over him. The sharply focused man awaits his answer.
He is a confident man. In verse 19, Jesus quizzes him about his piety. Jesus asks the man about whether he has kept the commandments that concern how people are to live together. “You follow these commandments, don’t you?” Here the young man shows he has the makings of a Pharisee. “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” The man is confident he has done what is required of a good child to inherit eternal life.
Now, it is tempting to look at this man with contempt. We know how this ends for the man, but we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. Verse 21 begins with the glory of God shining upon this man. “Jesus, looking at him, loved him.” Jesus does not scorn him. Jesus does not hold the rich man in contempt. Jesus does not rear back and let him have it. Jesus loves him.
No where else in Mark’s gospel is it said Jesus loves any other person. Jesus loves him. And because Jesus loves him, he wants what is best for him, what is good, what is holy. “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” Jesus asks this man to get rid of what ties him to this life and dump it in favor of eternal life. The man asks Jesus “what must I do?” and Jesus tells him the one thing he lacks.
It is tempting to ask ourselves, “What is that one thing I lack. What is the one thing Jesus asks of me? What ties me to this life keeping me from eternal life?” It’s a very good question, with a very good answer, but again we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. We are trained to know that Jesus wants our time and our talents and our treasure. But Jesus is specific in this exchange, he is talking about treasure.
He doesn’t invite the young man along because he has talent Jesus needs. Jesus never says to him or to any of us, “You’re gifted; I need someone like you in the organization.” No, Jesus needs him—unencumbered of the things that tie him to this life. Jesus needs all of him so that he may inherit treasure in heaven, eternal life. Jesus needs all of him so that he may share the wealth of His vocation and the riches they bring.
It is tempting say that we are not rich. John Stossel of the ABC TV show 20/20 has an interesting take on this. In his “Give Me a Break” segment, he once approached a group of people waiting for assistance.[3] He asked why they were there. They said it was because they were poor. Then he asked about their stuff. People admitted to having a place to stay, and cars, and cable television, and microwave ovens, and large music systems, and all sorts of stuff. His take was “These people need a handout? Give Me a Break!”
But I am not fond of this take. Sure, it shows that American poverty is some of the best poverty in the world. People from all over the world long to come to America for our brand of poverty. But seemingly, Stossel says this without love or compassion. The segment also fails to show the truly poor that do live in the boundaries of the greatest nation on earth, those who know real hunger, those who do not have a roof over their heads.
John Stossel doesn’t seem to have approached his subjects with love.
Jesus loved the rich young man.
It is easy to beat people over the head with this piece of the gospel. It is easy, far too easy, to say to you from the pulpit that “we are all rich, richer than most, and we are called to give, give, and give more for the glory of the gospel. Remember, ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven!’”
I recently read an article said that when we get caught up in the processes of the faith, we tend to treat the processes like idols. The author writes, “It is certainly idolatrous when the Book of Order is used as a club to beat somebody with.”[4] I believe this applies to scripture too.
Many, rich and poor alike, have been intimidated with this piece of the Good News, me included. But Jesus says more than go, sell, and give. He also says come and follow. This is more than a call to give to the cause of those in need, the cause of the Gospel. It is a call to good discipleship. Discipleship involves the good use of our God given treasure. It also involves what we allow God to do with our lives after we surrender them back.
The disciples are astounded. Oh Jesus, If what you say is true, those who have been blessed by the Lord with great wealth (a common thought in ancient Judaism), if they cannot be saved then who can?
“For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.” Jesus reminds them, and us all, that God is sovereign. For God…all things are possible.
I said we know how it ends for this man, but really, we don’t. We know he leaves—shocked, saddened, and grieving. It is true, we never hear about this man again. But the gospel is silent about this man. We suppose he left Jesus to be with his fortunes. This is how this passage leaves us. But then again, we do not know how his encounter with the living God left his life. We don’t know that the Holy Spirit was able to keep gnawing away on his life until he was able to leave his things behind for the things of God. We just don’t know. I certainly hope so. There is only one thing in the scripture that leads me to believe this may be true, for God, all things are possible.
This piece of scripture deals with the current day and with the final days too. As we talk about eternal life we are compelled to consider what that means for our time and for the ages. Returning to the poker metaphor, the final table is no longer for the elite, Jesus invites us all to come and play. The rules are not the same as they were before the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Before, our wealth was seen as the way to buy our seats at the final table. Now we are invited to sit at the table of God by Jesus. We are told to take our earthly binds and cast them where they will help the people of God. And we are told to come and follow Him. This is about stewardship, and this is about discipleship. But of course, as Jesus tells us so well in verse 21, these are part and parcel.
“Go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” He gives us these difficult instructions not because he wants to inflict hardship upon us, but because he loves us.
[1] Poker references come from Wikipedia.org, accessed the week of October 10, 2006
[2] $10K in 1972 is worth $45,611.08 in 2005. $10K in 2005 is worth $2,192.45 in 1972
[3] This was years ago, I do not recall the date of the broadcast.
[4] Johnson, David W. in “Spirituality as a Response and Concern.” Insights, The Faculty Journal of Austin Seminary, v. 122, no. 1, Fall 2006. Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary: Austin, Texas, page 15.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Manufactured Arguments
Sermon from October 8, 2006, First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas
Job 1:1, 2:1-10
Psalm 26
Hebrews 1:1-1, 2:5-12
Mark 10:2-16
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
When faced with pieces of scripture like today’s gospel reading, a friend of mine from seminary used to check out a book called Preaching the Hard Sayings of Jesus.[1] In our day and time and setting, this reading from Mark 10 qualifies as a hard saying. I would have loved to have gone somewhere else today, but I fear I cannot. Please, come with me, but come carefully.
We are a congregation of people the people of God. Some of us are divorced, and remarried. Some of us are the children of divorce. For us, this Gospel passage is a difficult word. We are a congregation of people who are both straight and gay. For the straight, the message is sharp. For those who are gay, omission bears its own stigma. Because of the difficulty of these words, I am tempted to want to tell you what Jesus really meant.
Preaching against the word is always a gutsy move, usually it is more foolish than gutsy. I am a liberal theologian who has faith that God revels in all relationships that are entered in the name of God. Being a big fan of “God is love,”[2] this makes sense to me. So, I want to say that Jesus really didn’t mean what he said here—and have it fit what I desperately hope is true. I want to say this in the worst way. But I can’t. I won’t. When you called me, you called me to care for you as a pastor, and share the word of God as a preacher. This is one of those times when it is difficult to work in the tension of these two roles. Is it any wonder this piece belongs in Preaching the Hard Sayings of Jesus.
Let’s look at this from the beginning. Jesus is asked by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Now, Rabbis taught in a question and answer format. So this is presented to Jesus like a perfectly valid question. But as we know from reading scripture, the Pharisees never asked Jesus a perfectly valid question. Every test of the Pharisees was designed to divide the people and enrage the leaders of the temple and the state. Every test of the Pharisees was an attempt to draw Jesus into controversy and discredit his word. This test is no exception.
The controversy the Pharisees attempted to draw Jesus into was between rabbinical schools of thought and their views on divorce. Evidently, controversy over divorce is as old as marriage itself. Regarding divorce, the position taken by the Shammai School was very strict, while a more lenient stance taken by the Hillel School. Somewhere between the two fell the teachings of the Aqiba School. If Jesus takes one position over the others, then the uproar begins. The Pharisees have manufactured yet another argument hoping Jesus would fall into the controversy dividing the gospel.
Jesus, once again, refuses to take the bait of the Pharisees and asks them a different question, “What did Moses command you?” As Pharisees, they are certainly able to answer Jesus’ question. “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.”
So far so good for the Pharisees, the answer is right, but Jesus is not satisfied with it. Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses wrote this commandment for you.” Just to add a little extra sting to this reprimand, the phrase Jesus uses for “hardness of heart” means “uncircumcised heart” in the Old Testament. The Pharisees have been schooled with the same words Moses uses to scold the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy.
Now, here’s the difference between what the Pharisees ask and how Jesus responds. The Pharisees ask Jesus what is legal, what is permissible. They want a reference, chapter and verse, about what the law says so that they can get on with discrediting Jesus and the Good News. But Jesus will not be had so easily. So Jesus asks what Moses says is legal, what is permissible—and the Pharisees answer. Then Jesus turns the tables. Jesus’ words have nothing to do with the law. His response returns us to the primordial elements of creation—the most basic building blocks of relationships. The Pharisees talk about the Law of Moses. Jesus talks about the commands of God.
Jesus—who has been intimately familiar with the commands of God since before the beginning—knows that divorce is not God’s intention for us. “From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Marriage is a gift of God’s good creation. This is the way it was intended to be from the beginning. Jesus tells us that our body becomes one with our partner, never to be torn asunder. Jesus says this. There is no wiggle room.
Looking out upon you, I am not sure I know what to do with this. What is missing from Jesus’ reply is even a modicum of pastoral care. It’s a very strict interpretation of the Word of God. Where is “God is love”? This seems callous.
Because of this callousness, this piece of scripture has been used by people to hurt others for ages. These words have been abused to whip women into submission as surely as a fist or a belt. These words have been used by abused persons hoping “God will enter my partner’s heart so we can live as God intended.” This piece has been abused by clergy to withhold support for people in abusive relationships. It has been used to shame divorced people, showing them that they don’t live in God’s will. It has been used to shame gay and lesbian people—saying that the bible says “man and wife”—“male and female”—no other combination.
But Jesus is no fan of hate, or shame, or abuse. God is Love. And in God’s love, we have been given the gift of grace, a grace we cannot earn. We can do nothing to merit this wonderful, saving gift of grace through faith.
There is one consolation. NOT ONE OF US HAS EVER LIVED UP TO GOD’S EXPECTATIONS. None of us has ever lived into the expectations God had for creation in the beginning.
I don’t have to tell you about the school shooting in Nickel Mines last week. I would love to tell you that this is an outrageous act, unknown of before Monday. But it wasn’t. It was the third school shooting of the week and the second hostage style shooting in a week. There is little that epitomizes monstrous sin than the taking of a young life. I’d like to think God has a special place for people who commit such horrendous sin.
But something outrageous happened after the incident. The Amish, the people who were so horribly injured by this event offered forgiveness to the shooter, offered grace and peace to the man who took their young. Such grace is beyond my imagination. There is a confidence, a strength of faith that allows them to say—and truly mean—that their daughters—though taken—have been taken to a better place.[3] Yes, there is mourning, and grief, and sorrow in Nickel Mines. And there is a dedication to forgiveness in the name of the Lord that is deep, and wonderful, and glorious.
Yesterday, the funeral was held for Charles Carl Roberts IV, the gunman of Nickel Mines. He was buried in his wife’s family plot behind a small Methodist Church next to the nine month old daughter he lost twenty years ago, not far from the site of his rampage on Monday. His funeral was attended by about 75 mourners—nearly half of them Amish.
Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Morrison, Colorado, came to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could. He attended the burial. He said Marie Roberts, Charles Carl Roberts’s widow, was also touched. “She was absolutely deeply moved, by just the love shown,” Porter said. “It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed.”[4]
How can anyone, how can anyone be so graceful in such a time of sorrow and grief? In the modern day it is impossible to imagine. Then again the Amish really don’t live in the modern day. Perhaps that has something to do with their ability to forgive. Without so much stuff in the way, they don’t manufacture the arguments that the Pharisees of Jesus’ age—and our age for that matter—are so fond of getting into.
Jesus does not enter into the manufactured arguments of the Pharisees, and neither should we. Jesus backs away from the trap laid by the leaders of the temple and the teachers of the law and returns to the building blocks of creation—and so too must we. He knows we do not live into the truth and the light of God’s intention for creation. God knows we are not the creatures intended in the beginning. This is why he offers us his grace. This is why God gave us his son. This is why the Holy Spirit is present to guide us today.
Jesus offers commentary on the difference between creation as God intended and life as we live it. There is no special condemnation for any particular group of sinner, no implication that one sinner is worse than any other sinner. God has a plan for creation. A plan we have not followed since that fateful day in the garden. Jesus comments that none of our relationships, whether single or married, divorced or remarried, straight or gay, live into God’s intent for creation.
God’s expectations are as different from us as God is different from us. God is infinite in glory, and blessedness and perfection. God is all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, and almighty. God knows all things. God is most wise, holy, just, merciful and gracious. God is long suffering in our disobedience. God is abundant in goodness and truth. And God offers us peace that surpasses all understanding in Jesus Christ.
We must take the grace God gives us so freely—and extend it to one and all just as freely—if we are to begin to recapture the spark of God in creation. The Amish are tremendous role models for this grace. They grieve; they are filled with sorrow and anguish over the loss of their daughters. And they offer the healing touch of the hand of God to those who need it the most. They offer God’s abundant grace and forgiveness because ours is insufficient. Their actions show the power of the healing God offers us, one and all. They refuse to get into cycles of anger and rage that consume others. They refuse to enter into arguments that split the witness of Christ. Instead they focus on the grace and peace and love of Christ. They demonstrate the power of the healing work of the Holy Spirit. They work to reclaim the promise of relationship as God intended.
One of the names of the church is “the bride of Christ.” As the church we are wedded; we are called to be one flesh with Jesus. We must never enter into the arguments that divide the body and witness of the Lord. We must never tear others from the groom or allow ourselves to be torn from him. This would be the most horrid sin of all—divorce of the body of Christ. What God has joined together, let no one separate.
[1] Carroll, John T. and James R., Preaching the Hard Sayings of Jesus.
[2] 1John 4:8
[3] Ann Curry reporting from Nickel Mines for The Today Show, October 4, 2006.
[4] http://kevxml.windstream.net/_1_2LVTO104LZE2CF__wind.main/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin= D8KK28T00 &qcat=usnews&ran=26509&feed=ap, accessed October 7, 2006
Job 1:1, 2:1-10
Psalm 26
Hebrews 1:1-1, 2:5-12
Mark 10:2-16
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
When faced with pieces of scripture like today’s gospel reading, a friend of mine from seminary used to check out a book called Preaching the Hard Sayings of Jesus.[1] In our day and time and setting, this reading from Mark 10 qualifies as a hard saying. I would have loved to have gone somewhere else today, but I fear I cannot. Please, come with me, but come carefully.
We are a congregation of people the people of God. Some of us are divorced, and remarried. Some of us are the children of divorce. For us, this Gospel passage is a difficult word. We are a congregation of people who are both straight and gay. For the straight, the message is sharp. For those who are gay, omission bears its own stigma. Because of the difficulty of these words, I am tempted to want to tell you what Jesus really meant.
Preaching against the word is always a gutsy move, usually it is more foolish than gutsy. I am a liberal theologian who has faith that God revels in all relationships that are entered in the name of God. Being a big fan of “God is love,”[2] this makes sense to me. So, I want to say that Jesus really didn’t mean what he said here—and have it fit what I desperately hope is true. I want to say this in the worst way. But I can’t. I won’t. When you called me, you called me to care for you as a pastor, and share the word of God as a preacher. This is one of those times when it is difficult to work in the tension of these two roles. Is it any wonder this piece belongs in Preaching the Hard Sayings of Jesus.
Let’s look at this from the beginning. Jesus is asked by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Now, Rabbis taught in a question and answer format. So this is presented to Jesus like a perfectly valid question. But as we know from reading scripture, the Pharisees never asked Jesus a perfectly valid question. Every test of the Pharisees was designed to divide the people and enrage the leaders of the temple and the state. Every test of the Pharisees was an attempt to draw Jesus into controversy and discredit his word. This test is no exception.
The controversy the Pharisees attempted to draw Jesus into was between rabbinical schools of thought and their views on divorce. Evidently, controversy over divorce is as old as marriage itself. Regarding divorce, the position taken by the Shammai School was very strict, while a more lenient stance taken by the Hillel School. Somewhere between the two fell the teachings of the Aqiba School. If Jesus takes one position over the others, then the uproar begins. The Pharisees have manufactured yet another argument hoping Jesus would fall into the controversy dividing the gospel.
Jesus, once again, refuses to take the bait of the Pharisees and asks them a different question, “What did Moses command you?” As Pharisees, they are certainly able to answer Jesus’ question. “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.”
So far so good for the Pharisees, the answer is right, but Jesus is not satisfied with it. Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses wrote this commandment for you.” Just to add a little extra sting to this reprimand, the phrase Jesus uses for “hardness of heart” means “uncircumcised heart” in the Old Testament. The Pharisees have been schooled with the same words Moses uses to scold the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy.
Now, here’s the difference between what the Pharisees ask and how Jesus responds. The Pharisees ask Jesus what is legal, what is permissible. They want a reference, chapter and verse, about what the law says so that they can get on with discrediting Jesus and the Good News. But Jesus will not be had so easily. So Jesus asks what Moses says is legal, what is permissible—and the Pharisees answer. Then Jesus turns the tables. Jesus’ words have nothing to do with the law. His response returns us to the primordial elements of creation—the most basic building blocks of relationships. The Pharisees talk about the Law of Moses. Jesus talks about the commands of God.
Jesus—who has been intimately familiar with the commands of God since before the beginning—knows that divorce is not God’s intention for us. “From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Marriage is a gift of God’s good creation. This is the way it was intended to be from the beginning. Jesus tells us that our body becomes one with our partner, never to be torn asunder. Jesus says this. There is no wiggle room.
Looking out upon you, I am not sure I know what to do with this. What is missing from Jesus’ reply is even a modicum of pastoral care. It’s a very strict interpretation of the Word of God. Where is “God is love”? This seems callous.
Because of this callousness, this piece of scripture has been used by people to hurt others for ages. These words have been abused to whip women into submission as surely as a fist or a belt. These words have been used by abused persons hoping “God will enter my partner’s heart so we can live as God intended.” This piece has been abused by clergy to withhold support for people in abusive relationships. It has been used to shame divorced people, showing them that they don’t live in God’s will. It has been used to shame gay and lesbian people—saying that the bible says “man and wife”—“male and female”—no other combination.
But Jesus is no fan of hate, or shame, or abuse. God is Love. And in God’s love, we have been given the gift of grace, a grace we cannot earn. We can do nothing to merit this wonderful, saving gift of grace through faith.
There is one consolation. NOT ONE OF US HAS EVER LIVED UP TO GOD’S EXPECTATIONS. None of us has ever lived into the expectations God had for creation in the beginning.
I don’t have to tell you about the school shooting in Nickel Mines last week. I would love to tell you that this is an outrageous act, unknown of before Monday. But it wasn’t. It was the third school shooting of the week and the second hostage style shooting in a week. There is little that epitomizes monstrous sin than the taking of a young life. I’d like to think God has a special place for people who commit such horrendous sin.
But something outrageous happened after the incident. The Amish, the people who were so horribly injured by this event offered forgiveness to the shooter, offered grace and peace to the man who took their young. Such grace is beyond my imagination. There is a confidence, a strength of faith that allows them to say—and truly mean—that their daughters—though taken—have been taken to a better place.[3] Yes, there is mourning, and grief, and sorrow in Nickel Mines. And there is a dedication to forgiveness in the name of the Lord that is deep, and wonderful, and glorious.
Yesterday, the funeral was held for Charles Carl Roberts IV, the gunman of Nickel Mines. He was buried in his wife’s family plot behind a small Methodist Church next to the nine month old daughter he lost twenty years ago, not far from the site of his rampage on Monday. His funeral was attended by about 75 mourners—nearly half of them Amish.
Bruce Porter, a fire department chaplain from Morrison, Colorado, came to Pennsylvania to offer what help he could. He attended the burial. He said Marie Roberts, Charles Carl Roberts’s widow, was also touched. “She was absolutely deeply moved, by just the love shown,” Porter said. “It's the love, the forgiveness, the heartfelt forgiveness they have toward the family. I broke down and cried seeing it displayed.”[4]
How can anyone, how can anyone be so graceful in such a time of sorrow and grief? In the modern day it is impossible to imagine. Then again the Amish really don’t live in the modern day. Perhaps that has something to do with their ability to forgive. Without so much stuff in the way, they don’t manufacture the arguments that the Pharisees of Jesus’ age—and our age for that matter—are so fond of getting into.
Jesus does not enter into the manufactured arguments of the Pharisees, and neither should we. Jesus backs away from the trap laid by the leaders of the temple and the teachers of the law and returns to the building blocks of creation—and so too must we. He knows we do not live into the truth and the light of God’s intention for creation. God knows we are not the creatures intended in the beginning. This is why he offers us his grace. This is why God gave us his son. This is why the Holy Spirit is present to guide us today.
Jesus offers commentary on the difference between creation as God intended and life as we live it. There is no special condemnation for any particular group of sinner, no implication that one sinner is worse than any other sinner. God has a plan for creation. A plan we have not followed since that fateful day in the garden. Jesus comments that none of our relationships, whether single or married, divorced or remarried, straight or gay, live into God’s intent for creation.
God’s expectations are as different from us as God is different from us. God is infinite in glory, and blessedness and perfection. God is all-sufficient, eternal, unchangeable, incomprehensible, everywhere present, and almighty. God knows all things. God is most wise, holy, just, merciful and gracious. God is long suffering in our disobedience. God is abundant in goodness and truth. And God offers us peace that surpasses all understanding in Jesus Christ.
We must take the grace God gives us so freely—and extend it to one and all just as freely—if we are to begin to recapture the spark of God in creation. The Amish are tremendous role models for this grace. They grieve; they are filled with sorrow and anguish over the loss of their daughters. And they offer the healing touch of the hand of God to those who need it the most. They offer God’s abundant grace and forgiveness because ours is insufficient. Their actions show the power of the healing God offers us, one and all. They refuse to get into cycles of anger and rage that consume others. They refuse to enter into arguments that split the witness of Christ. Instead they focus on the grace and peace and love of Christ. They demonstrate the power of the healing work of the Holy Spirit. They work to reclaim the promise of relationship as God intended.
One of the names of the church is “the bride of Christ.” As the church we are wedded; we are called to be one flesh with Jesus. We must never enter into the arguments that divide the body and witness of the Lord. We must never tear others from the groom or allow ourselves to be torn from him. This would be the most horrid sin of all—divorce of the body of Christ. What God has joined together, let no one separate.
[1] Carroll, John T. and James R., Preaching the Hard Sayings of Jesus.
[2] 1John 4:8
[3] Ann Curry reporting from Nickel Mines for The Today Show, October 4, 2006.
[4] http://kevxml.windstream.net/_1_2LVTO104LZE2CF__wind.main/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin= D8KK28T00 &qcat=usnews&ran=26509&feed=ap, accessed October 7, 2006
Sunday, October 01, 2006
The In-Crowd
Sermon from October 1, 2006, First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas
Esther 7:1-6, 9-10, 9:20-22
Psalm 124
James 5:13-20
Mark 9:38-50
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
Thanks to the Reverend Mark Lenneville for the title of this sermon. As for the rest of it…
There was never a truer statement than high school is a vision of hell. One of the best recent collections of the behavior that makes it seem this way is found in the 2002 book Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence by Rosalind Wiseman. Written as a help book, it is a guide for parents to help their daughters deal with the social rigors of high school in America. The chapters have titles like “Passport from Planet Parent to Girl World: Communication and Reconnaissance” and “The Beauty Pageant: Who Wants to Be Miss Congeniality?” For anyone who thinks this topic would make a cute little book with bullet points of tips and advice should read it, all 336 pages.
I don’t know if high school is any worse now than it was when we were young, but today everything happens quicker. We older folks may have faced the same sorts of people and things in school, but my school experience didn’t include security video surveillance, camera phones, or myspace.com. Also, those who were bullied back in the day never brought guns to school. Indeed hellish.
So, what is a young girl to do if she is the queen of Persia—the wife of Ahasuerus, the ruler of over one hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia—and hiding a deep, deep secret? What is a young girl to do if her Uncle Mordechai comes to her and says the horrible Haman, the Prime Minister of the court of the King of Persia, is planning the murder of an entire race of people—their people?
This young woman is crushed. Her choices are few and risky.
She can go to the King and plead for the safety of her people. But this is very dangerous. Even as queen, she could not approach the King of Persia without fearing for her life. If she approached the king and did not find his favor, she would be executed immediately.
If she did approach the King and he did grant her the favor of an audience, she would have to convince him that the very important Haman was up to no good. If she could not, surely this would cost her life.
Her other choice was to keep quiet, deny her Uncle and her extended family, and hope she would not be discovered. If she had been discovered, she would have been killed along with Mordechai and the rest of their people.
Hiding successfully may have preserved her life, but at a great cost. She might have kept her life, but lost everything else.
What’s a girl to do? I looked in the index of Queen Bees and Wannabes; there isn’t a section that covers genocide.
By now you may have imagined that I am leading you into our Old Testament reading from the book of Esther. Esther may have been the most popular girl in the harem, but she had a deep, deep secret, she was a Jew. She was a queen bee with a past. And Haman, who was a very important man, wants to exterminate Mordechai and all of the rest of his people. Esther would not have been safe. Esther made her choice, she risked going to the King with her request.
By the time of our reading, Esther had prepared not one, but two banquets for her King and his Prime Minister. The King was so enamored with Esther and her fine banquets that he offered her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom. So she told him what she wanted. Simply and wonderfully, she asks for the lives of her people.
“Let my life be given me—that is my petition—and the lives of my people—that is my request. For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated.”
She doesn’t seek revenge. She does not ask for the life of Haman in return for her life. She does not stand with rage and anger. She even tells her husband, her king that if her people had been sold into slavery, she would not offer this petition. She risks her life to save the lives of her people.
Finally, in the next section we did not read, Haman fears for his life. It seems the King decides Haman’s life is forfeit even without Esther asking for it. So he begs Queen Esther that he be spared. But to make matters worse, Haman’s pleas look more like an assault on Esther. Haman is hung from a gallows he erected to hang Mordechai, a gallows 50 cubits—nearly 75 feet—high.
When the King sought a queen, Esther drew the attention of one of his eunuchs. This servant of the king gave Esther the best of cosmetic treatments, the best food from the king’s table, and a staff of young women to attend to her needs while she prepared to become the queen. When Ahasuerus selected her, she became queen.
Esther was not a part of the in-crowd. She was a Jew in the exile. She was a stranger in a strange land. She was an orphan, being raised by her Uncle Mordechai. She was a wannabe who drew the eye of one of the King’s servants and became the queen bee. Her status was cemented when she was able to use her position (and popularity if you will) and use it to prevent the extermination of her people.
But this is not the only example of queen bees and wannabes we find in our readings today. Last week we read an example of the disciples being pretty full of themselves. Jesus reminded them that to be great, they must be least and servants of all. Based on this reading, the lesson hasn’t sunk in yet.
The disciples find someone who is doing works of power in the name of Jesus—and they tell him to stop it! This new person, this person spreading the good news—this evangelist—is not a part of the in-crowd. This is some outsider doing the works of power that they’re doing, but he isn’t a part of the club. Anybody who knows anything about social circles knows this is taboo, and the disciples want Jesus—their queen bee—to make this pretender, this newbie, this wannabe stop.
Jesus, as always, is the voice of reason: “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.”
Jesus implores us to do good works in his name. When we do, we will not be able to speak ill of him. He also says that people who give a cold drink to those who do good works in his name will not be lose their reward.
This is the joy of the glory of God, when we do good works for those who do good in his name, God’s reward will not be lost. But there is something just as important, the sentence which I left out of his statement from Mark’s gospel.
Whoever is not against us is for us.
The book Queen Bees and Wannabes was made into a movie in 2004. It would seem difficult to make an entertaining movie out of a help book. The writer of the script had to find a way to take a book without a story or narrative and create both—while maintaining the integrity of the original source. The screenwriter, then Saturday Night Live head writer Tina Fey, was able to do just that when she created the script for Mean Girls. The movie took many of the anecdotes shared by girls in the book and put them in the context of a suburban Chicago high school and experienced by the new girl. Many of the most horrible situations in the movie come directly from reports shared by the girls.
In the movie, a young girl named Cady begins her junior year of high school after years of being home schooled. Among her experiences was the drama of finding a place in the lunchroom. After some trial and error, Cady’s friend Janice Ian gives her a map of the lunch room. This illustrated map show the separation of the tables into their social spheres showing Cady where the "Plastic Girls", the "Varsity Jocks", the "Asian Nerds", the "Cool Asians", the "Art Freaks" and everyone else sits.
The worst part of the map is that by creating these lines, lines as hard and impenetrable as the skin on top of cafeteria pudding, a self fulfilling prophecy begins to develop. People are defined by where they eat lunch, with the queen bee sitting in the center of the hive. It is the queen bee who through devastating pressure refines and maintains social order. Her behavior is a cross between “I will oppress you all to maintain my standing,” and “whoever is not for us is against us” with devastating results.
In the eternal lunchroom of heavenly social status, Jesus casts aside the earthly paradigm. He reimagines the map. At the map drawn by our Lord there are no names of cliques on the tables. We are all members of the same group—The Children of God.
We are called to be salt in one another’s life. We are called to add flavor to life in the name of God. We are not called to rub ourselves in the wounds of others making matters worse. We are called to do the work of God in God’s peace through God’s grace. Anything less is just mean.
Today is World Communion Sunday. Today we celebrate the Lord’s Supper at the Lord’s Table with the children of God around the world. Today as we take the spiritual nourishment of the word and the body and blood of Christ we do so with millions of Christians around the globe.
Quite a lunchroom, isn’t it? So today, let us share the meal together. Let serve one another, doing wonderful things, wonderful works of power in his name. Let us be salt in one another’s life, nourished in, by, and through the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Esther 7:1-6, 9-10, 9:20-22
Psalm 124
James 5:13-20
Mark 9:38-50
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
Thanks to the Reverend Mark Lenneville for the title of this sermon. As for the rest of it…
There was never a truer statement than high school is a vision of hell. One of the best recent collections of the behavior that makes it seem this way is found in the 2002 book Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence by Rosalind Wiseman. Written as a help book, it is a guide for parents to help their daughters deal with the social rigors of high school in America. The chapters have titles like “Passport from Planet Parent to Girl World: Communication and Reconnaissance” and “The Beauty Pageant: Who Wants to Be Miss Congeniality?” For anyone who thinks this topic would make a cute little book with bullet points of tips and advice should read it, all 336 pages.
I don’t know if high school is any worse now than it was when we were young, but today everything happens quicker. We older folks may have faced the same sorts of people and things in school, but my school experience didn’t include security video surveillance, camera phones, or myspace.com. Also, those who were bullied back in the day never brought guns to school. Indeed hellish.
So, what is a young girl to do if she is the queen of Persia—the wife of Ahasuerus, the ruler of over one hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia—and hiding a deep, deep secret? What is a young girl to do if her Uncle Mordechai comes to her and says the horrible Haman, the Prime Minister of the court of the King of Persia, is planning the murder of an entire race of people—their people?
This young woman is crushed. Her choices are few and risky.
She can go to the King and plead for the safety of her people. But this is very dangerous. Even as queen, she could not approach the King of Persia without fearing for her life. If she approached the king and did not find his favor, she would be executed immediately.
If she did approach the King and he did grant her the favor of an audience, she would have to convince him that the very important Haman was up to no good. If she could not, surely this would cost her life.
Her other choice was to keep quiet, deny her Uncle and her extended family, and hope she would not be discovered. If she had been discovered, she would have been killed along with Mordechai and the rest of their people.
Hiding successfully may have preserved her life, but at a great cost. She might have kept her life, but lost everything else.
What’s a girl to do? I looked in the index of Queen Bees and Wannabes; there isn’t a section that covers genocide.
By now you may have imagined that I am leading you into our Old Testament reading from the book of Esther. Esther may have been the most popular girl in the harem, but she had a deep, deep secret, she was a Jew. She was a queen bee with a past. And Haman, who was a very important man, wants to exterminate Mordechai and all of the rest of his people. Esther would not have been safe. Esther made her choice, she risked going to the King with her request.
By the time of our reading, Esther had prepared not one, but two banquets for her King and his Prime Minister. The King was so enamored with Esther and her fine banquets that he offered her anything she desired, up to half of his kingdom. So she told him what she wanted. Simply and wonderfully, she asks for the lives of her people.
“Let my life be given me—that is my petition—and the lives of my people—that is my request. For we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be killed, and to be annihilated.”
She doesn’t seek revenge. She does not ask for the life of Haman in return for her life. She does not stand with rage and anger. She even tells her husband, her king that if her people had been sold into slavery, she would not offer this petition. She risks her life to save the lives of her people.
Finally, in the next section we did not read, Haman fears for his life. It seems the King decides Haman’s life is forfeit even without Esther asking for it. So he begs Queen Esther that he be spared. But to make matters worse, Haman’s pleas look more like an assault on Esther. Haman is hung from a gallows he erected to hang Mordechai, a gallows 50 cubits—nearly 75 feet—high.
When the King sought a queen, Esther drew the attention of one of his eunuchs. This servant of the king gave Esther the best of cosmetic treatments, the best food from the king’s table, and a staff of young women to attend to her needs while she prepared to become the queen. When Ahasuerus selected her, she became queen.
Esther was not a part of the in-crowd. She was a Jew in the exile. She was a stranger in a strange land. She was an orphan, being raised by her Uncle Mordechai. She was a wannabe who drew the eye of one of the King’s servants and became the queen bee. Her status was cemented when she was able to use her position (and popularity if you will) and use it to prevent the extermination of her people.
But this is not the only example of queen bees and wannabes we find in our readings today. Last week we read an example of the disciples being pretty full of themselves. Jesus reminded them that to be great, they must be least and servants of all. Based on this reading, the lesson hasn’t sunk in yet.
The disciples find someone who is doing works of power in the name of Jesus—and they tell him to stop it! This new person, this person spreading the good news—this evangelist—is not a part of the in-crowd. This is some outsider doing the works of power that they’re doing, but he isn’t a part of the club. Anybody who knows anything about social circles knows this is taboo, and the disciples want Jesus—their queen bee—to make this pretender, this newbie, this wannabe stop.
Jesus, as always, is the voice of reason: “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.”
Jesus implores us to do good works in his name. When we do, we will not be able to speak ill of him. He also says that people who give a cold drink to those who do good works in his name will not be lose their reward.
This is the joy of the glory of God, when we do good works for those who do good in his name, God’s reward will not be lost. But there is something just as important, the sentence which I left out of his statement from Mark’s gospel.
Whoever is not against us is for us.
The book Queen Bees and Wannabes was made into a movie in 2004. It would seem difficult to make an entertaining movie out of a help book. The writer of the script had to find a way to take a book without a story or narrative and create both—while maintaining the integrity of the original source. The screenwriter, then Saturday Night Live head writer Tina Fey, was able to do just that when she created the script for Mean Girls. The movie took many of the anecdotes shared by girls in the book and put them in the context of a suburban Chicago high school and experienced by the new girl. Many of the most horrible situations in the movie come directly from reports shared by the girls.
In the movie, a young girl named Cady begins her junior year of high school after years of being home schooled. Among her experiences was the drama of finding a place in the lunchroom. After some trial and error, Cady’s friend Janice Ian gives her a map of the lunch room. This illustrated map show the separation of the tables into their social spheres showing Cady where the "Plastic Girls", the "Varsity Jocks", the "Asian Nerds", the "Cool Asians", the "Art Freaks" and everyone else sits.
The worst part of the map is that by creating these lines, lines as hard and impenetrable as the skin on top of cafeteria pudding, a self fulfilling prophecy begins to develop. People are defined by where they eat lunch, with the queen bee sitting in the center of the hive. It is the queen bee who through devastating pressure refines and maintains social order. Her behavior is a cross between “I will oppress you all to maintain my standing,” and “whoever is not for us is against us” with devastating results.
In the eternal lunchroom of heavenly social status, Jesus casts aside the earthly paradigm. He reimagines the map. At the map drawn by our Lord there are no names of cliques on the tables. We are all members of the same group—The Children of God.
We are called to be salt in one another’s life. We are called to add flavor to life in the name of God. We are not called to rub ourselves in the wounds of others making matters worse. We are called to do the work of God in God’s peace through God’s grace. Anything less is just mean.
Today is World Communion Sunday. Today we celebrate the Lord’s Supper at the Lord’s Table with the children of God around the world. Today as we take the spiritual nourishment of the word and the body and blood of Christ we do so with millions of Christians around the globe.
Quite a lunchroom, isn’t it? So today, let us share the meal together. Let serve one another, doing wonderful things, wonderful works of power in his name. Let us be salt in one another’s life, nourished in, by, and through the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)