This Sunday is Gideon Sunday at First Presbyterian Church in Berryville. We will be hearing the report of the local and global Gideon Society so I will not be in the pulpit. This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Chruch in Berryville, Arkansas on the 30th Sunday of Ordinary Time in 2005.
Deuteronomy 34:1-12
Psalm 90:1-6, 13-17
1 Thessalonians 2:1-8
Matthew 22:34-46
Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of our heart be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.
I love watching “This Old House” on PBS. When I was younger, the show was much more about home improvement tips, how-to advice, and new technology for the home. Now it is more about characters and stories involved in home remodeling. Some of the more memorable recent episodes deal with the hosts meeting with the homeowners and the historical commission of whatever city they are in that season. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the Salem series and how they attempted to put a parking area in the backyard. They eventually lost that one to the city Historical Commission. And I liked last season’s “wooden mantle piece” episode in the Carlisle home. It had all of the drama that could be mustered by fire codes, Underwriter’s Laboratories, and a wild computer set up. But I do long for the good old days of “This Old House.” The days when they would teach you how to put up wallpaper, put in new windows, and hang doors.
Hanging doors is mysteriously difficult. When mounting a door, you have to make sure the frame is square. If it is not, the door will not hang properly, and then opening and closing it becomes very difficult. The door knob and lock set are pretty easy to get right, assuming you use the proper jig, but the hinges are a different matter. Setting the hinges seems to be a source of high drama. For a door to be put in hinges properly, if both sides are not lined up perfectly, putting the hinge pins in is impossible. Yes, jigs exist, but with at least four hinge plates on each door, and usually six, there is a lot of room for error. And with that many opportunities for error, just one misplaced hinge plate and the door will not hang well, causing all sorts of problems. Depending on which door, it can make heating and cooling more expensive or even become a security issue.
When asked which commandment in the law is the greatest, Jesus told an expert in the law, “This is the greatest and first commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” He followed this saying the second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang the law and the prophets.”
This is it, these are the big lessons Jesus wants us to learn. It’s not surprising. These commands from Deuteronomy and Leviticus answer this lawyer’s questions very well. In Mark’s account of this encounter, the lawyer even praises Jesus for his fine response. It is not uncommon for Rabbis and Prophets to summarize the law in one way or another. Moses started with 613 commandments spread throughout the Torah. David was able to reduce the number to eleven, and then Isaiah to six. Micah whittled the number to three; Amos to two and Habakkuk finally got the number down to just one.[1] So Jesus’ answers are good for the man who is schooled in the law; faithful to the law and to the traditions of the prophets.
Over the past several weeks we have followed the cross examination of Jesus on important issues and trivial matters in Matthew’s gospel. He is asked about paying taxes and he is asked about the resurrection. He teaches in parables and shows wisdom far beyond the cunning of those serving as his prosecutors. Before this exchange, Jesus silences the Scribes and Pharisees like a snapping dog is muzzled. And now they are dumbfounded by his wisdom, unable to ask any more questions.
Since they are unable to ask any more questions, Jesus is left to ask the next one. If David calls the Messiah “Lord,” and the Messiah is the son of David, then how can the Lord be David’s Son? Now, I don’t mind telling you (well, maybe a little bit); I do not have the answer to every question. I have faith and trust the Holy Spirit that when I am asked questions I will either receive an answer from the Lord or have the good sense to say, “I don’t know.” This is one of those “I don’t know” moments. I find Jesus’ question very confusing. Back in the day, I would have been as dumbfounded as the Scribes.
Among my spiritual disciplines, I read one chapter of Proverbs every day. With 31 Proverbs, It’s pretty easy to read one every day, and start again at the beginning of every month. I recommend it; it helps me become more familiar with the wisdom of Solomon. But the Proverbs have a lot of interesting little twists in them, especially about dealing with fools. And it infuriates me! The one that comes to mind is Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5: “Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool yourself. Answer fools according to their folly, or they will be wise in their own eyes.”
Don’t answer fools according to their folly? Answer fools according to their folly? I don’t get this one at all. One of these proverbs follows the other, and they completely contradict one another. I understand them individually, the wisdom is flawless. But the logic of one directly following the other is beyond my understanding. So today I pray. One day I will consult the commentaries and hopefully I will find some sort of explanation. Until that day, I rest in the wisdom, and ponder the logic.
One of the ways I deal with this is with a piece of advice I received in seminary. One of the supplementary textbooks for “Introduction to the Old Testament” was Michael Joseph Brown’s, "What They Didn’t Tell You, A Survivor’s Guide to Biblical Studies." This book offers twenty-eight “rules of thumb” for seminarians. Some of the information was useful, some wasn’t. But one of the rules has stuck with me like a stone in my shoe. Rule number ten says, “The Bible means what it says, and says what it means. Except when it doesn’t.”
Some days I am wound pretty tight, but when I remember this rule, it helps remind me that I am not going to understand every nuance of scripture, and it sets me free to consider what is going on in the text beyond my human logic. It helps me with this Proverb, and it also helps me with this portion of our gospel reading.
You see… locked into our earthly time and place, locked into our human knowledge, Jesus’ question to the Scribes and Pharisees is puzzling. But the question cannot be answered with our terms. When we consider it as prophetic insight from our Lord instead of a genealogy question, this piece of scripture challenges the leaders—it challenges us—to recognize Jesus as the Messiah commissioned by God to manifest God’s saving presence and eternal empire as attested by David.[2] From a riddle about a Lord to a prophetic voice, Jesus challenges all who have ears to hear the Word of the Lord, not only as it is written but as it is in person.
And here, Jesus rides a camel through the eye of a needle. He dares to answer the fools their foolish arguments. He answers them in wisdom beyond their perception and with a question beyond their understanding. This isn’t the last time Jesus will be asked questions. And it won’t be the last time he shares wisdom in the temple. But the lack of response to this riddle speaks volumes. It is difficult to answer this divine question using human thoughts and genealogy. It can only be answered with faith and trust.
Hebrews calls faith “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”[3] Calvin says faith is, “a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”[4] And when we do not this conviction of things not seen; this firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence, then answering Jesus’ question is impossible.
Just a moment ago, I said that I would have been dumbfounded by Jesus’ question. And that is true. Does it mean my faith is not strong enough? I pray not. But I will admit, there are many times when I try to build on the foundation of education and logic. Working in Higher Education for over ten years, spending ten years more working on degrees, becoming a man of letters, I am trained to think that way. When I am confronted by questions like this one Jesus asked the Scribes and Pharisees, I am forced to take a step back, and consider what I know. I am forced to consider what I don’t know. And I am forced to consider how I came to know it. I am forced to remember that I am a child of God, saved by grace through faith. And I am forced to remind myself that sometimes I act like a Pharisee.
This is where I return to the hinge again. Hinges have three main parts, two halves and the pin. These are our two halves:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul and all your mind.” We are not told by Jesus to leave any of our faculties at home. God wants us to love with all that we are, and all that we can be.
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” God too wants us to love one another with all our heart and soul and mind. We are called to bring every God given talent with us to the church as the body of Christ and the rest of the community. We are called to love one another fully, completely, and without reservation. On this hinge hang the law and the prophets.
We confess that moral law is found and realized in the Ten Commandments, delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written on two tables of stone. The first four commandments contain our duty to God. Jesus summarizes these when he tells us “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul and all your mind.” The other six summarize our duty to one another. This is in the statement, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
The amazing thing is if either one of these elements is missing, the law and the prophets will not be fulfilled. But with the hinge, without the pin, the hinge is useless. In this illustration, Christ is our hinge pin, holding in place these two commandments.
If love of God or neighbor is missing, the value of Jesus is diminished because he came as the living incarnation of the love of God and humanity. Fully human and fully divine, Jesus bridges the gap between the two and holds them together in a way that allows the law and the prophets to be fulfilled.
One of the many things Jesus is called is the law, the Torah, personified. Jesus not only fulfills the law, he is the law. The God of Abraham and Isaac writes the law on stone tablets and gives them to Moses. Jesus lives the law for our lives and gives himself to us, a life given in Jesus the Christ. We are called to live this moral life, a life given in the Ten Commandments. We are given them in the simplest of directions, you shall love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself. Let us accept the commandment. Let us answer Jesus’ question to the Scribes and Pharisees this way—the Messiah can be the son of David because you, the son of David, are the Christ, and my Lord. May we respond by doing your will. Amen.
[1] David, Psalm 15:2-5; Isaiah 33:15; Micah 6:8; Amos 5:4; Habakkuk 2:4.
[2] New Interpreter’s Study Bible, comment on Matthew 22:41-45
[3] Hebrews 14:1
[4] Institutes, Vol. III, Part 2, Paragraph vii.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
A Provocative Question or, So...What Is the Proper Tithe on $700 Billion?
This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on Sunday October 19, 2008, the 29th Sunday of Ordinary Time.
Exodus 33:12-23
Psalm 99
1 Thessalonians 1:1-10
Matthew 22:15-22
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
There is an old saying that religion and politics are two things best not discussed in public. In for a penny, in for a pound I say. We talk about religion all the time. In truth, I hope we talk more about faith than religion, but we do talk about religion. So today as we discuss rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, there is no way we can avoid talking about politics.
This is the time in the service of the worship of God when we read and interpret scripture. Reading and interpreting campaign speeches and debate transcripts will not bring glory to God, at least not in this setting. On the campaign trail there is talk of who is trustworthy with taxes and spending, and who is not. There is talk of who will bring change and who will be the hero of the same-old-same-old. There is talk of who is at fault and who is not. But I think with that one there is more than enough blame for everyone. All in all, it’s completely unnecessary for me to tell you how politically charged this last year has been, and these next two weeks will be.
And I don’t have to tell you that one of the elephants in the poling place will be the national economy, and this is where we return to our reading from Matthew.
The Pharisees and the Herodians meet Jesus in the temple and begin trying to corner him with flattery, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality.” In any con game, and this is a con game, this is called “setting the mark.” The Pharisees and the Herodians are setting Jesus up for the kill, literally.
Tripping their snare they ask, “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?”
Jesus knew what they were doing. He knew their malice and their hypocrisy. He even asked why they were testing him. They thought there was no answer that would not trap him and get him into trouble with someone, and the Pharisees and the Herodians wanted Jesus trapped.
Our Lord is fully human and fully divine. I imagine in a fully human response to this challenge, Jesus was not impressed with their snare. Can’t you just see him sigh and oh so slightly shake his head?
Jesus asks for the coin to pay the tax and someone gives him a denarius. He asks, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” On the denarius is the image of the emperor and his full title, “Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus Pontifex Maximus.”[1] What belongs to the Emperor is to be given to the Emperor… and what belongs to God is to be given to God. The trap is disarmed. The Pharisees and Herodians, knowing they have been bested, went away in amazement.
Folks often quote scripture saying, “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” Scripture affirms the value and need for the political state. The Reformed Confessions, one of the tools used by Presbyterians to interpret scripture, also affirm the value and need for the political state. In the 1930’s Swiss theologian Karl Bart wrote, “The State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace.”[2] I would only assume that the state would also have the power to assess taxes to provide justice and peace by this divine appointment.
Let us all beware, those of us with political power and those of us without. This paragraph goes on to warn “[This divine appointment] calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God's commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled.”[3] So beware, rulers will be judged as the one responsible for the wellbeing of the people. And let everyone else beware too, those who are ruled will be judged as those responsible for the wellbeing of the government.
If you have ever attended any worship service in any October or November, you have heard a message about what it means to render unto God what is God’s. But that is not today’s message. Today I want us to consider this question: Since God ordains and installs governments, what is the state obligated to return to God? How should it be returned? And what are the obligations of those who rule and those who are being ruled? What are the rich and the powerful and the poor and the powerless to do?
Bestselling author Thomas Cahill offers some thought on this question. “For those at the bottom their only ‘obligation’ (if that is not too strong a word) is to trust in God’s mercy. But the obligation of those on top is to exhibit God’s mercy toward those who have nothing.”[4]
Using the example of our Lord as a model, Cahill writes, “Jesus keeps two audiences clearly in view; the poor and the miserable; and those who, because they are neither poor nor miserable, have a religious obligation to stand in solidarity with those at the bottom of the heap.”[5] These are the obligations of the people and of the political state; those who rule and those who are ruled. How this is to be done is another matter entirely.
Last week I put a provocative question on our outdoor sign, “So…What’s the proper tithe on $700 billion?” As you know, the inspiration for this question comes from the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,”[6] the $700 billion financial market bailout.
According to the act, the Secretary of Treasury is directed to acquire mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate. It also authorizes the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures.”[7] Under this act, the secretary also “prescribes requirements for purchase and sale of assets using market mechanisms in a manner that will minimize any potential long-term negative impact on the taxpayer.”[8]
Allow me to paraphrase my understanding of this bill: Congress has authorized the Secretary of Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion of bad mortgages, bad mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate. And that number can go up. I have heard some pundits say the final cost of the bailout could end up between $1 and $5 trillion.
So how did our economic system get here? According to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, [9]
“The troubles we now face were caused largely by the combination of deregulation and low interest rates… Low interest rates and easy access to funds encouraged reckless lending, the infamous interest-only, no-down-payment, no-documentation subprime mortgages. It was clear that if the bubble got deflated even a little, many mortgages would end up under water—with the price less than the value of the mortgage. That has happened—12 million so far, and more every hour. Not only are the poor losing their homes, but they are also losing their life savings.”
This is the technical cause with its oh so real effects. But it does not help us grasp the culture that created this answer. In an article answering questions about the bailout, Time.com asked whether the legislation as it stands allows Wall Street executives to keep their bonuses or not.[10] Quoting:
“The Bush Administration says it needs [to allow executive bonuses] to encourage executives to get their cooperation, and that clamping down on their pay would only hurt their willingness to get on board.
What would the Sage of Omaha, Warren Buffett say about this deal? He got more concessions from a $5 billion stake in Bear Sterns than the government got with $700 billion.[11] More importantly, what would Jesus say about this deal? How do executive bonuses measure up to the obligation of those on top to exhibit God’s mercy toward those who have nothing?
Paraphrasing Galatians, Thomas Cahill writes, “Jesus told the Galatians not to go ‘snapping at one another and tearing one another to pieces’ (which some of them must have been doing). Even though ‘you were called to be free, do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but be servants to one another in love, since the whole Law [of Moses] is summed up in a single commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself.’”[12]
Are these troubled financial institutions exhibiting God’s mercy? Do these leaders love their neighbors as they love themselves? No, this is the powerful and probably rich taking care of the suddenly not quite as rich who are suddenly not quite as powerful either. They have used their freedom for self-indulgence, not for the glory of God.
How does the state respond? It is the state’s vocation by divine appointment to provide for justice and peace. In its dealings with this crisis, the state appears more concerned with profit and loss for big companies than with justice and peace for the poor. Remembering the ancient story of the Maccabees, Cahill could have been talking about this plan when he writes how the temple leaders “had betrayed God and built ‘with blood a city of vanity,’ a city that robbed the poor to fatten the rich.”[13]
Nobel Economist Stiglitz says one of several things that must to happen to stem this economic tide is a forced conversion of this debt to equity. If this is done, the amount of government assistance that will be required will be much reduced.[14] The way this is being handled in the congressional bailout is by the government buying old bad securities pumping new dollars into the banks that made these loans. Then when these loans are worth something again, they will be resold to the banks.
This would increase assets and reduce bad debts for the mortgage lenders that made some very poor decisions in the first place. It would ultimately reward the very people who wrote all of these bad loans. I have another idea about how to reach this same goal.
I ask, at least from an accounting stand point, if it would not be as beneficial to use this money to purchase these bad debts and create equity not for banks, but for individuals. What if these funds paid down actual mortgages instead of paying mortgage backed securities? What if the equity that was gained was for individuals, for people, for citizens, and not for corporations? What if we used these funds to stabilize communities instead of stabilizing companies?
What if these funds not only put money in the banks, but put equity in the hands of individuals, particularly the poor? It would seem to meet Stiglitz’ plan, what it would not do is save those who tried to make money selling and reselling the paper these mortgages were written on.
It seems unrealistic. Forgiving individual debt would be tough. Purchasing mortgages and forgiving debt sounds outrageous. Some would say that it would be impossible, it can’t be done. That’s the point. This is the tithe God requires. The tithe God requires is not simply financial, it has very little to do with dollars, particularly in this circumstance. It has to do with changing our attitudes to invest in communities instead of companies. It has to do with people not things. It has to do with building and rebuilding roads, bridges, and infrastructure, not with paying the almighty dividend.
Cahill says, “[Jesus] was, in the mind of his followers and in his own view, ‘a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,’ the last of the prophets, the direct inheritor of the mantle of Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and the whole long train of terrible figures who demanded the impossible—all of whom were shown to have been, in hindsight, far more realistic than their supposedly saner, more balanced contemporaries.”[15]
As I speak this morning, the polls for the American general election open in sixteen days, and in Arkansas early voting opens tomorrow. So let me say now I am not going to tell you how to vote in the coming election. There are many reasons why. For me, the most important reason is that telling you how to vote is the wrong thing to do as your pastor. Telling you how to vote is not a good pastoral move.
We come from politically different poles, and that’s just fine. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I believe that by our system of government, we are all endowed with the privilege of entering the voting booth and voting our best judgment and our conscience.
Therefore I give you this charge before you enter your poling place, get informed. Make an informed decision. A Time Magazine piece on Karl Barth published in the early Sixties said, “[Barth] recalls that…he advised young theologians ‘to take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible.’”[16] Be informed, but let scripture inform your view of the world, not vice versa.
Be prayerful in your consideration of candidates and issues as you vote. Ask yourself “What would Jesus do?” and follow the conviction laid upon you by the Holy Spirit. This is what our Lord expects and this is how our constitution calls us to act in our vocation as citizens.
The Carroll County News says the answer to the tithe question is $70 billion. This is the traditional answer. It goes all the way back to Abram and Melchizedek in Genesis 14. Many people, including some of my seminary friends, have said, “Boy, imagine what the church could do with $70 billion?” But the question I asked was about the proper tithe, not the traditional. The Lord expects this tithe and our tithes to be more than cash.
This morning we confessed “We have been taught that to serve you is to obey you. At times fidelity to others gets in our way…We confess our mixed allegiance. Have mercy upon us as we face obligations, and reclaim us from error when we obey not your will.”[17] We make this confession again; turning away from this attitude is the proper tithe God requires. God commands that all of us, every individual one of us and the political state hear the prophet mighty in deed and word.
Again quoting Cahill, “[The Apostle Paul] is downright rabid on the subject of economic equality. He is not so unrealistic as to expect that all members of the community should have the same income, but he will have no part in treating anyone according to income. ‘In the Lord—that is, within the community of believers—everyone is to be treated equally.’”[18] The proper tithe is a turn from an attitude of self-serving economics toward justice and mercy.
This is the tithe our Lord requires. It is to trust in God’s mercy and be instruments of God’s mercy. It is to realize that we all have obligations to one another, and as we meet these obligations, as persons and as a nation, we render unto God what is God’s.
[1] Hare, Douglas R. A., Matthew: Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Know Press, 1993, page 253-4.
[2] Barth, Karl, “The Theological Declaration of Barmen” paragraph 22 found in “The Book of Confessions, The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part I.” Louisville, KY: Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2004, section 8.22. “Barman” was written by Karl Barth during a meeting of a group of German church leaders. When introduced it was accepted without amendment.
[3] Ibid
[4] Cahill, Thomas, “Desire of the Everlasting Hills, The World before and after Jesus.” New York: Nan A. Telese/Anchor Books, A Division of Random House, 1999, page 84.
[5] Ibid.
[6] THOMAS, Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01424:@@@L&summ2=m&#summary, retrieved October 12, 2008. Its full title is: “A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.”
[7] Ibid Section 109
[8] Ibid, Section 113
[9] Stiglitz, Joseph, “Nobel Laureate: How to Get Out of the Financial Crisis.” Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851739,00.html?imw=Y, retrieved October 14, 2008.
[10] Thompson, Mark, Time Magazine Online, “7 Questions About the $700 Billion Bailout.”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843941,00.html, retrieved October 14, 2008. Italics mine.
[11] Ibid, Stiglitz, http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851739-2,00.html.
[12] Ibid Cahill, page 135, italics original in text
[13] Ibid page 42
[14] Ibid, Stiglitz, http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851739-2,00.html.
[15] Ibid Cahill pages 91-92
[16] Time Magazine, May 31, 1963, cited from The Princeton Seminary Library, Center for Barth Studies, http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/barth/faq/quotes.aspx?menu=296&subText=468, retrieved October 12, 2008. The quote’s bracketed information is found that way in the website’s text.
[17] Kirk, James G., “When We Gather, A Book of Prayers for Worship, Revised Edition, For Years A, B, and C.” Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 2001, page 119
[18] Ibid Cahill page 142, italics original in text
Exodus 33:12-23
Psalm 99
1 Thessalonians 1:1-10
Matthew 22:15-22
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
There is an old saying that religion and politics are two things best not discussed in public. In for a penny, in for a pound I say. We talk about religion all the time. In truth, I hope we talk more about faith than religion, but we do talk about religion. So today as we discuss rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, there is no way we can avoid talking about politics.
This is the time in the service of the worship of God when we read and interpret scripture. Reading and interpreting campaign speeches and debate transcripts will not bring glory to God, at least not in this setting. On the campaign trail there is talk of who is trustworthy with taxes and spending, and who is not. There is talk of who will bring change and who will be the hero of the same-old-same-old. There is talk of who is at fault and who is not. But I think with that one there is more than enough blame for everyone. All in all, it’s completely unnecessary for me to tell you how politically charged this last year has been, and these next two weeks will be.
And I don’t have to tell you that one of the elephants in the poling place will be the national economy, and this is where we return to our reading from Matthew.
The Pharisees and the Herodians meet Jesus in the temple and begin trying to corner him with flattery, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality.” In any con game, and this is a con game, this is called “setting the mark.” The Pharisees and the Herodians are setting Jesus up for the kill, literally.
Tripping their snare they ask, “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?”
Jesus knew what they were doing. He knew their malice and their hypocrisy. He even asked why they were testing him. They thought there was no answer that would not trap him and get him into trouble with someone, and the Pharisees and the Herodians wanted Jesus trapped.
Our Lord is fully human and fully divine. I imagine in a fully human response to this challenge, Jesus was not impressed with their snare. Can’t you just see him sigh and oh so slightly shake his head?
Jesus asks for the coin to pay the tax and someone gives him a denarius. He asks, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” On the denarius is the image of the emperor and his full title, “Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus Pontifex Maximus.”[1] What belongs to the Emperor is to be given to the Emperor… and what belongs to God is to be given to God. The trap is disarmed. The Pharisees and Herodians, knowing they have been bested, went away in amazement.
Folks often quote scripture saying, “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” Scripture affirms the value and need for the political state. The Reformed Confessions, one of the tools used by Presbyterians to interpret scripture, also affirm the value and need for the political state. In the 1930’s Swiss theologian Karl Bart wrote, “The State has by divine appointment the task of providing for justice and peace.”[2] I would only assume that the state would also have the power to assess taxes to provide justice and peace by this divine appointment.
Let us all beware, those of us with political power and those of us without. This paragraph goes on to warn “[This divine appointment] calls to mind the Kingdom of God, God's commandment and righteousness, and thereby the responsibility both of rulers and of the ruled.”[3] So beware, rulers will be judged as the one responsible for the wellbeing of the people. And let everyone else beware too, those who are ruled will be judged as those responsible for the wellbeing of the government.
If you have ever attended any worship service in any October or November, you have heard a message about what it means to render unto God what is God’s. But that is not today’s message. Today I want us to consider this question: Since God ordains and installs governments, what is the state obligated to return to God? How should it be returned? And what are the obligations of those who rule and those who are being ruled? What are the rich and the powerful and the poor and the powerless to do?
Bestselling author Thomas Cahill offers some thought on this question. “For those at the bottom their only ‘obligation’ (if that is not too strong a word) is to trust in God’s mercy. But the obligation of those on top is to exhibit God’s mercy toward those who have nothing.”[4]
Using the example of our Lord as a model, Cahill writes, “Jesus keeps two audiences clearly in view; the poor and the miserable; and those who, because they are neither poor nor miserable, have a religious obligation to stand in solidarity with those at the bottom of the heap.”[5] These are the obligations of the people and of the political state; those who rule and those who are ruled. How this is to be done is another matter entirely.
Last week I put a provocative question on our outdoor sign, “So…What’s the proper tithe on $700 billion?” As you know, the inspiration for this question comes from the “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,”[6] the $700 billion financial market bailout.
According to the act, the Secretary of Treasury is directed to acquire mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate. It also authorizes the Secretary to use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures.”[7] Under this act, the secretary also “prescribes requirements for purchase and sale of assets using market mechanisms in a manner that will minimize any potential long-term negative impact on the taxpayer.”[8]
Allow me to paraphrase my understanding of this bill: Congress has authorized the Secretary of Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion of bad mortgages, bad mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate. And that number can go up. I have heard some pundits say the final cost of the bailout could end up between $1 and $5 trillion.
So how did our economic system get here? According to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, [9]
“The troubles we now face were caused largely by the combination of deregulation and low interest rates… Low interest rates and easy access to funds encouraged reckless lending, the infamous interest-only, no-down-payment, no-documentation subprime mortgages. It was clear that if the bubble got deflated even a little, many mortgages would end up under water—with the price less than the value of the mortgage. That has happened—12 million so far, and more every hour. Not only are the poor losing their homes, but they are also losing their life savings.”
This is the technical cause with its oh so real effects. But it does not help us grasp the culture that created this answer. In an article answering questions about the bailout, Time.com asked whether the legislation as it stands allows Wall Street executives to keep their bonuses or not.[10] Quoting:
“The Bush Administration says it needs [to allow executive bonuses] to encourage executives to get their cooperation, and that clamping down on their pay would only hurt their willingness to get on board.
What would the Sage of Omaha, Warren Buffett say about this deal? He got more concessions from a $5 billion stake in Bear Sterns than the government got with $700 billion.[11] More importantly, what would Jesus say about this deal? How do executive bonuses measure up to the obligation of those on top to exhibit God’s mercy toward those who have nothing?
Paraphrasing Galatians, Thomas Cahill writes, “Jesus told the Galatians not to go ‘snapping at one another and tearing one another to pieces’ (which some of them must have been doing). Even though ‘you were called to be free, do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but be servants to one another in love, since the whole Law [of Moses] is summed up in a single commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself.’”[12]
Are these troubled financial institutions exhibiting God’s mercy? Do these leaders love their neighbors as they love themselves? No, this is the powerful and probably rich taking care of the suddenly not quite as rich who are suddenly not quite as powerful either. They have used their freedom for self-indulgence, not for the glory of God.
How does the state respond? It is the state’s vocation by divine appointment to provide for justice and peace. In its dealings with this crisis, the state appears more concerned with profit and loss for big companies than with justice and peace for the poor. Remembering the ancient story of the Maccabees, Cahill could have been talking about this plan when he writes how the temple leaders “had betrayed God and built ‘with blood a city of vanity,’ a city that robbed the poor to fatten the rich.”[13]
Nobel Economist Stiglitz says one of several things that must to happen to stem this economic tide is a forced conversion of this debt to equity. If this is done, the amount of government assistance that will be required will be much reduced.[14] The way this is being handled in the congressional bailout is by the government buying old bad securities pumping new dollars into the banks that made these loans. Then when these loans are worth something again, they will be resold to the banks.
This would increase assets and reduce bad debts for the mortgage lenders that made some very poor decisions in the first place. It would ultimately reward the very people who wrote all of these bad loans. I have another idea about how to reach this same goal.
I ask, at least from an accounting stand point, if it would not be as beneficial to use this money to purchase these bad debts and create equity not for banks, but for individuals. What if these funds paid down actual mortgages instead of paying mortgage backed securities? What if the equity that was gained was for individuals, for people, for citizens, and not for corporations? What if we used these funds to stabilize communities instead of stabilizing companies?
What if these funds not only put money in the banks, but put equity in the hands of individuals, particularly the poor? It would seem to meet Stiglitz’ plan, what it would not do is save those who tried to make money selling and reselling the paper these mortgages were written on.
It seems unrealistic. Forgiving individual debt would be tough. Purchasing mortgages and forgiving debt sounds outrageous. Some would say that it would be impossible, it can’t be done. That’s the point. This is the tithe God requires. The tithe God requires is not simply financial, it has very little to do with dollars, particularly in this circumstance. It has to do with changing our attitudes to invest in communities instead of companies. It has to do with people not things. It has to do with building and rebuilding roads, bridges, and infrastructure, not with paying the almighty dividend.
Cahill says, “[Jesus] was, in the mind of his followers and in his own view, ‘a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,’ the last of the prophets, the direct inheritor of the mantle of Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and the whole long train of terrible figures who demanded the impossible—all of whom were shown to have been, in hindsight, far more realistic than their supposedly saner, more balanced contemporaries.”[15]
As I speak this morning, the polls for the American general election open in sixteen days, and in Arkansas early voting opens tomorrow. So let me say now I am not going to tell you how to vote in the coming election. There are many reasons why. For me, the most important reason is that telling you how to vote is the wrong thing to do as your pastor. Telling you how to vote is not a good pastoral move.
We come from politically different poles, and that’s just fine. I wouldn’t have it any other way. I believe that by our system of government, we are all endowed with the privilege of entering the voting booth and voting our best judgment and our conscience.
Therefore I give you this charge before you enter your poling place, get informed. Make an informed decision. A Time Magazine piece on Karl Barth published in the early Sixties said, “[Barth] recalls that…he advised young theologians ‘to take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible.’”[16] Be informed, but let scripture inform your view of the world, not vice versa.
Be prayerful in your consideration of candidates and issues as you vote. Ask yourself “What would Jesus do?” and follow the conviction laid upon you by the Holy Spirit. This is what our Lord expects and this is how our constitution calls us to act in our vocation as citizens.
The Carroll County News says the answer to the tithe question is $70 billion. This is the traditional answer. It goes all the way back to Abram and Melchizedek in Genesis 14. Many people, including some of my seminary friends, have said, “Boy, imagine what the church could do with $70 billion?” But the question I asked was about the proper tithe, not the traditional. The Lord expects this tithe and our tithes to be more than cash.
This morning we confessed “We have been taught that to serve you is to obey you. At times fidelity to others gets in our way…We confess our mixed allegiance. Have mercy upon us as we face obligations, and reclaim us from error when we obey not your will.”[17] We make this confession again; turning away from this attitude is the proper tithe God requires. God commands that all of us, every individual one of us and the political state hear the prophet mighty in deed and word.
Again quoting Cahill, “[The Apostle Paul] is downright rabid on the subject of economic equality. He is not so unrealistic as to expect that all members of the community should have the same income, but he will have no part in treating anyone according to income. ‘In the Lord—that is, within the community of believers—everyone is to be treated equally.’”[18] The proper tithe is a turn from an attitude of self-serving economics toward justice and mercy.
This is the tithe our Lord requires. It is to trust in God’s mercy and be instruments of God’s mercy. It is to realize that we all have obligations to one another, and as we meet these obligations, as persons and as a nation, we render unto God what is God’s.
[1] Hare, Douglas R. A., Matthew: Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Know Press, 1993, page 253-4.
[2] Barth, Karl, “The Theological Declaration of Barmen” paragraph 22 found in “The Book of Confessions, The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part I.” Louisville, KY: Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2004, section 8.22. “Barman” was written by Karl Barth during a meeting of a group of German church leaders. When introduced it was accepted without amendment.
[3] Ibid
[4] Cahill, Thomas, “Desire of the Everlasting Hills, The World before and after Jesus.” New York: Nan A. Telese/Anchor Books, A Division of Random House, 1999, page 84.
[5] Ibid.
[6] THOMAS, Library of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01424:@@@L&summ2=m&#summary, retrieved October 12, 2008. Its full title is: “A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.”
[7] Ibid Section 109
[8] Ibid, Section 113
[9] Stiglitz, Joseph, “Nobel Laureate: How to Get Out of the Financial Crisis.” Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851739,00.html?imw=Y, retrieved October 14, 2008.
[10] Thompson, Mark, Time Magazine Online, “7 Questions About the $700 Billion Bailout.”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843941,00.html, retrieved October 14, 2008. Italics mine.
[11] Ibid, Stiglitz, http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851739-2,00.html.
[12] Ibid Cahill, page 135, italics original in text
[13] Ibid page 42
[14] Ibid, Stiglitz, http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1851739-2,00.html.
[15] Ibid Cahill pages 91-92
[16] Time Magazine, May 31, 1963, cited from The Princeton Seminary Library, Center for Barth Studies, http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/barth/faq/quotes.aspx?menu=296&subText=468, retrieved October 12, 2008. The quote’s bracketed information is found that way in the website’s text.
[17] Kirk, James G., “When We Gather, A Book of Prayers for Worship, Revised Edition, For Years A, B, and C.” Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 2001, page 119
[18] Ibid Cahill page 142, italics original in text
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Where Truth Lies
This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on Sunday October 12, 2008, the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time.
Exodus 32:1-14
Psalm 106:1-6, 19-23
Philippians 4:1-9
Matthew 22:1-14
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
Parables are wonderful stories with one big problem. As the parables are read, people who know scripture tend to respond saying, “Ah yes, this is a wonderful story” and with that, tune into past experiences with the parable instead of paying attention to it as it is being shared anew.
This is one of many truths about the parables of Jesus Christ; we listen to them through the ears of our experience, not the ears of the Holy Spirit. Believe me, when I say “we” I mean “we” because I have to fight this temptation as much as anybody else.
Within this parable, there are many different kinds of truth. There is historical and cultural truth as the parable has references that we may not catch because we are not familiar with the history and culture. There is literary truth, because the parable as a form of literature contains truth in that context. There is also the truth of interpretation since there is nearly 2,000 years of analysis behind Matthew’s gospel.
So, let’s begin with the king who gave a wedding banquet for his son sending his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet. One of the first historical things we need to know is that long before the celebration, the people would have received invitations. While they did not know the precise time or day of the wedding feast, because of the hustle and bustle of preparing for the celebration, they would not be surprised when the slaves came with the “day of event” summons.[1]
Another bit of history we need to know is that at this time weddings, while grand feasts, are not the timed to the minute thing they are today. For the king’s slaves to prepare a great banquet, the oxen and the fat calves had to be slaughtered and prepared. This is nothing like my macaroni and cheese with summer sausage casserole in the oven for today’s potluck.
Preaching another scripture passage about cooking a full team of oxen, the Reverend Doctor David W. Johnson said:
“I’ve never actually boiled an ox. Or wanted to. I do a brisket now and again. That takes all afternoon. I have no idea how long it took to boil the oxen, but it wasn’t done in an afternoon. How long would it take to butcher and dress twenty-four oxen, cook them all up, and prepare beef stew for a bazillion? Maybe a week. Maybe a year. Maybe three years plus two summers.”[2]
Our parable doesn’t say how many oxen and fatted calves were slaughtered and prepared, but as it was the king who gave the banquet, we can imagine the number was substantial. The language tells us it was absolutely plural, so took preparations took quite a while. Many were involved in other preparations for the wedding feast, not just the slaves but other citizens of the kingdom too. The banquet master would get in touch with the priest to butcher the animals. He would have needed the people who provided bread, spices, and other foods. And don’t forget the wine merchant. Since many were involved in its preparation, the people knew the feast was coming.
Another important historical element to this piece is that when the people say, “we’re busy” to the king’s servants; it means more than “we’re busy.” To reject the king’s invitation, or more properly the king’s command, is an act of rebellion. To do it en masse is a sign of conspiracy.[3] Historically, no king would stand for this.
Parables are great, but these nuances are lost until we learn them. There are elements of truth in the history and culture of this story, but there is truth beyond history and culture.
Another part of the truth comes from the literary qualities of the parable. One of the key concepts of the parable is that it is not a true story. Even though as we have just heard, there is historical truth mixed in, this story does not reflect an actual event.
So in our story, after the slaves return to the king mistreated and worse, the king wages war on those who reject him and his invitation. This part of the story should be a red flag that this is not a true story. I ask what king would let supper get cold to go and wage war on a city? This is wonderfully epic, filled with dramatic exaggeration, and highly unlikely.
Further, as a nation we have recent experience about the success of a campaign of “shock and awe.” There is literally no way to wage war and be home for dinner in this or any age. So in the realm of factual events, the war events described in this story would not have happened. But in the parable, we see that those who betrayed the king got what they deserved.
As literature, this parable brings us a broad epic sense of scope which the story misses without its literary elements. It’s not that all pieces of the parable add up, but as a story, there is truth within the exaggeration.
As for truth found in interpretation, there is much. This is the third of three parables Jesus spoke to the Pharisees, chief priests, and elders in the temple. Scholars say the first parable, the one of the two sons, focuses on John the Baptist and the people’s response to his ministry. The second, the parable of the vineyard, uses allegory to interpret Jerusalem’s fall as punishment for the leaders’ unfaithfulness. This third parable is a final warning to the church of Jesus Christ to remain faithful and not follow the footsteps of the Pharisees, chief priests, and elders.[4]
The history of interpretation gives us a chronological progression of stories warning first those who rejected John; then the Pharisees, chief priests and elders who rejected the prophets and then the Son; and a final warning that the church might never reject Jesus and the vocation he has lain upon it.
Often, we speak of faith in terms of putting on new clothes. We talk of the church as being the bride of Christ. So a part of the history of interpretation leads us to be called to put on Christ as we join together with Christ as the bride of Christ.
The truth found in the history of interpretation is that while all are called, those who do not respond to this call are dealt with harshly. I am not saying that we are saved by works because we are saved by grace through faith. I am saying that there are dire consequences if we accept the Lord’s invitation and all we do is show up expecting to be fed.[5] This judgment was true in the days of the prophets, in the days of Jesus, in the days of Matthew’s gospel; and it is true for us today.
As these words are the words of Jesus, there is more truth in them than we will find in our interpretation of them. Two thousand years of interpretation alone cannot give us the truth of God’s word.
A way to consider the differences between historical truth and mythical truth comes from the voice of the Rev. William Sloane Coffin. On February 5, 1978 he spoke these words in a sermon about the miracle of turning water to wine from John’s gospel:
“Several years ago, driving south through Virginia, I crossed the mighty Rappahannock River. Amazed at its width, I couldn’t help concluding that George Washington’s throwing arm must have been comparable to Reggie Jackson’s if he hurled, as he reputedly did, the silver dollar from one bank clear across to the other. Suppose one day modern scholarship should establish that the silver dollar splashed. Would George Washington no longer be father of his country? Obviously not, because George Washington is father of his country not because he hurled a dollar clear across the Rappahannock or because he could not tell a lie about that fallen cherry tree—what choice did he have?—but because he was commander of the Revolutionary forces and the first president of the United States.”[6]
Let us consider this question for ourselves, was George Washington the father of our country because of the cherry tree incident or because of his service in the American Revolution? Was he father of our country because he could throw a coin across a river or because he was our nation’s first President? I think we can agree he is the father of our country because of the important work he did in securing our freedom and leading the nation.
In a way, sometimes the facts can get in the way of the truth. The debate over whether these stories actually happened or not gets in the way of the truth that they embody. These stories may not be true in the sense that they actually happened, but this does not dilute the truth behind them. The myth helps inform the truth that makes us better able to understand who Washington is to the people of this nation.
This brings us to the question we must ask ourselves about Jesus. Is he our Lord and Savior because of all of the cool stuff he did? Is he Lord of our life because he could turn water to wine? Is he Lord because he could best the highly educated leaders of the temple as they tried to trick him into speaking heresy against the temple or rebellion against Rome? Is he Lord because he could turn a phrase and tell a wonderful story? Or is he our Lord because he is who he says he is; the Son of God and the Son of Man?
The truth we find beyond history, beyond literature, beyond interpretation, beyond anything our minds can fully conceive; the truth we find is that Jesus is Lord because he is God. He is God since before the beginning. He is God when he walked the earth. He is God when he was crucified and on the third day rose again from the dead. He is God who sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. The parables help us understand who Jesus is; but they do not define who Jesus is.
The wonder and the glory of the truth is that all are invited to the wedding banquet. All are welcome to a place at the Messiah’s table. The wonder and the glory of the truth is that all are sought by the king’s slaves.
This leads us to one more truth, the truth beyond being called to the table. The truth of our call and our vocation as the church of Jesus Christ is that we are all called to be God’s faithful servants; calling the people, both good and bad, to join the messianic feast of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In this truth we are called to respond to the Lord our God as faithful servants, putting on Jesus as we enter into the banquet and into the world.
And as the servants of the Lord Almighty, we are called to invite others to the banquet. As we are called by the Lord to come, we are called by the Lord to bring others. By grace, our faith is to be an active expression of God’s love for all creation. This is one of the ways we wear the wedding robe. This is how we put on the garment of Jesus Christ.
There is much this parable offers us to find where truth lies, and its eternal truth is this: We are called to come to the table. We are called to bring others to the table. And it is the King of Glory who calls us first.
[1] The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VIII. Leander Keck, General Editor. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, page 417.
[2] Johnson, David W. from personal correspondence. The “three years and two summers” is a reference to the usual amount of time it takes to earn a Master’s of Divinity from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid. pages 412-419
[5] Ibid, New Interpreter’s Bible, page 419
[6] Coffin, William Sloane, “The Collected Sermons of William Sloane Coffin.” Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1987, page 40.
Exodus 32:1-14
Psalm 106:1-6, 19-23
Philippians 4:1-9
Matthew 22:1-14
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen
Parables are wonderful stories with one big problem. As the parables are read, people who know scripture tend to respond saying, “Ah yes, this is a wonderful story” and with that, tune into past experiences with the parable instead of paying attention to it as it is being shared anew.
This is one of many truths about the parables of Jesus Christ; we listen to them through the ears of our experience, not the ears of the Holy Spirit. Believe me, when I say “we” I mean “we” because I have to fight this temptation as much as anybody else.
Within this parable, there are many different kinds of truth. There is historical and cultural truth as the parable has references that we may not catch because we are not familiar with the history and culture. There is literary truth, because the parable as a form of literature contains truth in that context. There is also the truth of interpretation since there is nearly 2,000 years of analysis behind Matthew’s gospel.
So, let’s begin with the king who gave a wedding banquet for his son sending his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet. One of the first historical things we need to know is that long before the celebration, the people would have received invitations. While they did not know the precise time or day of the wedding feast, because of the hustle and bustle of preparing for the celebration, they would not be surprised when the slaves came with the “day of event” summons.[1]
Another bit of history we need to know is that at this time weddings, while grand feasts, are not the timed to the minute thing they are today. For the king’s slaves to prepare a great banquet, the oxen and the fat calves had to be slaughtered and prepared. This is nothing like my macaroni and cheese with summer sausage casserole in the oven for today’s potluck.
Preaching another scripture passage about cooking a full team of oxen, the Reverend Doctor David W. Johnson said:
“I’ve never actually boiled an ox. Or wanted to. I do a brisket now and again. That takes all afternoon. I have no idea how long it took to boil the oxen, but it wasn’t done in an afternoon. How long would it take to butcher and dress twenty-four oxen, cook them all up, and prepare beef stew for a bazillion? Maybe a week. Maybe a year. Maybe three years plus two summers.”[2]
Our parable doesn’t say how many oxen and fatted calves were slaughtered and prepared, but as it was the king who gave the banquet, we can imagine the number was substantial. The language tells us it was absolutely plural, so took preparations took quite a while. Many were involved in other preparations for the wedding feast, not just the slaves but other citizens of the kingdom too. The banquet master would get in touch with the priest to butcher the animals. He would have needed the people who provided bread, spices, and other foods. And don’t forget the wine merchant. Since many were involved in its preparation, the people knew the feast was coming.
Another important historical element to this piece is that when the people say, “we’re busy” to the king’s servants; it means more than “we’re busy.” To reject the king’s invitation, or more properly the king’s command, is an act of rebellion. To do it en masse is a sign of conspiracy.[3] Historically, no king would stand for this.
Parables are great, but these nuances are lost until we learn them. There are elements of truth in the history and culture of this story, but there is truth beyond history and culture.
Another part of the truth comes from the literary qualities of the parable. One of the key concepts of the parable is that it is not a true story. Even though as we have just heard, there is historical truth mixed in, this story does not reflect an actual event.
So in our story, after the slaves return to the king mistreated and worse, the king wages war on those who reject him and his invitation. This part of the story should be a red flag that this is not a true story. I ask what king would let supper get cold to go and wage war on a city? This is wonderfully epic, filled with dramatic exaggeration, and highly unlikely.
Further, as a nation we have recent experience about the success of a campaign of “shock and awe.” There is literally no way to wage war and be home for dinner in this or any age. So in the realm of factual events, the war events described in this story would not have happened. But in the parable, we see that those who betrayed the king got what they deserved.
As literature, this parable brings us a broad epic sense of scope which the story misses without its literary elements. It’s not that all pieces of the parable add up, but as a story, there is truth within the exaggeration.
As for truth found in interpretation, there is much. This is the third of three parables Jesus spoke to the Pharisees, chief priests, and elders in the temple. Scholars say the first parable, the one of the two sons, focuses on John the Baptist and the people’s response to his ministry. The second, the parable of the vineyard, uses allegory to interpret Jerusalem’s fall as punishment for the leaders’ unfaithfulness. This third parable is a final warning to the church of Jesus Christ to remain faithful and not follow the footsteps of the Pharisees, chief priests, and elders.[4]
The history of interpretation gives us a chronological progression of stories warning first those who rejected John; then the Pharisees, chief priests and elders who rejected the prophets and then the Son; and a final warning that the church might never reject Jesus and the vocation he has lain upon it.
Often, we speak of faith in terms of putting on new clothes. We talk of the church as being the bride of Christ. So a part of the history of interpretation leads us to be called to put on Christ as we join together with Christ as the bride of Christ.
The truth found in the history of interpretation is that while all are called, those who do not respond to this call are dealt with harshly. I am not saying that we are saved by works because we are saved by grace through faith. I am saying that there are dire consequences if we accept the Lord’s invitation and all we do is show up expecting to be fed.[5] This judgment was true in the days of the prophets, in the days of Jesus, in the days of Matthew’s gospel; and it is true for us today.
As these words are the words of Jesus, there is more truth in them than we will find in our interpretation of them. Two thousand years of interpretation alone cannot give us the truth of God’s word.
A way to consider the differences between historical truth and mythical truth comes from the voice of the Rev. William Sloane Coffin. On February 5, 1978 he spoke these words in a sermon about the miracle of turning water to wine from John’s gospel:
“Several years ago, driving south through Virginia, I crossed the mighty Rappahannock River. Amazed at its width, I couldn’t help concluding that George Washington’s throwing arm must have been comparable to Reggie Jackson’s if he hurled, as he reputedly did, the silver dollar from one bank clear across to the other. Suppose one day modern scholarship should establish that the silver dollar splashed. Would George Washington no longer be father of his country? Obviously not, because George Washington is father of his country not because he hurled a dollar clear across the Rappahannock or because he could not tell a lie about that fallen cherry tree—what choice did he have?—but because he was commander of the Revolutionary forces and the first president of the United States.”[6]
Let us consider this question for ourselves, was George Washington the father of our country because of the cherry tree incident or because of his service in the American Revolution? Was he father of our country because he could throw a coin across a river or because he was our nation’s first President? I think we can agree he is the father of our country because of the important work he did in securing our freedom and leading the nation.
In a way, sometimes the facts can get in the way of the truth. The debate over whether these stories actually happened or not gets in the way of the truth that they embody. These stories may not be true in the sense that they actually happened, but this does not dilute the truth behind them. The myth helps inform the truth that makes us better able to understand who Washington is to the people of this nation.
This brings us to the question we must ask ourselves about Jesus. Is he our Lord and Savior because of all of the cool stuff he did? Is he Lord of our life because he could turn water to wine? Is he Lord because he could best the highly educated leaders of the temple as they tried to trick him into speaking heresy against the temple or rebellion against Rome? Is he Lord because he could turn a phrase and tell a wonderful story? Or is he our Lord because he is who he says he is; the Son of God and the Son of Man?
The truth we find beyond history, beyond literature, beyond interpretation, beyond anything our minds can fully conceive; the truth we find is that Jesus is Lord because he is God. He is God since before the beginning. He is God when he walked the earth. He is God when he was crucified and on the third day rose again from the dead. He is God who sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. The parables help us understand who Jesus is; but they do not define who Jesus is.
The wonder and the glory of the truth is that all are invited to the wedding banquet. All are welcome to a place at the Messiah’s table. The wonder and the glory of the truth is that all are sought by the king’s slaves.
This leads us to one more truth, the truth beyond being called to the table. The truth of our call and our vocation as the church of Jesus Christ is that we are all called to be God’s faithful servants; calling the people, both good and bad, to join the messianic feast of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In this truth we are called to respond to the Lord our God as faithful servants, putting on Jesus as we enter into the banquet and into the world.
And as the servants of the Lord Almighty, we are called to invite others to the banquet. As we are called by the Lord to come, we are called by the Lord to bring others. By grace, our faith is to be an active expression of God’s love for all creation. This is one of the ways we wear the wedding robe. This is how we put on the garment of Jesus Christ.
There is much this parable offers us to find where truth lies, and its eternal truth is this: We are called to come to the table. We are called to bring others to the table. And it is the King of Glory who calls us first.
[1] The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VIII. Leander Keck, General Editor. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, page 417.
[2] Johnson, David W. from personal correspondence. The “three years and two summers” is a reference to the usual amount of time it takes to earn a Master’s of Divinity from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid. pages 412-419
[5] Ibid, New Interpreter’s Bible, page 419
[6] Coffin, William Sloane, “The Collected Sermons of William Sloane Coffin.” Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1987, page 40.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Possession
This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on Sunday October 5, 2008, the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time.
Exodus 20:1-4, 7-9, 19-23
Psalm 19
Philippians 3:4b-14
Matthew 21:33-46
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.
There’s an old expression, possession is nine-tenths of the law. We’ve all heard it. This passage shows one example of how this works. In the parable, Jesus says, “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’” This sounds off to us, squatter’s rights doesn’t seem appropriate. But in this time, if the landowner dies without an heir, the tenant farmers would have a claim to become the new owners of the land.[1] Doesn’t seem right to us, but in the day it was the law.
Since possession was nine-tenths of the law, these wicked tenants were ready to cash in the final tenth.
And just to add one more proverbial log to the proverbial fire, the landowner provided a great vineyard for the tenants. There were vines in it, a fence around it, and a watchtower over it. There was even a press dug to accept the grapes to begin making wine. This is the Cadillac of vineyards. This is the place in Napa or Bordeaux that you find on the Travel Channel and on the Bloomberg Business Network. It was gorgeous and it was open for business.
No wonder they wanted it. It was fruitful; no wonder they were willing to take it. At the point of a sword, they were willing to take it.
Some would say they deserved it. After the hard work is done, the landowner sends his slaves and then his son to collect his produce. Matthew’s version doesn’t say “collect his share of the produce,” it says “collect his produce.” Considering the tenant’s perspective and the popularity of absentee landlords, some would say the tenants did earn it.
Let’s switch gears. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul shows who he was, and who he is now.
Paul had everything a Jewish man could want. He was everything a Jewish man ascribed to become. He was circumcised on the eighth day, showing that he was an Israelite by race, by birth. He was not a convert to the faith. He was not a newcomer to the faith. He was born into the tribe of Benjamin, a virtuous position because Benjamin was one of Jacob’s favorite sons. A virtuous position because the tribe of Benjamin remained faithful to the house of David.[2] He received these gifts of status for no other reason than by virtue of birth.
And if this were not enough, he earned more on his own. When known as Saul, he was a zealous persecutor of the church of Christ. In Acts we learn he was present at the stoning of Stephen, and that he approved of it.[3]
He was righteous under the law. He was a Pharisee, a sect renowned for adherence to the law and every regulation that pertained to it. They were faithful and sincere Jews who earned their righteousness according to their good actions. And this is where Paul tells the church at Philippi what his earned righteousness was worth.
“Whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Jesus Christ as my Lord.” Paul goes on to say that all of the righteousness that came from his birth or the law he now regarded as rubbish.
Oh, and rubbish is the gentle term. Dung[4] is a better, if more graphic, translation.
Paul came to know that all he was given by his parents, status, education, even Roman citizenship which isn’t even mentioned in this passage, is for naught in the light of knowing Jesus Christ as the risen Lord. Paul tells the church at Philippi that he has no righteousness of his own that comes from the law, but he is given righteousness in Christ that comes through faith, the righteousness from God based on faith.
Just to say this one more time, Paul has nothing of worth, nothing of value, and nothing of righteousness except what comes through faith in Christ. Righteousness is from God based on faith alone.
So back to the parable, historically, this parable is interpreted as an allegory. We plug in God the Father as the landowner and Jesus as his son. The slaves the landowner sends are the prophets of Israel. The tenant farmers are the leaders of the temple, the chief priests, the elders, and the Pharisees. The vineyard and the fruit are the kingdom of heaven.
All of the vineyard imagery ties back to the prophet Isaiah talking about the Lord planting a vineyard.
Jesus’ question to the Pharisees and their reply to Jesus harken back to Nathan’s accusations against King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah—as well as David’s response.[5]
The parable is a window into the temple at the time of the Christ and the people who run it. They are seen as taking what they will in their own righteousness to lift up themselves as much as they lift the Lord. The temple leaders, the chief priests, the elders, the Pharisees take what they think they earned; they take what they think they deserved. They take what they do for the righteousness of the law, the righteousness they understand.
But Paul tells us there is a better way than to take dung from the heap. People take; the Lord gives. Saved by grace through faith, the Lord our God, God in Three Persons gives us righteousness. Paul shows us that what we receive in Christ is far greater than all we can ever take for ourselves. Christ’s righteousness is greater than all we can ever take or earn for ourselves.
The wicked tenants know what they want, they know what they think they deserve. But when challenged by Jesus, the allegorical tenants of the vineyard, the Pharisees, know that these wretches will be put to a miserable death. They even begin to know that taken righteousness is no righteousness at all.
In 1983, a rock band called The Police recorded the quintessential love song of the early 1980’s. “Every Breath You Take” was number one on the Billboard charts for eight weeks in North America and four in England.[6] This song was the theme for proms all over America. Couples danced to this at their weddings. It’s haunting melody and wonderful vocal made couples everywhere say, “That’s our song.”
Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
Every single day
And every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you
All right, it’s lovely. It misses something without the melody, but there’s a reason Kenny sings and I don’t. But if you think the last line of each stanza is a little foreboding, that’s nothing compared to the next two verses.
Oh, can't you see
You belong to me
Now my poor heartaches
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I'll be watching you
This isn’t a love song; it’s a song about possession. This isn’t romantic; it’s a theme song for stalkers. Grotesque obsession, not love, oozes from this song. This obsessive behavior is the fate of those who seek the righteousness this earth gives. Taking is not about righteousness, it’s about possession.
About ten years ago, a woman who used stolen credit card numbers to feed her habit was given six months in jail and five years' probation with the condition she did not touch her drug of choice: Beanie Babies. Tamara Dee Maldonado of Marina, California was sentenced by Judge Jonathan Price after pleading guilty to four counts of commercial burglary. She said her obsession with the beanbag toys began when she worked as a cashier at McDonald's and had to stuff Beanie Babies into Happy Meals. She was soon ordering for herself by telephone, using her own credit cards and, eventually, stolen cards.
Her ex-husband, Gabriel Maldonado, told police she threatened to run off with their young child if he did not bring her discarded credit card slips from his job at a hotel. She used the information to buy $8,000 worth of rare Beanie Babies at area stores. When arrested, police found 206 Beanie Babies at her home.[7]
Jesus teaches the Pharisees that their obsession with possessing power and prestige in the temple is as big of a waste as this woman’s obsession with Beanie Babies. Paul shows us a better way. He shows that what we receive by the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses what we could ever earn or take. What is valuable in the kingdom of heaven is not what we take, not what we possess on our own, but what we receive from the Lord Jesus—righteousness that alone is God’s.
[1] New Interpreter’s Bible. Leander E. Keck. General Editor, Vol. VII. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, page 414.
[2] Ibid, Vol. XI, page 526.
[3] Acts , 7:58, 8:1
[4]Brueggemann, Walter, Cousar,Charles B., Gaventa, Beverly R., Newsome, James D, “Texts for Preaching, A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV, Year A.” Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1995, page 512. The New Interpreter’s is more vivid recommending “excrement” (page 527).
[5] 2Samuel 12:1-14
[6] Sumner, Gordon, “Every Breath You Take.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Breath_You_Take, retrieved October 4, 2008.
[7] From news services, “Beanie Babies Fan Gets Six Months for Credit Card Account Fraud,” The Washington Post, November 21, 1998, A11 found at Homiletics Online, http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/illustration_search.asp?item_topic_id=2721, retrieved October 4, 2008.
Exodus 20:1-4, 7-9, 19-23
Psalm 19
Philippians 3:4b-14
Matthew 21:33-46
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen.
There’s an old expression, possession is nine-tenths of the law. We’ve all heard it. This passage shows one example of how this works. In the parable, Jesus says, “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’” This sounds off to us, squatter’s rights doesn’t seem appropriate. But in this time, if the landowner dies without an heir, the tenant farmers would have a claim to become the new owners of the land.[1] Doesn’t seem right to us, but in the day it was the law.
Since possession was nine-tenths of the law, these wicked tenants were ready to cash in the final tenth.
And just to add one more proverbial log to the proverbial fire, the landowner provided a great vineyard for the tenants. There were vines in it, a fence around it, and a watchtower over it. There was even a press dug to accept the grapes to begin making wine. This is the Cadillac of vineyards. This is the place in Napa or Bordeaux that you find on the Travel Channel and on the Bloomberg Business Network. It was gorgeous and it was open for business.
No wonder they wanted it. It was fruitful; no wonder they were willing to take it. At the point of a sword, they were willing to take it.
Some would say they deserved it. After the hard work is done, the landowner sends his slaves and then his son to collect his produce. Matthew’s version doesn’t say “collect his share of the produce,” it says “collect his produce.” Considering the tenant’s perspective and the popularity of absentee landlords, some would say the tenants did earn it.
Let’s switch gears. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul shows who he was, and who he is now.
Paul had everything a Jewish man could want. He was everything a Jewish man ascribed to become. He was circumcised on the eighth day, showing that he was an Israelite by race, by birth. He was not a convert to the faith. He was not a newcomer to the faith. He was born into the tribe of Benjamin, a virtuous position because Benjamin was one of Jacob’s favorite sons. A virtuous position because the tribe of Benjamin remained faithful to the house of David.[2] He received these gifts of status for no other reason than by virtue of birth.
And if this were not enough, he earned more on his own. When known as Saul, he was a zealous persecutor of the church of Christ. In Acts we learn he was present at the stoning of Stephen, and that he approved of it.[3]
He was righteous under the law. He was a Pharisee, a sect renowned for adherence to the law and every regulation that pertained to it. They were faithful and sincere Jews who earned their righteousness according to their good actions. And this is where Paul tells the church at Philippi what his earned righteousness was worth.
“Whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Jesus Christ as my Lord.” Paul goes on to say that all of the righteousness that came from his birth or the law he now regarded as rubbish.
Oh, and rubbish is the gentle term. Dung[4] is a better, if more graphic, translation.
Paul came to know that all he was given by his parents, status, education, even Roman citizenship which isn’t even mentioned in this passage, is for naught in the light of knowing Jesus Christ as the risen Lord. Paul tells the church at Philippi that he has no righteousness of his own that comes from the law, but he is given righteousness in Christ that comes through faith, the righteousness from God based on faith.
Just to say this one more time, Paul has nothing of worth, nothing of value, and nothing of righteousness except what comes through faith in Christ. Righteousness is from God based on faith alone.
So back to the parable, historically, this parable is interpreted as an allegory. We plug in God the Father as the landowner and Jesus as his son. The slaves the landowner sends are the prophets of Israel. The tenant farmers are the leaders of the temple, the chief priests, the elders, and the Pharisees. The vineyard and the fruit are the kingdom of heaven.
All of the vineyard imagery ties back to the prophet Isaiah talking about the Lord planting a vineyard.
Jesus’ question to the Pharisees and their reply to Jesus harken back to Nathan’s accusations against King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah—as well as David’s response.[5]
The parable is a window into the temple at the time of the Christ and the people who run it. They are seen as taking what they will in their own righteousness to lift up themselves as much as they lift the Lord. The temple leaders, the chief priests, the elders, the Pharisees take what they think they earned; they take what they think they deserved. They take what they do for the righteousness of the law, the righteousness they understand.
But Paul tells us there is a better way than to take dung from the heap. People take; the Lord gives. Saved by grace through faith, the Lord our God, God in Three Persons gives us righteousness. Paul shows us that what we receive in Christ is far greater than all we can ever take for ourselves. Christ’s righteousness is greater than all we can ever take or earn for ourselves.
The wicked tenants know what they want, they know what they think they deserve. But when challenged by Jesus, the allegorical tenants of the vineyard, the Pharisees, know that these wretches will be put to a miserable death. They even begin to know that taken righteousness is no righteousness at all.
In 1983, a rock band called The Police recorded the quintessential love song of the early 1980’s. “Every Breath You Take” was number one on the Billboard charts for eight weeks in North America and four in England.[6] This song was the theme for proms all over America. Couples danced to this at their weddings. It’s haunting melody and wonderful vocal made couples everywhere say, “That’s our song.”
Every breath you take
And every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you
Every single day
And every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be watching you
All right, it’s lovely. It misses something without the melody, but there’s a reason Kenny sings and I don’t. But if you think the last line of each stanza is a little foreboding, that’s nothing compared to the next two verses.
Oh, can't you see
You belong to me
Now my poor heartaches
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I'll be watching you
This isn’t a love song; it’s a song about possession. This isn’t romantic; it’s a theme song for stalkers. Grotesque obsession, not love, oozes from this song. This obsessive behavior is the fate of those who seek the righteousness this earth gives. Taking is not about righteousness, it’s about possession.
About ten years ago, a woman who used stolen credit card numbers to feed her habit was given six months in jail and five years' probation with the condition she did not touch her drug of choice: Beanie Babies. Tamara Dee Maldonado of Marina, California was sentenced by Judge Jonathan Price after pleading guilty to four counts of commercial burglary. She said her obsession with the beanbag toys began when she worked as a cashier at McDonald's and had to stuff Beanie Babies into Happy Meals. She was soon ordering for herself by telephone, using her own credit cards and, eventually, stolen cards.
Her ex-husband, Gabriel Maldonado, told police she threatened to run off with their young child if he did not bring her discarded credit card slips from his job at a hotel. She used the information to buy $8,000 worth of rare Beanie Babies at area stores. When arrested, police found 206 Beanie Babies at her home.[7]
Jesus teaches the Pharisees that their obsession with possessing power and prestige in the temple is as big of a waste as this woman’s obsession with Beanie Babies. Paul shows us a better way. He shows that what we receive by the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ surpasses what we could ever earn or take. What is valuable in the kingdom of heaven is not what we take, not what we possess on our own, but what we receive from the Lord Jesus—righteousness that alone is God’s.
[1] New Interpreter’s Bible. Leander E. Keck. General Editor, Vol. VII. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, page 414.
[2] Ibid, Vol. XI, page 526.
[3] Acts , 7:58, 8:1
[4]Brueggemann, Walter, Cousar,Charles B., Gaventa, Beverly R., Newsome, James D, “Texts for Preaching, A Lectionary Commentary Based on the NRSV, Year A.” Louisville: Westminster-John Knox Press, 1995, page 512. The New Interpreter’s is more vivid recommending “excrement” (page 527).
[5] 2Samuel 12:1-14
[6] Sumner, Gordon, “Every Breath You Take.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Breath_You_Take, retrieved October 4, 2008.
[7] From news services, “Beanie Babies Fan Gets Six Months for Credit Card Account Fraud,” The Washington Post, November 21, 1998, A11 found at Homiletics Online, http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/illustration_search.asp?item_topic_id=2721, retrieved October 4, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)