When Worlds Collide...

This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Marshall, Texas on Sunday July 15, 2012, the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time.

2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12-19

Psalm 24

Ephesians 1:3-14

Mark 6:14-29

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 few years ago, I preached a sermon called “Great Generosity”[1] In it; I highlighted the philanthropy of one man at the University where he worked. I wrote that since 1998 he and his wife had given, “more than $4 million to the university. Their generosity funds scholarships, faculty positions, construction of an interfaith spiritual center and a sports hall of fame.”

This man was not only outstanding in his giving, but he was outstanding in his work. When I preached that sermon three years ago his work was record breaking, records that have become insurmountable since. In addition, this man’s program graduated 78% of its participants. Take it from someone who used to study graduation numbers for a living, that’s huge.

A year ago, all of that came crashing down. Scandal came to town and when it did, it came with a fury. Ultimately, the scandal and lung cancer took this generous giver to the grave. This is a part of the obituary I wrote on my blog about him and the scandal:

Yes, [he] did what he was supposed to do. No, he did not do enough--but he trusted that those who he told would do what they were supposed to do. That is why several of those folks are under criminal indictment.

But before anyone says what [he] did was bad or evil, remember that none of us are truly good enough to cast the first stone, especially at someone whose position, God willing, we will never share.[2]

If you haven’t figured it out, the subject of my opening illustration from “Great Generosity” and the subject of this obituary was former Penn State Football Coach Joe Paterno. What started to crash last year took a big turn toward crash and burn last week when former FBI Director Louis Freeh released his report on what had happened at Penn State and in the Football Program. Freeh’s words are the seed of horror movies.

To make a long story short, Freeh reported that my words “Yes, [he] did what he was supposed to do” are plain, flat wrong. Coach Paterno knew more than he told, covered up what he could, and enabled a sexual predator to operate in Happy Valley. Fame and money and power and prestige came together in one horrible decision that laid a path of devastation that extended years beyond when it should have.

The cover up had one purpose, to maintain the status of Penn State Football. What began with one single decision soon became a massive, systematic cover up. Fear ruled the day, not truth. Fear of losing all they had built. When these worlds collided, higher education, college football, money—tons of money, fame, and power that moves an entire state, not just its flagship university; when these worlds collided, children were hurt. Children were hurt. When the truth came to light, as it always does, all was lost. The only thing left is to see what and how much will get swept away in the torrent to follow.

So let’s meet the Herod family, shall we. Herod the Great was the patriarch of a family that ruled the Holy Land for over 150 years. Rome even gave Herod the title of King of the Jews. A title like this was a rarity in the Roman Empire which guided itself by absolute control. To name another king within the empire was risky to Rome, but Herod the Great earned the title King Herod.

Among the four of his sons who came to rule a quarter of the Herodian holdings were Herod-Philip and Herod Antipas. Antipas is (perhaps jokingly) called “King Herod” in this passage. Philip had a wife named Herodias and they had a daughter named Salome. (Other versions call her Herodias too, but for our purposes, that’s neither here not there.) Not long after Philip and Herodias divorced she married Antipas. This divorce is the reason John the Baptist said, “It is not legal for you to have your brother’s wife.”

This is where we get to see the ways family dynamics twist. Herodias knew what would become of her as a single mother. As a single mother she could have very quickly gone from being a princess in the palace to a beggar on the street. She might have been sent out with no standing in the community and no sons to take care of her. If she had not wed Antipas her fate would have been somewhere between a rock and a hard place. If John can convince Herod to repent of his illegal marriage, Herodias could well be put on the street. She was not going to let that happen. So, something’s gotta happen to make sure it doesn’t.

This is root of the grudge Herodias nursed against John. This is why she wanted to kill him. It’s only her husband’s fear and protection of John that stayed this execution. Family dynamics don’t get more precarious for a woman who could have been put out of her home.

We all know the scene that follows; Herod throws himself a birthday party. He throws a great banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. Like leaders do today, Herod throws this party to curry favor and solidify power. He wasn’t renowned as a great leader. He was known as a weakling among the Tetrarchs. This party was a time to show his power, wealth, might, and prestige among those who might overthrow him if the opportunity arose.

Let’s face it; Herod’s birthday party could have been an inspiration for Sue Ellen’s fundraiser on the premier of the new version of “Dallas.” Like in “Dallas” one moment of weakness, one note of indecision and everything you have worked so hard to have and hold would be gone, taken by those who kowtow to you. There isn’t anyone who knows the story of J.R., Bobby, and Sue Ellen that doesn’t know every word is a weapon, every glare a threat.

Herod’s party was no different. Herod was playing a game and he knew it. He was playing a game where fame, wealth, power, and prestige were on the line; a game where with one slip all was lost. He slipped.

In his grandiosity and pomposity he offers his daughter anything, up to half his wealth. You better bet when you get that kind of offer you had better ask mom what she thinks. On her mother’s prompting, Salome requests John’s head on a platter.

Here’s a question, when Herod made his offer, did he ever imagine this would be the request? A wise man, a man who considers all the angles, a man who knows all the moves—this man expects the request. Herod doesn’t expect it. When Salome makes the request Herod is between a rock and a hard place.

He couldn’t turn down his daughter. Her mother would have been livid and when Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. This unhappiness comes with a layer of home grown political intrigue given that Herodias is a grand daughter of Herod the Great. That’s right; Herodias married her uncles and if Antipas did not come through the other Tetrarchs, who were also her uncles, would have had a hey-day.

If he had shown himself weak in front of his high officials, and military commanders, and the leading men of Galilee then those alliances, the ones he had been cultivating, would have dissolved before his eyes.

There is one more place where Herod was stuck, his relationship with John the Baptist. It’s difficult to get a real handle on their relationship; John indicted Herod for his crimes yet Herod liked to listen to John. John puzzled Herod.

I think I get it, at least a little. You don’t have to agree with someone to have a relationship. As for me, I need people who think differently than I do in my life. If I only keep company with people like me, life would be boring. I need people who think differently, otherwise what am I going to learn?

Maybe this is the sort of relationship Herod had with John. Herod was a Jew, at least technically. Herod would come to listen like any good student at the feet of a Rabbi. Of course, Herod kept this Rabbi locked up in a palace prison. Maybe Herod liked this Rabbi for the challenge he presented. In truth, in the end, we will never know the how’s or why’s, but we do know this, Herod liked to listen to John.

This became the third thorn in Herod’s side along with his wife and his company. To keep his place in his kingdom and in his family he would have to execute the one he liked to hear. When worlds collide, Herod sacrifices John so that the rest of his world doesn’t crumble around him.

This is where we go back to the beginning of our reading. Some were saying John had been raised from the dead. We know Herod’s reaction is that he believes John, the man he beheaded, has been raised from the dead.

I’ve wondered how Herod faced this news. I always thought it was with dread. “Oh no, the guy I killed is back, this can’t be good.” Another reaction I heard this week was that he heard the news with guilt, “Oh no, who did I kill that he has returned?” A third opinion from something I read offered the strangest reading, hope. Herod might have hoped “There is again a chance for me to have a relationship with this John who I have killed.”

Hope is the most biblical. Optimism is based on what we can do; hope is based on what God has already done. In new life there is hope and in hope there is new life. Maybe it’s not such a stretch after all.

The problem faced by Coach Paterno and King Herod Antipas is leadership. They both let something less important get in the way of what’s really important. For Joe Pa it was wins and prestige and the “good” that could be done with him in charge. (And anyone who doesn’t think Coach Paterno ran Penn State needs to read the Freeh Report.) These goals were all met at the cost of the innocence. Herod kept his place, but at the expense of the life of the one righteous man.

Both kept their positions after their transgressions, but today we know Herod because he executed John and asked Jesus “What is truth?” As for what Coach Paterno will eventually be known for, that is left to a history written in the future.

These questions extend to leadership in the church. The Rev. Dr. Michael Jinkins, President of Louisville Seminary cites the three essential tenants of leadership: clarity, non-anxious presence, and the will to lead even in the face of resistance and sabotage.[3] Neither of these men truly showed these qualities.

As for Paterno, he never seemed to lead in the face of resistance and sabotage. In fact, the Freeh report cited Paterno as a feared leader, a boss that could eliminate any challenge with the boot with the warning “you’ll never work in this business again.” There were janitors who feared the reach of Joe Pa’s iron glove.

As for Herod, I don’t see much non-anxious presence. His flamboyance is what started him down the road to the death of the Baptist. As for resistance and sabotage, we only have to look to the dinner for how that worked out. Herod buckled to the practical over the righteous.

Neither of them had a clarity that was of any value; power, prestige, money, you know the rest. They were both ultimately tied to the sizzle instead of the steak.

Scott Van Pelt, a broadcaster on ESPN said on the radio that maybe Coach Paterno was a good man who made one very bad mistake. As soon as the cover up began he was married to it forever. So it was, and as the old saying goes, “forever is a long, long time.” I would love to believe that. If that were so then what I said about Joe Pa in my blog was written out of one moment of blindness, not a pattern of allowing abuse. I’d love to believe it, but I can’t, not today.

Herod was weak, but he did have one hope, one of redemption. He hoped he could have his time with the Baptist again. He hoped for the good ol’ days. Of course, we know how that ends. Herod has to ask “what is truth?”

What we have is clarity; Jesus is the way and the truth. What we need is a greater clarity, what do we do with this wonderful redemption we have been given. Thank God in Christ’s love by the power of the Holy Spirit that we are afforded the chance to work that one out.

---

[1] “Great Generosity,” http://timelovesahero.blogspot.com/2009/09/great-generosity.html

[2] “Adios, Joe Pa,” http://fatmaninthebathtub02.blogspot.com/2012/01/adios-joe-pa.html. The [bracketed text] is not an effort to protect Coach Paterno’s name, it is an effort to add suspense before the final reveal.

[3] Jinkins, Michael, “Transformational Leadership: Church Leadership and the Way of the Cross.” Edinburgh: St. Andrew’s Press, 2002, page 42

The Disciplined Disciple

This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on Sunday September 7, 2008, the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time.


Exodus 12:1-14
Psalm 149
Romans 13:8-14
Matthew 18:15-20

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our Rock and our Redeemer. Amen

Let’s get in the way-back machine and take a trip to the Year of Our Lord 48. Some men had come from Judea teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the Law of Moses.” [1]

This narrative from the Acts 15 describes the first great conflict of the church. In the day there were two kinds of Christians, Jewish believers and Gentile converts. Since Jesus was himself a Jew, the Christian faith has roots in the temple and the law, not Gentile shrines and customs. Yet there was a school of thought that believed that Judaism and the Hebrew customs were not prerequisite to faith in the risen Lord Christ. As usual, leave it to the Pharisees to hold the hard line saying that being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses were necessary for salvation.

Without going into much detail, the Council of Jerusalem was called by church leaders to discuss this issue. The council made three important decisions about the church and its requirements. First, circumcision would not be an entry requirement for gentile Christians. Second, Jewish Christians would continue to practice circumcision. Finally, traditional Jewish dietary regulations were to be maintained by all Christians.

In the end there was compromise, and even this could not be kept. The resolutions of the Jerusalem Council could not be easily sustained in the scattered communities of Christians, communities which were a combination of Jewish and Gentile Christians. The clashes which arose out of these disputes about behavior were a constant threat to the survival of the church.[2] Eventually Paul could not and did not maintain support of the dietary regulations very long. In the end, had the pro-Jewish perspective been maintained, Christianity might well have remained a reform movement within Judaism.[3]

Matthew’s system of conflict resolution from chapter 18 is sound. It begins: If another member of the church has sinned against you, go alone and point out the fault. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. If that doesn’t work, then the situation escalates. Next, go with one or two others so that every word may be confirmed. Finally, if another member of the church has sinned against you and either they continue to sin against you or your grievance was not resolved by the first two steps or if the offender continues to refuse to listen, then put the offender out.

It’s a good system, beginning with one-on-one contact with repercussions if the offender continues to offend. My study bible says, “These instructions emphasize the responsibility of community members rather than leaders focusing on the goal of reconciliation.”[4] But I don’t get that sense from the reading; I sense something going on under the text.

Historically, when we read Matthew’s discourse in conflict resolution, in a way we read about conflict resolution from what was ultimately the losing side of the Council of Jerusalem. While the actions of the Council affirmed what the Jewish Christians believed, much of what they taught and how they behaved, the tide of history would ultimately leave the substance of this council and their specific brand of Jewish Christianity behind.

These were a people who held tight to their Judaism and the Judaism of their Messiah Jesus. We know that Matthew’s audience was specifically Jewish believers, the children of Moses and Jesus.

From this morning’s text, we are told that “if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” In Matthew’s words, there doesn’t seem to be much of a distinction between Gentile believers and the run-of-the-mill Gentile. Gentiles are Gentiles and whether they are believers or not, they are not the same as real believers, those who adhere to the Law of Moses and the restrictions and distinctions set long ago. Surely, tax collectors were collaborators with the Roman overseers. Reading this passage, I feel like someone ought to follow it saying “and some of my best friends are Gentiles and tax collectors.”

My study bible says that the worshiping community is to treat Gentiles and tax collectors as objects of mission. They are to be included as members of the assembly.[5] They may be the object of mission and they may be a part of the community, but I get the sense Mathew is saying they aren’t like us.

After 2,000 years of disagreements in the church you would think we would learn a thing or two about conflicts and resolving them. All we have to do is change a few words here and there and this description from Acts would be applicable to every church conflict. “Gentiles and tax collectors” can be changed to any one of a number of other proper nouns or adjectives and the reading would remain very familiar.

In fact, today we would all be known as Gentile Christians. We might even be members of Matthew’s refuse pile.

As a community, the bar of people who offend us has moved. I assume we welcome the uncircumcised, at least there’s nothing in the Book of Order. I had Canadian bacon for breakfast and would eat bacon at any meal. These two thousand year old scandals have been replaced by dozens of others; some so arcane we would not understand the issue in the first place. Recent Presbyterian scandals are just another drop in the bucket, and a young drop at that.

So what does this have to do with conflict resolution? I believe it has to do with the root of conflict. Returning to the Jerusalem Council, the pro-Jewish Christians insisted that because the church was the true Israel, converts must be circumcised before they were admitted into the community while Paul insisted that with Christ believers were freed from the works of the Law and were justified by grace through faith. The orthodox Jewish believer agreed with the Pharisees. The Gentile believer didn’t know the difference.

So here’s my question; what would have happened if a Gentile believer had been dragged before Matthew’s community for discipline. Then we have to ask what would have happened if one of Matthew’s community had been dragged before the Gentiles. If conflicts are resolved by individual communities, there will be only community justice. We have to find something broader than our communities, than our lives to resolve conflict. We have to follow the example of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ.

To do this, we Christians must return to the root of our faith, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the God in three persons. To do this we must return to the Word of God, the Holy Scripture which is the first source of what we know about God. And once we return to the Word, each of us must become interpreters of the Word, doing as it commands.

We must do more than follow rules, we have to follow commands. God saves through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, but we are transformed not only when we hear and respond to the Gospel’s narrative. Truer, fuller, more complete transformation happens when we participate in the human connectional community of the church. The symbolism and story of redemption reach the depths of our very being when we interpret and reinterpret the word in our world.[6] We do not live into our place in the community, we do not live as active followers of Christ until we both read and interpret the word.

Looking at today’s reading from Matthew, it tells us what to do with the offender. I say let’s be careful whom we call “offender.” It is important to look at the people of God, who we are as the people, who we are in the word, and who we can be before we go to another and say, “You have sinned against me.” I have to beware because I might have sinned against you first.

If true, there is one thing to remember, Jesus expected more out of those who knew him. He expects more out of those who read and interpret the word. He expects more out of those who lead the church. He expects more out of us than he does those who do not know him. He expects more out of the community called in His holy name, bearing his holy word.

We talk about those who sin against us, so let us remember the words of Paul to the church at Rome, Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.” Paul commands the Romans to love, this is fulfillment of the Law and our command now and forever.

[1] Acts 15:2-5. See Acts 15 for details.
[2] 1Corinthians 8, Galatians 2:11ff
[3] Rev. Dr. Ellen Babinsky, Course pack, unpublished. Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Theology 100-Church History through 1650. Chapter 2, page 6, 2001.
[4] New Interpreter’s Study Bible, note to Matthew 18:15-20.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Farley, Edward, “Theology in the Life of the Congregation.” Theology and Worship Occasional Paper No. 17, Office of Theology and Worship, PC (USA), Louisville, 2003, page 5. (This publication is a reprint of the first chapter of Farley’s “Practicing Gospel: Unconventional Thoughts on the Church’s Ministry.” Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.”