Dirty Laundry
Presented at County Line Brethren Church on August 30, 2009.
Year B, Proper 17
Scripture passages: James 1:17-27 & Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23
“Dirty Laundry” – Don Henley
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something, something I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry
Well, I could've been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear, give us dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em all around
We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?
You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry
You don't really need to find out what's going on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone, keep your dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're stiff, kick 'em all around
Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
Love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry
We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing
When it's said and done, we haven't told you a thing
We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry
Every preacher has certain subjects that they prefer not to preach about. Like when scripture talks about gluttony, that's getting a little close to home for some of us, if you know what I mean. For others preachers, when scripture talks about the destructiveness of anger, we end up coming face to face with our own problems. Other topics include sex, lust, Internet indiscretions, drinking, gossiping. Sometimes scripture passages which are too close to home are ones that address marriage and family, particularly when the pastor does not have a good marriage and one of their children fit the description of the prodigal child who is still slopping pigs. Perhaps some pastors have difficulty talking about scripture passages related to forgiveness, because they still harbor deep-seated resentments toward those who have hurt him or family members in the past. Maybe the problem is in the use of foul language and the scripture passage is talking about pure speech.
You see, it is particularly difficult for preachers to address scripture passages which expose their own weaknesses and failures. I have to tell you that this is one of the most difficult functions of preaching or pastoring. There are few options available.
1. One option is to fight the personal failure by turning it into a cause. This can occur before or after the failure becomes publicly known. In either case, the private battle surrounding this weakness or failure of the pastor/preacher is fought in the public arena. Oftentimes these preachers brandish the “sword of the spirit” (the Bible) preaching condemnation and judgment for those who engage in such activities. Unfortunately, this does not typically bring victory in the private arena. Their eventual public embarrassment only serves to turn the condemnation onto themselves.
2. Another option is to simply not talk about it. The preacher is tempted to avoid these scripture passages altogether. Even when using the lectionary the preacher is able to choose one of the other scripture passages to address on that particular Sunday. I have caught myself doing this and have read of others doing the same thing. For preachers so inclined not to use the lectionary, it is a much easier task. The scripture passage in question rarely presents itself as a possible sermon text. You see, without the lectionary, preachers have a propensity to talk about what is pertinent or relevant to the day or simply what the preacher enjoys preaching about. They develop sermon series that are geared toward attracting people back for another dose of “church.” For the preacher and the congregation it is like having a diet that consists of only 3 of the major food groups.
3. Another option for the preacher/pastor for dealing with scripture passages associated with their personal weaknesses or failures is to discuss them only on an intellectual level. This thoughtful approach would try to address it in a way similar to an academic lecture on the ghastly particulars of the job of a medical examiner. So, in this instance, both the preacher and the congregation leave the service having a better understanding of the subject but without receiving any assistance regarding what to do about the problem.
4. Another option is rarely used. Indeed, I've only seen it used when the preacher has been broken by their weakness or failure such that they cannot pretend or intellectualize or skip the subject. This is when there is a full and public accounting of the preacher's indiscretions within the context of the sermon.
5. Of course, the 5th option is for the preacher to pretend that it is not a problem for them personally sometimes even feigning spiritual superiority – all the while knowing quite well the demons that lurk in the shadows of their heart and in their private trysts with sin. They do not make a cause out of the issue. Eventually, the preacher/pastor may even delude themselves into thinking that this lurking demon is not even worth paying attention to.
Now lest the congregation deem this solely to be a problem with the preacher/pastor, I submit that there is some collusion to this dilemma on their behalf. Notwithstanding their own secret trysts with sin, the congregation deeply desires and sometimes overtly requires their preacher/pastors to be darn near perfect. They not only want someone to look up to, but also to model after and to freely and excitedly introduce to one of their friends. They want someone to be proud of and to put right up on that pedestal, displayed for everyone to see. So if they do have some flaw, let it be something as benign as gluttony, as private as sexual problems in their marriage or as ambiguous as Paul's thorn in the flesh. Quite frankly the congregation does not really want to know.
Let's see if we can venture into a more healthy resolution to this long-standing problem.
In our gospel passage today, Jesus rips into the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. Let us understand what hypocrisy is. In Greek plays, hypocrisy “in the negative, it is used of an actor who has not identified himself with his role” (NIDNTT). In other words, the hypocrite is someone who presents themselves as something different than what they really are. In the realm of theatre, the actor is called upon to act in such a way that is at odds with who they really are as a person. There is often an intentionality about this. Jesus himself describes what a hypocrite is in our passage today.
"Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.' You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition."
From this passage, we can expand our understanding of hypocrisy to include those who pretend to honor and worship God, but their hearts are not bent toward the Lord. To make up for this lack of communion with our Heavenly Father, the hypocrite turns to rules, regulations and the law – not the commandments of God, but those originating within the human mind.
Galatians 2:13 uses the term hypocrisy when Peter had buddied up with the gentiles until the Jews arrived from Jerusalem. As you recall, Peter withdrew from the gentiles, as if they were unclean – even though he had just been having a great time with those same gentiles. Paul describes Peter, Barnabas and others as being hypocrites in their actions. What we learn from this is that hypocrisy is acting one way in the presence of some of our friends until someone comes that might disapprove and then acting differently. The other thing we can surmise from this passage is that hypocrisy is when we buddy up with our 'rough' friends, but then we reject them if one of our religious friends stop happen by.
So here is a summary of what hypocrisy is.
Acting in a way that is not consistent with who we really are, in order to deceive or to present ourselves in a better light to some people about who we really are. It is typically seen in those who talk about rules that are not in the Bible or apply the law in inappropriate and rigid ways, and without love. Hypocrisy is seen in those who passionately press for perfection, without being perfect themselves. Hypocrisy is also seen when people act different ways around different friends AND are in a quandary when those different friends are placed in the same room at the same time. They have no idea who they are and are therefore unable to know how to act as themselves. And finally, as it concerns our relationship to God, hypocrisy is when we place rules ahead of love, law above grace and knowledge about God ahead of communion with God.
So, I just want you to know that I am a hypocrite. Indeed, I am, or have been, a hypocrite pretty much my whole life. It probably started as a child of a minister, for me anyway. Pretend everything is ok, even when it isn't. People like a smile and warm greeting. I continue to learn that when I speak up, or share how I really feel or think, some people don't really like that. Please understand that I am not saying I communicate that in pleasant ways, which is part of the problem, my problem. So, I continue learning how to “be nice.” I am indeed, the problem, and still struggling to achieve some kind of “congruence” that I spoke about several months ago.
When I was your pastor, I found it difficult to preach after having an argument with Beth. I suppose that preaching on those mornings was “hypocritical.” I have struggled like Peter, who had friends with different standards. I have felt pressed into a quandary about how to act.
On the other hand, I have tried very hard not to fall into the trap of preaching harshly or judgmentally, especially with respect to those things I have continued to struggle with.
When preaching, I make every attempt to be congruent. I try not to press man-made rules, regulations or laws.
When preaching, I try not to air my dirty laundry without purpose. I do not condone hypocrisy. I only admit that it is one of my many imperfections. I do believe that with the Lord's help, I am becoming less hypocritical. I'm not sure about how to address hypocrisy, except by trying to be more honest and true about my thoughts and feelings, being more myself in my relationships to my friends and thus avoid the trap of trying to be what other people want me to be. I also become less hypocritical as I focus more on love and less on rules, more on grace and less on law, more on forgiveness and less on insisting I'm right. I have tried to be more open and honest with you about who I am.
It seems to me that this 6th model seems to be working for me right now. To resist efforts to put me on the pedestal, to move more toward honesty and openness without airing all of my dirty laundry while trying to address that same dirty laundry in more appropriate and more private ways. To address scripture passages that I am not fully comfortable with, that expose some of my own failings.
One thing is sure about passages like this and in our Epistle for today, they force us to examine ourselves more closely – and it is very uncomfortable. It is attributed to Socrates that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” I am NOT suggesting that we go that far. Maybe it would be better to say, in light of this passage, that the unexamined life sows the seeds and promotes the growth of hypocrisy. So, we would certainly be wise to consider closely where we stand with reference to the list of sins contained within our passages today to look at our own dirty laundry. Is not another hallmark of hypocrisy that of focusing on others faults and to actively avoid submitting to a full accounting of our own?
• Are you quick to speak, slow to listen, and quick to anger?
• Do you let your tongue wag too much at work, home and the community – as well as when you come to church
• Do you care for the orphans and widows? Are you “unstained by the world?”
• How about fornication or theft?
• Have you let your anger at another person get the best of you?
• Are you paying too much attention to your neighbor's spouse?
• Have you been paying more attention to your 401(k) than to the needy around you
• Are you a bit wicked, deceitful, or a morally loose cannon
• Have you caught yourself wanting some of the things that your neighbors have
• Have you been talking badly about someone you know?
Maybe now would be a good time to talk about being a hypocrite. Maybe we should all vomit our respective sins to one another, air our dirty laundry? I need to say a word about this dirty laundry thing. In our society of thirst for the dirt, it seems to me that the more gratuitous the disclosure, the less helpful it is to the offender, the church, and the public to share every detail. This presents a problem. Because in an appropriate and private setting, discussing one's weaknesses and failures can be very healing. But that stuff is really other people's stuff and none of our business.
What IS our business is being more honest and open about our failures and imperfections without airing all the dirty laundry. It is our business to try to be more honest and true about my thoughts and feelings, being more myself in my relationships to my friends and thus avoid the trap of trying to be what other people want me to be. It is my business to focus more on love and less on rules, more on grace and less on law, more on forgiveness and less on insisting I'm right.
Notwithstanding scripture’s admonition elsewhere to carefully share our concerns with one another, the gratuitousness of other people's dirty laundry is not my business.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Flesh and Blood
Flesh and Blood
Presented at County Line Brethren Church on August 23, 2009.
Year B, Proper 16
Scripture passages: Ephesians 6:10-20 & John 6:51-69
On NPR this week, I heard a short essay on this lady’s recommendation for 5 classes you should take in college. One was Child Development, one was Writing Composition (more than one unit), one was Statistics (one of my personal favorites, really), one was Anatomy and Physiology, and I can’t remember the last one. The reason for suggesting Anatomy and Physiology was because it would give us a better understanding of our bodies such that we could ask better questions of our doctors when we get sick and take better care of ourselves when we’re healthy. I did not take Anatomy and Physiology. I have therefore had to learn some things over the years about how our body works.
I talked a little bit about food last week, well actually I talked about how our appetite tends to increase when we exercise. Today, I would like to talk a little bit about how food works in order to gain some insights into what Jesus was really talking about.
So, when I needed to do some research about how food helps our bodies I was starting from a deficit of information. With apologies to my son-in-law, Shahir, the biochemist in the family, I will venture into this with great trepidation. When we eat protein,
“The digestive system breaks all proteins down into their amino acids so that they can enter the bloodstream. Cells then use the amino acids as building blocks.” (http://www.howstuffworks.com/food.htm)
In other words, the protein is eventually broken down into amino acids and used by the cells for its specific purpose. And without the specific amino acid, these cells will not function properly.
Food enters into our body through the digestive track and then circulates throughout the body by means of the bloodstream, in and out of pertinent cells, in order for our bodies to function.
The bloodstream has three basic functions. The first is to transport oxygen and other nutrients, like protein and glucose, to the cells. The second is immunity, by the use of what we commonly refer to as the white blood cells. It helps to fight infections and germs. The third function is coagulation. When we cut ourselves the sticky platelets clog up the leak, so that we don’t bleed to death. Because, without blood, we will die. Indeed, the reason that the Old Testament law prohibited the consumption of the blood, was because “the life of the creature is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11).
I’ve only mentioned protein and the blood, which is only a part of what comprises the body, albeit an important part.
Do you remember that public service announcement back in the 80’s?
You are what you eat song (Time for Timer)
You are what you eat from your head down to your feet things like meat and fish and eggs you need to build up muscle tissue Uh Oh! Appetite control? More Protein! We need energy. All the motors in your body need a lot of fuel to go on Things like carbohydrates fats and proteins, vitamins and so on. What's left over forms the building blocks you need, indeed, to grow on! Yes you are what you swallow so the next time you feel hollow don't just fill your face with any old kind of treat This goes for every kid or 6 foot at the least Yes what you really are is what you eeeeeeeeat! (http://www.inthe80s.com/tvcommercials/y.shtml)
So, here’s the deal. Whatever you eat, becomes your own body. So, the protein you eat actually becomes part of your cells. Your food becomes who you are.
Now with the stage set, let’s take a look at John 6. The whole chapter is about food, is it not? It seems to me that Jesus’ talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood has a direct correlation with the feeding of the 5,000+. The boy's lunch of bread and fish never vanished, but became “more” as it was multiplied through its distribution. Even though Jesus died on the cross, his life became “more” as it was multiplied through its distribution. Jesus' death was similar to the boy offering his lunch to feed many. Jesus offered himself to feed many. The offering of the lunch was for the life of the crowd. The suffering and death of Jesus, the Christ, we are told, is for the life of the whole world. Allow me to point out that the boy's lunch was for the whole crowd and offered life, through the food, to the whole crowd.
To this crowd, Jesus implores them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, for it is real food. What does it mean to consume his flesh and drink his blood? The first thing to clarify is that we are consuming his “life.” We are not to consume dead flesh or dead blood, even though consuming it implies his death that made his sharing possible. As scripture says, by consuming his flesh and blood, we proclaim the Lord’s death, but it is not rotten flesh or putrid blood. This is living flesh and living blood. Furthermore, even though Jesus “died,” he never ceased to exist. For we are told that during the three calendar days that he was “dead” and in the tomb, he was preaching to the souls in prison, or Sheol. Now, in order not to align myself with heresy, please let me clarify that Jesus did in fact die. But even for us, death does not mean non-existence.
I would like to look at 6 possible ways to look at what the flesh and blood consists of and what it means to consume his flesh and blood.
1. We still have not answered how is it that we “consume” or “eat” the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ. Those who hold to a strong Eucharistic view, favor the idea that it is by partaking of the bread and the cup, through the vehicle of the church, that one consumes the life of the Christ. Indeed they would go so far as to say that those who do not consume the Eucharist cannot be “in the Christ.” Those who hold to a strong Eucharistic view, favor the idea that it is by partaking of the bread and the cup, through the vehicle of the church, that one consumes the life of the Christ. Indeed they would go so far as to say that those who do not consume the Eucharist cannot be “in the Christ.” That’s why being denied the Eucharist is such a big deal. Nevertheless, we hold that partaking of the bread and cup is not sufficient “flesh” and “blood,” in and of itself, to regenerate someone.
2. Others, who do not hold such a high view of the Eucharist, focus more on the change that is wrought in our life as a result of consumption such that we become “like Christ.” Hence, they make reference to Paul's statement in Gal. 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Historically, the Brethren, along with other Anabaptists, would tend to favor this rendering. And to take it a step further, they might state that it is through obedience that we become more “Christ-like.” These believers recognize and encourage the benefits of participating in communion (the Eucharist), but they would say that is not enough. The danger here is that obedience either deteriorates into becomes something we do, our own effort, and/or becomes subject to laws, rules and regulations. Obedience is not sufficient “flesh” and “blood,” in and of itself, to regenerate someone.
3. There are some who would suggest that the Bible is the preferred way to consume the Christ. Jesus, the Christ is referred to as the “Word became flesh” in the first chapter of John. Some would say as we read the Bible (or consume this flesh of the Word) that it permeates into our being, and that we become like the Christ. Unfortunately, we recognize the tendency by some to elevate the Bible excessively to a level which is not Biblical and borders on idolatry, sometimes referred to as “Bibliolatry.” Surely we are aware of some who have read the Bible thoroughly, who correspondingly reject virtually any value found therein. So we find that even reading the Bible is not sufficient “flesh” and “blood,” in and of itself, to regenerate someone.
4. Scripture speaks of another factor. I Peter 1:2 specifically states that we sanctified by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of obedience. The order here in I Peter then states that obedience is not a pathway of sanctification, but rather a result of it. Furthermore, becoming Christ-like is not our job. This is a work of the Holy Spirit. Here's what Peter says in that passage,
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: grace and peace be yours in abundance.
It is not up to us to do it. We do not become “Christ-like” by eating a wafer of bread or drinking a sip of grape juice or wine. We do not become “Christ-like by reading more of the Bible or by obeying more fervently. I want you to notice in the context of this passage, as we talked about last week, is that it contains a strongly Calvinistic stance. Namely, that God chooses and draws and sanctifies his own. And the drawing is not simply to recognize Jesus as the Christ and pay homage to him. But as the spirit sanctifies this child of God, obedience proceeds from his heart, not of his own doing, and not perfectly in this dimension. Rather, obedience springs from the Spirit-quickened Christ-likeness of the child of God, albeit imperfectly this side of heaven. And so, it is not by means of eating the flesh and drinking the blood that we become like him. Rather, the eating and drinking demonstrates that we are his.
I've noticed something about my grandsons. They will let us know when they are hungry, and they will eat. Where does that hunger come from? Is it not part of their nature as children, or even as a human being? So it is in our relationship with the Lord. It is not up to us to conjure up hunger. It is not up to us to force ourselves to come to the communion table. It is not up to us to lure others to worship under false pretenses. It is not up to us to beat our neighbors over the head with the Bible or the crucifix in order to get them to turn to Christ, or for that matter, to become more Christ-like. That's a God-thing.
5. I ran across an interesting essay in The Christian Century by Dennis M. Bell, Jr., entitled, “God Does Not Demand Blood.” In this article, Mr. Bell challenges the commonly held tenets of the satisfaction or substitutionary theory of the atonement. The satisfaction or substitutionary theory of the atonement basically says that Jesus' suffering and death was meant to take the brunt of God's wrath that was aimed toward us, that his wrath would surely destroy us save for Jesus, the Christ's, spilt blood which satisfied and appeased an angry God. In other words, God was aiming an arrow at us, but Jesus stepped into the path of the arrow and accepted it for himself, satisfying God's wrath. The problem that Mr. Bell points out is that this perspective does not provide a completely consistent or accurate description of New Testament passages. Furthermore, when this line of reasoning is followed, it takes us down dangerous path of both justifying and advocating the use of violence to combat violence.
Instead, Mr. Bell suggests that Jesus’ suffering and death represents how far Jesus, the Christ, was willing to go to demonstrate his love for us and to infuse life into this world. And so it is the love of Christ that saves us, not his shed blood.
"This love of God expressed in Jesus saves us. It is the love that would rather die on the cross than give up on us. We reject God, so God sends Jesus with the offer of life again and we reject it again; Jesus could have abandoned us, or called down fire from heaven to destroy us. But he did not. He remained faithful to his mission, reaching out to us until the end: “Father forgive them. . . ”
"As we are joined to Christ and made part of his body, we are not somehow submitting to the logic of blood sacrifice. We are not simply being let off the hook for our sin by deflecting the punishment for that sin onto someone else. We are not satisfying an angry god by throwing that god a piece of innocent red meat. We are not offering a bloody sacrifice for the sake of reinforcing how important the moral law and order are.
"Rather, as we are joined to Christ we become transformed (sanctified) and live our lives according to another logic. As Paul wrote, “Let the same mind be in you that was in Jesus Christ.” The point is that in Christ we are not just pardoned but are also healed of our sin and made a different kind of people, a new creation, who live by a different logic. We love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. We forgive, as we have been forgiven. We renounce violence as a means of defending or securing or saving ourselves or those we love. To the extent that our savior is Christ, our defense, security and salvation depend on Christ and the love that overcomes enemies. We live out the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor. 5:17-20)
This way of life may entail enduring suffering – not because suffering is in some way good or redemptive, not because this is the what God wants or because it is punishment for our sins. Rather, it is because suffering is the cost that humans in their sinful rebellion impose on other humans. Moreover, being prepared to suffer does not mean that we must seek out suffering or passively endure it. The logic of our new way of life does not reject justice, accountability, or discipline; this way of life is disciplined and accountable and seeks justice. It may include practices such as incarceration or even just war. But justice and discipline shaped by the charity and mercy of God are significantly different from the so-called justice and discipline that belong to the law and order of blood sacrifice."
(Bell, Jr., Dennis, God Does Not Demand Blood, Christian Century, February 10, 2009, p. 26)
Our discussion today is impacted tremendously by our understanding of the atonement. If we are to consume the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ, then we are compelled to specifically identify what the flesh and blood represent. If we were to embrace Mr. Bell’s theory, then consuming Jesus’ flesh and blood would mean that we are consuming a love that will not give up on us – as differentiated from one associated with a blood sacrifice. But even becoming a very loving person is not deemed to be sufficient to regenerate us, in and of itself.
6. Let us also recall that the “body of Christ” is the church universal. So, if we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, we must consider what it might mean for us related to the church universal. Are we to consume one another? Perhaps the better question in light of Bell’s theory about the atonement, is “how shall we offer one another our complete love, just as Jesus, the Christ, offered his complete love to us on the cross. By doing this, we are offering not our own flesh and blood, but the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ, which has permeated our own existence to the point that it is no longer my life that expresses itself. Instead, when I love in such a way, it is because Christ lives in me.
The Eucharist is one means by which we become like Jesus, the Christ. Reading and studying the Bible is another means, along with obedience. There is also the important factor that becoming Christ-like is certainly not up to us entirely. Jesus, the Christ, has a vested interest in our development and his Spirit will bring this about. We have also seen that consuming his flesh and his blood may more about the outpouring of his love rather than the shedding of his blood. We also share his flesh and blood as we love one another. May I suggest that each of these perspectives on eating his flesh and drinking his blood have validity, but that none of them stand alone to the exclusion of the others.
In any case, consuming the flesh and blood mean that, over time, his substance becomes our substance. Paul says that it is not him, “but Christ who lives in me.” Such is the result of regularly consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ. As we consume the life of Christ, we will be becoming like the living Christ.
This happens because the essence of who he is gradually permeates our entire existence as individuals, as the church universal, and indeed the entire world.
You are what you eat from your head down to your feet. Enjoy the love of Jesus, the Christ.
Presented at County Line Brethren Church on August 23, 2009.
Year B, Proper 16
Scripture passages: Ephesians 6:10-20 & John 6:51-69
On NPR this week, I heard a short essay on this lady’s recommendation for 5 classes you should take in college. One was Child Development, one was Writing Composition (more than one unit), one was Statistics (one of my personal favorites, really), one was Anatomy and Physiology, and I can’t remember the last one. The reason for suggesting Anatomy and Physiology was because it would give us a better understanding of our bodies such that we could ask better questions of our doctors when we get sick and take better care of ourselves when we’re healthy. I did not take Anatomy and Physiology. I have therefore had to learn some things over the years about how our body works.
I talked a little bit about food last week, well actually I talked about how our appetite tends to increase when we exercise. Today, I would like to talk a little bit about how food works in order to gain some insights into what Jesus was really talking about.
So, when I needed to do some research about how food helps our bodies I was starting from a deficit of information. With apologies to my son-in-law, Shahir, the biochemist in the family, I will venture into this with great trepidation. When we eat protein,
“The digestive system breaks all proteins down into their amino acids so that they can enter the bloodstream. Cells then use the amino acids as building blocks.” (http://www.howstuffworks.com/food.htm)
In other words, the protein is eventually broken down into amino acids and used by the cells for its specific purpose. And without the specific amino acid, these cells will not function properly.
Food enters into our body through the digestive track and then circulates throughout the body by means of the bloodstream, in and out of pertinent cells, in order for our bodies to function.
The bloodstream has three basic functions. The first is to transport oxygen and other nutrients, like protein and glucose, to the cells. The second is immunity, by the use of what we commonly refer to as the white blood cells. It helps to fight infections and germs. The third function is coagulation. When we cut ourselves the sticky platelets clog up the leak, so that we don’t bleed to death. Because, without blood, we will die. Indeed, the reason that the Old Testament law prohibited the consumption of the blood, was because “the life of the creature is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11).
I’ve only mentioned protein and the blood, which is only a part of what comprises the body, albeit an important part.
Do you remember that public service announcement back in the 80’s?
You are what you eat song (Time for Timer)
You are what you eat from your head down to your feet things like meat and fish and eggs you need to build up muscle tissue Uh Oh! Appetite control? More Protein! We need energy. All the motors in your body need a lot of fuel to go on Things like carbohydrates fats and proteins, vitamins and so on. What's left over forms the building blocks you need, indeed, to grow on! Yes you are what you swallow so the next time you feel hollow don't just fill your face with any old kind of treat This goes for every kid or 6 foot at the least Yes what you really are is what you eeeeeeeeat! (http://www.inthe80s.com/tvcommercials/y.shtml)
So, here’s the deal. Whatever you eat, becomes your own body. So, the protein you eat actually becomes part of your cells. Your food becomes who you are.
Now with the stage set, let’s take a look at John 6. The whole chapter is about food, is it not? It seems to me that Jesus’ talk about eating his flesh and drinking his blood has a direct correlation with the feeding of the 5,000+. The boy's lunch of bread and fish never vanished, but became “more” as it was multiplied through its distribution. Even though Jesus died on the cross, his life became “more” as it was multiplied through its distribution. Jesus' death was similar to the boy offering his lunch to feed many. Jesus offered himself to feed many. The offering of the lunch was for the life of the crowd. The suffering and death of Jesus, the Christ, we are told, is for the life of the whole world. Allow me to point out that the boy's lunch was for the whole crowd and offered life, through the food, to the whole crowd.
To this crowd, Jesus implores them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, for it is real food. What does it mean to consume his flesh and drink his blood? The first thing to clarify is that we are consuming his “life.” We are not to consume dead flesh or dead blood, even though consuming it implies his death that made his sharing possible. As scripture says, by consuming his flesh and blood, we proclaim the Lord’s death, but it is not rotten flesh or putrid blood. This is living flesh and living blood. Furthermore, even though Jesus “died,” he never ceased to exist. For we are told that during the three calendar days that he was “dead” and in the tomb, he was preaching to the souls in prison, or Sheol. Now, in order not to align myself with heresy, please let me clarify that Jesus did in fact die. But even for us, death does not mean non-existence.
I would like to look at 6 possible ways to look at what the flesh and blood consists of and what it means to consume his flesh and blood.
1. We still have not answered how is it that we “consume” or “eat” the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ. Those who hold to a strong Eucharistic view, favor the idea that it is by partaking of the bread and the cup, through the vehicle of the church, that one consumes the life of the Christ. Indeed they would go so far as to say that those who do not consume the Eucharist cannot be “in the Christ.” Those who hold to a strong Eucharistic view, favor the idea that it is by partaking of the bread and the cup, through the vehicle of the church, that one consumes the life of the Christ. Indeed they would go so far as to say that those who do not consume the Eucharist cannot be “in the Christ.” That’s why being denied the Eucharist is such a big deal. Nevertheless, we hold that partaking of the bread and cup is not sufficient “flesh” and “blood,” in and of itself, to regenerate someone.
2. Others, who do not hold such a high view of the Eucharist, focus more on the change that is wrought in our life as a result of consumption such that we become “like Christ.” Hence, they make reference to Paul's statement in Gal. 2:20, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Historically, the Brethren, along with other Anabaptists, would tend to favor this rendering. And to take it a step further, they might state that it is through obedience that we become more “Christ-like.” These believers recognize and encourage the benefits of participating in communion (the Eucharist), but they would say that is not enough. The danger here is that obedience either deteriorates into becomes something we do, our own effort, and/or becomes subject to laws, rules and regulations. Obedience is not sufficient “flesh” and “blood,” in and of itself, to regenerate someone.
3. There are some who would suggest that the Bible is the preferred way to consume the Christ. Jesus, the Christ is referred to as the “Word became flesh” in the first chapter of John. Some would say as we read the Bible (or consume this flesh of the Word) that it permeates into our being, and that we become like the Christ. Unfortunately, we recognize the tendency by some to elevate the Bible excessively to a level which is not Biblical and borders on idolatry, sometimes referred to as “Bibliolatry.” Surely we are aware of some who have read the Bible thoroughly, who correspondingly reject virtually any value found therein. So we find that even reading the Bible is not sufficient “flesh” and “blood,” in and of itself, to regenerate someone.
4. Scripture speaks of another factor. I Peter 1:2 specifically states that we sanctified by the Holy Spirit for the purpose of obedience. The order here in I Peter then states that obedience is not a pathway of sanctification, but rather a result of it. Furthermore, becoming Christ-like is not our job. This is a work of the Holy Spirit. Here's what Peter says in that passage,
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: grace and peace be yours in abundance.
It is not up to us to do it. We do not become “Christ-like” by eating a wafer of bread or drinking a sip of grape juice or wine. We do not become “Christ-like by reading more of the Bible or by obeying more fervently. I want you to notice in the context of this passage, as we talked about last week, is that it contains a strongly Calvinistic stance. Namely, that God chooses and draws and sanctifies his own. And the drawing is not simply to recognize Jesus as the Christ and pay homage to him. But as the spirit sanctifies this child of God, obedience proceeds from his heart, not of his own doing, and not perfectly in this dimension. Rather, obedience springs from the Spirit-quickened Christ-likeness of the child of God, albeit imperfectly this side of heaven. And so, it is not by means of eating the flesh and drinking the blood that we become like him. Rather, the eating and drinking demonstrates that we are his.
I've noticed something about my grandsons. They will let us know when they are hungry, and they will eat. Where does that hunger come from? Is it not part of their nature as children, or even as a human being? So it is in our relationship with the Lord. It is not up to us to conjure up hunger. It is not up to us to force ourselves to come to the communion table. It is not up to us to lure others to worship under false pretenses. It is not up to us to beat our neighbors over the head with the Bible or the crucifix in order to get them to turn to Christ, or for that matter, to become more Christ-like. That's a God-thing.
5. I ran across an interesting essay in The Christian Century by Dennis M. Bell, Jr., entitled, “God Does Not Demand Blood.” In this article, Mr. Bell challenges the commonly held tenets of the satisfaction or substitutionary theory of the atonement. The satisfaction or substitutionary theory of the atonement basically says that Jesus' suffering and death was meant to take the brunt of God's wrath that was aimed toward us, that his wrath would surely destroy us save for Jesus, the Christ's, spilt blood which satisfied and appeased an angry God. In other words, God was aiming an arrow at us, but Jesus stepped into the path of the arrow and accepted it for himself, satisfying God's wrath. The problem that Mr. Bell points out is that this perspective does not provide a completely consistent or accurate description of New Testament passages. Furthermore, when this line of reasoning is followed, it takes us down dangerous path of both justifying and advocating the use of violence to combat violence.
Instead, Mr. Bell suggests that Jesus’ suffering and death represents how far Jesus, the Christ, was willing to go to demonstrate his love for us and to infuse life into this world. And so it is the love of Christ that saves us, not his shed blood.
"This love of God expressed in Jesus saves us. It is the love that would rather die on the cross than give up on us. We reject God, so God sends Jesus with the offer of life again and we reject it again; Jesus could have abandoned us, or called down fire from heaven to destroy us. But he did not. He remained faithful to his mission, reaching out to us until the end: “Father forgive them. . . ”
"As we are joined to Christ and made part of his body, we are not somehow submitting to the logic of blood sacrifice. We are not simply being let off the hook for our sin by deflecting the punishment for that sin onto someone else. We are not satisfying an angry god by throwing that god a piece of innocent red meat. We are not offering a bloody sacrifice for the sake of reinforcing how important the moral law and order are.
"Rather, as we are joined to Christ we become transformed (sanctified) and live our lives according to another logic. As Paul wrote, “Let the same mind be in you that was in Jesus Christ.” The point is that in Christ we are not just pardoned but are also healed of our sin and made a different kind of people, a new creation, who live by a different logic. We love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. We forgive, as we have been forgiven. We renounce violence as a means of defending or securing or saving ourselves or those we love. To the extent that our savior is Christ, our defense, security and salvation depend on Christ and the love that overcomes enemies. We live out the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor. 5:17-20)
This way of life may entail enduring suffering – not because suffering is in some way good or redemptive, not because this is the what God wants or because it is punishment for our sins. Rather, it is because suffering is the cost that humans in their sinful rebellion impose on other humans. Moreover, being prepared to suffer does not mean that we must seek out suffering or passively endure it. The logic of our new way of life does not reject justice, accountability, or discipline; this way of life is disciplined and accountable and seeks justice. It may include practices such as incarceration or even just war. But justice and discipline shaped by the charity and mercy of God are significantly different from the so-called justice and discipline that belong to the law and order of blood sacrifice."
(Bell, Jr., Dennis, God Does Not Demand Blood, Christian Century, February 10, 2009, p. 26)
Our discussion today is impacted tremendously by our understanding of the atonement. If we are to consume the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ, then we are compelled to specifically identify what the flesh and blood represent. If we were to embrace Mr. Bell’s theory, then consuming Jesus’ flesh and blood would mean that we are consuming a love that will not give up on us – as differentiated from one associated with a blood sacrifice. But even becoming a very loving person is not deemed to be sufficient to regenerate us, in and of itself.
6. Let us also recall that the “body of Christ” is the church universal. So, if we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, we must consider what it might mean for us related to the church universal. Are we to consume one another? Perhaps the better question in light of Bell’s theory about the atonement, is “how shall we offer one another our complete love, just as Jesus, the Christ, offered his complete love to us on the cross. By doing this, we are offering not our own flesh and blood, but the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ, which has permeated our own existence to the point that it is no longer my life that expresses itself. Instead, when I love in such a way, it is because Christ lives in me.
The Eucharist is one means by which we become like Jesus, the Christ. Reading and studying the Bible is another means, along with obedience. There is also the important factor that becoming Christ-like is certainly not up to us entirely. Jesus, the Christ, has a vested interest in our development and his Spirit will bring this about. We have also seen that consuming his flesh and his blood may more about the outpouring of his love rather than the shedding of his blood. We also share his flesh and blood as we love one another. May I suggest that each of these perspectives on eating his flesh and drinking his blood have validity, but that none of them stand alone to the exclusion of the others.
In any case, consuming the flesh and blood mean that, over time, his substance becomes our substance. Paul says that it is not him, “but Christ who lives in me.” Such is the result of regularly consuming the flesh and blood of Jesus, the Christ. As we consume the life of Christ, we will be becoming like the living Christ.
This happens because the essence of who he is gradually permeates our entire existence as individuals, as the church universal, and indeed the entire world.
You are what you eat from your head down to your feet. Enjoy the love of Jesus, the Christ.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation Bias
Presented at County Line Brethren Church on August 16, 2009.
Year B, Proper 15
Scripture passages: Ephesians 5:15-20 & John 6:35, 41-51
I like to be comfortable. I like my house somewhere between 68-75 degrees Fahrenheit. I like my eggs fried 'over medium.' I like blue skies with a few pretty clouds to provide some contrast. I enjoy nature, as long as it is outside my house. We had a skunk smell recently in our house and it was not pleasant. I enjoy reading during my lunch break. I feel more comfortable when I know what the rules are at work and at home. When I sense that Beth or my boss at work has changed the rules, I become uncomfortable. When someone challenges my status quo, I become uncomfortable. Now, as I have said before, I rather enjoy stirring up other people's status quo: challenging what they believe, asking why they do what they do, or testing their logic. I enjoy a healthy, spirited and respectful debate. However, when the tables are turned, and I am the on one the proverbial 'hot seat' I do a lot of squirming. I become very uncomfortable.
Beth and I have been going to the Fitness Forum for about a year and a half. I feel healthier. I feel stronger. My clothes fit a little better. But, up until recently, I have not lost a lot of weight. Now I know some of the comforting quips that have helped me feel better, despite not having lost much weight. Some of my friends might say that I am turning my fat into muscle. I suppose that is true – to a point. Some might suggest the goal should not be weight loss, but fitness, and that I have improved my physical fitness. I suppose that is true also – to a point. {at this point in the sermon, I want to tease you with the phrase, “confirmation bias.” I will come back to it later. I have just given you an example of “confirmation bias.”} The problem is that I really would like to lose some weight. I keep sweating. I keep pumping that iron. I keep jogging. By the way, I am going to jog again in the 5K Blueberry Stomp, and I am on track for significantly reducing my time this year. I will also do my fundraiser for the Neighborhood Center and hope to have information for you next week. I keep spending 7-8 hours a week in this endeavor, with little to show for it. I have been burning up to 3,000 calories a week!! – And I have only lost a few pounds. And yet, I keep going to the gym and exercising.
Then in the mail comes my weekly edition of TIME magazine. The headline reads, “The Myth About Exercise.” That got my attention.
The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.
(TIME, 8-17-2009, p. 42f.)
Earlier this week, I jogged over 3 miles, and promptly came home and had some ice cream. I was hungry. The TIME article talks about people like me who stop off at Starbucks after burning 200-300 calories and having a half a muffin. While that sounds like a great program to me, the doctors in the article were not impressed.
Some of the researchers are advocating that “very frequent, low-level physical activity may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat.” (Ibid)
In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain. I love how exercise makes me feel, but tomorrow I might skip the Versa-Climber – and skip the blueberry bar that is my usual postexercise reward.
(Ibid)
I'll be honest with you. That information makes me uncomfortable. I enjoy going out to Fitness Forum. I enjoy exercising. I enjoy the routine. And I'm still planning on jogging in the Blueberry Stomp. However, this information will probably be better received by Beth. She does not particularly enjoy exercising. But both of us do enjoy a leisurely bike ride in the evening. Which is just what this article is suggesting, and to do it more frequently.
I rather enjoy the phrase, “don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up.” I would rather believe what confirms my beliefs, instead of considering the facts. I would rather believe that I am transforming my fat into rock solid muscle. I would rather believe that I am getting into great physical shape. I would rather believe those things than consider solid scientific research that challenges me and makes me uncomfortable. That, is a type of confirmation bias.
In 1897, Tolstoy wrote:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life. ”
A related Tolstoy quote is:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
Confirmation bias is demonstrated as we consider new information that may conflict with our present beliefs and opinions. It matters not whether one is Republican or Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, for the war or against the war, for health care reform or against health care reform. What tends to happen is that if the new information contradicts what I believe, then I will find a way to dismiss it. If the new information supports what I believe, then I will quote it and refer to it (if only in my own mind), in order to support my belief – even if the new information is suspect or faulty in some way.
It is also my impression that as Christians, being human in every aspect, we tend to prefer our comfortable beliefs and practices, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. For centuries, the church believed that earth was flat and punished those who thought differently. Those of us who have been raised in the context of Western ideas influenced by individualism and democracy find it odd that the Bible endorses neither of these values, while continuing to assert that these are Christian values. Those who were raised under the teaching of Reformed mentors and theologians (“once saved, always saved”) will understandably be influenced by their own “confirmation bias” so as to find an explanation, however weak, for any scripture passages which speak contrary to that belief. Likewise those who were raised under the teaching of Armenian mentors and theologians (those who believe it is possible to lose one’s salvation) will understandably be influenced by their own “confirmation bias” so as to find an explanation, however weak, for any scripture passages which speak contrary to that belief.
Those of us who have been brought up in the Brethren Church have grown fond of the Three-Fold Communion Service, oftentimes find other expressions of communion unfulfilling, particularly if it involves only the bread and cup and especially if it is done ritualistically every Sunday. Which is kind of odd, since the New Testament, if it says anything about this, it says that “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” And most Brethren churches only have communion twice a year – because it is such a big production.
So, as we now explore the bizarre and powerful words of Jesus in John 6, let us consider ourselves as entrenched in our own beliefs. We have our own “confirmation bias.” We tend to find evidence, however weak, to support our own beliefs.
In John 6, Jesus said,
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.
We shall not say that this drawing is coercive in any way. As Augustine says that God draws, “'not by imposing necessity' but by grace enabling the 'inner palate' of the soul to find its greatest 'pleasure' and 'delight' in partaking the truth.” Calvin says, “As far as the manner of drawing goes, it is not violent, so as to compel us by an external force; but yet it is an effectual movement of the Holy Spirit, turning us from being unwilling and reluctant into willing.” (Feasting on the Word, Year B, Volume 3, p. 336)
And so we enter into the discussion of Calvinism vs. Armenianism.
When I was your pastor many years ago, I began preaching through the book of Romans. What I remember is that everything was groovy up through chapter 8. But after Romans, chapter 8, comes Romans, chapter 9. In that chapter is this passage:
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses. (NRSV)
What I recall is that when I came to that passage, our journey through Romans was altered. You see, I grew up in the Brethren Church and was carefully taught in seminary the finer points of Armenianism – primarily that we did NOT believe in “once saved, always saved.” So, here I was, a few years out of seminary and I had no way to reconcile this passage with my doctrine. My own “confirmation bias” was being challenged. I did not know what to do. To be honest with you, I cannot remember exactly what I did do. But I can tell you what I did NOT do. I did not convert to Calvinism, at least at that time. Nevertheless, my internal dissonance was strong enough for me to remember that, even today.
Let it be known that the scripture here in John 6 speaks clearly about God quickening the hearts of those he has chosen. And let it be known that God has given those he has chosen over to the care of our risen Lord Jesus, the Christ. And let it be known that our precious Jesus will not lose any thus entrusted to his care.
So, let come face to face with own “confirmation bias” as we struggle together to accept this dear and precious promise, assuring us of Jesus’ constant and abiding commitment to us as his children.
We also note in this passage that Jesus said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” My hope is that you may be starting to catch a glimpse of the dissonance that the crowd was experiencing. I can hear the whispers and the gasps. I can see the bewilderment and the shock on the faces of the people. Please understand that they are utterly confused. They said to one another,
"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
They are locked in their own confirmation bias. They are locked in their own preconceived notions and beliefs. They know Joseph and Mary, Jesus' parents?!?! Notice that they did not contend with the idea of Jesus being the bread of life. They did however contend with Jesus' assertion that he came from heaven. They had their idea of who Jesus was (the son of Joseph and Mary). Jesus clarifies in this passage that the reason that they were locked in this perception, this “confirmation bias,” is because their spiritual eyes had not yet been opened to see who Jesus really was.
In this passage, Jesus does what he often does; Jesus creates dissonance between who we THINK Jesus is and who he REALLY is. This is one of the real dangers for us – that we become locked in our own perceptions of who Jesus is. When this happens, we only become more entrenched in our own misconception about Jesus and less able to see what there is yet to learn about him.
Let me get personal for a moment. I have been through many things in my life. I have walked my own way, to my own detriment at times. There have been times when I have been so low and have felt like I was down for the count. There have been times I have been sorely tempted and times when I have fallen hard. There have been times that I even had thoughts of suicide. There have been times of great distress and sadness. There have been times of intense turmoil in our marriage.
My own “confirmation bias” is that during those times, I was NOT able to get it together. I was NOT able to save myself. I am now convinced that Jesus had sealed me as his own, and would not, and will never let me go. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will not be let go by the powerful grip of his love. I am convinced that I am not only unable to save myself, but I am unable to keep myself saved. And so, I am completely reliant upon my Lord for both the saving and the keeping.
And so we come to understand that no one can come to Jesus unless God enlightens them, so as to draw them. Furthermore, no one can remain in his love and grace unless He keep them.
Now, in order to avoid completely alienating those of you who hold dearly your Armenian persuasion, allow me to say that there is an element of choice, but we shall leave that for another sermon.
Oh, and by the way, I am trying to recognize my own “confirmation bias” as it relates to my attempts to lose weight and my exercise routine. I am trying to consider the facts, even if it grates against my misconceptions. So, because I read the article on exercise, I took a break while writing the sermon to ride my bike to the end of the road and back. Then I had a bag of popcorn to reward myself. I still struggle with losing weight.
Let us pray.
Kind Heavenly Father, I pray that you will shed light on whatever ideas we harbor about you that are less than completely accurate. Draw us into a fuller communion with you as you open our eyes to see you as you are.
Amen.
Presented at County Line Brethren Church on August 16, 2009.
Year B, Proper 15
Scripture passages: Ephesians 5:15-20 & John 6:35, 41-51
I like to be comfortable. I like my house somewhere between 68-75 degrees Fahrenheit. I like my eggs fried 'over medium.' I like blue skies with a few pretty clouds to provide some contrast. I enjoy nature, as long as it is outside my house. We had a skunk smell recently in our house and it was not pleasant. I enjoy reading during my lunch break. I feel more comfortable when I know what the rules are at work and at home. When I sense that Beth or my boss at work has changed the rules, I become uncomfortable. When someone challenges my status quo, I become uncomfortable. Now, as I have said before, I rather enjoy stirring up other people's status quo: challenging what they believe, asking why they do what they do, or testing their logic. I enjoy a healthy, spirited and respectful debate. However, when the tables are turned, and I am the on one the proverbial 'hot seat' I do a lot of squirming. I become very uncomfortable.
Beth and I have been going to the Fitness Forum for about a year and a half. I feel healthier. I feel stronger. My clothes fit a little better. But, up until recently, I have not lost a lot of weight. Now I know some of the comforting quips that have helped me feel better, despite not having lost much weight. Some of my friends might say that I am turning my fat into muscle. I suppose that is true – to a point. Some might suggest the goal should not be weight loss, but fitness, and that I have improved my physical fitness. I suppose that is true also – to a point. {at this point in the sermon, I want to tease you with the phrase, “confirmation bias.” I will come back to it later. I have just given you an example of “confirmation bias.”} The problem is that I really would like to lose some weight. I keep sweating. I keep pumping that iron. I keep jogging. By the way, I am going to jog again in the 5K Blueberry Stomp, and I am on track for significantly reducing my time this year. I will also do my fundraiser for the Neighborhood Center and hope to have information for you next week. I keep spending 7-8 hours a week in this endeavor, with little to show for it. I have been burning up to 3,000 calories a week!! – And I have only lost a few pounds. And yet, I keep going to the gym and exercising.
Then in the mail comes my weekly edition of TIME magazine. The headline reads, “The Myth About Exercise.” That got my attention.
The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.
(TIME, 8-17-2009, p. 42f.)
Earlier this week, I jogged over 3 miles, and promptly came home and had some ice cream. I was hungry. The TIME article talks about people like me who stop off at Starbucks after burning 200-300 calories and having a half a muffin. While that sounds like a great program to me, the doctors in the article were not impressed.
Some of the researchers are advocating that “very frequent, low-level physical activity may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat.” (Ibid)
In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain. I love how exercise makes me feel, but tomorrow I might skip the Versa-Climber – and skip the blueberry bar that is my usual postexercise reward.
(Ibid)
I'll be honest with you. That information makes me uncomfortable. I enjoy going out to Fitness Forum. I enjoy exercising. I enjoy the routine. And I'm still planning on jogging in the Blueberry Stomp. However, this information will probably be better received by Beth. She does not particularly enjoy exercising. But both of us do enjoy a leisurely bike ride in the evening. Which is just what this article is suggesting, and to do it more frequently.
I rather enjoy the phrase, “don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up.” I would rather believe what confirms my beliefs, instead of considering the facts. I would rather believe that I am transforming my fat into rock solid muscle. I would rather believe that I am getting into great physical shape. I would rather believe those things than consider solid scientific research that challenges me and makes me uncomfortable. That, is a type of confirmation bias.
In 1897, Tolstoy wrote:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life. ”
A related Tolstoy quote is:
“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
Confirmation bias is demonstrated as we consider new information that may conflict with our present beliefs and opinions. It matters not whether one is Republican or Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, for the war or against the war, for health care reform or against health care reform. What tends to happen is that if the new information contradicts what I believe, then I will find a way to dismiss it. If the new information supports what I believe, then I will quote it and refer to it (if only in my own mind), in order to support my belief – even if the new information is suspect or faulty in some way.
It is also my impression that as Christians, being human in every aspect, we tend to prefer our comfortable beliefs and practices, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. For centuries, the church believed that earth was flat and punished those who thought differently. Those of us who have been raised in the context of Western ideas influenced by individualism and democracy find it odd that the Bible endorses neither of these values, while continuing to assert that these are Christian values. Those who were raised under the teaching of Reformed mentors and theologians (“once saved, always saved”) will understandably be influenced by their own “confirmation bias” so as to find an explanation, however weak, for any scripture passages which speak contrary to that belief. Likewise those who were raised under the teaching of Armenian mentors and theologians (those who believe it is possible to lose one’s salvation) will understandably be influenced by their own “confirmation bias” so as to find an explanation, however weak, for any scripture passages which speak contrary to that belief.
Those of us who have been brought up in the Brethren Church have grown fond of the Three-Fold Communion Service, oftentimes find other expressions of communion unfulfilling, particularly if it involves only the bread and cup and especially if it is done ritualistically every Sunday. Which is kind of odd, since the New Testament, if it says anything about this, it says that “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” And most Brethren churches only have communion twice a year – because it is such a big production.
So, as we now explore the bizarre and powerful words of Jesus in John 6, let us consider ourselves as entrenched in our own beliefs. We have our own “confirmation bias.” We tend to find evidence, however weak, to support our own beliefs.
In John 6, Jesus said,
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.
We shall not say that this drawing is coercive in any way. As Augustine says that God draws, “'not by imposing necessity' but by grace enabling the 'inner palate' of the soul to find its greatest 'pleasure' and 'delight' in partaking the truth.” Calvin says, “As far as the manner of drawing goes, it is not violent, so as to compel us by an external force; but yet it is an effectual movement of the Holy Spirit, turning us from being unwilling and reluctant into willing.” (Feasting on the Word, Year B, Volume 3, p. 336)
And so we enter into the discussion of Calvinism vs. Armenianism.
When I was your pastor many years ago, I began preaching through the book of Romans. What I remember is that everything was groovy up through chapter 8. But after Romans, chapter 8, comes Romans, chapter 9. In that chapter is this passage:
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses,
‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses. (NRSV)
What I recall is that when I came to that passage, our journey through Romans was altered. You see, I grew up in the Brethren Church and was carefully taught in seminary the finer points of Armenianism – primarily that we did NOT believe in “once saved, always saved.” So, here I was, a few years out of seminary and I had no way to reconcile this passage with my doctrine. My own “confirmation bias” was being challenged. I did not know what to do. To be honest with you, I cannot remember exactly what I did do. But I can tell you what I did NOT do. I did not convert to Calvinism, at least at that time. Nevertheless, my internal dissonance was strong enough for me to remember that, even today.
Let it be known that the scripture here in John 6 speaks clearly about God quickening the hearts of those he has chosen. And let it be known that God has given those he has chosen over to the care of our risen Lord Jesus, the Christ. And let it be known that our precious Jesus will not lose any thus entrusted to his care.
So, let come face to face with own “confirmation bias” as we struggle together to accept this dear and precious promise, assuring us of Jesus’ constant and abiding commitment to us as his children.
We also note in this passage that Jesus said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” My hope is that you may be starting to catch a glimpse of the dissonance that the crowd was experiencing. I can hear the whispers and the gasps. I can see the bewilderment and the shock on the faces of the people. Please understand that they are utterly confused. They said to one another,
"Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
They are locked in their own confirmation bias. They are locked in their own preconceived notions and beliefs. They know Joseph and Mary, Jesus' parents?!?! Notice that they did not contend with the idea of Jesus being the bread of life. They did however contend with Jesus' assertion that he came from heaven. They had their idea of who Jesus was (the son of Joseph and Mary). Jesus clarifies in this passage that the reason that they were locked in this perception, this “confirmation bias,” is because their spiritual eyes had not yet been opened to see who Jesus really was.
In this passage, Jesus does what he often does; Jesus creates dissonance between who we THINK Jesus is and who he REALLY is. This is one of the real dangers for us – that we become locked in our own perceptions of who Jesus is. When this happens, we only become more entrenched in our own misconception about Jesus and less able to see what there is yet to learn about him.
Let me get personal for a moment. I have been through many things in my life. I have walked my own way, to my own detriment at times. There have been times when I have been so low and have felt like I was down for the count. There have been times I have been sorely tempted and times when I have fallen hard. There have been times that I even had thoughts of suicide. There have been times of great distress and sadness. There have been times of intense turmoil in our marriage.
My own “confirmation bias” is that during those times, I was NOT able to get it together. I was NOT able to save myself. I am now convinced that Jesus had sealed me as his own, and would not, and will never let me go. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will not be let go by the powerful grip of his love. I am convinced that I am not only unable to save myself, but I am unable to keep myself saved. And so, I am completely reliant upon my Lord for both the saving and the keeping.
And so we come to understand that no one can come to Jesus unless God enlightens them, so as to draw them. Furthermore, no one can remain in his love and grace unless He keep them.
Now, in order to avoid completely alienating those of you who hold dearly your Armenian persuasion, allow me to say that there is an element of choice, but we shall leave that for another sermon.
Oh, and by the way, I am trying to recognize my own “confirmation bias” as it relates to my attempts to lose weight and my exercise routine. I am trying to consider the facts, even if it grates against my misconceptions. So, because I read the article on exercise, I took a break while writing the sermon to ride my bike to the end of the road and back. Then I had a bag of popcorn to reward myself. I still struggle with losing weight.
Let us pray.
Kind Heavenly Father, I pray that you will shed light on whatever ideas we harbor about you that are less than completely accurate. Draw us into a fuller communion with you as you open our eyes to see you as you are.
Amen.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Do's, Don'ts and Signs
Do's, Don'ts and Signs
Presented at County Line Brethren Church on August 9, 2009.
Year B, Proper 14
Scripture passages: Ephesians 4:25 - 5:2 & John 6:24-35
Have you ever been working on a project and get distracted by another unrelated project? Have you ever been studying for a test and then find yourself doing something completely unrelated to the test? It seems rather normal for us to get sidetracked from what is really important. Of course, I have some ADHD and this happens with me all the time. In our two scripture passages for today we will find a couple of different ways that we can get sidetracked.
Whenever I hear or read the word “Sign”, I often recall the song by Five Man Electrical Band back in 1972, the year I graduated from high school.
V1
And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you
woah!
Chorus:
Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign
V3
And the sign said everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray
But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all,
I didn't have a penny to pay, so I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said thank you Lord for thinking about me, I'm alive and doing fine
Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign
© 1970, 2002 Five Man Electrical Band
You may be wondering what this may have to do with the sermon today. Again, we are looking at distractions from what is most important.
Now, in order to set the stage for our first passage in Ephesians, let us state that one of the basic understandings of Biblical grace and mercy is that we, as human beings, simply cannot attain ethical perfection or righteousness. Nevertheless, you will often hear preachers focusing on “do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign” or in this case, can't you read the Bible? You may hear those of us who stand behind the pulpit preaching as though the congregation is less righteous than those who hold the title. You may hear us saying that the Bible is very clear on a particular sin or about something we should do. You may hear us say, stop cussing, don't smoke, love your neighbor, and forgive those who have hurt you. The fact of the matter is that those of us who have worn the “cloth” are no more righteous than you are.
If we focus too heavily on “do this, don't do that” then we are venturing into the dangerous territory of legalism. This dangerous territory of legalism is how most people outside of the church view not only Christianity, but most of the world's religions. Religion, to them, simply means “do this, don't do that.” And furthermore, we have often been found guilty, and rightly so, of focusing on the more outward appearances of indiscretion rather than on one's internal spiritual congruity. This passage does speak of internal spiritual issues when it addresses those private matters of bitterness, wrath, anger, malice as well as the more desirable attitudes of being tenderhearted, forgiving and loving. And yet, even if we were to speak of these internal matters alone, we would remain upon the precipice of establishing an ascetic and mystical set of rules and thereupon we can easily slip into exercising our own effort to achieve Christian righteousness. We are told in Isaiah that this type of human endeavor amounts to the value of “filthy rags.”
For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
(Isaiah 64:6 NASB)
Instead of do's and don'ts, what I do see in this Ephesians passage are guidelines for relationships, which seems to be a predominant theme, if not the most important theme, in the Bible and the New Testament in particular.
For example, let us look at “truth.” For most of us in western society, truth or truthfulness is viewed as a concept, or a philosophical construct to be debated, or as in “I'm right and you're wrong.” Interestingly enough, Paul behooves us to “speak truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another.” Hmmmmmm! That's interesting, is it not? Paul is saying here that truth is not so much about concepts, philosophical constructs, or even wrong or right. Rather, truth is more about building and sustaining relationships with our neighbors. That seems to me to put a whole different slant on “truth.”
And let us look more closely at what he says to those who have stolen from others. Paul says that instead of stealing, that we should
“let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy."
Now, I have to tell you that this is a far cry from why we would want thieves to work. If they stole a lot, we might want them to work at hard labor, moving rock piles on the chain gang. We want thieves to “pay a price” for their misdeeds. So, why would we want them, or anyone else for that matter, why do we want people to work? We want people to work, so they are not freeloading. We want them to work so the we don't have to take care of them. We want them to work so that they can pay their share of taxes. We want them to work because we want them to be as miserable as we are on Monday morning.
But Paul says, that instead of robbing from the community, former thieves should work IN ORDER TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE WEAK, TO FEED THOSE WHO ARE HUNGRY, TO PROVIDE STRENGTH TO THOSE WHO ARE POWERLESS, AND TO INCLUDE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED. Indeed, it would not be hard at all, upon searching the scriptures for a few minutes, to arrive at the conclusion that this is one of the main reasons for all of us to work: in order to help those who need our assistance.
I am reminded of John Wesley's often quoted phrase on this subject. “Gain all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can.”
What I am trying to say is that this passage in Ephesians is primarily “relational.” And that if we were to focus on “do this, don't do that”, we would get drawn away from the more important relational aspects of this passage.
This is much more than getting along, or learning how to live with one another, or in a worse case scenario, learning to love our enemies who may live a few doors down. Paul is talking about how we can live in community with one another. It may be helpful to recall that this book of Ephesians is actually a letter written to a body of believers in the town of Ephesus. This letter is written to a church! And most of us who have been in churches for any length of time, know that it is really all about relationships.
I'd like to conclude this portion of the message by encouraging us not to get hung up on the do's and the don'ts of this passage and fall into the trap of legalism, but to wrap them in the context of the community of the body of Christ – our relationships with one another.
In our second passage, we are given the opportunity to be a fly on the wall, so to speak, and observe first hand how easy it is to be sidetracked away from core truths about Jesus, the Christ. We will observe how “signs” have a propensity of distracting us from what is most important.
After feeding the 5,000+ people, Jesus and the disciples leave to a destination unknown to the crowd. The crowd searched for him and finally found him and the disciples on the other side of the lake.
When they first arrive, they ask Jesus, “When did you come here?” This question essentially reveals their bewilderment. It makes a vague reference to the fact that they were looking for Jesus. In a sense, it is kind of a bizarre scene. Here was Jesus with his disciples after having ditched the crowd. And the next thing you know, this armada of boats appears in Capernaum. It's like they were saying, 'we're ready to make you king, why did you leave.?'
Jesus' response is on a completely different wavelength. Jesus says that they saw the sign, the miracle of feeding the crowd, but they didn't get it. They were fed from a boy's small lunch and their bellies were full for one day, but they had no understanding of what was really going on. They had met Jesus and wanted to make him king, but they did not know Jesus. It's almost as if they did not recognize that their feeding the day before was really a miracle. Indeed, one of the questions/requests is almost beyond our comprehension.
What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing?
Excuse me for being so crass, but were they blind too? Could they not see the manner by which they were fed the day before? In point of fact, Jesus later says that many of the people are indeed blind – spiritually. They see, but do not believe in Jesus, the Christ – because their eyes have not been opened by the Spirit. At some point in time, it would be wise for those of us who have grown up in Armenian churches, to more reconciled with this, but we will not venture there today.
This exchange between Jesus and the crowd points out to me that they were not communicating very well.
We watched a clip of “Who's on First” by Abbott and Costello, on youtube. Abbott is dressed in a baseball uniform for the St. Louis Wolves and they are going to go to the ball game. Costello asks Abbott to tell him the name of the players so that he will be able to become more quickly acclimated to the game once they arrive at the ball park. Abbott begins by saying that “Who's on First, What's on second and “I Don't Know” is on third. And from there, the burlesque entertainers were off and running. It is a comedy routine that exemplifies miscommunication to a T.
This crowd was 'off base.' They weren't getting it. It was like another version of Abbott and Costello. They wanted to be fed again. They wanted another sign. They wanted Jesus to prove himself, so they could believe. They are kind of like us. We are all living an abundant life and we want more. We crave for a sign, even today. We pray desperately for another miracle. We ask for more prosperity and grow less dependent upon God. We ask for healing and wonder where God is, when it doesn't come. You see, in perhaps smaller and different ways, we are asking God to prove himself. Maybe we are not asking for proof so that we can believe. Perhaps we ask for signs, miracles, proof – to satisfy our doubt, to assuage our fear, embolden our trust.
But is that really the purpose of signs and miracles? The scriptures (and especially the gospel of John) would say that signs and miracles are NOT particularly helpful in developing belief. Did the Exodus miracles persuade Pharaoh to believe in God? No. And we learn later in this chapter that many of Jesus' disciples left him despite witnessing the miracles and signs.
Do I believe miracles and signs still happen? Yes.
But I also believe that there are those who place too much emphasis on miracles and signs. Jesus tries to tell the crowd that it is not about the miracles and signs – IT IS ABOUT BELIEVING IN JESUS, THE CHRIST.
(from Feasting on the Word, Year B, Volume 3, p. 308)
There was a name in nineteenth-century China (and perhaps all over Asia) for persons who came to church because they were hungry for material food. They converted, were baptized, joined the church, and remained active members as long as their physical needs were met through the generosity of the congregation. But once their prospects improved and they and their families no longer needed rice, they drifted away from the church. Hence missionaries called them “rice Christians.” That name calls to mind those who flocked to the churches in East Germany and Romania just before the liberation of eastern Europe – when the church was manifesting courage, and pastors were speaking out against Communist regimes. The people came to cheer the church on, and to join the congregation in its opposition to the tyrannical state. But after liberation from the heel of the Soviet boot and local dictators, the crowds dispersed and the churches began to look as straggling and abandoned as they had before the stirrings of political liberty took hold.
I recall that after the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country, church attendance went up. Perhaps we were looking for understanding. Perhaps we were looking for revenge. Perhaps we were looking for a miracle or a sign. Perhaps we were looking for something to to satisfy our doubt, something to assuage our fear, something to embolden our trust. I will say that a new sign or a miracle will not accomplish everything we hope for. In some sense, it would be a distraction.
It is so easy to major on the minors. It is so easy to become distracted away from what is most important. In our first example today, we can easily become distracted by focusing on the do's and the don'ts instead of relationships. In our second example today, we become distracted by focusing on miracles and signs instead of our risen Lord, Jesus, the Christ.
May the Lord be gracious unto us and teach us how to live more as a community and not be distracted by less important things.
Presented at County Line Brethren Church on August 9, 2009.
Year B, Proper 14
Scripture passages: Ephesians 4:25 - 5:2 & John 6:24-35
Have you ever been working on a project and get distracted by another unrelated project? Have you ever been studying for a test and then find yourself doing something completely unrelated to the test? It seems rather normal for us to get sidetracked from what is really important. Of course, I have some ADHD and this happens with me all the time. In our two scripture passages for today we will find a couple of different ways that we can get sidetracked.
Whenever I hear or read the word “Sign”, I often recall the song by Five Man Electrical Band back in 1972, the year I graduated from high school.
V1
And the sign said long haired freaky people need not apply
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said you look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do
So I took off my hat I said imagine that, huh, me working for you
woah!
Chorus:
Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign
V3
And the sign said everybody welcome, come in, kneel down and pray
But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all,
I didn't have a penny to pay, so I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said thank you Lord for thinking about me, I'm alive and doing fine
Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign
© 1970, 2002 Five Man Electrical Band
You may be wondering what this may have to do with the sermon today. Again, we are looking at distractions from what is most important.
Now, in order to set the stage for our first passage in Ephesians, let us state that one of the basic understandings of Biblical grace and mercy is that we, as human beings, simply cannot attain ethical perfection or righteousness. Nevertheless, you will often hear preachers focusing on “do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign” or in this case, can't you read the Bible? You may hear those of us who stand behind the pulpit preaching as though the congregation is less righteous than those who hold the title. You may hear us saying that the Bible is very clear on a particular sin or about something we should do. You may hear us say, stop cussing, don't smoke, love your neighbor, and forgive those who have hurt you. The fact of the matter is that those of us who have worn the “cloth” are no more righteous than you are.
If we focus too heavily on “do this, don't do that” then we are venturing into the dangerous territory of legalism. This dangerous territory of legalism is how most people outside of the church view not only Christianity, but most of the world's religions. Religion, to them, simply means “do this, don't do that.” And furthermore, we have often been found guilty, and rightly so, of focusing on the more outward appearances of indiscretion rather than on one's internal spiritual congruity. This passage does speak of internal spiritual issues when it addresses those private matters of bitterness, wrath, anger, malice as well as the more desirable attitudes of being tenderhearted, forgiving and loving. And yet, even if we were to speak of these internal matters alone, we would remain upon the precipice of establishing an ascetic and mystical set of rules and thereupon we can easily slip into exercising our own effort to achieve Christian righteousness. We are told in Isaiah that this type of human endeavor amounts to the value of “filthy rags.”
For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
(Isaiah 64:6 NASB)
Instead of do's and don'ts, what I do see in this Ephesians passage are guidelines for relationships, which seems to be a predominant theme, if not the most important theme, in the Bible and the New Testament in particular.
For example, let us look at “truth.” For most of us in western society, truth or truthfulness is viewed as a concept, or a philosophical construct to be debated, or as in “I'm right and you're wrong.” Interestingly enough, Paul behooves us to “speak truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another.” Hmmmmmm! That's interesting, is it not? Paul is saying here that truth is not so much about concepts, philosophical constructs, or even wrong or right. Rather, truth is more about building and sustaining relationships with our neighbors. That seems to me to put a whole different slant on “truth.”
And let us look more closely at what he says to those who have stolen from others. Paul says that instead of stealing, that we should
“let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy."
Now, I have to tell you that this is a far cry from why we would want thieves to work. If they stole a lot, we might want them to work at hard labor, moving rock piles on the chain gang. We want thieves to “pay a price” for their misdeeds. So, why would we want them, or anyone else for that matter, why do we want people to work? We want people to work, so they are not freeloading. We want them to work so the we don't have to take care of them. We want them to work so that they can pay their share of taxes. We want them to work because we want them to be as miserable as we are on Monday morning.
But Paul says, that instead of robbing from the community, former thieves should work IN ORDER TO HELP THOSE WHO ARE WEAK, TO FEED THOSE WHO ARE HUNGRY, TO PROVIDE STRENGTH TO THOSE WHO ARE POWERLESS, AND TO INCLUDE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DISENFRANCHISED. Indeed, it would not be hard at all, upon searching the scriptures for a few minutes, to arrive at the conclusion that this is one of the main reasons for all of us to work: in order to help those who need our assistance.
I am reminded of John Wesley's often quoted phrase on this subject. “Gain all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can.”
What I am trying to say is that this passage in Ephesians is primarily “relational.” And that if we were to focus on “do this, don't do that”, we would get drawn away from the more important relational aspects of this passage.
This is much more than getting along, or learning how to live with one another, or in a worse case scenario, learning to love our enemies who may live a few doors down. Paul is talking about how we can live in community with one another. It may be helpful to recall that this book of Ephesians is actually a letter written to a body of believers in the town of Ephesus. This letter is written to a church! And most of us who have been in churches for any length of time, know that it is really all about relationships.
I'd like to conclude this portion of the message by encouraging us not to get hung up on the do's and the don'ts of this passage and fall into the trap of legalism, but to wrap them in the context of the community of the body of Christ – our relationships with one another.
In our second passage, we are given the opportunity to be a fly on the wall, so to speak, and observe first hand how easy it is to be sidetracked away from core truths about Jesus, the Christ. We will observe how “signs” have a propensity of distracting us from what is most important.
After feeding the 5,000+ people, Jesus and the disciples leave to a destination unknown to the crowd. The crowd searched for him and finally found him and the disciples on the other side of the lake.
When they first arrive, they ask Jesus, “When did you come here?” This question essentially reveals their bewilderment. It makes a vague reference to the fact that they were looking for Jesus. In a sense, it is kind of a bizarre scene. Here was Jesus with his disciples after having ditched the crowd. And the next thing you know, this armada of boats appears in Capernaum. It's like they were saying, 'we're ready to make you king, why did you leave.?'
Jesus' response is on a completely different wavelength. Jesus says that they saw the sign, the miracle of feeding the crowd, but they didn't get it. They were fed from a boy's small lunch and their bellies were full for one day, but they had no understanding of what was really going on. They had met Jesus and wanted to make him king, but they did not know Jesus. It's almost as if they did not recognize that their feeding the day before was really a miracle. Indeed, one of the questions/requests is almost beyond our comprehension.
What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing?
Excuse me for being so crass, but were they blind too? Could they not see the manner by which they were fed the day before? In point of fact, Jesus later says that many of the people are indeed blind – spiritually. They see, but do not believe in Jesus, the Christ – because their eyes have not been opened by the Spirit. At some point in time, it would be wise for those of us who have grown up in Armenian churches, to more reconciled with this, but we will not venture there today.
This exchange between Jesus and the crowd points out to me that they were not communicating very well.
We watched a clip of “Who's on First” by Abbott and Costello, on youtube. Abbott is dressed in a baseball uniform for the St. Louis Wolves and they are going to go to the ball game. Costello asks Abbott to tell him the name of the players so that he will be able to become more quickly acclimated to the game once they arrive at the ball park. Abbott begins by saying that “Who's on First, What's on second and “I Don't Know” is on third. And from there, the burlesque entertainers were off and running. It is a comedy routine that exemplifies miscommunication to a T.
This crowd was 'off base.' They weren't getting it. It was like another version of Abbott and Costello. They wanted to be fed again. They wanted another sign. They wanted Jesus to prove himself, so they could believe. They are kind of like us. We are all living an abundant life and we want more. We crave for a sign, even today. We pray desperately for another miracle. We ask for more prosperity and grow less dependent upon God. We ask for healing and wonder where God is, when it doesn't come. You see, in perhaps smaller and different ways, we are asking God to prove himself. Maybe we are not asking for proof so that we can believe. Perhaps we ask for signs, miracles, proof – to satisfy our doubt, to assuage our fear, embolden our trust.
But is that really the purpose of signs and miracles? The scriptures (and especially the gospel of John) would say that signs and miracles are NOT particularly helpful in developing belief. Did the Exodus miracles persuade Pharaoh to believe in God? No. And we learn later in this chapter that many of Jesus' disciples left him despite witnessing the miracles and signs.
Do I believe miracles and signs still happen? Yes.
But I also believe that there are those who place too much emphasis on miracles and signs. Jesus tries to tell the crowd that it is not about the miracles and signs – IT IS ABOUT BELIEVING IN JESUS, THE CHRIST.
(from Feasting on the Word, Year B, Volume 3, p. 308)
There was a name in nineteenth-century China (and perhaps all over Asia) for persons who came to church because they were hungry for material food. They converted, were baptized, joined the church, and remained active members as long as their physical needs were met through the generosity of the congregation. But once their prospects improved and they and their families no longer needed rice, they drifted away from the church. Hence missionaries called them “rice Christians.” That name calls to mind those who flocked to the churches in East Germany and Romania just before the liberation of eastern Europe – when the church was manifesting courage, and pastors were speaking out against Communist regimes. The people came to cheer the church on, and to join the congregation in its opposition to the tyrannical state. But after liberation from the heel of the Soviet boot and local dictators, the crowds dispersed and the churches began to look as straggling and abandoned as they had before the stirrings of political liberty took hold.
I recall that after the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country, church attendance went up. Perhaps we were looking for understanding. Perhaps we were looking for revenge. Perhaps we were looking for a miracle or a sign. Perhaps we were looking for something to to satisfy our doubt, something to assuage our fear, something to embolden our trust. I will say that a new sign or a miracle will not accomplish everything we hope for. In some sense, it would be a distraction.
It is so easy to major on the minors. It is so easy to become distracted away from what is most important. In our first example today, we can easily become distracted by focusing on the do's and the don'ts instead of relationships. In our second example today, we become distracted by focusing on miracles and signs instead of our risen Lord, Jesus, the Christ.
May the Lord be gracious unto us and teach us how to live more as a community and not be distracted by less important things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
