Originally written as an assignment for Campbell. It received such high praise from the professor I thought I’d share.
Acts 8:4-8; 26-40 (NRSV)
I would like to look at our scripture reading today as a story. As in all stories, there is first and foremost a teller of the story followed by a number of characters of greater or lesser parts. There is a setting, or stage, where the story takes place and at least some description of the surrounding area, or props if you will. Finally, there is the purpose of the story; that is, what point our storyteller is trying to get across to us.
Let’s start with our cast of characters. Our main character is Philip, and he is the only one actually named in the story. Philip is a disciple of Jesus of which we know little of. He is not one of the three favorites (Peter, James and John) nor did he have a gospel named after him (Matthew and John). We first meet him in the John’s gospel when Jesus finds Philip in Galilee and asks Philip to follow him. We are told that he was from Bethsaida, the city where Peter and Andrew were from and we are also told that Philip found Nathanael and told him that the Messiah had been found in the person of Jesus. John also makes it clear that Philip did not hesitate to follow Jesus, unlike his friend Nathanael.
Philip next appears with Jesus and disciples prior to the feeding of the 5000. Jesus asks Philip about buying bread for the crowd and Philip answers him that there is no way they had enough money to buy bread for a crowd that size. Next, Philip appears in John’s gospel after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem when two Greeks approach him to ask to see Jesus. Philip then gets his friend Andrew and together they ask Jesus for these men to speak to him. As we can see, Philip does not play much of a talked about role during the ministry of Jesus and we don’t see him again until this passage from Acts.
Our next character in our story today is an unnamed eunuch on his way home from Jerusalem. We are told a few things about this man. First, he is a Jew. We know this because we are told that he has been to the temple in Jerusalem to worship and he is reading a scroll of Isaiah. Apparently this man was of high standing for we also know that he was in charge of the entire treasury of Queen Candace of Ethiopia, which would have made him also very trustworthy. What else can we discern about this man? I would venture to guess that he was humble. He is approached by a stranger, Philip, admits that he doesn’t fully understand what he is reading, and then invites this stranger into his chariot with an open and questioning mind to hear what Philip has to say.
Minor characters in our story include an unnamed angel, the Holy Spirit, and a crowd of Samaritans whom we are told listened to Philip with one accord. There is, however, one more very important character here. Any professor of literature will tell you that the narrator of any story is also a character in the story. In this case we have the writer of both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (originally written as one document) whom we will call Luke out of convenience even though we do not know for sure who actually wrote it. Luke is the most important person in the story because he is the one that reveals to us exactly what he wants us to see and hear. He knows ahead of time what is going to be said by the other characters and how they will respond. Our story teller is not recording history here, he is giving instruction. He is an evangelist with an agenda.
So, you may be asking yourselves why I say that this is story, not history. Do I believe that this did not actually happen and that Luke just made it up? Not necessarily. But, I do believe that Luke embellished the story for his own purposes. Let me explain what I mean. First, and most importantly, our two main characters, Philip and the eunuch, are behaving very out of character as we might expect knowing what we know about them already. Based on prior knowledge about Philip, we might conclude that he was not a very assertive individual. He follows Jesus without question, unlike his friend Nathanael. He has little to no faith in Jesus’ ability to feed the masses in spite of having seen miracle after miracle performed by Jesus. And, he is apparently too timid to approach Jesus with the request of the Greeks without first getting support from Andrew. Does this sound like the same man who could preach to great crowds in Samaria of all places? Does this sound like someone that would approach a high official of the queen in his chariot?
Likewise so is our eunuch. Here is a man of high social standing, probably educated, with servants at his command. Are we to believe that he would allow a stranger of lower rank to get that close to his chariot, much less invite him in, not to mention asking him to baptize him? No, in my mind all of these things sound very unlikely. But that is not the point. Perhaps something similar did occur, but that in retelling it exactly the way it happened served no purpose or was so boring that no one would bother reading it twice, much less remember it and reflect on it later. Enter the story teller. Now we have an event worth noting.
For many of us, at least for myself, when we read a story, be it fiction, history, the Bible, or any other work that includes characters, we are invited by the author to put ourselves into the minds and places of the characters we are reading about. If a character is thinking something, we are told what they are thinking. If they are feeling something, again the author tells us what that feeling is so that we can share in it with them. This is what good story telling is about. And, often times, if the author is very good, we learn a little something about ourselves by experiencing others, even if for a short moment.
So, with that in mine, let us immerse ourselves into the story and live out the plot from “within” the characters minds. Let us imagine that it is we ourselves reciting the lines, viewing the scenery, acting according to the script. How well can we relate to what is being said and done? Are we like Philip? Are we usually pretty timid when it comes to our faith in Jesus; following the same routine without question, not asking hard questions, reading about miracles without actually believing that those kinds of things actually happen anymore, just in Bible stories, never really approaching Jesus on our own without first relying on someone else to go with us? Do we believe in angels? Do we listen to the direction of the Holy Spirit? Do we step out of our comfort zone or social class to tell someone the good news about Jesus? How does it make us feel when we read about that person (ourselves) in this story turning into the great hero Christian? Through the story we get to feel what it is like to take action and fulfill our duty as missionaries for Christ. We get to teach the scripture, win a new soul for Christ, and be protected by the Spirit. Feels good, doesn’t it?
Are we like the eunuch? Are we successful and educated, secure in our position within society? Do we wear a badge of importance and hold a high income job? Do we show our faith in the same way, going to church in a big fancy car with an entourage of underlings? Do we avoid associating with those of lower class than ourselves for fear of how we would be viewed by our peers? Do we read the Bible and claim to understand it when in fact we are just too proud to admit we don’t? Perhaps we have never let Jesus in our lives because we never allowed anyone to get close enough to us to share him with us. How does it feel now from this perspective to read about this hero eunuch? Here’s a man we can relate to that allowed himself to be open to a stranger of lower class without fear of social rejection. Here is a man that is willing to admit that he doesn’t know everything in spite of his position and education. Here is a man that could humble himself to step out of his comfort zone and admit that he needs Jesus and be baptized. Feels good, doesn’t it?
We need story tellers like Luke. We need people to give us a glimpse of how things could be if we just let it happen. Is the story true or fiction; historically accurate or highly embellished? I don’t know and I don’t think it matters. I think what does matter is that it serves the purpose of the evangelist well and gives us a chance to give pause and reflect on our own lives. No matter how we view our real-world lives, either boring and unremarkable or important but lacking, perhaps this little story should give us hope; hope that with the help of the Holy Spirit we too can be heroes for Christ and tell others our story.
Amen
Showing posts with label Sermons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sermons. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Friday, June 18, 2010
Debt Relief
Debt Relief: Luke 7:36-50
Mark C. Taylor
Oak Island Presbyterian Church
Oak Island, North Carolina
June 13, 2010
Our gospel story this morning, from Luke’s gospel, is a fascinating story full of drama, power struggle, and daring acts of bravery. There are three characters in this story; a Pharisee whom we learn is named Simon, an unnamed woman we understand to have a well-known reputation as a sinner, and of course, Jesus.
The scene opens with a dinner invitation from Simon to Jesus, which he accepts. However, this dinner invitation is not extended with the intent on a casual social evening between religious scholars, as is evident by the reception Jesus receives when he arrives. No, Simon’s motive was not, “Let’s get together over dinner and discuss theological issues, maybe exchange some ideas, talk about teaching methods, etc.” Had that been the case, Simon would have greeted him with the proper social customs of the time: a greeting kiss, water to wash his feet and olive oil for his head, none of which was offered, as Jesus points out to him later on in verses 44 through 46. To be denied the entire proper greeting is nothing less than a premeditated, pointed, insult.
Imagine, if you will, accepting a dinner invitation from a colleague, not a close friend or family member, but perhaps your boss or even a prominent member of the community, and when you arrived you were told, “The doors open, come on in. There are drinks in the fridge. Grab another cold one while you’re there. I’m just watching the game.” You find your host lounging on the couch, feet up, remote control in one hand and the other in a bowl of popcorn. No greeting, no handshake, no “can I get you something to drink,” or, “here, let me take your coat,” and little, to no, eye contact. Would you feel welcome? I know I wouldn’t.
It is apparent in this story that the true motive behind the dinner invitation was to be able to get Jesus away from the crowds for the purpose of cross examining him in hopes of finding fault. Perhaps Simon was thinking that if he and a few reliable witnesses could trip Jesus up enough to prove him a false prophet or a heretic, then maybe they could shut him up and get back to business as usual. We already know from chapters 5 and 6 in Luke’s gospel that twice the Pharisees have questioned Jesus’ actions concerning Jewish law, only to be bested and publically embarrassed by Jesus.
Now the power struggle begins. Jesus, rather than simply walking away from obvious personal insult, returns in kind by taking his place at the table, also without regard to proper custom. You see, it was customary among the religious leaders of the time to sit, or recline as is the more accurate description, in order of age; eldest first and youngest last. Kenneth Bailey, in his book, “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” comments that at age 30 Jesus could not have been close to the eldest in the room. Now who’s insulted? It is as if Jesus is saying, “Well Simon, if you’re going to act this childish, then I guess I’ll have to be the grown up here.” The tension in the room must have been thick enough to cut with a knife, and all of this takes place in only one verse.
The next verse introduces the third character, a woman whose name we are not told, but whose reputation is without question. She is described as a woman in the city who was a sinner. We are not told what her sin is but most scholars agree that it was probably prostitution. Now, just as in the first verse of this story, much is to be learned by noticing what is not said. We read that, “Having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house…”, indicating that she was told by someone where Jesus was, either in passing or, more probably because she had inquired as to his whereabouts. And, that she brought an alabaster jar of ointment with her which also indicates an act of premeditation on her part. This woman actively sought out Jesus and went there bearing a gift. There are many possible explanations as to how she gained access to the house, much less the dinner table, but for now it is best just to accept her presence there as something that would have been considered normal for that time.
If our woman character had not already been identified as a sinful woman, her next actions would leave no question at all about her disregard for the law. Verse 38 says that she was weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Now, for a woman to touch a man that was not her husband is bad enough, but touching a man that is considered a prophet is unheard of, and no prophet would allow himself to be touched by a woman, yet Jesus seems unconcerned and does nothing to stop her. Her next act could very well be the worst thing, outside of prostitution, that a woman in the Middle East, whether it be the first century or the present one, could think to do. She let her hair down! Had she been a pious, married, woman and done this her husband would have been duty bound to divorce her. You see, at that time, and even up to today in that culture, a woman’s hair was considered her most sensual asset. To expose it in a public setting was considered an act of sexual enticement, just as touching a man other than her husband would have the connotation of sexual misconduct. (Oh, if they could see us now! Oh, wait, they do. Do not think that our culture of reckless sexual abandonment is going unnoticed by the rest of the world.) And of course Simon seizes the opportunity to confront Jesus over his tolerance, and yes, full acceptance, of this woman’s actions.
Now we return to the power play, the, according to one commentator, the climax of the story. Simon serves up an accusation and Jesus returns the serve with a parable:
41‘A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42When they could not pay, he cancelled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?’ 43Simon answered, ‘I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.’
And of course, Simon falls into his own trap when he gives his answer. This gives Jesus the opportunity to chastise Simon for his earlier rude behavior. Now Jesus can play his hole card because he knows something about this woman that Simon does not. Notice the tense expressions when Jesus speaks:
“Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were (past tense) many…”
“have been (past tense) forgiven,”
“hence (since that time) she has shown great love.”
We’ve already seen this use of the past tense back in verse 37 when the writer tells us, “And a woman in the city, who was a sinner…” The writer has already given us a clue about this woman long before Jesus makes his commentary about her. In literary terms this is called foreshadowing. Therefore, when Jesus says to the woman, “your sins are forgiven,” he is not performing the act of forgiving her, but rather, affirming what she already believes, a belief she achieved through faith.
Both of our characters, Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman, have much in common, and yet both receive Jesus in very different ways. Simon knows about Jesus. He has watched him during his public ministry, heard his sermons, questioned him, studied him, analyzed him, and debated him with other Pharisees. At this point there is little Simon does not know about Jesus, he just doesn’t know Jesus. This is SO true about SO many today. Speaking as one in college majoring in religious studies I can attest that our schools are overflowing with scholars and academics that know more about Jesus than I do, yet truly do not know him. And not just in our college classrooms, but in our Sunday school classrooms as well. We invite Jesus into our schools and churches and homes. We study the scriptures, analyze them, debate them, question them, and interpret them. More often than not many people, like Simon the Pharisee, are looking for the faults, the imperfections, the contradictions, because if we can locate enough of them then we can justify dismissing the scriptures as flawed. However, knowing about Jesus is not the same as knowing Jesus.
And then there is our sinful woman. Like Simon, she also knows much about Jesus. In fact, she and Simon may have been part of the same crowd that followed Jesus around to hear what he was saying. I dare say that she also has analyzed, debated, and questioned what Jesus was saying and doing concerning the kingdom of God. The difference is that she was not looking fault in Jesus, she was looking to rid herself of her faults and Jesus offered her the answer: acceptance, repentance, and faith. Here is a woman that heard the word and accepted it. Jesus did not do anything to or for her. He did not cure her disease or infirmary. He did not cast out any demons from her. He simply said that God loves sinners and is willing to forgive their sins simply if they repent of those sins and accept the forgiveness. Problem solved! This message was literally her Good News!
Unlike Simon, this woman did not wait for Jesus to come to her, even by invitation, but rather, asked around as to where he was and then went there looking for him. She arrived at the house before Jesus with anticipation of thanking him with an offer of expensive ointment, possibly for him to put on his head. This woman started out that day a happy and grateful woman. She was going to meet the man that freed her from a lifetime of persecution and resentment. But what did she witness when Jesus did arrive? The man she was there to honor, her messiah, her savior, was treated with blatant disrespect and resentment. What may have started out as tears of joy on her face quickly became tears of pain. She began to feel Jesus’ pain, but rather than turn and leave she decided instead to risk everything, for his sake. By performing the greeting ritual than had been denied Jesus by his host she offered him the honor that had been denied. By the literal and figurative act of “letting down her hair” in his presence she made her intentions unmistakably known. She offered herself fully, completely, and publically to her lord.
The love that she is demonstrating is in direct proportion to how much has been forgiven her. In this case it is her sins, which we are told were many. That means ALL of her sins, not just the little ones and not just one or two of the big ones. She has been granted a clean slate in the eyes of God. She has been offered a second chance, a new life, one with and for God. She has been redeemed. Her place in this world, the world of sin, no longer matters. She now has a place in a new world, citizenship in the kingdom of God. Therefore the love she is showing to Jesus, who has made that possible, is a reflection of her gratitude. Simon the Pharisee is showing little, to no, love for Jesus, for as Jesus has pointed out in his parable, “But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” As far as I can tell in this text, the only thing Jesus has forgiven Simon is his bad manners.
It comes down to faith. Simon heard the good news, but had no faith in it. The woman heard the same good news and put all of her faith in it. And, in doing so, she received acceptance and assurance by her savior, as is evident by his final blessing to her, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace!”
Amen
The following sources were used during the research for this sermon:
“A Survey of the New Testament” by Robert H. Gundry
“Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” by Kenneth E. Bailey
“The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A literary Interpretation, Vol. 1” by Robert C. Tannehill
“The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8”
“The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV”
Mark C. Taylor
Oak Island Presbyterian Church
Oak Island, North Carolina
June 13, 2010
Our gospel story this morning, from Luke’s gospel, is a fascinating story full of drama, power struggle, and daring acts of bravery. There are three characters in this story; a Pharisee whom we learn is named Simon, an unnamed woman we understand to have a well-known reputation as a sinner, and of course, Jesus.
The scene opens with a dinner invitation from Simon to Jesus, which he accepts. However, this dinner invitation is not extended with the intent on a casual social evening between religious scholars, as is evident by the reception Jesus receives when he arrives. No, Simon’s motive was not, “Let’s get together over dinner and discuss theological issues, maybe exchange some ideas, talk about teaching methods, etc.” Had that been the case, Simon would have greeted him with the proper social customs of the time: a greeting kiss, water to wash his feet and olive oil for his head, none of which was offered, as Jesus points out to him later on in verses 44 through 46. To be denied the entire proper greeting is nothing less than a premeditated, pointed, insult.
Imagine, if you will, accepting a dinner invitation from a colleague, not a close friend or family member, but perhaps your boss or even a prominent member of the community, and when you arrived you were told, “The doors open, come on in. There are drinks in the fridge. Grab another cold one while you’re there. I’m just watching the game.” You find your host lounging on the couch, feet up, remote control in one hand and the other in a bowl of popcorn. No greeting, no handshake, no “can I get you something to drink,” or, “here, let me take your coat,” and little, to no, eye contact. Would you feel welcome? I know I wouldn’t.
It is apparent in this story that the true motive behind the dinner invitation was to be able to get Jesus away from the crowds for the purpose of cross examining him in hopes of finding fault. Perhaps Simon was thinking that if he and a few reliable witnesses could trip Jesus up enough to prove him a false prophet or a heretic, then maybe they could shut him up and get back to business as usual. We already know from chapters 5 and 6 in Luke’s gospel that twice the Pharisees have questioned Jesus’ actions concerning Jewish law, only to be bested and publically embarrassed by Jesus.
Now the power struggle begins. Jesus, rather than simply walking away from obvious personal insult, returns in kind by taking his place at the table, also without regard to proper custom. You see, it was customary among the religious leaders of the time to sit, or recline as is the more accurate description, in order of age; eldest first and youngest last. Kenneth Bailey, in his book, “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” comments that at age 30 Jesus could not have been close to the eldest in the room. Now who’s insulted? It is as if Jesus is saying, “Well Simon, if you’re going to act this childish, then I guess I’ll have to be the grown up here.” The tension in the room must have been thick enough to cut with a knife, and all of this takes place in only one verse.
The next verse introduces the third character, a woman whose name we are not told, but whose reputation is without question. She is described as a woman in the city who was a sinner. We are not told what her sin is but most scholars agree that it was probably prostitution. Now, just as in the first verse of this story, much is to be learned by noticing what is not said. We read that, “Having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house…”, indicating that she was told by someone where Jesus was, either in passing or, more probably because she had inquired as to his whereabouts. And, that she brought an alabaster jar of ointment with her which also indicates an act of premeditation on her part. This woman actively sought out Jesus and went there bearing a gift. There are many possible explanations as to how she gained access to the house, much less the dinner table, but for now it is best just to accept her presence there as something that would have been considered normal for that time.
If our woman character had not already been identified as a sinful woman, her next actions would leave no question at all about her disregard for the law. Verse 38 says that she was weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Now, for a woman to touch a man that was not her husband is bad enough, but touching a man that is considered a prophet is unheard of, and no prophet would allow himself to be touched by a woman, yet Jesus seems unconcerned and does nothing to stop her. Her next act could very well be the worst thing, outside of prostitution, that a woman in the Middle East, whether it be the first century or the present one, could think to do. She let her hair down! Had she been a pious, married, woman and done this her husband would have been duty bound to divorce her. You see, at that time, and even up to today in that culture, a woman’s hair was considered her most sensual asset. To expose it in a public setting was considered an act of sexual enticement, just as touching a man other than her husband would have the connotation of sexual misconduct. (Oh, if they could see us now! Oh, wait, they do. Do not think that our culture of reckless sexual abandonment is going unnoticed by the rest of the world.) And of course Simon seizes the opportunity to confront Jesus over his tolerance, and yes, full acceptance, of this woman’s actions.
Now we return to the power play, the, according to one commentator, the climax of the story. Simon serves up an accusation and Jesus returns the serve with a parable:
41‘A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42When they could not pay, he cancelled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?’ 43Simon answered, ‘I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.’
And of course, Simon falls into his own trap when he gives his answer. This gives Jesus the opportunity to chastise Simon for his earlier rude behavior. Now Jesus can play his hole card because he knows something about this woman that Simon does not. Notice the tense expressions when Jesus speaks:
“Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were (past tense) many…”
“have been (past tense) forgiven,”
“hence (since that time) she has shown great love.”
We’ve already seen this use of the past tense back in verse 37 when the writer tells us, “And a woman in the city, who was a sinner…” The writer has already given us a clue about this woman long before Jesus makes his commentary about her. In literary terms this is called foreshadowing. Therefore, when Jesus says to the woman, “your sins are forgiven,” he is not performing the act of forgiving her, but rather, affirming what she already believes, a belief she achieved through faith.
Both of our characters, Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman, have much in common, and yet both receive Jesus in very different ways. Simon knows about Jesus. He has watched him during his public ministry, heard his sermons, questioned him, studied him, analyzed him, and debated him with other Pharisees. At this point there is little Simon does not know about Jesus, he just doesn’t know Jesus. This is SO true about SO many today. Speaking as one in college majoring in religious studies I can attest that our schools are overflowing with scholars and academics that know more about Jesus than I do, yet truly do not know him. And not just in our college classrooms, but in our Sunday school classrooms as well. We invite Jesus into our schools and churches and homes. We study the scriptures, analyze them, debate them, question them, and interpret them. More often than not many people, like Simon the Pharisee, are looking for the faults, the imperfections, the contradictions, because if we can locate enough of them then we can justify dismissing the scriptures as flawed. However, knowing about Jesus is not the same as knowing Jesus.
And then there is our sinful woman. Like Simon, she also knows much about Jesus. In fact, she and Simon may have been part of the same crowd that followed Jesus around to hear what he was saying. I dare say that she also has analyzed, debated, and questioned what Jesus was saying and doing concerning the kingdom of God. The difference is that she was not looking fault in Jesus, she was looking to rid herself of her faults and Jesus offered her the answer: acceptance, repentance, and faith. Here is a woman that heard the word and accepted it. Jesus did not do anything to or for her. He did not cure her disease or infirmary. He did not cast out any demons from her. He simply said that God loves sinners and is willing to forgive their sins simply if they repent of those sins and accept the forgiveness. Problem solved! This message was literally her Good News!
Unlike Simon, this woman did not wait for Jesus to come to her, even by invitation, but rather, asked around as to where he was and then went there looking for him. She arrived at the house before Jesus with anticipation of thanking him with an offer of expensive ointment, possibly for him to put on his head. This woman started out that day a happy and grateful woman. She was going to meet the man that freed her from a lifetime of persecution and resentment. But what did she witness when Jesus did arrive? The man she was there to honor, her messiah, her savior, was treated with blatant disrespect and resentment. What may have started out as tears of joy on her face quickly became tears of pain. She began to feel Jesus’ pain, but rather than turn and leave she decided instead to risk everything, for his sake. By performing the greeting ritual than had been denied Jesus by his host she offered him the honor that had been denied. By the literal and figurative act of “letting down her hair” in his presence she made her intentions unmistakably known. She offered herself fully, completely, and publically to her lord.
The love that she is demonstrating is in direct proportion to how much has been forgiven her. In this case it is her sins, which we are told were many. That means ALL of her sins, not just the little ones and not just one or two of the big ones. She has been granted a clean slate in the eyes of God. She has been offered a second chance, a new life, one with and for God. She has been redeemed. Her place in this world, the world of sin, no longer matters. She now has a place in a new world, citizenship in the kingdom of God. Therefore the love she is showing to Jesus, who has made that possible, is a reflection of her gratitude. Simon the Pharisee is showing little, to no, love for Jesus, for as Jesus has pointed out in his parable, “But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” As far as I can tell in this text, the only thing Jesus has forgiven Simon is his bad manners.
It comes down to faith. Simon heard the good news, but had no faith in it. The woman heard the same good news and put all of her faith in it. And, in doing so, she received acceptance and assurance by her savior, as is evident by his final blessing to her, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace!”
Amen
The following sources were used during the research for this sermon:
“A Survey of the New Testament” by Robert H. Gundry
“Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” by Kenneth E. Bailey
“The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A literary Interpretation, Vol. 1” by Robert C. Tannehill
“The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8”
“The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV”
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Are we building blocks or stumbling blocks?
Here is the revised written version of the sermon I preached last Sunday at church. It is from the lectionary readings for that day from Matthew 16:21-28 and Romans 12:9-21
On my way to class the other morning I was on the on-ramp to merge with traffic on I-40 when another commuter came up on me at what I viewed as a dangerous rate of speed. I realize that this is normal during regular rush-hour traffic however I have not had to commute in traffic as regularly as most working folks do, and this action made me quite nervous. As I had left the house in a very good mood I began to resent this man for ruining it for me when suddenly he waved at me. Ah, I thought, he just wanted to be friendly! How nice! This left me in a dilemma for it was clear to me that some tragic accident had left that man with only one finger on his right hand. I wanted to return the friendly gesture but I felt guilty about flaunting the fact that I still had all five fingers and did not want to make him feel inferior. What to do?
So, in a brilliant show of solidarity, I decided the thing to do was simply wave back in the same way, with only one finger. I could tell it was the right decision and I had made a real connection with that person. He got so excited he began to flash his lights, honk his horn and started weaving back and forth. Yes, I could tell he was feeling the love!
In retrospect, I admit that I may have miss-read that entire situation. But, it’s OK; my motives were pure. My intentions were good. My love was genuine. Isn’t that what Paul is asking of us in the scripture reading for today? So, with this in mind, how is it possible that my good intentions, with God’s love in my heart, could be perceived as a detriment? It is almost a trap that we cannot avoid isn’t it?
We read here in Matthew a similar situation. In chapter 16, verse 15, Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do you say that I am.” And Peter replies, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” In verse 18 Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Now, it only takes five verses for Peter to go from being the cornerstone of Christ’s church to being a stumbling block. One minute Peter is the most important stone in the building of God’s kingdom and almost instantly Jesus tells him that he is a stumbling block, a hindrance, he’s in the way. Not only is Peter not helping to build the kingdom, but he is actually preventing others from helping because now they are tripping over him.
Was Peter’s love not genuine? Of course it was. Peter loved his lord so much that the thought of any harm coming to Jesus was simply unbearable. Peter’s only motive was for the safety of his Christ, his lord, his teacher and friend. I don’t believe that Peter’s motives could have been more selfless. It wasn’t as though Peter did not know what the divine plan was. Jesus had just spelled it out for him and the other disciples. The problem was that he was just not comfortable with what God’s plan entailed so he made an honest attempt to change it. This is something we can all wrap our minds around as we are just as mortal as Peter was. Sometimes the plan God has for our lives does not seem like what we expect it should be.
So, if Peter really did have Jesus’ best interests at heart, why such a severe reprimand? To be called Satan must have felt extremely harsh coming from the leader of a peaceful man like Jesus, especially after having just been told that he was going to be the cornerstone of the coming church. Could it be that what Peter was actually offering Jesus was a way out; a more comfortable alternative option than the one he was going to have to face? Peter had just suggested a worldly alternative to a heavenly mandate. Just as the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness with worldly riches and power, now Jesus’ number one disciple is tempting Jesus with a very attractive “human” temptation to avoid pain, suffering and ultimate death. And, it is the temptations of worldly things that cause each of us to stumble, or become stumbling blocks that others could trip over. Is it any wonder Jesus reacted the way he did?
So, how do we avoid the temptations that cause our stumbling? How can we recognize when we are falling into that trap of being mindful more of worldly things than of heavenly things? It is often hard to see, especially when it is within ourselves that we must look for the answers because as we know, it is much easier to find fault in others than in our selves, isn’t it?
There is a story a friend of mine tells about a man that never missed a Sunday service. Every Sunday, after the service he would approach the pastor and say, “Well preacher, you sure told them today, didn’t you?” This man’s response to the sermon was as regular as clockwork and never varied. The irony was that this particular man was probably the biggest sinner in the congregation. One winter day there was a blinding snow storm and this man was the only one who made it to service that morning. The pastor decided to take full advantage of the situation and preached a hard-hitting, personal, sermon just for that man. When he was finished, the man approached him and said, “Well preacher, if they had been here this morning, you sure would have told them.”
I am reminded of the story of Cedar Grove UMC as told by their pastor, Grace Hackney. Grace had received her appointment to Cedar Grove soon after a fire had tragically burned that church’s building and her task was not only to help guide that congregation through a re-building process but to do so without dividing the congregation into opposing factions. She recounted to us how every little minute detail of that building project, from the color of the carpet to the location of the piano, was a subject of contention between two or more groups within the congregation. Every detail no matter how small or large had to be argued, debated, committeed, and voted on. The members of Cedar Grove were so focused on the material details, each believing that they knew best what God wanted for that church that they often forgot to ask God what He wanted. Ultimately that project was completed due in no small way to the fact that they finally realized that what they were building was not their building, but God’s building. And, I could venture a guess that God cared very little about the carpet color or the location of the piano to begin with.
Let me offer a suggestion on how we might be able to know if we are becoming like the man in the story I just told. It really comes down to grammar. It is a pronoun problem. Let me give you an example: I am right with God, my intentions are pure, my love is genuine, etc. Then there is that most dangerous possessive pronoun, mine or ours, etc. The pronoun we should be using is Him, He, His, etc. Or, if you are a hard core feminist you could say Her, Hers, She. We need to look at what Jesus said in this reading from Matthew. Verse 24 says, “If any want to be my followers let them deny themselves; for those who want to save their lives will loose it.” The denial of self means to deny the “I, me, mine, ours, us” and set our eyes on the “He.”
It was Peter’s profession of faith that transformed him into the solid rock that Jesus could use to build his church on. Like Peter, we also become building blocks for God’s kingdom when we acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the son of the living God, the savior. But, also like Peter we are fragile and fallible and human, and we easily can become stumbling blocks instead.
The building of God’s church, or kingdom, is not unlike building a physical building. The blocks must fit together and the mortar must be strong enough to hold them together. How we witness to others the good news of Jesus Christ is what makes up the mortar that holds us together. If we mix our mortar with selfishness, resentment, envy, or greed, then the mortar will be weak and unstable which will cause the wall of bricks to fall. In our scripture lesson today from Romans, Paul gives us the recipe for mortar that is strong and will not crumble.
Let love be genuine. Love one another with mutual affection. Extend hospitality to strangers. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Live peaceably with all. If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
God bless.
On my way to class the other morning I was on the on-ramp to merge with traffic on I-40 when another commuter came up on me at what I viewed as a dangerous rate of speed. I realize that this is normal during regular rush-hour traffic however I have not had to commute in traffic as regularly as most working folks do, and this action made me quite nervous. As I had left the house in a very good mood I began to resent this man for ruining it for me when suddenly he waved at me. Ah, I thought, he just wanted to be friendly! How nice! This left me in a dilemma for it was clear to me that some tragic accident had left that man with only one finger on his right hand. I wanted to return the friendly gesture but I felt guilty about flaunting the fact that I still had all five fingers and did not want to make him feel inferior. What to do?
So, in a brilliant show of solidarity, I decided the thing to do was simply wave back in the same way, with only one finger. I could tell it was the right decision and I had made a real connection with that person. He got so excited he began to flash his lights, honk his horn and started weaving back and forth. Yes, I could tell he was feeling the love!
In retrospect, I admit that I may have miss-read that entire situation. But, it’s OK; my motives were pure. My intentions were good. My love was genuine. Isn’t that what Paul is asking of us in the scripture reading for today? So, with this in mind, how is it possible that my good intentions, with God’s love in my heart, could be perceived as a detriment? It is almost a trap that we cannot avoid isn’t it?
We read here in Matthew a similar situation. In chapter 16, verse 15, Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do you say that I am.” And Peter replies, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” In verse 18 Jesus says to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Now, it only takes five verses for Peter to go from being the cornerstone of Christ’s church to being a stumbling block. One minute Peter is the most important stone in the building of God’s kingdom and almost instantly Jesus tells him that he is a stumbling block, a hindrance, he’s in the way. Not only is Peter not helping to build the kingdom, but he is actually preventing others from helping because now they are tripping over him.
Was Peter’s love not genuine? Of course it was. Peter loved his lord so much that the thought of any harm coming to Jesus was simply unbearable. Peter’s only motive was for the safety of his Christ, his lord, his teacher and friend. I don’t believe that Peter’s motives could have been more selfless. It wasn’t as though Peter did not know what the divine plan was. Jesus had just spelled it out for him and the other disciples. The problem was that he was just not comfortable with what God’s plan entailed so he made an honest attempt to change it. This is something we can all wrap our minds around as we are just as mortal as Peter was. Sometimes the plan God has for our lives does not seem like what we expect it should be.
So, if Peter really did have Jesus’ best interests at heart, why such a severe reprimand? To be called Satan must have felt extremely harsh coming from the leader of a peaceful man like Jesus, especially after having just been told that he was going to be the cornerstone of the coming church. Could it be that what Peter was actually offering Jesus was a way out; a more comfortable alternative option than the one he was going to have to face? Peter had just suggested a worldly alternative to a heavenly mandate. Just as the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness with worldly riches and power, now Jesus’ number one disciple is tempting Jesus with a very attractive “human” temptation to avoid pain, suffering and ultimate death. And, it is the temptations of worldly things that cause each of us to stumble, or become stumbling blocks that others could trip over. Is it any wonder Jesus reacted the way he did?
So, how do we avoid the temptations that cause our stumbling? How can we recognize when we are falling into that trap of being mindful more of worldly things than of heavenly things? It is often hard to see, especially when it is within ourselves that we must look for the answers because as we know, it is much easier to find fault in others than in our selves, isn’t it?
There is a story a friend of mine tells about a man that never missed a Sunday service. Every Sunday, after the service he would approach the pastor and say, “Well preacher, you sure told them today, didn’t you?” This man’s response to the sermon was as regular as clockwork and never varied. The irony was that this particular man was probably the biggest sinner in the congregation. One winter day there was a blinding snow storm and this man was the only one who made it to service that morning. The pastor decided to take full advantage of the situation and preached a hard-hitting, personal, sermon just for that man. When he was finished, the man approached him and said, “Well preacher, if they had been here this morning, you sure would have told them.”
I am reminded of the story of Cedar Grove UMC as told by their pastor, Grace Hackney. Grace had received her appointment to Cedar Grove soon after a fire had tragically burned that church’s building and her task was not only to help guide that congregation through a re-building process but to do so without dividing the congregation into opposing factions. She recounted to us how every little minute detail of that building project, from the color of the carpet to the location of the piano, was a subject of contention between two or more groups within the congregation. Every detail no matter how small or large had to be argued, debated, committeed, and voted on. The members of Cedar Grove were so focused on the material details, each believing that they knew best what God wanted for that church that they often forgot to ask God what He wanted. Ultimately that project was completed due in no small way to the fact that they finally realized that what they were building was not their building, but God’s building. And, I could venture a guess that God cared very little about the carpet color or the location of the piano to begin with.
Let me offer a suggestion on how we might be able to know if we are becoming like the man in the story I just told. It really comes down to grammar. It is a pronoun problem. Let me give you an example: I am right with God, my intentions are pure, my love is genuine, etc. Then there is that most dangerous possessive pronoun, mine or ours, etc. The pronoun we should be using is Him, He, His, etc. Or, if you are a hard core feminist you could say Her, Hers, She. We need to look at what Jesus said in this reading from Matthew. Verse 24 says, “If any want to be my followers let them deny themselves; for those who want to save their lives will loose it.” The denial of self means to deny the “I, me, mine, ours, us” and set our eyes on the “He.”
It was Peter’s profession of faith that transformed him into the solid rock that Jesus could use to build his church on. Like Peter, we also become building blocks for God’s kingdom when we acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the son of the living God, the savior. But, also like Peter we are fragile and fallible and human, and we easily can become stumbling blocks instead.
The building of God’s church, or kingdom, is not unlike building a physical building. The blocks must fit together and the mortar must be strong enough to hold them together. How we witness to others the good news of Jesus Christ is what makes up the mortar that holds us together. If we mix our mortar with selfishness, resentment, envy, or greed, then the mortar will be weak and unstable which will cause the wall of bricks to fall. In our scripture lesson today from Romans, Paul gives us the recipe for mortar that is strong and will not crumble.
Let love be genuine. Love one another with mutual affection. Extend hospitality to strangers. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not claim to be wiser than you are. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Live peaceably with all. If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
God bless.
Friday, May 9, 2008
"A Lesson In Prayer" (Part 1)
This is a sermon I delivered on July 29, 2007 based on the opening lines of the Lord's Prayer. My wife says it is my best effort yet (and she is always right)!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
"Is It Really All Over"? (Part 1)
Here is part one of the sermon I delivered at Saint Andrews UMC last December 30.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Sermon: "Do We Believe What We See or See What We Believe"
Here is a video of the sermon I delivered at Saint Andrews UMC on March 2, 2008. It is based on the gospel of John, chapter 9 verses 1-41. It is in two parts because YouTube wouldn't accept the whole version as one video. Love to hear your comments.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 1
Part 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)