Thoughts going in, Sun Sept 30th

Mark 9:38 "Teacher," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." 39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly be rewarded. 42 "If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' 49 Everyone will be salted with fire. 50 "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

            The reading this week picks right up where we left off in Mark from last week. Just about all commentators note that this reading seems to have 3 main divisions:  (1) The ministerial 'success' of someone outside of the core group of Disciples; (2) the teaching on causing another to stumble (Gk, skandalise); and (3) the teaching on guarding one's self from stumbling. While these oracles from Jesus may initially appear not to have a lot in common, from my reading of the text it seems possible to discern at least two common denominators.

            COMMON DENOMINATOR #1 has to do with what I would call the earnestness of the message. Who Jesus is, why he came, and what he's all about is so serious, that it trumps everything. The fact that there is someone else out there performing exorcisms in his name is much more important than the fact that he's not part of the inner circle. A cup of water may seem like a minor thing, but when given in the loving name of the Savior it becomes a major thing... etc. etc.

            COMMON DENOMINATOR #2 has to do with the idea of stumbling. In a lot of ways the direct English translation of the Gk skandalizo as 'to cause to stumble' amounts to a pretty weak rendering. You or I stumble all the time and usually we catch ourselves and keep going with no problem. The idea behind skandalizo seems to be much more serious, however. Other English translations at least attempt to wrestle with this word. The Good News and God's Word translations, for instance, render it as "to sin." Vs 42, then, would read: whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin...  That's not bad. I think the HCS translation probably comes closest, however, when it says: whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones...  The point is that skandalizo causes the wreck & ruin of someone or some thing. It's a train wreck; it's a disaster; it's not something one recovers from, or at least not easily. The point that Jesus seems to be making in discussing skandalizo is that it is a complimentary idea to the first point on the seriousness/earnestness of the message. The message is so serious, so timely, so needed, so urgent, that one dare not cause the ruination of someone doing good in the name of Jesus even if he is an outsider; one dare not cause the ruination of "little ones" who believe (ether literally children, or those who are young in The Faith); and lastly, one dare not let anything cause one's own ruination. To be skandalized is not a trivial matter; it's not even a simple matter of committing "a sin,".... it is really nothing short of being driven outside of the fellowship of Jesus. It is the loss of everything! That's why Jesus brings it down to brass tacks at the end when he constantly contrasts entering the Kingdom of God vs entering Hell.

            From an application perspective, the passage should give us pause. It's one thing that our words and/or actions may have an impact on our own belief etc., and it is certainly a lot to ponder in terms of our own faith walk. However, Jesus broadens the scope. Not only can our words and actions influence others for good (giving them a cup of water in the name of Christ, etc.)..... but turns out, our words and actions can also have the opposite impact.

            A few years back I read a fascinating little book entitled: I'm fine with God, it's Christians I can't stand. The author's point was that he had sadly encountered many believers who presented a 'message' that portrayed God as hateful, vengeful, etc. etc. and entirely devoid of any Gospel. How many people have you encountered that have said something along that line? People who say they want nothing to do with the Christian God because of their experience with Christians? They have been 'skandalized.'

cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sun Sept 23rd

Mark 9:30 From there they went out and began to go through Galilee, and He did not want anyone to know about it. 31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later." 32 But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him. 33 They came to Capernaum ; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, "What were you discussing on the way ?" 34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." 36 Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, 37 "Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."

            This week's Gospel reading is the second of three predictions that Jesus makes regarding his death in Mark's Gospel. The lectionary has skipped over several passages in order to have this reading appear the very week following the previous prediction. In that sense, it may be a bit interesting to compare the predictions side by side:

Mk 8:31-- And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mk 9:31-- For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later

1.  Note that in chp 9, the "teaching" is an ongoing/continual action from past into the current present. In other words, we **say that there were 3 passion predictions in Mark's Gospel, but in reality it sounds like Jesus had been saying these things continually since he first mentioned them in chapter 8.

2. In chp 9 he is to be "delivered," or "handed over." Context entirely drives the meaning of this word. When the Dominos Pizza guy hands over your pizza to you, it's a good thing. But a betrayer can also "deliver/hand over" a person. In this sense there is a negative context. YET, given the passive nature of the word, ... is the focus on Judas the betrayer, or on God Himself who "hands over" his own son so that sinners may do with him what they will? In that sense, "handing over" (Gk paradidotai) echoes the divine passive nature of the word "MUST" in 8:31 ("the Son of Man MUST, Gk dei suffer).

3.  Perhaps the most striking difference in comparing these two passages is that chapter 8 speaks of being rejected by the "elders, chief priests, and scribes"... but chapter 9 speaks of Jesus being "handed over" to the hands "of MEN." In the Greek this is the plural of anthropos. There is a general and universal connotation here. It reminds me of Good Friday rituals where all gathered are handed a nail as a reminder that via our sins we ALL had a hand in the death of the Messiah. It is HUMANITY that kills him.

The grammar is a bit different between the verses, but they basically end the same way; he will die, but he will not stay dead. The 'end of the age' resurrection will break into the present, and he will be raised.... as St. Paul says, the first fruits.... of all of those who will experience resurrection (1Cor 15).

            So, what is this passage about? Especially taken with last week's focus on discipleship (I even entitled last week's sermon "Discipleship 101").... I can't help but think the focus is STILL on what it means to be a disciple. (Discipleship 200??). The primary problem seems to be 3-fold: (1) They weren't getting it; they didn't understand what he was trying to teach them; (2) They were afraid to ask about it.  Note... WHY? Jesus the teacher has always seemed to welcome honest inquiries; why not ask for clarification? It's the JOB of a rabbi to teach, and it's the job of a disciple to ask questions. I can really only think of a couple reasons they were afraid to ask--maybe it was fear of demonstrating their ignorance. After all, nobody likes to appear 'dense' about something basic that everyone else appears to understand. Is that it? Another reason for being afraid to ask is more subtle: perhaps at the gut level they understood a basic negative sound to what Jesus was saying and they didn't really want to hear more. Like the person who suspects horrific news if they actually tell their doctor about their pains, they opt for ignorance as the lesser of two evils. Regardless, (3) the last part of the problem was the invention of a substitute topic to distract their attention. Rather than meditating on what Jesus was trying to teach them they began disputing about who would be the greatest. Some have pointed out that this needn't be a self-centered dispute, as in, "I think that **I will be the greatest." It may have been a magnanimous dispute, as in, "I think **YOU will be the greatest." [note: this seems unlikely given other Gospel traditions that note the ambition of James and John to sit at the right & left of Christ].

            So, they were unknowing (Gk literally agnostic) about Christ's teaching; they were fearful of discovering more (Gk literally phobic); and they invented their own pass-time pseudo concentration. There's probably more than a few ways to pull this forward 2,000 years into consideration of our own discipleship efforts.

Cheers!

TM

Thoughts going in, Sun Sept 16th

Mark 8:27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi ; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am ?" 28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist ; and others say Elijah ; but others, one of the prophets." 29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am ?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ." 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him. 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind Me, Satan ; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." 34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 35 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it. 36 "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul ? 37 "For what will a man give in exchange for his soul ? 38 "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."

            This Sunday's reading is a relatively familiar passage that to some extent appears in all of the synoptics. Matthew's version includes more detail, and Luke's version is slightly re-worked, but regardless the story is there in all three Gospels.

            In Mark's version, there seem to be some very discernable divisions, beginning with vss 27-30. Here, Jesus introduces the question of how others have discerned his identity. I find it fascinating that the first person mentioned was the popular prophet John the Baptist (beheaded, by this point, by Herod Antipas). To my mind the reason for this is due to the fact that John the Baptist was recent in everyone's memory, and as a popular rumor, it fits that some people would choose to believe that John's martyrdom hadn't really happened. Fueling that sentiment would be the existence of another holy man going around preaching a similar message to that of John's. In a lot of ways, this is the most rational popular 'theory' of Jesus' identity. That he might be "Elijah" or "one of the prophets," (by which the assumption seems to be one of the old prophets come back)...seems, to me to be decidedly more 'apocalyptic.' That Elijah or one of the old prophets come back might be wandering around means that God is stirring in the land; it means that prayers of deliverance may soon be answered; it means that the Messiah (or MessiahS.... some popular Jewish beliefs held that more than one Messiah would come) may be coming.

            The way this portion finishes out, with the question now being put to the disciples (all of them are being questioned... the KJV correctly has "who do YE say I am?") indicates that Jesus expects a different answer from them; and he gets it in the form of Peter's famous confession "You are the Christ." The section then closes with Jesus warning the disciples to keep it to themselves. A LOT of ink is spilled regarding the "keep it to yourselves" passages in Mark. The consensus seems to boil down to the fact that the term Messiah/Christ is such a politically charged word that Jesus does not want to attract the attention of the authorities sooner than what is absolutely necessary. It makes sense. After all, when Jesus is finally executed (ch 15 in Mark's Gospel) it is for the charge of being "King of the Jews."

            In the next section, vss 31-32a Jesus then begins to RE-DEFINE what it means to be the Messiah and to teach it "openly" (aka, not in parables) to the disciples. This is a major concern. It's like redefining what it means to win, saying, "coming in last place is what winning is all about;" or being rich as having no money; or being a leader as being a servant to everyone. A suffering/dying Messiah seems all wrong. A suffering/dying Messiah doesn't seem very helpful. Anyone can suffer and die.... what's really needed is for someone to stand up and fight, and WIN! Of course what wasn't being seen at that stage was that this was precisely what Jesus would do on the cross; he WOULD stand up and fight, and win, in terms of the greatest enemies of all, SIN, DEATH, and THE DEVIL.

            The next section concerns poor Peter. Again, a LOT has been said about Peter's confession and his "thrill of victory....to...agony of defeat moment." Answering the rabbi's question correctly and then being rebuked as a Satan all in the span of about 5 minutes seems like something that only Peter could experience. The point of the rebuke seems to be that Peter was offering a legitimate temptation. Jesus contrasts it by saying that Peter is tempting Jesus toward the "things of men" vs his own calling to follow the "things of God."

            The final section, vss 34-38, constitute a teaching moment about the life of discipleship. "Taking up the cross" would seem to be a very familiar image in everyone's mind. The Roman overlords seemed more than willing to crucify those who were deemed as agitators or opposed to good order (those seen as a threat to the 'pax' of Rome). This may actually have been confusing to Jesus' first hearers. He'd just finished saying that his idea of being Messiah wasn't going to include the political overtones that were popularly expected. Ok, fine.... a John Lennon peace-loving hippy rabbi that just teaches parables and drinks herbal tea is no threat to anyone. So why should his followers have to take up their cross if they're going to follow him? Crosses are for agitators; crosses are for boat-rockers; crosses are for rebels; crosses are for those who DARE question the status quo.

            I think the answer to this becomes obvious when one considers exactly WHO'S boat is being rocked by Jesus and his presence, and the growth of his following. It's not the mundane local political authorities that have anything to worry about; it is, rather, the kingdom of darkness that is being assaulted; it's Satan's boat that's being rocked; Evil's status quo is being threatened by the presence of Jesus and those who follow him. And these powers have no intention of sitting idly by.

            Commentators note that it's interesting that this passage immediately follows a story of a healing of a blind man... a healing that occurs in stages. First he sees a little bit, but not perfectly; then he sees perfectly. Not only is this symbolic for the gradual nature of how the disciples understand Jesus' Messianic identity, but it can also be seen as symbolic for the whole life of discipleship even today. We don't always see clearly or correctly; we're not always sure what all is entailed with taking up our cross. Yet, we do our best to follow our Lord and not be ashamed of him.

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sunday Sep 9th

Mark 7:24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. 25 But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29 And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." 30 And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. 31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. 32 And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had a speech impediment, and they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue. 34 And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, "Ephphatha," that is, "Be opened." 35 And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37 And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak."

            This week's gospel passage is very interesting from the larger perspective of Mark's Gospel. The way Mark emphasizes things, the religious elite and Jerusalem establishment are always portrayed as completely antagonistic to Jesus; those closest to him (his disciples) are always in a state of learning, but not-quite-there-yet; but the Gentiles encountered in the story are always amazing Jesus with their simple faith. This holds right up to the end where, upon witnessing Jesus die, the Gentile Roman Centurion confessed, Surely this man was the son of God (Mk 15:39).

            And so we have this week's passage. Jesus is off the grid; he's wandering among the Gentiles...evidently, not to bring the mission of the kingdom of God to them--at least not initially. Commentators tell us that the region of Tyre and Sidon was a 'getaway' locale even back then. In vs 24 you get the image that Jesus has punched out for a little "R & R." He got himself a little hut along the sea cost; no tv, no radio, no laptop, no internet; just himself, alone with some herbal tea and his bible, right?? And then this woman comes along and spoils it all. Thus begins the well-known exchange between Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman... and then later, still in Gentile territory, the encounter with the man who was deaf and mute.

            Again, what I find interesting is how these stories fit into the larger narrative of what Mark is saying in his Gospel. In last week's joust/encounter with the Scribes and Pharisees about purity--and by the way, 'purity' gets fairly shattered in today's reading with all of these Gentile encounters--Jesus makes it very clear that what is on the OUTSIDE does not cause impurity... it does not separate one from being able to be in the presence of God. It is, rather, what comes from the INSIDE. Specifically, just before his encounter with the Gentiles in this week's text, Mark quotes Jesus as saying:

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him." 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

            The implication seems pretty clear. If what comes from the INSIDE (the heart) is what really defiles a person, then the 100% holy-religious professional Scribes and Pharisees are in a state of defilement, not purity, because from their heart comes challenge, insult, and unbelief (or in the words of Jesus, "evil thoughts, coveting, wickedness, deceit, envy, slander, pride and foolishness."). God's Messiah is standing right in front of them and they don't see. And in typical Markan fashion, the author goes on to stand things on their head by having PURE things come from the INSIDE (hearts) of the Gentiles encountered in the very next group of verses. The Syrophoenician woman calls Jesus LORD; Kyrie, literally. She begs for favor from the status of one who is completely unworthy. Later another group of Gentiles begs/implores Jesus from the same perspective.

            In Mark's Gospel the Gentiles get it! They're held up as paragons of, and a paradigm for, simple faith. It's not that doctrine, worship, and tradition are BAD... but it is true that those who are most hung up about doctrine, worship and tradition in Mark's Gospel **MISS JESUS**. The Messiah stands right in front of them, and instead of calling him Lord, they joust over purity rituals. This is about PERSPECTIVE. JESUS FIRST. Doctrine, worship, tradition etc. matter, but only ONCE JESUS IS FIRST. Until or unless that happens, one is engaged only in so much religion for show.

Cheers,

TM