Thoughts going in, Sunday Oct 21st

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36 "What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory." 38 "You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" 39 "We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." 41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

            I think it's unfortunate that this week's Gospel reading begins at vs 35, and hence, completely skips over the CONTEXT in which this episode occurs. The context is vss 32-34 where the author makes it explicit that the group as a whole is still on their way to Jerusalem and Jesus gives his third and final (and in many ways, most graphic: They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise). It is within the context of this graphic passion prediction that James and John approach Jesus with their request for favoritism.

            A straight reading of the narrative seems to imply that in their minds... IF they understood the gravity of what Jesus had just told them, it would seem that they expected Jesus to come into his glory immediately following his rising. In other words, it seems that at the very least they did not envision a life-long process of Christian service, but rather, an immediate apocalyptic-ish event.... followed by life lived in messianic glory.

            If so, one can understand the luster of such a thought. The cross may be intense, but after a brief baptism of fire it's nothing but heaven on earth. I think that Christianity has always wrestled with this sort of theology of glory. Many beloved hymns of the church seem to imply that the believer goes about life snuggled safely within the protective hedge of God. And while this may be true at the spiritual level, it is frequently also implied at the temporal level... leading one to EXPECT that following Jesus will naturally result in being healthy, wealthy and wise. This, then, cannot help but lead to a crisis of faith when the economy collapses, or a terrible disease strikes, etc. I'm currently reading a book about the history of Christianity in the East in areas that are now considered traditionally Muslim. For Christians living at the time of the Islamic conquest it must have seemed like God had 'switched sides,' or at the very least, as though there was no protective hedge around them. The persecuted Church has never had any delusions about the glorious kingdom... she knows we ain't there yet.

            The teaching moment for Jesus in this passage seems to be to try to get his disciples heads out of the clouds and back down to earth. GREATNESS is defined by acts of service and ministry to all. In the Greek, two separate words are used to unpack this idea. Vss 43-44 say: Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant (diakonos), and whoever wants to be first must be slave (doulos) of all. The 2-fold gist of using these words is that greatness in the here-and-now kingdom is a life of diakonia... service, waiting on others "hand and foot" (as the saying goes)... that's what a diakonos did. But then by also using the word 'doulos' (slave/slavery) the sense of being indentured is stressed. The doulos is not his/her own; the doulos has no liberty; the doulos belongs totally to another.

            From the text, it's easy to see "to whom" we belong. Jesus said in vs 45 that he has come to give his life a ransom for many. The Greek word 'lutron' is well-translated as 'ransom.' It's the price paid for captives. Jesus can demand we dedicate our lives as diakonoi and douloi ... Jesus can define greatness in this way because by his death on the cross he has bought us. What's fascinating and in our day worth remembering is that Jesus doesn't demand that we devote ourselves solely to him. What he demands is that we devote ourselves to OTHERS/ALL... which, then, becomes service to him.

            I say this is important to remember in our day because somewhere along the line the idea of one's public witness in and to the world has become perverted. Somewhere along the line Christians have begun to think that God has called them to march with picket signs calling down fire and brimstone on gays and lesbians; or that God has called them to bomb abortion clinics; or that God has called them to a life of judgmental anger against all outsiders. This is NOT evangelism; this is not being a diakonos or a doulos to others. This is not the sort of greatness Christ calls his followers to.

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sun Oct 14th

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.' " 20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God." 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" 27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With human beings this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." 28 Then Peter spoke up, "We have left everything to follow you!" 29 "Truly I tell you," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--along with persecutions--and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

            Lately it seems as though Mark has been hitting us with one difficult saying of Jesus after another. Two weeks ago we had the saying about how it's better to enter [eternal] life maimed than be condemned whole; last week we had the difficult teaching on divorce. Now we've got Mark's version of the "Rich Young Ruler" story that includes the difficult saying in vs 25: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. [Note: Matthew's version includes the detail that he was young, Luke's that he was a 'ruler'].

            I'll come to that in a minute, but for now I'm intrigued by this man who comes running up to Jesus at the beginning of the story. As already stated, Jesus refers to him as "rich" in vs 25, but it's in vs 22 (in the Greek) that we discover more about his riches. Vs 22 literally says that he had much land... or even better.... many estates.

            This man was one of the 1% of the population who drew their income from land owned and rented to tenant farmers. He was able to live a life of ease and luxury on the rents/profits received by his lands. What's more, his immense wealth made acquisition of new lands (foreclosures) and the increase of even more wealth a likely possibility. The scholar Martin Goodman (and others) have written extensively on the topic of the economic slide occurring at the time of Jesus that saw more and more small peasant farms being systematically swallowed up by these 'landed gentry.' This would be the 'traditional' way to have/increase one's wealth. From the time of the Maccabees (roughly 2 centuries before Jesus) the momentum establishing this 1% of 'landed gentry' was primarily concentrated around the handful of High Priestly families and their close kin/allies.

            There was also the political patronage system. The Herodian dynasty controlled the local politics of the area, and ALL of the Herods (beginning with Herod the Great) never balked at eradicating rich families that they saw as a political threat. The vacated estates of such eradicated families became part of the royal treasure that could thus be dispensed to Herodian friends, close kin, and those of like-mindedness that the Herods wanted to promote.

            That said, it's easy to surmise that this "rich young ruler" was of either one of the landed high priestly class of families or in the circle of the Herodians. If so, vs 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him is even more touching. Many people interacted with Jesus... the sick, possessed, diseased and downcast; the Scribes and Pharisees jousted with Jesus, but the wealthy class treated him as invisible...at least until the end when they had a hand in his death. The lone exception was this young man. Jesus wasn't invisible to him. As many estates as this man had... of all of the 'high life' he was able to maintain, there seemed to be enough of something lacking that he was driven to seek out Jesus. And Jesus loved him for it.

            Of course lots of other things stand out about this text. As already noted there's the difficult saying in vs 25 about the rich: : It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. The average American Church-goer isn't taken aback by this statement at all because for us when we hear "the rich" we naturally think of Bill Gates (etc. etc.). We get closer to the truth, however, when we consider that in monetary terms, and taking the whole world into account, WE'RE ALL THE "BILL GATES'S" OF THE WORLD. [gulp] This has to sink in, or the challenging words of Jesus will never hit their mark in us.

            The point is this... the man with many estates who asks Jesus for **assurance that he will be part of the resurrection is undone specifically at the call to discipleship, and he's undone because his wealth stands in the way. Historically preachers and commentators on this text have been quick to point out that Jesus doesn't call everyone to divest themselves of their holdings as a prerequisite to discipleship--but one cannot help but think that too often this is a watering-down of Jesus' meaning in order to placate .... none other than wealthy Christians. The text needs to stand in all of its starkness. ANY time we let ANY thing... whether $1 or a million dollars come between us and the Lord, he will send us away grieving as well. As Jesus will say in another place, you cannot serve two masters.

Cheers,

TM

Thoughts going in, Sun Oct 7th

Mark 10:2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." 13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.

            Lately it seems that in Mark's Gospel we've been hitting some of those "difficult words of Jesus" passages. Just last week, for instance, we had the passage about how if one's hand causes our downfall, it would be better to cut it off; better to enter life maimed rather than risk wholeness in Hell. There the difficulty was one of extremes. One is being called upon to believe in a God both of Heaven (warm/fuzzy) **AND** Hell (terrible/awful). In this week's passage, the saying is just as difficult but for different reasons. Last week's passage could be offensive to us to take at face value because it presents God as being both a God of love and a God of judgment for those who spurn his love. This week's passage could be offensive for far different reasons. Here God is telling us that something that has become a 'normal' part of our society.... something that we may even have participated in ourselves... carries with it the stigma of SIN... and of course I'm talking about divorce.

            It's a difficult passage. Further, it's difficult to preach without sounding like the sermon is directed to a narrow slice of people while everyone else smugly looks on. Even further still, it's the sort of topic that the Church has had a horrific track record concerning; It wasn't that long ago when well-meaning pastors routinely counseled women to remain in abusive marriages because divorce was seen as a non-option for Christians. When you put it all together, is there any wonder why many pastors this weekend may choose to preach from one of the other readings?

            I'll admit my own impulse to do the same, but will also say that refusal to wrestle with the Lord's difficult teachings is no way to exercise our faith. So.... all of that said, I think there are a few things that should be highlighted from this passage.

            --The motive(s) behind the question: The Pharisees were asking a tricky question and they knew it! They came to "test" Jesus... with the hopeful outcome that they would trip him up. The thing is that divorce was as much of a hot-button topic then as it is now--just for different reasons. There were religious implications. The two major schools of the rabbis were in conflict on this--one saying that divorce rules should be more lenient and the other saying they should be more strict. There was also a political issue involved. Recall that Herod's divorce and remarriage had become a topic of John the Baptist's preaching and eventually led to his martyrdom. It's a great question because there are so many pot-holes Jesus could step in with his answer.

            --In Answer #1 to the Pharisees Jesus bypasses the whole TORAH question and what Moses would or wouldn't do in the present circumstances and went back to the Creation account. In Creation God did not intend a man to view his wife as property; nor did God intend marriage to be primarily about yoking 2 families together. In the wording of the old KJV marriage was originally intended for "leaving & cleaving." A man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. Life-long commitment is what is being held high here.

            --In Answer #2 indoors to the disciples, Jesus expands on this by introducing the topic that the permanency of marriage has consequences. This is probably the part we least like hearing. It's important to realize that Mark 10 is not the only passage in the Bible that discusses divorce. Other passages do as well... and those passages usually discuss issues--such as unfaithfulness--that dissolve the marital bond. Mark 10 needs to be read with those passages in mind. However, it's true that Mark 10 presents to us the teaching of Jesus that divorce for the sole purpose of marring another causes an adulterous scenario. The lesson here is that God will be God on his terms, not ours. Consider for a moment how unreasonable we are--or can be: on our wedding day we want God to be on the side of marriage; we want God to bless our marriage; we want to enter into something HOLY that has the might of the God of the universe behind it. And then when the newness wears off, or we're no longer in love, or we're no long compatible, we want to bail out with no questions asked ..... and we want God to bless our bailing out too. But according to Jesus, even if a person's 2nd marriage "takes".... even if it's everything the 1st one wasn't... even if husband & wife now spend the rest of their days in wedded bliss.... that marriage began on the ashes of the brokenness of the 1st marriage. The lesson isn't to try to go back. Usually you can't! That 1st marriage may have been so broken... that like Humpty Dumpty, all of the king's horses and all of the king's men wouldn't be able to change anything. The lesson here, then, becomes one of make this one last; vows were made; God is STILL, and always on the side of his institution of marriage.

            The point of the whole passage seems to be that ... as we have been discussing Discipleship for weeks now, we're seeing that Discipleship is about more than just head knowledge or even personal faith. True Christian Discipleship intentionally spills over into our "regular lives"... our marriage and family relationships.

Cheers,

TM