WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
October 15th 2006
Stewardship Season
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Does IT Own Us?”
Mark 10: 17-31
Today begins our annual fall focus on stewardship. This year’s theme is: “Give Thanks… Sing Praise… Declare God’s Steadfast Love!” It is a reminder of a very simple truth. That simple truth is this: All that we have and all that we are is a gift from God. So this year, during our stewardship season, we are giving thanks for the way God continues to provide for our lives. Immediately following worship we have our family dinner and continue our stewardship theme all the way through November 12th. In simple terms, it means that we are going to have five weeks of sermons focusing on stewardship and money.
In the early stages of planning this season I was a little worried that five weeks might be a little much. However, these concerns quickly dissipated after I came across information from a workshop done by Reverend Bill Gillis dealing with money and the bible. Let me share a couple of the things I found. The first one said that the bible has about 500 verses on prayer and 500 on faith. It was followed by the question: “How many passages in the bible deal with money or possessions?” The answer turns out to be around 5,000. The second one was that if I was to preach as many sermons on money and stewardship as Jesus told parables about money and possessions it would work out to about twenty-two sermons each year. I share all of this to say that our focusing on only five weeks will really only scratch the surface of the biblical material regarding stewardship, money and possessions. Do not worry though, I do not intend to cover all 5,000 passages today. There is enough material in this gospel passage to keep us busy, at least for the next few minutes.
In this morning readings, we see Jesus on his way to Jerusalem. Along the journey a man approaches Jesus and asks: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus first rejects the claim of goodness and begins a dialogue which upsets everyone’s expectations. This man, the disciples, and all of us who read this story closely are left stunned by the implications.
Jesus encounter with this man ends with a rejection of the call to follow. But before Jesus responds to this man with challenging words that leave him shocked, Jesus looks at him in love. This is the only time Jesus is said to look at someone in love. It is a clear message that this passage can never be used to demonize those with wealth nor can it be used to further class warfare.
Even though Jesus loves this man, he does not water down the message. You still lack one thing; go, sell everything, give it to the poor and then you can come and follow me. This call to discipleship is the only time in the bible where Jesus extends the call to discipleship and it is met by rejection. It is a powerful witness to the power that wealth and possessions can have in a person’s life. It is a rather sad scene where this man is so bound by his own stuff that he turns away from the way of Jesus.
When Jesus turns to the disciples he makes it clear that this encounter was larger than just this one man. He says: “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God… It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (By the way, the idea that the eye of a needle was a gate in Jerusalem where camels had a hard time entering but could with some work was merely a fantasy developed by the church of the middle ages.) So what began as a commentary on one rich man turns out to be a statement about wealth itself. It was a scandalous statement because the prevailing belief in the ancient world was that those with money had been specially blessed by God. And Jesus says that it is actually an impediment to discipleship.
Having said this, it is now important to clarify Jesus’ teaching about wealth. Jesus is not building a case for class warfare. We must remember that Jesus looks upon this man with love. It is also important to know that when Jesus deals with money and possessions he most often refers to it in a personified state. Money, for Jesus, is mammon which is actually a god. William Sloan Coffin does a good job of drawing our attention to this fact. He says: “Note that only money is put on par with God, not knowledge, not family nobility, not reputation, not talent: only money is elevated to divine status.” Jesus makes it clear, her and elsewhere, that the power of money can never be underestimated.
Conversely, Jesus’ ultimate concern is not money or the power of money –mammon. Jesus is most interested in the kingdom of God – or God’s alternative social reality. Anything which keeps people from its fulfillment is the stumbling block which must be removed. For the man in this gospel lesson, the greatest barrier to his faithfulness was his vast wealth.
The heart of this passage is these words: “Truly I tell you, (Jesus says) there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age--houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions--and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.” Unfortunately, this passage continues to be used to justify the modern day prosperity gospel heresy. While it is possible to create this fantasy from this passage, something more powerful is at work. In the early community this teaching represented the understanding that the community of Christians shared things in common. So, when you become part of the community of faith, you become rich in family – with all the followers of Jesus becoming your brothers and sisters. And, as the community pooled its resources all the members shared in the possessions. This is what Jesus meant when he talked about increasing property one hundred fold. Despite our attempts to make it say what we want, this teaching never intended to say that following Jesus would make us independently wealthy.
In this passage, Jesus calls this man to renounce the one remaining place in his life where he is bound. The man, in the gospel reading, simply could not renounce his vast possessions. For this man it was his possessions which stood in the way of his acceptance of Jesus invitation. Jesus’ ultimate concern is challenging anything which stands in the way of our faithful response to the invitation to be part of the new reality.
It is still true today that wealth-money-mammon is still a central issue for discipleship. The issue is not the possession of money but more importantly our relationship to it. It is my sincerest hope that we will take the challenge to evaluate the role that money plays in our life in light of Jesus call to discipleship. We will need to do this together. Money can no longer remain a private issue in a healthy community of faith. It is my sincerest hope and prayer that God will grant us the wisdom to see clearly the places of our bondage and the willingness to be set free of all that keeps us from embracing Jesus all encompassing call to discipleship. Amen.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Is this the Word of the Lord?
WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
October 8th 2006
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Is This the Word of the Lord?”
Mark 10: 1-16
Each week at the conclusion of the scripture passage, we end with the words: “This is the Word of the Lord.” Often times, we response with the words: “Thanks be to God.” It is our affirmation that the bible is the written word of God and we are thankful for what it says. However, on some days it may be more difficult than others to give thanks for what has just been read. It is even possible that one might even question if what is being read is actually a word from God. I must admit that when I saw this passage in the lectionary cycle for this week, I seriously considered skipping this passage. However, since I do believe the bible to be the written word of God, I knew I had to wrestle with this passage head on.
This passage from Mark requires that we dig deeply in order to avoid an overly simplistic reading. If we settle for a simplistic reading, we will end up turning it into a pharisaical law or discarding the passage because of its perceived teaching. Fortunately, these reactions to the passage miss what it really happening in this passage. In the end, I believe that we can say this passage is God’s word and even give thanks for what it says.
Chapter ten in Mark’s Gospel is a shift in Jesus ministry. As he crosses the Jordan into Judea the story moves ever closer to Jerusalem and Jesus death. Once Jesus crosses the Jordan, crowds gather around him. Anything which causes a stir with the people makes the religious leadership nervous. As a result, they go out to see if they can minimize the threat of this rabble rousing rabbi.
In order to test Jesus, the Pharisees seek to get his position on a ‘hot button’ issue of his day. In the ancient world, within the rabbinical circles, there was a heated debate regarding the issue of divorce. There were really two schools of thought and each was rather entrenched. At the heart of the ongoing debate was the issue of interpretation of scripture. While refusing to take sides, Jesus leaves his challengers, and the disciples, stunned.
Having been challenged by questions like this before, he knows how to proceed. Jesus does not answer the question but instead asks them what Moses commanded. They respond: “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” It is important to notice that their response does not include a woman’s right to issue a certificate of dismissal or to divorce her husband. Jesus rebuttal addresses this issue.
“Because of your hardness of heart (Jesus says) Moses wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” In his response Jesus uses one part of scripture to argue against another. He places the creation narratives in conflict with the Sinai Covenant. This form of argument, using scripture against scripture, was unheard of in the rabbinical circles. Jesus uses this style of argument to do something which is nothing short of revolutionary.
Many interpreters have missed or simply decided to ignore this reality. However, Elizabeth Shussler Fiorenza helps illuminate why Jesus would have chosen the creation narrative. She says: “The Genesis passage is best translated as “The two persons – male and female – enter into a common life and social relationship because they are created as equals.” Jesus use of the creation story was a deliberate inclusion of women. The ancient interpretations of the Law of Moses saw women as property. As such, adultery was never an offence against a woman, only against another man. In other words, women did not count. That is why Jesus’ inclusion must attract our attention.
Throughout this passage Jesus reframes the conversation to include women and to point to a principle of equality within marriage. When Jesus speaks in private to the disciples he makes this abundantly clear when he says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Jesus shifts the discussion, so that women are no longer excluded and are given equal partner status in the marriage. In Jesus teaching, both partners in the marriage are given rights and as such, must also accept the responsibilities of the marriage.
While Jesus teaches a new reality for marriage, his teaching is not as simplistic as it might seem. It is also clear that divorce is seen as a profound spiritual and social tragedy. In other words, it is never easy. It is also clear that Jesus recognizes the social reality of divorce and as such shows that the fundamental issues of justice must never be ignored.
Even as we proclaim this powerful message, we must be careful not to see Jesus’ teaching as a new legalistic requirement regarding marriage. Jesus was not laying the foundation of a new law. Instead, he was challenging an unjust system which left women vulnerable. In simple terms, Jesus elevates the status of women in marriage. This is one of the reasons I am always shocked to hear there are still pastors who claim that the bible teaches there is no justification for divorce. There is not justifiable basis for that claim in this passage.
It is the shape of this encounter which is most telling. Jesus does not address this ‘hot-button’ issue until the Pharisees show up and try to test him on it. Instead of taking sides in the debate, Jesus reframes the issue with a demand for justice. Throughout his ministry, whenever Jesus breaks religious law, he always chooses the spirit over the letter of the law. So, any attempt to use this passage in legalistic ways is an abuse of scripture.
Instead, I think there is something more powerful and life-giving to be taken from this encounter. When Jesus was faced with a hot button issue of his day, he does not take sides in the partisan debate. Instead, he reframes the entire debate around the issue of justice. We live in an age of hot button and wedge issues. I wonder what it would look like if Christians refused to give their allegiance to this camp or that party but demanded justice for all. (Maybe this is a pipe dream) Nevertheless, we need to give up the practice of seeing this passage, and other like it, as a new law and instead follow Jesus’ lead by reframing the issues of our day through the biblical demand for justice. Following this path may just make it easier to see how this passage, too, is the word of God. Amen.
October 8th 2006
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Is This the Word of the Lord?”
Mark 10: 1-16
Each week at the conclusion of the scripture passage, we end with the words: “This is the Word of the Lord.” Often times, we response with the words: “Thanks be to God.” It is our affirmation that the bible is the written word of God and we are thankful for what it says. However, on some days it may be more difficult than others to give thanks for what has just been read. It is even possible that one might even question if what is being read is actually a word from God. I must admit that when I saw this passage in the lectionary cycle for this week, I seriously considered skipping this passage. However, since I do believe the bible to be the written word of God, I knew I had to wrestle with this passage head on.
This passage from Mark requires that we dig deeply in order to avoid an overly simplistic reading. If we settle for a simplistic reading, we will end up turning it into a pharisaical law or discarding the passage because of its perceived teaching. Fortunately, these reactions to the passage miss what it really happening in this passage. In the end, I believe that we can say this passage is God’s word and even give thanks for what it says.
Chapter ten in Mark’s Gospel is a shift in Jesus ministry. As he crosses the Jordan into Judea the story moves ever closer to Jerusalem and Jesus death. Once Jesus crosses the Jordan, crowds gather around him. Anything which causes a stir with the people makes the religious leadership nervous. As a result, they go out to see if they can minimize the threat of this rabble rousing rabbi.
In order to test Jesus, the Pharisees seek to get his position on a ‘hot button’ issue of his day. In the ancient world, within the rabbinical circles, there was a heated debate regarding the issue of divorce. There were really two schools of thought and each was rather entrenched. At the heart of the ongoing debate was the issue of interpretation of scripture. While refusing to take sides, Jesus leaves his challengers, and the disciples, stunned.
Having been challenged by questions like this before, he knows how to proceed. Jesus does not answer the question but instead asks them what Moses commanded. They respond: “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” It is important to notice that their response does not include a woman’s right to issue a certificate of dismissal or to divorce her husband. Jesus rebuttal addresses this issue.
“Because of your hardness of heart (Jesus says) Moses wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” In his response Jesus uses one part of scripture to argue against another. He places the creation narratives in conflict with the Sinai Covenant. This form of argument, using scripture against scripture, was unheard of in the rabbinical circles. Jesus uses this style of argument to do something which is nothing short of revolutionary.
Many interpreters have missed or simply decided to ignore this reality. However, Elizabeth Shussler Fiorenza helps illuminate why Jesus would have chosen the creation narrative. She says: “The Genesis passage is best translated as “The two persons – male and female – enter into a common life and social relationship because they are created as equals.” Jesus use of the creation story was a deliberate inclusion of women. The ancient interpretations of the Law of Moses saw women as property. As such, adultery was never an offence against a woman, only against another man. In other words, women did not count. That is why Jesus’ inclusion must attract our attention.
Throughout this passage Jesus reframes the conversation to include women and to point to a principle of equality within marriage. When Jesus speaks in private to the disciples he makes this abundantly clear when he says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Jesus shifts the discussion, so that women are no longer excluded and are given equal partner status in the marriage. In Jesus teaching, both partners in the marriage are given rights and as such, must also accept the responsibilities of the marriage.
While Jesus teaches a new reality for marriage, his teaching is not as simplistic as it might seem. It is also clear that divorce is seen as a profound spiritual and social tragedy. In other words, it is never easy. It is also clear that Jesus recognizes the social reality of divorce and as such shows that the fundamental issues of justice must never be ignored.
Even as we proclaim this powerful message, we must be careful not to see Jesus’ teaching as a new legalistic requirement regarding marriage. Jesus was not laying the foundation of a new law. Instead, he was challenging an unjust system which left women vulnerable. In simple terms, Jesus elevates the status of women in marriage. This is one of the reasons I am always shocked to hear there are still pastors who claim that the bible teaches there is no justification for divorce. There is not justifiable basis for that claim in this passage.
It is the shape of this encounter which is most telling. Jesus does not address this ‘hot-button’ issue until the Pharisees show up and try to test him on it. Instead of taking sides in the debate, Jesus reframes the issue with a demand for justice. Throughout his ministry, whenever Jesus breaks religious law, he always chooses the spirit over the letter of the law. So, any attempt to use this passage in legalistic ways is an abuse of scripture.
Instead, I think there is something more powerful and life-giving to be taken from this encounter. When Jesus was faced with a hot button issue of his day, he does not take sides in the partisan debate. Instead, he reframes the entire debate around the issue of justice. We live in an age of hot button and wedge issues. I wonder what it would look like if Christians refused to give their allegiance to this camp or that party but demanded justice for all. (Maybe this is a pipe dream) Nevertheless, we need to give up the practice of seeing this passage, and other like it, as a new law and instead follow Jesus’ lead by reframing the issues of our day through the biblical demand for justice. Following this path may just make it easier to see how this passage, too, is the word of God. Amen.
Is this the Word of the Lord?
WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
October 8th 2006
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Is This the Word of the Lord?”
Mark 10: 1-16
Each week at the conclusion of the scripture passage, we end with the words: “This is the Word of the Lord.” Often times, we response with the words: “Thanks be to God.” It is our affirmation that the bible is the written word of God and we are thankful for what it says. However, on some days it may be more difficult than others to give thanks for what has just been read. It is even possible that one might even question if what is being read is actually a word from God. I must admit that when I saw this passage in the lectionary cycle for this week, I seriously considered skipping this passage. However, since I do believe the bible to be the written word of God, I knew I had to wrestle with this passage head on.
This passage from Mark requires that we dig deeply in order to avoid an overly simplistic reading. If we settle for a simplistic reading, we will end up turning it into a pharisaical law or discarding the passage because of its perceived teaching. Fortunately, these reactions to the passage miss what it really happening in this passage. In the end, I believe that we can say this passage is God’s word and even give thanks for what it says.
Chapter ten in Mark’s Gospel is a shift in Jesus ministry. As he crosses the Jordan into Judea the story moves ever closer to Jerusalem and Jesus death. Once Jesus crosses the Jordan, crowds gather around him. Anything which causes a stir with the people makes the religious leadership nervous. As a result, they go out to see if they can minimize the threat of this rabble rousing rabbi.
In order to test Jesus, the Pharisees seek to get his position on a ‘hot button’ issue of his day. In the ancient world, within the rabbinical circles, there was a heated debate regarding the issue of divorce. There were really two schools of thought and each was rather entrenched. At the heart of the ongoing debate was the issue of interpretation of scripture. While refusing to take sides, Jesus leaves his challengers, and the disciples, stunned.
Having been challenged by questions like this before, he knows how to proceed. Jesus does not answer the question but instead asks them what Moses commanded. They respond: “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” It is important to notice that their response does not include a woman’s right to issue a certificate of dismissal or to divorce her husband. Jesus rebuttal addresses this issue.
“Because of your hardness of heart (Jesus says) Moses wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” In his response Jesus uses one part of scripture to argue against another. He places the creation narratives in conflict with the Sinai Covenant. This form of argument, using scripture against scripture, was unheard of in the rabbinical circles. Jesus uses this style of argument to do something which is nothing short of revolutionary.
Many interpreters have missed or simply decided to ignore this reality. However, Elizabeth Shussler Fiorenza helps illuminate why Jesus would have chosen the creation narrative. She says: “The Genesis passage is best translated as “The two persons – male and female – enter into a common life and social relationship because they are created as equals.” Jesus use of the creation story was a deliberate inclusion of women. The ancient interpretations of the Law of Moses saw women as property. As such, adultery was never an offence against a woman, only against another man. In other words, women did not count. That is why Jesus’ inclusion must attract our attention.
Throughout this passage Jesus reframes the conversation to include women and to point to a principle of equality within marriage. When Jesus speaks in private to the disciples he makes this abundantly clear when he says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Jesus shifts the discussion, so that women are no longer excluded and are given equal partner status in the marriage. In Jesus teaching, both partners in the marriage are given rights and as such, must also accept the responsibilities of the marriage.
While Jesus teaches a new reality for marriage, his teaching is not as simplistic as it might seem. It is also clear that divorce is seen as a profound spiritual and social tragedy. In other words, it is never easy. It is also clear that Jesus recognizes the social reality of divorce and as such shows that the fundamental issues of justice must never be ignored.
Even as we proclaim this powerful message, we must be careful not to see Jesus’ teaching as a new legalistic requirement regarding marriage. Jesus was not laying the foundation of a new law. Instead, he was challenging an unjust system which left women vulnerable. In simple terms, Jesus elevates the status of women in marriage. This is one of the reasons I am always shocked to hear there are still pastors who claim that the bible teaches there is no justification for divorce. There is not justifiable basis for that claim in this passage.
It is the shape of this encounter which is most telling. Jesus does not address this ‘hot-button’ issue until the Pharisees show up and try to test him on it. Instead of taking sides in the debate, Jesus reframes the issue with a demand for justice. Throughout his ministry, whenever Jesus breaks religious law, he always chooses the spirit over the letter of the law. So, any attempt to use this passage in legalistic ways is an abuse of scripture.
Instead, I think there is something more powerful and life-giving to be taken from this encounter. When Jesus was faced with a hot button issue of his day, he does not take sides in the partisan debate. Instead, he reframes the entire debate around the issue of justice. We live in an age of hot button and wedge issues. I wonder what it would look like if Christians refused to give their allegiance to this camp or that party but demanded justice for all. (Maybe this is a pipe dream) Nevertheless, we need to give up the practice of seeing this passage, and other like it, as a new law and instead follow Jesus’ lead by reframing the issues of our day through the biblical demand for justice. Following this path may just make it easier to see how this passage, too, is the word of God. Amen.
October 8th 2006
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Is This the Word of the Lord?”
Mark 10: 1-16
Each week at the conclusion of the scripture passage, we end with the words: “This is the Word of the Lord.” Often times, we response with the words: “Thanks be to God.” It is our affirmation that the bible is the written word of God and we are thankful for what it says. However, on some days it may be more difficult than others to give thanks for what has just been read. It is even possible that one might even question if what is being read is actually a word from God. I must admit that when I saw this passage in the lectionary cycle for this week, I seriously considered skipping this passage. However, since I do believe the bible to be the written word of God, I knew I had to wrestle with this passage head on.
This passage from Mark requires that we dig deeply in order to avoid an overly simplistic reading. If we settle for a simplistic reading, we will end up turning it into a pharisaical law or discarding the passage because of its perceived teaching. Fortunately, these reactions to the passage miss what it really happening in this passage. In the end, I believe that we can say this passage is God’s word and even give thanks for what it says.
Chapter ten in Mark’s Gospel is a shift in Jesus ministry. As he crosses the Jordan into Judea the story moves ever closer to Jerusalem and Jesus death. Once Jesus crosses the Jordan, crowds gather around him. Anything which causes a stir with the people makes the religious leadership nervous. As a result, they go out to see if they can minimize the threat of this rabble rousing rabbi.
In order to test Jesus, the Pharisees seek to get his position on a ‘hot button’ issue of his day. In the ancient world, within the rabbinical circles, there was a heated debate regarding the issue of divorce. There were really two schools of thought and each was rather entrenched. At the heart of the ongoing debate was the issue of interpretation of scripture. While refusing to take sides, Jesus leaves his challengers, and the disciples, stunned.
Having been challenged by questions like this before, he knows how to proceed. Jesus does not answer the question but instead asks them what Moses commanded. They respond: “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” It is important to notice that their response does not include a woman’s right to issue a certificate of dismissal or to divorce her husband. Jesus rebuttal addresses this issue.
“Because of your hardness of heart (Jesus says) Moses wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” In his response Jesus uses one part of scripture to argue against another. He places the creation narratives in conflict with the Sinai Covenant. This form of argument, using scripture against scripture, was unheard of in the rabbinical circles. Jesus uses this style of argument to do something which is nothing short of revolutionary.
Many interpreters have missed or simply decided to ignore this reality. However, Elizabeth Shussler Fiorenza helps illuminate why Jesus would have chosen the creation narrative. She says: “The Genesis passage is best translated as “The two persons – male and female – enter into a common life and social relationship because they are created as equals.” Jesus use of the creation story was a deliberate inclusion of women. The ancient interpretations of the Law of Moses saw women as property. As such, adultery was never an offence against a woman, only against another man. In other words, women did not count. That is why Jesus’ inclusion must attract our attention.
Throughout this passage Jesus reframes the conversation to include women and to point to a principle of equality within marriage. When Jesus speaks in private to the disciples he makes this abundantly clear when he says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Jesus shifts the discussion, so that women are no longer excluded and are given equal partner status in the marriage. In Jesus teaching, both partners in the marriage are given rights and as such, must also accept the responsibilities of the marriage.
While Jesus teaches a new reality for marriage, his teaching is not as simplistic as it might seem. It is also clear that divorce is seen as a profound spiritual and social tragedy. In other words, it is never easy. It is also clear that Jesus recognizes the social reality of divorce and as such shows that the fundamental issues of justice must never be ignored.
Even as we proclaim this powerful message, we must be careful not to see Jesus’ teaching as a new legalistic requirement regarding marriage. Jesus was not laying the foundation of a new law. Instead, he was challenging an unjust system which left women vulnerable. In simple terms, Jesus elevates the status of women in marriage. This is one of the reasons I am always shocked to hear there are still pastors who claim that the bible teaches there is no justification for divorce. There is not justifiable basis for that claim in this passage.
It is the shape of this encounter which is most telling. Jesus does not address this ‘hot-button’ issue until the Pharisees show up and try to test him on it. Instead of taking sides in the debate, Jesus reframes the issue with a demand for justice. Throughout his ministry, whenever Jesus breaks religious law, he always chooses the spirit over the letter of the law. So, any attempt to use this passage in legalistic ways is an abuse of scripture.
Instead, I think there is something more powerful and life-giving to be taken from this encounter. When Jesus was faced with a hot button issue of his day, he does not take sides in the partisan debate. Instead, he reframes the entire debate around the issue of justice. We live in an age of hot button and wedge issues. I wonder what it would look like if Christians refused to give their allegiance to this camp or that party but demanded justice for all. (Maybe this is a pipe dream) Nevertheless, we need to give up the practice of seeing this passage, and other like it, as a new law and instead follow Jesus’ lead by reframing the issues of our day through the biblical demand for justice. Following this path may just make it easier to see how this passage, too, is the word of God. Amen.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
If You're Not Against Us, You're With Us!
WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
October 1st 2006
World Communion and Peacemaking Sunday
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“It You’re Not Against Us, You’re With Us”
Micah 4:1-4; Mark 9: 38-41
In recent history it has become somewhat controversial to talk about peace. Despite this, we are going to do it anyway. After all, like it or not, all who believe in Jesus Christ and seek to follow him are called to be peacemakers. Since we have much to talk about this morning we will not begin with a defense of this biblically based assertion. In other words, we are not going to revisit the specific locations. It is enough to say that if we interpret the bible through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus it is impossible to say that God is pro-war. Instead, this morning we are going to spend our energy focusing on the need for, and the practice of, peacemaking.
Peacemaking in its truest form is broader and more inclusive than international relationships. Peacemaking is something which is to be practiced in many forms. It can include relationships within families, faith communities, neighborhoods, nations, as well as inside each individual. Each one of these areas is interconnected and none is excluded from the call to be peacemakers.
Jesus encounter with John is all about the call for peacemaking. In this encounter we see how Jesus reveals a simple request for what it is; a destructive and divisive human tendency. The sin at work in this request is our human need to divide people up into opposing groups. It is something which begins in early childhood in an attempt to define the world in simplistic ways.
As a child I remember playing many games which seemed simple but which are opposed to the calling to be peacemakers. I want to use three examples of these games, I am sure you could add your own. The first and earliest division was Boys verses Girls. Later came Cowboys verses Indians, and finally the one played most often; smear the queer. As children we were not even aware of what we were doing, yet we learned the lessons well that: Men should dominate women, white, and light skinned people, should control the dark skinned people of the world, and that gay people could be used as societies punching bag. While many of our childhood simplicities are left behind, these are lessons that will take lifetimes to unlearn. In fact, instead of growing up and moving beyond the childish us verses them mentality many cling to these overly simplistic ways of seeing the world. Peacemaking means to, in the words of the apostle Paul, put away childish things.
The good news is that we are not the first people to face these issues of peacemaking. Every society in history has had their own way of deciding who will hold the reigns of power and who will be excluded. Even the earliest disciples of Jesus were not immune. John comes to Jesus and says: “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” In this request John, and the other disciples, have fallen prey to the childish us verses them mentality.
John’s concern is not that this other person does not follow Jesus. In fact, John is mad because this person is not “following us.” The disciples seem to believe that they have monopoly on God. If you want to get to God, they think, you have to go through them. So, instead of spreading the good news and welcoming all people to come and follow Jesus, the disciples expect that people will come and do things their way. Jesus says: “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.” Jesus is really speaking to the disciples in all ages.
Jesus encounter with John’s sounds much like a story of Moses and Joshua. In the book of Numbers chapter 11:27-29, Moses is faced with a similar problem. Joshua learns that there are two people in the camp who are prophesying for God but are not doing it in the way that Joshua and others believe is appropriate. Joshua then tells Moses to stop them. Moses replies: “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets…” Instead of expecting a monopoly on power and God’s favor, both Moses and Jesus point all believers to a new way of leadership and new way of community. This is peacemaking.
Last week I talked to a friend who pastors in another city about a recent struggle in that church. The church has grown and at first many longer term members expressed joy. However, as the new members began to take on leadership roles, things turned ugly. It turns out that the new members had a different way of doing things in the church and this was not well received. The tension and resentment, on all sides, grew so deep that many people left the congregation. As they have begun the process of healing they have found great wisdom and encouragement from the passages in Mark and Numbers. Peacemaking, for that community, meant internalizing the words from Jesus; “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us.” And the words from Moses; “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets…”
Peacemaking is not easy. Since we struggle with peace in our souls, our families, and our churches, it can leave us wondering if there any hope for our neighborhoods, country or the world? Because peacemaking is difficult on a small scale, the vision for international peace from the prophet Micah makes him seem like a dreamer. When Micah speaks of, “the days to come,” it sounds a lot like “Once upon a time.” Many interpreters of this vision have followed in that line of reasoning by claiming it is beyond our reality and beyond our capacity. While it is clear that this vision speaks beyond its current reality it does not remove responsibility from human beings.
In this vision the people and nations have two specific roles to play. The first action of the people is this: “Peoples shall stream to (The mountain of God), and many nations shall come and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” God does not force them to come. The people and nations come to God on their own accord. Once the people of all nations learn the ways of God they: “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” This future vision is not about human passivity. It is a beautiful vision of peacemaking which comes as a result of obedience to God.
What makes this vision so amazing is that Micah knew the horrors of war first hand. The war faced by Micah was not half a world away. He was not insulated from the death and collateral damage. Yet, in the face of the reality of war, he knew that God had another plan, and was willing to share it. These words from the prophet stand as living testimony to hope and peacemaking.
Being peacemakers, in the tradition of Micah and as followers of the Prince of Peace, means that we are called to say; no, to violence “out there.” But it also means that we are called to say; no, to violence in this community of faith, in our families, and inside of ourselves. It means we must struggle against our human instinct and childish inclination to define who is “in” and who is “out.” It means we will have to give up the nonsense that “if you are not with us, you are against us,” and instead listen to Jesus who says: “Whoever is not against us is for us.” This may seem foolish in our world, but this is the way of the believer, it is the way of a peacemaker, it is the way of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)