JESUS AND THE GRUMBLING DINNER GUESTS

I was ordained into the Lutheran ministry in 1974, so I’m closing in on 40 years of studying the Word of God both privately and in public.  You’d think I’d have seen everything these texts have to offer.  Not so.  Last Wednesday, as I write this, was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent.  And this is the year of Mark.  So on the Wednesdays of Lent, we are reading through Mark 14 and 15 as we count down the days until Easter.  The text was Mark 14:1-11.

Here’s the text as the Revised Standard Version has it:  “It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread.  And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him; for they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people.” 

And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the jar and poured it over his head.  But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment thus wasted?  For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor.”  And they reproached her.  But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her?  She has done a beautiful thing to me.  For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me.  She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.  And truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”

Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them.  And when they heard it they were glad, and promised to give him money.  And he sought an opportunity to betray him.  [Mark 14:1-11 RSV]

I have highlighted the words indicating the value of the ointment – something called nard – which the woman poured over Jesus’ head.  Looking at the Greek, “more than three hundred denarii” is a literal translation.  A footnote in my RSV tells me that “The denarius was worth about twenty cents.”  Doing the math, the total is $60.00, which seems like a lot to pay for perfume, but is nowhere near correct.  Perhaps it was this footnote that kept me from the full import of what Jesus said next, but another Gospel, Matthew, tells us in chapter 20 that a denarius was the amount some day laborers agreed upon for a day’s work in a vineyard. 
 

Yes, it’s a story Jesus told, but scholars verify that a day of labor was worth a denarius in Jesus’ time.  Suddenly, this little coin is worth, not twenty cents, but more than 300 days’ labor.  Subtracting Sabbaths and holy days, that’s nearly a year of work.  What is your annual salary?  What is the annual income of a day laborer today?  That’s the amount that could have been given to the poor if Jesus’ fellow guests had been able to wrest the nard or the money away from the woman.  But they couldn’t.  It was her nard to do with as she wanted, and she wanted to pour it on Jesus’ head.  And Jesus commended her action.

But there’s more!  Jesus not only commended the woman; he chastised the grumblers.  I wonder if they got it.  “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me,” Jesus said.  All too often only the first phrase of this statement is quoted:  “You always have the poor with you.”  But this misses Jesus’ point.  His point is what comes next:  “and whenever you will, you can do good to them.”  [emphasis mine]  It’s Jesus saying in today’s language:  “Hey guys, use your own money to take care of the poor.  Don’t tell this woman what she should do.  Worry about your own righteousness.  Let her worry about hers!”  To those who would use the wealthy woman’s money to do good to the poor, Jesus said it was up to them to do their own good to the poor.  And they could do it any time they wanted.

This lesson was an excellent way to begin Lent, 2012 – or any year for that matter.  Thank you to Mark [and to Jesus] for a reminder to forego coveting others’ possessions and see to a responsible and charitable use of our own.

What I said at my mother's funeral.

This is what I preached at my mother’s memorial service in 2005.

Meditation on John 3:16

for mom’s Memorial Service

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”                      -- John 3:16

Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from our Lord and blessed Savior, Jesus Christ.  Amen

Thank you for coming.  Your presence today is a great blessing to Dad and to all of us in the family.  It is also a tribute to a woman who lived her life in light of these words of Jesus – words that have been called “The Gospel in a Nutshell.” 

When Nicodemus came to Jesus to find out more about this wise teacher and miracle worker, Jesus’ answer included some themes that are both simple and difficult.  They were, in fact, something of a bad news/good news story.

Jesus told Nicodemus that all is not well with us humans.  Far from being OK just as we are, there is something wrong.  I’d like to ask you to think about that for a moment.  In fact, look at the person on your right.  Now look at the person on your left.  Do you know them?  Is it, perhaps, someone you love?  That’s wonderful if it’s true.  What is also true is that there’s something wrong with them, something dreadfully wrong.  That was Jesus’ bad news to Nicodemus: “You cannot enter God’s kingdom unless you are born again.”

Nicodemus didn’t understand, of course, and as the conversation continued, Jesus explained very clearly what he meant.  And then he went on to impart the Good News: the Gospel news that “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  Thus we call John 3:16 the Gospel (Good News) in a nutshell.

Let’s crack open this nut to see just what’s inside.  “God so loved the world…”  Jesus begins with God and God’s love for the whole creation, including you and the persons sitting next to you.  Do you know them pretty well?  God knows them better.  God knows you better than you know yourself.  And contrary to all that’s reasonable, God still loves you.  He made you.  He knows you.  He loves you.  That’s the first thing you have to know today.  But it’s not the last.

God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.  God so loved the world that he gave.  Here Jesus speaks of a gift.  And actual gifts are undeserved.  “You shouldn’t have,” people say when we “surprise” them with a gift.  They’re right!  If I should have, it wouldn’t be a gift!  It would be an obligation.  God did not have to love us.  He did not have to give us Jesus his only Son.  But God did – give us Jesus.  And there’s one more aspect to this Gospel in a nutshell:  what is our response?

“… He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  There are so many possible responses to God’s loving gift, and today we hear them all – shrilly shouted from courtrooms, government halls, newspaper rooms and pulpits throughout this God-blessed land of ours.  “I have my rights!”  “Why did God let this happen to me?”  “I can live/act/believe any way I want to!”  “You can’t tell me what to do/ what to believe/ what to say.” 

And still God loves us – offering his most precious possession – his own, dear, one-of-a-kind, only-begotten Son.  “Think again,” he cries.  “Give Jesus another look!”  “Don’t cut yourself out of real joy both now and forever.  I love you.  Please accept my gift to you.  Accept my gift.  Please …”

Mom heard and believed and lived that Gospel all her life.  For one week less than 60 years, she partnered with dad to proclaim that Gospel with her life.  Dad’s gifts were preaching and teaching.  Hers was helping – helping him and countless others whose path crossed hers.  Helping family and friends, neighbors and strangers.  Living “the Gospel in a nutshell” in a life.

Please don’t get me wrong.  Mom wasn’t perfect.  She’d be the first to say so.  But she was forgiven.  She knew that God loved her; that God had given his Son for her; so that she would not perish, but have everlasting life.  God offers that same promise to you that Mom accepted for herself.  Believe in God’s love.  Accept Jesus as your Savior.  Inherit the kingdom prepared for you – the kingdom Mom is enjoying now … and forever, Amen.

Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong?

                I saw a bumper sticker the other day.  It read, “Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong?”   I copied it down and put it into Google to see what I could find, and sure enough, lots of people have “liked” it, and lots have not.  I’ll be another who does the second.  Quite simply, the bumper sticker is nonsense because in this simple sentence, the word ‘kill’ or ‘killing’ is used incorrectly in place of two different words.  The two words are ‘execute’ and ‘murder’, and when we substitute them for ‘kill’ in the obvious way, the bumper sticker loses its meaning.

                Assuming that the “we” in “Why do we…” is society and not some vigilante, person or group, the first meaning of ‘kill’ is “execute.”  Our society goes to great lengths to protect the rights of people accused of killing others – rights to a fair trial, to a competent defense attorney, to a jury of one’s peers, to confront one’s accuser, and to appeal and appeal and appeal.  Many say that the whole judicial process is so bogged down in protecting those rights that by the time a convicted murderer is finally executed, justice has been denied.  But justice is more flagrantly denied when murderers are permitted to live out their natural life.  Then we are saying that the victim’s life is of so little worth that the highest punishment we will permit is the loss of freedom for as long as the murderer shall live. 

                Many in our judicial system hold to the view that it is proper to allow many murderers to go free in order to make sure than no innocent person is executed.  This may seem like an admirable position unless one considers the value of the life of the victim.  Then a more appropriate goal would be to make sure that only guilty people are punished and all innocent people are set free.

                The second time ‘kill’ is used it’s in the phrase, “killing people,” and here the dishonesty or foolishness of the statement is plain for all to see.  Killing people can take many forms: self defense; killing by a soldier in war time; a traffic accident not caused by negligence; also mechanical failure of an airplane, automobile or other vehicle that leads to accidental death.  Let’s not forget the execution of a convicted murderer – this too is killing a person.  There are many instances of “killing people” that do not result in a murder conviction and a sentence of death, and there should be.  Murder, in fact, is the only sort of killing for which our legal system in many states reserves execution. 

                Murder is never, by definition, justified.  Murder is planned, deliberate, unjustified taking of another person’s life.  If someone is convicted of murder, and the evidence holds true after many appeals and reexaminations, and if it took place in the right state, then we properly execute them precisely to punish them for murdering someone and also to show that murder is not permitted in our society.  We also execute them for two other reasons: to prevent them from doing it again, and to make clear to persons contemplating murder that they could forfeit their life if they proceed with their evil plans and are found out and convicted of murder.

                As a Lutheran pastor, I teach, among other things, Luther’s Catechism to youth and to adults.  The Catechism begins with a discussion of The Ten Commandments, and the other day we were reading about the fifth commandment, which, the way Lutherans count them is “You shall not murder.”  This command, coming from God through Moses the Lawgiver, clearly prohibits only one sort of killing:  murder.  This prohibition leads us to turn our attention to the final misuse in the bumper sticker of the word ‘kill’.  That is the phrase, “…killing people is wrong.”  Killing people isn’t always wrong unless it’s murder.  And not all killing is murder as indicated above.  Remember?  We have only to think self-defense, accidents and, yes, execution of a murderer.  

                Murder, though,  is always wrong, and as such it is completely appropriate for murderers to be punished – including being executed.  Here’s the bumper sticker again:   “Why do we kill people for killing people to show that killing people is wrong?”  Now make the substitutes:  “Why do we execute people for murdering people to show that murdering people is wrong?”  Now we have a question that is not ambiguous, and  the answer is obvious.

                At least that’s my opinion.  What is yours?

DON'T SHOULD ON ME

            The word ‘should’ has become something of an all-purpose word these days.  Only from the context can we know whether it is being used to express moral imperative, community agreement or individual preference.  One thing is certain though.  People seem to be using ‘should’ more and more.  Even when the word isn’t used, the meaning can be smuggled in.

            What do you do when someone “shoulds” on you?  Ask a question.  Asking a question is almost always a better strategy than making a statement.  Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason ministry calls the strategy of asking certain questions “The Columbo Tactic, in honor of Lieutenant Columbo of the T.V. series of the same name.  (read his explanation here:  http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6879 )  He recommends it in many circumstances as a way of keeping the temperature down in an otherwise likely-to-be-heated conversation.

            Confronted by someone’s announcement that you should (or should not) do something, here’s the Columbo question:  “What do you mean by that?”  In asking the question that way, you’re indicating that you don’t understand which meaning of ‘should’ is being used.  Is the person saying it’s morally wrong to do that?  Are they saying it’s illegal to do it?  Are they saying it’s unwise?  Or are they merely expressing their personal disapproval of your action?

            Once you know which usage of ‘should’ is being employed – whether your critic considers you action to be immoral, illegal, foolish or personally offensive – you are able to continue the conversation with more precision.

            Occasionally, a friend who tells you that you shouldn’t do something actually has your best interest at heart.  They really care about you, and care enough to risk your friendship by telling you something you need to hear.  Even as you seek to avoid being “should” on by others, it is wise to keep your ears and heart open to those occasions when someone does so because they love you.  Friends like that are rare, and should be cherished beyond measure.  

            Oops!  There’s that ‘should.’

BRINGING YOU THE WEATHER

            This may seem an odd topic with which to begin a blog on religion and other issues, but read please before you make up your mind.  I’ve been bothered for a few years now by the change in language from our weather reporters here in Los Angeles, trying to decide if the new language is deliberate or not.

            I’m speaking about the evolution in the meaning of the phrase, “bringing you the weather.”  Back when Dr. George Fischbeck, a fellow Lutheran by the way, used to bring us the weather, what he was bringing was clearly the weather report.  He was reporting what meteorological findings indicated the weather was most likely to be – tomorrow, the day after, and even for the next week.  He was bringing the report.

            But that was then and this is now.   Now the dapper weather man Dallas Raines on Channel 7, or the attractive weather babe, Jackie Johnson on Channel 2, appears to take personal credit for the warm and delightful weekend we’re about to have, and even for the 60% chance of rain we so desperately need.   In recent years, “We’re bringing you a warming trend,” has been replaced by “We’re warming up the weekend for you,” or similar claims to control what we cannot yet control.  It may seem a subtle difference, but the difference matters.

            The weather is caused by a variety of meteorological circumstances completely beyond the control of meteorologists’ manipulation.  Weather reporters report the weather; they don’t make or bring or change it.  They simply don’t have that power.  The Bible tells us that God does have that power.  Though he usually appears not to directly intervene, whether it’s Jesus calming the storm or God sending a tempest to stop Jonah from running away from his prophetic assignment at Nineveh, controlling the weather is God’s province, not ours.

            So when the reporting language changes from “bringing you the weather” to “warming up the weekend” or “bringing us much-needed rain,” it seems like one more slide toward taking credit for things over which we have no control.  I’m not asking for weather reporters to give God the credit – or blame – for tomorrow’s weather.  I’m just asking them not to take it themselves.

            And when we say our nightly prayers, let’s thank God for today’s beautiful weather and ask God, not Johnny Mountain, for a nice beach day tomorrow.  I still haven’t decided if there’s some deliberate co-opting of God’s area of responsibility going on, but I’m still thinking about it.  I hope you now are too.

                                                                                     -- Pastor Mees