October 01, 2006

todays sermon...talking about salvation...

Mark 9:38-50
9:38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 9:39 But Jesus said, "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. 9:40 Whoever is not against us is for us. 9:41 For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward. 9:42 "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea. 9:43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 9:45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and to be thrown into hell. 9:47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, 9:48 where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched. 9:49 "For everyone will be salted with fire. 9:50 Salt is good; but if salt has lost its saltiness, how can you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."


Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer.

I had the great fortune last night to preside over the marriage of two of my friends. We celebrated it at the Garfield Park Conservatory. It is a lovely place. If you have not taken the opportunity to go there and enjoy the greenhouses yet, I hope that you will some day.

The service went well. Almost the entire wedding party is involved in theater somehow. So they all take direction very well. I am told that my sermon went well...and I can tell you that the paperwork is in the mail. Simon and Allison are actually married. So, all in all, the service was a success.

I am sleep deprived, but the service was lovely.

One thing, however, that happens to me whenever I get together with my friends and their relatives for such an occasion is that I spend most of the evening talking about the church...being Christian and who is saved and who is not. I know you may be thinking that this is impossible, but when you stand around at a wedding reception having just outted yourself as a professional Jesus freak, you may find yourself talking about these things too...and particularly with people who claim no religious affiliation or are dissatisfied with their own somehow. It's not particularly relaxing. But it is interesting.

Mostly, however, it is entertaining. People make jokes about a Baptist minister who dances...and not particularly well. A gentleman with one or two too many cocktails usually poses a difficult theological question about, well, last night it was about predestination and the theology of John Calvin. So, I lucked out. He asked the one question I actually have an answer for. Of course, I don't know if he'll remember the answer...and I am not sure that I want him to. It was late and I was not making much sense.

But almost all the questions I am asked center around the issue of salvation and purity. People want to know who is in and who is out and most importantly, they want to know why. What reasons do any of us, especially us Christians, give for suggesting that someone is out?

It is like they see the church as the last few moments of the TV show, Project Runway, where the hostess, Heidi Klum, tells the contestant literally "you are out."

Inquiring minds want to know. Bright, creative, soulful people want to know...what does it mean to be saved?

Today's Gospel is about salvation.

With so many references to life or eternal flame, how can it be about anything else?

It is about how one understands the ins and outs of salvation...about who is saved and how they are saved.

And from what I know about the some of us in the American church in the Twenty-first century, even the mere mentioning of the word "salvation" can send us into a philosophical tailspin. We want to know the context, the purpose and the end goal intended by the use of such a word. And for each person who works this through in their mind, a new and nuanced definition will come to the fore.

And what often happens in mainline protestant congregations is that we either turn our collective backs on the term as too laden with confusion and the possibility of doing harm to be useful. Or we nuance it into harmlessness and in turn uselessness.

I understand this urge. I do. I often respond to it. Heck, even in composing this sermon, I found myself wanting to avoid it entirely. “Please, O please, God, don't let this sermon be about salvation.” I drafted a couple of sermons trying to avoid it...but to no avail.

I know from my own faith journey that salvation is a troublesome term.

Do I feel saved?
Do I know somehow that I am saved?
Have I divined it somehow?
Does someone else have to put a stamp of approval upon my forehead
like a celestial Food and Drug Administration?

I personally wondered if there were a series of hoops I was supposed to jump through in order to be saved. I tried quite a few of them. I refused some offers of salvation. Honestly. I also prayed the prayer and looked up the verse. I gave up this and took up that. I did. But I think that in all that fuss and bother I never really encountered salvation. Not really.

But there is hope. Yes, brothers and sisters, there is hope even for people like me that salvation might be found. Because here in Mark's Gospel today we find that the disciples themselves struggle with the notion of who is saved and who is not; who is in and who is out.

So, Jesus is hanging out with the guys...proclaiming the Word of God when John runs up and says "Jesus, you will never guess what is going on! Someone we don't know is casting out demons in your name! What cheek! What gall! So we tried to stop him."

And here comes the unexpected.

"You did what? You tried to stop them?!"

And the hyperbole rolls down like thunder. Not only should the disciples not stop these people but it would be better if they were to tie a millstone around their necks and throw themselves into the sea.

Have any of you seen a millstone? I'm not exactly sure what a first century millstone looked like, but I know what the 17th century millstone looked like and it was big. Heavy does not begin to describe it. When I read this passage I always imagine that it would take several people to help me do this thing...maybe a horse would have to help. And I always find it funny to imagine somehow...in some cartoon-ish way.

Jesus says that these people, these unknown faithful, the ones outside the clique, are promised grace. In fact, suggests Jesus, even people who give them water are worthy of the same reward as the disciples are.

But I get the point. Don't knock others who claim Jesus. Go to the bottom of the nearest body of water and stay there. Right.

Lovely.

But as if this were not enough...Jesus continues.

Cripple yourself.
Deform yourself.
Blind yourself.

Now, put on your hyperbole caps. This is exaggeration. Exaggeration or hyperbole was often employed as a rhetorical tool by preachers and teachers in the time of Christ. So try not to fall into the trap of literalism. But don't dismiss the exaggeration either. This is a pointed exaggeration. According to Mark, Jesus wants us to pay special attention here.

"Sit up and listen," says Mark. "Are you ready?"

Whoever is not against us is for us.

I don't know about you all, but I read that and it sort of falls flat. Okay, Mark. Thanks for that. I appreciate it, but later on here you mention that I need to chop off my foot. I find this idea somewhat off-putting. Can we talk about it in stead?

Whoever is not against us is for us.

Maybe it is just me. Maybe I am the one who does not quite understand hyperbole. This is entirely possible. But in today's passage, I am convinced that hyperbole is the name of the game. There is something hidden in the use of it and it is intended to take us directly back to this statement of Christ's...

Whoever is not against us is for us.

It is so important for us to be wise when we read scripture...to come to it as children...with an open imagination and a willingness to be changed and enter into the tale being spun before us. It is this kind of wisdom the reading of scripture demands.

I forget this from time to time. I forget that faith and scripture are demanding in this particular way. I keep looking for some Extreme Sports/X-Games kind of difficulty. I want rigor! Give me something fit for Superman. I can do it! Triple Lutz? No problem. I am ready.

Well, I want rigor until I encounter the truly rigorous. Then I am trying to find a way to nuance it all. But Mark won't let that happen. Even in the nuances he gives us a difficult task...a challenging marker of faith and action.


***

What is so difficult and misleading about this passage is that it appears to be about the things we must do in order to be saved. All this talk about cutting and such is distracting. And that is certainly the world view of many who would have herd this word from Christ. But this is why Jesus speaks of the body and maiming it or blinding ourselves. Much of first century Judaism was centered around and within notions of bodily purity.

People were...and likely still are...concerned with physical purity.

People with physical deformities were not always welcomed to the Temple or into society at all. Lepers were shunned because of the contagious nature of their disease and the physical deformity it brought along with it. Being physically whole was the same as being spiritually whole. In fact, it was commonly held that if you were not physically whole, you may not ever be spiritually whole.

You all know how it is. We still do this. Now it is not the religious leadership that speaks of physical purity so loudly. It is a marketing agency somewhere. Physical purity is often the name of the game. Comeliness. Fitness. Beauty.

If we are honest, we have to admit that in many ways our culture is still a culture based on notions of purity...and its "saving nature." We still think in terms of who is in and who is out...what is cool and what is not, what is profitable and what is not, what is worthy of our attention and time and what is not...what is good...and what is not...

There is such a thing as physical purity. And it is not about ability or disability.
And it is not all bad.
It is in fact part of our coming closer to God.
There is such a thing as treating our bodies kindly.
We are often told that the body is a temple. Absolutely.
We cannot divorce the Spirit from the Body.

Actions like prayer and worship are physical actions that have a saving nature to them. They are embodied. Actions like giving and working with or for the poor are physical and have a saving nature to them. But there has to be a limit to how we understand these actions...the embodied faith. Otherwise we find ourselves in the same trouble that the disciples found themselves to be in. There has to be some overarching guideline...a purpose or telos...an end goal or a desired distinction.

Jorge Sanchez, a poet and teacher says this, "What good is purity if, in the end, you are no closer to God? What good is purity if, though you be saved, others are damned?"

If it shuts people out...turn back and let people in.
If it shuts people down...turn back and lift people up.
If it places at risk the well-being of another person...stand in their stead and put yourself on the line..
If it does not communicate...name it, claim it and give it voice.

If being who we are does not bring us into communion with others, then we are missing the mark.

We may even have stumbled upon something that is salvific.
But once it becomes its own end, then it becomes scandalous to God and all of us are somehow at risk.

Jesus' point may be that we want to stay pure...clean...sighted and mobile. We want to control who is in and who is out, who is welcomed and who is not...whom we identify ourselves with and whom we would rather not. But Jesus suggests that grace, identification and salvation are simply more complicated than that.

Salvation is brought by grace through faith, suggests Paul. That grace, suggests our passage from Mark, is found in our relationship with God in Christ.

I fear that this statement may have some of you fearful that the search committee messed up and called a fundamentalist Christian by mistake.

But grace, and this is the cornerstone of our salvation, as found in Christ is a wide open invitation, opportunity and participation in salvation. Salvation is not predicated, as the disciples discovered, upon membership in the inner circle. It is not predicated on physical purity. These things are means of salvation, perhaps, but in the end they are not what saves us. Grace saves us. God's grace and love save us.

It is the grace of God that saves us.
This passage is actually about God's grace.
It is wide and bold and encompasses the world. And it is, according to how I understand my friends at the wedding, an integral part of being human. Salvation is something that people actually think about and struggle with.

And whoever is not against us, brothers and sisters, is for us.

Grace is not something that can be hoarded by any one community. It cannot be contained in any one ritual. True ritual and true communities serve as conduits for grace, and reveal it to the world. True community and true ritual purify and sanctify the whole world and not just a chosen few...(This was the crux of my answer to the gentleman who wanted to know about John Calvin and predestination.).

We, brothers and sisters, perhaps we are thinking that we have somehow avoided a trap by not talking about salvation...by not using the word...by not actively naming what we are working out. But I wonder now if we have avoided one trap only to fall into another.

The mistake we are perhaps making is that of omission. We don't talk about salvation and we pray that is a better approach than claiming we have cornered the market on it. But it is just not so. I more and more believe that people are talking about it and we are missing an opportunity...not simply an opportunity to increase the rolls of a congregation, but an opportunity to proclaim God's grace...to let them in on the salvation we have found in God.

Whoever is not against us is for us.


***

A better translation of the phrase "causes you to stumble" may be "scandalizes." The Greek word is skandalon (skandalon) which should sound familiar enough to us*. Scandalous. And what is more scandalous than the person who is on the outside somehow finding their way to the inside? The high school outcast sitting at table with the cool kids...Perhaps it is finding out that there is no outside in the first place...except the one we create for ourselves. And by not communicating what we think of salvation...and I know we think about it, I have to ask if we are actually keeping people on the outside.

Please forgive me if I am overstepping my roll here. But this is more and more a real concern for me...not just here, but in all our churches.

My fear is that by not communicating clearly, we are creating a scandal. And I know that this is the exact opposite of our intention. We are trying to be generous. But to be generous we have to give something...we have to hand over something...being generous is not simply avoiding being stingy.

God's grace is generous. It is tremendously generous. All one need do is give a glass of water to someone following Christ. That's all! Are we prepared to be vehicles of such salvation? Are we prepared to purify ourselves in this way? Can we give ourselves away so freely? Are we prepared to give ourselves away through conversation and debate? Are we prepared to give ourselves away by speaking of salvation to the world and, like Christ, suggest that there is a wideness in God's mercy? Are we prepared to give ourselves away by claiming our own language?

We are not in this work alone...Whoever is not against us is for us...We too receive God's grace.

When we joined AWAB, we were talking about salvation.
As we celebrate World Communion Sunday today, we are talking about salvation...how it is given to all...

But now I wonder...

...does anyone know?

*In their interpretation of Mark, John Donahue and Daniel Harrington both suggest this alternative translation.

Posted by tripp at October 1, 2006 07:44 AM
Comments

The sermon is lovely, but it leaves me with a question.

What do you and your congregation understand that people are being saved FROM?

Posted by: Megan at October 1, 2006 05:50 PM

Megan, thanks.

At Reconciler pople seem to go to a fairly traditional position here. There is a Hell...a place without God. Now, this group is a pretty heavy duty social justice focused bunch. So they tend to reserve Hell for those who intentially misuse the faith or people to do horrible things. I am still getting to know them in this way...like the sermon suggests, we don't talk about salvation. But as it stands I know Pinochet and Hitler...and perhaps the occasional CEO are s.o.l.

At CCW, I can't even begin to answer the question except that I imagine that many of them don't believe in Hell at all...so salvation is forced to be more ephemeral...and individual.

For me I believe that I am daily being saved from a life without God. I am not talking about my awareness of God, but my attentiveness to God...in charity, "shalom," wholeness and peace. There are places in my life that are broken. I believe God desires to heal them. And as strange as it sounds, those hellish places in my life are godless...and sometimes I desire to keep them that way. Chalk one up for AA. No? That has done much to save me.

It's early and that is only the beginning of an answer. But I think that we may be leaving people out in the cold with little chance to discover peace and wholeness...or at the very least we have convinced people by our silence that the church is not the place where such can be found.

Posted by: Tripp at October 2, 2006 06:37 AM

The problem I have with salvation in the context of church is semantic, but part of what we are talking about is how words have been co-opted, so this shouldn't be a surprise. There is an implied message that life is bad, even at its best, and that it is something from which we must be "saved". Traditionally, wasn't salvation cast as simply the conquest of Christ over death and not as a need to be saved from the pain of an uninformed life?

The word is overvalued in this context. But, in the context of your own beliefs as stated, I think there is a real place for the word. I believe that the people we are trying to reach at CCW are the people for whom the traditional text of church carries way too much subtext. We are a bridge back to the feelings of rescue and comfort that God offers, but without the baggage of antiquated concepts like Hell. Of course, some would suggest that Earth is Hell. Even your comments point in that direction, in that it is easy to lose sight of God in our troubles, and life without God loses much of its meaning for believers. And none of this addresses what God gets out of being in relationship with us.

As always, we see through a glass darkly, and can only dream of a time when transparency will prevail.

Posted by: Rich at October 2, 2006 09:02 AM

I came to read up on what I missed when I rudely walked in late to your sermon. It has certainly gotten me to think.

I just wanted to take a quick moment to say how much I enjoyed sharing mass with your congregation. They are WONDERFUL people! I greatly enjoyed your sermon and I look forward to hearing another (from the start!) some time soon. Thank you for sharing your time with us. I enjoyed it a great deal!

Posted by: Chandos at October 2, 2006 10:52 AM

It was a good sermon. Strike that. It is a good sermon. I think that this verse is up for nominations in my personal canon (or canon within canon, if you prefer) for most influential (or something like that). You opened it up wonderfully and although we sat with James for one more week, I enjoyed being able to sit in this passage a couple of days after Sunday, when traffic is bad and sometimes it is best to clear the schedule and work from home.

Posted by: Jeffrey Moore at October 3, 2006 10:59 AM

That there is a hell is plain from scripture as you quoted so if members of CCW don't accept it I don't know how they can justify that.

That said, and this is not the same as universalism as a doctrine, a Catholic can believe *there possibly are no people there*. He also has to hold, as Jesus taught, that there is the terrifying possibility of sending oneself there.

Posted by: The young fogey at October 4, 2006 09:23 AM

YF,

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, Scripture is not the direct Word of God. It is divinely inspired, but it is also the manisfestation of the limited knowledge people had of the world at the time. Tripp and I have gone back and forth on the relative primitiveness of the thinking at the time, but I think that it it is clear that while the ability to reason may have been similar to that of our own, the starting point was different. They were trying to explain mysteries and came up with those answers. We still have metaphysical mysteries, but the world isn't flat and the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. Based on how people interpreted the physical world at the time, it is hard for me to believe that their understanding of God's world was much better.

That's a long winded way to say that I don't believe the Bible is without error. In contrast to your comment, I can't see how anyone can justify taking the Bible as consistently accurate. But I have a hunch we will simply need to agree to disagree. What I find interesting as an ex-Catholic myself, is the emphasis you place on Scripture. It was never the focus of Mass or Sunday School in my time. We would use the parables to teach the lessons of life, but Bible study, per se, was not a concept we knew. Things change.

Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2006 11:25 AM

Rich,

The Bible? 'Was ist dass?' You mean that lovely old book with all those quotations from the Missal?

Like the RC magisterium I can accept biblical criticism up to a point. The Bible is part of tradition but I didn't appeal to tradition here as I assumed I was writing primarily to Protestants. Whether they accept it as inerrant or not it is their main common point of reference, no?

The ancient Greeks knew the world was round. But you don't need to know that to know the unchanging truth in scripture.

In a way we're following different magisteria as I think we agree that scripture is not self-interpreting. I try to follow tradition.

And as scripture is an integral part of tradition it is of course a foundation of the Catholic faith (by which I don't necessarily mean RC - I was baptised Anglican), whatever deficiencies there were in your instruction as a boy (and you probably weren't the only one). Of course it's one of the focuses (foci to be pedantic) at Mass; that's what the two readings are, not to mention the propers (Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion and Post-Communion for example in the traditional Mass) which quote scripture. I admit that, living down to the stereotype of 'Catholics don't know the Bible' (and Anglicans probably don't fare much better in that I'm afraid), many Protestants are far more biblically literate than me, including graduates of theological colleges about which I've been less than kind in the past. I'm sure one of them could clean the floor with me in a Bible exam or even a trivia game (after the example of Ned Flanders).

I've taken the exam (old ones are online) that Presbyterian ministers (PCUSA) take to be approved for ordination. All I'll say is it was humbling, which is probably good. (And I went to theological college for a while but that was some time ago.)

Posted by: The young fogey at October 4, 2006 05:44 PM

YF,

Nice response.

I agree that we are starting from the same place. But I took your comment to imply that Hell must exist because the Scriptures says it does. That is what led me to the inerrancy point. I think tradition is a starting place. I simply cannot take it as a given without trying to give it context. I think there are unchanging truths in Scripture, but most of them are tied to God as expressed in love and caring.

I am not informed enough to understand the layers of meaning associated with "magisteria". Nor do I know what the "Missal" is, so I think I'm missing a joke.

I understand that Scripture is a foundation of Catholic worship, but it was pretty much the same scriptures over and over. There wasn't much analysis. Things may have changed there too.

Anyhow, thanks for the response. It's late and I need to hit the sack.

Posted by: Rich at October 5, 2006 12:38 AM

Rich,

'But I took your comment to imply that Hell must exist because the Scriptures says it does.'

That is what I meant - it's one of those truths in scripture that decides it for the Catholic faith. Not something that can be explained away by literary genre for example. Appealing to scripture isn't just for Protestants.

'I am not informed enough to understand the layers of meaning associated with "magisteria". Nor do I know what the "Missal" is, so I think I'm missing a joke.'

Magisterium (plural magisteria) = teaching authority. Missal = the book with the prayers and readings of the Mass in it.

No knock on you but this reminds me how little mainstream RCs and I have in common! (These are cultural references they don't understand any more.) I'm long used to that but thought you might know those, and I know that Anglicans read this blog and probably would get the joke about the Missal.

'I understand that Scripture is a foundation of Catholic worship, but it was pretty much the same scriptures over and over. There wasn't much analysis. Things may have changed there too.'

I agree with the priest who said a three-year lectionary, which mainline churches and RCs use now, means the people get acquainted with three times as much scripture but know it only a third as well.

A one-year cycle of readings is the good middle way between literally reading the same thing every week and 'too much information' to take in and retain.

Posted by: The young fogey at October 5, 2006 11:00 AM

OK, now that I'm awake, I do recognize the missal in that it appears to be the parent of the monthly missalette we used to use. We called it something different, although I have forgotten.

Phrasing my thoughts slightly differently, I believe that the Protestant faiths regard the Bible as a more central piece of their overall approach to faith, whereas my experience of the Roman Catholic tradition stuck to the Missal and did not lean toward exploration of the entire book.

I am not clear on your certitude about the existence of Hell. My justification is that the ethos of the community required a judgment that was a zero sum game. In or out. Heaven or Hell. I see it as incongruous with a God who is omnipotent and loving. We superimpose our image of parent on God, so God must be a disciplinarian and dole out the tough love. But a loving parent also wouldn't toss you out forever without giving you a clear redemptive opportunity. And, an omnipotent loving parent would not allow us to flounder around with our only guidance from a 2000 year old book full of contradictions. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I suggest that the context of the times allows us to pull the essence of the Gospel out without getting caught up in the sorting process. Once we filter the tradition, we can try to be more Christlike and less consumed with getting to Heaven or avoiding Hell. I see it as more proactive than reactive.

Posted by: Rich at October 5, 2006 11:07 AM

'Phrasing my thoughts slightly differently, I believe that the Protestant faiths regard the Bible as a more central piece of their overall approach to faith...'

I think I wrote that earlier - whether they believe it all literally or not, the Bible is central to Protestants.

'...whereas my experience of the Roman Catholic tradition stuck to the Missal and did not lean toward exploration of the entire book.'

That's not necessarily bad - better than trying to make sense of all the sex and violence in the Old Testament by yourself, which is dangerous to try. Not the same as forbidding study of it, which of course is not what the church teaches.

Belief in the terrifying possibility of going to hell is nothing to do with daddy issues! As I first wrote, you send yourself there. God is all-loving but we can refuse him. Free will you know.

'But a loving parent also wouldn't toss you out forever without giving you a clear redemptive opportunity.'

That 'clear redemptive opportunity' is what we've got here on earth right now.

'And, an omnipotent loving parent would not allow us to flounder around with our only guidance from a 2000 year old book full of contradictions.'

True. That's why he gave you the church!

Of course as motives loving God and your neighbour are better than wanting heaven and avoiding hell (echoing the Act of Contrition) but 'they'll do' to get you to heaven.

Posted by: The young fogey at October 5, 2006 12:26 PM