Past Articles from 2004 until last year. Many important lessons can be found in each of these articles.
Mickey Yost shared an interview with me which was featured in the August issue of Washingtonian (pp.24-27). It was titled “The Outsider” and contained an interview by Mary Clare Fleury of Tom Reese, a Jesuit, and Senior Fellow at Georgetown University’s Woodstock Theological Center. It focused on the sexual abuse scandals persistently in the news, the role of women, the status of gays and lesbians, abortion and birth control. Most if not all of these topics led naturally to a question about allowing priests to marry. His answer was interesting:
For 1000 years the Church had a married priesthood…Jesus chose married men. The issue we’re starting to see now is that we don’t have enough priests to serve the community. If we don’t have enough priests, we don’t have the Eucharist. We become a Bible church, and we’ve always been something more than that.
I don’t know what Mr. Reese means by “Bible church.” He could be referring to the kind of Calvinist-cum-pop culture mega-stop congregation that combines all the charm of a convention-center, and a neighborhood-gym. If so, we share a similar disdain, if not a similar theology. I suspect he means exactly what he seems to mean – a Bible-based, Bible-only church.
That would not be a surprise. A Priest friend of mine back in Ohio use to say to me, “Now Barry, if this devolves into question of book-chapter-and-verse, you know you will win that argument.” Another friend, a lay-leader, used to ask me to recommend good material for small group study. I invariably offered up books of the Bible. She always replied “You know we’re not into Bible study.” Amazing.
But I am not concerned about taking Catholicism to task. I am concerned about us.
All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete – thoroughly equipped for every good work. II Timothy 3.16-17
Paul makes two claims about scripture. The first is that it is alive with the breath of God. It is God-breathed (inspired). He is its source. He quickens it with the same part of Himself that gives us life. The second thing Paul claims about scripture is that it is all we need. We don’t need “something more.”
And yet we often feel we do,
I am so glad, and believe we are greatly blessed, to have the wisdom of thoughtful men and women preserved for us on the printed page. What an advantage it is to be able to pick the brains of those more intelligent than I by picking up their books.
But there is only one book that is alive with the breath of God. There is only one book which is His voice. Only one book with everything we need. There is no need for “something more.”
I am not asking that we stop reading good commentaries, great histories, reference or devotional works, fiction, or the funny papers. I am arguing, entreating, and cajoling that we feast on the Word of God. The Bible must be our life’s focus, our intellectual passion, our soul’s support. For it alone is equipped to fill these roles.
It alone equips us – fully.
We don’t usually listen well. This assumption underlies a good portion of the Sermon on the Mount – specifically the “You have heard it said….but I say unto you” section (Matthew 5.21-48). In it Jesus indicts the teachers his day for misrepresenting the word of God so grossly that they actually taught the opposite of what God wills. This distortion comes from not listening for the will of God as it is communicated in the Law of God.
We sometimes don’t listen to Jesus well – even when we are trying. Jesus demands throughout the Sermon on the Mount that we assert goodness: “blessed are the peacemakers” (5.9), “let your light shine” (5.16), “love your enemies” (5.44), “ask…seek…knock” (7.7-8) “do for others what you would have others do for you (7.12), “not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom, but he who does the will of my father” (7.21). Whatever else the Sermon on the Mount is, it is a call to act, to do, to assert.
Then there is : You have heard it said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” but I say to you , do not resist him who is evil, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,” (5.38-39). As a young man I was taught that this meant we were to back down, acquiesce, give-in. As a young minister I sometimes taught this. A cursory listen might lead us to assume this is what Jesus is saying, but let’s really listen.
You have heard it said, “An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” The principle Jesus is rejecting is the notion that we are obligated to return in kind, to meet each act with a commensurate act. But I say unto you, do not resist him who is evil. Here is where we have to listen closely. Jesus cannot be saying we should capitulate to evil. He spends the entire sermon telling us to assert goodness. The word “resist” literally means “to stand against,” “to stand as an opponent,” – like boxers in a ring. If the standard Jesus is rejecting is the obligation to return in kind, then certainly he would forbid our getting in the ring with an evil person, to slug it out on his terms, and on his turf (to mix a metaphor). We are not to overcome evil with evil, we are to overcome evil with good (Romans 12.17,21). We are, however, instructed to defeat evil. Besides, our battle is not against humans at all, but against the devil (Ephesians 6.12).
But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Let us listen closely. To offer the left cheek is to demonstrate our willingness and ability to receive an even stronger blow – since most people are right handed. To turn the other cheek, one has to stand up, and stand one’s ground. No one can turn the other cheek who has cowered down, capitulated, or run away. It is an impossibility. The only way to turn the other cheek is to stand your ground, and to refuse to let him who is evil dictate the terms of the confrontation. To turn the other cheek is to take control, to assert goodness.
It would be helpful if we had a real life example of such an encounter, where God’s man (preferably Jesus) does, indeed, turn the other cheek. Thankfully, one is given to us:
….. “Why do you question me? Question those who have heard what I spoke to them. They know what I said.” When he had said this, one of the officers standing by him, struck him, saying, “Is that the way you answer the High Priest?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness of the wrong; but if rightly, why did you strike me?” John 18.19-23
This, friends, is turning the other cheek. Jesus does not strike back. Jesus does not back down. Jesus brings the truth to bear. If we are his disciples, we will do likewise.
My head is small and lumpy. Somehow, though, I’ve managed. There are disadvantages (grave disadvantages) to having an under-sized, and irregular pate. One is that shaving your head is not really an option. I look at guys with a perfect dome, and envy them the way I used to envy guys that were a few inches taller. Also, one never looks good in a hat. Fedoras, Homburgs, Ten-Gallons, Ball-Caps, Derbys, Riding Caps, even Yarmulkes only accentuate the comparative smallness and irregularity of my capo, and I end up looking like someone closely related to Abe Vigoda.
For some reason, that is not true about a Tri-corn hat. I can really wear a Tri-corn hat – and I have a nice one. The thing is, although I’ve waited, and waited, they have never come back into style. For years, my only opportunity to wear a Tri-corn hat has been on trips to Colonial Williamsburg. It seems that now even that opportunity has been taken from me.
Because, the Tri-corn hat has make a come-back of sorts, as a symbol of the Tea Party movement. When the news media covers one of the many rallies held by the Tea Party it seems half the men, many of the women and children, and even a few of the dogs are wearing Tri-corn hats. So I guess I’ll go sans chapeau for a while, lest my headgear associate me with a group I am not associated with.
I’ve been to congregations where the Bible you carried identified you as clearly as a Tri-corn hat at a political rally. At one congregation it was not enough to carry a fat KJV – it had to be a Dickson Study Bible. I’ve visited congregations where lack of a jacket on Sunday morning, lack of a tie on Sunday night, and a pair of blue-jeans at any service identified one as lacking in true conviction.
We seem to naturally find trinkets and symbols that identify, and divide. We want to know what group you are in, and want you to know what group we are in. When we have clearly delineated our group, we set about the task of subdividing. When Thomas Campbell brought his family to America from Scotland at the end of the 18thCentury, he was not just a Christian, not just a Protestant, not just a Presbyterian – he was a New-Light/Anti-Burgher/ Presbyterian. He and his son Alexander were not satisfied with the situation, and so they, along with like-minded others began a movement to restore New Testament Christianity – to become Christians only.
Judaism in the 1stCentury had parties. Pharisees were Jews. Sadducees were Jews. Herodians were Jews. Zealots were Jews. Christians had no parties. There is one Lord. There is one Faith (Ephesians 4.5). The truth was “once for all” delivered to us (Jude 3). “Factions” or “parties” are one of the “deeds of the flesh” listed in Galatians 6.19-20.
With football season, and a political season gearing up I wanted to remind us that we are not many. We are one – One Family, One Body, One Flock. To subdivide that One into parties – political, or otherwise, is against the will of God.
So last Sunday night I was watching the Pittsburg Steelers play Tim Tebow, and switching over to the Emmy Awards during the 17 minute commercial breaks. During one of those forays I saw, preparatory to presenting the award for “Best Reality Show,” a montage of “The Year in Reality.” I know that reality programming is cheap to produce and popular with viewers, but hadn’t considered the sheer volume of reality programming currently on television.I noticed that this really isn’t one category, but at least four. There are the shows where washed-up celebrities embarrass themselves for ordinary people (Celebrity Apprentice, Celebrity Rehab), the shows where ordinary people embarrass themselves for washed up celebrities (So You Think You Can Dance, America’s Got Talent), shows that put groups of people into wildly contrived situations (Survivor, Big Brother) and shows that take you behind the scenes of some sort of specialized endeavor (American Logger, Dirty Jobs).
I also noticed that the word “reality” is an ill-fitting moniker for this genre of programming. How many of us, during the normal course of a normal day eat grub worms, do a quick-step with a professional dancer, jump into a rotating bowl of shaving cream, or take a zip-line through and equatorial rain forest? How many of us will ever do these things?
I have long thought that “reality” ought only to be used for programs that take us into the regular course of a normal endeavor - the “Animal Cops” series on Animal Planet, for instance. But then, doesn’t the very introduction of the camera change the dynamic of everything? Even if the Green Channel put on a show called “American Composters” (maybe they already do, I don’t watch the Green Channel) the very act of filming someone dumping their lawn clippings and banana peels takes doing such out of the realm of reality. Who has a film crew following them around when they dump the bagger onto the compost heap?
“Reality TV” is an oxymoron. TV isn’t real – even TV news (perhaps especially TV news). You want reality, read the Bible.
You want to know what it is like to try to manage sibling rivalry (Jacob and Esau), or what it is like to be a new widow with an aging mother-in-law to care for (Ruth), or how you handle being a pregnant teen (Mary, mother of Jesus), or what it is like to feel cold and alone in jail (Paul), or how to handle a mother who isn’t good with your career choice (Jesus), or surviving the aftermath of an adulterous relationship (David), or what it is like to lose everything you’ve built in your life (Job)? Read the Bible.
The Bible is real. It is about real people, who speak the way real people speak, and react the way real people react – away from the cameras. These real people struggle, strive, and often succeed in being obedient to God against terrible opposition. Mostly, the Bible is about God, who is real, cares, and who intercedes.
You want fantasy? Watch TV.
You want reality? Read the Bible.
And of the two, which is necessary for our survival?
Which is worthy of our time?
The Ten Commandments are brief – brief enough to fit on two tablets. The Ten Commandments are thorough – covering our relationships with God and each other. The Commands, individually, are terse: “You shall have no other god before Me,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not commit adultery,” etc…There is one exception, however. One command of the ten which gets detailed explanation. It is the command to keep the Sabbath.
When one grows up in the Church of Christ, one rarely learns more about Sabbath-keeping than that the New Testament doesn’t command it. Any discussion of the Sabbath almost always begins and ends with the arguments against Seventh Day Adventism. It is also common to be reminded that it is inaccurate to call Sunday the Sabbath, because the Sabbath was the seventh day, and Sunday is the first day of the week.
God takes the time to explain in detail why he commands respect for the Sabbath.
In both Exodus 20, and Deuteronomy 5 the reasons why Sabbath keeping is important are clearly and thoroughly communicated.
Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath of Yahweh your God. You shall not do any work – you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them. He rested on the seventh day, therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20.8-11
The reason God commands the Jews to keep the Sabbath, is because He kept it. It is a matter of respect for God as creator. Notice how the command makes a circle – it begins with the command “keep it holy” and ends with “made it holy.” God made the seventh day holy (set apart, special) because he rested on this day. To “rest” just means to stop, to not be in motion. That is the meaning of the Hebrew word Shabbat. There is no suggestion here that God is all tuckered-out. He stopped on the seventh day. So they stop on the seventh day. It is a matter of respect for God’s prerogative, his control over time generally, and our time specifically because He is the Creator of all.
There is a second reason the Jews are commanded to keep the Sabbath - because humans do get all tuckered-out. We need rest.
Observe the Sabbath Day to keep it holy as Yahweh, your God, commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of Yahweh, your God. You shall not do any work – you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your ox, or your donkey, or any of your cattle, or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and female servant may rest with you. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt. And Yahweh, your God, brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore, Yahweh, your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath. Deuteronomy 5.12-15
Here, the reason for Sabbath keeping is rooted in the Exodus, not the Creation. Moses is speaking to a younger generation. Only Joshua and Caleb have any real remembrance of what it was to be a slave laborer in Egypt. Only Joshua and Caleb remember what it meant to be treated like beasts and not humans. Only Joshua and Caleb remember what it was like to be suddenly free. God made it so with a spectacular show of power. God doesn’t treat humans like beasts. These younger Jews must remember this past. Sabbath-keeping will remind them. Sabbath-keeping will prevent them from treating their children, their servants, even their animals this way.
It is true that observance of the Sabbath, as commanded by God in Mosaic Law is specific to the Mosaic period. It is not commanded in the New Testament, and there is no evidence in scripture that before the Sinai experience, God expected his people to observe this particular day. The reasons behind the command remain applicable to us. We must respect God’s absolute authority. We must respect our own need for rest and respect that need in others. This, for us, is Sabbath-keeping.
