This sermon is
about a giant step in spiritual development and challenges me as
much as it may any of you. The creative believer who wrote the
gospel of Matthew's purpose was to convince Jewish people that Jesus
was superior to Moses and other Old Testament Heroes. He was also
establishing the idea that the final authority in an ethical human
life lies in Jesus and what he taught. Chapters 5-7 is called Jesus'
Sermon On The Mount and is considered the central teaching of Jesus
and a guideline for living the most ethical life in harmony with
God's will. Coming from a strong Conservative tradition, which
usually takes the Bible quite literally, I once saw these things as
straight forward and meaning 'what they say.' But I came to believe
that is not the most informed way to view them. I wish to share with
you basically where my process of reflection has led me.
"You have heard it said from the ancient past...." |
We see immediately
that Matthew is urgent to establish a high and ultimate authority to
use in making the most important ethical and moral decisions in
life. Here he has Jesus speak about what are still three of the most
emotional, disturbing and controversial issues in private and public
life. Murder, Adultery and Divorce. Matthew approaches each topic
with ' You have heard it was said in the ancient past' ….such and
such . But I tell you now... such and such.' So he has Jesus
getting people to acknowledge that what they have till now viewed as
final authority in the human life simply isn't, not in the way they
had always thought.
Now, do you and I fully escape having to surrender what we have taken as absolute truth and authority as not being that way nearly as much as we thought? If the gospel is a timeless connection to life that is applicable afresh to each age of human development the answer must surely be 'No.' We too have likely taken on conventional handed down statements as fully true and final that we would be wise to reexamine. The human condition requires us to also hear Jesus saying, “You have heard it was said in the past... But not anymore. There is a richer, more grounded source of ethical truth.'' It is so easy for us to think , "Well sure those people had to accept a new standard. But we have had that new standard now for 2000 years so all we need to do is do and believe as we have been told by the church and how we've interpreted Bible.” This, I fear, is the overly simplistic trap that every age and every church tends to fall into. It continues to be the human condition of an insufficient moral standard. I don't think it is just my ultra conservative heritage that has decided with too much certainty what Jesus is saying here about Killing, Adultery and Divorce but also much of the teaching of our so-called mainline churches as well.
Now, do you and I fully escape having to surrender what we have taken as absolute truth and authority as not being that way nearly as much as we thought? If the gospel is a timeless connection to life that is applicable afresh to each age of human development the answer must surely be 'No.' We too have likely taken on conventional handed down statements as fully true and final that we would be wise to reexamine. The human condition requires us to also hear Jesus saying, “You have heard it was said in the past... But not anymore. There is a richer, more grounded source of ethical truth.'' It is so easy for us to think , "Well sure those people had to accept a new standard. But we have had that new standard now for 2000 years so all we need to do is do and believe as we have been told by the church and how we've interpreted Bible.” This, I fear, is the overly simplistic trap that every age and every church tends to fall into. It continues to be the human condition of an insufficient moral standard. I don't think it is just my ultra conservative heritage that has decided with too much certainty what Jesus is saying here about Killing, Adultery and Divorce but also much of the teaching of our so-called mainline churches as well.
We tend to hear
Jesus saying, “The laws given by Moses, including the ten
commandments, say to not kill, commit adultery or to divorce but I am
putting these laws into a new framework and creating a new and
better and higher written law.” I'm believing we need to
challenge that. The more open minded, usually get it that Jesus is
pointing the emphasis away from the the outward acts of these dangers
of life and advising that we look to the heart and its intentions.
This is surely a good and sound direction. Not only is murder wrong
but to want to murder or harm another is wrong, not only is adultery,
or breaking intimate covenant, wrong but even the desiring thought of
that is wrong. And canceling the intimate relationship of marriage
was never God's intention but a make-shift plan because humans were just not up to
making a monogamous love relationship be permanently alive. (Please
keep in mind that people Matthew is writing to believed that it was
nearly always a woman who committed adultery. Men were permitted to
have multiple wives and the only way he committed adultery was to
'take another mans wife which was legally the other man's property.
So Our American view of marriage is higher and far more monogamous
for men than the Hebrew law was. Yet our divorce rate of over 50 %
is far higher than many cultures.)
My main point is
that to think Jesus is discontinuing one written, literal, for all
-people for all times law about murder, adultery and divorce and replacing with another is to
widely miss the much greater and radical change in authority to
which he is actually pointing. If we see Jesus as giving a new
external law then Jesus' approach for a higher ethical standard
will be fully missed. We, in our childlike need to always be told
what to do by a rule or law, will miss 'where' Jesus says the final
authority for life's most personal decisions is to be found. And I
think this is what most orthodox Christianity has often done. If
these words of Jesus are taken as 'new law' then he only makes the law
more impossible to comply with. How much guilt has been heaped onto
people by their thinking that their divorce, even their sadly
confessed adultery, has so blackened their lives that they see
themselves as spiritual failures. In some churches divorced persons
are seen as not fit to serve in positions of leadership, sometimes
being told they can never be married again or that a new marriage is
not as holy as if it were their first? How many have grieved that
they find themselves admiring the attractiveness and appeal, of someone other
than their spouse and feel a load of guilt and distance from God for
a very natural and innocent, possibly appreciative and respectful, inner awareness ? This all demonstrates the
need of hearing Jesus' words not as any 'new law' but as pointing the
way to the place where the ultimate personal authority can be
found. That unlikely place is our own human heart, our very own
inner being and its multifold processes. Jesus' teaching has said all
along the human heart is the place where the image of God , the
final authority, lives; not in any written or spoken law.
"But I tell you now...." |
I believe Jesus
taught that in the questions and decisions of life we are not to go
primarily first to the outer act or event and with 'will power' say,
“I am or am not going to do that.” This has been tried and found
wanting. Will power is not spiritual power. We are a nation of well
intended marriages with some 50 percent ending in divorce in spite of
well intentioned will power. Jesus saying to go first to our hearts
to find a judgment, a direction, an attitude seems to be a
dangerous thing, but is it not the spiritually mature approach to
the issues of life? Is it not where Jesus was always pointing
people?
I'm not suggesting this as a quick or easy way to 'know' what the highest ethical
answers are to our complicated issues but I think Jesus points to a
process that may be different and surprisingly helpful. I will give one general example of how going first to our heart might feel and look like.
Jesus
said to not murder or even have the wish to murder. From an outer law
perspective I know I(and I question the one who says they can) can't
promise that, especially the second part. Might as well ask a rabbit
to not hop. So you ask me, "Jim, are you a total pacifist?"
From Christian teaching would you for sure refuse to kill another
person, even if that person were about to kill another innocent,
maybe your own child? I think I would be following Jesus' teaching by
taking that to my most inner place and pondering it; putting aside
any 'law' I 'must obey. If I fail to take an inner focus the more
creative spiritual solutions are likely blocked from consciousness.
We become 'stuck in law', not 'freed by Spirit.' What do I honestly
find? I presently find that I do not ever want to take another
life. I am aware of my truth that such would be a most deep, sad
heartbreak for me. That is for this moment the 'final authority' on
the subject for me. What Jesus says about the heart being a place
where killing can be seen for the horror it is I find to resonate
with my heart and head reality. Beyond that I can make no oath or
promise that in all circumstances I would choose to not kill a person
who was threatening to kill another or myself. My heart's strongest
desire-prayer would be that life would not require that of me. If I
did kill, out of a sad heart, I trust I would not see myself as
turning away from God or Jesus. For I was doing the spiritual inner
work of preventing this horror as much as I humanly could. This is a
simple example but how I see Jesus pointing to an authority that is
above all law , an authority that may even require a person at
special times to move against all other conventional law whether it
be civil , criminal or church law.
Determining to focus inwardly rather than on outer law is how we
can see Jesus directing us to the final authority
in our day to day , moment to moment living, in our decisions great
and small. This then must also be the basic process which Jesus is saying
is the path of humans finding the way to more fully love
and be loved in this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment