Gone too Far Jesus (Proper 16B)

Gone too Far Jesus

Proper 16B
26 August 2012; 8:00 a.m. Said Mass and 10:00 a.m. Sung Mass

Homily Delivered by the Rev. Dr. Anthony Hutchinson

at Trinity Episcopal Church, Ashland, Oregon

Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18; Psalm 34:15-22; Ephesians 6:10-20; John 6:56-69

God, take away our hearts of stone, and give us hearts of flesh. Amen.

When I was a graduate student, I published an article that caught my father-in-law’s attention.  It argued against an idea that he considered a core part of his faith.  He was shocked and surprised.  He came to me, and said, “Tony, now you’ve gone too far!”  

Hearing this, it was my turn to be surprised.  No one in my family had ever used such language with me before.  My parents had always been discussers and arguers, and all opinions, however outrageous, seemed open for discussion.  You just had to be ready to defend them from withering critiques. In our home, there were many differing opinions, some true, some erroneous.  Perhaps no one had the ultimate answer, and so it was important to cherish a diversity of opinions and teachings.  Pluralism was the value.  In my father-in-law’s home, generally there was one truth, one doctrine.  Monism, one-way-only, was the value. So both he and I were in for some intra-familial culture shock.  When he said that to me, I myself thought, “Clark, now you’ve gone too far!”   I was, in my own pluralistic way, just as intolerant as I thought he was being.  We eventually got used to each other, because each of us in our own degrees valued both pluralism and monism.   

Jesus often offended and outraged those about him.  He often heard, “Jesus, now you’ve gone too far!” 

In Mark 3, Jesus’ family thinks he has gone insane.  When he comes back from his baptism and the 40 day retreat, instead of returning to them as a dutiful son and brother, he begins his wandering ministry.  “Jesus, now you’ve gone too far!” 

In Matthew 19, Jesus forbids divorce in most if not all circumstances.  His own disciples reply, “Well if that’s the case, it’s better never to have married.”   “Jesus, now you’ve gone too far!” 

Several times Jesus’ opponents criticize him for keeping open table fellowship with known sinners, and unclean people.  They blast him for spending all his time with drunks, whores, and traitors.  He replies that God himself is gracious to sinner and righteous alike, and that it is the sick, not the healthy, who need a doctor.  This is the very thing that God wants him to do.  “Jesus, now you’ve gone too far!” 

In John 8, a crowd tries to stone Jesus to death because he has said that he was older and greater than Abraham.  In John 10, another crowd tries to do the same after he says, “the Father and I are one.”  “Jesus, now you’ve gone too far!” 

In the passion narratives, Jesus’ accusers tear their hair and rend their clothes, saying “he has blasphemed!”  “Jesus, now you’ve really gone too far!” 

So also in today’s Gospel reading—Jesus says people must eat his body and drink his blood in order to have everlasting life.  Many disciples say, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?”   As they leave, never to be seen again, Jesus replies, “Does this offend you? How will you react when you see just who I really am?”  He asks the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”  The best Peter can answer is “And just where else can we go at this point? You’ve already hooked us, and made us think ‘You have the words of eternal life.’”   

All of these stories suggest that there comes a point in all people’s interaction with Jesus where they reach a tipping point, where a single word of action by Jesus is just so outrageous that they can no longer put up with him.  Sometimes, they leave Jesus.  Sometimes, they try or plot to silence him. In the end, it is what nails Jesus to the cross, and kills him.

Modern research, analyzing carefully the various retellings of the Jesus story, has pointed out well that only part of this reflects the historical Jesus before his death, while much reflects the Christ of faith of Jesus’s followers, talking and writing after mature reflection on the Easter events.

It seems clear that Jesus in his earthly life did not have a clear vision of what would happen at Calvary and on Easter Sunday.  His preaching and ministry was focused on God’s Reign, not on himself.  The Romans killed Jesus for insurrection, not blasphemy.  Much of Jesus’ emphasis on his own person in John’s Gospel actually reflects the later insights of the Church.  

That said, the Historical Jesus almost certainly had an increasing sense that the Kingdom of God was breaking into human history in his own person, and that his pursuit of the Kingdom would lead to his own death.  Trusting in God to save his servants and redeem even their deadly sufferings, he persevered and took his challenge to the powers that be to Jerusalem. 

Jesus almost certainly took his practice of open table fellowship with him there, and celebrated one last meal with his close followers at the time of the Passover festival.  Whether at a Passover seder or a last meal the day before, Jesus likely pointed to the usual Passover meal symbols, the “bread of affliction” and the wine of the “cup of blessing,” and gave them new meaning. “This surely will end with my death, with my body over here (pointing to bread of affliction) and my blood over here (pointing to cup of blessing). What I will now suffer is true affliction and true blessing.  Share this bread and wine with me.  Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” 

After the Easter events, this took on completely new meanings, which we have been discussing in homilies with you for the last few weeks. 

This push-the-envelope practice of table fellowship, this personalization of the redemption of Israel, and near insane talk about cannibalism as communion was revolting to the people around Jesus.  And that is the point of the “now you’ve gone too far” Gospel story today. 

These scenes describe a very different world than that portrayed by the Deuteronomist in today’s lesson from the Hebrew Scriptures.  There, the message is not a tipping point that we should let pass.  The message is clear unambiguous decision—“Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve:  Yahweh, or the pagan idols, life or death!”  Exclusion, not inclusion.  Firmness, not open-mindedness.  Joshua is not saying don’t think “now you’ve gone too far.”  He is saying, “Here’s a line—don’t you dare cross it!”

The author here portrays the choice between Yahweh and the pagan gods as a complete dichotomy that ancient Palestinians might not have seen.   Archaeological digs have shown again and again that earliest Yahwism had much in common with Ba'alism, and for many of the people of that early era, the choice was closer to a consideration of a tipping point than the watershed decision portrayed in Joshua.  For many of them, Ba’al (which simply means “Master”) was simply another name for Yahweh.  The most basic original distinction seems to be that while Ba’al was a god of wealth, fertility, and power, Yahweh was the defender of the widow, the orphan, the poor, and the barren.  This one god among many who protected the disadvantaged evolved into the monotheistic creator and Lord over all, the one and only one God who, unlike Baal, defended the weak and forbade human sacrifice.   

The choice for early Palestinians to follow Yahweh and not Ba’al may itself have thus been based on a tipping point: Yahweh as unique was somewhat above the fray of all the conflicting unexplainable forces in their lives, otherwise personified individually by the competing and at times petty deities of the polytheistic pantheon.  A plurality of gods meant that what happened to you could be explained only by recourse to the random struggles between the gods.   Monotheism made room for a natural order in a created universe where cause and effect could in principle at least be reliably determined. 

To be sure, that Yahweh at times would described in distant and at times heart-breaking terms.  Because he could make the poor man rich and the sick person well, he could also be seen as responsible for almost anything previously chalked up to pagan gods, whether good or bad.  Perhaps it was because God rewarded the righteous and pushed the wicked—a view held by the Deuteronomist and Proverbs but denied by the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes.   Prophets tempered this stark view by saying God, “slow to anger and of great kindness,” did not willingly afflict anyone.  

In these stories about Jesus “going too far,” the basic complaint against him is by monists who believe that Jesus is weakening the monotheistic faith by his pluralism and his personalization of God’s redemption.  

The fact is: I remain very much a pluralist.  I love the fact that our scripture is called the Holy Bible, ta biblia ta hagia, which means the Sacred library, the Holy little books, and NOT the ONE, TRUE, HARMONIOUS, AND INFALLIBLE-IN-ALL-ITS-DETAILS BOOK.   

Biblical faith is pluralistic faith.   

I like the fact that we have four gospels, all very much in glorious disharmony and at odds with each other on some very basic points, and that this diversity is the very starting point of our discussions about the historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith.   

 I stand in awe of the glorious doctrine of the Holy Trinity, where the one and only God, monistic by definition, is tempered and modulated by a society of three persons in one being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, eternally dancing and processing, eternally relating, and calling us into the dance.   

 Christian faith is pluralistic faith. 

And I am very, very pleased that today’s gospel tells us to keep an open mind and heart about new things we learn from God.  We must not draw red lines that, once crossed, will force us to say, “Now you’ve gone too far, Jesus.”  oly Trint

I remember my reaction when my children first mentioned around the dinner table, 15 years ago, the need to honor the loving and monogamous relationships of same sex couples by celebrating marriages for them.  It was a few months after our daughter had come out of the closet.  I thought I was being very open minded and liberal by not rejecting her.  But when she talked about same sex marriage, I thought (and probably, alas, said,) “Now you’ve gone too far!”  I felt that holy matrimony was somehow being demeaned and cheapened by spreading it or something like it to what I had been taught all my youth was deficient, unnatural, perverted, and sinful.   But thank God I remained open minded and open hearted.  The wedding of that same daughter to her beloved Paige this summer, that I conducted at St. John the Baptist Episcopal Church in Seattle, was a spiritual high point for my life.  And then General Convention authorized these rites for the whole Church just a couple of weeks later.  Thanks be to God, who moves in wondrous and mysterious ways to bless his children. 

It is important not to forget the value and truth of monism as well.  Without a clear sense of monotheism, of the unity and uniqueness of God, the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation make no sense.   Without a sense of sanctity of matrimony and of the union of two people, of human love, and the importance of exclusive, monogamous, dedicated relationships, marriage of any kind doesn’t make much sense either. 

“Now you’ve gone too far!”  When do you say this to those you love?  When have you said it to God, to Jesus? 

This week in your prayer and quiet time, think about this, and ask whether this is part of a healthy monism or an unhealthy one, and whether you should broaden your mind and open your heart. 

In the name of Christ, Amen.